Jump to content

Weapon of mass destruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aweapon of mass destruction(WMD) is abiological,chemical,radiological,nuclear,or any otherweaponthat can kill or significantly harm many people or cause great damage toartificialstructures (e.g., buildings),naturalstructures (e.g., mountains), or thebiosphere.The scope and usage of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Originally coined in reference toaerial bombingwithchemical explosivesduringWorld War II,it has later come to refer to large-scale weaponry ofwarfare-related technologies, such asbiological,chemical,radiological,ornuclear warfare.

On July 20, 1956, atBikini Atoll,the 5-megaton-yieldthermonuclear weaponRedwing Tewa was detonated.[1]

Early uses of this term[edit]

The first use of the term "weapon of mass destruction" on record is byCosmo Gordon Lang,Archbishop of Canterbury,in 1937 in reference to the aerialbombing of Guernica,Spain:[2]

Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by warto Spainandto China?Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?[3]

At the time,nuclear weaponshad not been developed. Japan conducted research onbiological weapons(seeUnit 731),[4]andchemical weaponshad seen wide battlefield use inWorld War I.Their use was outlawed by theGeneva Protocolof 1925.[5]Italy usedmustard agentagainst civilians and soldiersin Ethiopia in 1935–36.[6]

Following theatomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasakithat endedWorld War IIand during theCold War,the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons.The application of the term to specifically nuclear andradiological weaponsis traced byWilliam Safireto the Russian phrase "Оружие массового поражения" –oruzhiye massovogo porazheniya(weapon of mass destruction).[7]

William SafirecreditsJames Goodby(of theBrookings Institution) with tracing what he considers the earliest known English-language use soon after the nuclear bombing ofHiroshimaandNagasaki(although it is not quite verbatim): a communique from a 15 November 1945, meeting ofHarry Truman,Clement AttleeandMackenzie King(probably drafted byVannevar Bush,as Bush claimed in 1970) referred to "weapons adaptable to mass destruction."[7]

Safire saysBernard Baruchused that exact phrase in 1946 (in a speech at the United Nations probably written byHerbert Bayard Swope).[7]The phrase found its way into the very first resolution the United Nations General assembly adopted in January 1946 in London, which used the wording "the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other weapons adaptable to mass destruction."[8]The resolution also created theAtomic Energy Commission(predecessor of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA)).[9]

An exact use of this term was given in a lecture titled "Atomic Energyas a Contemporary Problem "byJ. Robert Oppenheimer.He delivered the lecture to theForeign Serviceand theState Department,on 17 September 1947.[10]

It is a very far reaching control which would eliminate the rivalry between nations in this field, which would prevent the surreptitious arming of one nation against another, which would provide some cushion of time before atomic attack, and presumably therefore before any attack with weapons of mass destruction, and which would go a long way toward removing atomic energy at least as a source of conflict between the powers.[11]

The term was also used in the introduction to the hugely influential U.S. government document known asNSC 68written in 1950.[12]

During a speech atRice Universityon 12 September 1962, PresidentJohn F. Kennedyspoke of not filling space "with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding."[13]The following month, during a televised presentation about theCuban Missile Crisison 22 October 1962, Kennedy made reference to "offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction."[14]

An early use of the exact phrase in aninternational treatyis in theOuter Space Treatyof 1967, but the treaty provides no definition of the phrase,[15]and the treaty also categorically prohibits the stationing of "weapons" and the testing of "any type of weapon" in outer space, in addition to its specific prohibition against placing in orbit, or installing on celestial bodies, "any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction."

Evolution of its use[edit]

During theCold War,the term "weapons of mass destruction" was primarily a reference to nuclear weapons. At the time, in theWestthe euphemism "strategic weapons"was used to refer to the American nuclear arsenal. However, there is no precise definition of the" strategic "category, neither considering range noryield of the nuclear weapon.[16]

Subsequent toOperation Opera,the destruction of a pre-operational nuclear reactor inside Iraq by the Israeli Air Force in 1981, the Israeli prime minister,Menachem Begin,countered criticism by saying that "on no account shall we permit an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against the people of Israel." This policy of pre-emptive action against real or perceived weapons of mass destruction became known as theBegin Doctrine.[17]

The term "weapons of mass destruction" continued to see periodic use, usually in the context of nucleararms control;Ronald Reaganused it during the 1986Reykjavík Summit,when referring to the 1967Outer Space Treaty.[18]Reagan's successor,George H. W. Bush,used the term in a 1989 speech to the United Nations, primarily in reference to chemical arms.[19]

The end of the Cold War reduced U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons as a deterrent, causing it to shift its focus to disarmament. With the 1990invasion of Kuwaitand 1991Gulf War,Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs became a particular concern of the firstBush Administration.[20]Following the war,Bill Clintonand other western politicians and media continued to use the term, usually in reference to ongoing attempts to dismantleIraq's weapons programs.[20]

In early 2019, more than 90% of the world's 13,865nuclear weaponswere owned by Russia and the United States.[21]

After the11 September 2001 attacksand the2001 anthrax attacksin the United States, an increased fear of nonconventional weapons andasymmetric warfaretook hold in many countries. The fear reached a crescendo with the 2002Iraq disarmament crisisand thealleged existenceof weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that became the primary justification for the2003 invasion of Iraq;however, American forces found none in Iraq. They found old stockpiles of chemical munitions includingsarinandmustard agents,but all were considered to be unusable because of corrosion or degradation.[22]Iraq, however, declared a chemical weapons stockpile in 2009 which U.N. personnel had secured after the 1991 Gulf War. The stockpile contained mainly chemical precursors, but some munitions remained usable.[23]

Because of its prolific use and (worldwide) public profile during this period, theAmerican Dialect Societyvoted "weapons of mass destruction" (and its abbreviation, "WMD" ) theword of the yearin 2002,[24]and in 2003Lake Superior State Universityadded WMD to its list of terms banished for "Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness" (and "as a card that trumps all forms of aggression" ).[25]

In itscriminal complaintagainst the main suspect of theBoston Marathonbombing of 15 April 2013, theFBIrefers to apressure-cookerimprovisedbombas a "weapon of mass destruction."[26]

There have been calls to classify at least some classes ofcyber weaponsas WMD, in particular those aimed to bring about large-scale (physical) destruction, such as by targetingcritical infrastructure.[27][28][29]However, some scholars have objected to classifying cyber weapons as WMD on the grounds that they "cannot [currently] directly injure or kill human beings as efficiently as guns or bombs" or clearly "meet the legal and historical definitions" of WMD.[30][31]

Definitions of the term[edit]

United States[edit]

Strategic definition[edit]

The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that ofnuclear,biological,orchemical weapons(NBC) although there is notreatyor customaryinternational lawthat contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole. While nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are regarded as the three major types of WMDs,[32]some analysts have argued that radiological materials as well as missile technology and delivery systems such as aircraft and ballistic missiles could be labeled as WMDs as well.[32]

