Weapon of mass destruction#Definitions of the term

The first use of the term "weapon of mass destruction" on record is by Cosmo Gordon Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1937 in reference to the bombing of Guernica, Spain:{{cite web | title=Weapon of mass destruction - weaponry | website=Encyclopedia Britannica | date=1952-11-01 | url=https://www.britannica.com/technology/weapon-of-mass-destruction | access-date=2019-06-25}}

{{blockquote|Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by war to Spain and to China? Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?"Archbishop's Appeal," Times (London), 28 December 1937, p. 9.}}

At the time, nuclear weapons had not been developed fully. Japan conducted research on biological weapons,{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/bw/ |title=Biological Weapons Program – Japan |publisher=Fas.org |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100727172723/http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/bw/ |archive-date=27 July 2010 |url-status=live}} and chemical weapons had seen wide battlefield use in World War I. Their use was outlawed by the Geneva Protocol of 1925.{{cite book|author=Eric Croddy|title=Chemical and Biological Warfare: An Annotated Bibliography|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tYJFT9O1ssgC&pg=PR30|year=1997|publisher=Scarecrow Press|page=30|isbn=9780810832718|access-date=11 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160102045936/https://books.google.com/books?id=tYJFT9O1ssgC&pg=PR30|archive-date=2 January 2016|url-status=live}} Italy used mustard agent against civilians and soldiers in Ethiopia in 1935–36.{{cite book|author=William R. Cullen|title=Is Arsenic an Aphrodisiac?: The Sociochemistry of an Element|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yyaTdY4UGLMC&pg=PA241|year=2008|publisher=Royal Society of Chemistry|page=241|isbn=9780854043637|access-date=11 January 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160102045936/https://books.google.com/books?id=yyaTdY4UGLMC&pg=PA241|archive-date=2 January 2016|url-status=live}}

Following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended World War II and during the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The application of the term to specifically nuclear and radiological weapons is traced by William Safire to the Russian phrase "Оружие массового поражения" – oruzhiye massovogo porazheniya (weapon of mass destruction).

William Safire credits James Goodby (of the Brookings Institution) with tracing what he considers the earliest known English-language use soon after the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (although it is not quite verbatim): a communique from a 15 November 1945, meeting of Harry Truman, Clement Attlee and Mackenzie King (probably drafted by Vannevar Bush, as Bush claimed in 1970) referred to "weapons adaptable to mass destruction."

Safire says Bernard Baruch used that exact phrase in 1946 (in a speech at the United Nations probably written by Herbert Bayard Swope).{{cite web | last=Safire | first=William | title=On Language; Weapons of Mass Destruction | website=The New York Times | date=1998-04-19 | url=https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/19/magazine/on-language-weapons-of-mass-destruction.html | access-date=2019-06-25}} The phrase found its way into the very first resolution the United Nations General assembly adopted in January 1946 in London, which used the wording "the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other weapons adaptable to mass destruction."{{cite web |url=https://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/ |title=UNODA – Nuclear Weapons Home |publisher=Un.org |access-date=14 May 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120606182235/http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/ |archive-date=6 June 2012 |url-status=live}} The resolution also created the Atomic Energy Commission (predecessor of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)).{{UN document |docid=A-RES-1(I) |type=Resolution |body=General Assembly |session=1 |resolution_number=1 |accessdate=2010-06-18|date=24 January 1946|title=Establishment of a Commission to Deal with the Problems Raised by the Discovery of Atomic Energy}}

An exact use of this term was given in a lecture titled "Atomic Energy as a Contemporary Problem" by J. Robert Oppenheimer. He delivered the lecture to the Foreign Service and the State Department, on 17 September 1947.{{Cite book |last=Oppenheimer |first=Robert J. |title=The Open Mind |publisher=Simon & Schuster |year=1955 |location=New York |pages=23 |language=en}}

It is a very far reaching control which would eliminate the rivalry between nations in this field, which would prevent the surreptitious arming of one nation against another, which would provide some cushion of time before atomic attack, and presumably therefore before any attack with weapons of mass destruction, and which would go a long way toward removing atomic energy at least as a source of conflict between the powers.{{cite book | last1=Pais | first1=A. | last2=Crease | first2=R.P. | title=J. Robert Oppenheimer: A Life | publisher=Oxford University Press | year=2007 | isbn=978-0-19-532712-0 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=EoA8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA158 | language=de | access-date=2019-06-25 | page=158}}

The term was also used in the introduction to the hugely influential U.S. government document known as NSC 68 written in 1950.{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsc-hst/nsc-68.htm |title=NSC-68 United States Objectives and Programs for National Security |publisher=Fas.org |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101024031912/http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsc-hst/nsc-68.htm |archive-date=24 October 2010 |url-status=live}}

During a speech at Rice University on 12 September 1962, President John F. Kennedy spoke of not filling space "with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding."{{cite web |url=http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm |title=John F. Kennedy Moon Speech—Rice Stadium |publisher=nasa.gov |access-date=30 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150706061817/http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm |archive-date=6 July 2015 |url-status=dead}} The following month, during a televised presentation about the Cuban Missile Crisis on 22 October 1962, Kennedy made reference to "offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction."Kennedy JF (22 October 1962). Televised remarks to the American people re "the Soviet military buildup on the island of Cuba"

An early use of the exact phrase in an international treaty is in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, but the treaty provides no definition of the phrase,{{citation|title=Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, Art. IV, Jan. 27, 1967, T.I.A.S. No. 6347, 610 U.N.T.S. 205, 18 U.S.T. 2410 (effective Oct. 10, 1967).}} and the treaty also categorically prohibits the stationing of "weapons" and the testing of "any type of weapon" in outer space, in addition to its specific prohibition against placing in orbit, or installing on celestial bodies, "any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction."

During the Cold War, the term "weapons of mass destruction" was primarily a reference to nuclear weapons. At the time, in the West the euphemism "strategic weapons" was used to refer to the American nuclear arsenal. However, there is no precise definition of the "strategic" category, neither considering range nor yield of the nuclear weapon.{{cite book|title=Tactical nuclear weapons : emergent threats in an evolving security environment.|year=2003|publisher=Brassey's|location=Washington DC|isbn=978-1-57488-585-9|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y7VOWkKMTjsC&q=Defensive%20Use%20of%20Tactical%20Nuclear%20Weapons&pg=PA7|edition=1.|editor=Brian Alexander, Alistair Millar|access-date=22 March 2011|page=7}}

Subsequent to Operation Opera, the destruction of a pre-operational nuclear reactor inside Iraq by the Israeli Air Force in 1981, the Israeli prime minister, Menachem Begin, countered criticism by saying that "on no account shall we permit an enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction against the people of Israel." This policy of pre-emptive action against real or perceived weapons of mass destruction became known as the Begin Doctrine.[http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/israel/nuclear/ Country Profiles -Israel] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006135509/http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/israel/nuclear/ |date=2014-10-06 }}, Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), updated May, 2014

The term "weapons of mass destruction" continued to see periodic use, usually in the context of nuclear arms control; Ronald Reagan used it during the 1986 Reykjavík Summit, when referring to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080518185704/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/22/documents/reykjavik/ |archive-date=18 May 2008 |title=CNN Cold War – Historical Documents: Reagan-Gorbachev transcripts |date=18 May 2008 |access-date=14 May 2012}} Reagan's successor, George H. W. Bush, used the term in a 1989 speech to the United Nations, primarily in reference to chemical arms.{{cite news |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DE153CF935A1575AC0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all |title=Excerpts From Bush's Speech at the Opening of the U.N. General Assembly – |location=Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Ussr) |work=The New York Times|date=26 September 1989 |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090318194026/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE1DE153CF935A1575AC0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all |archive-date=18 March 2009 |url-status=live}}

The end of the Cold War reduced U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons as a deterrent, causing it to shift its focus to disarmament. With the 1990 invasion of Kuwait and 1991 Gulf War, Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs became a particular concern of the first Bush Administration.{{cite news|author=MICHAEL WINES, Special to The New York Times |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3DD1130F933A0575AC0A966958260 |title=Confrontation in the Gulf; U.S. Explores New Strategies to Limit Weapons of Mass Destruction – |location=IRAQ |work=The New York Times|date=30 September 1990 |access-date=5 August 2010}} Following the war, Bill Clinton and other western politicians and media continued to use the term, usually in reference to ongoing attempts to dismantle Iraq's weapons programs.

