Talk:Weapons of mass destruction
Say What?!
"a more stable state that does not threaten international order should be able to use Weapons of Mass Destruction peacefully" Does this suggest that using WMDs on your own population is a peaceful use? Is it possible to have a peaceful use of a weapon of mass destruction? --Mtur 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
- I know Saddam used WMD on his own population. We're talking about stable states here, not Saddam's Iraq. Affirmlife 03:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
One can argue ... anything
"One can argue that the earliest weapon of Mass Destruction was the Israelite Samson, who was the instrument of God in killing a large number of the various Canaanite tribes (Judges)."
And the point of making the aforementioned "argument" would be...? That since (arguably) WMDs are "in the Bible" they're OK by God?McTavidge 06:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, I do think you're missing the point. Deterrence, from peaceful nations having WMDs, is the only reason we have the globalized society we do now. Affirmlife 12:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- Well, if that's the point, maybe it could be spelled out clearly (instead of merely hinted at) -- and supported by a citation. Sounds like a lot to rest on just one factor.McTavidge 22:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
- If you really want to put the bible into it, remember that God did kill all of humanity, raze several cities, and destroy livestock and firstborn sons. Of course, God is the first and ultimate WMD.
Boeing 747
Since when has a 747 had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction? ColinR 00:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- Since September 11th, 2001. Momoka 00:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
- None of the planes was a 747. Furthermore, planes aren't considered weapons of mass destruction. ColinR 00:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Revamping
This article is in need of a severe revamp to eliminate POV, make it more like an encyclopedia entry, and get rid of irrelevant information. ColinR 01:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