However, there is an argument that nuclear and biological weapons do not belong in the same category as chemical and "dirty bomb"radiological weapons, which have limited destructive potential (and close to none, as far as property is concerned), whereas nuclear and biological weapons have the unique ability to kill large numbers of people with very small amounts of material, and thus could be said to belong in a class by themselves.[citation needed]

The NBC definition has also been used in official U.S. documents, by theU.S. President,[33][34]theU.S. Central Intelligence Agency,[35]theU.S. Department of Defense,[36][37]and theU.S. Government Accountability Office.[38]

Other documents expand the definition of WMD to also include radiological orconventional weapons.TheU.S. militaryrefers to WMD as:

Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD.[39]

This may also refer to nuclearICBMs(intercontinental ballistic missiles).[citation needed]

Protest in Amsterdam against the deployment ofPershing IImissiles in Europe, 1981

The significance of the wordsseparable and divisible part of the weaponis that missiles such as thePershing IIand theSCUDare considered weapons of mass destruction, while aircraft capable of carrying bombloads are not.[citation needed]

In 2004, the United Kingdom'sButler Reviewrecognized the "considerable and long-standing academic debate about the proper interpretation of the phrase 'weapons of mass destruction'".The committee set out to avoid the general term but when using it, employed the definition ofUnited Nations Security Council Resolution 687,which defined the systems which Iraq was required to abandon:[citation needed]

  • "Nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any sub-systems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities relating to [nuclear weapons].
  • Chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.
  • Ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities. "[40]

Chemical weapons expert Gert G. Harigel considers only nuclear weapons true weapons of mass destruction, because "only nuclear weapons are completely indiscriminate by their explosive power, heat radiation and radioactivity, and only they should therefore be called a weapon of mass destruction". He prefers to call chemical and biological weapons "weapons of terror" when aimed against civilians and "weapons of intimidation" for soldiers.[41]

Testimony of one such soldier expresses the same viewpoint.[42]For a period of several months in the winter of 2002–2003,U.S. Deputy Secretary of DefensePaul Wolfowitzfrequently used the term "weapons of mass terror", apparently also recognizing the distinction between the psychological and the physical effects of many things currently falling into the WMD category.[43]

Gustavo Bell Lemus,the Vice President ofColombia,at 9 July 2001United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Armsand Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, quoted theMillennium Reportof theUN Secretary-Generalto theGeneral Assembly,in whichKofi Annansaid thatsmall armscould be described as WMD because the fatalities they cause "dwarf that of all other weapons systems – and in most years greatly exceed the toll of the atomic bombs that devastatedHiroshimaandNagasaki".[44]

An additional condition often implicitly applied to WMD is that the use of the weapons must be strategic. In other words, they would be designed to "have consequences far outweighing the size and effectiveness of the weapons themselves".[45]The strategic nature of WMD also defines their function in the military doctrine oftotal waras targeting the means a country would use to support and supply its war effort, specifically its population, industry, and natural resources.[citation needed]

Within U.S.civil defenseorganizations, the category is nowChemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive(CBRNE), which defines WMD as:

(1) Anyexplosive,incendiary,poison gas,bomb,grenade,orrockethaving apropellantcharge of more than four ounces [113 g],missilehaving an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], ormineor device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to releaseradiationat a level dangerous to human life.[46]

Military definition[edit]

For the general purposes of national defense,[47]the U.S. Code[48]defines a weapon of mass destruction as:

  • any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of:
    • toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
    • a disease organism
    • radiation or radioactivity[49]

For the purposes of the prevention of weaponsproliferation,[50]the U.S. Code defines weapons of mass destruction as "chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and chemical, biological, and nuclear materials used in the manufacture of such weapons".[51]

Criminal (civilian) definition[edit]

For the purposes of U.S.criminal lawconcerning terrorism,[52]weapons of mass destruction are defined as:

  • any "destructive device" defined as any explosive, incendiary, orpoison gas– bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[53]
  • any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
  • any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
  • any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[54]

TheFederal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:[55]

  • any "destructive device" as defined in Title 18 USC Section 921: any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas – bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses
  • any weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
  • any weapon involving a disease organism
  • any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life
  • any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris.

Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs,[56]pipe bombs,[57]shoe bombs,[58]and cactus needles coated with a biological toxin[59]have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.

As defined by 18 USC §2332 (a), a Weapon of Mass Destruction is:

  • (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of the title;
  • (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
  • (C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
  • (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;

Under the same statute, conspiring, attempting, threatening, or using a Weapon of Mass Destruction may be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if resulting in death, be punishable by death or by imprisonment for any terms of years or for life. They can also be asked to pay a maximum fine of $250,000.[60]

The Washington Postreported on 30 March 2006: "Jurors asked the judge in the death penalty trial ofZacarias Moussaouitoday to define the term 'weapons of mass destruction' and were told it includes airplanes used as missiles ". Moussaoui was indicted and tried for conspiracy to both destroy aircraft and use weapons of mass destruction, among others.[61]

The survivingBoston Marathon bombingperpetrator,Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,was charged in June 2013 with the federal offense of "use of a weapon of mass destruction" after he and his brotherTamerlan Tsarnaevallegedly placed crude shrapnel bombs, made from pressure cookers packed with ball bearings and nails, near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. He was convicted in April 2015. The bombing resulted in three deaths and at least 264 injuries.[62]

International law[edit]

The development and use of WMD is governed by several internationalconventions and treaties.

Treaty Date signed Date of entry into force Number of states parties Objective
Geneva Protocol[63] 17 June 1925 8 February 1928 145 Ban the use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts
Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty[64] 5 August 1963 10 October 1963 126 (list) Ban allnuclear weapons testsexcept for those conducted underground
Outer Space Treaty[65] 27 January 1967 10 October 1967 111 Ban stationing of WMD in space
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT)[66] 1 July 1968 5 March 1970 190 (list) 1. prevent nuclear proliferation; 2. promote nuclear disarmament; 3. promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy
Seabed Arms Control Treaty[67] 11 February 1971 18 May 1972 94 Ban stationing of WMD on the ocean floor
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty(CTBT)[68] 10 September 1996 Not in force 176 (list) Ban all nuclear weapons tests
Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention(BWC)[69] 10 April 1972 26 March 1975 184 (list) Comprehensively banbiological weapons
Chemical Weapons Convention(CWC)[70] 3 September 1992 29 April 1997 193 (list) Comprehensively banchemical weapons
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons(TPNW)[71] 20 September 2017 22 January 2021 68 (list) Comprehensively bannuclear weapons

Use, possession, and access[edit]

Nuclear weapons[edit]

US and Russian nuclear stockpiles, 1945 to 2014

Nuclear weapons use the energy inside of an atom's nucleus to create massive explosions. This goal is achieved through nuclear fission and fusion.[72]

