This thread comes from the "America is corrupt" thread - it is a fairly distinct subtopic, however, and I thought is deserved it's own heading.

Would a nuclear defense be more or less effective then chemical/biological defense against an invading army?

Deferring to the hive mind of Sciforums, what do you guys think?

Keeping in mind the following items:
1)Pro-nuclear - invading military personell can wear suits/filtration systems to reduce the effectiveness of chem/biological weapons; these do not work against a nuclear strike.
2)Pro-chem/biological - chem. weapons can be made to linger in an area for a while. The weapon could be applied to a large area, and left waiting for incursion forces
3)Pro-chem/biological - the invading army can spread their lines along a boarder, largely making a single nuclear strike much less effective, while a chemical/gass attack can cover a much larger area.
4)Pro-nuclear - speed; often, chemical and or biological weapons take a bit of time to take effect, in particular in areas where wind/rain may dilute or disperse the agent.

Lastly - invading landscapes. Would nuclear attacks be more effective in a peninsula than in a land-locked area? By requiring the attakers to group up along a small boarder and in ships, does the very layout of the defending nation make itself more defensable by nuclear, rather than chemical defense?

I am not as interested in the effectiveness of both of these weapons: RE terrorist use against the invading country, but more of the effectiveness as a defense against the invading army itself.

It is a well constructed question but a bigger question is invaded by whom? No country on our continent has even a fraction of the armed forces that we do. The counties with the strongest armies and/or best trained armies are Armerican allies.

The United States miltary sees and responds to threats from specialty warfare today because it is the most common threat we face. The big threat beings terroristic in nature.

A huge army invading our country doesn't seem so feasible today.

Having said that, when you ask this question is this purely a hypothical or do you feel it is a legit miltary concern for the American armed forces today?

Meteorological factors come in too. A chemical strike during a rainstorm isn't going to be as effective as the rain will wash it out of the air, and off the ground.

My Airman's Handbook explains that it also depends on the chemical weapon used. Some linger, some don't. Some can be absorbed through the skin, complicating use of comtaminated equipment. Gasses, like the choking agents used in WWI, don't stick around for very lond. Blister and nerve agents will stick to stuff, and thus require extensive decon before material can be used without protective equipment.

Nuclear weapons can have rather large blast radiuses. Almost as large, if not larger, as the plumes of many chemical warheads. They also contaminate the area, but while your suit will keep you from absorbing the radioactive material, it provides little protection against radiation itself, and so even then you can't stay in the contaminated area for long. All three methods are vulnerable to decon, the standard for us to use is a 5% bleach solution. Chemicals and many biologicals are destroyed by this, while fallout is simply washed away. Ultimately, nuclear weapons are best, providing area denial and destruction in one package. Otherwise it comes down to whether you really want the land you're looking at hitting. A short-lived chemical weapon will deny the enemy the use of say, an airfield, while if you can drive them off, and wait for the chemicals to desintegrate, you now have it.

Neutron weapons would pose more of a threat.

It is a well constructed question but a bigger question is invaded by whom? No country on our continent has even a fraction of the armed forces that we do. The counties with the strongest armies and/or best trained armies are Armerican allies.

The United States miltary sees and responds to threats from specialty warfare today because it is the most common threat we face. The big threat beings terroristic in nature.

A huge army invading our country doesn't seem so feasible today.

Having said that, when you ask this question is this purely a hypothical or do you feel it is a legit miltary concern for the American armed forces today?
Having read the prior thread river is referring to, I don't think he/she is only referring to the US. For instance, would it be harder for us to invade a country with bioweapons and/or chem weapons but no nuclear weapons, or only nuclear weapons? I tend to believe nuclear weapons would give one the most pause to reflect before invading a country.

I think this is an excellent and interesting thread about a topic which is sadly quite relevant today. One factor making the use of bioweapons less desirable for defending one's home turf is the problem of making sure that your own country doesn't pick up the disease. It does little good to kill invaders if a large percentage of your own people die too.

Nuclear warheads have the effect of physically destroying buildings and structures, like Gifted said. It really comes down to if the land you're blasting is valuable enough not to nuke or contains something that needs to stay intact. Of course there are many other considerations.

Neutron weapons would pose more of a threat.

I'd suggest matter-antimatter bombs for pure wallop. I'm guessing a hunk of antimatter and a hunk of matter combining, with both hunks with a mass of about 10 kg each, would cause a tad more damage than a hydrogen bomb.

Then we develop faster-than-light travel.

Then we go searching for aliens to hunt. :D

Who is going to invade you?

Answer that first and you might get a better answer to the question which kind of weapon is going to be better.

your allies are powerful??

the countries may be allied but the people are not, face it, everyone has a reason to hate the US and bush is just digging the hole deeper. what good is an ally if their armies refuse to fight for you. what if the armies say no, who would support your terrorist leaders

That is quite true. I wouldn't even consider figthing for the US.

