Difference between revisions of "Weapon of mass destruction"
(clarification) |
(desc) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|namebase=http://www.namebase.net/books39.html | |namebase=http://www.namebase.net/books39.html | ||
|so_called=1 | |so_called=1 | ||
| − | |constitutes=weapon | + | |constitutes=weapon, enemy image, plastic word |
| − | |sourcewatch=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/ | + | |sourcewatch=http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Weapons_of_mass_ |
| + | |description=A [[plastic word]] and [[enemy image]] hyped as part of [[Operation Mass Appeal]] | ||
}} | }} | ||
A '''"weapon of mass destruction"''' can potentially kill millions of people and destroy a lot of infrastructure. At the same time, the phrase "weapon of mass destruction" has been used for [[propaganda]] to promote [[fear]] and invoke [[enemy image]]s; exemplified by the media reporting in the run up the the [[2003 Iraq war]], when it turned out there were none. | A '''"weapon of mass destruction"''' can potentially kill millions of people and destroy a lot of infrastructure. At the same time, the phrase "weapon of mass destruction" has been used for [[propaganda]] to promote [[fear]] and invoke [[enemy image]]s; exemplified by the media reporting in the run up the the [[2003 Iraq war]], when it turned out there were none. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 15: | ||
==Etymology== | ==Etymology== | ||
| − | Originally coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives during World War II, it has later come to refer to large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear warfare. | + | Originally coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives during [[World War II]], it has later come to refer to large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear warfare. |
==Problems with the terminology== | ==Problems with the terminology== | ||
Latest revision as of 15:39, 20 August 2022
 "Weapon of mass destruction"  (weapon, enemy image, plastic word)    | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Type | technology, propaganda |
| Interest of | • Wouter Basson • Amy Baker Benjamin • Ian Butterfield • Combating Terrorism Center • Dale E. Klein • Herbert Levine • National Counterproliferation Center • Nuclear Threat Initiative |
| A plastic word and enemy image hyped as part of Operation Mass Appeal | |
A "weapon of mass destruction" can potentially kill millions of people and destroy a lot of infrastructure. At the same time, the phrase "weapon of mass destruction" has been used for propaganda to promote fear and invoke enemy images; exemplified by the media reporting in the run up the the 2003 Iraq war, when it turned out there were none.
Contents
Official Narrative
Wikipedia states that "a weapon of mass destruction (WMD or WoMD) is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere". It goes along the lines of the Department of Homeland Security definition.[1] Wikipedia also notes that: "The scope and usage of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically."
Etymology
Originally coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives during World War II, it has later come to refer to large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear warfare.
Problems with the terminology
Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons can justifiably be called "weapons of mass destruction" and are self-evident so, but depending on the definition in use, the term can also used for weapons of lesser capacity, ie small scale explosive devices.[2]
United States
US law is so broad that a "weapon of mass destruction" may be anything that explodes, leading political scientist and "terrorism"-fear skeptic John Mueller to comment that "As I understand it, not only is a grenade a weapon of mass destruction, but so is a maliciously-designed child's rocket even if it doesn't have a warhead."[3]
Examples
| Page name | Description |
|---|---|
| Biological weapon | A "bioterrorist" could use Biological weapons. Researched in Level 4 Bioweapons labs. |
| Chemical weapon | |
| Drone | Remote controlled flying robots, used for a wide range of purposes by governments or private companies as they're getting banned throughout the world for personal use. |
| Earthquake machine | A weapon of mass destruction which would trigger an earthquake |
| Explosive | |
| Nuclear weapon |
Related Quotation
| Page | Quote | Author | Date |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Disinformation" | “On 28 September 2023, the US Department of State released a landmark report on how the People’s Republic of China seeks to reshape the global information environment to its advantage by investing billions of dollars to construct a global information ecosystem that promotes its propaganda and facilitates censorship and the spread of "disinformation".<a href="#cite_note-4">[4]</a> :China responded: "The US Department of State report is in itself disinformation as it misrepresents facts and truth. In fact, it is the US that invented the weaponizing of the global information space. The relevant center of the US State Department which concocted the report is engaged in propaganda and infiltration in the name of “global engagement”. It is a source of disinformation and the command center of “perception warfare”. :"From Operation Mockingbird which bribed and manipulated news media for propaganda purposes in the Cold War era, to a vial of white powder and a staged video of the 'White Helmets' cited as evidence to wage wars of aggression in Iraq and Syria earlier this century, and then to the enormous lie made up to smear China’s Xinjiang policy, facts have proven time and again that the US is an 'empire of lies' through and through. :"Even some in the US, such as Senator Rand Paul, acknowledged that the US government is the greatest propagator of "disinformation" in the history of the world."<a href="#cite_note-5">[5]</a>” | Ministry of Foreign Affairs The People's Republic of China | 30 September 2023 |
Related Documents
| Title | Type | Publication date | Author(s) | Description |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Document:A Conundrum for Corbyn | article | 12 July 2016 | Conrad Sumer | Trident could be Corbyn's much more collegiate equivalent of Blair’s “Clause 4” moment, instead of facing off and bullying his party, he could bring them all together under the banner of nuclear reduction - and if he gets it right, he will almost certainly be the next Prime Minister. |
| Document:War and Peace - The Lost Principles of Science and Value | article | 17 June 2015 | John McMurtry | A wide-ranging critique of the techniques of globalisation and the way in which apparently otherwise well-meaning western NGOs frame the worlds problems in US war propaganda terms |
| File:A Global Chronology of Incidents of Chemical, Biological, Radioactive and Nuclear Attacks 1950-2005.pdf | report | 7 July 2006 | Hamid Mohtadi Antu Murshid | A summary of Chemical, Biological, Radioactive and Nuclear Attacks, from 1950 - 2005, giving the number of injuries and fatalities, and other information (if known) on the perpetrators and motives. |
| File:Israel and CB Weapons.pdf | review | October 2001 | Avner Cohen |
An official example
| Name |
|---|
| Grenade |
