Boston Marathon attack

[Sneezy]

As I understand it, a weapon of mass destruction is any weapon that can kill or injure a lot of people or damage a lot of property. Those little bombs managed all of that.

US law defines them very broadly, it's true. Using the same logic a handgun could be classified as such. Stuff a petrol soaked rag in the filler port of an automobile and you have an explosive device capable of inflicting great harm. Now does that really compare with even a low yield nuclear device? Even chemical and biological weapons have trouble being utilized in a way that would inflict mass destruction. All the way back to WWI it was realized that the real benefit of chemical weapons was in the psychological effects on the opposing force. Biological weapons come much closer if you consider the destruction of a society to be mass destruction (and I do). The Mongols launched victims of the plague over the walls of besieged cities in order to terrorize the inhabitants. Did the Brits intentionally use biological warfare here in the New World and in Australia by distributing smallpox infected items among the natives? I don't know as it is still very hotly debated and the evidence is circumstantial at best but I do believe humanity was, and still is, capable of conceiving of such plots. So on the outside chemical and biological weaponry when applied in the right way and with the requisite volume could cause massive amounts of destruction, but a small IED? No, it cannot. In my opinion the only weapon that can be realistically fielded by anything less than a State directed effort is nuclear. But never fear, it is almost inevitable that at some point it will happen and we will then finally get to use the term we so lust after for the first time since WWII.

The people affected by such crime do not care. A single lost family member has mass damage effect on those left to deal with the aftermath so I am fully aware that we are dealing with semantics. I believe that inflicting harm for the sake of notoriety is criminal in any case, but the language used to define these things in a court of law is important.

 

[Robert]

A hand gun is different becaue you're not killing/harming many people instantly. How many people do you think a person can kill at one time with say a colt 1911?

Chemical and biological weapons work very well if you know how to use them. Don't forget that Saddaam Hussein successfully used chemical weapons to kill thousands of his own people.

It's all in the details. How many people have to die to meet your stringent standards of WMD? Where is the line drawn?

 

[sparkchaser]

It's all in the details. How many people have to die to meet your stringent standards of WMD? Where is the line drawn?

Probably more than three.

 

[Robert]

Probably more than three.

3 killed, but how many injured?

 

[sparkchaser]

3 killed, but how many injured?

Around 140 but that's not what you asked.

 

[Robert]

Fine. But we're talking about b0mbs that killed three, injured around 140 and left how many with missing limbs? I'd say the human cost was pretty high.

 

[sparkchaser]

Fine. But we're talking about b0mbs that killed three, injured around 140 and left how many with missing limbs? I'd say the human cost was pretty high.

It was and I don't think anyone is arguing that.

 

[Meadow337]

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear.

By this definition a homemade bomb that didn't damage any buildings or other structures and only killed 3 and injured 140, however tragic that was to the victims and their families, doesn't qualify.

I think that there is a degree of vengeful overreaction here because America is unused to the cost of war on its own shores. If this was your average Middle Eastern bomb would it even have made more than a few minutes on the evening news?

I can hear it now "And today a bomb exploded in ... killing three and injuring 140. Militant group ..... claimed responsibility" BLINK followed by the next item.

 

[Bluenote]

n, but a small IED? No, it cannot. In my opinion the only weapon that can be realistically fielded by anything less than a State directed effort is nuclear. But never fear, it is almost inevitable that at some point it will happen and we will then finally get to use the term we so lust after for the first time since WWII.

The people affected by such crime do not care. A single lost family member has mass damage effect on those left to deal with the aftermath so I am fully aware that we are dealing with semantics. I believe that inflicting harm for the sake of notoriety is criminal in any case, but the language used to define these things in a court of law is important.

Uh HUH. Know a lot about it do you? Care to discuss IEDs with folks who have actually been in the field and faced them?

Golly gee whiz , guess the Murragh building wasn't " mass destruction" was it , nor the Twin Towers? Or a long list of IRA and other bombings?

I guess I better bail on this particular discussion , folks who pontificate on things they have no hard knowledge of as if their personal opinions and the parameters set thereby are the only thing carrying any validity tend to irritate me.

The concept that a WMD can only be wielded by a "state" , is ludicrous , provably so.

 

[regdog]

Perhaps because there was more than 1 crock pot bomb and during the ensuing police chase they threw one out of the car at the police that qualifies them as WMD

 

[Polly Parrot]

Wait, so now a person, or several people, can qualify as a WMD? Confusing.

