I know a biologist. He says it is way to simple...
2006-08-08 17:04:02 · 8 answers · asked by BigPappa 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Yeah!
Both are danger to the mankind. Biological weapons are more dangerous, because of easy handling facility.
2006-08-08 17:09:33 · answer #1 · answered by Electric 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The matter is,within few years both the weapon technology will reach the far most dangerous height,and it will be in the hands of terrorists.In that case they will do anything mindlessly to destroy innocents.It is the fate of the world,that it should become a graveyard by the usage of nuclear weapons.Today,the total amount of nuke weapons made and kept by the superpowers,can destroy the total earth ten times over!!!
What to say?! May god save us!
2006-08-10 04:51:39 · answer #2 · answered by ragava 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say biological weapons as I'm sure they are a lot easier to manufacture and walk aroudn with than a nuclear weapon.
2006-08-09 00:07:12 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably nuclear weapons as biological weapons are not reliable.
2006-08-09 00:10:58 · answer #4 · answered by michinoku2001 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think biological - and not just as weapons although it would be easy to spread. We are being exposed to more viruses and bacteria etc now than ever before, and we dont have the physical immunity to fight it all off.
2006-08-09 00:10:04 · answer #5 · answered by crane2watch 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The real danger are leaders like george bush who start wars for no reason and use weapons on innocent people...
2006-08-09 13:18:58 · answer #6 · answered by Mac 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
both, but nuclear is faster than the biological....
2006-08-09 00:08:01 · answer #7 · answered by Gabrio 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you should probably listen to him
2006-08-09 00:06:32 · answer #8 · answered by angle2980 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