File:Image of Nations which are colored if they have nuclear weapons.png were owned by Russia and the United States.{{cite news |title=Global Nuclear Arsenal Declines, But Future Cuts Uncertain Amid U.S.-Russia Tensions |url=https://www.rferl.org/a/nuclear-weapons-russia-start-inf-warheads/30003088.html |work=Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty |date=17 June 2019}}|312x312px]]

After the 11 September 2001 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, an increased fear of nonconventional weapons and asymmetric warfare took hold in many countries. The fear reached a crescendo with the 2002 Iraq disarmament crisis and the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that became the primary justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq; however, American forces found none in Iraq. They found old stockpiles of chemical munitions including sarin and mustard agents, but all were considered to be unusable because of corrosion or degradation.[http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,103631,00.html?ESRC=coastgnews.RSS Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121001050011/http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,103631,00.html?ESRC=coastgnews.RSS |date=1 October 2012 }}, Military.com, report filed by American Forces Press Service, 29 June 2006 Iraq, however, declared a chemical weapons stockpile in 2009 which U.N. personnel had secured after the 1991 Gulf War. The stockpile contained mainly chemical precursors, but some munitions remained usable.{{Cite web|url=http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/india-completes-chemical-weapons-disposal-iraq-declares-stockpile/|title=India Completes Chemical Weapons Disposal; Iraq Declares Stockpile {{!}} Analysis {{!}} NTI|website=nti.org|access-date=2017-12-12|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160103021743/http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/india-completes-chemical-weapons-disposal-iraq-declares-stockpile/|archive-date=3 January 2016|url-status=live}}

Because of its prolific use and (worldwide) public profile during this period, the American Dialect Society voted "weapons of mass destruction" (and its abbreviation, "WMD") the word of the year in 2002,{{cite web |url=http://www.americandialect.org/index.php/amerdial/2002_words_of_the_y/ |title=American Dialect Society |publisher=Americandialect.org |date=13 January 2003 |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060615053350/http://www.americandialect.org/index.php/amerdial/2002_words_of_the_y/ |archive-date=15 June 2006 |url-status=live}} and in 2003 Lake Superior State University added WMD to its list of terms banished for "Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness" (and "as a card that trumps all forms of aggression").{{cite web |url=https://www2.lssu.edu/banished-words-list/banished-word-list-archive/#toggle-id-14 |title=Lake Superior State University:: Banished Words List:: 2003 |publisher=Lssu.edu |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170820055207/https://www.lssu.edu/banished-words-list/banished-word-list-archive/#toggle-id-14 |archive-date=20 August 2017 |url-status=dead}}

In its criminal complaint against the main suspect of the Boston Marathon bombing of 15 April 2013, the FBI refers to a pressure-cooker improvised bomb as a "weapon of mass destruction."{{cite news |url=https://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/criminal-complaint-united-states-vs-dzhokhar-tsarnaev/412/ |title=Criminal Complaint United States vs Dzhokhar Tsarnaev |access-date=23 April 2013 |newspaper=The Washington Post |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130422211727/http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/criminal-complaint-united-states-vs-dzhokhar-tsarnaev/412/ |archive-date=22 April 2013 |url-status=dead}}

There have been calls to classify at least some classes of cyber weapons as WMD, in particular those aimed to bring about large-scale (physical) destruction, such as by targeting critical infrastructure.{{Cite journal|last=Hatch|first=Benjamin B.|date=December 2017|title=Defining a Class of Offensive Destructive Cyber Weapons As Weapons of Mass Destruction: An Examination of the Merits|url=https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CSDS/assets/trinity_site_paper10.pdf|journal=United States Air Force Center for Unconventional Weapon Studies Trinity Site Papers|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210602010924/https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CSDS/assets/trinity_site_paper10.pdf|archive-date=2021-06-02}}{{Cite web|last=Kumar|first=Davinder|date=March 2013|title=Cyber Weapons – The New Weapons of Mass Destruction|url=https://usiofindia.org/publication/usi-journal/cyber-weapons-the-new-weapons-of-mass-destruction/|url-status=dead|access-date=2021-07-03|website=United Service Institution of India|language=en-US|archive-date=7 January 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220107185109/https://usiofindia.org/publication/usi-journal/cyber-weapons-the-new-weapons-of-mass-destruction/}}{{Cite web|title=The Pentagon Thinks Cyber Ops Could Be The Next WMDs|url=https://www.govexec.com/defense/2018/12/pentagon-thinks-cyber-ops-could-be-next-wmds/153689/|access-date=2021-07-03|website=Government Executive|date=19 December 2018 |language=en}} However, some scholars have objected to classifying cyber weapons as WMD on the grounds that they "cannot [currently] directly injure or kill human beings as efficiently as guns or bombs" or clearly "meet the legal and historical definitions" of WMD.{{cite journal |last1=Carr |first1=Jeffrey |title=The misunderstood acronym: Why cyber weapons aren't WMD |journal=Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists |date=September 2013 |volume=69 |issue=5 |pages=32–37 |doi=10.1177/0096340213501373 |bibcode=2013BuAtS..69e..32C }}{{Cite journal|last1=Caves|first1=John|last2=Carus|first2=W. Seth|date=June 2014|title=Future of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Their Nature and Role in 2030|url=https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=755104|journal=Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Occasional Paper 10}}

The most widely used definition of "weapons of mass destruction" is that of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no treaty or customary international law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole. While nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are regarded as the three major types of WMDs,{{cite web|last1=Reed|first1=Laura|title=Weapons of Mass Destruction|url=https://www.hampshire.edu/pawss/weapons-of-mass-destruction|website=Hampshire College|access-date=21 October 2014|date=2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150802093743/https://www.hampshire.edu/pawss/weapons-of-mass-destruction|archive-date=2 August 2015|url-status=live}} some analysts have argued that radiological materials as well as missile technology and delivery systems such as aircraft and ballistic missiles could be labeled as WMDs as well.

However, there is an argument that nuclear and biological weapons do not belong in the same category as chemical and "dirty bomb" radiological weapons, which have limited destructive potential (and close to none, as far as property is concerned), whereas nuclear and biological weapons have the unique ability to kill large numbers of people with very small amounts of material, and thus could be said to belong in a class by themselves.{{citation needed|date=February 2018}}

The NBC definition has also been used in official U.S. documents, by the U.S. President,{{cite web|url=http://nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1_letter.html |title=Untitled |access-date=6 February 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100402124051/http://nti.org/f_wmd411/f1a1_letter.html |archive-date=2 April 2010 }}{{cite web |url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2001_presidential_documents&docid=pd14my01_txt-9.pdf |title=Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents Volume 37, Issue 19 (May 14, 2001) |publisher=Frwebgate.access.gpo.gov |access-date=14 May 2012 }}{{Dead link|date=April 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,[http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2003.htm CIA Site Redirect{{spaced ndash}}Central Intelligence Agency] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061004011442/https://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/jan_jun2003.htm|date=4 October 2006}} the U.S. Department of Defense,{{cite web|url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/prolif97/message.html |title=Message of the Secretary of Defense |access-date=6 February 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041001050843/http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/prolif97/message.html |archive-date=1 October 2004 }}{{cite web|url=http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/ptr20010110.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=6 February 2016 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060601034146/http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/ptr20010110.pdf |archive-date=1 June 2006 }} and the U.S. Government Accountability Office.{{cite web |url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=gao&docid=f:d01582.pdf |title=Weapons of Mass Destruction: State Department Oversight of Science Centers Program |access-date=5 August 2010 }}{{Dead link|date=August 2019 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}

Other documents expand the definition of WMD to also include radiological or conventional weapons. The U.S. military refers to WMD as:

{{blockquote|Chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons capable of a high order of destruction or causing mass casualties and exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part from the weapon. Also called WMD.{{cite web |url=http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/ |title=Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms |publisher=Dtic.mil |date=12 April 2001 |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161010194329/http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary/ |archive-date=10 October 2016 |url-status=dead}}}}

