On Apr 22, 2013, at 4:32 PM, Wojtek S wrote:
> Why is a bomb that killed 3 people considered a "weapon of mass
> destruction" but an automatic gun that killed 22 people is not?
I think it's the 'mass destruction' part that should be emphasized, and recognition paid to the employer, rather than the 'tool'.
But you seemed to be referring to media presentation, and then it turned to legal definition.
I noticed that you mentioned weapons that cannot be targeted to individuals. Media has teased out an impression (with me) that biologic weapons can be targeted to genotype. And reference have been made to 'suitcase nukes', and battlefield nukes.
Are 'drones' weapons of mass destruction under the legal definition?