XPost: alt.politics.democrat, alt.culture.outerspace, sci.space.policy   
   XPost: sci.space.station   
   From: henry@spsystems.net   
      
   In article ,   
   John Schilling  wrote:   
   >>The US's "WMD list" is an irrelevant joke.  The *international* definition   
   >>of "weapons of mass destruction" -- the one that applies to treaties -- is   
   >>nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, period.   
   >   
   >Do you know of a treaty or other formal agreement which specifies this   
   >definition?  I've never seen such a thing, which apparent gap fosters no   
   >small ammount of confusion in discussions like this.   
      
   Hmm, now that you mention it, no, I can't put my finger on a formal   
   definition.   
      
   >...But yes, the consensus   
   >definition of "WMD" among people who aren't trying to obfuscate some dubious   
   >bit of politics is "Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and if someone invents an   
   >antimatter bomb next year we'll add it to the list".   
      
   Exactly.  There has been occasional debate about whether very large and   
   very effective "conventional" weapons conceivably might qualify, but so   
   far nobody's proposed it seriously, to the best of my knowledge.   
   --   
   MOST launched 30 June; first light, 29 July; 5arcsec    | Henry Spencer   
   pointing, 10 Sept; first science, early Oct; all well.  | henry@spsystems.net   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)