The term "weapons of mass destruction" or WMDs has always been an inaccurate one. The phrase is used to mean "chemical, biological or nuclear weapons." However when compared to #3, #1 and #2 are like a burning match in front of a forest fire.
Nuclear weapons kill millions outright, destroy entire cities, can cause climate change, destroy electrical equipment with their Electro-Magnetic Pulse, and kill tens of thousands more in the decades to follow due to radiation poisoning.
Chemical and biological weapons, don't really destroy anything. They can kill people, but they don't cause much "destruction." In addition, while the substances can be quite deadly, the often aren't, because the attackers don't have many good ways of dispersing these substances. Most germs/viruses or chemicals have to be inhaled or come in contact with a person's skin to have an effect, but most chemical and biological agents are heavier than air. So even if you release your chemical or biological weapon as a gas, the droplets of chemical and germ will drop to the ground fairly quickly, where they will not be effect much of anybody (except the people who like licking pavement or rolling naked on the ground).
Don't get me wrong, chemical and biological weapons can be very deadly (I saw an estimate that if anthrax was sprayed from a low-flying plane over a major city on a still night, it could kill 1-3 million people). But in the way that most of us probably think of them, as villains with gas cannisters or terrorists with bio-grenades, they aren't that big a threat. Certainly not as big as the potential threat of nuclear weapons.
Biological and chemical weapons are a frightening prospect. The idea that you can be walking down the street and suddenly be breathing poisons that liquify your lungs or be infected with a ruthless disease is the stuff of nightmares. But my point is that nuclear bombs are "weapons of mass destruction", but I don't think that biological or chemical weapons fit that category (at least not at present).
Therefore, I am going to stop using the term "weapons of mass destruction" altogether (well, I mean to, anyway). When I mean WMD, I'll say "nuclear weapons." And when I'm talking about bio or chemical weapons, I'll use my new phrase, Weapons of Scary-ness (WOS).
Thank you.
What? Weapons of mass destruction? We've mentioned no such thing...What'cha ya talkin' about, Willis?
Posted by: Eric at February 1, 2004 09:33 PMLying Media Bastards is both a radio show and website. The show airs Mondays 2-4pm PST on KillRadio.org, and couples excellent music with angry news commentary. And the website, well, you're looking at it. Both projects focus on our media-marinated world, political lies, corporate tyranny, and the folks fighting the good fight against these monsters. All brought to you by Jake Sexton, The Most Beloved Man in America ®. contact: jake+at+lyingmediabastards.com |
Media News |
November 16, 2004Tales of Media WoeSenate May Ram Copyright Bill- one of the most depressing stories of the day that didn't involve death or bombs. It's the music and movie industries' wet dream. It criminalizes peer-to-peer software makers, allows the government to file civil lawsuits on behalf of these media industries, and eliminates fair use. Fair use is the idea that I can use a snippet of a copyrighted work for educational, political, or satirical purposes, without getting permission from the copyright-holder first. And most tellingly, the bill legalizes technology that would automatically skip over "obejctionable content" (i.e. sex and violence) in a DVD, but bans devices that would automatically skip over commericals. This is a blatant, blatant, blatant gift to the movie industry. Fuck the movie industry, fuck the music industry, fuck the Senate. Music industry aims to send in radio cops- the recording industry says that you're not allowed to record songs off the radio, be it real radio or internet radio. And now they're working on preventing you from recording songs off internet radio through a mixture of law and technological repression (although I imagine their techno-fixes will get hacked pretty quickly). The shocking truth about the FCC: Censorship by the tyranny of the few- blogger Jeff Jarvis discovers that the recent $1.2 million FCC fine against a sex scene in Fox's "Married By America" TV show was not levied because hundreds of people wrote the FCC and complained. It was not because 159 people wrote in and complained (which is the FCC's current rationale). No, thanks to Jarvis' FOIA request, we find that only 23 people (of the show's several million viewers) wrote in and complained. On top of that, he finds that 21 of those letters were just copy-and-paste email jobs that some people attached their names to. Jarvis then spins this a bit by saying that "only 3" people actually wrote letters to the FCC, which is misleading but technically true. So somewhere between 3 and 23 angry people can determine what you can't see on television. Good to know. Reuters Union Considers Striking Over Layoffs- will a strike by such a major newswire service impact the rest of the world's media? Pentagon Starts Work On War Internet- the US military is talking about the creation of a global, wireless, satellite-aided computer network for use in battle. I think I saw a movie about this once... Conservative host returns to the air after week suspension for using racial slur- Houston radio talk show host (and somtime Rush Limbaugh substitute) Mark Belling referred to Mexican-Americans as "wetbacks" on his show. He was suspended for a couple of weeks, and then submitted a written apology for the racial slur to a local newspaper. But he seems to be using the slur and its surrounding controversy to boost his conservative cred with his listeners. Stay Tuned for Nudes- Cleveland TV news anchor Sharon Reed aired a story about artist Spencer Tunick, who uses large numbers of naked volunteers in his installations and photographs. The news report will be unique in that it will not blur or black-out the usual naughty bits. The story will air late at night, when it's allegedly okay with the FCC if you broadcast "indecent" material. The author of this article doesn't seem to notice that Reed first claims that this report is a publicity stunt, but then claims it's a protest against FCC repression. I'd like to think it's the latter, but I'm not that much of a sucker. More Media News |
Quotes |
"8:45? And here I am yapping away like it's 8:35!" |
Snapshots |
Mission: MongoliaJake's first attempt at homemade Mongolican barbecue: Failure. What went right: correctly guessing several key seasonings- lemon, ginger, soy, garlic, chili. What went wrong: still missing some ingredients, and possibly had one wrong, rice vinegar. Way too much lemon and chili. Result: not entirely edible. Plan for future: try to get people at Great Khan's restaurant to tell me what's in the damn sauce. |