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: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solarity
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]

I was meaning the fuel rods and the control rods after use since the control rods become radioactive after a while, you know using spent control rods to some useful purpose.




posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 08:39 AM
link   
You try getting a hold of some control rods then
I'm not even sure if they have to replace/renew them


I never said the radiation would be deadly for thousands of years, just that it would be there causing harm



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solarity
You try getting a hold of some control rods then
I'm not even sure if they have to replace/renew them


I never said the radiation would be deadly for thousands of years, just that it would be there causing harm


Well think about it, no need to use nukes.
Use control rods, a totaly renewable system.
Defense AND power.
I mean haveing a control rod stay in one place would be a bit more dangerous than haveing a nuke go off.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   
lol, control rods as area denial weapons, its not really practical, the radiation given off by them would be much weaker than that given off by a nuke or neutron bomb, and you would be able to quickly move past the iradiated area



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Solarity
lol, control rods as area denial weapons, its not really practical, the radiation given off by them would be much weaker than that given off by a nuke or neutron bomb, and you would be able to quickly move past the iradiated area

Not if you fired them in a scatter plan.
Multiple warheads to one area and hey no chance of geting past.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I'm against chemical weapons. However, I do understand countries will continue to produce and distribute them either as a deterrent or means to an end.

I'm against non-lethal forms of chemical weapons based on the simple fact man abuses power.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Against them. Waiting for people to take a stand and start taking back our countries. All while wearing shirts that say "Beware Chemical Weapons Developement Personel. YOUR DAYS ARE NUMBERED" Lets face it, some folks are too smart for thier own good as well as ours. And these are the same people that no longer deserve to breath our air! Money should never mean that much to anyone. Human life should mean more than any amount of money.
So I vote these "smart people" should start dropping off the face of the earth



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
at least with a nuclear event the clean up is quite simple - if the likes of the BLU-80 are used , the cloud will go in the direction of prevaling winds (and will depend of and is extremely persistant - the agent will stay on any surfice eg underthe bottom edge of fence rails.



posted on Jan, 15 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I am against nasty chemicals,etc dirty bombs,since they do lots of nasty things before killing someone,but non leathal ones are ok,like the sex bomb



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Dont see the point in chemical weapons when you can drop nukes.
What can a chemical weapon do that nukes cant?
If you want to bring a war to a quick close nuke the enemy.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Well, despite the fact I'm against chemical weapons I think country leaders won't stop using them because they want to deal with the enemy quickly and easily, and only that is important to them. And as long as country leaders will do that, chemical weapons producers will produce them, because they make money on this.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Solarity
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]


First off, all nuclear explosions produce the exact same byproducts - fission products have half lives of 50 years or less, fusion byproducts have half lives that are measured in weeks or days. The nuetron bomb is special because it is designed to produce lots of fast nuetrons, but it has all of the other side effects of a standard atomic bomb.

And the only uranium isotopes suitable for use in weapons or reactors are U-235 and U-233, U-235 is used almost exclusively.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
How could any human being say they are for the use of chemical weapons for any reason?



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Against!!







[edit on 103131p://150110 by instar]



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
How could any human being say they are for the use of chemical weapons for any reason?

War is dirty, if you want an easy victory you'll use any weapons....though not all people follow this thinking (thank god).
I hate dirty weapons.



posted on Jan, 16 2005 @ 11:38 PM
link   
Morally I would be against NBC weapons. But in war there is no such thing as fair play. You can not have a fair war. Politicians use the words conventional weapons when they fight without using NBCs. Yet the MOABs, bunker busters and Fire bombs do great amounts of damage yet they are okay? Yes NBC weapons cause considerable amounts of pain to your enemy but if the threat is real you will do what is nessesary to neutralize it. Not to mention I would rather kill hundreds of the enemy soldiers and not have to risk having my soldiers fight it out when I could just use a little chemical warfare to subdue them.

Hypothitically (spelling?), what if an alien race was destrying this planet and the only way to stop them was to use NBCs. You also know that they would die slowly and painfully. Would you use them?




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join