• Hello SiDevilIam

By Associated Press, Published: December 11 | Updated: Wednesday, December 12, 5:26 AM

North Koreans Launch Rocket in Defiant Act

By CHOE SANG-HUN and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: December 12, 2012 4 Comments

Enlarge This Image

Geoeye

The Sohae rocket launching facility in Cholsan County in North Pyongan Province, North Korea.

Related

• Times Topic: North Korea

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @nytimesworld for international breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Enlarge This Image

KNS/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Kim Jong-un, shown last month, wants to be seen as a leader hailed at home and feared abroad.

To comment, reply or recommend please Log In or Create An Account. »

© 2012 The New York Times Company

This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. (February 2011)

Spheres of influence during the Cold War. The US and USSR are shown in dark green and orange respectively, and their spheres of influence in light green and orange.

A 1900 Campaign poster for the Republican Party. “The American flag has not been planted in foreign soil to acquire more territory but for humanity’s sake.^[1]“, President William McKinley, July 12, 1900. On one side is shown the situation in 1896, before McKinley’s presidential election victory: “Gone Democratic: A run on the bank, Spanish rule in Cuba“. On the other side is the situation was in 1900, after four years of McKinley’s leadership: “Gone Republican: a run to the bank, American rule in Cuba^[2]” (the Spanish–American War took place in 1898).

American imperialism is a term referring to the economic, military, and cultural influence of the United States on other countries. The concept of an American Empire was first popularized during the presidency of James K. Polk who led the United States into the Mexican–American War of 1846, and the eventual annexation of the territories like California and the Gadsden purchase.^[3][4]

Imperialism and empire

On the cover of Puck published on April 6, 1901, in the wake of gainful victory in the Spanish–American War, Columbia – the National personification of the U.S. – preens herself with an Easter bonnet in the form of a warship bearing the words “World Power” and the word “Expansion” on the smoke coming out of its stack.

Thomas Jefferson, in the 1780s, awaited the fall of the Spanish empire until “our population can be sufficiently advanced to gain it from them piece by piece.”^[5][6] In turn, historian Sidney Lens notes that “the urge for expansion – at the expense of other peoples – goes back to the beginnings of the United States itself.”^[3]
Effects labelled “cultural imperialism” occur without overt government policy.^{[citation needed]} Stuart Creighton Miller says that the public’s sense of innocence about Realpolitik impairs popular recognition of U.S. imperial conduct. The resistance to actively occupying foreign territory has led to policies of exerting influence via other means, including governing other countries via surrogates, where domestically unpopular governments survive only through U.S. support.^[7]
The maximum geographical extension of American direct political and military control happened in the aftermath of World War II, in the period after the surrender and occupations of Germany and Austria in May and later Japan and Korea in September 1945 and before the independence of the Philippines in July 1946.^{[citation needed]}

American exceptionalism

American exceptionalism refers to the theory that the United States occupies a special niche among the nations of the world^[8] in terms of its national credo, historical evolution, political and religious institutions and origins.
Philosopher Douglas Kellner traces the identification of American exceptionalism as a distinct phenomenon back to 19th century French observer Alexis de Tocqueville, who concluded by agreeing that the U.S., uniquely, was “proceeding along a path to which no limit can be perceived.”^[9]
American exceptionalism is popular among people within the U.S.,^[10] but its validity and its consequences are disputed.
As a Monthly Review editorial opines on the phenomenon, “in Britain, empire was justified as a benevolent ‘white man’s burden’. And in the United States, empire does not even exist; ‘we’ are merely protecting the causes of freedom, democracy, and justice worldwide.”^[11]

Imperialism at the heart of U.S. foreign policy

1898 political cartoon: “Ten Thousand Miles From Tip to Tip” meaning the extension of U.S. domination (symbolized by a bald eagle) from Puerto Rico to the Philippines. The cartoon contrasts this with a map of the smaller United States 100 years earlier in 1798.

