Well, it looks like the surviving marathon bombing suspect is going to be charged with, among other things, using a "weapon of mass destruction" ...

I'm not sure how I feel about that since we're talking about homemade IEDs and not some nuke or biological or chemical weapon that can potentially devastate massive, massive amounts of people in a single blow. Plus, if IEDs are categorized as WMDs, then what does that make of pretty much any other conventional explosive, including ones used by the military in a conventional battle?

We invaded another sovereign country supposedly because it had the capability of making and using weapons of mass destruction -- surely that didn't mean home-made pressure cooker bombs?

Just seems like the term "weapon of mass destruction" is in danger of becoming similar to the term "terrorist" in that it can be applied to pretty much anything the speaker wants it to ... where is the line drawn between a WMD and a conventional explosive? And if the term "WMD" can be used so broadly that it can apply to even a homemade explosive device with a comparatively limited effect, what's the point?