France and germany have already openly rebelled against the so-called leadership of the US. And the US was insulted taking the only course of actions left to them. Renaming french fries into freedom fries.

im sure that the majority of americans woudnt even consider fighting for their corrupt leaders either, its about time you rebelled again
last time you rebelled against the british because they did not support you and left you to fend for yourselves, i would say that it is even worse now

The irony is that what is destroying the lives of most americans is sold to them as a dream. And they fall for it.

an oppressive dictatorship is a dream?? :confused:

Yes...that is the irony.

The american dream of having the opportunity to get stinking rich and oppress your fellow countrymen.

They phrase it slightly different themselves of course.

Another question is whether it is more effective to use WMD to defend oneself against an invading enemy, or to smuggle a few WMD into the country of an enemy who has not yet invaded and kill a few million of their citizens to make them unlikely or unable to invade you. No one with a shred of decency would do this, of course, but I believe that still leaves quite a few people.

The question was specifically based on the current international situation that the US has gotten itself into, and to what degree the known weapon status of a country Bush and his generals were looking to invade next would have on tactical plans.

Might the claimed presence of nuclear weapons be that much of a deterrent to the US military, that a country with chemical/biological weapons would be invaded, but a country with Nuclear weapons would not; for strictly military reasons?

I would think that the difference would not be so vast that military strategy would opt in for one, and out for the other - it would, IMO, merely alter the invasion tactics.


Thanks for the info, Gifted! very helpful - I was un aware oft he 5% bleach wash for decon - that's much easier than I had thought!

The usefullness of nuclear weapons is as a deterrent. It is hoped that the fear of total destruction against an offending state entity would frighten them enough not to invade. If an army invades, they are of no use. You can't control where the fallout goes, and you would be detroying your own country. No army has ever used, or hoped to use these weapons in a strategic way.

Chemical weapons would be slightly more useful, but still difficult to deploy effectively, conventional weapons, land mines, missiles, ect... are much more useful. They had widespread use in WWI in trench warfare, which is now obsolete.

If Saddam had a nuke, he would also have to have a ballistic missile system to deliver it. If he had all this, I think the US would think twice before invading. Of course, if the number was small, we might be able to spot them from space and take them out beforehand.

The irony is that what is destroying the lives of most americans is sold to them as a dream. And they fall for it.And what would that be?

last time you rebelled against the british because they did not support you and left you to fend for yourselves, i would say that it is even worse nowI thought it was about oppressive taxation without representation.

The usefullness of nuclear weapons is as a deterrent. It is hoped that the fear of total destruction against an offending state entity would frighten them enough not to invade. If an army invades, they are of no use. You can't control where the fallout goes, and you would be detroying your own country. No army has ever used, or hoped to use these weapons in a strategic way.



are you sure about this? I thought there were smaller nuclear weapons that were designed to stop the soviet invasion force in germany. A giant tank killer as it where, since the soviet had numerically superior forces. Small yields nukes. Small effect. local destruction and disruption of army groups. Save worries about contamination for later.

WEll, I think it depends in part upon what you have available and what delivery systems. Lets face it, a 50 megatonne nuke will kill people over what, maybe 50, 60 miles? A few missiles and a large invading force is almost totally destroyed. Compare that to the numerous missiles needed for BC warfare, and nucleear wins hands down. (especially if its nutron bombs.) IN fact the fallout neednt be particulalry egregious compared to actually losing the war.
Then I think we can discount Biological, due to as far as I know it taking quite a while for them to work. (though if you've read "the satan bug" by Alastair Maclean, you'll know the hideous chill from reading about the bug that would kill all life on the planet, eventually.)
that leaves chemical, which has the drawback like i've mentioned of delivery systems. Youd need quite a complex set up over a wide area. And the effects will be uncertain, unless your doing it against unarmoured tribesmen, a la the Italians in Ethiopia.

So, I'd plump for nukes.

I would say non H-bombs with out the nuke trigger that we are developing. or neutron bombs. As for nukes being a deterrent to invasion that really not true either it all depends on the size of the country and how good your Intel and what type of weapons we are talking about silo ICBM's moving ones, subs?


If the USA was going to invade lets say NK and use Nuke's which you would have to do to stop them from using there's. Really there is no need for a invasion just wipe it from the face of the earth.

So what would the USA do to get ready for a Nuke war?
1. Set up missile defense grid --- Check...
2. Move patriot missiles to costal area's to defend from sub attack --- Check
3. Make more nukes. The armed forces is trying to get permission to make small scale nukes 1 kilo ton or less. --- Check
4. Harden bases to Nuke retaliation --- Check the new bases they are putting up in Iraq and Afghanistan are hardened against Nuke attacks.

So by my check list we are getting ready for one right now. The thing is the USA does not attack first so either it is going to be a set up or the other guy will pull the trigger first.

If Saddam had a nuke, he would also have to have a ballistic missile system to deliver it.
Actually he wouldn't. He could smuggle a few into the US, perhaps in pieces, and detonate them from within American cities.

