Since we've been talking about WMDs a lot lately, it seems to me there's one thing we should clear up. While the Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 1996 officially defines WMDs to basically include chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, let's not confuse an artillery shell bearing a mustard-gas warhead with a 30-megaton city-buster H-bomb. In fact, there is a strong argument that chemical and biological weapons are not worthy of the name "WMDs":

…In short, chemical weapons are unwieldy, difficult to deploy and militarily ineffective, not even in the same ballpark as modern conventional weapons like fuel-air explosives (thermobaric bombs). As far as usage by terrorists goes, chemical weapons are both difficult to deploy and dangerous to those who use them. Is it really likely that Iraq would be the first nation to successfully deploy effective battlefield-ready biological weapons? Or would terrorists be able to effectively disperse biological weapons? Perhaps these reasons are why it is said that "biological and chemical agents are used more as a threat against small groups than as actual weapons aimed at large populations."

These points are too often missed in discussions of Iraqi WMDs, as well as of other nations' WMD programs. A single nuclear weapon, delivered via medium-range missile against a nearby urban center, or via cargo vessel to an American port, can cause devastating death and destruction. Chemical and biological weapons, however, can hardly be said to be deadlier than other tools of modern warfare, and are not likely to be used effectively by terrorists.

All WMDs are not created equal. We don't want terrorists laying hands on any kind of military hardware, but chemical and biological weapons should not rank high on our list of concerns.