This may also refer to nuclear ICBMs (intercontinental ballistic missiles).{{citation needed|date=February 2018}}

File:Overzicht op Museumplein met spandoek The Dutch disease is better for peace o, Bestanddeelnr 253-8627.jpg missiles in Europe, 1981]]

The significance of the words separable and divisible part of the weapon is that missiles such as the Pershing II and the SCUD are considered weapons of mass destruction, while aircraft capable of carrying bombloads are not.{{citation needed|date=February 2018}}

In 2004, the United Kingdom's Butler Review recognized the "considerable and long-standing academic debate about the proper interpretation of the phrase 'weapons of mass destruction{{'"}}. The committee set out to avoid the general term but when using it, employed the definition of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which defined the systems which Iraq was required to abandon:{{citation needed|date=February 2018}}

• "Nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material or any sub-systems or components or any research, development, support or manufacturing facilities relating to [nuclear weapons].
• Chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.
• Ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities."[http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/butlerreview/report/index.asp Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction: Report of a Committee of Privy Counsellors] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716131809/http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/butlerreview/report/index.asp |date=16 July 2011 }} (HC 898), London: The Stationery Office, 2004, §14.

Chemical weapons expert Gert G. Harigel considers only nuclear weapons true weapons of mass destruction, because "only nuclear weapons are completely indiscriminate by their explosive power, heat radiation and radioactivity, and only they should therefore be called a weapon of mass destruction". He prefers to call chemical and biological weapons "weapons of terror" when aimed against civilians and "weapons of intimidation" for soldiers.{{Cite web|url=https://www.wagingpeace.org/chemical-and-biological-weapons-use-in-warfare-impact-on-society-and-environment/|title=Chemical and Biological Weapons: Use in Warfare, Impact on Society and Environment|last=Harigel|first=Gert G.|date=22 November 2001|access-date=19 January 2021}}

Testimony of one such soldier expresses the same viewpoint.{{cite web |url=http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/other/nbc.htm |title=A Soldier's Viewpoint on Surviving Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Attacks |publisher=Sightm1911.com |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100901234629/http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/other/nbc.htm |archive-date=1 September 2010 |url-status=dead}} For a period of several months in the winter of 2002–2003, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz frequently used the term "weapons of mass terror", apparently also recognizing the distinction between the psychological and the physical effects of many things currently falling into the WMD category.{{cite book |last1=Sidel |first1=Victor W. |last2=Levy |first2=Barry S. |editor1-last=Cockerham |editor1-first=William C. |title=International Encyclopedia of Public Health |date=2016 |publisher=Academic Press |isbn=978-0-12-803708-9 |page=402 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=WAnpCgAAQBAJ&pg=RA6-PA402 |language=en |chapter=Weapons of Mass Destruction}}

Gustavo Bell Lemus, the Vice President of Colombia, at 9 July 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, quoted the Millennium Report of the UN Secretary-General to the General Assembly, in which Kofi Annan said that small arms could be described as WMD because the fatalities they cause "dwarf that of all other weapons systems – and in most years greatly exceed the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki".{{cite web|url=http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/statements/colombiaE.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070902003808/http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/statements/colombiaE.html |archive-date=2 September 2007 |title=Colombia |date=2 September 2007 |access-date=14 May 2012}}

An additional condition often implicitly applied to WMD is that the use of the weapons must be strategic. In other words, they would be designed to "have consequences far outweighing the size and effectiveness of the weapons themselves".{{Cite web|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1013136.ece|title=What makes a weapon one of mass destruction?-News-UK-TimesOnline|date=11 March 2007|access-date=24 August 2017|archive-date=11 March 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070311090139/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1013136.ece|url-status=dead }} The strategic nature of WMD also defines their function in the military doctrine of total war as targeting the means a country would use to support and supply its war effort, specifically its population, industry, and natural resources.{{citation needed|date=February 2018}}

Within U.S. civil defense organizations, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:

(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life.{{cite web|url=http://www.theaic.org/publications/archives/thechemist/The_Chemist_Vol_84_Issue_1_2007/CBRNE_agents_pt1.pdf|title=The History and Science of CBRNE Agents, Part I|author=Capt. G. Shane Hendricks, Dr. Margot J. Hall|page=1|publisher=American Institute of Chemists|year=2007|access-date=4 July 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140714193547/http://www.theaic.org/publications/archives/thechemist/The_Chemist_Vol_84_Issue_1_2007/CBRNE_agents_pt1.pdf|archive-date=14 July 2014|url-status=dead}}

For the general purposes of national defense,{{cite web |url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sup_01_50.html |title=US CODE: Title 50—War and National Defense |publisher=.law.cornell.edu |date=23 March 2010 |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100427074108/http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sup_01_50.html |archive-date=27 April 2010 |url-status=live}} the U.S. Code{{cite web |url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sup_01_50_10_40.html |title=US CODE: 50, ch. 40—Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction |publisher=.law.cornell.edu |date=23 March 2010 |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100427074956/http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sup_01_50_10_40.html |archive-date=27 April 2010 |url-status=live}} defines a weapon of mass destruction as:

• any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of:
• toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
• a disease organism
• radiation or radioactivity{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/2302- |title=US CODE: 50, ch. 40, § 2302. Definitions |publisher=.law.cornell.edu |date=23 March 2010 |access-date=5 August 2010}}

For the purposes of the prevention of weapons proliferation,{{cite web |url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sup_01_50_10_43.html |title=US CODE: 50, ch. 43—Preventing Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism |publisher=.law.cornell.edu |date=23 March 2010 |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100728140256/http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/50/usc_sup_01_50_10_43.html |archive-date=28 July 2010 |url-status=live}} the U.S. Code defines weapons of mass destruction as "chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and chemical, biological, and nuclear materials used in the manufacture of such weapons".{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/2902- |title=US CODE: 50, ch. 43; § 2902. Definitions |publisher=.law.cornell.edu |date=23 March 2010 |access-date=5 August 2010}}

For the purposes of U.S. criminal law concerning terrorism,{{cite web |url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113B.html |title=US CODE: Chapter 113B—Terrorism |publisher=.law.cornell.edu |date=28 June 2010 |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100819002206/http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_113B.html |archive-date=19 August 2010 |url-status=live}} weapons of mass destruction are defined as:

• any "destructive device" defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas – bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921- |title=US CODE: Title 18, § 921. Definitions |publisher=.law.cornell.edu |date=13 September 1994 |access-date=5 August 2010}}
• any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
• any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
• any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life{{cite web|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2332a- |title=US CODE: Title 18, § 2332a. Use of weapons of mass destruction |publisher=.law.cornell.edu |date=28 June 2010 |access-date=5 August 2010}}

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:{{cite web |url=https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs/ |title=What is A Weapon of Mass Destruction |publisher=Fbi.gov |date=30 March 2007 |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101013224419/http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/wmd/wmd_faqs |archive-date=13 October 2010 |url-status=live}}

• any "destructive device" as defined in Title 18 USC Section 921: any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas – bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses
• any weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
• any weapon involving a disease organism
• any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life
• any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris.

Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs,See, e.g., {{cite web |title=United States v. McVeigh |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6243122458905704098 |website=Google Scholar |access-date=15 October 2021}} pipe bombs,{{cite web |url=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/2nd/981723.html |title=FindLaw for Legal Professionals – Case Law, Federal and State Resources, Forms, and Code |publisher=Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110610132713/http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=%2Fdata2%2Fcircs%2F2nd%2F981723.html |archive-date=10 June 2011 |url-status=live}} shoe bombs,{{cite web |url=http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/reid/usreid1002ind.pdf |title=U.S. v. Richard C. Reid |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090325035918/http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/reid/usreid1002ind.pdf |archive-date=25 March 2009 |url-status=dead}} and cactus needles coated with a biological toxin{{Cite web |url=https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nPAyAAAAIBAJ&pg=6809%2C3453874 |title=The Free Lance-Star – 14 Jul 1998 |access-date=11 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160102045936/https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nPAyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mQgGAAAAIBAJ&pg=6809%2C3453874 |archive-date=2 January 2016 |url-status=live}} have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.