Historian Donald W. Meinig says that imperial behavior for the United States dates at least to the Louisiana Purchase, which he describes as an “imperial acquisition – imperial in the sense of the aggressive encroachment of one people upon the territory of another, resulting in the subjugation of that people to alien rule.” The U.S. policies towards the Native Americans he said were “designed to remold them into a people more appropriately conformed to imperial desires.”^[12]
Writers and academics of the early 20th century, like Charles A. Beard, in support of non-interventionism (sometimes referred to in a derogatory manner as “isolationism”), discussed American policy as being driven by self-interested expansionism going back as far as the writing of the Constitution. Some politicians today do not agree. Pat Buchanan claims that the modern United States’ drive to empire is “far removed from what the Founding Fathers had intended the young Republic to become.”^[13]
Andrew Bacevich argues that the U.S. did not fundamentally change its foreign policy after the Cold War, and remains focused on an effort to expand its control across the world.^[14] As the surviving superpower at the end of the Cold War, the U.S. could focus its assets in new directions, the future being “up for grabs” according to former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz in 1991.^[15]
In Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, the political activist Noam Chomsky argues that exceptionalism and the denials of imperialism are the result of a systematic strategy of propaganda, to “manufacture opinion” as the process has long been described in other countries.^[16]

Views of American imperialism

Caricature showing Uncle Sam lecturing four children labelled Philippines, Hawaii, Porto Rico [sic] and Cuba in front of children holding books labelled with various U.S. states. The caption reads: “School Begins. Uncle Sam (to his new class in Civilization): Now, children, you’ve got to learn these lessons whether you want to or not! But just take a look at the class ahead of you, and remember that, in a little while, you will feel as glad to be here as they are!”

Journalist Ashley Smith divides theories of the U.S. imperialism into 5 broad categories: (1) “liberal” theories, (2) “social-democratic” theories, (3) “Leninist” theories, (4) theories of “super-imperialism“, and (5) “Hardt-and-Negri-ite” theories.^{[17][page needed]} There is also a conservative, anti-interventionist view as expressed by American journalist John T. Flynn:

The enemy aggressor is always pursuing a course of larceny, murder, rapine and barbarism. We are always moving forward with high mission, a destiny imposed by the Deity to regenerate our victims, while incidentally capturing their markets; to civilise savage and senile and paranoid peoples, while blundering accidentally into their oil wells.^[18]

A “social-democratic” theory^{[attribution needed]} says that imperialistic U.S. policies are the products of the excessive influence of certain sectors of U.S. business and government—the arms industry in alliance with military and political bureaucracies and sometimes other industries such as oil and finance, a combination often referred to as the “military–industrial complex“. The complex is said to benefit from war profiteering and the looting of natural resources, often at the expense of the public interest.^[19] The proposed solution is typically unceasing popular vigilance in order to apply counter-pressure.^[20] Johnson holds a version of this view.^{[citation needed]}
Alfred T. Mahan, who served as an officer in the U.S. Navy during the late 19th century, supported the notion of American imperialism in his 1890 book titled The Influence of Sea Power upon History. In chapter one Mahan argued that modern industrial nations must secure foreign markets for the purpose of exchanging goods and, consequently, they must maintain a maritime force that is capable of protecting these trade routes.^{[21][page needed]} Mahan’s argument provides a context that also justifies imperialism by industrial nations such as the United States.^{[citation needed]}
A theory of “super-imperialism” says^{[attribution needed]} that imperialistic U.S. policies are driven not simply by the interests of American businesses, but by the interests of the economic elites of a global alliance of developed countries.^{[citation needed]} Capitalism in Europe, the U.S., and Japan has become too entangled, in this view, to permit military or geopolitical conflict between these countries, and the central conflict in modern imperialism is between the global core and the global periphery rather than between imperialist powers. Political scientists Leo Panitch and Samuel Gindin hold versions of this view.^{[22][23][24][25]} Lenin argued this view was wishful thinking.^[26]

