# Is Biological, Chemical or Radiological Warfare An Acceptable Alternative To Nuclear Warfare?



## FastTrax (Nov 22, 2022)

www.unodc.org/unodc/en/terrorism/expertise/countering-chemical-biological-radiological-and-nuclear-terrorism.html

www.fema.gov/about/offices/chemical-biological-radiological-and-nuclear

https://policy.defense.gov/OUSDP-Offices/ASD-for-Space-Policy/Nuclear-and-CWMD-Policy/

www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_197768.htm?selectedLocale=en

www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_11.pdf

https://pars.lasd.org/Viewer/Manuals/13233/Content/14356#!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBRN_defense

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_warfare

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiological_warfare


----------



## FastTrax (Nov 22, 2022)

The EMP Option:










www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg89763/html/CHRG-113hhrg89763.htm

www.goshen.edu/bio/Biol410/bsspapers02/ryan.htm

www.dhs.gov/science-and-technology/news/2022/09/06/dhs-releases-recommendations-protect-national-public-warning-system-emps

https://science.howstuffworks.com/e-bomb3.htm

https://ece-research.unm.edu/summa/notes/trestle_movie.html

www.quora.com/Which-countries-are-capable-of-launching-an-EMP-attack-against-the-US

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_electromagnetic_pulse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse


----------



## Been There (Nov 24, 2022)

Basically, it’s a choice. Both will kill with a vengeance. Many will die immediately and many will lay dying for months using either weapons. The main difference is that using nukes will cause much more destruction than chemical and biological weapons. Using nukes will devastate a country’s buildings and infrastructure for any survivors. In most or all cases, chemical and biological weapons will allow buildings and the infrastructure to stand without damage.

Dropping dirty bombs with radiation are generally used with other bombs to spread the radiation more quickly.  Bombs containing chemical and biological weapons which contain viruses, toxins, etc. can be spread over a wider range very quickly with the use of several aircraft. Using nukes takes a lot more planning. There are several variants that must be taken into consideration.


----------



## JaniceM (Nov 24, 2022)

There is only one acceptable (and preferable) "alternative" to any type of warfare:  Peace.


----------



## Alligatorob (Nov 24, 2022)

JaniceM said:


> There is only one acceptable (and preferable) "alternative" to any type of warfare:  Peace.


Absolutely!

However if I had to choose a weapon I'd go with paintballs...


----------



## FastTrax (Nov 24, 2022)

If peace were not an option I Would choose chemical warfare first then EMP warfare. My third choice would be radiological warfare and lastly nuclear warfare only if I could be at ground zero.

BTW: Sometime this week I am going to post the horrors of a hostile alien invasion.

Happy "Turkey Day All"


----------



## Packerjohn (Nov 24, 2022)

I don't like war; I love peace.  Killing is killing.  Shame on those that kill innocent women and children and then go home and brag what big, tough, macho men they are!


----------



## FastTrax (Nov 24, 2022)

Only a sociopathic madman the likes of Japanese Emperor Hirohito would unilaterally order his military personnel to butcher, torture, cannibalize and kill innocent women, children "AND" men however President Truman had to order the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing a little over one hundred thousand Japanese civilians and military personnel to save the lives of millions of Japanese civilians and military personnel as well as Soviet military personnel and American civilians and military personnel.











www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/pow/pow-jap.html

https://nuke.fas.org/guide/japan/bw/

www.skycitygallery.com/japan/japan.html

www.technologyartist.com/unit_731/

www.warbirdforum.com/cannibal.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirohito

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Japan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_militarism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Army

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Japanese_Navy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/war_crime

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_Massacre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East


----------



## oldpop (Nov 24, 2022)

Is Biological, Chemical or Radiological Warfare An Acceptable Alternative To Nuclear Warfare?​No!


----------



## FastTrax (Nov 25, 2022)

The original post offered only three options other then nuclear war.

Biological, chemical or radiological.


----------



## Knight (Nov 25, 2022)

Packerjohn said:


> I don't like war; I love peace.  Killing is killing.  Shame on those that kill innocent women and children and then go home and brag what big, tough, macho men they are!