Nuclear fission is when the nucleus of an atom is split into smaller nuclei. This process can be induced by shooting a neutron at the nucleus of an atom. When the neutron is absorbed by the atom, it becomes unstable, causing it to split and release energy.[72]Modern nuclear weapons start this process by detonating chemical explosives around a pit of either uranium-235 or plutonium-239 metal.[72]The force from this detonation is directed inwards, causing the pit of uranium or plutonium to compress to a dense point. Once the uranium/plutonium is dense enough, neutrons are then injected. This starts a fission chain reaction also known as an atomic explosion.[72]

Nuclear fusion is essentially the opposite of fission. It is the fusing together of nuclei, not the splitting of it. When exposed to extreme pressure and temperature, some lightweight nuclei can fuse together and form heavier nuclei, releasing energy in the process.[72]Interestingly, fusion weapons (also known as “thermonuclear” or “hydrogen” weapons) use the fission process to initiate fusion. Fusion weapons use the energy released from a fission explosion to fuse hydrogen isotopes together.[72]The energy released from these weapons creates a fireball, which reaches tens of million degrees. A temperature of this magnitude is similar to the temperature found at center of the sun, so it shouldn't be any surprise to learn that the sun runs on fusion as well.[72]

The only country to have used a nuclear weapon in war is theUnited States,whichdropped two atomic bombson the Japanese cities ofHiroshimaandNagasakiduring World War II.

At the start of 2023, nine states—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, or North Korea) and Israel—together possessed approximately 12 512 nuclear weapons, of which 9576 were considered to be potentially operationally available. An estimated 3844 of these warheads were deployed with operational forces, including about 2000 that were kept in a state of high operational alert—the same number as the previous year.[73]

Global nuclear weapon numbers, 2023

South Africadeveloped a small nuclear arsenal in the 1980s but disassembled them in the early 1990s, making it the only country to have fully given up an independently developed nuclear weapons arsenal.Belarus,Kazakhstan,andUkraineinherited stockpiles of nuclear arms following the break-up of theSoviet Union,but relinquished them to the Russian Federation.[74]

Countries where nuclear weapons are deployed throughnuclear sharingagreements include Belgium,Germany,Italy, theNetherlands,andTurkey.[75]

Biological weapons[edit]

The Biological Weapons Convention[76]

Thehistory of biological warfaregoes back at least to theMongolsiege of Caffain 1346 and possibly much farther back to antiquity.[77]It is believed that theAncient Greekscontaminated their adversaries' wells by placing animal corpses in them.[78][79]However, only by the turn of the 20th century did advances inmicrobiologyallow for the large-scale weaponization of pathogens. DuringFirst World War,German military attempted to introduce anthrax into Allied livestock. InSecond World War,Japan conducted aerial attacks on China using fleas carrying the bubonic plague.[79]During the 20th century, at least nine states have operated offensive biological weapons programs, includingCanada(1946–1956),[80]France(1921–1972),[81]Iraq(1985–1990s),[82]Japan(1930s–1945),[83]Rhodesia,South Africa(1981–1993),[84]theSoviet Union(1920s–1992),[85]theUnited Kingdom(1934–1956),[86]and theUnited States(1943–1969).[87]

The Japanese biological weapons program, which was run by the secretImperial Japanese ArmyUnit 731during the Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945), became infamous for conducting often fatalhuman experimentson prisoners and producing biological weapons for combat use.[88]TheSoviet Unioncovertly operated the world's largest, longest, and most sophisticated biological weapons program, in violation of its obligations under international law.[89]

International restrictions on biological warfare began with the 1925Geneva Protocol,which prohibits the use but not the possession or development of biological and chemical weapons.[90][91]Upon ratification of the Geneva Protocol, several countries madereservationsregarding its applicability and use in retaliation.[92]Due to these reservations, it was in practice a "no-first-use"agreement only.[93]The 1972Biological Weapons Convention(BWC) supplements the Geneva Protocol by prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling, and use of biological weapons.[94]Having entered into force on 26 March 1975, the BWC was the first multilateral disarmament treaty to ban the production of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction.[94]As of March 2021,183 states have become party to the treaty.[95]

Chemical weapons[edit]

Chemical weapons have been used around the world by various civilizations since ancient times. The oldest reported case of a chemical substance being used as a weapon was in 256 AD during the siege ofDura-Europos.A mixture of tar and sulfur was used to produce sulfur oxides, which helped take control of the city.[96][97]In the industrial era, chemical weapons were used extensively by both sides duringWorld War I,and by the Axis powers duringWorld War II(both in battle and in extermination campgas chambers) though Allied powers also stockpiled them.

International restrictions on chemical warfare began with theHague Conventions of 1899 and 1907,and was expanded significantly by the 1925Geneva Protocol.These treaties prohibited the use of poisons or chemical agents in international warfare, but did not place restrictions on development or weapon stockpiles. Since 1997, theChemical Weapons Convention (CWC)has expanded restrictions to prohibit any use and development of chemical weapons except for very limited purposes (research, medical, pharmaceutical or protective). As of 2018, a handful of countries have known inventories, and many are in the process of being safely destroyed.[98]Nonetheless, proliferation and use in war zones remains an active concern, most recently theuse of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War.

Countries with known or possible chemical weapons, as of 2021
Nation CW Possession[citation needed] Signed CWC Ratified CWC
Albania Eliminated, 2007 January 14, 1993[99] May 11, 1994[99]
China Probable January 13, 1993 April 4, 1997
Egypt Probable No No
India Eliminated, 2009 January 14, 1993 September 3, 1996
Iran Possible January 13, 1993 November 3, 1997
Iraq Eliminated, 2018 January 13, 2009 February 12, 2009
Israel Probable January 13, 1993[100] No
Japan Probable January 13, 1993 September 15, 1995
Libya Eliminated, 2014 No January 6, 2004
(acceded)
Myanmar(Burma) Possible January 14, 1993[100] July 8, 2015[101]
North Korea Known No No
Pakistan Probable January 13, 1993 November 27, 1997
Russia Eliminated, 2017 January 13, 1993 November 5, 1997
Serbia
and Montenegro
Probable No April 20, 2000
(acceded)
Sudan Possible No May 24, 1999
(acceded)
Syria Known No September 14, 2013
(acceded)
Taiwan Possible n/a n/a
United States Eliminated, 2023[102] January 13, 1993 April 25, 1997
Vietnam Possible January 13, 1993 September 30, 1998


Ethics and international legal status[edit]

Some commentators classify some or all the uses of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons during wartime as awar crime(orcrime against humanityif widespread) because they kill civilians (who are protected by thelaws of war) indiscriminately or are specifically prohibited by international treaties (which have become more comprehensive over time).[103]Proponents of use say that specific uses of such weapons have been necessary for defense or to avoid more deaths in a protracted war.[104]The tactic ofterror bombingfrom aircraft, and generallytargeting citieswitharea bombardmentor saturationcarpet bombinghas also been criticized, defended, and prohibited by treaty in the same way; the destructive effect of conventional saturation bombing is similar to that of a nuclear weapon.[105][106][107]

