Ahh, the good old days when one could know what "weapons of mass destruction" really were... Post WWII the term WMD started off as nuclear weapons, but was then extended to include chemical, biological, and then radiological weapons. However, in the U.S. over the past decade the legal list of what constitutes "WMD" has been greatly expanded.
US Code Title 18 Part 1 Chapter 113B Section 2332a spells out the penalties for anyone who uses, or threatens, attempts, or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction. It goes on to define "WMD":
"The term “weapon of mass destruction” means
Under 2332a's more expansive definition prosecutors have brought charges, and secured convictions, for the use of "WMD" in multiple cases, including offenses involving truck bombs, pipe bombs, shoe bombs, cactus needles coated with botulin toxin, etc., etc. More recently, this was one count against Zacarias Moussaoui in his conviction and sentencing...
Once, nuclear weapons were in a class by themselves and their use was virtually unthinkable. Now, and going forward, there is a real danger that they could become just another tool in the available arsenal of weapons. First, by conflating nuclear weapons with explosives over a quarter ounce in "WMD", you dilute "top of mind" awareness re WMD. This is further weakened as politicians play fast and loose with the term "WMD." And for some inexplicable reason there are many in the administration that seem hell-bent on pushing the possible use of nuclear weapons as the answer to what to do about caves or fortified bunkers... (think RNEP). The very first time a nuclear weapon is used against a natural formation or man-made bunkers it will sound the death knell for non-proliferation efforts worldwide!
What we should be doing is maintaining nuclear weapons apart and in a special place, both in language and in metaphor; avoiding things like the RNEP that will transform the use of nuclear weapons from quasi-unthinkable to just a "bigger bomb" that everyone needs; and continuing the drawdown of existing stockpiles. The U.S. should also encourage Britain and France to decommission their nukes... why exactly do these two countries need to maintain their nuclear forces?? Truth be told, the only rational reason that Britain & France maintain nuclear weapons is for reasons of national prestige, exactly why some of the non-nuclear countries desire "WMD". Worldwide efforts to ensure non-proliferation would receive a boost, as would the NPT After all, this was an implicit part of the "quid pro quo" entered into by the nuclear "haves" and "have-nots" (Article VI) in 1968.
© SNi 05/11/06