AMERICA UNDER ATTACK WITH PRION WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online AMERICA UNDER ATTACK WITH PRION WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with AMERICA UNDER ATTACK WITH PRION WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION book. Happy reading AMERICA UNDER ATTACK WITH PRION WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF AMERICA UNDER ATTACK WITH PRION WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF AMERICA UNDER ATTACK WITH PRION WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION Pocket Guide.

Governments have killed tens of millions of unarmed citizens. What is the greater threat, criminals or governments? The shotgun-exception was put in because without it, the NFA could have severely restricted every duck hunter in the country, instead of gangsters who collected Destructive Devices and Machine Guns. For the uninitiated, the gauge shotgun is the most popular size of shotgun in North America.

It fires shells with a diameter of 0. As a final thought, this definition of Mass Destruction seems to take the Mass part out of the equation. You're getting there. Gas or aerosol is a very effective way to kill soldiers used as occupation forces. The soldiers are in groups, away from the local population, in known locations. It seems that this kind of law-writing is becoming more common.

After a widely-publicised problems with lead content on toys imported from China, a law was passed which put heavy fines on selling any item not tested for lead content for use by children. The wording of that law appears, on its face, to force every library, used-book-seller, secondhand-clothes shop, and resale store to test every item in inventory, or face the possibility of million-dollar fines. Enforcement has't been heavy yet, but there are a lot of worried people in the resale business.

Small-scale manufacturers are also worried. It seems an example of an attempt to centralize power among the regulators and bureaucracies of United States, rather than write law to intelligently address an issue. The Destructive Devices section was originally designed to make it harder for Prohibition-era gangsters to legally arm themselves with individual weapons like grenades, mortars.

If Rocket-Propelled Grenades existed at the time, they were also covered. Expanding this to assert that man-portable Destructive Devices are also Weapons of Mass Destruction seems absurd in the extreme. But absurdities are not hard to find in weapons law I think everyone is missing the point "mass destruction". Mass, not as in a number of people, but as in an amount of matter. They could even put back in the shotguns! Keep up the good security blog reporting. People are finally getting it, like legal world as well with foreign works public domain, copyright theft law is unconstitutional, of Golan v Holder, see groklaw, todays date.


  • Definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction"!
  • {{ content.sub_title }}.
  • Purple Flowers and Butterflies;
  • Goldlilocks and the Three Bears and Other Bedtime Stories (Magical Bedtime Stories)?
  • Uzbekistan | Countries | NTI.
  • Baby, Baby (Mullins Family Saga Book 1)?

American politicians like redefining words to promote misunderstanding, usually to make offenses sound more serious than they are. In Maryland some years ago, exceeding the speed limit by 15mph was defined to be "reckless driving". So if you drove along a straight, deserted freeway with visibility of miles at a speed which was perfectly legal in most European countries, you could be convicted of "reckless driving", which sounds like a very bad crime.

The limit in MD was 55 then, I don't know what it is now. And no, in case you wondered, I was never cited for any moving vehicle violation in MD. Nostromo: "American politicians like redefining words to promote misunderstanding, usually to make offenses sound more serious than they are. It's a knife that cuts both ways. If they define something too generally, it can be argued the definition applies when it doesn't. If they define something too specifically, then someone can argue that the definition doesn't apply when it does.

And finding the perfect balance is near impossible. I don't know how much "promoting misunderstanding" is the intent, or how much of the intent to give themselves some wiggle room when things that should be included can be debated. Maybe a little of both. Just to clarify this for some people who seem slightly confused: this definition is an internal US law that is unrelated to the normal definition in international law. The term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is much older than this law, originated not with Pentagon propagandists but in debates among international jurists in the s and s I first read it in a SIPRI publication from late s , and is a fairly well defined term.

While the term is not itself defined in international law, from decades of scholarly usage it is generally accepted as an umbrella of the definitions given in three specific international anti-proliferation treaties CWC, NPT and BWC; some commentators add a fourth treaty to the mix, but that is not usual. The point of the article here is not that the definition has expanded in international law, but that the definition used in an internal US law is severely at odds with the international meaning, and, indeed, at odds with common sense.

