Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For me, no second thought is needed: biochemical weapons!
With nuclear weapons, death, hopefully, would come as fast as lighting! Biochemical weapons, a longer, painful, drawn-out death?
That depends on where you are. In a nuclear war, maybe you're not close to a blast, but have to live with the fallout. Wouldn't necessarily be a "flash" and then you're gone. Maybe society collapses, and you have a world as depicted in the book, "The Road." Pretty miserable existence.
"Biochemical" isn't a single weapon. It's multiple weapons in multiple platforms. If it's a chemical weapon, say a nerve gas like VX, then, depending on exposure, death would come very quickly. Mustard gas could cause hideous, debilitating injuries, and blindness and leave the person alive.
A biological weapon, say anthrax would be lethal, once again, depending on exposure. That would also be a hard way to go....say three weeks from exposure to death. But if it was smallpox....maybe you survive (smallpox has a 30% mortality rate, again with scarring and perhaps blindness.
IMO, we have much more to fear from biological weapons that can be transported and passed-along by any human agent. Nuclear and Chemical require far greater resources, planning and distribution channels.
Having said that, none of these in themselves (much like guns) are something to fear. We must, however, beware of the radicals who have no respect for human life or concern for human suffering -- and would indiscriminately use these weapons to further their agenda.
Neither.
Anyone who walks around scared of these things and terrorists and the like simply doesn't have math skills or just watches too much TV or reads the wrong web sites.
You have MUCH more reason to fear a large soda or a Big Mac and you should shudder each time you step into your car. When you open that bottle of tylenol it's almost a sure thing you are decreasing the life span of your liver.....and a good chance you will see the ER as a result (1000's of time more likely than terror).
And, God Forbid you own a motorcycle. You may as well break into a nuclear plant and live next to the waste piles - it would be safer.
It does seem that a lot of Americans are scared of things. Cowards. Maybe that's a strong word but it's clear that these feelings have steered TRILLIONS of our dollars over a cliff let alone the deaths and suffering of millions...just due to the excess paranoia.
Maybe we should just settle down a bit and consider that most of us will die of some disease or another or a car crash. Period.
It does seem that a lot of Americans are scared of things. Cowards. Maybe that's a strong word but it's clear that these feelings have steered TRILLIONS of our dollars over a cliff let alone the deaths and suffering of millions...just due to the excess paranoia.
Maybe we should just settle down a bit and consider that most of us will die of some disease or another or a car crash. Period.
Cowards? Yep...that's too strong. But I see your other point, and I tell my mother-in-law the same thing all the time. She's retired, has nothing to do all day, so she sits around watching Fox News. All day. She'll say to me, "I heard that Obama is trying to take away my social security!" And I say, "Shirley, there are things to worry about, and things you really don't have to worry about. President Obama is not going to take away your social security." (That might change under "President" Trump.) And I tell her exactly the same thing about driving. You're a hell of a lot more likely to die in a car accident that you are in a terrorist attack. She doesn't listen to me of course. I tell her if she's getting her news from Facebook, she's being misinformed. She says she doesn't, but she spends a lot of time on Facebook.
The problem with your thinking is that 9-11 is still pretty fresh in people's minds. It's hard to unsee the World Trade Center coming crashing down. And with the 24 hour news cycle, and Facebook flooded with fake, scary news on a daily basis, people will remain scared. Calling people cowards and telling them to "snap out of it" doesn't address the situation adequately.
However, the OP asked a question: what's scarier...nukes or a chem/bio attack. I took it to mean, if we get to a SHTF or EOTWAWKI situation, and we were attacked by another country, what would be scarier?
For me, no second thought is needed: biochemical weapons!
With nuclear weapons, death, hopefully, would come as fast as lighting! Biochemical weapons, a longer, painful, drawn-out death?
Well, I don't waste any time being 'scared' by either.
However, to the extent that I consider it intellectually, I'd much rather see biological or chemical weapons used (that's what I assume you mean when you say 'biochemical'). In fact, we have seen such weapons used in some places, and recently. And? I mean, it sucks to be on the receiving end I'm sure, but their use doesn't constitute a potential civilization-crippling escalation because said use doesn't immediately threaten nuclear powers. The use of nuclear weapons, at least by a state with a large strategic arsenal (the U.S., Russia, and to a somewhat lesser extent China, the UK and France - the remaining arsenals around the world are too small), does hold that sort of potential as such powers are pushed to the use-it-or-lose-it stage.