Not politically correct  Packerjohn.  Women are in the military making combat decisions too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military_by_country


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 25, 2022)

FastTrax said:


> If peace were not an option I Would choose chemical warfare first then EMP warfare. My third choice would be radiological warfare and lastly nuclear warfare only if I could be at ground zero.
> 
> BTW: Sometime this week I am going to post the horrors of a hostile alien invasion.
> 
> Happy "Turkey Day All"


The only acceptable military weapons are the ones that eliminate military personnel and military equipment. I'm sure that if we could, we'd make weapons that cause massive collateral damage illegal, and hold manufacturers them accountable.

"We" = People


----------



## Been There (Nov 25, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> The only acceptable military weapons are the ones that eliminate military personnel and military equipment. I'm sure that if we could, we'd make weapons that cause massive collateral damage illegal, and hold manufacturers them accountable.
> 
> "We" = People


I don’t get what your message is. Would you please expand on your post a bit more.


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 25, 2022)

Been There said:


> I don’t get what your message is. Would you please expand on your post a bit more.


Translation - If I could, I'd make the manufacture of all weapons of mass destruction illegal and the use of them punishable, and I'm sure a lot of people would. I also pointed out that governments and the military do not take orders from people.


----------



## Been There (Nov 25, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> Translation - If I could, I'd make the manufacture of all weapons of mass destruction illegal and the use of them punishable, and I'm sure a lot of people would. I also pointed out that governments and the military do not take orders from people.


That’s a reach, by any sense of the imagination. I doubt if any country would resolve to give up the ability to defend their country, even if they had to somehow manufacture their own weapons. I think someday, certainly not in our lifetime, there will be world peace, or we will blow up the planet.


----------



## Murrmurr (Nov 25, 2022)

Been There said:


> That’s a reach, by any sense of the imagination. I doubt if any country would resolve to give up the ability to defend their country, even if they had to somehow manufacture their own weapons. I think someday, certainly not in our lifetime, there will be world peace, or we will blow up the planet.


Yeah, it's a reach. It was wishful thinking. I was using my imagination.


----------



## Nathan (Nov 25, 2022)

LOL @FastTrax , thanks for all the thought provoking links and videos...that will probably take the rest of my natural life to read and view! 

I gotta say, there is no acceptable alternative to nuclear war,  give it to me short and sweet, been expecting it all my life, please don't disappoint!


----------



## FastTrax (Nov 25, 2022)

Nathan said:


> LOL @FastTrax , thanks for all the thought provoking links and videos...that will probably take the rest of my natural life to read and view!
> 
> I gotta say, there is no acceptable alternative to nuclear war,  give it to me short and sweet, been expecting it all my life, please don't disappoint!



I wholeheartedly agree Nathan. If and when the missiles land I want to be at ground zero.


----------



## Been There (Nov 26, 2022)

Nathan said:


> LOL @FastTrax , thanks for all the thought provoking links and videos...that will probably take the rest of my natural life to read and view!
> 
> I gotta say, there is no acceptable alternative to nuclear war,  give it to me short and sweet, been expecting it all my life, please don't disappoint!


Nathan: After viewing many videos on TV and on YouTube and seeing the after effects of being struck by an atomic weapon, I would just as soon put a gun to my head and end it before having to go through what some of those people had to endure both at the bomb site and 25+ miles away. A nuclear bomb has enough power to actually disintegrate or evaporate a person where he is standing. The heat from a nuclear bomb is incredible. We're talking somewhere around 5-6000 Fahrenheit at the point of  detonation. It's like "POOF," where did he go?

Radiation poisoning caused by a dirty bomb is a slow and very painful death. I have seen films where people that lived over 100 miles away were affected by a dirty bomb and very few survived, but suffered later with all types of cancers, especially bone cancer. The people closest to the bomb site that were struck and received the most effects by the bomb had their lungs and brain fried almost instantaneously. It's a horrible death and the pain that one gets is incredible until death comes. The only good news is that the further away a person is from the bomb exploding or detonating, the more time one has to find a safe cover, if that's even possible.


----------