Empire

In the book “Empire“, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argue that “the decline of Empire has begun”.^[27] Hardt says the Iraq War is a classically imperialist war, and is the last gasp of a doomed strategy.^[28] This new era still has colonizing power, but it has moved from national military forces based on an economy of physical goods to networked biopower based on an informational and affective economy. The U.S. is central to the development and constitution of a new global regime of international power and sovereignty, termed Empire, but is decentralized and global, and not ruled by one sovereign state; “the United States does indeed occupy a privileged position in Empire, but this privilege derives not from its similarities to the old European imperialist powers, but from its differences.”^[29] Hardt and Negri draw on the theories of Spinoza, Foucault, Deleuze, and Italian autonomist marxists.^[30][31]
Geographer David Harvey says there has emerged a new type of imperialism due to geographical distinctions as well as uneven levels of development.^[32] He says there has emerged three new global economic and politics blocs: the United States, the European Union, and East Asia centered around China and Japan.^[33] He says there are tensions between the three major blocs over resources and economic power, citing the 2003 invasion of Iraq, whose goal was to prevent rivals from controlling oil.^[34] Furthermore, Harvey argues there can arise conflict within the major blocs between capitalists and politicians due to their opposing economic interests.^[35] Politicians, on the other hand, live in geographically fixed locations and are, in the U.S. and Europe, accountable to the electorate. The ‘new’ imperialism, then, has led to an alignment of the interests of capitalists and politicians in order to prevent the rise and expansion of possible economic and political rivals from challenging America’s dominance.^[36]
Victor Davis Hanson comparing the American “empire” to other empires stated, “We do not send out proconsuls to reside over client states, which in turn impose taxes on coerced subjects to pay for the legions. Instead, American bases are predicated on contractual obligations — costly to us and profitable to their hosts. We do not see any profits in Korea, but instead accept the risk of losing almost 40,000 of our youth to ensure that Kias can flood our shores and that shaggy students can protest outside our embassy in Seoul.”^[37]

U.S. military bases

Chalmers Johnson argues that America’s version of the colony is the military base.^[38] Chip Pitts argues similarly that enduring U.S. bases in Iraq suggest a vision of “Iraq as a colony“.^[39]
There have also been conflicting reports made by U.S. government officials as to how many military bases actually exist outside the country.^[40]
While territories such as Guam, the United States Virgin Islands, the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico remain under U.S. control, the U.S. allowed many of its overseas territories or occupations to gain independence after World War II. Examples include the Philippines (1946), the Panama canal zone (1979), Palau (1981), the Federated States of Micronesia (1986), and the Marshall Islands (1986). Most of them still have U.S. bases within their territories. In the case of Okinawa, which came under U.S. administration after the battle of Okinawa during World War II, this happened despite local popular opinion.^[41] As of 2003, the United States had bases in over 36 countries worldwide.^[42]

Benevolent imperialism

Max Boot defends U.S. imperialism by claiming: “U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated communism and Nazism and has intervened against the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing.” Boot willingly used “imperialism” to describe United States policy, not only in the early 20th century but “since at least 1803″.^[43][44]
Columnist Charles Krauthammer says, “People are now coming out of the closet on the word ‘empire.’” This embrace of empire is made by many neoconservatives, including British historian Paul Johnson, and writers Dinesh D’Souza and Mark Steyn. It is also made by some liberal hawks, such as political scientist Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Michael Ignatieff.^[45]
For instance, British historian Niall Ferguson argues that the United States is an empire, but believes that this is a good thing. Ferguson has drawn parallels between the British Empire and the imperial role of the United States in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, though he describes the United States’ political and social structures as more like those of the Roman Empire than of the British. Ferguson argues that all these empires have had both positive and negative aspects, but that the positive aspects of the U.S. empire will, if it learns from history and its mistakes, greatly outweigh its negative aspects.^{[46][page needed]}
Another point of view believes United States expansion overseas has been imperialistic, but this imperialism as a temporary phenomenon, a corruption of American ideals or the relic of a past historical era. Historian Samuel Flagg Bemis argues that Spanish–American War expansionism was a short-lived imperialistic impulse and “a great aberration in American history”, a very different form of territorial growth than that of earlier American history.^[47] Historian Walter LaFeber sees the Spanish–American War expansionism not as an aberration, but as a culmination of United States expansion westward.^[48] But both agree that the end of the occupation of the Philippines marked the end of U.S. empire, hence denying that present United States foreign policy is imperialistic.
Historian Victor Davis Hanson argues that the U.S. does not pursue world domination, but maintains worldwide influence by a system of mutually beneficial exchanges.^[49]
Liberal internationalists argue that even though the present world order is dominated by the United States, the form taken by that dominance is not imperial. International relations scholar John Ikenberry argues that international institutions have taken the place of empire.^[50]
International relations scholar Joseph Nye argues that U.S. power is more and more based on “soft power“, which comes from cultural hegemony rather than raw military or economic force.^[51] This includes such factors as the widespread desire to emigrate to the United States, the prestige and corresponding high proportion of foreign students at U.S. universities, and the spread of U.S. styles of popular music and cinema. Thus the U.S., no matter how hegemonic, can no longer be considered to be an ‘empire’ in the classic sense of the term.

