AHA! So that's your problem
Which brings us right back to my original statement: That WMDs are the payload of choice for people who do not have accurate delivery systems.
No.. WMD is not a payload. Chemicals maybe a payload, but "WMD" simply means what it says. It's a weapon that can cause mass destruction. You are now the one confusing the payload with the weapon delivery system. Just because the most EFFECTIVE WMDs are chemical, bio, radio and or nuclear, doesn't mean it must be one in order to cause massive destruction
A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically.
No. As has been explained several times, it is the delivery system which may be accurate (or not). The payload has no vector of accuracy at all. It does not move on its own. Your question is as absurd as asking if blue is loud.
As I said several times as well. I'm specifically referring to the entire weapon system, not aspects of them. Even by your ignorant statement, that still doesn't explain how a rocket or a bomb is inaccurate.
So, let me rephrase the question... Can weapons that can cause massive destruction, i.e., rockets, bombs, missiles, etc. be accurate?
It's not the definition which is in question, but your application of it. Knowing the definition of a word doesn't help if you don't understand it. Which appears to be the case here.
So let's start off with you giving a definition and we can go from there.
That weapon's delivery system is accurate by definition
So, it's accurate.Finally, thanks.
But it would be equally accurate regardless of payload.
Wait, so now the payload matters? This is the Internet. No one cares that you are wrong. Why the circles?
You just said that payload isn't "accurate", but the delivery system. So why do you care about the payload in a question of accuracy?
Your problem, and what I have disagreed with you all along, is that you keep insisting that putting a payload with a larger effective radius makes the weapon more accurate.
Not only have I never said that, I corrected you on that. So now, you're just trolling. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RADIUS, but hitting the desired targets. I stated that nuking Rhode Island to kill one person would not be accurate. Why is it so difficult to admit to being wrong, just once?
What it does do is offset any inaccuracy of the delivery system.
And I ASK AGAIN? What delivery system are you talking about? You're just making up stats. Give me real stats of weapon inaccuracies. You can't assume that a 3rd world country can't get accurate systems. There exist inaccurate systems for every type of weapon. Not only that, your inaccuracy depends on how you use it along with other factors.
It allows an inaccurate weapon (weapon in this context being the combination of delivery system and payload, just in case you're confused)
I"m not confused at all. You're conveniently changing definitions when it benefits you as EVERYONE thinks of the whole weapon system when discussing accuracy. HTF do you separate payload from the delivery system when dealing with accuracy, but not tips/tax from a meal purchase?
to still be effective because the payload's radius of effect is greater than the delivery systems inaccuracy. Again though, this does not make the weapon "accurate". It makes it effective.
And again, I'm not talking about the efficacy of the weapon but the accuracy. Did you hit your desired targets AND NOTHING BUT YOUR DESIRED TARGETS?
No, then it isn't accurate. Yes, then it is accurate. It's that simple.