Definition of WMD

Title 18 U.S.C. §2332a defines weapons of mass destruction (WMD) as:

Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including the following: a bomb; grenade; rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces; missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; mine; or device similar to any of the previously described devices;
Any weapons that is designed or intend to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
Any weapon involving a disease organism; and
Any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.

WMD includes CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear).

Want to revise statement?

Figure if you're too lazy to educate yourself, instead of talking down to you, you could use some help...

The iraq war was a huge mistake.  I also believe there are no WMD's, chemical weapons yes but no nukes.   Regardless who cares if Sadam has nerve gas it ain't reaching us and wasn't worth trillions of dollars spent.  We could of just bombed em from afar like syria when/if they used it. 

WMD includes CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear).

Want to revise statement?

Figure if you're too lazy to educate yourself, instead of talking down to you, you could use some help...

It's not what he doesn't know that's the problem.  It's what he knows for sure that just ain't so.

You can't teach someone who already believes he knows something.  You have to first cleanse him of the "fake facts" and "inaccurate beliefs" filling his mind.  Then you have a chance at least to replace the old lies with new truths.

Omni has to want to let go of his lies.  All I've seen so far is a need to prove himself right -- facts be damned.

Don't get your hopes too high.  You'll be disappointed if you do.

It's not what he doesn't know that's the problem.  It's what he knows for sure that just ain't so.

You can't teach someone who already believes he knows something.  You have to first cleanse him of the "fake facts" and "inaccurate beliefs" filling his mind.  Then you have a chance at least to replace the old lies with new truths.

Omni has to want to let go of his lies.  All I've seen so far is a need to prove himself right -- facts be damned.

Don't get your hopes too high.  You'll be disappointed if you do.

Yeah, he knows what he knows, don't confuse him with the facts. Or is it truth... 

I'm mostly ignoring him, but when he says obviously inaccurate things, don't want that misinformation carrying over to others.

The iraq war was a huge mistake.  I also believe there are no WMD's, chemical weapons yes but no nukes.   Regardless who cares if Sadam has nerve gas it ain't reaching us and wasn't worth trillions of dollars spent.  We could of just bombed em from afar like syria when/if they used it.

Where was all this military wisdom in the 90s?  Why did you not run for office or try to get appointed to the National Security cabinet?  You could have saved us all that money.

 

I'm mostly ignoring him,

I refuse to talk or argue with millennials.

Been there, done that.

I also believe there are no WMD's, chemical weapons yes but no nukes.

he's gonna say he doesn't care enough to take the time to make a clear argument, when in actuality he has no clue that WMDs include chemical weapons
or he's a weapons specialist at heart
or that 97% of climate change scientists believe that there were no WMDs
or just blame it on spellcheck

he's gonna say he doesn't care enough to take the time to make a clear argument, when in actuality he has no clue that WMDs include chemical weapons
or he's a weapons specialist at heart
or that 97% of climate change scientists believe that there were no WMDs
or just blame it on spellcheck

You left out:

Blame it all on Globull Warming....After all. some Obola regime ditz tried to do that, IIRC.

Said they just needed jobs, as well, and all would be fine..........................Might have been another Obola ditz, he had so many............

WMD includes CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear).

Want to revise statement?

Figure if you're too lazy to educate yourself, instead of talking down to you, you could use some help...

I was wrong, you are correct.  But in the end I personally don't view chemical weapons are truly a "weapon of MASS destruction".    You can't kill 100k+ people with 1 gas bomb like a nuke.  "Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including the following: a bomb; grenade; rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces; missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; mine; or device similar to any of the previously described devices;"  Hell this discribed most large bombs.  The definition isn't the greatest analogy of "mass destruction"  anymore.
Please don't confuse the facts that bush was talking about nukes mainly as the reason.  And that it was still an mistake.  And to flapp I was not old enough in the 90's to do that.  I'm old but not that old.

