Switch language / ভাষা পরিবর্তন করুন
PoliticsEnglish Edition

Defining Weapons of Mass Destruction

Rakibul IslamRakibul Islam
•December 14, 2021•8 min read
Defining Weapons of Mass Destruction

The term 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' (WMD) denotes munitions engineered to inflict indiscriminate carnage, operating beyond the conventional constraints of international humanitarian law and the established norms of warfare. Such instruments, encompassing nuclear, biological, and chemical armaments, are characterized by their capacity to exert catastrophic, large-scale existential threat to civilian populations.

Since the dawn of the nineteenth century, the world has been ravaged by a relentless succession of wars. To describe them merely as wars, however, is a misnomer. They are, in truth, calculated acts of aggression—military incursions orchestrated by powerful states against nations that are, by comparison, modest, underdeveloped, yet resource-rich. From the First and Second World Wars to the conflicts in Manila, Vietnam, Iran-Iraq, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, the pattern remains unbroken. Each intervention is justified by a shifting vocabulary of pretext: the alleged presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), the violation of human rights, or the imperative to defend the sovereignty of others. None of these conflicts, however, have proven less devastating than the others. History records the first deployment of “weapons of mass destruction” during the Iran-Iraq War. In the 1980s, under the command of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi military was accused of using chemical agents—the archetypal WMD—against Iranian forces and the Kurdish population. Following the 1990–91 Gulf War, the United Nations oversaw the destruction of various illicit arsenals. Despite persistent allegations regarding Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities, no substantive evidence was ever produced.

What Does Mean By Human Rights?

Yet, in 2003, the United States, leading a coalition of like-minded states, invaded Iraq under the explicit pretext of neutralizing its "WMD" stockpiles. The architects of this aggression were U.S. President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. A year later, the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a report revealing that the Bush administration’s pre-war statements regarding Iraqi WMD were misleading and unsupported by intelligence. Subsequent inspections led by the United States confirmed that Iraq had, in fact, ceased all active production and stockpiling of these weapons long before the invasion. By then, however, the wholesale destruction of Iraq at the hands of Bush and Blair was already complete. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, this conflict—now commonly known as the Second Persian Gulf War—stands as one of the most harrowing military aggressions in modern memory.

Download Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq

Related Analysis
The Middle East Crisis and the Geopolitics of the Strait of Hormuz: The Dawn of a New Cold War?

Beyond the conventional narratives propagated by Western media, a closer inspection of the map reveals a starker reality: the perpetual instability in the Middle East serves as a backdrop to a ruthless shadow conflict over the Strait of Hormuz—the critical maritime chokepoint through which twenty percent of the world’s petroleum supply flows.

রাকিবুল ইসলাম • Politics
Read Article →
This begs the central question: what, in the decade-long discourse surrounding the Iraq War, did the term “weapon of mass destruction” actually signify? How are these weapons truly defined?

What is a Weapon of Mass Destruction?

The term “weapon of mass destruction” (WMD) began to gain traction around 1937, though it lacked the pervasive ubiquity it holds today. A century ago, the term was not part of the common lexicon. During the Second World War, it was primarily used to describe the immense destructive capacity of bomber aircraft formations. Only later did it become the standard nomenclature for nuclear, chemical, and biological armaments. In common parlance, a WMD is a weapon designed to kill civilians indiscriminately, without regard for the laws of war—such as nuclear or chemical bombs. The Oxford Dictionary defines it as "a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon able to cause widespread death and destruction." Similarly, Britannica characterizes WMDs as armaments capable of large-scale, indiscriminate casualties and destruction, the possession of which by an adversary is viewed as a grave strategic threat. The term first appeared in a UN General Assembly resolution in 1946. In 1947, the assembly established the Commission for Conventional Armaments to formalize the definition. On August 12, 1948, the commission defined WMDs as: “atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future which have characteristics comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above.” Although the Soviet Union initially dissented, they eventually accepted this definition by signing the resolution in 1977.

Is the USA a Leading Terrorist State?

Contributors Wanted • Write for MaroonPaper

Publish Your Research & Critical Analysis on MaroonPaper

Contribute in-depth essays on law, political philosophy, economics, and geopolitics to an intellectual readership.