Factors unique to the “Age of imperialism”

A variety of factors may have coincided during the “Age of Imperialism” in the late 19th century, when the United States and the other major powers rapidly expanded their territorial possessions. Some of these are explained, or used as examples for the various perceived forms of American imperialism.

• The prevalence of racism, notably Ernst Haeckel‘s “biogenic law,” John Fiske‘s conception of Anglo-Saxon racial superiority, and Josiah Strong‘s call to “civilize and Christianize” – all manifestations of a growing Social Darwinism and racism in some schools of American political thought.^[52]

• Early in his career, as Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Roosevelt was instrumental in preparing the Navy for the Spanish–American War^[53] and was an enthusiastic proponent of testing the U.S. military in battle, at one point stating “I should welcome almost any war, for I think this country needs one”.^[54][55][56]

Debate over U.S. foreign policy

Some scholars defend the historical role of the U.S.,^[57] and certain prominent political figures, such as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, have argued that “[The U.S. does not] seek empires. We’re not imperialistic. We never have been.”^[58]
Thorton wrote that “[...]imperialism is more often the name of the emotion that reacts to a series of events than a definition of the events themselves. Where colonization finds analysts and analogies, imperialism must contend with crusaders for and against.”^[59] Political theorist Michael Walzer argues that the term hegemony is better than empire to describe the US’s role in the world;^[60] political scientist Robert Keohane agrees saying, a “balanced and nuanced analysis is not aided…by the use of the phrase ‘empire’ to describe United States hegemony, since ‘empire’ obscures rather than illuminates the differences in form of rule between the United States and other Great Powers, such as Great Britain in the 19th century or the Soviet Union in the twentieth.”^[61]
Other political scientists, such as Daniel Nexon and Thomas Wright, argue that neither term exclusively describes foreign relations of the United States. The U.S. can be, and has been, simultaneously an empire and a hegemonic power. They claim that the general trend in U.S. foreign relations has been away from imperial modes of control.^[62]

Cultural imperialism

Some critics of imperialism argue that military and cultural imperialism are interdependent. American Edward Said, one of the founders of post-colonial theory, said that,

International relations scholar David Rothkopf disagrees and argues that cultural imperialism is the innocent result of globalization, which allows access to numerous U.S. and Western ideas and products that many non-U.S. and non-Western consumers across the world voluntarily choose to consume.^[64] Matthew Fraser has a similar analysis, but argues further that the global cultural influence of the U.S. is a good thing.^[65]

