How to reduce environmental destruction?

How do we define "MASS DESTRUCTION" ? Can't conventional weapons (bombs) be used to cause mass destruction ?

  • Can't the Bush Administration be honest and say they don't want rogue nations or unfriendly leaders to have *any weapons*, let alone so-called "weapons of mass destruction" ? Isn't the U.S. the proprietor of the most weapons of mass destruction ?

  • Answer:

    I believe a weapon of mass destruction is one that can yeild wide-spread devastation in a single blow. You're right, 'conventional' weapons can produce simular effects, but only when several are deployed at once. Further, a weapon of mass destruction tends to take advantage of scientific advancements which originated fairly recently in human history, such as nuclear fission, fusion, bioengineering and so on. A single modern nuclear warhead can not only lay waste to an entire metropolian area, but can irradiate the soil and lierally spread radiation across the entire surface of the Earth; lierally 'mass' destruction.

slw4012 at Yahoo! Answers Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

the term came into common use after the gulf war. Iraq had to agree to not produce or obtain weapons of mass destruction in order to end the war. When Iraq agreed to this the war stopped. You can't tell a country not to have any weapons, (police need guns etc.) but as long as they couldn't produce wepons of mass destruction we wouldn't have to worry about something like what they did to kuwait happening again. It didn't matter if the US had weapons of mass destruction, the US won the war. The post-war treaty isn't negotiable, that's how wars work, the winners make the post-war treaty and the loser has to sign it or the fighting continues. If Iraq had won, I'm sure they would have done much more than just prevent us from producing WMDs.

charlie

mass destruction is how long it is still able to kill people. conventional is just a boom maybe some fire but chemical or atomic last for a bit beyond the boom

gsschulte

International politics is rarely about honesty. What really matters is who has power.

albo888888

weapons of mass destruction Any weapon, nuclear, biological, or chemical, that can kill large numbers of people. There are three types of delivery system usually considered for WMD,ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and combat aircraft.

hutson

Yes, the US owns most of the weapons of mass destruction. The term evolved to describe weapons that kill by the hundreds or thousands in one shot. "Conventional" weapons are very limited in scope and can't cause that with one shot. When one nuke can wipe out a city, you have mass destruction. Which would you rather have, President Bush explaining to a bunch of pacifists that have no idea what the rest of the world is like why he is pursuing terrorists and countries that aid and supply them, or him explaining to the families of the citizens of say, New York City, why their loved ones are all dead by terrorists with a nuke?

bostoncowboy62

The media I believe slipped up by mispronouncing the acronym WMD and therefore created this problem. The correct acronym is Weapons of Mass Distraction (WMD). Simple mistake but this has resulted in serious consequences.

nietzsche754

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.