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?

damn good point

It's a very slippery slope... the last WMDs BS cost us about $5-6 TRILLION !!

OH but we're running such big deficits now !! NO SHIITTTE SHERLOCK !!

He needs to be tried as a US citizen which he is !
Still hope that they nail the bastid, but WTF . . . let's do it properly !!
You either believe in the Constitution or you don't..... not just when it's convenient !

It's a hard thing to define, this WMD. Was the Murrah Building explosive a WMD? It was certainly a powerful explosion, but even so it wasn't in the same category as the things you named--a nuke or a biological agent. It's a very slippery slope.

Here ya go,

weapon of mass destruction
noun [usu. plural] ( weapons of mass destruction)
a chemical, biological or radioactive weapon capable of causing widespread death and destruction.

Does not include explosives of any size. So bombs, IED's and artillery would not be considered as a WMD.

OK,
While we're still jumping thru hoops and
doing back bends trying to make
various definitions fit...

What about Jumbo Jets?

The FBI defines WMD : http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs (the detailed version)

(the brief version)

It appears that the definition varies or is interpreted differently between different LE agencies and the military. RM had an interesting segment on it last night. When you put it in the context of a couple of city blocks and the horrendous results, "mass destruction" isn't a reach at all.

Interesting -- the first part of that definition includes:

"Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are defined in US law (18 USC §2332a) as:

“(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title (i.e. explosive device);"

And according to section 921:

"(4) The term “destructive device” means—

(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and

(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled."


So the range goes from anything above a .50 caliber gun to a nuke -- kind of broad definition of "weapon of mass destruction" given the hysteria surrounding the term. I would have thought the definition to be far more limited to weapons having really, really massive and devastating potential (ex: a small nuke vs., like, a hand grenade) ...

From the FBI definition posted earlier:

"The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon ..."

So I gather a Jumbo Jet would not qualify ...