See also

Notes and references

Further reading

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: American Imperialism

Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: American benevolence

• Bacevich, Andrew (2008). The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. Macmillan. ISBN 0-8050-8815-6.
• Boot, Max (2002). The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power. Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00721-X.
• Brown, Seyom (1994). Faces of Power: Constancy and Change in United States Foreign Policy from Truman to Clinton. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-09669-0.
• Burton, David H. (1968). Theodore Roosevelt: Confident Imperialist. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. ASIN B0007GMSSY.
• Callahan, Patrick (2003). Logics of American Foreign Policy: Theories of America’s World Role. New York: Longman. ISBN 0-321-08848-4.
• Card, Orson Scott (2006). Empire. TOR. ISBN 0-7653-1611-0.
• Daalder, Ivo H.; James M. Lindsay (2003). America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. ISBN 0-8157-1688-5.
• Fulbright, J. William; Seth P. Tillman (1989). The Price of Empire. Pantheon Books. ISBN 0-394-57224-6.
• Gaddis, John Lewis (2005). Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-517447-X.
• Hardt, Michael; Antonio Negri (2001). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-00671-2. online
• Huntington, Samuel P. (1996). The Clash of Civilizations. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-684-81164-2.
• Johnson, Chalmers (2000). Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire. New York: Holt. ISBN 0-8050-6239-4.
• Johnson, Chalmers (2004). The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. New York: Metropolitan Books. ISBN 0-8050-7004-4.
• Johnson, Chalmers (2007). Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. New York, NY: Metropolitan Books. ISBN 0-8050-7911-4.
• Kagan, Robert (2003). Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order. New York: Knopf. ISBN 1-4000-4093-0.
• Kerry, Richard J. (1990). The Star-Spangled Mirror: America’s Image of Itself and the World. Savage, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0-8476-7649-8.
• Lundestad, Geir (1998). Empire by Integration: The United States and European Integration, 1945–1997. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-878212-8.
• Meyer, William H. (2003). Security, Economics, and Morality in American Foreign Policy: Contemporary Issues in Historical Context. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-086390-4.
• Nye, Joseph S., Jr (2002). The Paradox of American Power: Why the World’s Only Superpower Can’t Go It Alone. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-515088-0.
• Odom, William; Robert Dujarric (2004). America’s Inadvertent Empire. Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-10069-8.
• Patrick, Stewart; Shepard Forman, eds. (2001). Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Ambivalent Engagement. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. ISBN 1-58826-042-9.
• Perkins, John (2004). Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Tihrān: Nashr-i Akhtarān. ISBN 1-57675-301-8.
• Rapkin, David P., ed. (1990). World Leadership and Hegemony. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. ISBN 1-55587-189-5.
• Ruggie, John G., ed. (1993). Multilateralism Matters: The Theory and Praxis of an Institutional Form. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-07980-8.
• Smith, Tony (1994). America’s Mission: The United States and the Worldwide Struggle for Democracy in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0-691-03784-1.
• Tomlinson, John (1991). Cultural Imperialism: A Critical Introduction. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0-8018-4250-6.
• Todd, Emmanuel (2004). After the Empire: The Breakdown of the American Order. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-0-231-13103-2.
• Tremblay, Rodrigue (2004). The New American Empire. Haverford, PA: Infinity Pub. ISBN 0-7414-1887-8.
• Zepezauer, Mark (2002). Boomerang! : How Our Covert Wars Have Created Enemies Across the Middle East and Brought Terror to America. Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press. ISBN 1-56751-222-4.

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (October 2010)

Weapons of mass destruction
WMD world map
By type
Biological Chemical Nuclear Radiological
By country
Albania Algeria Argentina Australia Brazil Bulgaria Burma Canada China PRC ROC France Germany India Iran Iraq Israel Japan Libya Mexico Netherlands North Korea Pakistan Poland Romania Russia Saudi Arabia South Africa Sweden Syria Ukraine United Kingdom United States
Proliferation
Chemical Nuclear Missiles
Treaties
List of treaties
Book Category
v t e

A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

Early uses of the term weapon of mass destruction

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 aerial bombardment of Guernica, Spain:

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?^[1]

At the time, the United States (with help from Western Allies) had yet to develop and use nuclear weapons. Japan conducted research on biological weapons (see Unit 731),^[2] and chemical weapons had seen wide use, most notably in World War I.
Following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through 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 (weapons of mass destruction).
He 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– or so Bush claimed in 1970) referred to “weapons adaptable to mass destruction”.
That exact phrase, says Safire, was also used by Bernard Baruch in 1946 (in a speech at the United Nations probably written by Herbert Bayard Swope).^[3] The same phrase found its way into the very first resolution adopted by the United Nations General assembly 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.”^[4] This resolution also created the Atomic Energy Commission (predecessor of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)).
An exact use of this term was given in a lecture “Atomic Energy as an Atomic Problem” by J. Robert Oppenheimer. The lecture was delivered to the Foreign Service and the State Department, on 17 September 1947. The lecture is reprinted in The Open Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955).

