NationStates Jolt Archive

Possible contenders for most shocking ideas encountered on NS:

1.) Ronald Reagan was the key figure in the downfall of the Soviet Union.
2.) The USA is superior to all other nations in all ways, even if it falls down in some categories, it still makes up for them in other ways.
3.) That I am an 'idoit' (sic.) because I do not recognise the possession of conventional weapons (high explosive mortar shells and machine guns) as conclusive proof that Iraq was in possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

All weapons, in and of what they are, are designed to kill. Are conventional weapons any different? They strive to be WMD, and to kill as many as possible. It is the most efficient way. *I would hate being shot from a rifle, as much as the blast from an expolsive.*

The germans were right: Kill them en-masse.

I agree to some extent. Anthrax and nerve gas are not orders of magnitude more deadly than carpet bombing. Nuclear weapons are. Smallpox, forget about it. It could wipe out a large percentage of the world's population.

Because WMDs can't be controlled. Even gas can poison civilians years after the war ends (tends to end up on the underside of things, where less rain hits it).

I agree to some extent. Anthrax and nerve gas are not orders of magnitude more deadly than carpet bombing. Nuclear weapons are. Smallpox, forget about it. It could wipe out a large percentage of the world's population.


I agree also. I think the deal with conventional weapons is it takes more to do more. With CBR (well minus the R)class weapons you can take a enclosed football stadium dome and do significant damage in casualty counts with a minumum amount of product. The largest problem(or help) in an outside environment is mother nature.

I agree to some extent. Anthrax and nerve gas are not orders of magnitude more deadly than carpet bombing. Nuclear weapons are. Smallpox, forget about it. It could wipe out a large percentage of the world's population.

What is the diffence between a 1 megaton nuke and a 1 million pounds of "conventional" Explosives?

Fallout? We have already figured that one out.
*Dirty bombs*

What is the diffence between a 1 megaton nuke and a 1 million pounds of "conventional" Explosives?

Fallout? We have already figured that one out.
*Dirty bombs*
The logistics involved in delivering one million pounds of conventional explosives and the fact that you can't set that much explosive off at once. That minimizes damage compared to a 1 megaton nuclear blast.

What is the diffence between a 1 megaton nuke and a 1 million pounds of "conventional" Explosives?

Fallout? We have already figured that one out.
*Dirty bombs*
Size.

The alpha and beta particles in nukes dont do much of anything. The alpha are more powerful than beta though. The gamma rays are what continue on and on and on. Depending on the 'conventional' weapon being used. If it is depleted uranium then health risks will continue in the area for sometime. I suggest everyone to just build a outside layered lead shelter inside of some mountain. Really though I agree with your original post, i dont want to be shot anymore than blown up and any other way that causes death lol. But if I do have to pick I prefer it to be fast and painless over long and agonizing imho.

The logistics involved in delivering one million pounds of conventional explosives and the fact that you can't set that much explosive off at once. That minimizes damage compared to a 1 megaton nuclear blast.

I think you could.

You Miss My point: Weapons always get more efficient. What is the difference between killing one ore many?

I think you could.

You Miss My point: Weapons always get more efficient. What is the difference between killing one ore many?
That _is_ the difference. When you only need to kill one, why kill many?

That _is_ the difference. When you only need to kill one, why kill many?

Basicly any other nation will send many. The olde kill the young because the are jealous.

The military uses the term NBC (Nuclear Biological & Chemical), but the president calls them weapons of mass destruction. I much prefer the military term over the misleading WMD. For one thing, mass cannot be destroyed.

Lumping things like mustard gas and ICMBs together only makes sense when you're talking about counter-measures. The same protective gear that (hopefully) allows you walk through a cloud of mustard gas is the same stuff that will protect you from radioactive fallout and biological agents.

Lumping them together the way our masters, er leaders do, implies they're somehow on the same scale of destruction. This is not true. Whatever number of people you can kill with poison gas, could be killed with conventional explosives. Although, the gas attack might a few orders of magnitude cheaper to exectue. A single nuke can kill millions and effectively destroy an entire city. You can't do that with any chemical or disease I know of, not in the modern era.

All NBC weapons are considered taboo, probably for the same reason burning people is frowned on. They're nasty painful ways to die. I'd much rather be blown up or shot, than be slowly killed by some blood agent.

The military uses the term NBC (Nuclear Biological & Chemical), but the president calls them weapons of mass destruction. I much prefer the military term over the misleading WMD. For one thing, mass cannot be destroyed.

Lumping things like mustard gas and ICMBs together only makes sense when you're talking about counter-measures. The same protective gear that (hopefully) allows you walk through a cloud of mustard gas is the same stuff that will protect you from radioactive fallout and biological agents.

Lumping them together the way our masters, er leaders do, implies they're somehow on the same scale of destruction. This is not true. Whatever number of people you can kill with poison gas, could be killed with conventional explosives. Although, the gas attack might a few orders of magnitude cheaper to exectue. A single nuke can kill millions and effectively destroy an entire city. You can't do that with any chemical or disease I know of, not in the modern era.

