Two bomb blasts during the Boston Marathon

[Evie]

That is, essentially, my complaint. It's "Really. You couldn't think of a BETTER word to stick in your legal definition than that one, guys? Or were you trying to back-justify the invasion of Iraq by declaring that all those IEDs were WMDs under american law?"

It's just generally headdesk worth as far as definitions go.

 

[ace99]

Edit: cross post with Ace.

I think 3 hours late doesn't qualify as a cross-post.

 

[bhsup]

Well if you want to restrict it to the big 3, you say NBC warfare. (nuclear, biological, chemical)

 

[MobBoss]

I think that's his complaint: it's really broad. So broad that a homemade IED is now a weapon of mass destruction. I don't know about you, but when I hear the words mass destruction, I'm thinking something along the lines of little boy or Halabja.

Well, how many people have to be hurt for it to be valid?

20?

50?

100?

179?

Thousands?

 

[Goodfella]

Well, how many people have to be hurt for it to be valid?

20?

50?

100?

179?

Thousands?

I know what you're saying ("where do we draw the line?") but for something to be called "a weapon of mass destruction" I'm thinking hundreds or thousands. Where exactly is the cut off? I'm not sure. At what hair is a bald person bald? How old do you have to be to be considered "old?" The inability to define things perfectly isn't really unique. But I know someone who's seventeen isn't old" but someone born in 1940 is. I also know that a homemade bomb that explodes with nails isn't a weapon of mass destruction but a nuclear weapon is.

 

[BirraImperial]

Well, a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon has the potential to kill several thousand or millions of people, a home-made bomb not so.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, how many people have to be hurt for it to be valid?

20?

50?

100?

179?

Thousands?

You have to get high enough so that a gun with a large clip doesn't qualify.

 

[Berzerker]

the older brother was seriously anti pot and the younger was a pothead

he quit a year ago

please consult a doctor before going off your meds

too bad the teen didn't convert his brother first

 

[Nick Carpathia]

It's perfectly fine from a local legal perspective, I'm pretty sure it's older than the Bush-era WMD definition. Something kills or mains alot of people at once... like a bomb! That can be different to the definition under international law. I'd only be worried if they start conflating the two definitions (ahaha I should be!).

 

[woody60707]

Prosecutors always overreach and over load on charges, more so in a case like this it appears. It's just like when a prosecutor tries for assault with a deadly weapons because you had had shoes on when you kicked the guy. It's going to get thrown out, but the prosecutor doesn't lose anything for trying.

 

[MobBoss]

I know what you're saying ("where do we draw the line?") but for something to be called "a weapon of mass destruction" I'm thinking hundreds or thousands. Where exactly is the cut off? I'm not sure. At what hair is a bald person bald? How old do you have to be to be considered "old?" The inability to define things perfectly isn't really unique. But I know someone who's seventeen isn't old" but someone born in 1940 is. I also know that a homemade bomb that explodes with nails isn't a weapon of mass destruction but a nuclear weapon is.

This attack killed 3 people and injured 179. I've read about SCUD ballistic missile attacks that did less than that and there is no doubt a ballistic missile is a WMD.

This attack could have easily killed a lot more people too. I'm actually quite surprised it didn't.

 

[del62]

Wihat is a weapon of mass destruction?

If it is a weapon that when it goes off will likely harm more than a single target (person in this case), then these bombs would fit that definition.

 

[Zelig]

...did the DOJ really just call a pressure cooker with explosives in it "Weapon of mass destruction"?

Isaac Newton is rolling in his grave.

Well, how many people have to be hurt for it to be valid?

20?

50?

100?

179?

Thousands?

Fast food hurts billions.

I've read about SCUD ballistic missile attacks that did less than that and there is no doubt a ballistic missile is a WMD.

I would not consider any missile with a conventional warhead to be a WMD.

 

[red_elk]

Wihat is a weapon of mass destruction?

I guess, war against Iraq in 2003 started not over pressure cookers.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Why do people have such a hard time with terms having different definitions based on context?

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm reading that definition of WMD, and it seems reasonable to me. What am I missing? Toxins, poisons, biological agents, radiation ... was the pressure cooker one of those things?

 

[classical_hero]

If we operate under that definition I'm pretty sure I have WMDs.

EDIT: I should say "the ingredients for potential WMDs." I don't actually have bombs or anything

Well they made the pressure cooker into a bomb and as a result of their actions it became a weapon of mass destruction. It certainly caused mass destruction. The pressure cooker was not used for it's original purpose, which is why it can be called that.

 

[Defiant47]

I thought WMD meant chemical, biological, or nuclear. I didn't know a pistol was a WMD.

 

[red_elk]

I didn't know a pistol was a WMD.

Wait, Estonian military has mortars..

 

[Camikaze]

Why do people have such a hard time with terms having different definitions based on context?

Because it'd be quite easy to just use another entirely distinct term instead?