I was wrong, you are correct.  But in the end I personally don't view chemical weapons are truly a "weapon of MASS destruction".    You can't kill 100k+ people with 1 gas bomb like a nuke.  "Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including the following: a bomb; grenade; rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces; missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; mine; or device similar to any of the previously described devices;"  Hell this discribed most large bombs.  The definition isn't the greatest analogy of "mass destruction"  anymore.
Please don't confuse the facts that bush was talking about nukes mainly as the reason.  And that it was still an mistake.  And to flapp I was not old enough in the 90's to do that.  I'm old but not that old.

But in the end I personally don't view chemical weapons are truly a "weapon of MASS destruction".
You can't kill 100k+ people with 1 gas bomb like a nuke.

The truth doesn't care what you personally think. 

A crashed airliner often results in MASS CASUALTIES.  Sandy Hook was a MASS SHOOTING.  Not, 100K+, but a large number, which is the accepted definition of "Mass" in terms of WMDs.

There is no set number when defining WMD.  You pulled that number out of your ass.

WMD includes CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear).

Nobody can dispute the amount of casualties from IEDs in the 2nd Gulf war.   Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the terrorist in the Boston Marathon bombing was found guilty of 30 charges including USE OF A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION, which was an IED.
IED=IED=WMD.  Most of us here know that,  but for the few who still think there were no WMDs of any kind in Iraq, maybe this will help them understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing#Identification_of_suspects:_Dzhokhar_and_Tamerlan_Tsarnaev

I was wrong, you are correct.  But in the end I personally don't view chemical weapons are truly a "weapon of MASS destruction".    You can't kill 100k+ people with 1 gas bomb like a nuke.  "Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas, including the following: a bomb; grenade; rocket having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than four ounces; missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce; mine; or device similar to any of the previously described devices;"  Hell this discribed most large bombs.  The definition isn't the greatest analogy of "mass destruction"  anymore.
Please don't confuse the facts that bush was talking about nukes mainly as the reason.  And that it was still an mistake.  And to flapp I was not old enough in the 90's to do that.  I'm old but not that old.

so you are saying you are wrong, but that you have a different definition of MASS, so in actuality you are correct
 

and i'll leave "discribed" out there for posterity

But in the end I personally don't view chemical weapons are truly a "weapon of MASS destruction".
You can't kill 100k+ people with 1 gas bomb like a nuke.

The truth doesn't care what you personally think. 

A crashed airliner often results in MASS CASUALTIES.  Sandy Hook was a MASS SHOOTING.  Not, 100K+, but a large number, which is the accepted definition of "Mass" in terms of WMDs.

There is no set number when defining WMD.  You pulled that number out of your ass.

And there are certainly non-nuclear weapons that are capable of inflicting casualties in the 100k+ range of targeted at the "right" location. There's some truly nasty stuff out there.  But to hell with stated definitions. Some here know/believe better or more than anyone else. Even those who just might have some knowledge on the matter.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And there are certainly non-nuclear weapons that are capable of inflicting casualties in the 100k+ range of targeted at the "right" location. There's some truly nasty stuff out there.  But to hell with stated definitions. Some here know/believe better or more than anyone else. Even those who just might have some knowledge on the matter.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Conventional weapons vs. WMDs.

That's the basic definition.  It's one or the other.  How many people, or what kind of payload, is irrelevant.

Conventional weapons vs. WMDs.

That's the basic definition.  It's one or the other.  How many people, or what kind of payload, is irrelevant.

Yeah.  I was just trying to point out (not really to you) that there are non-nuclear weapons that are capable of the arbitrary criteria of 100k+ casualties as set by our resident expert.  I was specifically thinking about chemical weapons, but yes, the specific payload is irrelevant.   

The thing everyone is glancing over is Bush stated it was the Nuclear WMDs he cared about.  If he used the WMD definition to the "T"  we could technically go to war with every single country in the world to stop them from getting WMD's.  Hell im sure random African countries have bombs that could be considered a WMD.

