If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#281
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Merry Christmas
Pudentame wrote:
The distinction in the definitions are from a STANAG - STandard NAto AGreement... so everyone is using the same terminology & understands the what each other mean. So the people most likely to have to deal with them in the consequences of use. For military purposes the difference is how those weapons affect the battlefield. Generally the distinction is whether you can "continue the mission" if attacked with the weapon. Nuclear weapons have significantly greater effects (order of magnitude) on the ability of military forces to maneuver, hold territory, engage the "enemy" and reach the military objective than Chemical/Biological weapons. Google provides a list of sites where a search term appears, not definitions of the search terms themselves. Google does not differentiate between sites using a term correctly and those that are not. Many carelessly confuse the two. I don't. WMD is generally (including in NATO, US forces and most everywhere else defined as I stated in my other post. ""Research for this paper identified more than 40 different definitions of WMD.29 Some of the definitions with official standing are identified in appendix A (used in the U.S. executive branch), appendix B (enacted into U.S. Federal law), appendix C (versions used internationally), and appendix D (enacted into U.S. state laws). Almost all of the more than 40 definitions listed in the appendices fit into 1 of 5 alternative definitions, allowing for some slight variations in meaning.30 n WMD as a synonym for nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons31 n WMD as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) weapons32 n WMD as CBRN and high explosive (CBRNE) weapons33 n WMD as weapons that cause massive destruction or kill large numbers of people, and do not necessarily include or exclude CBRN weapons34 n WMD as weapons of mass destruction or effect, potentially including CBRNE weapons and other means of causing massive disruption, such as cyberattacks.35"" http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occassional_.../CSWMD/OP4.pdf Refers. Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#282
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Merry Christmas
Pudentame wrote:
snip Google provides a list of sites where a search term appears, not definitions of the search terms themselves. Google does not differentiate between sites using a term correctly and those that are not. Hi... It sounds like you may not be aware of it, so on the off-chance I'm right, you can get google to look for definitions only, like this, for example... define: wmd and the only hits returned will be actual definitions. If I recall correctly, the above example returned only (or about) 4. Take care. Ken |
#283
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Merry Christmas
Alan Browne wrote:
Pudentame wrote: Poison gas is not a weapon of mass DESTRUCTION. The military makes that distinction between mass destruction and mass casualty. I don't care how many rubes misuse the term. "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - Generally refers to chemical, nuclear, biological agents or explosive devices." http://www1.va.gov/emshg/apps/emp/emp/definitions.htm "Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a munition with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of living beings." --Wikipedia I think you might think of terms that killing a human is destruction. Killing a lot of them is mass destruction. Cheers, Alan Destroying a lot of property can also be a definition of mass destruction. Would it not be 'mass destruction' if a city like London were destroyed, even if everyone was evacuated first? |
#284
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Merry Christmas
Ron Hunter wrote:
Alan Browne wrote: Pudentame wrote: Poison gas is not a weapon of mass DESTRUCTION. The military makes that distinction between mass destruction and mass casualty. I don't care how many rubes misuse the term. "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - Generally refers to chemical, nuclear, biological agents or explosive devices." http://www1.va.gov/emshg/apps/emp/emp/definitions.htm "Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a munition with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of living beings." --Wikipedia I think you might think of terms that killing a human is destruction. Killing a lot of them is mass destruction. Cheers, Alan Destroying a lot of property can also be a definition of mass destruction. Would it not be 'mass destruction' if a city like London were destroyed, even if everyone was evacuated first? Certainly. But Mr. P seems to believe that the killing of humans on a grand numerical scale is not mass destruction. It certainly is. Back in the 70/80's the US were contemplating a neutron bomb ("Enhanced Radiation" weapon. A relatively small nuclear weapon designed to release a lot of neutrons and not so much "mechanical" energy. The intent is to kill people (all living things, actually) and to disable electronics with the EMP. Infrastructure (cities, airports, etc.) would not be destroyed or even mcuh damaged). There is no way to not call this a WMD. Congress voted against the weapon under political pressure (that doesn't mean they made the right or wrong decision, it just means they made it for the wrong reasons, IMO). (In physics, mass destruction is not possible, but it can be transformed into energy ... and back). You can google around and find all sorts of studies on gas dispertion models and Pk associated with gas. It is definitely a WMD. Cheers, Alan -- -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. |
#285
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Merry Christmas
"Alan Browne" wrote in message ... Ron Hunter wrote: Alan Browne wrote: Pudentame wrote: Poison gas is not a weapon of mass DESTRUCTION. The military makes that distinction between mass destruction and mass casualty. I don't care how many rubes misuse the term. "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - Generally refers to chemical, nuclear, biological agents or explosive devices." http://www1.va.gov/emshg/apps/emp/emp/definitions.htm "Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a munition with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of living beings." --Wikipedia I think you might think of terms that killing a human is destruction. Killing a lot of them is mass destruction. Cheers, Alan Destroying a lot of property can also be a definition of mass destruction. Would it not be 'mass destruction' if a city like London were destroyed, even if everyone was evacuated first? Certainly. But Mr. P seems to believe that the killing of humans on a grand numerical scale is not mass destruction. It certainly is. Back in the 70/80's the US were contemplating a neutron bomb ("Enhanced Radiation" weapon. A relatively small nuclear weapon designed to release a lot of neutrons and not so much "mechanical" energy. The intent is to kill people (all living things, actually) and to disable electronics with the EMP. Infrastructure (cities, airports, etc.) would not be destroyed or even mcuh damaged). There is no way to not call this a WMD. Congress voted against the weapon under political pressure (that doesn't mean they made the right or wrong decision, it just means they made it for the wrong reasons, IMO). Yes....I always thought the neutron bomb was a good idea....Just kill the people, but not destroy the rest of the city.....But they decided that destruction of the city was one of the chief reasons why people thought war was so horrible, so to eliminate that would make war too palatable......Of course, that was before terrorists....Today, the terrorists would really go for such a thing, since killing the people is exactly what will get them into heaven, and those 72 virgins........ |
#286
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Merry Christmas
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:44:36 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote: Yes....I always thought the neutron bomb was a good idea....Just kill the people, but not destroy the rest of the city.....But they decided that destruction of the city was one of the chief reasons why people thought war was so horrible, so to eliminate that would make war too palatable......Of course, that was before terrorists....Today, the terrorists would really go for such a thing, since killing the people is exactly what will get them into heaven, and those 72 virgins........ The old, "Let's make war so horrible people will not stand for it" idea. A Dr. Richard Gatling had the same idea. Didn't work. -- Hillary Clinton was sworn into the Senate Thursday with her hand on a Bible which was held by her husband Bill. You could see it was an old dog-eared family Bible. It still has the yellow highlighting on the passages that say oral sex is not adultery. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Merry Christmas! | Alan Browne | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | December 26th 04 09:29 PM |
Merry Christmas All | Roe Thomas | Digital Photography | 3 | December 26th 04 06:50 PM |
Merry Christmas to Everyone | C J Campbell | Digital Photography | 2 | December 25th 04 01:02 PM |
Merry Christmas | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | December 24th 04 11:10 PM |
Merry Christmas!!! | Alan Browne | Film & Labs | 9 | December 25th 03 08:27 PM |