wow...

If that's the case, we'll have to abolish every country's military, which is an idea I don't like. I'd be out of a job.

First this I think this is a stupid question.

Second, the answer is yes militaries can cause mass destruction.

Yep, especially when its the type of military that frequently attacks "allies" in "friendly" fire.

On 11/25/2005 1:36:39 PM HaroldtheBat wrote: If that's the case, we'll have to abolish every country's military, which is an idea I don't like. I'd be out of a job.

Why would have have to do that?

It's not like we abolish standard weapons of mass destruction now like nukes?

It all depends on your definition of "weapons of mass destruction".

Weapons of mass destructiOn (WMD) generally include nuclear, biological, chemical and, increasingly, radiological weapons. The term first arose in 1937 in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment. Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The terms ABC, NBC, and CBRN have been used synonymously with WMD, although nuclear weapons have the greatest capacity to cause mass destruction. The phrase entered popular usage in relation to the U.S.-led multinational forces' 2003 invasion of Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_of_...

That kinda makes sense actually.

No. Just no.

I love that phrase. So clever it's almost unbearable. Good job, Kiki!

On 11/25/2005 1:41:13 PM mjsmoose wrote: First this I think this is a stupid question. Second, the answer is yes militaries can cause mass destruction.

It's like British Colonel Tim Collins was asked whether he thought there was a culture of violence in the army...

...you think?

Technically, yes. But whatever.

That's why we have them.

Yes, it is. Good question.

Just look at any of the countries the US military has 'helped' in the last 10 years

On 6/2/2006 5:48:30 AM Edith_428428 wrote: Just look at any of the countries the US military has 'helped' in the last 10 years

Yep, 50,000 deaths in Iraq and counting. We sure are 'helping' THEM out! I wish the U.S. could just split up into two countries: one for peace and one for "fighting a war AGAINST terrorism". That way other countries could just bomb the 'anti-terrorist' country and I would be safe.

On 7/7/2006 4:43:34 PM Vatisha17 wrote: On 6/2/2006 5:48:30 AM Edith_428428 wrote: Just look at any of the countries the US military has 'helped' in the last 10 years Yep, 50,000 deaths in Iraq and counting. We sure are 'helping' THEM out! I wish the U.S. could just split up into two countries: one for peace and one for "fighting a war AGAINST terrorism". That way other countries could just bomb the 'anti-terrorist' country and I would be safe.

I don't think this question specified the U.S. military. Also, are you saying the U.S. military is directly responsible for the 50,000 deaths you mentioned?

The military can also be an implement of humanitarian assistance.

Ofcourse it is considering all the weapons they use.