Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: What's worst? Biological, Chemical, or Nuclear Warfare?
  • Subject: What's worst? Biological, Chemical, or Nuclear Warfare?
Subject: What's worst? Biological, Chemical, or Nuclear Warfare?

And when it comes to Chemical and Biological warfare, I don't mean mustard gas and blankets with smallpox. I mean Cold War deadly nerve gases and Biological Warfare weapons designed to spread stuff like Ebola around a whole nation.

  • 11.28.2012 8:10 PM PDT

Biological.

  • 11.28.2012 8:10 PM PDT

Vien (Sven) 'Quitonm
Species - Sangheili
Age - 19
Weight - 250lbs
Height - 6'6"
Eye Colour - Grey

Nuclear.

Rabies is more deadly than Ebola by the way, there's just no cure, which could be made.

[Edited on 11.28.2012 8:11 PM PST]

  • 11.28.2012 8:11 PM PDT

Per Audacia Ad Astra

All three combined.

  • 11.28.2012 8:11 PM PDT

HAARP

  • 11.28.2012 8:11 PM PDT

"There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe."
Gospel of John, 1:1-7

Seeing how Nuclear Warfare kills millions, creates a nuclear winter and is the most likely... (Considering how close we arrived in the Cold War):

Nuclear.

  • 11.28.2012 8:12 PM PDT


Posted by: Bungie Sam
All three combined.

  • 11.28.2012 8:12 PM PDT

Break the windowsill

I'd say nuclear, since enough bombs will block out the sun for hundreds of years and radiation will make areas unhabitable for a long time.

  • 11.28.2012 8:12 PM PDT

Mental Warfare. If the speaker is good the victim doesn't even know there being brain washed.

  • 11.28.2012 8:14 PM PDT

Vault-Tec ZAX [Version 1.3]
Copyright (c) 2060 Vault-Tec Industries. All rights reserved.

>run
o4b .vtas
>\ Loading . . .

>_

Well it depends on what you mean by worse.

Nuclear Strikes would be quick and merciful but completely tip the balance of local biodiversity.

Chemical and Biological strikes would be far less merciful upon it's victims but may or may not leave irreparable damage upon the ecosystem.

  • 11.28.2012 8:14 PM PDT

Yeah but Ebola doesnt have a vaccine and its incubation rate is shorter than a month unlike rabies

  • 11.28.2012 8:18 PM PDT

~Thread-killer~

Biological.

  • 11.28.2012 8:26 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Tom
USNSCC, E-3

The Line of Steel
Basically, it's a blog of mine that focuses on military and policy related issues. Feel free to bookmark it and PM me any ideas you have to improve its quality. I hope you enjoy it!


Posted by: Garem
Biological.

  • 11.28.2012 8:27 PM PDT

Remember those times when we all had something better to be doing, but didn't do it? Those were good times. Gooood times


Posted by: HundredJono
HAARP
I wonder what kind of warfare this would be considered...


On topic: Nuclear. Death guaranteed!

  • 11.28.2012 8:29 PM PDT

Nuclear is a combination of them all..

  • 11.28.2012 8:31 PM PDT

I am the God Emprah of Mankind.

Deal with it.


Posted by: Teslas Revenge
Well it depends on what you mean by worse.

Nuclear Strikes would be quick and merciful but completely tip the balance of local biodiversity.

Chemical and Biological strikes would be far less merciful upon it's victims but may or may not leave irreparable damage upon the ecosystem.

That's why they aren't used. If you use them on your enemy you've gained nothing but a deserted wasteland.

I think that Chemical or Biological Warfare would be worse, as you could affect a larger area, though it would take more time.

  • 11.28.2012 8:31 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: SociallyPsyco
Seeing how Nuclear Warfare kills millions, creates a nuclear winter and is the most likely... (Considering how close we arrived in the Cold War):

Nuclear.


The idea of nuclear winter is kind of retarded. We've tested hundreds if not thousands of nuclear weapons and nothing happened. Nuclear winter will more than likely not happen. They initially thought the bomb would set the stratosphere on fire.

  • 11.28.2012 8:32 PM PDT