2007-02-26 17:17:25 · 12 answers · asked by 911 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
It depends on how loosely you define "weapon of mass destruction."
It's very destructive, and certainly worse than a conventional bomb. However, it cannot reasonably be compared to a nuclear warhead, widespread germ warfare, or mustard gas.
I wouldn't say it's a weapon of mass destruction. Just a massively destructive weapon. Don't you just love political terminology?
2007-02-26 17:24:52 · answer #1 · answered by BDOLE 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
By conventional definition no.
WMD is the term for a subset of weapons forbidden by various treaties that kill large numbers due to the non-standard technology involved. Generally they include Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons, but not conventional weapons even if more effective.
The Daisy Cutter uses standard bomb technology, it is just "big".
2007-02-26 18:07:47 · answer #2 · answered by Dr Fred 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, it's just a big bomb (15,000 lbs). it was originally designed to clear jungle, but the us quickly realized it could be very effective in psychological warfare. after dropping a daisy cutter outside a town's limits; the simple threats of dropping another, were very effective. the daisy cutter even has a big brother, the moab. i forget what it actually stands for (i'm sure you or someone else on here can look it up) but, it's affectionately known as the "mother of all bombs". it's 21,000 lbs and is guided.
2007-02-26 19:19:01 · answer #3 · answered by hunting wabbit 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, its not a weapon of mass destruction and it does not cut daisy's. It does kill people however, in a most gruesome way. A weapon of mass destruction would have a much greater body count.....
2007-02-26 17:27:02 · answer #4 · answered by mr bliss 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a cluster bomb capable of collapsing tunnel systems.
I saw news footage of this being used in Afghanistan or Iraq a few years ago.
I hesitate to call it a weapon of mass destruction though. I reserve that term for things like nuclear weapons.
I found a link to some footage showing a daisy cutter exploding and a picture of the crater it made.
http://www.aviationexplorer.com/mini_daisy_cutter_bomb.htm
2007-02-26 17:33:51 · answer #5 · answered by BP 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, it's a 15,000 pound conventional bomb. It was used in Vietnam by the U.S. for clearing jungle vegetation for helicopter landing zones and artillery emplacements. Hence the name of "Daisy Cutter".
2007-02-26 17:27:10 · answer #6 · answered by Eh? 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, because it doesn't have the same destructive affects as does say a chemical or biological weapon or a nuclear device. I would say not.
2007-02-26 17:25:25 · answer #7 · answered by gone 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yep. It is the most powerful non-nuclear device in our arsenal. Makes a pretty good landing zone where the jungle used to be too.
2007-02-26 17:26:09 · answer #8 · answered by blogbaba 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, it is a series of big gatlin guns that blanket an area with total accuracy and complete coverage.
2007-02-26 17:25:52 · answer #9 · answered by zeepogee 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
the nastiest WMD is depleted uranium.
2007-02-26 17:45:13 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