Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (100954)	6/10/2003 4:57:12 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

I think that's fair. Nuclear weapons are tens if not thousands of times more destructive than any other. I suppose a really vicious biological weapon - airborne botulinus engineered for contagion, or something - might kill as many as a 10Mg dirty nuke exploded over a city, but this would be virtually uncontrollable. And so far as is known no one has these weapons. Nukes do exist. Chemical weapons don't cut it - they are awful ways to die, but won't kill prepared troops and would not be that effective even against civilians except at close range or with the kind of air power only the US has...