If we're going to use the phrase "mass destruction," and I suppose we are since it seems to be officially sanctioned by the UN, how much does it have to destroy to qualify as being of "mass destruction?" Aren't ordinary bombs meant to destroy lots of things at once? What if someone deployed a chemical weapon and it killed just one person? Would it still be a weapon of mass destruction, or would it be just a weapon of very small destruction? I find that phrase so odd, because most of the things used by militaries are supposed to destroy a lot at one time - otherwise we'd go back to countries fighting with bows and arrows, and sharp, pointy sticks.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dan Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:14 AM Subject: Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor > > On Friday, January 24, 2003, at 06:25 AM, William Robb wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Peter Alling" > > Subject: Re: OT: Obnoxious Sonofabitch Copyeditor > > > >>> Weapons of mass destruction. > > > >> Since, mass can be neither created or destroyed? > > > > No. > > > > William Robb > > This topic is getting ... massive. I wish we had some way to fight it. > Perhaps a weapon of some sort.... > > Dan Scott > >
