Cluster bombs’ are generally a bigger threat vs people. (ex: football stadium) Bunker busters are more useful vs. hardened structures. (Command center)
I have heard a suggestion that the world trade center would have likely survived a hit from a Father of all Bombs. Though the building would likely need to be condemned afterward.
PS: Aparently they are vary useful for cave systems though.
Orginally Weapons of Mass Destruction was specifically defined under US and International law (by treaty) as NBC Weapons only (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical.) Gradually, the definition has become a bit wobbly, with some attempting to include any weapon that could be used in a terror attack (domestic law enforcement) and those seeking to include portions of their enemies arsenals (e.g. SCUD missiles) under the term WMD.
"In the Butler Review, the official UK report on intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the definition of WMDs included Ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities.
Thankfully the term WMD has fallen out of favor, but the point the Butler Review makes clear is that it is an inherently Orwellian term. Its Orwellian not in the sense of dystopian, but rather that it is a deliberately ambiguous term used to obfuscate the underlying reality.
It is the politician's version of "hook up." Completely descriptive while so ambiguous that it could be describing anything at all.
Creating terms like WMD, CBRNE, NBC, only serves to undermine the underlying weapon. Like most people, I believe ordinary explosive ordinance deserves far less attention than rogue nuclear weapons.
