What weapon of mass destruction are you most afraid of?

vash

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
189
Reaction score
27
Country
USA
Location
USA
Actually direct hit by a nuclear weapon is not that scary, as you won't even feel it before you are vaporized. Anything other than an instant death is scary. For example, an indirect death by nuclear exposure (burning, and radiation). Biological weapon that kills you slower than instant. Chemical weapons that fill your lungs with water and drown you on land... All of these WMD are scary.
 

explorerx7

MEMBER
Joined
Jan 17, 2016
Messages
220
Reaction score
36
Country
Jamaica
Location
Jamaica
It's tempting to believe that nuclear missiles would not be used in any event. They have been used before against Japan and there is the possibility that they could be used again. There are some people that if they should become leaders who have nuclear weapons at their disposal it could not be ruled out that they may not seek to utilise them. However, all I can do is hope and pray that it does not come to the situation that any of these weapons may be deployed.
 

John Snort

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
27
Reaction score
2
Country
Egypt
Location
Jamaica
Biological weapons of mass destruction have to be the worst. Unlike other weapons which would warn the enemy of the danger coming, biological weapon are the easiest to deploy and you may not even know there's been an attack until you see people dying and even then it might be impossible to tell who is responsible for the attack as it's possible for just one infected person to spread a disease around, get hundreds of thousands of people infected.
 

vash

MEMBER
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
189
Reaction score
27
Country
USA
Location
USA
Biological weapons of mass destruction have to be the worst. Unlike other weapons which would warn the enemy of the danger coming, biological weapon are the easiest to deploy and you may not even know there's been an attack until you see people dying and even then it might be impossible to tell who is responsible for the attack as it's possible for just one infected person to spread a disease around, get hundreds of thousands of people infected.
Yeah, actually most of the biological warfare in the past had used existing viruses and germs. It is even hard to tell if it was indeed a biological warfare or a natural occurring disaster until you can get some evidence.

Japanese Unit 731 had air dropped some black death type of rat viruses on small scales in China during WWII. Other than that, I am not sure if there was any real biological warfare taking place.

Think about how many viruses and germs naturally exist in the world. Many of them are still incurable. Many more of them aren't even discovered yet.

I remember watching a documentary about some scientists randomly caught a few mosquito in the jungle, and detected more than 20 previously unknown viruses.

So all the existing viruses can be used as weapons. Not to mention if someone make them more deadly by combine different viruses.

Another documentary I watched in the past had said that if someone combine rabies and flu viruses, then we will have a "28 days later" type of zombie apocalypse. It is scary to even think about it.
 

John Snort

NEW RECRUIT
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
27
Reaction score
2
Country
Egypt
Location
Jamaica
Worse still there's the possibility of an infectious disease that has no cure spreading all over the world and as people do travel a lot even the people in the country where the biological weapon was created might be infected. Using these weapons can be very risky I presume. Unless there's no option, they shouldn't be used. Ever. But in war all is fair unfortunately.
 

Similar threads

Top