In the future, what would be the most devastating form of warfare, Biological or Nuclear?

Alias Smith & Jones

Screw the future - which would be most devastating TODAY!

Farron T

I'd say that it depends exactly on the nature and the scale of the weapons you're talking about and exactly what you mean by 'most devastating'. That said I'd like to give a different view on this since it's become popular for example these days to view nuclear and biological warfare as more dangerous yet chemical warfare could potentially create a worse outcome than either of these two...

Nuclear holocaust scenarios, while terrible, would not necessarily contaminate everything (ie it would be possible to survive underground) and the radioactivity would eventually drop.

Proponents of biological weapons tend to forget that every disease so far encountered has members of the population who are immune to it. Also since to make a biological weapon effective it needs to be able to spread before killing its' host it's likely that things less deadly than Ebola (which kills about 90 percent of those who contract it) would be used, something like smallpox or yellow fever is more likely and many, many people would naturallly survive these diseases (a percentage would even survive multiple diseases in all likelihood).

Large scale chemical warfare could on the other hand poison the natural environment for an indefinite (essentially permanent) period of time as well as seeping into the underground water, posioning most other forms of life (probably including sub soil organisms vital to the growth of many plant species), causing the same or worse sort of mutation and cancer problems as radiation but without a drop off of effect like radiation, etc... after all whilst plutonium may give you trouble for thousands of years, arsenic is forever.

kluwe99

Neither it will be "fear" in sense it will be relatively small hits that are unexpected, these will usually come from small unknown groups wishing to push fourth their ideas. In biological or nuclear attacks for it to effective you need it to be pretty complex. Small terror groups won't be able to do this so they will resort to small suicide strikes and thus creating mass fear for no one will be sure were or will attack next. Only large states (countries) will be able to carry out nuclear or biological attacks and most states will not want to risk angering other states to attack them.

forgivebutdonotforget911

Using the definition of "devastation" -- to lay waste, destroy, then nuclear warfare would be the most devastating.

Besides the obvious destruction that nuclear weapons cause, there is the issue of fallout, which can destroy life hundreds if not thousands of miles away. There is also the lingering aspects of it, as it could render areas of the earth totally unusable for thousands of years.

Chemical warfare is limited by the nature of the chemicals. Yes, it can kill those who live in a particular area but the structures are left intact. It does not tend to go for miles and miles and even if it does, it gets weaker and weaker and it breaks down with time. You can actually move back into an area in a relatively short period of time.

Biological warfare is limited by that which it can kill. Smallpox spreads rapidly within the human population but once the population drops to a certain level, the spread stops. It also does not damage the property and once someone is either immunized against it or had it and survived, they never have to worry about it again.

The USA could easily survive a chemical or biological attack by a terrorist group and could clean up the mess in a short period of time. But if a nuclear weapon went off in a major city, recovery would take decades. That is why the USA is so worried about Iran's nuclear weapons program...

stylinpat

Possibly biological. By contaminating our resources and slowly eliminating the enemy.

cqm

--Gun powder, canons, mines,chemical warfare,biological and atomic bombs we have tasted in yester years;
--terrorist attacks, and suicide bombs we face today;
--satilite weather control,inter continental balastic missile
or robot operating psychic challenges to human mind may be the kind of war modes we have to face tomorrow.

It's a definite tie. It just depends on whether you have a great desire to go out with a big bang or not, but both are extremely devastating. God Bless you.

Stephanie P

Nuclear because biological would take to long

Tony

Biological...Nuclear weapons only target a specific area..Biological can spread, breed, and destroy everything..

charvd

depending on what actually is used. nuclear is bad because if over 100 kilotons are dropped then dust will fill the atmosphere, causing a global ice age. not to mention the half life of radiation is really long (death from radiation the blast and also a ice age) biological is pretty bad also. a lot of common natural occurring diseases and viruses such as small pox could kill millions. There are also artificially created virus that could kill many more. Imagine someone puts the virus into a airport air duct. Everyone in the airport gets affected and then get on planes which spreads all over the world. Both are really bad, however cures are available for combating biological warfare. There are no cures for a blast as hot as the sun going off right next to you.

âŠ‚( ï¾Ÿ ãƒ®ï¾Ÿ)âŠƒ

Nuclear, 'cus the devastation last thousands of years.

kabama

nuclear, because not only would the blast kill millions, but the radiation sticks around afterwards and contaminates everything. also, bio would be hard to pull off because of all the measures countries have been taking to prevent bio. With nuclear you launch a missile ad the target is screwed.

atlantismeditation@sbcglobal.net

bio to kill every on int the area and then nuclear to make it a nice quite neighborhood fot the next several thousand years.

CUrias

Either one but biological is probably easier and can be applied from different directions from up close. This is why we're on such heightened security in the U.S.A. versus before 9/11.

Sam

probly galactic warfare. like people shooting galaxies at each other. umm probly the worst way to die is to die with out knowing what they you are looking for.
seek and you will find. its time to start. but so many distractions around here.

chris l

neither one. it would be an army of thousands of horny fat women with no teeth.

aremele

Does it really matter it's going to KILL all of us in the long run either way it's a losing battle if either happens.

cece e

nither it would be economic based and cyber warfare if you can cripple your opponents networks their economy especialy in the west will fall read the link
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/RRR.fall95.cyber/cyberwar.html

sristi

with america on down trend, there is no fear of war in future!

Mal

well that depends on how you mean devastating if you mean kill more people in the long run than a biological weapon would be more devastating. If you mean to the earth then a nuclear attack would be more devastating. please be more clear so that people can answer your question

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: