What is more scary?

[Cobra]

I started this topic off at Politick, but it could do better here. I am currently doing a piece of work concerning warfare, and I was wondering which would be more scary - a nuclear, biological or a chemical strike?

No specifics here - just plain, gut reactions. The results would help a lot.

Many thanks,

Cobra

[CoasterCreator]

I for one would hate to suffer or become a crazy mutation....so I would say bio, chemical, nuc ( depending on the size of explosion ) would not to kill everyone on earth...

[Capmaster]

Nuclear. No contest.

Since you don't want specifics, I won't copy my reply from Politick

[Grimey]

see my completely unrelated answer to this post in your politick thread

[Cobra]

I'll factor in the few replies on Politick. I just need more people to answer to gain meaningful results.

I guess it boils down to this: how would you least like to go?

[Heywould3]

Bio all the way.. seen resident evil or the stand lol..

[yoda313]

Hello,

Biological

I'd rather go out in a flash than go through pain...

Kevin

EDIT - What exactly is the difference between a Biological or Chemical attack???? Aren't they the same????

[CoasterCreator]

Bio all the way.. seen resident evil or the stand lol

that is what I was thinking but we would look more like the blob than a zombie

[Cobra]

Chemical - toxic compounds are used to kill you. They vary from asphyxiating agents to nerve toxins. Death is pretty fast but often incredibly painful.

Biological - microorganisms are used, such as anthrax, smallpox or plague. Viruses such as Ebola can also be used. Death is usually certain, but can take weeks. Again, it is probably quite painful. It can also spread.

[yoda313]

Chemical - toxic compounds are used to kill you. They vary from asphyxiating agents to nerve toxins. Death is pretty fast but incredibly painful.

Biological - microorganisms are used, such as anthrax, smallpox or plague. Viruses such as Ebola can also be used. Death is usually certain, but can take weeks. Again, it is probably quite painful. It can also spread.

Hello,

Thanks....

Not much of a nice difference huh???

Yeah If I had to go in a disaster make it quick and painless please - How about a Death Star laser blast????

Kevin

[bazooka]

Nuclear - Because you can't see it coming and won't last long.

[yoda313]

Nuclear - Because you can't see it coming and won't last long.

Hello,

Unless your on the outer edge of the blast... Then you get the heat and burn slowly....

Kevin

[stiltman]

Bio

Can't see or smell it untill it's too late.
Any person(bio chemist)/group/country can make it right now. It's easier to transport undetected. It can sperad almost uncontrolable

[shelbyGT]

Nuclear would be the slowest death if you weren't killed initally.

[Heywould3]

some people seem to be look at the question wrong.. atleast it looks like that to me.. Hes asking which is the WORSE way to go not which way would you WANT to go.. maybe im reading some of the posts wrong but its looking like its being answered that way.. sorry if im wrong i said Bio because its can be a slow very painful way and you get all gross looking.. yuck.

[Cobra]

Exactly.

[offline]

Somehow a biological attack seems more sinister and in this day and age post cold war, more likely.

[ViRaL1]

At least with a nucular (per Pres Bush) attack, you know that it happened and when it happened. You may not be able to do much about the after effects. With biological and chemical attacks you might not. It could happen somewhere and spread rapidly without people realizing what's going on until it's too late. (For FACTUAL :P accounts, see Outbreak or Twelve Monkeys.

[vitualis]

For fear, it's biological of course and the poll confirms it. The fear of a contagion is programmed in our DNA. Our ancestors never had to contend with chemical or nuclear threats.

Furthermore, in a biological agent turns the population against itself as other people in the community become the vector for the disease.

Regards.

[SLICK RICK]

I am going to say Bio.

[Devanshu]

I'd say biological too...at least with nuclear it's quick.

[mrtristan]

It's not always quick with a nuclear detonation. In a large enough blast, you don't get instantly incinerated until a mile from the epicenter. Within a mile of the blast, the heat travels too fast to fry you, but you still get bombarded with radiation. You would suffer for a few minutes, before dying.

I would like to die from a chemical attack the least. No particular reason. I just don't like the idea of dying from a giant can of RAID more than getting radiated/incinerated or a virus.

[flaninacupboard]

Nuclear would scare me the most. it shows the attacker (whoemever that may be) is organised, intelligent and resourceful. a chemical or biological attack seems less advanced somehow, what you would expect a madman rather than a government to use.

Perhaps i'm over thinking it, but of the three, i would be most scared if i heard a nuke hit london, rather than a chemical or biological attack. Also, a nuke would (as far as i can see) do the most structural damage, and have the longest lasting affect on the area. even a worst case bio attack that kills every person on earth, the animals should be fine.

[Cobra]

Thank you for your responses. The poll has now ended, as I have to use the source now and it can't be allowed to change. Feel free to continue the discussion if you like though - bit of a morbid subject so I suspect it will just die.

Thanks again to all who participated.

Cobra

[ViRaL1]

Hows this for a biological attack?

Man Guilty of Spreading AIDS to Women Through Sex
Olympia, Washington resident Anthony E. Whitfield, 32, has been convicted of intentionally spreading HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, to 17 women he had sex with. He faces a minimum of 137 years in jail for the conviction.
It is believed that as many as 170 people have been exposed to HIV because of Whitfield. 45 of the people have either refused to be tested or simply could not be found. Whitfield became HIV+ while in prison in 1992.
Two women testified that Whitfield jokingly said that if he had HIV, he would give it everyone he could. His defense attorney said Whitfield was a methamphetamine addict and used women, but never meant to infect them with the virus that causes AIDS.
Source: www.cnn.com