All NBC weapons are considered taboo, probably for the same reason burning people is frowned on. They're nasty painful ways to die. I'd much rather be blown up or shot, than be slowly killed by some blood agent.
Since nuclear weapons actually convert some mass to energy are they OK to refer to as weapons of mass destruction in your book?

The primary difference is in the scale of a single shell. A single nuclear bomb does immense damage, while even the most powerful of single conventional bombs (the MOAB at 11,000lbs) can only cause nuclear level devistation on a very small scale. Mnay people have argued that some chemical weapsons do not merit their catagorization as weapons of mass destruction because as single shells they are often less destructive than high explosive shells. Biological weapons, because of their potential for epidemic destruction are deserving of the label "WMD," and perhaps entire armies could be considered weapons of mass destruction, but on a single unit level, conventional weapons, while designed to kill as many people as possible are simply not powerful enough to merit being called "WMD."

nbc and cbr is dependant on branch.

All NBC weapons are considered taboo, probably for the same reason burning people is frowned on. They're nasty painful ways to die. I'd much rather be blown up or shot, than be slowly killed by some blood agent.

Just on a little side note, dying in a nuclear explosion is probably the least unpleasant way to be killed, assuming you are near the point of the explosion. At a distance radiation poisoning and years of agony would result, but close up instant incineration without a moment's pain wouldn't be too bad.

The military uses the term NBC (Nuclear Biological & Chemical), but the president calls them weapons of mass destruction. I much prefer the military term over the misleading WMD. For one thing, mass cannot be destroyed.

Lumping things like mustard gas and ICMBs together only makes sense when you're talking about counter-measures. The same protective gear that (hopefully) allows you walk through a cloud of mustard gas is the same stuff that will protect you from radioactive fallout and biological agents.

Lumping them together the way our masters, er leaders do, implies they're somehow on the same scale of destruction. This is not true. Whatever number of people you can kill with poison gas, could be killed with conventional explosives. Although, the gas attack might a few orders of magnitude cheaper to exectue. A single nuke can kill millions and effectively destroy an entire city. You can't do that with any chemical or disease I know of, not in the modern era.

All NBC weapons are considered taboo, probably for the same reason burning people is frowned on. They're nasty painful ways to die. I'd much rather be blown up or shot, than be slowly killed by some blood agent.

Blood agents are nasty, but blister agents are worse.

At least with the nerve agents, you die quick.

Blood agents are nasty, but blister agents are worse.

At least with the nerve agents, you die quick.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I remember it, blood agents are the ones you can't do anything about. A gas mask won't protect you and the counter-measure drugs can't save you. You just get to watch yourself turn funny colors as you die. Or was that blister agents? I suppose it doesn't matter, since I don't really have access to the protective gear or the drugs anymore.

All weapons, in and of what they are, are designed to kill. Are conventional weapons any different? They strive to be WMD, and to kill as many as possible. It is the most efficient way. *I would hate being shot from a rifle, as much as the blast from an expolsive.*

The germans were right: Kill them en-masse.

Allow me to answer:

the word 'conventional' as in 'conventional weapons' is there for a reason. There have been a lot of conventions dealing with the 'rules of warfare'.

Some examples:
I believe crossbows were once banned because they were too deadly against knights - knights were usually captured for ransom in those days plus they formed the core of the army.
I am also reading a book about D-day at the moment. Some german troops practiced that night with (non-lethal, just to tag someone) wooden ammo. When allied paratroopers found the wooden ammo they were furious because they thought the germans were breaking a convention by using ammo that was meant to inflict terrible wounds (you are to take out an enemy - dead or alive - but you are not supposed to make sure a wounded man will be crippled for the rest of his life).

Now after every war in which new weapons have been used, the question arises wether this weapon is to be used ever again in a war. Criteria might be like: will it cause a lot of civilian casualties when used? Will it kill thousands of people after the war? ...
examples are:
-mines: the use of millions of mines during wars will result in a lot of civilian casualties after the war. (i think the US didn't sign this convention, real nice ...)
-chemical/biological: these just kill too many civilians.
-nuclear: see above + this one will kill for many years to come and has a terrible impact on the envioment.

I also believe depleted uranium should be banned for the same reason as why nuclear weapons are banned (except for the initial damage done by the bomb).

Conventional weapons are just weapons you are 'allowed' to use in a war. Using or producing unconventional weapons is an 'international crime' and can result in sanctions.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I remember it, blood agents are the ones you can't do anything about. A gas mask won't protect you and the counter-measure drugs can't save you. You just get to watch yourself turn funny colors as you die. Or was that blister agents? I suppose it doesn't matter, since I don't really have access to the protective gear or the drugs anymore.

Yep that is what I was taught and taught my students. Blood agents will go through the newest filters within 15 minutes.