Although the term â€˜weapons of mass destructionâ€™ (WMD) is well-established in contemporary discourse on strategic studies, it is still unclear which weapons are WMD and which are not. The use of this term can be problematic on both technical and political grounds. From a technical perspective, devices not generally categorised as WMD can nevertheless inflict enormous damage. For example, fuel-air explosives, of which the primary casualty-producing force is a high-pressure blast wave, can have the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon.1 In the political arena, applying the label â€˜WMDâ€™ has sometimes been more about moral condemnation than scientific assessment. When former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani addressed the United States Republican National Convention in 2004, he said former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein â€˜was himself a weapon of mass destructionâ€™.