One of the undeniable traits of humankind is that people the world over, generally hear or see what they want, when they want. Americans are no different. That's why we pay multi-million to illiterates to throw air filled rubber spheres through hoops while medical care is routinely denied to the destitute. Our priorities are often so distracted and biased that it's a wonder we can survive as a nation. I agree with your assessment that Americans can be cynically stupid a large portion of the time; witness the regular goings on of the national legislature and that fact is borne out repeatedly. Having said that, Weapons of Mass Destruction can be improvised. But a WMD does not have to be an IED, nor does it even need to be explosive. Biologic agents when used in a militaristic manner, can be considered a weapon of mass destruction. History claims that Mongols were keen to catapult the bodies of their plague infected dead over a defender's walls, in the hope of spreading infection and fear unto their enemies. But back to the discussion; Improvised munitions can take many forms; but the form that most Americans are familiar with today is the roadside bomb. The Bostonian version was certainly improvised and the technical workings, from what I've been reading, is remarkably similar to a common Afghani field IED. However, the political motivation between the two is different. An IED used in Afghanistan is a weapon of war (even as the combatants aren't declared). Whereas the IED used in Boston was politically a weapon of terror, akin historically to say, the IRA bombings in northern Ireland or the UK; or the Jewish bombings of British Palestine. In terms of shaping public opinion, I do get what you're driving at; namely, that it doesn't seem fair to equate an IED as a WMD for purely political purpose to further stoke and inflame public opinion. I know what you're driving at, even as I disagree with it, and here's why. Targeting civilians crosses a very significant line in the course of civilization. Warfare has always been brutal, but the thing that allows us to retain a semblance of humanity, even during armed conflicts, is to ensure that rules of engagement are observed. So much like how a nuclear warhead is indiscriminate in the people that they kill (civilian AND military), a terrorist bomb, secreted into a crowd to indiscriminately ensure massed casualties amongst civilians, can be considered a weapon of mass destruction. I don't know how much science fiction you follow, but years ago, there was a canuck show called ReGenesis, in which the premiere episode posited a terrorist plot to infect a baby in utero with a highly infectious airborne disease to which it was naturally immune. That is, anyone coming in contact with this newborn would eventually become infected and die, while the baby itself was immune. In such a case, would that baby be considered a WMD? Of course it would. Again, if the intent is to indiscriminately sow destruction; then the device would be considered a WMD. As for the DPRK, and their missiles, which they report will be aimed at Guam, Hawaii, and the US west coast; yes, they would be classed as WMD's too.