Publication

This paper aims to assess the value of the term "weapons of mass destruction" (WMD). After examining the different kinds of WMD (nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological), the author suggests that the term is fundamentally flawed. This is because, firstly, there are a number of massively destructive weapons which are not classified as WMD (e.g. "daisy cutters" and thermobaric bombs, both of which have been used widely by US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq); and secondly, because some WMD, particularly chemical and radiological weapons, cause significantly less damage than certain conventional weapons. The author concludes that the term "WMD" is a socio-political construct rather than a technical classification, and should be rejected altogether.