It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chemical weapons - for or against?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
As in topic. Personally, I'm against, because it's not only an unfair way of fighting and harms innocent people, but also is a waste of substances that could be used for better, economical means.




posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Very much against. I cannot think of one benefit.
Well maybe one - there was another thraed talking about a chemical "sex" weapon.

No seriously - Bad, bad stuff.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   
I am against it too, the weapons are quite horrific and can hardly be controlled.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
the weapons are quite horrific and can hardly be controlled.

I agree with those post in 100%. Those are two other reasons for not using chemical weapons. Also, the chemical weapons are in fact polluting the world, e.g. if a gas is spreaded, it gets into the atmosphere.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Non-lethal or physically damaging chemical weapons such as the 'sex bomb' are probably good ideas, but not any dangerous ones. The Neutron Bomb would be much better to kill large numbers of people without damaging infrastructure.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Non-lethal or physically damaging chemical weapons such as the 'sex bomb' are probably good ideas, but not any dangerous ones.

I wasn't talking about the sex bomb.
And don't think I care much for the enviroment, but I care for innocent civilians and fair fighting.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Well...do you guys think its ok to use a dirty bomb?

You know one where it only kills people?



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:49 PM
link   
It's not dirty bombs it's the neutron bomb. The neutron bomb is the ultimate clean bomb. It's a hydrogen thermonuclear bomb that is not detonated by a uranium or plutonium bomb. It is detonated high above the target causing a radiation burst that kills but doesn't leave any residual radioactive fallout or pollution.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It's not dirty bombs it's the neutron bomb. The neutron bomb is the ultimate clean bomb. It's a hydrogen thermonuclear bomb that is not detonated by a uranium or plutonium bomb. It is detonated high above the target causing a radiation burst that kills but doesn't leave any residual radioactive fallout or pollution.

Yeah i know the neutron bomb idea BUT I am asking do you people think the whole dirty bomb idea is ok?



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well...do you guys think its ok to use a dirty bomb?

You know one where it only kills people?

A dirty bomb is intended usually ONLY to harm innocent people and is deployed usually where it would do so. Of course this causes me to be against dirty bombs.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX
A dirty bomb is intended usually ONLY to harm innocent people and is deployed usually where it would do so. Of course this causes me to be against dirty bombs.

Yeah i thought that too, i sort of thought of an alternative to nukes.
Instead of dropping a nuke, drop a control rod.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:33 PM
link   
wow, thats bad guys...hows that: take the leaders of the fighting countrys together, that they can fight each other in a e.g. boxing ring?..this may could spare some lives..without chemical and and other weapons .just a thought.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Yeah, a dirty bomb is only a terror tool. It doesn't really even kill that many people, just incites fear and terror and may make an area uninhabitable for a period.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dacruz
wow, thats bad guys...hows that: take the leaders of the fighting countrys together, that they can fight each other in a e.g. boxing ring?..this may could spare some lives..without chemical and and other weapons .just a thought.

What do you mean? Do you agree or disagree with what we've said?
I think you disagree but wars can be fought fairly, and leaders of the fighting countries together, so that they can fight each other in a e.g. boxing ring is actually a good idea. At least it would be shown who is the real tough guy.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   
the answer is no! these weapons are such insane..the war´s in this times, should be as the war´s in the past..who would join?.imagine there is a war and nobody goes to the battle field..do you know what I mean?



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Like every other weapon, they have their uses, for destroying large amounts of unprotect infantry I think its a failry effect way of doing it. Chemical weapons would do it quicker than a neutron bomb, radiation poisoning is a really really NASTY way to go...



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I'm against CW. When I was over their I told myself: " I can go any other way but please not like that." The stuff is very effective if you can deploy it properly ( whice I haven't heard or read of a way ),but the things that VX gas can do to you before you actually die. Nasty stuff.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 04:24 AM
link   
I'd like to know more about the neutron bomb..How can it not cause radioactive fallout if it is meant to kill the population by radiation itself??
Isn't that pollution? Where does the 'clean-bomb' factor come in...



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:01 AM
link   
There is fall out, but it has a very short half life, say 4 to 8 years as opposed to the thousands of years compared to a normal nuke. The yeild of a neutron bomb is only say 20kT, it does do some damage, but not all that much, its basically just a fizzled H Bomb...

Oh, and Devilwasp, control rods are made of graphite, you might be meaning a fuel rod which would be made of uranium 236
(I think its 236, 238 is DU)

[edit on 15-1-2005 by Solarity]



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   
The neutron bomb is not "clean" per se, nor is it without blast, heat, etc., but is lower. What a neutron bomb is good for is killing armored crews on the battlefield. As a matter of fact, the armored vehicles will kill another crew that tries to use it as the radiation remains in the metal! Pretty nifty, huh? BTW, radiation is not deadly for thousands of years; that is a myth.

As far as chemical weapons, I absolutely hate them. Give me a nuke anyday; it is survivable unless you are just way too close, but the chemical is as much a psychological weapon as a physical. Imagine walking along, and you taste nothing, smell nothing and see no visible clue, and then your buddy drops and starts doing the Funky Chicken. Sheer terror. Even if you get your mask on in time, there'll still be that lump in your undies. Come on, admit it, you'd soil yourself, too.

I understand nuclear weapons; Hell, smoked cigarettes while sitting on the silly things, but I despise the chemical agents.

Don't even get me started on biological weapons!!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join