 

[pontalba]

Wait, so now a person, or several people, can qualify as a WMD? Confusing.

Probably the (several) bombs are being classified as WMD because they are capable of killing an unknown number of people, depending perhaps on how the thing is deployed, placed or rigged. After all there were thousands of people at the Marathon, and I find it easy to believe the "suspected" bombers thought the home made devices they'd dumped would, in fact, kill or maim more than the ones that they did. Intention of culprit should count IMO. And their intentions were to kill many more than they actually did.
In one article I read a few days ago, it was mentioned that they got the info on building off the internet, natch. But I seem to recall the article said that they did something differently in the mixing. Possibly that caused the bombs to be less effective long range. Dunno for sure.

And, frankly, IMO, anything that can cause surrounding persons, number immaterial...as one is one too many....to lose one or more limbs, be killed should be classified as a WMD.

 

[Conscious Bob]

Generally WMD is a term applied to a weapon that kills and injures on a grand scale, the bomb those guys planted was an IED, very destructive but small scale.

For what it's worth Kofi Annan suggested that small arms can be considered as WMD when overall casualty statistics are compared for weapon classes. For example, more people have died from conventional weapons than from nuclear weapons. I personally think that's a misuse of the 'mass destruction' part of the term.

 

[pontalba]

That makes sense Conscious Bob.

 

[Sneezy]

Uh HUH. Know a lot about it do you? Care to discuss IEDs with folks who have actually been in the field and faced them?

Golly gee whiz , guess the Murragh building wasn't " mass destruction" was it , nor the Twin Towers? Or a long list of IRA and other bombings?

I guess I better bail on this particular discussion , folks who pontificate on things they have no hard knowledge of as if their personal opinions and the parameters set thereby are the only thing carrying any validity tend to irritate me.

The concept that a WMD can only be wielded by a "state" , is ludicrous , provably so.

Well I am open to input. Instead of making a response based upon emotion why not make a logical point?

If I walk into a building and dispense 127 rounds of 5.56 ammunition into innocent human bodies resulting in 24 deaths and 19 casualties have I wielded a WMD?

Or am I just pontificating?

 

[Sneezy]

Generally WMD is a term applied to a weapon that kills and injures on a grand scale, the bomb those guys planted was an IED, very destructive but small scale.

For what it's worth Kofi Annan suggested that small arms can be considered as WMD when overall casualty statistics are compared for weapon classes. For example, more people have died from conventional weapons than from nuclear weapons. I personally think that's a misuse of the 'mass destruction' part of the term.

13,000 people died from alcohol related automobile accidents in the US last year. Assuming that is an inflated number let's cut it in half.

Evidently Anheuser Busch produces a WMD right under our noses.

Did any one of those family members suffer less loss than the families impacted by the destruction of he WTT did?

 

[Sneezy]

A hand gun is different becaue you're not killing/harming many people instantly. How many people do you think a person can kill at one time with say a colt 1911?

Chemical and biological weapons work very well if you know how to use them. Don't forget that Saddaam Hussein successfully used chemical weapons to kill thousands of his own people.

It's all in the details. How many people have to die to meet your stringent standards of WMD? Where is the line drawn?

And how many did Dzhugasavili kill with just a stroke of a pen?

 

[sparkchaser]

And, frankly, IMO, anything that can cause surrounding persons, number immaterial...as one is one too many....to lose one or more limbs, be killed should be classified as a WMD.

Like an old person driving through a farmers market or bicycle race?

Slippery slope.

 

[Conscious Bob]

13,000 people died from alcohol related automobile accidents in the US last year. Assuming that is an inflated number let's cut it in half.

Evidently Anheuser Busch produces a WMD right under our noses.

Did any one of those family members suffer less loss than the families impacted by the destruction of he WTT did?

That'll be why the UN Inspectors couldn't find WMD's in Iraq, they weren't looking for handguns and pens! I haven't included beer as obviously Iraq's an Islamic country and that would be ridiculous.

 

[pontalba]

Like an old person driving through a farmers market or bicycle race?

Slippery slope.

I recall the incident to which you refer, and as I recall the fellow in question should not have had a drivers licence, he had a medical condition that should have precluded same. It was a terrible thing, but it was an (preventable by authorities imo) accident. Preventable because as I said, the guy shouldn't have had a permit to drive.

My "anything", in actuality referred to someone with intent to harm/maim/kill/mutilate people, as in with explosives, or some sort of weaponry. I believe that was pretty obvious and didn't realize I needed to spell out the exact parameter.