Weapons of Mass Destruction.

For John, BLUF:  Sometimes words lose their value, and then can't do their job.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

A long time ago the term Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) meant a nuclear device, an A-Bomb or H-Bomb.  Then the Soviets talked us into including Chemical and Biological weapons.  Then, after 9/11, the term got deflated to include truck bombs.  Someone I know wrote in an EMail:

Wow I hate it when the FBI calls a fake high explosive device a "WMD." Stupid lawyer gimmick, not a WMD incident.

This is about the [fake] 1,000 pound explosive outside the New York Fed Office.

The accused, Mr Quazi Mohammad Rezwanul Ahsan Nafis, came to our shores in January, on a student visa.  It appears he needed more education.  For one thing, New York City Police have a massive counter-terrorism intelligence operation.  Then you have the FBI not wishng to be outshone.

But, to the complaint, if one thousand pounds of explosives (half a ton) is a WMD, what is a small nuclear device at 10 kt (10,000 tons) of explosive force.  In the late 1960s I sat nuclear alert and 345 kt was normal and 1.1 megatons not unknown (depending on the target and desired outcome).  How do we classify them?

I would note that this terminology being used by police and prosecutors comes to us thanks to the carelessness of the US Congress.  I am sure our delegation strongly opposed it, but somebody voted for it.

UPDATE:  Ah, another EMail.  A little technical explanation of the term WMD in our legal system.

To be fair, the fault lies with Congress in the first instance.   The so-called “WMD” statute is 18 USC 2339a, titled “Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction.”  In relevant part, and rather unexpectedly, this statute defines “weapons of mass destruction” to mean a remarkable array of things beyond CBRN.   Specifically, the definition includes “any destructive device,” and that phrase in turn is defined in a related statute to include just about any explosive device or propellant-based projective weapon one can imagine.   As a result, it’s a standard charge in cases involving run-of-the-mill explosives (or, as in this case, a defendant who simply thinks he’s working with run-of-the-mill explosives).   None of that, of course, is a complete justification for the FBI and DOJ to put emphasis on the WMD phrase in discussing the incident, no matter how accurate it is as a description of the charge itself.

For those who are interested in seeing the actual statutory definitions, I reprint the relevant portions below:

1) The WMD statute itself criminalizes the use of “weapons of mass destruction,” and defines WMD to include all of the following four categories:

(A)any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this 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.

And as for the meaning of “any destructive device,” 18 USC 921 defines that to mean any of the following lengthy and quite broad list of explosives and projectile-based weapons:

(A)any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—

(i)bomb,
(ii)grenade,
(iii)rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv)missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v)mine, or
(vi)device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

(B)any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and

(C)any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.

The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

Ah, Congress.

Regards  —  Cliff

-0 W 0