Weapons of Mass Destruction


September 13, 2002


BROOKE GLADSTONE: Every once in a while we consider a word or a phrase that suddenly pops up and resounds through the media. This week it's "weapons of mass destruction," as in this usage by Vice President Dick Cheney. "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use them against our friends, against our allies and against us."

BROOKE GLADSTONE:In the defense community the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" generally refers to chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, but in a recent column for Slate.com, Timothy Noah argues that the germ should be reserved for nukes. Tim Noah joins us now. Welcome to the show.

TIMOTHY NOAH: Thank you.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Let's look at "weapons of mass destruction," that phrase, as a tool of political rhetoric. Go over how it's been used by members of the Bush administration.

TIMOTHY NOAH: It's been used for example by Vice President Dick Cheney. He said in a speech on August 26th, "The whole range of weapons of mass destruction would rest in the hands of a dictator who has already shown his willingness to use such weapons." And he said that after he had - he'd made reference to chemical and biological weapons and to nuclear arms. He I think is deliberately conflating nuclear weapons and chemical and biological weapons in order to make the threat seem maximally terrible.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Now Saddam does not have that weapon of mass destruction -- nukes, as far as we know --yet.

TIMOTHY NOAH:Right, and I think that fact is, is blurred when Dick Cheney refers to Saddam as having "weapons of mass destruction." It allows his listeners to conflate nuclear weapons with biological weapons, and I think we can all understand instinctively that it's a much more frightening idea that Saddam Hussein would have nuclear weapons.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: And we can assume that the goal of Cheney in using language in this way is to gin up support for a war against Iraq.

TIMOTHY NOAH:That's right. It's a way of saying that he's done everything terrible that could possibly be done, and therefore we must attack him. The reality is, he hasn't done everything terrible that could be done, and thank God for that!

BROOKE GLADSTONE: We've talked about members of the administration. How do you think the media are using or misusing that phrase?

TIMOTHY NOAH:I think you're seeing the, the, the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" being used fairly indiscriminately in the press as well. I was very struck by an editorial that appeared in the New Republic on September 2nd that attempted to sort of boil down a--as much as possible the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein. And I'll, I'll quote from it. They wrote: "What is it then about the villain in Baghdad that should provoke the United States to rid the world of him? One spectacular thing: he is the only leader in the world with weapons of mass destruction who has used them. He has used them against Iranian troops and against Kurdish civilians. This is what makes Saddam Hussein so distinguished in the field of evil." Well-- that's a, a statement that clearly confuses the notion of weapons of mass destruction.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: It isn't strictly speaking accurate, either, is it?

TIMOTHY NOAH:It's also not strictly [LAUGHS] speaking accurate. If you're talking about chemical and biological weapons-- those were used by the United States during World War I! And if you're talking about-- even nuclear weapons--those were used by the United States during World War II. Now-- since then there's been a strong taboo against the use of chemical and biological weapons and a significantly stronger taboo against use of nuclear weapons. And-- the, the New Republic editorial just sort of didn't seem to, to, to grasp these realities.

BROOKE GLADSTONE:What would you prefer the media so when faced with language from people like Cheney citing weapons of mass destruction? You think they should step back and correct each time?

TIMOTHY NOAH: Well, I think at the very least the media ought not to use the phrase themselves. I think they ought to be more specific. Using a catch-all to describe all of them is less accurate but also I think misleading in the sense that it does tend to equate them.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: And it's calculated to give us all the willies.

TIMOTHY NOAH: Absolutely.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Tim Noah, thank you very much.

TIMOTHY NOAH: Thank you.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: Tim Noah writes the daily Chatterbox column for Slate.com. [MUSIC]