The end of WMDs

IN THE NEWS
Well, at least the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" may pass out of usage. The Carnegie Endowment for Peace is abandoning the term for a reason I wholeheartedly support: it confuses more than it defines.

Armchair Generalist is the most articulate blogger on this point. To sum up where he and I agree that "weapons of mass destruction" is a misleading phrase:

• Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons inflict different levels of damage. While any nuclear attack is catastrophic, a small release of chemical or biological agents may not be. (For a real-life case study, look at Aum Shinrikyo's release of sarin in the Tokyo subway.)
• Some of these weapons have battlefield applications. For others, it's a bit of a stretch to see how they might be used. Biological weapons don't seem to be containable to a particular area of operations. Nuclear weapons seem counter-productive, particularly for anything less than major interstate warfare (in which case, you probably have escalation to strategic nuclear strikes to consider).
• Some of these weapons are usable as terror weapons, while others are not.
• Some of these weapons are easy to manufacture. Others require more specialized expertise and equipment, not to mention highly unavailable raw materials like plutonium, for anyone but a nation-state to produce.
• All of these weapons have their peculiar delivery problems.
• Each type of weapon, when used, requires a different type of response. Where hazmat teams can scrub an area clean of chemical agents, radioactivity is another matter entirely.

"WMDs," therefore, are in most respects more alike than different. They've also been vastly overblown as a threat, particularly in the hands of terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda. Obviously, no one wants Osama bin Laden to have access to a nuclear bomb. At the same time, Al Qaeda seems to be doing just fine with conventional explosives, box cutters, and pepper spray.