4 ms·
Nuclear/biological/chemical weapons have the distinct ability to have lasting effects on the area/population they are used on. "Conventional" weapons have their
by 24gttghh 9y ago
Nuclear/biological/chemical weapons have the distinct ability to have lasting effects on the area/population they are used on. "Conventional" weapons have their immediate effect (death, destruction) and then that's it.
The fact that some of us are able to at least try to limit their use is great considering humanity's track record...
Of course this is all generally speaking, as each class of weapons have effects that last shorter or longer than others within even the same class. e.g. nuclear air-burst has less fallout than a ground-burst. Some chemical weapons break down fairly quickly and become inert, while others linger, etc.
Then you have to consider cluster munitions and land mines, which while apparently conventional, are quite indiscriminate and also can linger for decades. These devices have also been more successfully restricted than other conventional weapons.
- Retric 9y agoContinuing that line of thinking, mine fields are also prohibited.
- 24gttghh 9y agoHowever, the US continues to use cluster-style munitions in it's conflicts, which end up creating a veritable mine field of un-exploded ordinance. To clarify, it appears we will stop using such ordinance which leaves >1% un-exploded as of next year. [0] Considering such devices have hundreds of individual munitions, that is still not something I would consider "safe". [0]http://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/ccwapl/DoD%20Policy%20on%20Cluster%20Munitions.pdf http://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/ccwapl/DoD%20Policy%20on%...
- maxxxxx 9y agoIt should be major point of shame for the US that they haven't signed the treaty to ban land mines. When you go to Cambodia or Laos you quickly see how evil these mines are.
- xorfish 9y agoWhat is the lasting effect of nuclear weapons? Residual radiation and fallout will hardly affect the land if the warhead is detonated high in the air like in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The fallout relative to the explosion radius is also smaller with a thermonuclear weapon. The number of people that die from higher cancer risk due to radiation is actually lower with a typical thermonuclear weapon because the lethal blast radius is bigger. So I don't think the lasting effect on the population is a good argument against nuclear or at least thermonuclear weapons. My view is that nuclear weapons are really dangerous because you don't need a lot of resources to deploy them and the high density of destructive power. It is much easier to "lose" 1MT worth of TNT with a nuclear warhead than with conventional bombs. It is also easier to deploy that 1MT worth of TNT if it is just one bomb. A mistake with a nuclear weapon can also cause a nuclear war. Now it isn't a single nuclear warhead against 100k conventional bombs, it is thousand nuclear weapons against maybe a few million conventional bombs.
- Tepix 9y agoA couple 100,000 dead people are a lasting effect.