| Mr Khan said: Anyway, i would think not. Any nation that uses them would have to know that the repercussions against them would be tremendous. I mean, North Korea is unstable, but even they have a self-preservation instinct, and they know, proof positive, that they will be destroyed if the use their nuke |
it "weapon of mass destruction" specifically means nuke then khan is exactly right.
...but i voted probably yes cause appearently i was casting a wider net. flying a couple of airplanes into skyscrapers may not officially count as a weapon of mass destruction but thousands were killed and new york had a huge whole gauged out of its skyline. i guess i thought of that as pretty massive destruction and yes, i do expect terrorists to find a way to pull another simular (if not larger) event in terms of death and damages this decade.
but no, not a nuke. terrorism is the war mongering of the future.
