Representatives of the Soviet Union, ana others, have 
recommended considering the question of definition of the tern 
'new t^.es cf weapons of mass destruction. 1 ’ This, of course, is 
an impcrtant aspect of the subject at hand, and we would be 
prepared to consider suggestions for defining the term. We 
recognise, however, that legitimate questions can be raised 
about the feasibility of developing a rigorous definition that 
could SM've as a sound basis for formal international restraints. 
There would be a significant risk that any formal definition 
either would be too general or ambiguous to be applied 
effectively to individual cases or would be so specific or rigid 
that unforeseen scientific developments deserving to be covered 
would be unintentionally excluded. We believe these consider- 
ations should be kept in nind as we proceed on the question of 
defining weapons of mass destruction. 
The term 'weapons of mass destruction 1 has been in general 
international usage for about 30 years. It seems clear to me 
that this general usage places nuclear, chemical and biological 
weapons in the category of weapons of mass destruction." There 
is, of course, the potentiality, in principle, of creating new 
types of weapons with characteristics comparable to these 
generally recognized types. 
We should take careful note of the fact T ;b\t important 
■ crr'tional agreements have already been brought into force 
4 'V r - - llmitatl.crr on ’■'••.clear weapons, chemical weapons --d 
VII-4 
f 489 J 
