[Peace-discuss] Assume they find WMDs

[Margaret E. Kosal]

One thing which i am trying (with varying degrees of success) is to *stop* 
referring to NBC(R) WMD as WMD.  Popular rhetoric hac dropped the "nuclear, 
biological, chemical (& radiological)" designator.

Just 'WMD' has this speedy implication of lumping them all together as if 
each was equivalent to all the others.  They're not.

The presence of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq does *not* warrant a 
response with a nuclear weapon.

i'm not the first to point out or allude to this insidious manipulation of 
terminolgy:
- M.B. Maerli "Relearning the ABCs: Terrorists and Weapons of Mass 
Destruction", Nonproliferation Review, vol. 7, no. 2, Summer 2000
- W.K.H. Panofsky, "Dismantling the Concept of "Weapons of Mass 
Destruction", Arms Control Today, April 1999. 
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_04/wkhp98.asp
- G. Easterbrook, "Term Limits. The Meaninglessness of "WMD", The New 
Republic, October 7, 2002, p. 24.

Namaste,
Margaret

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20030208/08222173/attachment.htm