The news media have dirty hands in this as well. Those recent shootings with several victims each are being marketed as 'mass murders'. Muzzleloaders are legally classified as "antiques" and are exempt from being distructive devices. Go to a Civil War re-enactment and you will see lots of muzzleloading cannons and. The potato guns are legal too if they are powered by "black powder, or a black powder substitute".

Leave a comment

I have no business commenting on WMDs, other than to point out that I can't give a copy of ZoneAlarm to "an end-user engaged in activities related to weapons of mass destruction". Not only would the hairspray powered potato cannon be a WMD, but so would the hairspray, potato, and whatever you chose for a barrel and source of ignition Got a match? I guess hairspray could be a "black powder substitute". Personally I use PVC pipe for the barrel, acetylene from miners carbide as the propellant, and the best part, the piezo igniter from a gas barbeque pit for ignition, but I digress. It's a bad habit of mine, making me a Anyway, what I take away from such laws -those that place a majority of the US population a judicial interpretation away from being federal felons- is that we the people have the government we deserve.

BTW, potato cannons meet the legal definition of a firearm in many local jurisdictions too, and yes, it does make them more fun. This usage of the expression "mass murder" has been around for as long as I can remember more than 40 yrs. I haven't seen an official definition, but it seems to refer to the murder within a limited time say, a few hours of more than 2 or 3 people, especially when the killer and victims are not from a single family. WMD is a separate term, with its own history.

It was meant to exclude widely "accepted" battlefield weapons. Nor were high-explosive torpedoes considered WMD, even though a volley of only 3 killed approximately , mostly civilians, in What set WMD apart, was that against certain types of targets, the use of a small number as few as one has a high probability to inflict casualties in the tens of thousands. Note that the statute cited above appears to include ordinary land mines, which on the average kill much less than one person per detonation, and very rarely kill more than one.

Probably, the mass murderers from al Qaeda expected each of the NYC aircraft to kill more than 10,; in practice, each killed more than But airliners are not included in the legal definition of WMD shown in Bruce's post. Don't we want selective prosecution? Isn't that where the application of judgement is necessary in a world where cases vary often looking like members of the same class of events? According to Massachusetts law, jump ropes and tin-can telephones are illegal to carry without a firearms license.

Are there any weapons, by this definition, that are not about "mass destruction"? Perhaps we need a word that conveys both the malicious intent and the destructive capability. How about "weapon"? Rose by any other name said it well, WMD has been stretched to include anything we think that terrorists might want to use. Of course this sort of lexical silliness isn't exclusive to the U.

ISTR a couple of years ago some people were trying to push the idea that small arms were WMDs because in aggregate they kill large numbers of people in armed conflicts. I suspect that after the way India and Pakistan where treated after becoming "nuke capable" compared to before is actualy activly encoraging some nations to develop nukes and deployment systems as barganing tools.

One other country has a unique claim to fame with regards nukes and that is South Africa. Let's hope that they do not remain unique for much longer. One other thing to consider is "energy security", it is unfortunatly very much tied in with WMD these days.

Beating a dead horse?

And the level of energy falling onto the Earths land surface that is directly usable is currently very very small. The cost of making use of what some consider to be "free energy" is actually quite high unless plant biology is involved. Part of this is due to there currently being a very small market so "mass market" pricing does not yet apply though Germany are making big inroads on this.

Then there are the secondary costs such as "land". Whilst development at sea is considered to have considerable but not insurmountable risk. It is no conicidence then that several industrialised countries are looking to build more nuclear reactor capability. However some of these industrialised countries also want to deny the same technology to other nations that are not seen as being "part of the nuke owning club", just in case The history of "water rights" will give you a good indicator of where the "energy rights" argument is likley to go.