“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”.

The term was also used in the introduction to the hugely influential US Government Document known as NSC-68 written in April 1950.^[5]
During a televised presentation about the Cuban Missile Crisis on 22 October 1962, John F. Kennedy made reference to “offensive weapons of sudden mass destruction.^[6] “
An early use of the exact phrase in an international treaty was in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, however no definition was provided.

Evolution of its use

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, which was presented as a necessary deterrent against nuclear or conventional attack from the Soviet Union (see Mutual Assured Destruction).
The term “weapons of mass destruction” continued to see periodic use throughout this time, 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.^[7] Reagan’s successor, George H.W. Bush, used the term in an 1989 speech to the United Nations, using it primarily in reference to chemical arms.^[8]
The end of the Cold War reduced U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons as a deterrent, causing it to shift its focus to disarmament. This period coincided with an increasing threat to U.S. interests from Islamic nations and independent Islamic groups. 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.^[9] 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.^{[citation needed]}
After the 11 September 2001 attacks and the 2001 anthrax attacks, an increased fear of non-conventional weapons and asymmetrical warfare took hold of the United States and other Western powers. This 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, no WMD were found in Iraq.^[a]
Because of its prolific use during this period, the American Dialect Society voted “weapons of mass destruction” (and its abbreviation, “WMD”) the word of the year in 2002,^[10] and in 2003 Lake Superior State University added WMD to its list of terms banished for “Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness“.^[11]

Definitions of the term

United States

Strategic

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.
The abbreviations NBC (for nuclear, biological and chemical) or CBR (chemical, biological, radiological) are used with regards to battlefield protection systems for armored vehicles, because all three involve insidious toxins that can be carried through the air and can be protected against with vehicle air filtration systems.
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.
The NBC definition has also been used in official U.S. documents, by the U.S. President,^[12][13] the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,^[14] the U.S. Department of Defense,^[15][16] and the U.S. Government Accountability Office.^[17]
Other documents expand the definition of WMD to also include radiological or conventional weapons. The U.S. military refers to WMD as:

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.^[18]

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.
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:

• “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.”^[19]

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.
Testimony of one such soldier expresses the same viewpoint.^[20] 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.
Gustavo Bell Lemus, the Vice President of Colombia, at the 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“.^[21]
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“.^[22] 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.
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.^{[citation needed]}

Military

For the general purposes of national defense,^[23] US Code^[24] 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^[25]

For the purposes of the prevention of weapons proliferation,^[26] US 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.”^[27]

Criminal (Civilian)

For the purposes of US Criminal law concerning terrorism,^[28] 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^[29]
• 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^[30]

The Federal Bureau of Investigation‘s definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:^[31]

• any explosive or incendiary device, as defined in Title 18 USC, Section 921: bomb, grenade, rocket, missile, mine, or other device with a charge of more than four ounces
• 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,^[32] pipe bombs,^[33] shoe bombs,^[34] cactus needles coated with botulin toxin,^[35] etc. have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.
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 the use of airplanes as WMD.

Treaties

The development and use of WMD is governed by international conventions and treaties, although not all countries have signed and ratified them:

• Partial Test Ban Treaty
• Outer Space Treaty
• Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
• Seabed Arms Control Treaty
• Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT, has not entered into force as of 2012)
• Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BWC)
• Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC)

WMD use, possession and access

Nuclear weapons

U.S. nuclear warheads, 1945–2002

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. There are eight countries that have declared they possess nuclear weapons and are known to have tested a nuclear weapon, only five of which are members of the NPT. The eight are China, France, India, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Israel is considered by most analysts to have nuclear weapons numbering in the low hundreds as well, but maintains an official policy of nuclear ambiguity, neither denying nor confirming its nuclear status.
Iran is suspected by western countries of seeking nuclear weapons, a claim that it denies. While the truth is unknown, the November 2007 NIE on Iran stated that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003.^[36]
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.
Countries with access to nuclear weapons through nuclear sharing agreements include Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. North Korea has claimed to have developed and tested nuclear devices. Although outside sources have been unable to unequivocally support the state’s claims, North Korea has officially been identified to have nuclear weapons.