United States politics[edit]

Due to the potentially indiscriminate effects of WMD, the fear of a WMD attack has shaped political policies and campaigns, fostered social movements, and has been the central theme of many films. Support for different levels of WMD development and control varies nationally and internationally. Yet understanding of the nature of the threats is not high, in part because of imprecise usage of the term by politicians and the media.[citation needed]

An atomic-bomb blueprint

Fear of WMD, or of threats diminished by the possession of WMD, has long been used to catalyze public support for various WMD policies. They include mobilization of pro- and anti-WMD campaigners alike, and generation of popular political support.[citation needed]The term WMD may be used as a powerfulbuzzword[108]or to generate aculture of fear.[109]It is also used ambiguously, particularly by not distinguishing among the different types of WMD.[110]

A television commercial calledDaisy,promoting DemocratLyndon Johnson's 1964presidential candidacy,invoked the fear of a nuclear war and was an element in Johnson's subsequent election.[111]

Later, United States' President George W. Bush used the threat of potentialWMD in Iraqas justification for the2003 invasion of Iraq.[112]Broad reference to Iraqi WMD in general was seen as an element of President Bush's arguments.[110]The claim that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was a major factor that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 byCoalition forces.[113]

Over 500 munitions containing mustard agent and sarin were discovered throughout Iraq since 2003; they were made in the 1980s and are no longer usable as originally intended due to corrosion.[114]

TheAmerican Heritage Dictionarydefines a weapon of mass destruction as: "a weapon that can cause widespread destruction or kill large numbers of people, especially a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon."[115]In other words, it does not have to be nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC). For example,Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,one of the perpetrators of theBoston Marathon bombing,was charged underUnited Stateslaw 18 U.S.C. 2332A[116]for using a weapon of mass destruction[117]and that was apressure cooker bomb.In other words, it was a weapon that caused large-scale death and destruction, without being an NBC weapon.

Media coverage[edit]

In March 2004, the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) released a report[118]examining the media's coverage of WMD issues during three separate periods:nuclear weapons testsby India and Pakistan in May 1998; the U.S. announcement of evidence of aNorth Korean nuclear weapons programin October 2002; and revelations aboutIran's nuclear programin May 2003. The CISSM report argues that poor coverage resulted less from politicalbias among the mediathan from tired journalistic conventions. The report's major findings were that:

1. Most media outlets represented WMD as a monolithic menace, failing to adequately distinguish between weapons programs and actual weapons or to address the real differences among chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons.

2. Most journalists accepted the Bush administration's formulation of the "War on Terror" as a campaign against WMD, in contrast to coverage during the Clinton era, when many journalists made careful distinctions between acts of terrorism and the acquisition and use of WMD.

3. Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration's perspective on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats, and policy options.

4. Too few stories proffered alternative perspectives to official line, a problem exacerbated by the journalistic prioritizing of breaking-news stories and the "inverted pyramid" style of storytelling.

— Susan D. Moeller, Media Coverage of Weapons of Mass Destruction

In a separate study published in 2005,[119]a group of researchers assessed the effects reports and retractions in the media had on people'smemoryregarding thesearch for WMD in Iraqduring the 2003 Iraq War. The study focused on populations in twocoalitioncountries (Australia and the United States) and one opposed to the war (Germany). Results showed that U.S. citizens generally did not correct initial misconceptions regarding WMD, even following disconfirmation; Australian and German citizens were more responsive to retractions. Dependence on the initial source of information led to a substantial minority of Americans exhibitingfalse memorythat WMD were indeed discovered, while they were not. This led to three conclusions:

  1. The repetition of tentative news stories, even if they are subsequently disconfirmed, can assist in the creation of false memories in a substantial proportion of people.
  2. Once information is published, its subsequent correction does not alter people's beliefs unless they are suspicious about the motives underlying the events the news stories are about.
  3. When people ignore corrections, they do so irrespective of how certain they are that the corrections occurred.

A poll conducted between June and September 2003 asked people whether they thought evidence of WMD had been discovered in Iraq since the war ended. They were also asked which media sources they relied upon. Those who obtained their news primarily from Fox News were three times as likely to believe that evidence of WMD had been discovered in Iraq than those who relied on PBS and NPR for their news, and one third more likely than those who primarily watched CBS.[120]

Media source Respondents believing evidence of WMD had been found in Iraq
Fox 33%
CBS 23%
NBC 20%
CNN 20%
ABC 19%
Print media 17%
PBSNPR 11%

Based on a series of polls taken from June–September 2003.[121]

In 2006, Fox News reported the claims of two Republican lawmakers that WMDs had been found in Iraq,[122]based upon unclassified portions of a report by theNational Ground Intelligence Center.Quoting from the report, SenatorRick Santorumsaid "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent". According to David Kay, who appeared before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee to discuss these badly corroded munitions, they were leftovers, many years old, improperly stored or destroyed by the Iraqis.[123]Charles Duelfer agreed, stating on NPR'sTalk of the Nation:"When I was running the ISG – the Iraq Survey Group – we had a couple of them that had been turned in to these IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. But they are local hazards. They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction."[124]

Later, wikileaks would show that WMDs of these kinds continued to be found as the Iraqi occupation continued.[125]

Many news agencies, including Fox News, reported the conclusions of theCIAthat, based upon the investigation of theIraq Survey Group,WMDs are yet to be found in Iraq.[126][127]

Public perceptions[edit]

Awareness and opinions of WMD have varied during the course of their history. Their threat is a source of unease, security, and pride to different people. The anti-WMD movement is embodied most innuclear disarmament,and led to the formation of the BritishCampaign for Nuclear Disarmamentin 1957.[citation needed]

Anti-nuclear weaponsprotest march in Oxford, 1980

In order to increase awareness of all kinds of WMD, in 2004 the nuclear physicist andNobel Peace PrizewinnerJoseph Rotblatinspired the creation of The WMD Awareness Programme[128]to provide trustworthy and up to date information on WMD worldwide.

