tk2kewl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-10-05 12:45 PM
Original message |
How many people does a weapon need to be designed to kill |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-10-05 12:46 PM by tk2kewl
in order to be considered a weapon of mass destruction?
|
soothsayer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-10-05 12:48 PM
Response to Original message |
1. you notice how they never define their terms, too, eh? |
|
Lets 'em be very loosey goosey with the language.
|
tk2kewl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-10-05 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. those daisy cutters are pretty damn ugly... |
|
don't they qualify? :shrug:
|
Tesha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-10-05 12:49 PM
Response to Original message |
2. It has to be capable of scaring White people. (NT) |
Kipling
(929 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-10-05 12:50 PM
Response to Original message |
4. None! Hell, it doesn't even have to exist. |
tk2kewl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-10-05 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. ... does it need to be delivered by manned and unmanned aerial vehicles? |
mark11727
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-10-05 01:00 PM
Response to Original message |
6. I'm not sure, but I think it has to do with how "controllable" it is... |
|
...for example, to a certain degree, a bomb can be directed to detonate at a specific target. On the other hand, a chemical or biological weapon could disperse indiscriminately depending on the wind, and destroy much more than its intended target.
|
tk2kewl
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-10-05 01:08 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. so would one of those daisy cutter bombs just be a WVLD? |
|
Weapon of Very Large Destruction :shrug:
|
ET Awful
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-10-05 01:04 PM
Response to Original message |
7. I'm still of the opinion that the only real weapon of mass destruction is |
|
nuclear.
Chemical weapons do not cause mass destruction, under prime conditions they can cause mass death, but only if numerous munitions are used and under certain circumstances.
A nuclear weapon requires no particular environmental conditions to reach it's maximum efficacy, you detonate it, it blows up, things are destroyed and people die.
With a chemical weapon, numerous munitions are needed, a strong wind can effect the potency, rain can dilute it, being in a room with filtered air can block it. It may be a very nasty deadly weapon, but it's not a weapon of mass "destruction". Same for biological weapons for the most part.
|
LeftHander
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Nov-10-05 01:09 PM
Response to Original message |
9. Kill Ratio.....is used in weapons marketing... |
|
Edited on Thu Nov-10-05 01:12 PM by LeftHander
The kill ratio is:
$ cost of weapon/# dead in use of weapon (or vice versa...)
I saw a advertisment from Honeywell when I I was a picture framer in Minneapolis. A lady brought in a proof of a two page ad for a torpepo made by honeywell. It was touting in big fonts the highest kill ratio at this price point. Either way the manfacturer touted this torpedo gave you more death for your dollar,
She saw my obvious disgust and she returned the ad to her bag and we conentrated on her needle point instead.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 04:17 PM
Response to Original message |