In the end if all you guys care about if me admitting I was wrong.  Yes by the definition of WMD I made a mistake. 

The thing everyone is glancing over is Bush stated it was the Nuclear WMDs he cared about.  If he used the WMD definition to the "T"  we could technically go to war with every single country in the world to stop them from getting WMD's.  Hell im sure random African countries have bombs that could be considered a WMD.

In the end if all you guys care about if me admitting I was wrong.  Yes by the definition of WMD I made a mistake.

Totally an example of you "can't see the forest for the trees". 

It's not the mere possession of WMD, but the history of their use, particularly on innocent civilians.  If you can't see that. . . hopeless. . .

That I don't recall reading anything about Bush stating anything specifically about nuclear weapons in Iraq.  He may have, but I really don't recall.  It was my understanding that the concern was primarily chemical and biological WMD. 

Besides the point, but. . .

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/02/21/show-this-column-to-anyone-who-claims-bush-lied-about-wmds-in-iraq-n2122278

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

Totally an example of you "can't see the forest for the trees". 

It's not the mere possession of WMD, but the history of their use, particularly on innocent civilians.  If you can't see that. . . hopeless. . .

That I don't recall reading anything about Bush stating anything specifically about nuclear weapons in Iraq.  He may have, but I really don't recall.  It was my understanding that the concern was primarily chemical and biological WMD. 

Besides the point, but. . .

https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2016/02/21/show-this-column-to-anyone-who-claims-bush-lied-about-wmds-in-iraq-n2122278

Syria has chemical weapons, used it and we didn't spend trillions going to war with them.  I remember bush saying multiple times that this was mainly about sadams nuclear program.  Middle east would be off better with no war.  Even if sadam stayed there would be no isis, probably no mass immigration into europe etc

The thing everyone is glancing over is Bush stated it was the Nuclear WMDs he cared about.  If he used the WMD definition to the "T"  we could technically go to war with every single country in the world to stop them from getting WMD's.  Hell im sure random African countries have bombs that could be considered a WMD.

In the end if all you guys care about if me admitting I was wrong.  Yes by the definition of WMD I made a mistake.

Can you post the exact times Bush said Iraq is a nuclear threat?  This is from his "Ultimatum" speech.

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal
some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's
neighbors and against Iraq's people.

The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has
aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda.

The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could
fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.

So, no, Bush did NOT state that he cared about nukes over other WMDs.  You might have misinterpreted what he said, but that (once again) does not the truth make.

Syria has chemical weapons, used it and we didn't spend trillions going to war with them.  I remember bush saying multiple times that this was mainly about sadams nuclear program.  Middle east would be off better with no war.  Even if sadam stayed there would be no isis, probably no mass immigration into europe etc

That invasion of Iraq for the Iraq War (second Persian Gulf War) didn't start over night.  If you look at the history, it took a while from calls for U.N. resolutions on it in 2002 to US and British forces gathering up on the Iraq border, GWB ultimatum in March 2003 and subsequent follow-up action. 

Regarding GWB's statements about being primarily concerned about Saddam Hussein having nuclear weapons, please provide links to articles on that regard.  Am genuinely interested in your information source(s). 

Without trying to cop out and kick the can down the road, Syria is a MUCH more delicate situation than Iraq.  Syria is the prime example that I see where a MUCH bigger war could result from big brother stepping in when they side with a little brother. 

Syria has chemical weapons, used it and we didn't spend trillions going to war with them.  I remember bush saying multiple times that this was mainly about sadams nuclear program.  Middle east would be off better with no war.  Even if sadam stayed there would be no isis, probably no mass immigration into europe etc

Where did Syria obtain those weapons?  Some INTEL reports saw trucks moving something at night from Iraq to Syria before the US invaded.  Those trucks' contents were never identified or located once arriving in Syria.  Hmmm...