‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ (WMD) comprises one of the most prominent concepts in International Relations. Interest in this concept, however, ignores the sheer variety in how it has been defined. Although typically associated with nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons, this paper demonstrates that – in reality – the concept has been applied to a wide and non-essentialist range of armaments/threats. Investigating this difference reveals significant issues concerning the nature of conceptual understanding. This plurality in meaning is not solely contestation, but the product of contextual redefinition by strategic actors. Directly opposing more social constructivist understandings of concepts, this paper argues that variety in meaning is strategically and deliberately enacted by political actors. Actors change the meaning of concepts in order to shape debates in ways that favour their own desires and self-interest. Agency drives conceptual contestation. The paper demonstrates this by employing the work of Quentin Skinner, specifically his conception of the ‘innovating ideologist.’ It will also explore the implications of this claim for political relations surrounding WMD, especially where it leaves such an emotive and dangerous term open to manipulation.