In 1998, theUniversity of New Mexico'sInstitute for Public Policyreleased their third report[129]on U.S. perceptions – including the general public, politicians and scientists – of nuclear weapons since the breakup of theSoviet Union.Risks of nuclear conflict, proliferation, and terrorism were seen as substantial.[130]

While maintenance of the U.S. nuclear arsenal was considered above average in importance, there was widespread support for a reduction in the stockpile, and very little support for developing and testing new nuclear weapons.[130]

Also in 1998, nuclear weapons became an issue in India's election of March, in relation to political tensions with neighboringPakistan.[131]Prior to the election theBharatiya Janata Party(BJP) announced it would "declare India a nuclear weapon state" after coming to power.[132]

BJP won the elections, and on 14 May, three days after India tested nuclear weapons for the second time, a public opinion poll reported that a majority of Indians favored the country's nuclear build-up.[citation needed]

On 15 April 2004, theProgram on International Policy Attitudes(PIPA) reported[133]that U.S. citizens showed high levels of concern regarding WMD, and that preventing thespread of nuclear weaponsshould be "a very important U.S. foreign policy goal", accomplished through multilateral arms control rather than the use of military threats.[citation needed]

A majority also believed the United States should be more forthcoming with its biological research and itsNuclear Non-Proliferation Treatycommitment of nuclear arms reduction.[citation needed]

A Russian opinion poll conducted on 5 August 2005 indicated half the population believed new nuclear powers have the right to possess nuclear weapons.[134]39% believed the Russian stockpile should be reduced, though not eliminated.[135]

In popular culture[edit]

Weapons of mass destruction and their related impacts have been a mainstay ofpopular culturesince the beginning of theCold War,as both political commentary and humorous outlet. The actual phrase "weapons of mass destruction" has been used similarly and as a way to characterise any powerful force or product since the Iraqi weapons crisis in the lead up to the Coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003.[citation needed]Science-fictionmay introduce novel weapons of mass destruction with much greater yields or impact than anything in reality.

Common hazard symbols[edit]

Symbol Type (Toxic, Radioactive or Biohazard) Symbol Unicode Image
Toxicsymbol U+2620 Skull and crossbones[136]
Radioactivesymbol U+2622 Radioactivity[137]
Biohazardsymbol U+2623 Biohazard[138]

Radioactive weaponry or hazard symbol[edit]

Radioactivity
Radioactivity
2007 ISOradioactivitydanger symbol

The international radioactivity symbol (also known astrefoil) first appeared in 1946, at theUniversity of California, BerkeleyRadiation Laboratory. At the time, it was rendered asmagenta,and was set on a blue background.[139]

It is drawn with a central circle of radiusR,the blades having an internal radius of 1.5Rand an external radius of 5R,and separated from each other by 60°.[140]It is meant to represent a radiating atom.[141]

TheInternational Atomic Energy Agencyfound that the trefoil radiation symbol is unintuitive and can be variously interpreted by those uneducated in its meaning; therefore, its role as a hazard warning was compromised as it did not clearly indicate "danger" to many non-Westerners and children who encountered it. As a result of research, a new radiation hazard symbol (ISO 21482) was developed in 2007 to be placed near the most dangerous parts of radiation sources featuring a skull, someone running away, and using a red rather than yellow background.[142]

The red background is intended to convey urgent danger, and the sign is intended to be used on equipment where very strong ionizing radiation can be encountered if the device is dismantled or otherwise tampered with. The intended use of the sign is not in a place where the normal user will see it, but in a place where it will be seen by someone who has started to dismantle a radiation-emitting device or equipment. The aim of the sign is to warn people such as scrap metal workers to stop work and leave the area.[143]

Biological weaponry or hazard symbol[edit]

Biohazard
Biohazard

Developed by Dow Chemical company in the 1960s for their containment products.[144]

According to Charles Dullin, an environmental-health engineer who contributed to its development:[140]

"We wanted something that was memorable but meaningless, so we could educate people as to what it means."