As defined by 18 USC §2332 (a), a Weapon of Mass Destruction is:

• (A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of the title;
• (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
• (C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
• (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life;

Under the same statute, conspiring, attempting, threatening, or using a Weapon of Mass Destruction may be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if resulting in death, be punishable by death or by imprisonment for any terms of years or for life. They can also be asked to pay a maximum fine of $250,000.{{Cite web |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/pdf/uscode18/lii_usc_TI_18_PA_I_CH_113B_SE_2332a.pdf |title=18 U.S. Code § 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction |access-date=27 June 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170720083239/https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/pdf/uscode18/lii_usc_TI_18_PA_I_CH_113B_SE_2332a.pdf |archive-date=20 July 2017 |url-status=live}}

The Washington Post reported on 30 March 2006: "Jurors asked the judge in the death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui today to define the term 'weapons of mass destruction' and were told it includes airplanes used as missiles". Moussaoui was indicted and tried for conspiracy to both destroy aircraft and use weapons of mass destruction, among others.{{cite web |title=Indictment of ZACARIAS MOUSSAOUI |url=https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/indictment-zacarias-moussaoui |website=www.justice.gov |language=en |date=9 September 2014}}

The surviving Boston Marathon bombing perpetrator, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was charged in June 2013 with the federal offense of "use of a weapon of mass destruction" after he and his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev allegedly placed crude shrapnel bombs, made from pressure cookers packed with ball bearings and nails, near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. He was convicted in April 2015. The bombing resulted in three deaths and at least 264 injuries.{{cite news|url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2013/04/23/number-injured-marathon-bombing-revised-downward/NRpaz5mmvGquP7KMA6XsIK/story.html|title=Injury toll from Marathon bombs reduced to 264|quote=Boston public health officials said Tuesday that they have revised downward their estimate of the number of people injured in the Marathon attacks, to 264.|date=24 April 2013|access-date=29 April 2013|newspaper=The Boston Globe|last=Kotz|first=Deborah|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190331141156/https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-wellness/2013/04/23/number-injured-marathon-bombing-revised-downward/NRpaz5mmvGquP7KMA6XsIK/story.html|archive-date=31 March 2019|url-status=dead}}

{{See also|Arms control|List of weapons of mass destruction treaties}}

The development and use of WMD is governed by several international conventions and treaties.

{{Main|Nuclear warfare|List of states with nuclear weapons}}

File:US and USSR nuclear stockpiles.svg

Nuclear weapons use the energy inside of an atom's nucleus to create massive explosions. This goal is achieved through nuclear fission and fusion.{{Cite web |title=How Nuclear Weapons Work {{!}} Union of Concerned Scientists |url=https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-nuclear-weapons-work |access-date=2024-05-16 |website=www.ucsusa.org |language=en}}

Nuclear fission is when the nucleus of an atom is split into smaller nuclei. This process can be induced by shooting a neutron at the nucleus of an atom. When the neutron is absorbed by the atom, it becomes unstable, causing it to split and release energy. Modern nuclear weapons start this process by detonating chemical explosives around a pit of either uranium-235 or plutonium-239 metal. The force from this detonation is directed inwards, causing the pit of uranium or plutonium to compress to a dense point. Once the uranium/plutonium is dense enough, neutrons are then injected. This starts a fission chain reaction also known as an atomic explosion.

Nuclear fusion is essentially the opposite of fission. It is the fusing together of nuclei, not the splitting of it. When exposed to extreme pressure and temperature, some lightweight nuclei can fuse together and form heavier nuclei, releasing energy in the process. Fusion weapons (also known as “thermonuclear” or “hydrogen” weapons) use the fission process to initiate fusion. Fusion weapons use the energy released from a fission explosion to fuse hydrogen isotopes together. The energy released from these weapons creates a fireball, which reaches tens of million degrees. A temperature of this magnitude is similar to the temperature found at center of the sun; the sun runs on fusion as well.

The only country to have used a nuclear weapon in war is the United States, which dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II.

At the start of 2024, nine states—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and Israel—together possessed approximately 12 121 nuclear weapons, of which 9585 were considered to be potentially operationally available. An estimated 3904 of these warheads were deployed with operational forces, including about 2100 that were kept in a state of high operational alert—about 100 more than the previous year.{{cite book |chapter= World nuclear forces |title=SIPRI Yearbook 2024 |date=2024|last1=Kristensen |first1=Hans M. |last2=Korda |first2=Matt |last3= Friess | first3= Friederike | last4= Mian |first4=Zia | last5=Podvig | first5=Pavel| ISBN= 9780198930570}}

South Africa developed a small nuclear arsenal in the 1980s but disassembled them in the early 1990s, making it the only country to have fully given up an independently developed nuclear weapons arsenal. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine inherited stockpiles of nuclear arms following the break-up of the Soviet Union, but relinquished them to the Russian Federation.{{cite book |doi=10.1016/B978-0-12-803678-5.00491-4 |chapter=Weapons of Mass Destruction |title=International Encyclopedia of Public Health |date=2017 |last1=Sidel |first1=Victor W. |last2=Levy |first2=Barry S. |pages=402–407 |isbn=978-0-12-803708-9 }}

Countries where nuclear weapons are deployed through nuclear sharing agreements include Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey.{{Cite web|url=https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/nato-nuclear-disarmament/|title=U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe {{!}} NATO Nuclear Weapons Policy {{!}} NTI|website=nti.org|access-date=2019-03-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181107233042/https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/nato-nuclear-disarmament/|archive-date=7 November 2018|url-status=live}}

{{Main|Biological warfare|Biological weapons}}[[File:Biological Weapons Convention original document.png|thumb|The Biological Weapons ConventionUnited Nations (1972). [https://front.un-arm.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BWC-text-English.pdf Biological Weapons Convention].

]]The history of biological warfare goes back at least to the Mongol siege of Caffa in 1346 and possibly much farther back to antiquity.{{Cite journal|last=Wheelis|first=Mark|date=September 2002|title=Biological Warfare at the 1346 Siege of Caffa|journal= Emerging Infectious Diseases|language=en-us|volume=8|issue=9|pages=971–975|doi=10.3201/eid0809.010536|pmid=12194776|pmc=2732530|doi-access=free}} It is believed that the Ancient Greeks contaminated their adversaries' wells by placing animal corpses in them.{{Cite book|last=Mayor|first=Adrienne|title=Greek Fire, Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs: Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World|publisher=Abrams Press|year=2003|isbn=978-1585673483}}{{Cite news |title=The A to Z of international relations |language=en |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/international-relations-a-to-z |access-date=2023-11-23}} However, only by the turn of the 20th century did advances in microbiology allow for the large-scale weaponization of pathogens. During First World War, German military attempted to introduce anthrax into Allied livestock. In Second World War, Japan conducted aerial attacks on China using fleas carrying the bubonic plague. During the 20th century, at least nine states have operated offensive biological weapons programs, including Canada (1946–1956),{{Cite web|title=Canada|url=https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/canada/|access-date=2021-03-04|website=Nuclear Threat Initiative}} France (1921–1972),{{Cite web|title=France|url=https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/france/|access-date=2021-03-04|website=Nuclear Threat Initiative}} Iraq (1985–1990s),{{Cite web|title=Iraq|url=https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/iraq/biological/|access-date=2021-03-04|website=Nuclear Threat Initiative}} Japan (1930s–1945),{{Cite web|title=Japan|url=https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/japan/|access-date=2021-03-04|website=Nuclear Threat Initiative}} Rhodesia, South Africa (1981–1993),{{Cite web|title=South Africa|url=https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/south-africa/biological/|access-date=2021-03-04|website=Nuclear Threat Initiative}} the Soviet Union (1920s–1992),{{Cite web|title=Russia|url=https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/russia/biological/|access-date=2021-03-04|website=Nuclear Threat Initiative}} the United Kingdom (1934–1956),{{Cite web|title=United Kingdom|url=https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/united-kingdom/|access-date=2021-03-04|website=Nuclear Threat Initiative}} and the United States (1943–1969).{{Cite web|title=United States|url=https://www.nti.org/learn/countries/united-states/biological/|access-date=2021-03-04|website=Nuclear Threat Initiative}} The Japanese biological weapons program, which was run by the secret Imperial Japanese Army Unit 731 during the Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945), became infamous for conducting often fatal human experiments on prisoners and producing biological weapons for combat use.{{Cite book|last=Dando|first=Malcolm|title=Chapter 2: Biological warfare before 1945. In Bioterror and Biowarfare: A Beginner's Guide|publisher=Oneworld|year=2006|isbn=9781851684472|pages=11–31}} The Soviet Union covertly operated the world's largest, longest, and most sophisticated biological weapons program, in violation of its obligations under international law.{{cite book |chapter=Conclusion |pages=698–712 |jstor=j.ctt2jbscf.30 |last1=Leitenberg |first1=Milton |last2=Zilinskas |first2=Raymond A. |last3=Kuhn |first3=Jens H. |title=The Soviet Biological Weapons Program: A History |date=2012 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-04770-9 }}

