From: Allen Thomson <thomsona@flash.net>
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: treaty-compliance of Deep Impact (Re: what's an orion)
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2001 17:08:29 GMT

In article <981317792.17811.0.nnrp-07.9e98d142@news.demon.co.uk>,

  Understandably perplexed, Ian Stirling <Inquisitor@I.am> inquired:


> Is there a clear definition anywhere?
> I.E. Does it become a WOMD when the impact has a yield
>1Kt, ...  ?



This inspired me to do a bit of research on the question 'What's a
WMD?", and I'm a tad astonished at what I've found.  Of relevance to
the current discussion is that Timothy McVeigh is under sentence of
death for using a WMD with about half the yield  of the copper comet
impactor.  (I.e., his WMD had about 2 tonne TNT yield vs the 4 or so
tonne TNT impactor, ah, impact.)

It also seems that *any* chemical, biological or radiological weapon,
including the Republic of Texas guys' cactus-needle shooter, is an WMD
under US law.  By this definition, Georgy Markov was assassinated by a
weapon of mass destruction resembling an umbrella -- and in the middle
of London, no less.

Such useage, IMHO, debases the terminology, but the authorities here
have not, so far, asked my opinion on the matter.

-------------------------------------------------------

>From http://members.aol.com/mer1973/weapons01.htm

"The term weapon of mass destruction means-

a. any "destructive device" to include
      1. any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket
having a propellant charger of more than 4 oz , missile having an
explosive or incendiary charge of more than 1 quarter oz, mine or any
similar device;
      2. any type of weapon (except shotgun or shotgun shells) which
may be readily converted to expel a projectile by explosive or
propellant action and having a barrel with a bore of more than 1/2 inch
in diameter; and
      3. any combination of parts either designed or intended to covert
or readily assemble a destructive device.
The term "destructive device" shall not include: any device which is
neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device ,
although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned
for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety or similar
device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the
Army; or any other device which the Secretary of the Treasury finds is
not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique or is a rifle which
the owner to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural
purposes.

b. any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious
bodily injury through the release, dissemination or impact of toxic or
poisonous chemicals or their precursors;

c. any weapon involving a disease organism or;

d. any weapon that is designed to realease radiation or radioactivity
at a level dangerous to human life.

Definition from : Weapons of Mass Destruction Terms Handbook (DSWA-AR-
40H)

[DSWA = Defense Special Weapons Agency, the successor to the Defense
Nuclear Agency and the precursor of the Defense Threat Reduction
Agency.  I can't find the handbook itself, but it would obviously be a
very handy thing to have on the Web. If anyone here knows where I can
get a copy, please let me know.]

------------------------------------------------------------

>From http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/congress/1996/pl104-201-xiv.htm

Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction
Act of 1996
Public Law: 104-201 (09/23/96)
TITLE XIV--DEFENSE AGAINST WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

SEC. 1403. DEFINITIONS.
In this title:

(1) The term `weapon of mass destruction' means any weapon or device
that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious
bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release,
dissemination, or impact of--
(A) toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;
(B) a disease organism; or
(C) radiation or radioactivity.

--------------------------------------------

http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/record/00rs/HB47.htm

amend KRS 500.080 relating to definitions for the Kentucky Penal Code
to define a weapon of mass destruction as a destructive device as
defined in KRS 237.030 or a chemical, biological, or radiological
weapon capable of causing death or serious physical injury

--------------------------------------------


8/95 Grand Jury Indictment Of McVeigh & Nichols

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

No CR 95-110

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
--VS--
TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH and
TERRY LYNN NICHOLS,
Defendants.

Violations

18 USC Sec. 2332a;
18 USC Sec. 844(f);
18 USC Sec. 1114;
18 USC Sec. 1111;
18 USC Sec. 2(a)&(b)

I N D I C T M E N T

COUNT ONE  (Conspiracy to Use a Weapon of Mass Destruction)

The Grand Jury charges:

1.   Beginning on or about September 13, 1994 and continuing
thereafter until on or about April 19, 1995, at Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, in the Western District of Oklahoma and elsewhere,

TIMOTHY JAMES McVEIGH
and
TERRY LYNN NICHOLS,

the defendants herein, did knowingly, intentionally, willfully and
maliciously conspire, combine and agree together and with others
unknown to the Grand Jury to use a weapon of mass destruction,
namely an explosive bomb placed in a truck (a "truck bomb"),

---------------------------------------------

Monday, Oct. 5, 1998
Republic of Texas trial to start today
3 members accused of assassination plot against Clinton, other
government officials
By MADELINE BARO
Associated Press

   BROWNSVILLE - Jury selection was set to begin today in the case of
three Republic of Texas members charged with plotting to use poisoned
cactus needles to assassinate President Clinton and other government
officials.
   Johnie Wise, 72, Jack Abbott Grebe Jr., 43, and Oliver Dean Emigh,
63, have been held without bond since their July 1 arrests and are
charged with conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction.

