3 ms·
My guess is biological, too. And in the short-term future, I think synthetic biology will represent an even greater threat than nuclear. Why? Lethality, ease
by runjake 3y ago
My guess is biological, too.
And in the short-term future, I think synthetic biology will represent an even greater threat than nuclear.
Why? Lethality, ease of manufacture once figured out, mishandling of process or materials, lack of regulation, ethnic/DNA targeting, etc.
- qup 3y agoHard to pinpoint origin in the case of bad actors...
- wongarsu 3y agoThe only reason nuclear weapons are easy to pinpoint is because so few actors are capable of making them. If you had one you could load it onto a semi truck, drive into the middle of New York or Moscow and detonate it, with all evidence conveniently destroyed in the blast.
- runjake 3y agoKeep in mind that there are nuclear detection sensors deployed throughout the US and if you tried to roll a nuke-containing semi into New York, there would be a heavily-armed team trying to intercept you[1]. Supposedly[2], they are sensitive enough that it's untenable to transport enough lead around to shield it. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nuclear_Security_Administration#Nonproliferation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Nuclear_Security_Admi... 2. I have no inside info.
- dylan604 3y agoBiological has the advantage of not destroying the infrastructure of the place you are attacking nor making it inhabitable for thousands of years. So if you're wanting to take over the land after you remove the pesky opponents currently occupying it, nuclear is a really bad choice. Biological and chemical can be cleaned up and or inoculated against depending on method used.
- runjake 3y agoFrom what I remember, the US's nuclear weapons make a place uninhabitable in terms of weeks, not years. But, point still noted.