graybishop (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} graybishop) wrote,@ 2008-12-03 13:49:00 |
|
Had to quote, too funny
The main thing is to get a new term substituted for WMD. First, "weapons of mass destruction" doesn't effectively communicate that the threat is directed against people and or property-- not just against a "mass"-- of what?
Second, science textbooks have long taught that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, so this ambiguity in the term causes confusion for budding young scientists.
Third, what is a weapon? Is a single anthrax virus a weapon or does it have to be enough to fill a test tube or have some sort of delivery mechanism? Is a centrifuge used for uranium enrichment a weapon or just a tool? How about a bomb that only kills two people? Is that a WMD? Clearly, the term needs refinement.
The jetliners used in the 9/11 attacks would not be defined as weapons of mass destruction, yet they clearly caused "mass destruction". None of the 4,000 soldiers killed to date in Iraq and Afghanistan has been killed by a WMD.
Clearly, we need new terminology if we are to prevent "catastophic attacks by terrorists". How about CAT's? I think a lot of people would get behind a policy to wipe out CAT's.
The main thing is to get a new term substituted for WMD. First, "weapons of mass destruction" doesn't effectively communicate that the threat is directed against people and or property-- not just against a "mass"-- of what?
Second, science textbooks have long taught that mass can neither be created nor destroyed, so this ambiguity in the term causes confusion for budding young scientists.
Third, what is a weapon? Is a single anthrax virus a weapon or does it have to be enough to fill a test tube or have some sort of delivery mechanism? Is a centrifuge used for uranium enrichment a weapon or just a tool? How about a bomb that only kills two people? Is that a WMD? Clearly, the term needs refinement.
The jetliners used in the 9/11 attacks would not be defined as weapons of mass destruction, yet they clearly caused "mass destruction". None of the 4,000 soldiers killed to date in Iraq and Afghanistan has been killed by a WMD.
Clearly, we need new terminology if we are to prevent "catastophic attacks by terrorists". How about CAT's? I think a lot of people would get behind a policy to wipe out CAT's.