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^https:// atomcentral /.{{cite web}}:Missing or empty|title=(help)
  2. ^"Weapon of mass destruction - weaponry".Encyclopedia Britannica.1 November 1952.Retrieved25 June2019.
  3. ^"Archbishop's Appeal,"Times(London), 28 December 1937, p. 9.
  4. ^"Biological Weapons Program – Japan".Fas.org.Archivedfrom the original on 27 July 2010.Retrieved5 August2010.
  5. ^Eric Croddy (1997).Chemical and Biological Warfare: An Annotated Bibliography.Scarecrow Press. p. 30.ISBN9780810832718.Archivedfrom the original on 2 January 2016.Retrieved11 January2016.
  6. ^William R. Cullen (2008).Is Arsenic an Aphrodisiac?: The Sociochemistry of an Element.Royal Society of Chemistry. p. 241.ISBN9780854043637.Archivedfrom the original on 2 January 2016.Retrieved11 January2016.
  7. ^abcSafire, William (19 April 1998)."On Language; Weapons of Mass Destruction".The New York Times.Retrieved25 June2019.
  8. ^"UNODA – Nuclear Weapons Home".Un.org.Archivedfrom the original on 6 June 2012.Retrieved14 May2012.
  9. ^United Nations General AssemblySession 1Resolution1.Establishment of a Commission to Deal with the Problems Raised by the Discovery of Atomic EnergyA/RES/1(I)24 January 1946. Retrieved 2010-06-18.
  10. ^Oppenheimer, Robert J. (1955).The Open Mind.New York:Simon & Schuster.p. 23.
  11. ^Pais, A.; Crease, R.P. (2007).J. Robert Oppenheimer: A Life(in German). Oxford University Press. p. 158.ISBN978-0-19-532712-0.Retrieved25 June2019.
  12. ^"NSC-68 United States Objectives and Programs for National Security".Fas.org.Archivedfrom the original on 24 October 2010.Retrieved5 August2010.
  13. ^"John F. Kennedy Moon Speech—Rice Stadium".nasa.gov. Archived fromthe originalon 6 July 2015.Retrieved30 June2015.
  14. ^Kennedy JF (22 October 1962).Televised remarks to the American people re "the Soviet military buildup on the island of Cuba"
  15. ^Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Art. IV, Jan. 27, 1967, T.I.A.S. No. 6347, 610 U.N.T.S. 205, 18 U.S.T. 2410 (effective Oct. 10, 1967).
  16. ^Brian Alexander, Alistair Millar, ed. (2003).Tactical nuclear weapons: emergent threats in an evolving security environment(1. ed.). Washington DC: Brassey's. p. 7.ISBN978-1-57488-585-9.Retrieved22 March2011.
  17. ^Country Profiles -IsraelArchived2014-10-06 at theWayback Machine,Nuclear Threat Initiative(NTI), updated May, 2014
  18. ^"CNN Cold War – Historical Documents: Reagan-Gorbachev transcripts".18 May 2008. Archived fromthe originalon 18 May 2008.Retrieved14 May2012.
  19. ^"Excerpts From Bush's Speech at the Opening of the U.N. General Assembly –".The New York Times.Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Ussr). 26 September 1989.Archivedfrom the original on 18 March 2009.Retrieved5 August2010.
  20. ^abMICHAEL WINES, Special to The New York Times (30 September 1990)."Confrontation in the Gulf; U.S. Explores New Strategies to Limit Weapons of Mass Destruction –".The New York Times.IRAQ.Retrieved5 August2010.
  21. ^"Global Nuclear Arsenal Declines, But Future Cuts Uncertain Amid U.S.-Russia Tensions".Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.17 June 2019.
  22. ^Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD CriteriaArchived1 October 2012 at theWayback Machine,Military, report filed by American Forces Press Service, 29 June 2006
  23. ^"India Completes Chemical Weapons Disposal; Iraq Declares Stockpile | Analysis | NTI".nti.org.Archivedfrom the original on 3 January 2016.Retrieved12 December2017.
  24. ^"American Dialect Society".Americandialect.org. 13 January 2003.Archivedfrom the original on 15 June 2006.Retrieved5 August2010.
  25. ^"Lake Superior State University:: Banished Words List:: 2003".Lssu.edu. Archived fromthe originalon 20 August 2017.Retrieved5 August2010.
  26. ^"Criminal Complaint United States vs Dzhokhar Tsarnaev".The Washington Post.Archived fromthe originalon 22 April 2013.Retrieved23 April2013.
  27. ^Hatch, Benjamin B. (December 2017)."Defining a Class of Offensive Destructive Cyber Weapons As Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Examination of the Merits"(PDF).United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapon Studies Trinity Site Papers.Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 2 June 2021.
  28. ^Kumar, Davinder (March 2013)."Cyber Weapons – The New Weapons of Mass Destruction".United Service Institution of India.Archived fromthe originalon 7 January 2022.Retrieved3 July2021.
  29. ^"The Pentagon Thinks Cyber Ops Could Be The Next WMDs".Government Executive.19 December 2018.Retrieved3 July2021.
  30. ^Carr, Jeffrey (1 September 2013)."The misunderstood acronym: Why cyber weapons aren't WMD".Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.69(5): 32–37.Bibcode:2013BuAtS..69e..32C.doi:10.1177/0096340213501373.ISSN0096-3402.S2CID143681333.
  31. ^Caves, John; Carus, W. Seth (June 2014)."Future of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Their Nature and Role in 2030".Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Occasional Paper 10.
  32. ^abReed, Laura (2014)."Weapons of Mass Destruction".Hampshire College.Archivedfrom the original on 2 August 2015.Retrieved21 October2014.
  33. ^"Untitled".Archived fromthe originalon 2 April 2010.Retrieved6 February2016.
  34. ^"Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 37, Issue 19 (May 14, 2001)"(PDF).Frwebgate.access.gpo.gov.Retrieved14 May2012.[permanent dead link]
  35. ^CIA Site Redirect – Central Intelligence AgencyArchived4 October 2006 at theWayback Machine
  36. ^"Message of the Secretary of Defense".Archived fromthe originalon 1 October 2004.Retrieved6 February2016.
  37. ^"Archived copy"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 1 June 2006.Retrieved6 February2016.{{cite web}}:CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  38. ^"Weapons of Mass Destruction: State Department Oversight of Science Centers Program"(PDF).Retrieved5 August2010.[permanent dead link]
  39. ^"Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms".Dtic.mil. 12 April 2001. Archived fromthe originalon 10 October 2016.Retrieved5 August2010.
  40. ^Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction: Report of a Committee of Privy CounsellorsArchived16 July 2011 at theWayback Machine(HC 898), London: The Stationery Office, 2004, §14.
  41. ^Harigel, Gert G. (22 November 2001)."Chemical and Biological Weapons: Use in Warfare, Impact on Society and Environment".Retrieved19 January2021.
  42. ^"A Soldier's Viewpoint on Surviving Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Attacks".Sightm1911. Archived fromthe originalon 1 September 2010.Retrieved5 August2010.
  43. ^Sidel, Victor W.; Levy, Barry S. (2016)."Weapons of Mass Destruction".In Cockerham, William C. (ed.).International Encyclopedia of Public Health.Academic Press. p. 402.ISBN978-0-12-803708-9.
  44. ^"Colombia".2 September 2007. Archived fromthe originalon 2 September 2007.Retrieved14 May2012.
  45. ^"What makes a weapon one of mass destruction?-News-UK-TimesOnline".11 March 2007. Archived fromthe originalon 11 March 2007.Retrieved24 August2017.
  46. ^Capt. G. Shane Hendricks, Dr. Margot J. Hall (2007)."The History and Science of CBRNE Agents, Part I"(PDF).American Institute of Chemists. p. 1. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 14 July 2014.Retrieved4 July2014.
  47. ^"US CODE: Title 50—War and National Defense"..law.cornell.edu. 23 March 2010.Archivedfrom the original on 27 April 2010.Retrieved5 August2010.
  48. ^"US CODE: 50, ch. 40—Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction"..law.cornell.edu. 23 March 2010.Archivedfrom the original on 27 April 2010.Retrieved5 August2010.
  49. ^"US CODE: 50, ch. 40, § 2302. Definitions"..law.cornell.edu. 23 March 2010.Retrieved5 August2010.
  50. ^"US CODE: 50, ch. 43—Preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism"..law.cornell.edu. 23 March 2010.Archivedfrom the original on 28 July 2010.Retrieved5 August2010.
  51. ^"US CODE: 50, ch. 43; § 2902. Definitions"..law.cornell.edu. 23 March 2010.Retrieved5 August2010.
