CRITIQUE OF WMD MASS TERM

The idea behind this argument is that the use of the term "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" as it is currently used is deceptive and disadvantageous. It is used as a "mass term" and refers to different kinds of weapons but puts them in a group. Because the three components of WMD (nuclear, chemical, biological weapons) are so different in the number of people they can kill, the way they are acquired, how and why they are used, the ways to deal with them are all so different, that it creates confusion. When we speak generically about WMD we end up focusing on nuclear weapons, meaning that it causes us to be unprepared for chemical and biological weapons. It would be better to use WMD just for nuclear weapons.

USING WMD AS A MASS TERM INCLUDING NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL IS INACCURATE AND DECEPTIVE

IMPACT: WMD AS A MASS TERM MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE PROPER POLICY DECISIONS

IMPACT: WMD AS A MASS TERM MAKES IT FAR MORE DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH THE THREAT OF BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

IMPACT: WMD AS A MASS TERM MAKES IT FAR MORE DIFFICULT TO DEAL WITH REAL TERRORIST THREATS