More recently, this was one count against Zacarias Moussaoui in his conviction and sentencing I regard that as "recreational". But you bring up a point. Any weapon designed for self defense is not sporting, recreational, or cultural is it? If I buy a shotgun exclusivly for home defense doesn't my intent take it out of "particularly suitable for sporting purposes" into the larger meaning of 4 B?

You could make that case but hunting shotguns of 10 gauge or smaller have been granted a sporting use exemption as a class. The traditional short-barreled, pump-action police shotgun at least those fitted with sights are also popular tools for deer hunting and bear defense. That may not be precisely true under law.

The whaling in Barrow AK starts with a hand thrown harpoon but uses a rifle for the finish. I know the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is part of the Outer Space Treaty; I think I read somewhere that the phrase originated there. At the time, I don't think chemical or biological weapons were considered to be part of WMD.

Leave a comment

Putting them in space didn't make a lot of sense as a military threat. In any case, there were separate treaties covering chemical and biological weapons. American politicians like redefining words to promote misunderstanding, usually to make offenses sound more serious than they are. In Maryland some years ago, exceeding the speed limit by 15mph was defined to be "reckless driving".

So if you drove along a straight, deserted freeway with visibility of miles at a speed which was perfectly legal in most European countries, you could be convicted of "reckless driving", which sounds like a very bad crime. The limit in MD was 55 then, I don't know what it is now. And no, in case you wondered, I was never cited for any moving vehicle violation in MD. Nostromo: "American politicians like redefining words to promote misunderstanding, usually to make offenses sound more serious than they are. It's a knife that cuts both ways.

If they define something too generally, it can be argued the definition applies when it doesn't. If they define something too specifically, then someone can argue that the definition doesn't apply when it does. And finding the perfect balance is near impossible. I don't know how much "promoting misunderstanding" is the intent, or how much of the intent to give themselves some wiggle room when things that should be included can be debated. Maybe a little of both. Just to clarify this for some people who seem slightly confused: this definition is an internal US law that is unrelated to the normal definition in international law.

The term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" is much older than this law, originated not with Pentagon propagandists but in debates among international jurists in the s and s I first read it in a SIPRI publication from late s , and is a fairly well defined term. While the term is not itself defined in international law, from decades of scholarly usage it is generally accepted as an umbrella of the definitions given in three specific international anti-proliferation treaties CWC, NPT and BWC; some commentators add a fourth treaty to the mix, but that is not usual.

The point of the article here is not that the definition has expanded in international law, but that the definition used in an internal US law is severely at odds with the international meaning, and, indeed, at odds with common sense.

How to Survive- Biological or Chemical Attack

The news media have dirty hands in this as well. Those recent shootings with several victims each are being marketed as 'mass murders'. Muzzleloaders are legally classified as "antiques" and are exempt from being distructive devices. Go to a Civil War re-enactment and you will see lots of muzzleloading cannons and. The potato guns are legal too if they are powered by "black powder, or a black powder substitute". I have no business commenting on WMDs, other than to point out that I can't give a copy of ZoneAlarm to "an end-user engaged in activities related to weapons of mass destruction".

Not only would the hairspray powered potato cannon be a WMD, but so would the hairspray, potato, and whatever you chose for a barrel and source of ignition Got a match? I guess hairspray could be a "black powder substitute". Personally I use PVC pipe for the barrel, acetylene from miners carbide as the propellant, and the best part, the piezo igniter from a gas barbeque pit for ignition, but I digress.

It's a bad habit of mine, making me a Anyway, what I take away from such laws -those that place a majority of the US population a judicial interpretation away from being federal felons- is that we the people have the government we deserve. BTW, potato cannons meet the legal definition of a firearm in many local jurisdictions too, and yes, it does make them more fun.

This usage of the expression "mass murder" has been around for as long as I can remember more than 40 yrs. I haven't seen an official definition, but it seems to refer to the murder within a limited time say, a few hours of more than 2 or 3 people, especially when the killer and victims are not from a single family. WMD is a separate term, with its own history. It was meant to exclude widely "accepted" battlefield weapons. Nor were high-explosive torpedoes considered WMD, even though a volley of only 3 killed approximately , mostly civilians, in What set WMD apart, was that against certain types of targets, the use of a small number as few as one has a high probability to inflict casualties in the tens of thousands.

