Nuclear weapons without radiation


Nuclear weapons without radiation  

99 members have voted

  1. 1. Would conventional weapons with the same amount of raw destructive power as a nuclear weapon be any more acceptable?

    • No, the destructive power is the issue.
      43
    • Yes, the radiation is the issue.
      47
    • No Opinion/Not Sure
      9


Recommended Posts

You don't need vast amounts of radiation to kill people indiscriminately.

The neutron bomb is already in many ways a clean weapon - as it has a relatively short half-life and its radiation effects are not noticeable after several days or so.

Big bombs kill lot's of people. The bigger your bomb, the more people there are who will die. If killing lots of people with nuclear weapons is wrong, then surely killing lots of people with any other equally lethal weapon is wrong too?

So if the question is, 'is radiation evil?' Or is it that 'is killing lot's of people by any means you might have to do it evil? Why do you even need an answer to this? Why would you even imagine that radiation was somehow evil?

GJ

Edited by raid517
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I guess I must just have no brain. Radiation is about as evil as butter - and if you can't grasp this, then I'm not going to waste my time and effort explaining it to you.

GJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is fair in war? Fairness does not exist...

well droping bomb and killing thousands of literally inocent people is definately idiotic. your country goes to war and then someone drops bomb on you. nuklear and such weapons should never be used. ever!

people should use swords instead..at least its more honorable :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then I guess I must just have no brain. Radiation is about as evil as butter - and if you can't grasp this, then I'm not going to waste my time and effort explaining it to you.

GJ

What.... man if you can get damaged by the radiation from a cellphone, then I would say its a bit more evil than butter...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

man if you can get damaged by the radiation from a cellphone, then I would say its a bit more evil than butter

Butter is going to cause your body more harm than the radiation from your cell phone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Butter can give you a heart attack - in large enough doses it can kill you very quickly too. Is butter therefore evil?

What kind of people are you? Can't you see that killing people in large numbers by whatever means is wrong? If it is only radiation that is bad, then maybe chemical and biological weapons really are acceptable after all?

If a non nuclear weapon were invented that could kill just as much people as a nuclear weapon - but without the radiation - how exactly does that make using this weapon any more acceptable than using it's nuclear counterpart? Surely you would still need to be bordering on the insane to contemplate using either of these?

GJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought one of the "rules of war" was death by means of torture, ie slow painful death was illegal. Obviously not every country is going to abide by it, especially terrorists, but its part of the jenva convention or something like that. :rofl: I'm talking out of my butt haha. But seriously I know its an international law. Thus radiation isn't "fair" in terms of this. For the same reasons modern countries outlaw gas warfare!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radiation sickness is bad for publicity - killing people is one thing, but having people die months later after going through the throes of radiation sickness just doesn't look good. Also, radiation can scar the landscape for years afterward, meaning that you'd better not use a nuclear weapon if you want to actually use the territory you've captured. Strong conventional weapons are better, or nuclear weapons that have very concentrated and short-term radiation effects, like neutron bombs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notthing is acceptable, Human killing Humans isn't correct PERIOD.

But is it worse to kill them instantly, or kill some of them and let the rest die off from radiation poisoning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weapons aren't bad.. people are :devil:

You can have any weapon in the world and these things woun't harm anybody by themselves :whistle:

If something awful happens.. there's always some evil idiot behind it.

:cool:

Scientists should work more on space technology then make stuff that kills others.. :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. It's about time somebody *finally* thought of this... it's PURE Genius.

Get the radiation OUT of our nuclear weapons.. NOW!

This is great - it'll be just like gun control: we restrict guns by law and then every law-abiding citizen will comply, even to the point of disarming themselves by surrendering banned weapons, thereby making them more vulnerable to those that don't comply (criminals) who will still get their fully automatics and radioactive plutonium on a black market that doesn't give a clown's ass about said law in the first place.

AWESOME! I feel safer already!! :D

:huh: ...................................... :blink:

Wait a second................... :ermm: :|

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Butter can give you a heart attack - in large enough doses it can kill you very quickly too. Is butter therefore evil?

What kind of people are you? Can't you see that killing people in large numbers by whatever means is wrong? If it is only radiation that is bad, then maybe chemical and biological weapons really are acceptable after all?

If a non nuclear weapon were invented that could kill just as much people as a nuclear weapon - but without the radiation - how exactly does that make using this weapon any more acceptable than using it's nuclear counterpart? Surely you would still need to be bordering on the insane to contemplate using either of these?

GJ

Exactly...we are bombarded by radiation every day. ALL the time. Nuclear weapons concentrate this into harmful amounts.

But is it worse to kill them instantly, or kill some of them and let the rest die off from radiation poisoning?

I agree that killing people is never acceptable although I have to say that if you are going to attack lots of people it is better to reduce their suffering by killing them quickly. It also makes sense from a strategic point of view. If you are in a war, you don't want people with radiation sickness still around causing problems. Makes sense to just get rid of them if you can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But is it worse to kill them instantly, or kill some of them and let the rest die off from radiation poisoning?

Look, I don't EVEN want to think at this question... :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.