Which is more dangerous?

[pytum]

i knew since i was 11 that a nuclear bomb destroyed hiroshima and nagasaki... and that after the explosion( btw, caused a lot of deaths and destroyed buildings), there was radiation left by the nuke, and that was even worse than the explosion...

but 5 months ago, i knew about what a Electromagnetic Pulse can really do (EMP, hell yeah! like starcraft) and that pulse destroies (without protection)every electronic circuit in its range, this is produced after a nuclear explosion, and now we have the tecnology to create that pulse without a nuclear explosion, so, every army in this world may have some of those emp "bombs" in their arsenal...

so what could be more deadly in these times a nuclear war or a emp war

[Anoiktos]

You just said yourself that nukes create EMP as well. Both would be destructive, but I don't think there's really an argument that something that does the same thing as the other thing but with the additional problem of radiation, unusable land, and difficult-to-get-rid-of compounds.

Which is really beside the point: either one would have the capability of actually screwing really badly with the earth, not because of any superficial or atmospheric damage - this would eventually go away, and though the half-life of uranium is huge, it's not so large on a life-of-earth scale - but because the EMP shocks from either weapon can manipulate the magnetic fields of earth, firstly reducing our protection from solar flares and the like, and the second changing the rotation and climate of the earth, creating permanent change and possibly increasing the rate at which the earth falls towards the sun by changing its rotation and as such any gyroscopic effect it might rely on in addition, perhaps, to its orbital speed.

If the solar wind were allowed to hit the earth unmitigated, our planet could end up a lot more like Venus.

[GenocideAlive]

Wires and electronics can be shielded from electromagnetic waves.

You can shield wires and electronics from nuclear blasts, but it's a lot more difficult and expensive.

[Frattimonde]

Bio-Warfare is cheaper, easier to spread, smuggle and even manipulate. That is what you should really worry about.

Nuclear war will not happen most likely.

[GenocideAlive]

Nuclear war is irreversible, and everybody on planet Earth is intimately familiar with the consequences and problems associated with nuclear weapons. It became a cultural part of life during the 1950s-1980s and everyone made it their business to become experts. The odds of a government receiving its people's approval to launch nuclear weapons is very low. With the CCCP broken, there is also an extremely low percentage of nuclear weapons made available for launching.

Rogue countries / organizations that buy nuclear weapons are a threat, but a very poor one. Caring for an ICBM is extremely difficult, as is meeting the very sophisticated launch conditions required. Let's face it: we all want to kill for whatever reason, and 0.0% of nuclear weapons holders want the bomb to fuck up at launch and explode 10ft away from us. Thus, an SCN is a far better candidate for success and accuracy. However, this removes a great deal of the "MADD" threat. If you don't live in a high pop area, you're going to be fine (NY, LA, DC, you're screwed).

Biological war is a much more complicated system, all around. Russia made hundreds of tons of genetically modified biological weapons during the 1980s-1990s, and much of those are unaccounted for. The scientists who made and directed the research are also unaccounted for. Thus, it's somewhat scary to think that these weapons could be used in the future since they are not as simple to avoid as a nuclear bomb.

However, what they have in complications for the attacked, they also have in complications for the attacker. It's quite difficult to set something up to dissemenate biological weapons if you don't have adequate protection. And protection requires training and equipment, both of which are expensive and difficult to get without attention. Many who have guts in the face of bombs and guns shrink away from biological weapons, and they are smart to do so.

In short, bioweapons are a great potential threat for nations, but a vigilant nation can deal with a bioterrorist attack much more efficiently than a bomb. India, Pakistan, etc. with high populations and low public health coverage are under the greatest threat.

[Hasharin]

i'd say that the most eerie weapon is the Neutron Bomb tied with the Nuclear bomb.

The Nuclear bomb is extremely scary. It obliterates anything within a short radius, and damaged inanimate objects and horrifically mutates any living things that survive. I've seen a video on the hiroshima death toll...some of the human mutations are just terrifying...as is the massive piles of bodies of the dead and dying...

However, the Neutron bomb does not obliterate anything in it's AoE. it sends out neutrons (OMGRLY!!!) that kill all living things almost instantly, but leaves buildings, structures, etc. completely intact.

however, the EMP in warfare would just be a way to kill enemy soldiers more easily because they woul dhave no communication at all, but would not kill them. The Nuclear bomb is way more terrifying by far.

[GenocideAlive]

Wikipedia, Neutron Bomb: While significantly less in explosive power, they are still much more potent than any conventional bomb, so it should be understood damage to material is reduced and not eliminated.

Ignorance is fear.

[Mr.Bad]

Oh, and the Neutron bomb maximizes radiation and fallout. Ever hear of the cobalt bomb? Neutron Bombs don't have as much of an instantaneous effect as conventional nukes, but the can render a place inhabitable far more effectively.

[ecyor0]

If the solar wind were allowed to hit the earth unmitigated, our planet could end up a lot more like Venus.

Just as a bit of side trivia, the astronomers think that the early earth's atmosphere was pretty much the same as Venus (until the collision event that created the moon)


Anyway, onto the discussion - it would depend on application, really. In a tactical battle ground, a wide blast-radius EMP bomb would wreak havoc with enemy communications (and fighter jet control systems, ICBM control circuits etc) and would be more efficient than a nuke (especially since it doesn't render the area inimitable to friendly troops afterwards).

In a civilian area, again, it would depend on application. Shorting out all power in a city could be a viable terror tactic, but could never cause as much destruction and suffering as a nuclear explosion - again it would depend on whether you wanted to just incapacitate, or completely eradicate.

[uberfoop]

Oh, and the Neutron bomb maximizes radiation and fallout. Ever hear of the cobalt bomb? Neutron Bombs don't have as much of an instantaneous effect as conventional nukes, but the can render a place inhabitable far more effectively.
Aye, but the effects of the final fission stage of a fission-fusion-fission teller-ulam bomb can be up there too.