Note that the statute cited above appears to include ordinary land mines, which on the average kill much less than one person per detonation, and very rarely kill more than one. Probably, the mass murderers from al Qaeda expected each of the NYC aircraft to kill more than 10,; in practice, each killed more than But airliners are not included in the legal definition of WMD shown in Bruce's post. Don't we want selective prosecution? Isn't that where the application of judgement is necessary in a world where cases vary often looking like members of the same class of events? According to Massachusetts law, jump ropes and tin-can telephones are illegal to carry without a firearms license.

Are there any weapons, by this definition, that are not about "mass destruction"? Perhaps we need a word that conveys both the malicious intent and the destructive capability. How about "weapon"? Rose by any other name said it well, WMD has been stretched to include anything we think that terrorists might want to use.

Of course this sort of lexical silliness isn't exclusive to the U. ISTR a couple of years ago some people were trying to push the idea that small arms were WMDs because in aggregate they kill large numbers of people in armed conflicts. I suspect that after the way India and Pakistan where treated after becoming "nuke capable" compared to before is actualy activly encoraging some nations to develop nukes and deployment systems as barganing tools. One other country has a unique claim to fame with regards nukes and that is South Africa.

Let's hope that they do not remain unique for much longer. One other thing to consider is "energy security", it is unfortunatly very much tied in with WMD these days. And the level of energy falling onto the Earths land surface that is directly usable is currently very very small.


  • Dr. Snow: How the FBI Nailed an Ivy League Coke King.
  • SIMILAR BOOKS SUGGESTED BY OUR CRITICS:!
  • Questions?;
  • Just a Toy?
  • KIRKUS REVIEW;

The cost of making use of what some consider to be "free energy" is actually quite high unless plant biology is involved. Part of this is due to there currently being a very small market so "mass market" pricing does not yet apply though Germany are making big inroads on this. Then there are the secondary costs such as "land". Whilst development at sea is considered to have considerable but not insurmountable risk. It is no conicidence then that several industrialised countries are looking to build more nuclear reactor capability.

However some of these industrialised countries also want to deny the same technology to other nations that are not seen as being "part of the nuke owning club", just in case The history of "water rights" will give you a good indicator of where the "energy rights" argument is likley to go. More recently, this was one count against Zacarias Moussaoui in his conviction and sentencing I regard that as "recreational". But you bring up a point.

Any weapon designed for self defense is not sporting, recreational, or cultural is it? If I buy a shotgun exclusivly for home defense doesn't my intent take it out of "particularly suitable for sporting purposes" into the larger meaning of 4 B? You could make that case but hunting shotguns of 10 gauge or smaller have been granted a sporting use exemption as a class. The traditional short-barreled, pump-action police shotgun at least those fitted with sights are also popular tools for deer hunting and bear defense.

That may not be precisely true under law. The whaling in Barrow AK starts with a hand thrown harpoon but uses a rifle for the finish. I know the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" is part of the Outer Space Treaty; I think I read somewhere that the phrase originated there. At the time, I don't think chemical or biological weapons were considered to be part of WMD. Putting them in space didn't make a lot of sense as a military threat. In any case, there were separate treaties covering chemical and biological weapons.

I think most of them do know how general they are. Personally, I'm surprised that it is so specific. With any kind of law dealing with "weapons", they have to be vague, because the very idea of a weapon is vague. A weapon is a tool you use to hurt someone. A tool is a thing you use or intend to use for a particular purpose. So any thing can be a weapon, if that's what you intend it for. If that someone is a collections agent for the mob, then the hammer is a weapon.

It's all about how the thing is intended to be used. Because absolutely anything can be a weapon allegedly, people have been smothered by a pillow! Otherwise a bad guy will simply pick a thing that is not on your list to hurt people with, and claim that it isn't legally a weapon. PS: I hate it when the airline people ask me if I have anything that is a weapon or can be used as a weapon with me.

