{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/28/2014 1:32:34 AM
19
-
Hm. Maybe.
-
He’s right. Biological weapons are the single deadliest weapons known to man. It will take many nuclear weapons to destroy the world- and still, there may very well be survivors. A well synthesised viral agent, on the other hand, can wipe humanity from existence with a single event.
-
I was looking for a more objective answer, but a blunt one is fine. Dirty Bombs ftw!
-
That is an objective answer. Look at the amount killed from both nuclear bombs dropped versus [i]Yersinia pestis[/i], which was the cause of the Black Death... and that was an unmodified bacteria! No- Dirty Bombs are hardly a threat. The largest threat from a Dirty Bomb is panic- radiation damage is usually minimal.
-
Editado por codmoh: 4/28/2014 1:59:49 AMOK, let me elaborate what I mean. Say I wanted to 'destroy' Washington DC. I know how to make a chemical weapon. How do I do it? Besides, panic is a tool in its own right.
-
Biological would work much better than chemical You have so many options. Places of high traffic (subways, public transportation depots and other public places) are great for anything that is airborne or needs close contact to contract. Water treatment plants are terribly exposed and if you have a waterborne virus/bacteria- it could spread before people know. There are just so many possibilities which makes them so dangerous. Chemical weapons on the other hand... You’d have to set off multiple devices as they don’t exactly have the ability to spread very well or very far (see WWI for how much trouble they had getting Mustard Gas to work).
-
Biological then. What do I do?
-
Editado por Vicex: 4/28/2014 2:23:14 AMFirst you’d probably chose a virus that is naturally very virulent like the a variation of the flu, small pox, maybe even something like ebola or a bacteria like anthrax. Then you’d have to modify the virus or bacteria to be even more resistant to environmental factors (such as dry air, water, and UV light). You’d probably also want to merge it with parts from other viruses to make it more infectious. After that, depending on the attributes of the virus/bacteria- you’d have to choose a vehicle (non-living) or a vector (living) for release. Chances are, you would have some sort of virus that is airborne and release it in high traffic zones like bus stations, subways, air vents in buildings or whatever just to get it to spread. If you were especially astute. You may have a virus with a long incubation period in which individuals are spreading said virus before any symptoms occur that may alert authorities- that would allow for the greatest spread. However, it would only be a matter of time before symptoms occur- if use a flu-virus, it may be passed off as just “normal” illness- and given American culture- it would continue to spread as people who are infected still go to work and school... Eventually, people would start dying and this would alert authorities, then quarantined and PPE would be issued to prevent spread so unless your virus is extremely virulent- the spread would be halted and you would have to hope that it is drug resistant to not be cured and for all the damage to be done before the spread is hindered- if not halted. This is all theoretical of course.
-
But how would I execute it?
-
Editado por Vicex: 4/28/2014 2:26:36 AMYou may infect yourself and spread it to other people through coughing or contact. You may release an aerosol device in a vent or a bag releasing it into the air. You may choose to just dump some into a water treatment plant.
-
Or, I may choose to pass on my [b]information[/b] to some other angry guy who'll do it all for me. My point is, the greatest weapon is knowledge, information - passing it on, and preventing its use by others.
-
Editado por Vicex: 4/28/2014 2:34:48 AMI may agree to that if knowledge wins every time. You may know more than the guy kicking your ass- but if he is three times your size, knowledge isn’t so helpful at that point. Knowledge is important, I’m not going to deny that- but the pen is not mightier than the sword in all aspects.
-
No, not at all. But still, the sword couldn't have been designed without the pen... or pencil... or coal, or... whatever.
-
Editado por Vicex: 4/28/2014 2:40:50 AMThat’s true. But I see knowledge as a means to achieve an end- not the end itself. Is Knowledge required? No doubt. But knowledge by itself would have a more difficult time to cause mass destruction than something that utilises knowledge, like a bomb- or a biological weapon.
-
True. I suppose its like a two-headed coin; you can't have one side without the other.
-
It seems so.
-
-
I think... in the end- knowledge is a tool. When it is abused, it creates weapons. In itself- it is not exactly one. But here I am being philosophical when I hate philosophy for the lack of clear answers.
-
Yeah. I'm philosophical, but laugh at philosophers. Strange.
