Talk:Weapon of mass destruction
With the information that is in the article, I can not exactly make out how it is a plastic word and how it "is used to try to promote fear and invoke enemy images". On the scholar side, there is some discussion on the usage of the term:
Weapons of mass destruction are typically understood to encompass chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons. Not all CBRN weapons, though, constitute WMD. This distinction is especially important in the case of non-state actors, since such actors often operate under severe resource constraints and are far more likely to plan or implement smaller-scale chemical, biological, or radiological attacks that fall below the WMD threshold. These smaller scale attacks might very well be disruptive and psychologically potent, but would not yield the casualty levels or physical destruction generally associated with a WMD. When we speak of the threat of terrorists and other violent non-state actors (VNSAs) using WMD, we imply CBRN weapons that, if used, would inflict catastrophic casualties, widespread social disruption, or devastating economic consequences beyond those resulting from all but the largest conventional attacks.[1]
I am not sure how the media has used it in the past, there could be initiative to use the term more broadly as to be in the position to come down with more heavier charges on people, or groups. But I am really not sure about that. Maybe for the future. So the question: Is the "promote fear and invoke enemy images" part meant as what was done in preparation for the 2003 Iraq war? Or does this apply in other areas too? If so, then how?
- This was one such use case. Like the word "terrorism" it's emotionally charged, but sometimes lacks a reliable definition.[citation needed] -- Robin (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Other links
- https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-01/news/us-sets-strategy-against-wmd-terrorism
- https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P8039-1.html
--Sunvalley (talk) 13:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