United States politics

Due to the indiscriminate impact 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.
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. The term WMD may be used as a powerful buzzword^[37] or to generate a culture of fear.^[38] It is also used ambiguously, particularly by not distinguishing among the different types of WMD.^[39]
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.
More recently, the threat of potential WMD in Iraq was used by President George W. Bush to generate public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.^[40][41] Broad reference to Iraqi WMD in general was seen as an element of President Bush’s arguments.^[39]
As Paul Wolfowitz explained: “For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.”^[42] To date, however, Coalition forces have found mainly degraded artillery shells.
There was almost no dissent on the issue. Molly Ivins wrote: “The ONLY (source) to report skeptically on the administration’s claims about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction before the war? Knight-Ridder and its terrific reporters Warren Strobel and Jonathan Landay.”^[43]
On 21 June 2006, then-United States Republican Senator Rick Santorum claimed “We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons.” According to the Washington Post, he was referring to 500 such shells “that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988.” That night, “intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion of Iraq.” The shells had been uncovered and reported on in 2004.^[44]
In 2004, Polish troops found nineteen 1980s-era rocket warheads, thwarting an attempt by militants to buy them at $5000 each. Some of the rockets contained extremely deteriorated nerve agent.^[45]

Media coverage of WMD

In 2004, the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) released a report^[46] examining the media’s coverage of WMD issues during three separate periods: nuclear weapons tests by India and Pakistan in May 1998; the US 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 notes that poor coverage resulted less from political bias among the media than from tired journalistic conventions. The report’s major findings were that:

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.

In a separate study published in 2005,^[47] 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 USA) and one opposed to the war (Germany). Results showed that US 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.

Based on a series of polls taken from June–September 2003.^[48]
In 2006 Fox News reported the claims of two Republican lawmakers that WMDs had been found in Iraq,^[49] 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 US House Armed Services Committee to discuss these badly corroded munitions, they were leftovers, many years old, improperly stored or destroyed by the Iraqis.^[50] 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.”^[51]
Later, wikileaks would show that these kind of WMDs continued to be found as the Iraqi occupation continued.^[52]
Many news agencies, including Fox News, reported the conclusions of the CIA that, based upon the investigation of the Iraq Survey Group, WMDs have yet to be found in Iraq.^[53][54]

Public perceptions of WMD

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 Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
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^[55] to provide trustworthy and up to date information on WMD world wide.
In 1998 University of New Mexico‘s Institute for Public Policy released their third report^[56] on US 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.
While maintenance of a nuclear US 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, but after the UNM survey was conducted, nuclear weapons became an issue in India’s election of March,^[57] in relation to political tensions with neighboring Pakistan. Prior to the election the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) announced it would “declare India a nuclear weapon state” after coming to power.
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]}
On 15 April 2004, the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) reported^[58] that US citizens showed high levels of concern regarding WMD, and that preventing the spread of nuclear weapons should be “a very important US foreign policy goal”, accomplished through multilateral arms control rather than the use of military threats.
A majority also believed the US should be more forthcoming with its biological research and its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty commitment of nuclear arms reduction, and incorrectly thought the US was a party to various non-proliferation treaties.
A Russian opinion poll conducted on 5 August 2005 indicated half the population believes new nuclear powers have the right to possess nuclear weapons.^[59] 39% believes the Russian stockpile should be reduced, though not fully eliminated.

WMD 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.