International restrictions on biological warfare began with the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which prohibits the use but not the possession or development of biological and chemical weapons.{{cite journal |last1=Baxter |first1=R. R. |last2=Buergenthal |first2=Thomas |title=Legal Aspects of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 |journal=American Journal of International Law |date=October 1970 |volume=64 |issue=5 |pages=853–879 |doi=10.2307/2198921 |jstor=2198921 }}{{Cite web|title=Text of the 1925 Geneva Protocol|url=http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/1925/text|url-status=dead|access-date=2021-03-02|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|archive-date=9 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210209134308/http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/1925/text}} Upon ratification of the Geneva Protocol, several countries made reservations regarding its applicability and use in retaliation.{{Cite web|title=Disarmament Treaties Database: 1925 Geneva Protocol|url=http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/1925|url-status=dead|access-date=2021-03-02|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|archive-date=21 May 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190521142454/http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/1925}} Due to these reservations, it was in practice a "no-first-use" agreement only.{{cite journal |last1=Beard |first1=Jack M. |title=The Shortcomings of Indeterminacy in Arms Control Regimes: The Case of the Biological Weapons Convention |journal=American Journal of International Law |date=April 2007 |volume=101 |issue=2 |pages=271–321 |doi=10.1017/S0002930000030098 }} The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) supplements the Geneva Protocol by prohibiting the development, production, acquisition, transfer, stockpiling, and use of biological weapons.{{Cite web|title=Biological Weapons Convention|url=https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons/|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210215200800/https://www.un.org/disarmament/biological-weapons|archive-date=2021-02-15|access-date=2021-03-02|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|language=en-US}} Having entered into force on 26 March 1975, the BWC was the first multilateral disarmament treaty to ban the production of an entire category of weapons of mass destruction. As of March 2021, 183 states have become party to the treaty.{{Cite web|title=Disarmament Treaties Database: Biological Weapons Convention|url=http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/bwc|url-status=dead|access-date=2021-03-02|website=United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs|archive-date=2 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210202055505/http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/bwc}}

{{main|Chemical warfare}}

Chemical weapons have been used around the world by various civilizations since ancient times. The oldest reported case of a chemical substance being used as a weapon was in 256 AD during the siege of Dura-Europos. A mixture of tar and sulfur was used to produce sulfur oxides, which helped take control of the city.{{Cite journal |last=Vilches |first=Diego |date=November 15, 2015 |title=One hundred and one years after a milestone: Modern chemical weapons and World War I |url=https://revistas.unam.mx/index.php/req/article/view/63852 |journal=Educacion Quimica (Chemistry Education) |volume=27 |issue=3}}{{cite web |title=Gas Warfare at Dura-Europos |url=http://www.archaeology.co.uk/cwa/world-news/death-underground-gas-warfare-at-dura-europos.htm |website=World Archaeology |access-date=22 December 2021 |date=7 November 2009}} In the industrial era, chemical weapons were used extensively by both sides during World War I, and by the Axis powers during World War II (both in battle and in extermination camp gas chambers) though Allied powers also stockpiled them.

International restrictions on chemical warfare began with the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, and was expanded significantly by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. These treaties prohibited the use of poisons or chemical agents in international warfare, but did not place restrictions on development or weapon stockpiles. Since 1997, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) has expanded restrictions to prohibit any use and development of chemical weapons except for very limited purposes (research, medical, pharmaceutical or protective). As of 2018, a handful of countries have known inventories, and many are in the process of being safely destroyed.{{cite journal |last1=Timperley |first1=Christopher M. |last2=Forman |first2=Jonathan E. |last3=Abdollahi |first3=Mohammad |last4=Al-Amri |first4=Abdullah Saeed |last5=Alonso |first5=Isel Pascual |last6=Baulig |first6=Augustin |last7=Borrett |first7=Veronica |last8=Cariño |first8=Flerida A. |last9=Curty |first9=Christophe |last10=Berrutti |first10=David González |last11=Kovarik |first11=Zrinka |last12=Martínez-Álvarez |first12=Roberto |last13=Mikulak |first13=Robert |last14=Mourão |first14=Nicia Maria Fusaro |last15=Ponnadurai |first15=Ramasami |last16=Neffe |first16=Slawomir |last17=Raza |first17=Syed K. |last18=Rubaylo |first18=Valentin |last19=Takeuchi |first19=Koji |last20=Tang |first20=Cheng |last21=Trifirò |first21=Ferruccio |last22=van Straten |first22=Francois Mauritz |last23=Vanninen |first23=Paula S. |last24=Zaitsev |first24=Volodymyr |last25=Waqar |first25=Farhat |last26=Zina |first26=Mongia Saïd |last27=Blum |first27=Marc-Michael |last28=Gregg |first28=Hugh |last29=Fischer |first29=Elena |last30=Sun |first30=Siqing |last31=Yang |first31=Pei |title=Advice on chemical weapons sample stability and storage provided by the Scientific Advisory Board of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons to increase investigative capabilities worldwide |journal=Talanta |date=October 2018 |volume=188 |pages=808–832 |doi=10.1016/j.talanta.2018.04.022 |pmid=30029449 }} Nonetheless, proliferation and use in war zones remains an active concern, most recently the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War.

{{CW Proliferation}}

Some commentators classify some or all the uses of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons during wartime as a war crime (or crime against humanity if widespread) because they kill civilians (who are protected by the laws of war) indiscriminately or are specifically prohibited by international treaties (which have become more comprehensive over time).See List of weapons of mass destruction treaties. Proponents of use say that specific uses of such weapons have been necessary for defense or to avoid more deaths in a protracted war.See Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for various perspectives on the only combat use of nuclear weapons. The Khabarovsk War Crime Trials sentenced some members of the Japanese army to jail terms for the use of biological and chemical weapons during World War II. The Halabja poison gas attack was determined a war crime by Dutch and Iraqi courts, resulting in the execution of Ali Hassan al-Majid. The tactic of terror bombing from aircraft, and generally targeting cities with area bombardment or saturation carpet bombing has also been criticized, defended, and prohibited by treaty in the same way; the destructive effect of conventional saturation bombing is similar to that of a nuclear weapon.See Aerial bombardment and international law.The Bombing of Dresden in World War II in particular has been referred to as mass murder: Volkery, Carsten. [http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,339833,00.html "60 Years after the Bombing of Dresden: A War of Words"], Der Spiegel, 2 February 2005. {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070909140816/http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,339833,00.html |date=9 September 2007 }}.In addition to previous treaties on bombardment of civilian areas generally, carpet bombing of cities, towns, villages, or other areas containing a concentration of civilians was specifically designated a war crime by the 1977 Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions: {{cite web |url=http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/carpet-or-area-bombing/ |website=Crimes of War |title=Carpet or Area Bombing |first1=Horst |last1=Fischer |access-date=2015-12-08 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151202081911/http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/carpet-or-area-bombing/ |archive-date=2 December 2015}}