And the whole idea that nuclear weapons means that humanity winks out in a painless instant demonstrates little understanding of nuclear weapons and their effects. I live about 40 air-miles from a major metropolitan area that would surely get whacked in a full-scale nuke toss. I've read some projected Cold War targeting scenarios that anticipated Soviet air-bursts over downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul (each about 40 miles from me) and a ground-burst at MSP (a tad over 30 miles from me - though being a ground-burst, topography would result in it effecting me even less than the more distant air-bursts). Now, current targeting might vary, but in any case a strike on the Twin Cities would be very unlikely to kill me outright. It would surely ruin my day, no doubt. I might (or might not) suffer physical injuries depending on where I was at the time of the bursts and when the blast waves rolled through. Even the largest nuclear weapon ever tested (Tsar Bomba at 50 megatons, which was far too massive to ever deploy) had a 100% kill-radius of less than 8 miles. And as modern accuracy of ballistic missiles has improved, the yields of deployed nuclear devices have gotten smaller - the massive yields of the early days of ICBMs were largely a function of the fact that they needed to create a blast so massive that the target would be destroyed even if the warhead missed it by several miles.
We've already seen the effects of biochemical weapons, Agent Orange, used in Vietnam.
I just got done reading a horribly scary book: Gideon's spies/The Secret History of the Mossad by Gordon Thomas. In this book, apparently, Israel has a stockpile of biochemical weapons all stashed away at their biochemical research center, in case they need them some day!
In the past, an El Al plane with chemical weapons, crashed upon take off in Brussels, which led to Belgium banning the Mossad from Belgium.
In another case, super alert German guards intercepted a suitcase with nuclear material, wrapped in plastic, being shipped from Russia.
And, in yet another case, Mossad agents intercepted some bio chemical weapons being transported from China to Muslim terrorists.
I once read a bio of Reagan, and I remember reading of Reagan being concerned about the nuclear buildup during his Presidency, and one of his top aides told him: Don't worry! The world is going to end in a nuclear holocaust anyway!
I've also read of the close calls when missiles were being transported from one site to another. If one those planes had crashed!
I have read that the younger generation is much more conscious of the possibility of a nuclear holocaust than older people, who may have their heads stuck in the sand.
Overall, there's no point in worrying about it, as worrying has a way of undermining your immune system, so I'm not surprised that people don't want these issues showing up on their radar screens, as ignorance is bliss!
I work in a LTC/Rehab facility where I once had a patient effected by Agent Orange, and to get back to the question, biochemical weapons scare me more!
We've already seen the effects of biochemical weapons, Agent Orange, used in Vietnam.
I work in a LTC/Rehab facility where I once had a patient effected by Agent Orange, and to get back to the question, biochemical weapons scare me more!
I have friends who have died and others still alive and suffering from AO.
One death was a horrible death - major cancer of the neck at age 52. I mean - how many normal folks have large tumors come up all-of-a-sudden on their neck at that age?
The sad thing about many of these things we are afraid of is that we personally (tax money, military, etc.) have perpetrated them onto millions of people (including our own citizens).
I just finished a book about Iraq by a Brit journalist. At least you get a semblance of truth once you step outside our own bubble. The amount of deaths, displacements, suffering, etc. are in the millions. The Syrian War is probably related to us "breaking" the middle east. Yet then we say "we don't want even ONE of those refugees". Amazing.
I'd rather look for these evils close to home (cast the log our of my own eye) because noticing the speck in others.
Depleted Uranium, which we sprayed all over Iraq, caused a heck of a lot of people to get cancer (and will over the next 20 years).
So all these things are real...they just aren't as real for Americans and much more real for those who face our "freedom" crusades.
At the root of much of this, IMHO, is money...although power is related to money. Also, our modern world often separates the results of actions from the person(s) performing them. I don't think the Generals lose much sleep over the poisoned, wounded and suffering Iraqis. The corporations who made BIG money from the situations also aren't having crying sessions. Most people have plausible deniability.
IMHO, all of this relates greatly to the chances of such things happening to Americans both overseas and here.
Again, to put it in a crude fashion....my guess is that many Americans - if a foreign power came in and destroyed their society, killed members of their family and took over their politics - would rise up and desire revenge.
