WMD DEFINITIONS ARE FLEXIBLE
WMD DEFINITION DEPENDS ON THE POLITICS OF THE USER
Mumia Abu-Jamal 2/24/01, MORE BOMBS OVER BAGHDAD
http://www.mumia.org/afrikan.net/html/sections.php3The great English writer, George Orwell, in his prophetic novel of an intrusive, panoptic, totalitarian state, "1984", illustrated with brilliant clarity the capacity of such states to utilize words that mean exactly the opposite of what they were proferred to mean. In "1984" the State states: "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
Similarly, "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is a term that evokes fear, but fear stifles thought and cripples reason. Consider the fact that never has either Israel or the apartheid-era South Africa been described as states wielding "Weapons of Mass Destruction," although both possessed nuclear capabilities. If having a 'weapon of mass destruction' is a violation of international law, then the USA must be a global criminal, for no nation possesses so much nuclear weaponry (moreover, no nation has formerly used such weapons -- except the US).
WMD DEFINITION CHANGES WITH TIME
BRIAN KAPPLER February 10, 2001 The Gazette (Montreal) SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A7 HEADLINE: War is often the prelude to peace //VT2002acsln
Perhaps we turn our backs on that history in part because of our unique position. Back in 1924, when "weapons of mass destruction" were machine guns and mustard gas, a certain Senator Raoul Dandurand said smugly we lived in "a fireproof house, far from flammable materials." It was true enough, until Hiroshima.
WMD DEFINITION HAS TO BE ROOTED IN ITS TIME AND CONTEXT
World Internet News Distribution Service, 3/19/98, NATIVE AMERICANS
& WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, http://thewinds.arcsnet.net/arc_features/newworld/weapons_of_destruction1.html //VT2002acslnWHAT ARE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
In regards to defining weapons of mass destruction, the term, as used today, may be considered relevant to the times. "Mass" according to the dictionary is, "a great amount or number, the majority." If there are only 100 members of a group and 99 are murdered, then 99% of the population was massacred. It may not be a Hiroshima type destruction, but it is a mass destruction. Today's nuclear bomb is a far greater weapon of mass destruction in comparison to the first atomic bomb. If we were to go backwards in time, we would find that "little boy" dropped on Hiroshima was the greatest weapon of mass destruction ever concocted in comparison to all previous technology. A submachine gun may be termed a weapon of mass destruction in comparison to a single shot rifle not only in effectiveness, but in terms of capability to kill many more people. A repeating rifle with a long range scope could be termed a weapon of mass destruction in comparison to a knife. What are known as WMD today may become obsolete if time should march on and new weapons are manufactured.