'Believe it or not, what we refer to as "weapons of mass destruction"
are actually not very destructive.' David C Rapoport, professor of
political science at University College Los Angeles and editor of the
Journal of Terrorism and Political Violence , has examined what he
calls 'easily available evidence' relating to the historic use of
chemical and biological weapons. The term 'weapons of mass destruction'
refers to three types of weapons: nuclear, chemical and biological. A
chemical weapon is any weapon that uses a manufactured chemical, such
as sarin, mustard gas or hydrogen cyanide, to kill or injure. A
biological weapon uses bacteria or viruses, such as smallpox, ricin or
anthrax, to cause destruction - inducing sickness and disease as a
means of undermining enemy forces or inflicting civilian casualties. We
find such weapons repulsive, because of the horrible way in which the
victims convulse and die - but they appear to be less 'destructive'
than conventional weapons. [more ]
Article originally appeared on (http://brownwatch.com/).
See website for complete article licensing information.
]