--------------------------------------------

From: Allen Thomson <thomsona@flash.net>
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: treaty-compliance of Deep Impact (Re: what's an orion)
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 19:29:06 GMT

In article <G8F5IA.I26@spsystems.net>,
  henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:
> In article <95rve3$mmg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Allen Thomson  <thomsona@flash.net> wrote:

> >It also seems that *any* chemical, biological or radiological weapon,
> >including the Republic of Texas guys' cactus-needle shooter, is an
> >WMDunder US law...

> Careful here -- the issue for the treaties is *international* law, not
> US law.  The US definitions are interesting but irrelevant.

But, at least that I've found, there doesn't seem to be any definition
in international law or other nations' laws. Failing that, it doesn't
seem unreasonable to suggest that the US, a signatory to the relevant
treaties, use its own legal definitions in figuring out what is and
isn't treaty-compliant.

It might have been reasonable to apply the "we'll know it when we see
it" criterion to WMD, but the law defining them as, inter alia,
anything with > 1/4 oz HE kind of indicates the possibility of
divergent opinions on the matter.

From: Allen Thomson <thomsona@flash.net>
Newsgroups: sci.space.tech,sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: treaty-compliance of Deep Impact (Re: what's an orion)
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 16:38:48 GMT

In article <95rve3$mmg$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  Allen Thomson <thomsona@flash.net> wrote:

> In article <981317792.17811.0.nnrp-07.9e98d142@news.demon.co.uk>,
>
>   Understandably perplexed, Ian Stirling <Inquisitor@I.am> inquired:
>
> > Is there a clear definition anywhere?
> > I.E. Does it become a WOMD when the impact has a yield
> >1Kt, ...  ?


I looked a bit further into this, and the ur-definition appears in
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2332a.html and referenced text at
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/921.html.


It would seem as if the copper impactor mission would qualify under
some combination of

 (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces

and

 (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more
      than one-quarter ounce,

Is copper an explosive? Well, if in the circumstances of its use, it
produces a bang ten times the size of an equivalent mass of TNT (350
kg), that sounds pretty explosive to me.

From: Allen Thomson <thomsona@flash.net>
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Re: treaty-compliance of Deep Impact (Re: what's an orion)
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:06:18 GMT

In article <9dng6.4323$S77.644989@news.uswest.net>,
  "Christopher M. Jones" <christopher_j@uswest.net> wrote:


> Chemicals _are_ WMDs and this has been demonstrated on several
> occasions including live combat.



From http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWgas.htm

  It has been estimated that the Germans used 68,000 tons of gas
  against Allied soldiers [in WW I]. This was more than the French
  Army (36,000) nd the British Army (25,000).

  An estimated 91,198 soldiers died as a result of poison gas attacks
  and another 1.2 million were hospitalized. The Russian Army, with
  56,000 deaths, suffered more than any other armed force.

So ca.129,000 tons produced 91,198 deaths and put 1.2 million in the
hospital. Round this off to 100,000 tonnes (Mg) and 100,000 deaths to
give some benefit of the doubt to the chemicals and make the arithmetic
simpler. What we get, after applying suitable mathematical techniques,
is one death and 12 hospitalizations per tonne, or, in Kahn units, one
millideath per kilogram.

Compare this with the V-2 campaign against London
(http://www.cdiss.org/v2.htm) in which 518 V-2s caused 21,380
casualties (2,511 deaths, 5,869 serious and some 13,000 light
injuries). The V-2 warhead contained 730 kg of HE, giving a lethality
of 2511/(518*.73) = 6.6 deaths per tonne and 56 total casualties per
tonne of HE.

Likely modern nerve agents would be more lethal than the WW I poison
gases, but I'm still not convinced that, in actual use, chemicals are
more deadly than conventional weapons. Doubtless they have their
advantages, such as mobility imparement, terror, etc.

> Merely because they don't
> reach the striking lethality levels of nuclear weapons and
> conventional weapons have narrowed the gap somewhat does not
> mean that chemical weapons are not a highly potent and
> dangerous weapon.

Machine guns are highly potent and dangerous weapons, so are cluster
bombs and howitzers firing ICMs. But those aren't usually thought of as
WMDs, and they're probably at least as casualty-producing in practice
as chemicals.

Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: treaty-compliance of Deep Impact (Re: what's an orion)
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 21:00:37 GMT

In article <95un6g$3vv$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
Allen Thomson  <thomsona@flash.net> wrote:
>Likely modern nerve agents would be more lethal than the WW I poison
>gases...

Yes, and it's not a small difference -- we're talking *orders of magnitude*
more lethal.

>...but I'm still not convinced that, in actual use, chemicals are
>more deadly than conventional weapons. Doubtless they have their
>advantages, such as mobility imparement, terror, etc.

You have to think carefully about who the intended targets are.  Against
*prepared and equipped troops*, chemical weapons seldom kill; they are
more of a harassment weapon, because operating in full protective gear is
so onerous.  That's why the WWI numbers are so low.

The point of a WMD, though, is mass use against civilians.  Effective
defence of troops against nerve agents is difficult; useful defence of
civilian populations against serious use of nerve agents, persistent ones
in particular, is out of the question.  Lethality would approach 100%.
--
When failure is not an option, success  |  Henry Spencer   henry@spsystems.net
can get expensive.   -- Peter Stibrany  |      (aka henry@zoo.toronto.edu)