Due to the potentially indiscriminate effects of WMD, the fear of a WMD attack has shaped political policies and campaigns, fostered social movements, and has been the central theme of many films. Support for different levels of WMD development and control varies nationally and internationally. Yet understanding of the nature of the threats is not high, in part because of imprecise usage of the term by politicians and the media.{{citation needed|date=February 2018}}

File:Blueprint abomb.JPG

Fear of WMD, or of threats diminished by the possession of WMD, has long been used to catalyze public support for various WMD policies. They include mobilization of pro- and anti-WMD campaigners alike, and generation of popular political support.{{citation needed|date=February 2018}} The term WMD may be used as a powerful buzzword{{cite web |url=http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/dtw_wmd.htm |first1=David T. |last1=Wright |title=Weapons of mass distraction |publisher=The Last Ditch |date=June 11, 2003 |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110615224203/http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/dtw_wmd.htm |archive-date=15 June 2011 |url-status=dead}} or to generate a culture of fear.{{cite web |url=http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1256 |title=Weapons of Mass Destruction Are Overrated as a Threat to America |publisher=The Independent Institute |date=28 January 2004 |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100613102918/http://independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1256 |archive-date=13 June 2010 |url-status=live}} It is also used ambiguously, particularly by not distinguishing among the different types of WMD.{{cite magazine |url-status=dead |url=https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20021007&s=easterbrook100702 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071011185538/https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20021007&s=easterbrook100702|archive-date=11 October 2007 |title=Term Limits |first1=Gregg |last1=Easterbrook |url-access=subscription |magazine=The New Republic }}

A television commercial called Daisy, promoting Democrat Lyndon Johnson's 1964 presidential candidacy, invoked the fear of a nuclear war and was an element in Johnson's subsequent election.{{Cite web|last=Nowicki|first=Dan|title='Daisy Girl' political ad still haunting 50 years later|url=https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/arizona/politics/2014/09/07/daisy-ad-political-attack-remembered/15233151/ |date=Sep 6, 2014 |access-date=2022-02-02|website=The Arizona Republic|language=en-US}}

Later, United States' President George W. Bush used the threat of potential WMD in Iraq as justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.{{cite web |url=http://www.theava.com/03/08-13-warpimps.html |title=War Pimps |first1=Jeffrey |last1=St. Clair |publisher=Anderson Valley Advertiser |date=13 August 2003 |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110611164724/http://www.theava.com/03/08-13-warpimps.html |archive-date=11 June 2011 |url-status=dead}} Broad reference to Iraqi WMD in general was seen as an element of President Bush's arguments. The claim that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) was a major factor that led to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 by Coalition forces.{{Cite web|title=President Bush Meets with Prime Minister Blair|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html |first1=Tony |last1=Blair |first2=George W. |last2=Bush |date= January 31, 2003 |website=The White House |url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110312120342/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html|archive-date=2011-03-12|access-date=2021-02-01}}

Over 500 munitions containing mustard agent and sarin were discovered throughout Iraq since 2003; they were made in the 1980s and are no longer usable as originally intended due to corrosion.{{cite news|title=Munitions Found in Iraq Meet WMD Criteria, Official Says|url=https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/id/15918/|access-date=1 April 2014|newspaper=US Department of Defense |first1=Samantha L. |last1=Quigley |date=June 29, 2006 |url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140614110303/http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918|archive-date=14 June 2014}}

The American Heritage Dictionary defines a weapon of mass destruction as: "a weapon that can cause widespread destruction or kill large numbers of people, especially a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon."{{Cite web |url=https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=weapon+of+mass+destruction&submit.x=51&submit.y=20 |website=American Heritage Dictionary |title=Weapon of mass destruction |access-date=24 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150904054206/https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=weapon+of+mass+destruction&submit.x=51&submit.y=20 |archive-date=4 September 2015 |url-status=dead}} In other words, it does not have to be nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC). For example, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, one of the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing, was charged under United States law 18 U.S.C. 2332A{{Cite web |url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap113B-sec2332a/content-detail.html |title=18 U.S.C. 2332a - Use of weapons of mass destruction|website=GovInfo |access-date=24 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150512132343/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-partI-chap113B-sec2332a/content-detail.html |archive-date=12 May 2015 |url-status=live}} for using a weapon of mass destruction{{Cite web |url=https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/363201342213441988148.pdf |title=Case 1:13-mj-02106-MBB Document 3 |date=April 21, 2013 |website=U.S. Department of Justice |access-date=24 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140623011221/http://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/363201342213441988148.pdf |archive-date=23 June 2014 |url-status=live}} and that was a pressure cooker bomb. In other words, it was a weapon that caused large-scale death and destruction, without being an NBC weapon.

In March 2004, the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) released a report{{Cite web|last=Moeller|first=Susan D.|date=March 9, 2004|title=Media coverage of weapons of mass destruction |url=http://www.cissm.umd.edu/documents/WMDstudy_full.pdf|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20041022050812/http://www.cissm.umd.edu/documents/WMDstudy_full.pdf|archive-date=22 October 2004|url-status=dead |website=Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland |access-date=May 19, 2021}} examining the media's coverage of WMD issues during three separate periods: nuclear weapons tests by India and Pakistan in May 1998; the U.S. announcement of evidence of a North Korean nuclear weapons program in October 2002; and revelations about Iran's nuclear program in May 2003. The CISSM report argues that poor coverage resulted less from political bias among the media than from tired journalistic conventions. The report's major findings were that:

{{Blockquote|text=1. Most media outlets represented WMD as a monolithic menace, failing to adequately distinguish between weapons programs and actual weapons or to address the real differences among chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons.

2. Most journalists accepted the Bush administration's formulation of the "War on Terror" as a campaign against WMD, in contrast to coverage during the Clinton era, when many journalists made careful distinctions between acts of terrorism and the acquisition and use of WMD.

3. Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration's perspective on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats, and policy options.

4. Too few stories proffered alternative perspectives to official line, a problem exacerbated by the journalistic prioritizing of breaking-news stories and the "inverted pyramid" style of storytelling.|author=Susan D. Moeller|title=Media Coverage of Weapons of Mass Destruction}}

In a separate study published in 2005,{{cite web |url=http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0956-7976 |title=Psychological Science – Journal Information |publisher=Blackwellpublishing.com |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100814183500/http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0956-7976 |archive-date=14 August 2010 |url-status=dead}} a group of researchers assessed the effects reports and retractions in the media had on people's memory regarding the search for WMD in Iraq during the 2003 Iraq War. The study focused on populations in two coalition countries (Australia and the United States) and one opposed to the war (Germany). Results showed that U.S. citizens generally did not correct initial misconceptions regarding WMD, even following disconfirmation; Australian and German citizens were more responsive to retractions. Dependence on the initial source of information led to a substantial minority of Americans exhibiting false memory that WMD were indeed discovered, while they were not. This led to three conclusions:

1. The repetition of tentative news stories, even if they are subsequently disconfirmed, can assist in the creation of false memories in a substantial proportion of people.
2. Once information is published, its subsequent correction does not alter people's beliefs unless they are suspicious about the motives underlying the events the news stories are about.
3. When people ignore corrections, they do so irrespective of how certain they are that the corrections occurred.

