Comment

Ted Nugent: If You're on Welfare You Shouldn't Be Allowed to Vote

102
Obdicut (Now with 2% less brain)12/04/2012 3:00:29 pm PST

re: #92 Political Atheist

Your definition is far narrower than the widely established definitions

Yes, it is, and I gave my reasons for that.

. I use the terms more loosely as per general usage. Biological weapons are included as well, although not in terms of the warnings of Syria making sarin.

And by using the terms loosely, you help to continue the confusion that has been created by their use.

The difference between “A nuclear weapon is about to detonate in New York City” and “A chemical weapons is about to be used in New York City” is immense. The latter is like the Sarin gas attack on Tokyo’s subway.

Acting as those are even related events is bizarre to me.

I propose that we use “Weapons of Mass Destruction” to describe weapons that can cause mass destruction.

Rather than, as it seems increasingly to be, “Anything that’s not a conventional weapon, including things that are actually far less deadly than conventional weapons”.