Which one is the more dangerous weapon our military has ever possesed? Nuclear weapon or Biochemical weapon?

nuclearemperor

Well it depends what you mean by deadlier. Both are very deadly in their own nature. Biochemical weapons can devestate an entire nation within days of deployment and survivors who think they are unharmed, can pass on its effects onto the next generation. However, it doesn't always work that well. If you released toxins in the air, the wind could blow it away from the target and possibly right back at you. If you released toxins in the water, then they can easily seal off the source from the water supply and then treat the water. Nuclear weapons can leave entire cities in ruin and the radiation can taint the land for years. Survivors may suffer from severe burns, blindness, and severe cases of cancer as a result of the blast and can possibly pass on to the next generation. Also, if detonated at a high altitude, the electromagnetic pulse will disable all electronics within a large radius thus paving the way for an invasion with little to no resistance. So I'd say nuclear weapons are more destructive though biochemical weapons are still powerful in their own right.

jlacroix1758

Just so you know, it is Electronic Beam Weapons, A.K.A. EBW's

kzzxguy

in my opinion.. both r not dangerous .
a one sided and bias media is more dangerous than any of the weapon in the world

Eddy

Biological weapons ... they can wipe out an entire nation in days, and can be delivered by extremely simple means behind enemy lines .. no weapons needed, just some material in the drinking water and kaboom an entire city is gone ... extremely and far more dangerous than Chemical or Nuclear weapons.

Mikelle Devlin

BIOCHEMICAL

Rick Rios

A biochemical weapon is far more destructive than a Nuclear weapon. We are a globalize civilization and world travel has never been easier, so if a biochemical weapon is to be used the refugees from that area will carry the biochemical product with them and spread them abroad.

kekeke

While both are deadly, they don't compare to propaganda machine they use.

coragryph

Biochemical by far.

A good (using that term loosely) nuclear blast can kill millions in a large radius, and destroy all the property as well. But it's pretty much a fixed blast radius.

A nasty bio-virus can kill hundreds of millions, is limited only by prevailing transportation systems, and is much easier to deploy.

dot&carryone.

The one you don't know of.

chuchu

nuclear....

bio chem just kills people

but nuclear leaves radiation damage

Foxie

The M-16 is responsible for the deaths of more human beings than any other weapon in human histroy.

A fusion bomb can wipe out millions of people in a large area in seconds, and destroy that area for decades.

A biochemcial weapon can release a toxin into the air which can devestate a whole country and leave the infastructure in-tact.

But, in my opinion, the most deadly weapon is, and will always be, propaganda. I mean, only two nuclear weapons have ever been used as actual weapons, and a biochemical one never has. But, as you say yourself, they both make your blood run cold. The mere threat of using a W.M.D. is enough to make most people give in.

jonboy_44

either way you go, if you put them behind the big red button that george bush possesses, they will surely be most lethal, he will make sure of that, booyah!!

Dbl Monday

Bio by far..

scrambledmolecues

Biochemical... Its effects on the human gene can have lasting damage to the strand

cowboycoffee

Some type of weapon with Botulism. That's bad stuff.

lucky_j_2003

lol
the most deadly weapon we have is the 8.62 full metal jacket round in a M-16 in the hands of a US Marine

qlover

biochemical weapon can't destroy an island, phisycal weapon (bombs,rockets,etc) can.
biochemical weapon can't destroy earth, nuclear weapon can.

if we think about the damage cost, biochemical weapon is the worst

bdl.2000

GEORGE W.

iamwelndowd1

Photon torpedo's Kirk always used the phasers. Only special occasions did he use the photons

gothicirishpeople

hmm tough one its because both are so destructive....ok say its a war between the soviet union and USA well theres thousands of nukes its about 3 for every city over the popualtion of 50,000 it leaves the ground contaminated and nuclear fall out in the wind. if you don't get killed usually the survivors develope cancer or abnormalties which are pasted to any potential children.

Biochemical weapons is spread from person to person after the first original contamination so is only stoped by containment.

i would say if the country or organization has a lot of nukes those are moe dangerous but if they only have bio's thats still very dangerous. so ill say....nukes are more dangerous.

michael m

biochemical

Kristen S

Well the thing about nuclear weapons is they cause mass destruction. They level buildings, make the ground uninhabitable for thousands of years. I mean, if you want to take over a country, biochemical is the more effective method because it just kills everything that's alive. Some biochemicals can even be targeted to kill only humans. Then you can take over an area and gain all of the natural resources and land.

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: