2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:04 pm
#511
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
It is a common misconception on the part of some to think that only those things are weapons of mass destruction.
"A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures"
"A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures"
Last edited by dakota44; Apr 22nd 2013 at 6:06 pm.
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:05 pm
#512
Often not so civil...
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: The Boonies, GA
Posts: 9,561
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
For obvious reasons I'm not conversant in American law, but if it goes beyond that to include any explosive device I don't agree with the definition.
Last edited by civilservant; Apr 22nd 2013 at 6:08 pm.
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:05 pm
#513
I have a comma problem
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Fox Lake, IL (from Carrickfergus NI)
Posts: 49,598
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
The devices would have been much more akin to an old WW2 frag grenade than any of those things.
I get the point but it might be a bit of a stretch to consider that a WMD. I could be wrong, though let's be honest, that hardly ever happens.
I get the point but it might be a bit of a stretch to consider that a WMD. I could be wrong, though let's be honest, that hardly ever happens.
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:06 pm
#514
Rootbeeraholic
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 2,280
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
So the surviving bomber is charged as a criminal suspect, not as an "enemy combatant." Good choice. Be seen to do it right. He won't be free again ever anyway, and I expect they will find a way to execute him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22257451
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22257451
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:06 pm
#515
Rootbeeraholic
Joined: Aug 2009
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 2,280
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
A military tribunal was out of the question. "The surviving suspect in last week's Boston Marathon bombings, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, "will not be treated as an enemy combatant" but rather will be prosecuted "through our civilian system of justice," White House spokesman Jay Carney said today. "Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions," he said."
"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been charged in federal court with use of a weapon of mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death.
The statutory charges authorize a penalty, upon conviction, of death or imprisonment for life or any term of years, according to a statement from the Department of Justice."
"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been charged in federal court with use of a weapon of mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death.
The statutory charges authorize a penalty, upon conviction, of death or imprisonment for life or any term of years, according to a statement from the Department of Justice."
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:08 pm
#516
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
The U.N. does not control the dictionary. Mass destruction has a specific meaning, no matter how you wish to alter it. The term, weapon of mass destruction, existed before the advent of most of the weapons you refer to. I do agree that it has come to be used almost completely in terms of NBC weapons, but that does not change the definition.
Last edited by dakota44; Apr 22nd 2013 at 6:13 pm.
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:12 pm
#517
Often not so civil...
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: The Boonies, GA
Posts: 9,561
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
The dictonary defines the phrase (and it is the phrase as a whole that is relevent) as:
This dosen't fit into that definition, weather you want it too or not. I would disagree with the statement of the words existed before the weapons. During the crusades diseased bodies were flung into fortresses during sieges to try to infect and demoralise the inhabitants. They were examples of the first biological weapons. I very much doubt the term existed then. In fact the recorded use of the term was in 1937.
Noun
A chemical, biological, or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.
A chemical, biological, or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.
The first use of the term "weapon of mass destruction" on record is by Cosmo Gordon Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1937 in reference to the aerial bombardment of Guernica, Spain:
Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by war to Spain and to China? Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?[1]
Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by war to Spain and to China? Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?[1]
Last edited by civilservant; Apr 22nd 2013 at 6:15 pm.
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:16 pm
#518
Account Closed
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Chemicals were involved.
Obviously.
Obviously.
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:19 pm
#519
Often not so civil...
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: The Boonies, GA
Posts: 9,561
You knew what I mean!
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:22 pm
#520
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
The dictonary defines the phrase (and it is the phrase as a whole that is relevent) as:
This dosen't fit into that definition, weather you want it too or not. I would disagree with the statement of the words existed before the weapons. During the crusades diseased bodies were flung into fortresses during sieges to try to infect and demoralise the inhabitants. They were examples of the first biological weapons. I very much doubt the term existed then.
This dosen't fit into that definition, weather you want it too or not. I would disagree with the statement of the words existed before the weapons. During the crusades diseased bodies were flung into fortresses during sieges to try to infect and demoralise the inhabitants. They were examples of the first biological weapons. I very much doubt the term existed then.
Timothy McVeigh was charged and convicted as follows: On August 10, 1995, McVeigh was indicted on 11 federal counts, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives and eight counts of first-degree murder. If you do not consider 5000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane, and motor-racing fuel a WMD, then you are confused. That weapon killed 168 people, including children, and injured more than 400 others, as well as brought down half a building.
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:23 pm
#521
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
The dictonary defines the phrase (and it is the phrase as a whole that is relevent) as:
This dosen't fit into that definition, weather you want it too or not. I would disagree with the statement of the words existed before the weapons. During the crusades diseased bodies were flung into fortresses during sieges to try to infect and demoralise the inhabitants. They were examples of the first biological weapons. I very much doubt the term existed then. In fact the recorded use of the term was in 1937.
This dosen't fit into that definition, weather you want it too or not. I would disagree with the statement of the words existed before the weapons. During the crusades diseased bodies were flung into fortresses during sieges to try to infect and demoralise the inhabitants. They were examples of the first biological weapons. I very much doubt the term existed then. In fact the recorded use of the term was in 1937.
I am well aware of all of that.
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:25 pm
#522
Often not so civil...
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: The Boonies, GA
Posts: 9,561
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
Timothy McVeigh was charged and convicted as follows: On August 10, 1995, McVeigh was indicted on 11 federal counts, including conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, destruction by explosives and eight counts of first-degree murder. If you do not consider 5000 pounds of ammonium nitrate and nitromethane, and motor-racing fuel a WMD, then you are confused. That weapon killed 168 people, including children, and injured more than 400 others, as well as brought down half a building.
Like you said, agree to disagree. If the pattern of previous convictions is to charge people with that crime then so be it, who am I to argue, but I don't consider this device to be a WMD, no.
Last edited by civilservant; Apr 22nd 2013 at 6:29 pm.
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:30 pm
#523
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
It goes more to the intended purpose of the weapon as opposed to the result. I think it is safe to say that they certainly intended to kill more than 3 people.
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:31 pm
#524
Often not so civil...
Joined: Apr 2010
Location: The Boonies, GA
Posts: 9,561
Apr 22nd 2013, 6:39 pm
#525
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
Re: 2 large explosions at Boston Marathon
I certainly agree that there is a standard preconception as to WMD's being as you described, and perhaps it is time to establish a different term so as to avoid confusion. WSD, weapon of significant destruction, might be appropriate. Who knows. I'm just glad it was not worse than it turned out to be, as bad as that was.