Weapons Inflation

A Chicago area Muslim was charged with plotting to use a weapon of mass destruction to attack a shopping mall at the height of the Christmas shopping season. His weapon: four hand grenades.

Hand grenades? Weapons of mass destruction?

By this definition, it's clear that Iraq surely had weapons of mass destruction. I mean, if a hand grenade fits the bill, then how about an artillery shell, a tank or a fully armed fighter plane, all of which were part of Iraq's pre-invasion arsenal? I can assure you that any of these weapons can cause far more casualties than a hand grenade. But I guess conjuring up the image of a casualties within a 15 meter radius wouldn't have had the same effect as the mushroom cloud that adminsitration shills warned about in 2003.

Not that a grenade (four actually) wouldn't have caused mayhem and panic in a crowded mall. Grenades, like all military weapons, are designed for maximum killing and injury. I'm pleased that dilligent law enforcement stopped plot before it went into action. But I do wonder about the terminology and charges. It would seem that just about any weapon that allows the handler to kill multiple people quickly is now a "weapon of mass destruction". Seems a bit much to me. I would have thought the term applied to, you know, nuclear, biological, chemical weapons or hijacked airplanse capable of killing thousands.

Personal experience tells me that grenades are as much a danger to the user as his target. I sure as hell couldn't chuck one far enough to keep me out of the kill zone during training (thank god they were practice grenades). In Vietnam, the same two grenades I put on my ammo pouch in January stayed there the entire time I was in the field. The few grenades we used during that time were tossed into bunker with the thrower safely behind a wall.

Inflating grenades into weapons of mass destruction devalues the term. More significantly, it frightens us into quivering submission, willing to allow authorities to do whatever they deem appropriate to protect us from mass destruction. I'm not suggesting we ignore killers but I think some perspective would help Americans understand the nature the threats that actually confront us.