I think most people consider them to be non-conventional weapons, or weapons that have been restricted by international treaty because of their inhumane effects.

To me it has more to do with how the weapon is implemented. A Daisy Cutter, for instance, isn't a WMD. If someone had a weapon that did the same amount of damage and fit into a suitcase, then maybe it is. I agree that this seems to put nations with the capability of deploying "big" weapons at more ease, BUT those are also circumstances wherein the nation itself has to take out-in-the-open action.

Where WMDs fit in the modern sense is the capability of a small group, or even an individual, to kill hundreds or thousands or more people with relative ease and in relative anonymity. Al Qaeda could buy planes and big conventional bombs if they wanted them, but you can't fight a covert war fighting out in the open that way.

The key factor in WMDs that makes them attractive is the ability to kill as many people as possible without stepping out into the open to do it, and without needed huge logistical support. Like you say, a gun, a bomb, or a grenade doesn't kill very many people. One guy with a suitcase full of a biological agent would kill far more, and create far more terror, with pretty much the same ease of use.

Well, the term "weapons fo mass destruction" was first coined to describe that Luftwaffa attacks on Spain in the 30's. So it's origins come from neither Nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapons, nor did the term describe an actual class of weapon at all. Today though, WMD is more a political term than a technical one. Basically it's come to mean, any form of weapon or munition that Hussein wasn't supposed to have after the ceasefire in Satwan in 1991. So, yeah, since there is no real definition of the term, yours is just as good as any, however, so is everyone else's ;~D

I just use that which is in common use Politically.  So yes, it is any NBCs.  I think the Term WMD is in itself the problem.  Perhaps the term should be "Weapons of Mass Death" and the B and C of the NBC dont really destroy anything except life. (And the Neutron Bomb of the N is the same way).

Baker: Don't get me wrong, I do think a suitcase nuke, viral agrobomb or crop duster full of biological or chemical agents is a WMD. I think the word simply attracts too much sloppy usage. There's a big difference between a junkie with a needle full of HIV-infected blood and a thermonuclear weapon. While both are technically NBCs I think only one of those deserves the label 'weapon of mass destruction'.

I think you probably know my opinions about most people's level of awareness when it comes to emotive issues though; using their criteria seems far too imprecise to me.
Parated:

Well, the term "weapons fo mass destruction" was first coined to describe that Luftwaffa attacks on Spain in the 30's. So it's origins come from neither Nuclear, Biological or Chemical weapons, nor did the term describe an actual class of weapon at all.

I know that war saw the birth of modern 'strategic bombing' but I wasn't aware it was the source of the term WMDs as well. Interesting.

So, yeah, since there is no real definition of the term, yours is just as good as any, however, so is everyone else's

Yes, which is why I consider its use in a sentence to be a clear indicator that the writer intends to play off the emotive aspects of the word. Without a clear definition (and in my view there should be one) it's nothing more than propaganda in 3 letters.

Dr Guy:

Perhaps the term should be "Weapons of Mass Death" and the B and C of the NBC dont really destroy anything except life.

It's a bit touchy-feely though and would probably be put to even more outrageous use than what we've got at the moment. Don't forget too that a reasonably powerful chemical agent (Agent Orange for example) can cause widespread destruction and the poisoning of food and soil for decades. Just think of the trouble Vietnam had with its Orange babies.