Common hazard symbols

	Symbol	Unicode	Image
Toxic symbol	☠	U+2620
Radioactive symbol	☢	U+2622
Biohazard symbol	☣	U+2623

Radioactive weaponry/hazard 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.^[60]
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°.^[61] It is meant to represent a radiating atom.
The International Atomic Energy Agency found, however, that the symbol is unintuitive and can be variously interpreted by those uneducated in its meaning, and that 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 was developed to be placed near the most dangerous parts of radiation sources featuring a skull, someone running away, and using the color red rather than yellow as the background.^[62]

Biological weaponry/hazard symbol

Developed by Dow Chemical company in the 1960s for their containment products.^[63]
According to Charles Dullin, an environmental-health engineer who contributed to its development:^[61]

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

Notes

^[64]

See also

Weapons of mass destruction portal

• Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Commission on the Prevention of WMD proliferation and terrorism
• Ethnic bioweapons
• Fallout shelter
• Category:Fictional weapons of mass destruction
• NBC suit
• Nuclear terrorism
• Orbital bombardment
• Russia and weapons of mass destruction
• Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission

References

Bibliography

• Chemical and Biological Weapons: Use in Warfare, Impact on Society and Environment, by Gert G. Harigel, 2001.

Further reading

Definition and origin

• “WMD: Words of mass dissemination” (12 February 2003), BBC News.
• Michael Evans, “What makes a weapon one of mass destruction?” (6 February 2004), The Times.
• Bruce Schneider, “Definition of ‘Weapon of Mass Destruction’” (6 April 2009), Schneider on Security.

International law

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540
• David P. Fidler, “Weapons of Mass Destruction and International Law” (February 2003), American Society of International Law.
• Joanne Mariner, “FindLaw Forum: Weapons of mass destruction and international law’s principle that civilians cannot be targeted” (20 November 2001), CNN.

Media

• Media Coverage of Weapons of Mass Destruction, by Susan D. Moeller, Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland, 2004.
• Memory for fact, fiction, and misinformation, by Stephan Lewandowsky, Werner G.K. Stritzke, Klaus Oberauer, and Michael Morales, Psychological Science, 16(3): 190–195, 2005.

Ethics

• Jacob M. Appel, “Is All Fair in Biological Warfare?,” Journal of Medical Ethics, June 2009.

Public perceptions

• Steven Kull et al., Americans on WMD Proliferation (15 April 2004), Program on International Policy Attitudes/Knowledge Networks survey.

External links

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Weapons of mass destruction

• New Video: A World Without Nuclear Weapons
• United Nations: Disarmament
• US Department of State
• Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)
• Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI)
• Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
• Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
• GlobalSecurity.org
• Avoiding Armageddon, PBS
• FAS assessment of countries that own weapons of mass destruction
• National Counterproliferation Center – Office of the Director of National Intelligence
• HLSWatch.com: Homeland Security Watch policy and current events resource
• Office of the Special Assistant for Chemical Biological Defense and Chemical Demilitarization Programs, Official Department of Defense web site that provides information about the DoD Chemical Biological Defense Program
• Terrorism and the Threat From Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East
• Iranian Chemical Attacks Victims (Payvand News Agency)
• Iran: ‘Forgotten Victims’ Of Saddam Hussein Era Await Justice
• Comparison of Chinese, Japanese and Vietnamese translations
• Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
• The WMD Awareness Programme, Inspired by the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize winner Professor Sir Joseph Rotblat, The WMD Awareness Programme is dedicated to providing trustworthy and up to date information on Weapons of Mass Destruction world wide.
• Radius Engineering International Inc. “Nuclear Weapons Effects”. In Radius Engineering International Inc. Retrieved 20 December 2010. These tables describe the effects of various nuclear blast sizes. All figures are for 15 mph (13 kn; 24 km/h) winds. Thermal burns represent injuries to an unprotected person. The legend describes the data.
• Gareth Porter, Documents linking Iran to nuclear weapons push may have been fabricated, TheRawStory, 10 November 2008
• Gareth Porter, The Iranian Nuke Forgeries: CIA Determines Documents were Fabricated, CounterPunch, 29 December 2009
• Nuclear Emergency and Radiation Resources