What weapon of mass destruction are you most afraid of?

[drc65]

I hope this is not off-topic but I am curious to know what you think. If there was another World War, what nuclear missile would you be most afraid of? I'm quite afraid of the M51-SLBM as it is almost impossible to intercept and has a range of 10,000km.

 

[User911]

I'm not afraid of dying by any WMD. I think it would be highly unlikely that I would because I think only major cities would be attacked, leaving the rest of the country alive. If that were to ever happen, the lucky ones would be the dead ones. The unlucky ones would be the ones still left living as they would have to deal with the horror of millions dying, the economy going completely belly up, and probably BO waving a white flag of surrender to whoever attacked us. Plus a million other problems...

If we have the right leadership, we could survive being attacked. Look at Japan, they made it through and managed to eventually thrive again. Even after devastation, a lot depends on the leadership and how well they want to do their jobs as to how long it takes a nation to get back on its feet again. I have zero confidence in our current administration.

 

[Redheart]

Like @User911 I'm not afraid of dying. No weapon of mass destruction do I fear. In any case, the likelihood of them being used in war in the near-future is quite remote. If there's going to be a WWIII then the battle ground will be the Middle East.

IMHO, the residents of the Middle East are the ones who should fear weapons of mass destruction more than anyone else.

 

[Rebel]

The topic asks what weapon of mass destruction I would be afraid of but the post starts off asking about nuclear weapons. I'm not too worried about nuclear weapons. The WMD I would fear most are biological agents (also known as chemical weapons). I don't fear death, but unlike many here saying the big words, it's because I've personally seen death far too many times.

 

[xTinx]

I fear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) the most. Why? Imagine, a few strikes could wipe out an entire continent. Imagine if the enemy shoots millions of ICBMs, then the whole world would practically be destroyed.

 

[crimsonghost747]

Biological ones. Simply because if a powerful enough one would be released it could wipe away everyone... and there really isn't much I could do to survive. Also usually they cause death in a horrible and painful way... instead of being just wiped out in a millisecond like with nuclear weapons.

Also Rebel, biological and chemical weapons are NOT the same.

 

[TommyVercetti]

Biological and chemical agents, mostly. They're a gruesome way to die. Dying from a nuke would be a blessing compared to some of this stuff. Surviving one would be hell on earth, I think.

 

[pwarbi]

As I think with most weapons I'm more worried about who they're in the hands of rather than the actual weapons themselves.

If one nation wanted to wipe out another, with the technology available today I don't think it would be too hard to do, and I doubt that any of us would survive a direct strike anyway so worrying about it won't change that.

Like previous posts have said, only time I do worry, is if were talking about chemical weapons and biological warfare, its ok being being struck by a bomb or missile and dying instantly, dying a slow and painful death is definitely something to keep you up at night.

 

[missbishi]

The only weapons that truly scare me are biological ones, as mentioned previously and good old fashioned swords and knives. Dying in either one of these ways would be excruciatingly painful and drawn out. I'd rather go instantly and with that in mind, I'm not too worried about nuclear weapons.

 

[pwarbi]

Quick and painlessly is definitely the preferred option. The trouble is I doubt we'd actually get the option.

In this day and age of modern warfare, more and more countries have the ability to strike from afar, And I think a land invasion is the last option and something that may be consigned to a thing of the past.

 

[Infidel]

I'd say chemical/biological weapons are probably the scariest WMD's. With nukes you'd be vaporized instantly if you are within the blast zone. With chemical/biological weapons, especially chemical weapons they attack your central nervous system and lead to painful agonizing deaths. Although being outside the blast zone of a nuke and having to somehow survive through nuclear fallout and the accompanied radiation sickness and pollution of everything would be equally terrifying.

 

[Susimi]

Biological weapons terrify me. Nuclear and other conventional WMD's we have some small chance of combating them but biological all it needs is a few people to be infected for a chain reaction to start where it spreads with an almost impossible to predict path of where it will spread to and how far.

It's very unnerving.

 

[remnant]

It may sound strange but the single weapon of mass destruction that frightens me is not the nuclear bomb or the hydrogen bomb for that matter. It is the humble handheld gun. You are extremely unlikely to die from the vaunted weapons of mass destruction you have learnt about. The gun is the choice weapon of slow mass destruction and has killed many more people than any WMD ever would in both present and past wars as well as pogroms and genocides. And its an immediate and present danger than any WMD.

 

[silentwarfare]

Anything that Hillary Clinton has her finger on to push the button, quite frankly. Next would be biological weapons. Nuke is probably the quickest, but leaves no infrastructure left if they do.

 

[pwarbi]

Anything that Hillary Clinton has her finger on to push the button, quite frankly. Next would be biological weapons. Nuke is probably the quickest, but leaves no infrastructure left if they do.

Biological weapons are definitely the worst, simply because of the effect the aftermath as on a population. It might sound a bit extreme,,but it's like choosing to kill a person with a knife or a gun. Choose a gun and they die quickly, with a knife they die a lot slower and more painfully.

Choosing to use biological weapons in a war is like using a knife. The people will still die, but you've chosen to kill them in the most painful way you can, and that shouldn't be something to celebrate.