Submit Writing →
The Australian *Weapons of Mass Destruction (Prevention of Proliferation) Act 1995* defines a WMD program as any plan for the research, development, production, acquisition, or stockpiling of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons or their delivery systems. The European Union’s 2003 Strategy against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction further expanded this scope to include chemical, biological, radiological, or fissile materials. Under the California Penal Code, "weapons of mass destruction" encompass chemical warfare agents, biological agents, nuclear or radioactive materials, or the intentional dissemination of industrial agents as weapons, as well as any aircraft, ship, or vehicle used as a destructive device, as described in section 34500 of the Vehicle Code. In Nevada, state statutes define a "weapon of mass destruction" as any device or weapon intended to cause death or significant bodily injury to a large number of people.

Characteristics of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Analysis of the UN commission’s definition indicates that while the term explicitly cites lethal chemical and biological agents, it encompasses nuclear and radioactive armaments, as well as any future, as-of-yet-unknown technologies capable of total destruction. These definitions suggest several core characteristics: * They may be nuclear, biological, radiological, or chemical in nature; * They may involve high-explosive delivery systems; * They include the missiles, aircraft, or ships required to deploy such armaments.

When Does a Weapon Qualify as a WMD?

To determine whether a weapon or its deployment constitutes a "weapon of mass destruction," one must assess its capacity and reach. Based on established definitions, a weapon may be classified as a WMD if it: * Is capable of generating catastrophic effects in a single moment, resulting in the deaths of millions, jeopardizing natural ecosystems, and permanently altering the lives of future generations; * Is capable of causing death or severe injury through toxic or poisonous chemical agents; * Spreads pathogens or toxins to harm or kill humans, animals, or plants; * Consists of nuclear explosive devices or biological/chemical agents deployed against enemies in armed conflict.

Treaties Governing WMDs

Several multilateral treaties prohibit the use of specific types of WMDs. Chief among these are the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. Nuclear non-proliferation is addressed through the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the Partial Test Ban Treaty (covering tests in the atmosphere, outer space, and underwater), and the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which, while signed, remains unimplemented. Other agreements, such as the Hague Code of Conduct and the Missile Technology Control Regime, aim to curb the proliferation of missiles and related technologies.

Let’s call Israel’s violence what it is: terrorism, not clashes

Latest Recommendation
The Palestinian Question and the Abraham Accords: Critiques, Dividends, and Geopolitical Realities

The volatility currently defining Middle Eastern statecraft is anchored by the convergence of the intractable Palestinian crisis and the Abraham Accords—a transformative diplomatic framework that continues to reshape the regional architecture.

রাকিবুল ইসলাম • Opinions
Read Article →

The Questionable Definition of WMD

It is evident that simpler armaments, such as landmines, are excluded from the WMD classification, despite the immense toll they take on human life. According to the World Health Organization, hundreds of thousands died in 2001 alone due to suicides, homicides, and conventional warfare—a figure that dwarfs the death toll caused by nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons throughout the twentieth century.
Weapons of mass destruction

A picture taken on April 30, 2018, shows collected victims’ bones and skulls from a newly discovered pit that was used as a mass grave during the 1994 Rwandan genocide and hidden under a house at the local administration office in Kabuga, the outskirts of Kigali, Rwanda.

The definition of WMD contains glaring loopholes—gaping enough to obscure the 13-week Rwandan genocide, where at least 800,000 people were slaughtered, primarily with machetes, at an average rate of 8,000 per day. Consider the month-long Battle of Manila, which claimed the lives of over a hundred thousand women, children, and the elderly. Furthermore, the United States killed millions of Japanese citizens using napalm (an incendiary mixture of kerosene, gasoline, and diesel). Napalm was so horrific that Vannevar Bush—the head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development during World War II, and a figure who helped define the parameters of WMDs—was haunted by his role in authorizing its use. He burned with guilt, believing napalm to be far more inhumane than the atomic bombings of Japan.

Background and Consequences of the Rwandan Genocide

Weapons of mass destruction, napalm bomb or molotove used in vietnam war by USA

U.S. forces burned Vietnamese people alive

In the slaughter of Rwanda, the destruction of Manila, and the firebombing of Tokyo, no sophisticated "WMD" was employed. Millions were annihilated using nothing more than machetes and napalm. Yet, these weapons fall outside the conventional definition of "mass destruction." One must ask: are these not acts of mass destruction or aggression? Or are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council simply exempt from the laws governing them?

Share this intellectual discourse

Help expand constructive dialogues on global affairs, law, and politics.

Rakibul Islam

Rakibul Islam

Author & Contributor, MaroonPaper

Contributing insightful research and analytical essays on law, politics, history, and international affairs for MaroonPaper.

Stay Connected with MaroonPaper

Subscribe to receive selected intellectual essays, critical commentaries, and translations directly in your inbox.

No spam, ever. Unsubscribe at any time.