I think "I can choke someone with shoelaces; I can stab with the pointy bit on my belt buckle; I can smack someone with my boots; I can put my spare change in the toe of my sock and swing it at someone; I can hold my keys in my fist with the pointy bits sticking out between the knuckles and punch someone; I can put the plastic bag my lunch is in over someone's face to smother them.

I've got potential weapons all over me. Warren Buffet has a different definition for weapons of mass destruction. He refers to some financial derivatives. Too bad we didn't hear him before this crisis. Cultural use of weapons: How about the firing of cannons to celebrate the 4th of July? Or the use of elephant rifles as decorations in a club or lodge? Or even an exhibit of illegal weapons at a museum?

ActionBioscience - promoting bioscience literacy

The only WMDs we're supposed to have is nuclear weapons no gas, no biological weapons. In I pled guilty under the advice of a public defender to possession of WMD's. There are the mega size found on battleships, the large size mounted on military vehicles, and mobile packs small enough to be put in a backpack.


  • Old Fashioned Vintage Jackets to Crochet.
  • Beating a dead horse? | ILPI Weapons of Mass Destruction Project;
  • Clinical Handbook of Assessing and Treating Conduct Problems in Youth?
  • Post navigation!
  • Innovation in Electric Arc Furnaces: Scientific Basis for Selection!

Yest, where is the legal verbage forbidding them from being used against American civilians even on American soil? The problem is now, NSA, CIA, DHS, FBI think they have found a loophole to use to assassinate whistleblowers using stealth DEWs which can be used silently and invisibly and the vast majority of law enforcement don't even know exist - nor do they want to take the time to educate themselves, thus rogue Feds declare a whistleblower a terrorist, then revoke their Constitutional and civil rights, engage the FBI in a spycraft operation against the whistleblower, and harass, intimidate, torture, and even assassinate an innocent, patriot, based on purposeful misinterpretation of new terrorism laws.

IL-4 suppressed the immune system, making it unable to fight the mousepox virus. With no defensive launched by the immune system the virus was percent lethal. The virus was significantly lethal even in mice vaccinated against this particular strain of mousepox. Mousepox is a virus equivalent to human smallpox. Jackson in the Jan. Jackson is one of the researchers on the Australian study. When the conventions to ban such weapons were formulated, the world did not think these weapons had major military uses.

Uzbekistan

Now, recent terrorist and scientific developments require stronger measures. For example:. One of the proposals put forth by some nations, including the U. Scientists would be required to foresee potential dangerous applications of their work and to either discontinue the research or redirect their work.

Definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction"

The Institute discovered a code of ethics for the following: Ethics is about recognizing that there are some things we cannot and will not support or do. Codes of ethics have been around for a long time in the sciences. Another consideration for a code that prohibits scientists from working on dangerous substances with potential military applications — How can scientists know in advance the outcome of their experiments or all future applications of their work?

Einstein had no idea that his work would lead to the atomic bomb. With the current evolution of potential threats, the issue of biological and chemical weaponry is a very important one. Ethical issues regarding war in general are a paper in and of itself. The use of weapons comes down to whether or not it is morally acceptable and ethically responsible to do harm to another person. And essentially, the destruction of human life is unacceptable in most areas of the world.

The CWC is right in imposing its guidelines. However, because the threat of biotechnological attacks exist, it is also important to develop and implement a global scientific code of conduct to curb the proliferation of such weaponry. One organization, the Federation of American Scientists FAS , believes that the education of young scientists is an important step in the elimination of weapons of mass destruction. FAS would like to see first-year science graduate students taking at least one course on the essentials of treaties, laws, regulations, and other programs designed to control biological warfare.

Originally written in the winter of as an ethics course research paper at Santa Clara University, and modified and updated for this web site. See reprint policy. He plans to graduate in June His interests include technology, sports, and graphic design. This article is based on his ethics course research paper.



admin