<< Glenn, you wouldnt consider WWII a war of mass destrucion? You would think that the Droping of the A bomb twice would add up to mass destrucion. And that is not including all the damage done besides that. What constitutes the difference between a war of mass destrucion and multiple major theater war? >>
Yes and no. War of mass destruction implictly assumes mass strategic use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (Biological, Chemical, or Nuclear). The fighting powers had WMD (chemical warfare) capabilities for the duration of the war, yet chose not to use them during WWII. Yes, we did drop two atomic weapons at the end of the war, but that was more of a footnote than the distinguishing feature of the war, so i would classify it as a multiple major theater war. In a sense, WWII caused as much destruction as a war of mass destruction, but that was mainly due to it's protracted length and the scope of the fighting being so large, rather than it being a true declared state war characterized by mutual usage of WMD.
In today's terms, a war of mass destruction would equate to World War 3.
<< Gee, Glen. Did you ever serve in the military? >>
LOL... of course not, whatever gave you that impression? 😉