A poll conducted between June and September 2003 asked people whether they thought evidence of WMD had been discovered in Iraq since the war ended. They were also asked which media sources they relied upon. Those who obtained their news primarily from Fox News were three times as likely to believe that evidence of WMD had been discovered in Iraq than those who relied on PBS and NPR for their news, and one third more likely than those who primarily watched CBS.{{cite journal |last1=Kull |first1=Steven |last2=Ramsay |first2=Clay |last3=Lewis |first3=Evan |title=Misperceptions, the Media, and the Iraq War |journal=Political Science Quarterly |date=December 2003 |volume=118 |issue=4 |pages=569–598 |doi=10.1002/j.1538-165X.2003.tb00406.x }}

Based on a series of polls taken from June–September 2003.{{cite web |url=http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf |title=Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War |access-date=2009-10-22 |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060210232719/http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/IraqMedia_Oct03/IraqMedia_Oct03_rpt.pdf |archive-date=10 February 2006}}, PIPA, 2 October 2003

In 2006, Fox News reported the claims of two Republican lawmakers that WMDs had been found in Iraq,

{{cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/story/report-hundreds-of-wmds-found-in-iraq|title=Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq|publisher=Fox News|date=22 June 2006|access-date=30 June 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080424081106/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0%2C2933%2C200499%2C00.html|archive-date=24 April 2008|url-status=live}}

based upon unclassified portions of a report by the National Ground Intelligence Center. Quoting from the report, Senator Rick Santorum said "Since 2003, coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent". According to David Kay, who appeared before the U.S. House Armed Services Committee to discuss these badly corroded munitions, they were leftovers, many years old, improperly stored or destroyed by the Iraqis.Kay, David. "House Armed Services Committee Hearing", 29 June 2006 Charles Duelfer agreed, stating on NPR's Talk of the Nation: "When I was running the ISG – the Iraq Survey Group – we had a couple of them that had been turned in to these IEDs, the improvised explosive devices. But they are local hazards. They are not a major, you know, weapon of mass destruction."Duelfer, Charles. [https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5504298 Expert: Iraq WMD Find Did Not Point to Ongoing Program] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181216074501/https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5504298 |date=16 December 2018 }} NPR. 22 June 2006

Later, wikileaks would show that WMDs of these kinds continued to be found as the Iraqi occupation continued.{{cite web |first=Noah |last=Shachtman |url=https://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/ |title=WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results |website=Wired.com |date=23 October 2010 |access-date=12 March 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140324160659/http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results |archive-date=24 March 2014 |url-status=live}}

Many news agencies, including Fox News, reported the conclusions of the CIA that, based upon the investigation of the Iraq Survey Group, WMDs are yet to be found in Iraq.{{cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7634313|title=CIA's Final Report: No WMD Found in Iraq|publisher=NBC News|date=25 April 2005|access-date=1 July 2007}}{{cite news|url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154574,00.html|title=Iraq WMD Inspectors End Search, Find Nothing|publisher=Fox News|date=26 April 2005|access-date=24 July 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070805083349/http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,154574,00.html|archive-date=5 August 2007|url-status=live}}

Awareness and opinions of WMD have varied during the course of their history. Their threat is a source of unease, security, and pride to different people. The anti-WMD movement is embodied most in nuclear disarmament, and led to the formation of the British Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in 1957.{{citation needed|date=February 2018}}

File:Anti-nuclear weapons protest, UK 1980.JPG protest march in Oxford, 1980]]

In order to increase awareness of all kinds of WMD, in 2004 the nuclear physicist and Nobel Peace Prize winner Joseph Rotblat inspired the creation of The WMD Awareness Programme{{Cite web|url=http://www.wmdawareness.org.uk/|title=Welcome – WMD Awareness Programme|date=26 June 2009|access-date=9 October 2017|archive-date=26 June 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090626122429/http://www.wmdawareness.org.uk/|url-status=bot: unknown}} to provide trustworthy and up to date information on WMD worldwide.

In 1998, the University of New Mexico's Institute for Public Policy released their third report{{cite report |last1=Herron |first1=Kerry G. |last2=Jenkins-Smith |first2=Hank C. |last3=Hughes |first3=Scott |date=June 2000 |title=Mass and Elite Viewson Nuclear Security | url=https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/759443 |publisher=UNM Institute for Public Policy |access-date=2024-03-09 |quote=Reports of the three previous studies in this series can be obtained from the National Technical Information Service. See ...(3)Kerry G. Herron and Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, 1998, Public Perspectives on Nuclear Security: US National Security Surveys 1993–1997}} on U.S. perceptions – including the general public, politicians and scientists – of nuclear weapons since the breakup of the Soviet Union. Risks of nuclear conflict, proliferation, and terrorism were seen as substantial.{{cite report | last1=Herron | first1=K.G. | last2=Jenkins-Smith | first2=H.C. | title=Public perspectives on nuclear security. US national security surveys, 1993--1997 | publisher=Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) | date=August 1, 1998 | doi=10.2172/665965 |url=https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc709036/#description-content-main}}

While maintenance of the U.S. nuclear arsenal was considered above average in importance, there was widespread support for a reduction in the stockpile, and very little support for developing and testing new nuclear weapons.

Also in 1998, nuclear weapons became an issue in India's election of March, in relation to political tensions with neighboring Pakistan.{{cite web | title=Pakistan's Nuclear Tests Attempt to Restore Mutual Deterrence, Pakistan Tells Disarmament Committee | website=United Nations Meetings Coverage and Press Releases | date=October 20, 1998 | url=https://press.un.org/en/1998/19981020.gads3115.html | access-date=March 9, 2024}} Prior to the election the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) announced it would "declare India a nuclear weapon state" after coming to power.{{cite web | author=Venkatesh | last2=Tsao | first2=Jeffrey Y. | last3=Bustamante | first3=Constanza M. Vidal | last4=Calidas | first4=Doug | last5=Bingen | first5=Kari A. | last6=Williams | first6=Heather | last7=Nye | first7=Joseph S. | last8=Walt | first8=Stephen M. | last9=Brooks | first9=Harvey | last10=Comiter | first10=Marcus | title=Indian Nuclear Escalation | website=Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs | date=May 13, 1998 | url=https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/indian-nuclear-escalation-failure-us-policy | access-date=March 9, 2024}}

BJP won the elections, and on 14 May, three days after India tested nuclear weapons for the second time, a public opinion poll reported that a majority of Indians favored the country's nuclear build-up.{{citation needed|date=June 2012}}

On 15 April 2004, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) reported{{cite web|url=http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/WMD/WMDreport_04_15_04.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050929024408/http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/WMD/WMDreport_04_15_04.pdf |archive-date=29 September 2005 |title=The Pipa/Knowledge Networks Poll |date=29 September 2005 |access-date=14 May 2012}} that U.S. citizens showed high levels of concern regarding WMD, and that preventing the spread of nuclear weapons should be "a very important U.S. foreign policy goal", accomplished through multilateral arms control rather than the use of military threats.{{citation needed|date=February 2018}}

A majority also believed the United States should be more forthcoming with its biological research and its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty commitment of nuclear arms reduction.{{citation needed|date=February 2018}}

A Russian opinion poll conducted on 5 August 2005 indicated half the population believed new nuclear powers have the right to possess nuclear weapons.{{cite web |author=Russian public opinion on nuclear weapons |url=http://russianforces.org/eng/blog/archive/000580.shtml |title=Russian public opinion on nuclear weapons – Blog – Russian strategic nuclear forces |publisher=Russianforces.org |date=5 August 2005 |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060216073301/http://russianforces.org/eng/blog/archive/000580.shtml |archive-date=16 February 2006 |url-status=dead}} 39% believed the Russian stockpile should be reduced, though not eliminated.{{cite web |author=Russian public opinion on nuclear weapons |url=http://russianforces.org/eng/blog/archive/000580.shtml |title=Russian public opinion on nuclear weapons – Blog – Russian strategic nuclear forces |publisher=Russianforces.org |date=5 August 2005 |access-date=5 August 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060216073301/http://russianforces.org/eng/blog/archive/000580.shtml |archive-date=16 February 2006 |url-status=dead}}

{{Main|Weapons of mass destruction in popular culture}}

Weapons of mass destruction and their related impacts have been a mainstay of popular culture since the beginning of the Cold War, as both political commentary and humorous outlet. The actual phrase "weapons of mass destruction" has been used similarly and as a way to characterise any powerful force or product since the Iraqi weapons crisis in the lead up to the Coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003.{{citation needed|date=February 2018}} Science-fiction may introduce novel weapons of mass destruction with much greater yields or impact than anything in reality.