  52. ^"US CODE: Chapter 113B—Terrorism"..law.cornell.edu. 28 June 2010.Archivedfrom the original on 19 August 2010.Retrieved5 August2010.
  53. ^"US CODE: Title 18, § 921. Definitions"..law.cornell.edu. 13 September 1994.Retrieved5 August2010.
  54. ^"US CODE: Title 18, § 2332a. Use of weapons of mass destruction"..law.cornell.edu. 28 June 2010.Retrieved5 August2010.
  55. ^"What is A Weapon of Mass Destruction".Fbi.gov. 30 March 2007.Archivedfrom the original on 13 October 2010.Retrieved5 August2010.
  56. ^See, e.g.,"United States v. McVeigh".Google Scholar.Retrieved15 October2021.
  57. ^"FindLaw for Legal Professionals – Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code".Caselaw.lp.findlaw.Archivedfrom the original on 10 June 2011.Retrieved5 August2010.
  58. ^"U.S. v. Richard C. Reid"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 25 March 2009.Retrieved5 August2010.
  59. ^"The Free Lance-Star – 14 Jul 1998".Archivedfrom the original on 2 January 2016.Retrieved11 January2016.
  60. ^"18 U.S. Code § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction"(PDF).Archived(PDF)from the original on 20 July 2017.Retrieved27 June2017.
  61. ^"Indictment of ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI".justice.gov.9 September 2014.
  62. ^Kotz, Deborah (24 April 2013)."Injury toll from Marathon bombs reduced to 264".The Boston Globe.Archived fromthe originalon 31 March 2019.Retrieved29 April2013.Boston public health officials said Tuesday that they have revised downward their estimate of the number of people injured in the Marathon attacks, to 264.
  63. ^"Disarmament Treaties Database: 1925 Geneva Protocol".United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.Archived fromthe originalon 21 May 2019.Retrieved10 February2021.
  64. ^"Disarmament Treaties Database: Partial Test Ban Treaty".United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.Archived fromthe originalon 2 February 2017.Retrieved10 February2021.
  65. ^"Disarmament Treaties Database: Outer Space Treaty".United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.Retrieved10 February2021.
  66. ^"Disarmament Treaties Database: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)".United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.Archived fromthe originalon 3 August 2018.Retrieved10 February2021.
  67. ^"Disarmament Treaties Database: Sea-bed Treaty".United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.Archived fromthe originalon 3 December 2020.Retrieved10 February2021.
  68. ^"Disarmament Treaties Database: Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty".United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.Archived fromthe originalon 3 December 2020.Retrieved10 February2021.
  69. ^"Disarmament Treaties Database: Biological Weapons Convention".United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.Archived fromthe originalon 2 February 2021.Retrieved10 February2021.
  70. ^"Disarmament Treaties Database: Chemical Weapons Convention".United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.Archived fromthe originalon 3 December 2020.Retrieved10 February2021.
  71. ^"Disarmament Treaties Database: Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons".United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.Archived fromthe originalon 26 January 2021.Retrieved10 February2021.
  72. ^abcdefg"How Nuclear Weapons Work | Union of Concerned Scientists".ucsusa.org.Retrieved16 May2024.
  73. ^Kristensen, Hans M; Korda, Matt. (2023). "World Nuclear Forces 2023".InSIPRI Yearbook 2023: Armaments, Disarmament and International Security.Oxford University Press.
  74. ^"Nuclear Warhead - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics".sciencedirect.Retrieved24 June2022.
  75. ^"U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe | NATO Nuclear Weapons Policy | NTI".nti.org.Archivedfrom the original on 7 November 2018.Retrieved19 March2019.
  76. ^United Nations (1972).Biological Weapons Convention.
  77. ^Wheelis, Mark (September 2002)."Biological Warfare at the 1346 Siege of Caffa".Emerging Infectious Diseases.8(9): 971–975.doi:10.3201/eid0809.010536.PMC2732530.PMID12194776.
  78. ^Mayor, Adrienne (2003).Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World.Abrams Press.ISBN978-1585673483.
  79. ^ab"The A to Z of international relations".The Economist.Retrieved23 November2023.
  80. ^"Canada".Nuclear Threat Initiative.Retrieved4 March2021.
  81. ^"France".Nuclear Threat Initiative.Retrieved4 March2021.
  82. ^"Iraq".Nuclear Threat Initiative.Retrieved4 March2021.
  83. ^"Japan".Nuclear Threat Initiative.Retrieved4 March2021.
  84. ^"South Africa".Nuclear Threat Initiative.Retrieved4 March2021.
  85. ^"Russia".Nuclear Threat Initiative.Retrieved4 March2021.
  86. ^"United Kingdom".Nuclear Threat Initiative.Retrieved4 March2021.
  87. ^"United States".Nuclear Threat Initiative.Retrieved4 March2021.
  88. ^Dando, Malcolm (2006).Chapter 2: Biological warfare before 1945. In Bioterror and Biowarfare: A Beginner's Guide.Oneworld. pp. 11–31.ISBN9781851684472.
  89. ^Leitenberg, M., Zilinskas, R., & Kuhn, J. (2012). Conclusion. InThe Soviet Biological Weapons Program(pp. 698-712). Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. Retrieved February 7, 2021, fromhttp:// jstor.org/stable/j.ctt2jbscf.30
  90. ^Baxter RR, Buergenthal T (28 March 2017)."Legal Aspects of the Geneva Protocol of 1925".The American Journal of International Law.64(5): 853–879.doi:10.2307/2198921.JSTOR2198921.S2CID147499122.Archivedfrom the original on 27 October 2017.Retrieved27 October2017.
  91. ^"Text of the 1925 Geneva Protocol".United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.Archived fromthe originalon 9 February 2021.Retrieved2 March2021.
  92. ^"Disarmament Treaties Database: 1925 Geneva Protocol".United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.Archived fromthe originalon 21 May 2019.Retrieved2 March2021.
  93. ^Beard, Jack M. (April 2007)."The Shortcomings of Indeterminacy in Arms Control Regimes: The Case of the Biological Weapons Convention".American Journal of International Law.101(2): 277.doi:10.1017/S0002930000030098.ISSN0002-9300.S2CID8354600.
  94. ^ab"Biological Weapons Convention".United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.Archivedfrom the original on 15 February 2021.Retrieved2 March2021.
  95. ^"Disarmament Treaties Database: Biological Weapons Convention".United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs.Archived fromthe originalon 2 February 2021.Retrieved2 March2021.
  96. ^Vilches, Diego (15 November 2015)."One hundred and one years after a milestone: Modern chemical weapons and World War I".Educacion Quimica (chemistry education).27(3).
  97. ^"Gas Warfare at Dura-Europos".World Archaeology.7 November 2009.Retrieved22 December2021.
  98. ^Timperley, Christopher (October 2018)."Advice on chemical weapons sample stability and storage provided by the Scientific Advisory Board of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to increase investigative capabilities worldwide".Talanta.188.
  99. ^ab"Status of Participation in the Chemical Weapons Convention as at 14 October 2013".Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.14 October 2013.
  100. ^ab"SIGNATORY STATES".Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.2 September 2013.
  101. ^"Myanmar Joins Chemical Weapons Convention".Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.9 July 2015.
  102. ^https:// peoacwa.army.mil/destruction-progress/
  103. ^SeeList of weapons of mass destruction treaties.
  104. ^SeeDebate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasakifor various perspectives on the only combat use of nuclear weapons. TheKhabarovsk War Crime Trialssentenced some members of the Japanese army to jail terms for the use of biological and chemical weapons during World War II. TheHalabja poison gas attackwas determined a war crime by Dutch and Iraqi courts, resulting in the execution ofAli Hassan al-Majid.
  105. ^SeeAerial bombardment and international law.
