A bomb is a weapon of mass destruction though, Vim. It's almost the definition of a what a bomb is.
The problem is that the military's definition of a WMD has become more widely used and it makes the legal one sound quite inaccurate and misleading.
One of them needs to change.
Fair comment. I was referring to the military definition (more or less nuclear, biological or chemical weapons). Nevertheless you do get several instances of gun attacks where more people were killed than in the Boston bombings (no disrespect intended), and since then we've had the Texas fertilizer plant explosion and the tornado, both of which accounted for far more victims who lost there life before their time. Yet we can't stop talking about terrorists - which is exactly what they want I think (sorry that was me that did it that time!)