It's interesting how the US law defines a weapon of mass destruction. It need not destroy the masses, nor involve non-conventional weapons - a gun will do. Fortunately, the law must be interpreted, putting events into context. The Oklahoma City bombing was a WMD case, but it appears the September 11 attacks were not. Alas, nowhere is "weapon of mass dustruction" well-defined. The term possibly first arose in the legal arena in 1946. The UN's first resolution, to create the Atomic Energy Commission, used the wording "...atomic weapons and of all other weapons adaptable to mass destruction". Note that while chemical weapons were not mentioned, they had seen plenty of wartime action by then. This resolution came on the heels of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings by the US, and the start of the nuclear arms race. There have been attempts to curtail the expansion of WMD capability ever since, but with limited success. The following sites will give some insight into the legal aspects of WMDs, but by no means provides complete coverage.
|
