Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    05 Mar '10 13:24
    Should chemical weapons really be considered equivalent to nukes and plagues? To me, they're just not quite in the same league as the other two.
  2. 05 Mar '10 14:34
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Should chemical weapons really be considered equivalent to nukes and plagues? To me, they're just not quite in the same league as the other two.
    They all take lives on a massive scale, don't they?
  3. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    05 Mar '10 14:38
    Originally posted by Jigtie
    They all take lives on a [b]massive scale, don't they? [/b]
    Depends what a "massive" scale is. Firebombs I would argue take lives on a more massive scale than poison gas bombs do.

    I doubt a chemical weapon exists that can do the damage that a nuke, AIDS or the Spanish Flu can do.
  4. 05 Mar '10 15:47
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Should chemical weapons really be considered equivalent to nukes and plagues? To me, they're just not quite in the same league as the other two.
    I say biological weapons are some of the scariest
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    05 Mar '10 15:54
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Firebombs I would argue take lives on a more massive scale than poison gas bombs do.
    Well then, why don't you call poison gas bombs WMD and firebombs WMMD?
  6. 05 Mar '10 16:03
    Originally posted by FMF
    Well then, why don't you call poison gas bombs WMD and firebombs WMMD?
    We have to first define massive. 100+ people,, 0r?
  7. 05 Mar '10 16:12
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Should chemical weapons really be considered equivalent to nukes and plagues? To me, they're just not quite in the same league as the other two.
    Perhaps a better way to approach this is asking what manner of death is better? Is it via nukes? Is it via chemical weapons? What floats your boat?
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    05 Mar '10 16:17
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    We have to first define massive. 100+ people,, 0r?
    Looking at the back of my fag packet, I'd say more than can be killed in a regular sort of way by an artillery shell. There. plucked from the sky. A definition.
  9. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    05 Mar '10 16:45
    Originally posted by whodey
    Perhaps a better way to approach this is asking what manner of death is better? Is it via nukes? Is it via chemical weapons? What floats your boat?
    No, that would be "weapons of cruel and unusual destruction".
  10. 05 Mar '10 16:46
    Originally posted by FMF
    Looking at the back of my fag packet, I'd say more than can be killed in a regular sort of way by an artillery shell. There. plucked from the sky. A definition.
    I think still to this day, the most people killed here in the States by a single civilian is 79. he chained the doors to a disco shut, threw gasoline in, and burned the whole club down...so in some way or form,, any weapon can work.
    A chain or cable strung head high across a freeway?
    In a regular kind of way sounds odd does it not?
    Napalm was and still is horrible. A bit of tide laundry detergent mixed with gasoline.
  11. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    Poor Filipov :,(
    05 Mar '10 16:48
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    I think still to this day, the most people killed here in the States by a single civilian is 79. he chained the doors to a disco shut, threw gasoline in, and burned the whole club down...so in some way or form,, any weapon can work.
    A chain or cable strung head high across a freeway?
    In a regular kind of way sounds odd does it not?
    Napalm was and still is horrible. A bit of tide laundry detergent mixed with gasoline.
    "Horrible" and "Mass Destruction" are two different things. Death by fire is pretty horrible.
  12. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    05 Mar '10 16:50
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    In a regular kind of way sounds odd does it not?
    If an artillery shell took out a medicine factory and then 10,000 died for want of medicine, I wouldn't call that shell a weapon of mass destruction.
  13. 05 Mar '10 17:04
    Originally posted by FMF
    Looking at the back of my fag packet, I'd say more than can be killed in a regular sort of way by an artillery shell. There. plucked from the sky. A definition.
    did you skip over this to read it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#Indonesia
  14. 05 Mar '10 17:06
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    did you skip over this to read it?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_packaging_warning_messages#Indonesia
    talk about WMDs!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tobacco_smoking#Health

    The World Health Organization estimate that tobacco caused 5.4 million deaths in 2004[75] and 100 million deaths over the course of the 20th century.[76]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adverse_effects_of_tobacco_smoking.svg