by Patrick Appel
A US Army veteran who fought alongside Syria’s rebels is accused of using “a weapon of mass destruction, i.e. a Rocket Propelled Grenade,” a violation that could get him life in prison. In response, Ackerman argues that it’s time to retire the term WMD:
It’s very easy to kill lots of people with a nuclear weapon. It’s harder, but possible, for a nuclear exchange to disrupt planetary climate patterns and kill vastly more once crops die and famines result. These are not things that chemical and biological weapons, as dangerous as they are, can do. Chemical weapons are subject to atmospheric dissipation and need people packed into a dense area to do maximum damage, as with Saddam Hussein’s chemical massacre at Halabja. Biological weapons are potentially more deadly, but their distribution patterns — particularly when passed through humans or animals — can limit their virulence. Rocket-propelled grenades, missiles, bombs, mines — just, no.