Merry Christmas

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Alan Browne, Dec 24, 2006.

  1. Alan Browne

    Pudentame Guest

    Odd, I don't see the U.S. Army included among the references.
    I don't, in fact, see any U.S. Government agency among the references.
    Nor do I see any internationally recognized agency, such as the IAEA,
    AEC, NRC, etc.

    The definitions I use are the ones I learned in the U.S. Army; my MOS is
    74D - Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Specialist.
    (recently re-organized from 54B)
    Pudentame, Jan 5, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. Alan Browne

    Ken Weitzel Guest


    Google "used wmd". Lots of hits, you'll get tired of reading. They all
    contain the words USA or America as the user and (if you count depleted
    uranium) continue to unashamedly use to this day.

    Ken Weitzel, Jan 5, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Alan Browne

    Pudentame Guest

    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.
    Pudentame, Jan 5, 2007
  4. Alan Browne

    Ken Weitzel Guest


    Whose military gets to decide? The one doing the poisoning? Or the
    one(s) being poisoned?

    As for the term - google define wmd. Read in particular the one from
    a highly renowned university in your own country. Surely you're not
    about to suggest that they're rubes?

    Take care.

    Ken Weitzel, Jan 6, 2007
  5. Yes.....To the ones who are killed, any weapon was a "WMD".....I would
    loosely define them as any weapon that kills indiscriminately.....That is,
    that doesn't precisely define exactly who is being targeted for death....In
    this sense, even a hand grenade is a WMD, since it just kills whoever
    happens to be in the foxhole.......
    William Graham, Jan 6, 2007
  6. Alan Browne

    John Turco Guest



    Hello, MarkĀ²:

    "'Brownie' points" -- finally, something photography-related, even if
    it's just a passing reference to a Kodak box camera! <g>

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Jan 6, 2007
  7. Alan Browne

    John Turco Guest

    ASAAR wrote:

    Hello, ASAAR:

    Lo, and the Lord Kodak, said unto them: "Let there be Ektalite!" :-D

    John Turco <>
    John Turco, Jan 6, 2007
  8. Alan Browne

    Ron Hunter Guest

    Did that briefly in the Air Force (1964-1968), and the term WMD wasn't
    common. Anyone who thinks biological weapons aren't 'mass destruction'
    needs a crutch for a broken brain.
    Ron Hunter, Jan 6, 2007
  9. Alan Browne

    ASAAR Guest

    Nooo, not Lord Kodak. Kadak. As in "I'm Looking For Kadak", a
    wonderful Christmas tale of joy, brotherhood and maybe a minyan.
    ASAAR, Jan 6, 2007
  10. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    "Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - Generally refers to chemical,
    nuclear, biological agents or explosive devices."

    "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.

    Alan Browne, Jan 6, 2007
  11. Alan Browne

    Bill Funk Guest

    "*I* know the correct meaning of words. Those rubes who use it with
    other meanings are just wrong.

    The Coney Island Polar Bear
    Club hosted its annual New
    Year's Day swim in the frigid
    waters off New York City Monday.
    It wasn't completely successful.
    Paris Hilton and Britney Spears
    came out of the water just as
    drunk as when they went in.
    Bill Funk, Jan 6, 2007
  12. Alan Browne

    Pudentame Guest

    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.
    Pudentame, Jan 7, 2007
  13. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    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
    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""

    Alan Browne, Jan 7, 2007
  14. Alan Browne

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    Pudentame wrote:


    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

    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 Weitzel, Jan 7, 2007
  15. Alan Browne

    Ron Hunter Guest

    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?
    Ron Hunter, Jan 7, 2007
  16. Alan Browne

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.

    Alan Browne, Jan 7, 2007
  17. 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........
    William Graham, Jan 8, 2007
  18. Alan Browne

    Bill Funk Guest

    The old, "Let's make war so horrible people will not stand for it"
    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.
    Bill Funk, Jan 8, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.