Talk:Weapons of mass destruction
- 1 June 2003: "Revealed: The Cluster Bombs That Litter Iraq" by Kamal Ahmed, Observer/UK: "Experts in clearing conflict zones of unexploded bombs say that millions of Iraqi adults and children are at risk, along with humanitarian aid workers, United Nations personnel, civilian staff and military officials."
- Iraq and landmines : from bad to worse, Handicap International.
- 26 March 2003: "Mines Pose Hazard For U.S., Allies", AP.
- Why 'USA Today' Probed Cluster Bombs in Iraq, Editor & Publisher, 11 December 2003
Not putting this in the article atm cos I can't find a place for it, but "The phrase originated in 1937 to describe the use of strategic bombers by the German Luftwaffe during the Spanish Civil War."  - backed by 
Aside from the pro-technology propaganda implied in, and spurred by, the above, use of industry-friendly experts (e.g. Richard Smalley, Hans Moravec or Ray Kurzweil) or balanced experts (as Drexler and de Garis have become), some use of raising standards of evidence and a very notable degree of replacing credible with sensational claims is common in any debate around such an expanded debate on the destructive potential of post-NBC weaponry.
Given their "lead", it is absolutely inimical to the interests of the US military-industrial complex to see open debate of such technologies, or of their relinquishment along lines Joy advises, or a cessation of research in certain fields as Rees has advised. The debate over whether nanotechnology requires a Precautionary Principle approach has been marked by strong positions taken by the Texas Nanotechnology Initiative and National Nanotechnology Initiative that molecular engineering does not lead necessarily to dangerous technology such as artificial life, while the ETC Group and Center for Responsible Nanotechnology take the opposite position. The Foresight Institute has taken a middle position but is often discredited by the cautionary side for its pointing out and then ignoring ethics issues, and for the promoters for pointing them out at all.
What is truly remarkable is that these increasingly public debates which have gone on for years, are successfully kept out of the spotlight reserved for "NBC" threats. This suggests that the public relations crisis of US complicity in spreading dangerous technology has, so far, been quite successfully managed.
see also Talk:Weapons of Mass Destruction
--- relocate -- not really WMD - perhaps better covered in links section.--Bob Burton 02:22, 15 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Other weapons of mass destruction in current use include:
- Cluster Munitions
- Depleted Uranium munitions are often called weapons of mass destruction. However, this term is misleading; it exaggerates their effect and downplays the effect of WMD as defined above. While DU penetrators are undeniably heinous weapons, they are much like dirty bombs. Dirty bombs in nuclear science circles and emergency preparedness literature are referred to as "weapons of mass disruption".