And this all dovetails nicely into the USG agency budget requirement of statistics “Show me investigation and arrest stats” many say. We are left with organizational rice bowls and silos of mediocrity. This pursuit requires integral thinking among peer agencies. And beyond. Too many see a better pursuit as a threat to paper tigers in the government jungle.
Yes! Given a longer discussion, we could certainly get into the DC Beltway politics that keep us in a status quo of using old terms to justify existing budgets. It's always about the money, not providing a better policy process.
I think we disagree about some things, but this is a serious, well-argued, factually-based argument that deserves more attention. And one thing we agree on is that WMD is a pretty useless term. If for no other reason than that two of the classic WMD weapons -- chemical and biological weapons -- don't create destruction at all. They kill people but leave the structures standing. Which makes it hard for them to qualify as weapons of mass _destruction_. So the term has never made any sense.
Question: Wouldn't it make sense to call chemical or biological weapons that were aimed at civilians "weapons of mass terrorism" [WMT]? It's both politically more powerful and more descriptive than "unconventional weapons." Or are you looking for a term that covers both attacks on military and civilian targets? I would argue that separating civilian attacks from military attacks makes sense because wars are never won by killing civilians. It seems to me that wars are about killing soldiers, persuading them to surrender, or incapacitating them by taking away the tools they need to fight. (Although as the Iraqis showed, people can get pretty inventive with even very limited means if they're really motivated to fight.)
And this all dovetails nicely into the USG agency budget requirement of statistics “Show me investigation and arrest stats” many say. We are left with organizational rice bowls and silos of mediocrity. This pursuit requires integral thinking among peer agencies. And beyond. Too many see a better pursuit as a threat to paper tigers in the government jungle.
Yes! Given a longer discussion, we could certainly get into the DC Beltway politics that keep us in a status quo of using old terms to justify existing budgets. It's always about the money, not providing a better policy process.
I think we disagree about some things, but this is a serious, well-argued, factually-based argument that deserves more attention. And one thing we agree on is that WMD is a pretty useless term. If for no other reason than that two of the classic WMD weapons -- chemical and biological weapons -- don't create destruction at all. They kill people but leave the structures standing. Which makes it hard for them to qualify as weapons of mass _destruction_. So the term has never made any sense.
Question: Wouldn't it make sense to call chemical or biological weapons that were aimed at civilians "weapons of mass terrorism" [WMT]? It's both politically more powerful and more descriptive than "unconventional weapons." Or are you looking for a term that covers both attacks on military and civilian targets? I would argue that separating civilian attacks from military attacks makes sense because wars are never won by killing civilians. It seems to me that wars are about killing soldiers, persuading them to surrender, or incapacitating them by taking away the tools they need to fight. (Although as the Iraqis showed, people can get pretty inventive with even very limited means if they're really motivated to fight.)
Interesting and useful argument. Thanks.