WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION! Repeat after me: WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Just what are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION? Has anyone yet defined just exactly what is a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
Granted, I am sure nuclear devices are WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. I am certain that biological and chemical agents can be WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, but then again surely a key-chain sized can of mace is not.
How many people does a weapon have to kill to be a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION? I suppose the question is actually what is mass destruction. "Destruction" is defined as "1. the state or fact of being destroyed or 2. the action or process of destroying something."* One is the effect and one is the cause. But it does not limit the destruction to human life, exclude it, or require it. Destruction can apply to life, to property or to life and property. "Mass" is defined as "massive quantity or effect."* "Massive" is defined as "impressively large."* So the result of the weapon's use must be an impressively large amount of destruction to life, property or both.
But what constitutes a weapon? Under Texas law, for something to be classified as a "club" which is an unlawful weapon to possess, it requires that the object be "designed, manufactured or adapted for use as a weapon." This is to insure that objects such as baseball bats or broomsticks could not be included under the general definition of what constitutes a "club." As there are many objects that could cause an impressively large amount of destruction to life, property or both, some which are designed, manufactured or adapted for use as a weapon and those that are not, it seems only fair to limit the term weapons in our scenario to items designed, manufactured or adapted for use as a weapon.
Now let's determine what is an impressively large amount of destruction. Does it need to be capable of killing over 100 people, over 1000 people, or over 10,000 people? Does it need to destroy one house, one city block, or ten city blocks? Just where do we draw the line that says this is mass destruction and that is not mass destruction? It takes one surface-to-air missile to take down a jetliner and kill 300+ people. Is that mass destruction? The surface-to-air missile is definitely a weapon. But every country in the world has those.** Would killing 300+ people without destroying any property, could that be classified as mass destruction? Grape KoolAid laced with a trace of rat poison can do that. Is Grape KoolAid laced with poison a weapon? It is easy to believe so.
What is adapted for use as a weapon? I mean commercial airliners are not normally considered weapons, but two such planes were flown into the World Trade Center in New York on 9/11/01. That action destroyed several large buildings and destroyed thousands of lives, some lost, some devasted by such loss. Is that not adaption of something that would not normally be considered a weapon into a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION?
I am just thinking of Little Johnny with his slingshot, who shoots at a flying bird hitting it and causing it to fly dizzily off and into one of the jet engines of a 747 on take-off causing it to go off-course and lose power and crash, fully fueled into a stadium filled with screaming fans at a Dixie Chicks*** concert. He bought his weapon of mass destruction at the local convenience store, for a buck.****
I really think there are too many questions unanswered to begin pointing fingers over whether or whether not there are ever any WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION ever found in Iraq. I would be more interested in knowing where Saddam is. I do bet he knows where they are.
*These may not have been the only possible definitions but I perceived them to be the most relevant definitions to this discussion.
**I admit that there may actually be some countries that do not possess any surface-to-air missiles, like Monaco or the Vatican, so there.
***It could have been Madonna or Britney Spears, I couldn't see clearly through the fog.
****It was made in FRANCE*****
*****I added that because I thought it was funny
Posted by Tiger at June 9, 2003 11:55 PMGood morning!
About" WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION":
The very sound of that is "Scary".
It is like the saying,"Weapons don't destroy. People with or without weapons destroy."
A person, "Hell bent for destruction" can and will, many times, improvise a weapon to use.
There is no set rule on destruction!
It is sad for me to see a world that has intelligent people living in it, that would rather DESTRUCT things, rather than CONSTRUCT things. My entire life has been about CONSTRUCTION.
I guess, to say, "WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION" is a unique thing to say, but it makes me uncomfortable. I will get off the band wagon now. Have a nice day.
As always, Frank, your commentary is very very insightful. Thanks for your visit and please come as often as you like. By the way, Sam said for me to tell you "Hi."
Posted by: Tiger at June 10, 2003 03:13 PMThank you Terry.
My commentaries may not be too popular, but they represent my sincere thoughts and convictions, although, many times I do not write all my thoughts.
"HI" Sam.