Make no mistake about it. Americans - and more like Westerners (the USA is hard to get to) will die in numbers over the next decades due to terrorism. It probably won't be nuclear or biochemical (IMHO) although I wouldn't be surprised if some it used to "tempt" us. They (terrorists and the rest of the world) are playing us like a fiddle. A small chemical attack might cause a trigger happy POTUS to react in just the way the jihadists want us to.
I still hold the same position I held before the Iraq War (I was part of the 10-15% against it)...and that is, you simply should avoid stirring up the hornets nest. The current methods of using intelligence and slowly doing away with...and changing..the will of the insurgents (everywhere) to fight strikes me as a much smarter move.
We'll see soon enough. Even in most of the worst cases it still won't hold a candle to deaths in the USA caused by cars, booze and fat.
We've already seen the effects of biochemical weapons, Agent Orange, used in Vietnam.
Agent Orange was a defoliant, not an antipersonnel weapon. Yes, it's a chemical, but most weapons contain chemicals. Gunpowder contains chemicals, but that doesn't mean a round is a chemical weapon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover
I just got done reading a horribly scary book: Gideon's spies/The Secret History of the Mossad by Gordon Thomas. In this book, apparently, Israel has a stockpile of biochemical weapons all stashed away at their biochemical research center, in case they need them some day!
Several nations still have stockpiles of chemical weapons, including the United States - though we're in the process of destroying the reserves. Syria has chemical weapons. Russia and Japan also have stockpiles that they're destroying. North Korea almost certainly has them.
In fact, chemical weapons aren't all that useful for major powers. They cause more terror than destruction, they're very unwieldy and their effective usage is highly prone to weather conditions (winds, humidity, temperature inversions, etc.). They are most certainly not some wonder weapon. Indeed, I've always laughed at the fact that they are included as a weapon of 'mass destruction', as they destroy nothing but life and even then they face considerable problems in deployment and dispersal.
By the way, your use of 'biochemical' remains awkward. Chemical and biological weapons are distinct and very different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover
In the past, an El Al plane with chemical weapons, crashed upon take off in Brussels, which led to Belgium banning the Mossad from Belgium.
This did not happen.
Flight 1862's cargo contained a chemical that is used in the making of sarin. So what? Lots of precursor chemicals are used in the making of nerve gas. Some of these chemicals are harmless and some are not, but that does not make them chemical weapons. Water is a chemical used somewhere in the manufacturing process of most munitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover
In another case, super alert German guards intercepted a suitcase with nuclear material, wrapped in plastic, being shipped from Russia.
What's 'nuclear material'? Something radioactive? Sub-weapons grade material? That vague description could fit all sorts of ordinary and mundane shipments of 'nuclear material', which has a great many industrial and medical uses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover
And, in yet another case, Mossad agents intercepted some bio chemical weapons being transported from China to Muslim terrorists.
I once read a bio of Reagan, and I remember reading of Reagan being concerned about the nuclear buildup during his Presidency, and one of his top aides told him: Don't worry! The world is going to end in a nuclear holocaust anyway!
This sounds like complete nonsense. I don't doubt that you read it - I do highly doubt that it happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover
I've also read of the close calls when missiles were being transported from one site to another. If one those planes had crashed!
Missiles are delivery vehicles. They're not in and of themselves harmful. As for warheads, many aircraft with nuclear warheads have crashed. Some of the nuclear weapons were lost. There's one in the muck on the sea bottom just off the coast of Georgia, and it has been for decades. It's lost. one was lost in Greenland in 1968. In 1950 a B-36 crashed with the loss of a nuclear weapon in British Columbia.
And, no, those nukes - even if they somehow survived intact - would no longer be usable. Material such as the heavy water used as part of the initiation process long ago degraded to being useless (nukes aren't build and forget weapons like swords - they need regular maintenance).
Quote:
Originally Posted by tijlover
I have read that the younger generation is much more conscious of the possibility of a nuclear holocaust than older people, who may have their heads stuck in the sand.
Overall, there's no point in worrying about it, as worrying has a way of undermining your immune system, so I'm not surprised that people don't want these issues showing up on their radar screens, as ignorance is bliss!
I work in a LTC/Rehab facility where I once had a patient effected by Agent Orange, and to get back to the question, biochemical weapons scare me more!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
