Weapons of Mass Destruction

This was written on August 17, 2003 in response to an article that appeared in the Mensa Bulletin:

What is a weapon of mass destruction. I have seen it pointed out that there is danger in the broad way this term is used. This can be seen in some of the discussion I've seen about Iraq. The United States thinks about using tear gas for crowd control, and the some people point out that tear gas is a chemical weapon, and therefore a weapon of mass destruction.

Some sources point out the only real weapon of mass destruction is the nuclear bomb. Other things are placed in this category primarily to justify a nuclear attack from a relatively minor event.

The other point is a question. Why do we (that is, the United States) maintain weapons of mass destruction? Very few countries would attack the United States outright, and if they did the United States would respond with precision guided missiles, which are much more effective at taking out a military force without major political consequences.

The real advantage mankind has over other species is that we can use our brains to attack problems. Therefore, if weapons of mass destruction threatens our species, we have the right to outlaw them.

This sort of thing has been done in the past. For example it was discovered that the activities of man destroyed a piece of the ozone layer, which if allowed to continue would destroy all of it. Therefore, HFC's were banned.