  106. ^TheBombing of Dresden in World War IIin particular has been referred to as mass murder: Volkery, Carsten."60 Years after the Bombing of Dresden: A War of Words",Der Spiegel,2 February 2005.Archived9 September 2007 at theWayback Machine.
  107. ^In addition to previous treaties on bombardment of civilian areas generally, carpet bombing of cities, towns, villages, or other areas containing a concentration of civilians was specifically designated a war crime by the 1977Protocol Iof theGeneva Conventions:Fischer, Horst."Carpet or Area Bombing".Crimes of War.Archived fromthe originalon 2 December 2015.Retrieved8 December2015.
  108. ^Wright, David T. (11 June 2003)."Weapons of mass distraction".The Last Ditch. Archived fromthe originalon 15 June 2011.Retrieved5 August2010.
  109. ^"Weapons of Mass Destruction Are Overrated as a Threat to America".The Independent Institute. 28 January 2004.Archivedfrom the original on 13 June 2010.Retrieved5 August2010.
  110. ^abEasterbrook, Gregg."Term Limits".The New Republic.Archived fromthe originalon 11 October 2007.
  111. ^Nowicki, Dan (6 September 2014)."'Daisy Girl' political ad still haunting 50 years later ".The Arizona Republic.Retrieved2 February2022.
  112. ^St. Clair, Jeffrey (13 August 2003)."War Pimps".Anderson Valley Advertiser. Archived fromthe originalon 11 June 2011.Retrieved5 August2010.
  113. ^Blair, Tony; Bush, George W. (31 January 2003)."President Bush Meets with Prime Minister Blair".The White House.Archived fromthe originalon 12 March 2011.Retrieved1 February2021.
  114. ^Quigley, Samantha L. (29 June 2006)."Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says".US Department of Defense.Archived fromthe originalon 14 June 2014.Retrieved1 April2014.
  115. ^"Weapon of mass destruction".American Heritage Dictionary.Archived fromthe originalon 4 September 2015.Retrieved24 April2015.
  116. ^"18 U.S.C. 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction".GovInfo.Archivedfrom the original on 12 May 2015.Retrieved24 April2015.
  117. ^"Case 1:13-mj-02106-MBB Document 3"(PDF).U.S. Department of Justice.21 April 2013.Archived(PDF)from the original on 23 June 2014.Retrieved24 April2015.
  118. ^Moeller, Susan D. (9 March 2004)."Media coverage of weapons of mass destruction"(PDF).Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland.Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 22 October 2004.Retrieved19 May2021.
  119. ^"Psychological Science – Journal Information".Blackwellpublishing. Archived fromthe originalon 14 August 2010.Retrieved5 August2010.
  120. ^Kull, Steven; Ramsay, Clay; Lewis, Evan (1 December 2003)."Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War".Political Science Quarterly.118(4): 569–598.doi:10.1002/j.1538-165X.2003.tb00406.x.ISSN0032-3195.
  121. ^"Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War"(PDF).Archived from the original on 10 February 2006.Retrieved22 October2009.{{cite web}}:CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link),PIPA, 2 October 2003
  122. ^ "Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq".Fox News. 22 June 2006. Archived fromthe originalon 24 April 2008.Retrieved30 June2007.
  123. ^Kay, David. "House Armed Services Committee Hearing", 29 June 2006
  124. ^Duelfer, Charles.Expert: Iraq WMD Find Did Not Point to Ongoing ProgramArchived16 December 2018 at theWayback MachineNPR. 22 June 2006
  125. ^Shachtman, Noah (23 October 2010)."WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results".Wired.Archivedfrom the original on 24 March 2014.Retrieved12 March2017.
  126. ^"CIA's Final Report: No WMD Found in Iraq".NBC News.25 April 2005.Retrieved1 July2007.
  127. ^"Iraq WMD Inspectors End Search, Find Nothing".Fox News. 26 April 2005.Archivedfrom the original on 5 August 2007.Retrieved24 July2007.
  128. ^"Welcome – WMD Awareness Programme".26 June 2009. Archived from the original on 26 June 2009.Retrieved9 October2017.{{cite web}}:CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
  129. ^Herron, Kerry G.; Jenkins-Smith, Hank C.; Hughes, Scott (June 2000).Mass and Elite Viewson Nuclear Security(Report). UNM Institute for Public Policy.Retrieved9 March2024.Reports of the three previous studies in this series can be obtained from the National Technical Information Service. See...(3)Kerry G. Herron and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, 1998, Public Perspectives on Nuclear Security: US National Security Surveys 1993–1997
  130. ^abHerron, K.G.; Jenkins-Smith, H.C. (1 August 1998).Public perspectives on nuclear security. US national security surveys, 1993--1997(Report). Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI).doi:10.2172/665965.
  131. ^"Pakistan's Nuclear Tests Attempt to Restore Mutual Deterrence, Pakistan Tells Disarmament Committee".United NationsMeetings Coverage and Press Releases.20 October 1998.Retrieved9 March2024.
  132. ^Venkatesh; Tsao, Jeffrey Y.; Bustamante, Constanza M. Vidal; Calidas, Doug; Bingen, Kari A.; Williams, Heather; Nye, Joseph S.; Walt, Stephen M.; Brooks, Harvey; Comiter, Marcus (13 May 1998)."Indian Nuclear Escalation".Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.Retrieved9 March2024.
  133. ^"The Pipa/Knowledge Networks Poll"(PDF).29 September 2005. Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 29 September 2005.Retrieved14 May2012.
  134. ^Russian public opinion on nuclear weapons (5 August 2005)."Russian public opinion on nuclear weapons – Blog – Russian strategic nuclear forces".Russianforces.org. Archived fromthe originalon 16 February 2006.Retrieved5 August2010.
  135. ^Russian public opinion on nuclear weapons (5 August 2005)."Russian public opinion on nuclear weapons – Blog – Russian strategic nuclear forces".Russianforces.org. Archived fromthe originalon 16 February 2006.Retrieved5 August2010.
  136. ^"Unicode Character 'SKULL AND CROSSBONES' (U+2620)".fileformat.info.Archived fromthe originalon 13 May 2018.Retrieved12 May2018.
  137. ^"Unicode Character 'RADIOACTIVE SIGN' (U+2622)".fileformat.info.Archived fromthe originalon 13 May 2018.Retrieved12 May2018.
  138. ^"Unicode Character 'BIOHAZARD SIGN' (U+2623)".fileformat.info.Archived fromthe originalon 13 May 2018.Retrieved12 May2018.
  139. ^"Origin of the Radiation Warning Symbol (Trefoil)".Retrieved13 October2021.
  140. ^ab"Biohazard and radioactive Symbol, design and proportions"(PDF).Archived fromthe original(PDF)on 31 December 2013.
  141. ^"Origin of the Radiation Warning Sign (Trefoil)".orau.org.Retrieved13 October2021.
  142. ^Linda Lodding, "Drop it and Run! New Symbol Warns of Radiation Dangers and Aims to Save LivesArchived20 January 2012 at theWayback Machine,"IAEA Bulletin482 (March 2007): 70–72.
  143. ^"IAEA news release Feb 2007".15 February 2007.Archivedfrom the original on 17 February 2007.Retrieved11 January2016.
  144. ^"Biohazard Symbol History".Archived fromthe originalon 13 February 2012.

Bibliography[edit]

  • Bentley, Michelle.Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Strategic Use of a Concept(Routledge, 2014.) On the usage of the term in American policy
  • Cirincione, Joseph, ed.Repairing the Regime: Preventing the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction(Routledge, 2014)
  • Croddy, Eric A. ed.Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology, and History(2 vol 2004); 1024ppexcerpt
  • Curley, Robert, ed.Weapons of Mass Destruction(Britannica Educational Publishing, 2011)
  • Graham Jr, Thomas, and Thomas Graham.Common sense on weapons of mass destruction(University of Washington Press, 2011)
  • Horowitz, Michael C., and Neil Narang. "Poor Man's atomic bomb? exploring the relationship between" weapons of mass destruction "."Journal of Conflict Resolution(2013)online
  • Hutchinson, Robert.Weapons of Mass Destruction: The no-nonsense guide to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons today(Hachette UK, 2011)

Definition and origin[edit]

International law[edit]

Compliance with international WMD regimes[edit]

Media[edit]

Ethics[edit]

Public perceptions[edit]

External links[edit]