Simply because they are all WMDs. Think of it. A single shot from an rifle can kill one person. A cloud of anthrax spores over a Russian town can kill dozens and a chemical attack in Kurdistan can kill 5000 people. Nuclear weapons are simply the extreme end of WMD. And as for bio-weapons being around for centuries, this is true, although they were never used, developed and harnessed effectively until this century. Same goes for chemical weapons. There has never been the same threat of fundamentalist organizations or terror groups attaining these weapons in the past.

Thanks for the thoughts, K. I've read, though, that ton for ton, chemical weapons have historically had no more lethality than conventional HE, which terror groups HAVE had access to for a while, without succeeding in disrupting civilization as we know it. A gas attack can kill 5000 in Kurdistan over the course of days or weeks; jet fuel loaded on two airliners killed 2,800 at the World Trade Center in a matter of hours. To me they're still in the same league. Put a nuke at the WTC and everything you've read about civilization is instantly out of date. IMO.

This is true, no doubt. But the reason for chem/bio weapon's lethality is the ability for them to spread. A high explosive blast occurs, then dissipates soon after while a lethal toxin or a chemical agent will linger in the area for weeks. Radioactive materials may linger for centuries before loosing their lethality. The main problems with these weapons (chemical & biological) are their delivery. If not delivered with extreme preperation & caution, they may easily backfire. although I must agree, the term Weapons of Mass Destruction is rather misleading, as conventional weapons have killed myriads more over the years than NBC weapons.

There is room for criticism, but, essentially, the idea is that there are weapons which are of limited "military" use, which are, essentially, death tossed to the winds, and which are, for one reason or another, unacceptably destructive. Chemical weapons make the list as much for historical reasons as anything. They did, after all, kill tens of thousands and injure hundreds of thousands during WW1, where they were astonishingly ineffective in a military sense. Add to that that they are virtually the only things Hitler drew back from using. Nuclear weapons have the images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki attached. Bio weapons make the list mostly on potential.

Appreciate the comments, K and bsl. I guess where the discussion is leading me is that I wonder if grouping chem and bio with nuclear will result in counterproductive policy. E.g., sending our armed forces and intelligence services on a global search and destroy mission into any petty dictatorship that might be cooking up some noxious chemicals, rather than pouring our resources into finding and wiping out potentially loose nukes (e.g., in Russia) or taking on/taking out governments where they might be making progress developing nukes. To me, that's the game that matters.

Yikes! I reread my last post. By "wiping out" potentially loose nukes in Russia, I meant through police work in cooperation with the Russians, not pre-emptive strikes on Russia!

This is true, as nuclear weapons are capable of much more than a chemical or even biological attack. That is, if theya re used correctly. A "dirty bomb" isen't really much more than a large explosion which spreads radioactive material. Many people would be stricken ill by it, but relatively few would die of the explosion (At least compared to what the popular view of a nuclear weapon is). But the other sides of the WMD triangle must also be dealt with. For instance, say a group of terrorists applied a new form of chemical/filter resistant bacteria to the Mississipi River. Without anyone knowing until it is too late (Assuming nobody drinks the water beforehand), hundreds if not thousands could die of become seriously ill. But policework in Russia is a very real option for the future, that is, if we do not already have police-aids in the country. The point is, while nuclear weapons still pose a greater threat, and I agree, should be first on our list to take care of, the other two WMD types can also be extremely dangerous when used properly.

Fair enough, K.

"Chem, bio and nuclear weapons are all lumped together in this category and in the notion of WMD. Why?" Nuclear weapons aren't just explosives. They also deliver radiation promptly (during the detonation) and by fallout (after the detonation, and away from ground zero - sometimes far away). NBC weapons used to (more accurately) be called CBR (for Chemical, Biological and Radiological) weapons - a term which includes "dirty bombs" that disperse radioactivity without a nuclear explosion, or - like "neutron bombs" or cobalt-jacketed nuclear explosives, are nuclear weapons optimized to deliver extremely high levels of radioactivity as their main means of inflicting casualties. "Special weapons" (the most recent change of terminology - witness the change of nomenclature of the agency that buys nuclear weapons for DoD from the "Defense Nuclear Agency" to the "Defense Special Weapons Agency" - and NOW to the "Defense Threat Reduction Agency," which still buys, designs, trains on and deploys nuclear weapons for DoD, despite the politically correct rename) - kill by making people ill, as opposed to rending them limb from limb or otherwise rearranging their bodies. In short, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, radiological weapons and biological weapons are all "naughty" weapons, as opposed to "Daisy Cutters," MOABs, cluster bombs, flechette shells, and other "non-naughty weapons." I didn't say it made any sense, but that's why the "Defense Threat Reduction Agency" buys our nuclear weapons. Of course, I fully agree with the idea that if we own all the nuclear weapons in the world, the threat of nuclear war falls to a very low level - an idea with which lots of DTRA troops probably agree.

"Put a nuke at the WTC and everything you've read about civilization is instantly out of date." It's worse than that. Three nuclear weapons used at strategic points over the United States (in the ionosphere) could destroy most of the semiconductor-based devices in the country by inducing high levels of electromagnetic pulse (commonly referred to as EMF or EMP). Jessica Alba fans may remember this was the reason why the United States in her TV series "Dark Angel" was reduced to Third World status - and if terrorists ever acquire the capacity to loft nuclear devices into the ionosphere, it could still happen. North Korea, a terrorist state if ever there was one, has that capability and may have nuclear devices small enough to use on their rockets. That's most of the computers, most of the cars built since 1980, most of the civilian aircraft, most of the medical life-support devices, most of the banking infrastructure, most of the telephone system and Internet - most of civilization as we know it. (1) Hardening all of the above key assets against EMP would be an incredibly expensive undertaking, one into which the government has looked as part of its preparations to fight a nuclear war. (2) Actually, crippling the United States culturally, economically, and technologically in this matter would be closer to what Osama bin Laden says he wants to do than his first try at mass murder was. This makes it all the more imperative to locate and kill ObL and all of his minions and flunkies. 1. Makoff, Greg and Kosta Tsipis, "The Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse," Report #19. Program in Science and Technology for International Security, Cambridge, MA, March 1988, p.3. 2. Glasstone, Samuel and Phillip J. Dolan, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. Department of the Army, Washington D. C., 1977, pp. 353-54