I would not call a dirty bomb a weapon of mass destruction.
>>I would not call a dirty bomb a weapon of mass destruction.<<
With all due respect, with American lives at stake, who gives a flying CRAP about that kind of hairsplitting?
Please.
It’s a weapon of mass hysteria.
“I would not call a dirty bomb a weapon of mass destruction.”
That is why it is called a WME - a weapon of mass effect. It would dirty up a significant area of a city and areas downwind, as well as potentially have a world-wide economic/political/terror effect
Not by your standards, apparently.
But by technical and generally agreed upon standards, you'd be wrong.
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined as CBN -- chemical, biological and nuclear. A "dirty bomb" is undeniably "nuclear".
What if it killed you and/or your family?
Is that mass or destructive enough?
But hurricanes, tornado's and nasty snow storms and floods sure are. Tho not weapons..:O)
Fortunately, your definition is not widely accepted.
Now, if you consider the intangible effects of a "dirty bomb" not worthy of the term "destruction", there is no remedy for what ails you.
...I would not call a dirty bomb a weapon of mass destruction....
And I would not call you Brilliant
Wonderful.
What would you call it?
Would the size of the conventional explosive and the amount of radioactive material and the location of the explosion matter?
Idiot!
Really? Detonate one inside an enclosed arena during a game, or in the bottom of the Sears Tower at 10:30 AM on a Wednesday morning and get back to me.
Precisely! Nothing to see here.