The term; “Weapon of Mass Destruction”, verbatim, is voiced in the American dubbed 1964 anime television show Gigantor. Season 1, episode 3 (Japan, 1963)

{{Main|Hazard symbol}}

File:Radiation warning symbol.svg

File:Logo iso radiation.svg danger symbol]]

The international radioactivity symbol (also known as trefoil) first appeared in 1946, at the University of California, Berkeley Radiation Laboratory. At the time, it was rendered as magenta, and was set on a blue background.{{cite web|url=https://www.orau.org/health-physics-museum/articles/radiation-warning-symbol.html|title=Origin of the Radiation Warning Symbol (Trefoil)|access-date=13 October 2021}}

It is drawn with a central circle of radius R, the blades having an internal radius of 1.5R and an external radius of 5R, and separated from each other by 60°.{{cite web|url=http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_WSH_part476_54539_7.pdf |title=Biohazard and radioactive Symbol, design and proportions |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131231181252/http://www.michigan.gov/documents/CIS_WSH_part476_54539_7.pdf |archive-date=31 December 2013 }}

It is meant to represent a radiating atom.{{Cite web|url=https://www.orau.org/health-physics-museum/articles/radiation-warning-symbol.html|title=Origin of the Radiation Warning Sign (Trefoil)|website=orau.org|access-date=2021-10-13}}

The International Atomic Energy Agency found that the trefoil radiation symbol is unintuitive and can be variously interpreted by those uneducated in its meaning; therefore, its role as a hazard warning was compromised as it did not clearly indicate "danger" to many non-Westerners and children who encountered it. As a result of research, a new radiation hazard symbol (ISO 21482) was developed in 2007 to be placed near the most dangerous parts of radiation sources featuring a skull, someone running away, and using a red rather than yellow background.Linda Lodding, "[http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull482/pdfs/18RadSymbol.pdf Drop it and Run! New Symbol Warns of Radiation Dangers and Aims to Save Lives] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120120125920/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull482/pdfs/18RadSymbol.pdf |date=20 January 2012 }}," IAEA Bulletin 482 (March 2007): 70–72.

The red background is intended to convey urgent danger, and the sign is intended to be used on equipment where very strong ionizing radiation can be encountered if the device is dismantled or otherwise tampered with. The intended use of the sign is not in a place where the normal user will see it, but in a place where it will be seen by someone who has started to dismantle a radiation-emitting device or equipment. The aim of the sign is to warn people such as scrap metal workers to stop work and leave the area.{{Cite web |url=http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2007/radiationsymbol.html |title=IAEA news release Feb 2007 |date=15 February 2007 |access-date=11 January 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070217075115/http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2007/radiationsymbol.html |archive-date=17 February 2007 |url-status=live}}

File:Biohazard symbol (black and yellow).png

Developed by Dow Chemical company in the 1960s for their containment products.{{cite web|url=http://www.hms.harvard.edu/orsp/coms/BiosafetyResources/History-of-Biohazard-Symbol.htm|title=Biohazard Symbol History|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120213165520/http://www.hms.harvard.edu/orsp/coms/biosafetyresources/history-of-biohazard-symbol.htm|archive-date=13 February 2012}}

According to Charles Dullin, an environmental-health engineer who contributed to its development:

{{blockquote|"We wanted something that was memorable but meaningless, so we could educate people as to what it means."}}

{{Div col|colwidth=30em}}

• {{annotated link|The Bomb (film)}}
• CBRN defense
• Commission on the Prevention of WMD proliferation and terrorism
• List of CBRN warfare forces
• Core (game theory)
• Ethnic bioweapon
• Fallout shelter
• Game theory
• Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction
• Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Kinetic bombardment
• List of global issues
• Mutual assured destruction
• NBC suit
• New physical principles weapons
• Nuclear terrorism
• Operations Plus WMD
• Orbital bombardment
• Russia and weapons of mass destruction
• Strategic bombing
• United States and weapons of mass destruction
• Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission{{div col end}}

{{Reflist}}

{{Refbegin}}

• {{cite book |doi=10.4324/9780203381649 |title=Weapons of Mass Destruction and US Foreign Policy |date=2014 |last1=Bentley |first1=Michelle |isbn=978-1-134-12054-3 }}
• {{cite book |doi=10.4324/9780203950401 |title=Repairing the Regime |date=2014 |isbn=978-1-135-28432-9 |editor-last1=Cirincione |editor-first1=Joseph }}
• {{cite book |editor1-last=Croddy |editor1-first=Eric A. |editor2-last=Wirtz |editor2-first=James J. |title=Weapons of Mass Destruction [2 Volumes]: An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology, and History |date=2005 |publisher=Bloomsbury Academic |isbn=978-1-85109-490-5 }}
• Curley, Robert, ed. Weapons of Mass Destruction (Britannica Educational Publishing, 2011)
• Graham Jr, Thomas, and Thomas Graham. Common sense on weapons of mass destruction (University of Washington Press, 2011)
• {{cite journal |last1=Horowitz |first1=Michael C. |last2=Narang |first2=Neil |title=Poor Man's Atomic Bomb? Exploring the Relationship between 'Weapons of Mass Destruction' |journal=Journal of Conflict Resolution |date=April 2014 |volume=58 |issue=3 |pages=509–535 |doi=10.1177/0022002713509049 }}
• Hutchinson, Robert. Weapons of Mass Destruction: The no-nonsense guide to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons today (Hachette UK, 2011)

{{Refend}}

• "[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2744411.stm WMD: Words of mass dissemination]" (12 February 2003), BBC News.
• Bentley, Michelle, "War and/of Worlds: Constructing WMD in U.S. Foreign Policy", Security Studies 22 (Jan. 2013), 68–97.
• Michael Evans, "What makes a weapon one of mass destruction?" (6 February 2004), The Times.
• Bruce Schneier, "[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/04/definition_of_w.html Definition of 'Weapon of Mass Destruction']" (6 April 2009), Schneier on Security.
• Stefano Felician, Le armi di distruzione di massa, CEMISS, Roma, 2010, [https://www.difesa.it/SMD_/CASD/IM/CeMISS/Pubblicazioni/Documents/75101_Ricerca_Fpdf.pdf]

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540
• David P. Fidler, "[https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/8/issue/3/weapons-mass-destruction-and-international-law Weapons of Mass Destruction and International Law]" (February 2003), American Society of International Law.
• Joanne Mariner, "[https://edition.cnn.com/2001/LAW/11/columns/fl.mariner.civilians.war.11.20/ FindLaw Forum: Weapons of mass destruction and international law's principle that civilians cannot be targeted]" (20 November 2001), CNN.

• {{cite report |doi=10.37559/WMD/19/WMDCE4 |title=Compliance and Enforcement in the Biological Weapons Regime |date=2019 |last1=Lentzos |first1=Filippa }}
• {{cite report |doi=10.37559/WMD/19/WMDCE3 |title=Compliance Management under the Chemical Weapons Convention |date=2019 |last1=Trapp |first1=Ralf }}
• {{cite report |doi=10.37559/WMD/19/WMDCE2 |title=IAEA Mechanisms to Ensure Compliance with NPT Safeguards |date=2020 |last1=Heinonen |first1=Olli }}

• {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060217212308/http://www.cissm.umd.edu/documents/WMDstudy_full.pdf |date=17 February 2006 |title=Media Coverage of Weapons of Mass Destruction }}, by Susan D. Moeller, Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland, 2004.
• {{cite journal |last1=Lewandowsky |first1=Stephan |last2=Stritzke |first2=Werner G.K. |last3=Oberauer |first3=Klaus |last4=Morales |first4=Michael |title=Memory for Fact, Fiction, and Misinformation: The Iraq War 2003 |journal=Psychological Science |date=March 2005 |volume=16 |issue=3 |pages=190–195 |doi=10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.00802.x |pmid=15733198 }}

• {{cite journal |last1=Appel |first1=J M |title=Is all fair in biological warfare? The controversy over genetically engineered biological weapons |journal=Journal of Medical Ethics |date=July 2009 |volume=35 |issue=7 |pages=429–432 |doi=10.1136/jme.2008.028944 |pmid=19567692 }}

• Steven Kull et al., [https://web.archive.org/web/20160611114350/http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/WMDProliferation/WMD_Prolif_Apr04/WMDProlif_Apr04_rpt.pdf Americans on WMD Proliferation] (15 April 2004), Program on International Policy Attitudes/Knowledge Networks survey.

{{Weapons}}{{War crimes}}{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Weapon Of Mass Destruction}}

Category:Mass murder

Category:Man-made disasters