This article examines the definition of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in US law. Specifically, a number of high-profile terrorist incidents have resulted in prosecution on the grounds of WMD use, despite the fact that the weapons employed do not fit a ‘typical’ understanding of WMD as exclusively nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological devices. In discussing this apparent contradiction, it is concluded that there exists no essentialist concept of WMD and that definitional understandings vary as a result of discrete institutional contexts and the strategic manipulation of language by political actors. This will be discussed with reference to the conviction of 9/11 terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcherT. (2004), ‘The Emperor Has Some Clothes On: Fairy Tales, Scary Tales and Weapons of Mass Destruction’, UPI Working Papers, The Finnish Institute of International Affairs.
CoyleP.E. (2003), ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, North Korea and Iran: Hype, Hope or Hysteria?’, Physics and Society, October, pp. 10–15.
4.
EasterbrookG. (2002), ‘Term Limits: The Meaninglessness of “WMD”’, The New Republic227(1), pp. 22–25.
5.
HoldstockD. (2002), ‘11 September 2001 – and After’, Medicine, Conflict and Survival18(1), pp. 1–4.
6.
Homer-DixonT. (2002), ‘The Rise of Complex Terrorism’, Foreign Policy128, pp. 52–63.
7.
LeeS.P. (2004), ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Limit of Moral Understanding: A Comparative Essay’ in HashmiS.H. and LeeS. (eds.), Ethics of Mass Destruction: Religious and Secular Perspectives, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 482–510.
8.
LeviM.A. and KellyH.C. (2002), ‘Weapons of Mass Disruption’, Scientific American287, pp. 76–81.
9.
MacfarlaneA. (2004), ‘All Weapons of Mass Destruction are Not Equal’, MIT Center for International Studies Audit of the Conventional Wisdom5(8), pp. 1–5.
10.
PanofskyW.K.H. (2007), ‘A Damaging Designation: The Deadly Semantics of “Weapons of Mass Destruction”’, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists63(1), pp. 37–39.
11.
SislinJ. (1998), ‘A Convergence of Weapons’, Peace Review10(3), pp. 455–461.