I'd suggest matter-antimatter bombs for pure wallop. I'm guessing a hunk of antimatter and a hunk of matter combining, with both hunks with a mass of about 10 kg each, would cause a tad more damage than a hydrogen bomb. Ten kilos of antimatter would be better spent in a spaceship. You set off that bomb, no more earth. Doomsday weapons don't work very well unless you're a mad scientist.
are you sure about this? I thought there were smaller nuclear weapons that were designed to stop the soviet invasion force in germany. A giant tank killer as it where, since the soviet had numerically superior forces. Small yields nukes. Small effect. local destruction and disruption of army groups. Save worries about contamination for later. The Davy Crockett Warheads were designed to be shot from a recoiless rifle on a jeep. Many tacticals have small enough blast radiuses to be used from conventional artillery.

Hydrogen bombs without fission is a fantasy a long way from reality.

i say that the best defence is to not invade countries pointleesly, that way no-one wants to kill you.
bush is hated by so many people that if he were to come near my country, everyone within 100km of his hotel would be taking a shot

i say that the best defence is to not invade countries pointleesly, that way no-one wants to kill you.
bush is hated by so many people that if he were to come near my country, everyone within 100km of his hotel would be taking a shot
The author of the thread asked an interesting question about the use of WMD, so let's be polite and post on topic, rather than hijack the thread into a long argument between the Bush supporters and opponents. I can intervene in an "Earth Science" thread and say, "Well that reminds me of something dishonest in John Kerry's past," but it wouldn't be very polite.

Actually he wouldn't. He could smuggle a few into the US, perhaps in pieces, and detonate them from within American cities.
That doesn't seem very likely, with the relatively primitive technology available to Saddam, these things would be quite large.

are you sure about this? I thought there were smaller nuclear weapons that were designed to stop the soviet invasion force in germany. A giant tank killer as it where, since the soviet had numerically superior forces. Small yields nukes. Small effect. local destruction and disruption of army groups. Save worries about contamination for later.
Some people have been trying for years to figure out how nukes could be used in a strategic way against conventional forces- pure fantasy, if you ask me, it puts your own troops in mortal danger if the wind shifts, not to mention the political fallout.

Personally I think that chemical weapons are better for attacking and demorilazing the population.
For defence on own soil nuclear is better because it can be more easely contained while a chemical weapon might kill half of your own population.
Of course you can make it to be active only for some time and don't spread further, but unlike physics (nuclear weapons), biology (biochem weapons) does mutate!
You could wipe out the entire human species just because of some biochemical agent/weapon mutation.
That's why I think nuclear is better -> it's more easy to predict and know the results of its use.

That doesn't seem very likely, with the relatively primitive technology available to Saddam, these things would be quite large.


Some people have been trying for years to figure out how nukes could be used in a strategic way against conventional forces- pure fantasy, if you ask me, it puts your own troops in mortal danger if the wind shifts, not to mention the political fallout.
Well, first of all, the components of a bioweapon would not be large. Hussein could even infect someone with a disease with an incubation period of a few days, put him on a plain to the US, then have that person rent a car here and drive across the country, starting numerous epicenters of the disease until he died of it himself.

As far as nukes go, I believe that one could be broken up into pieces small enough to ship in disguised as something else. Our ports are hardly air tight. Any country wishing to use WMD against us would have a very strong motive to sneak the parts in and attack us from within, since this would also help to disguise their involvement. It's a lot harder to tell who nuked you inspecting evidence that was at the center of the fireball, than it is when your satellites pick up ICBMS heading toward you.

I think that this is the method that a small country attempting to use WMD to overcome the conventional superiority of the US would likely take.

Nuclear fallout and chemical/biological weapons are airborne. The thing is, the larger nukes will kick fallout into the upper atmosphere, which makes it a global problem. This is one of the things that would contribute to nuclear winter. Just becuase your country is not destroyed doesn't mean you're not affected. chemical and biological agents are released by smaller explosions at lower altitudes, meaning less gets out of the local area.

The only thing difficult about smuggling nuclear weapons would be the nuclear material. Depending on the design, the explosive lenses(implosion type bomb) or gun mechanism could be fabricated locally.

The question was:
Would a nuclear defense be more or less effective then chemical/biological defense against an invading army?
And the answer is nuclear, but only because it would keep an army from invading in the first place. That is why Osama doesn't raise a (conventional) army. Once an army invades, and they could not do it secretly, the military/industrial complex has already figured out a variety of weapons systems to deal with such a (yawn) traditional threat. There really isn't such a thing as a nuclear defense.

Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have.-JackHandey

i say that the best defence is to not invade countries pointleesly, that way no-one wants to kill you.
bush is hated by so many people that if he were to come near my country, everyone within 100km of his hotel would be taking a shot

I wish a robot would get elected president. That way, when he came to town, we could all take a shot at him and not feel too bad.-Jack Handey

I wish a robot would get elected president. That way, when he came to town, we could all take a shot at him and not feel too bad.-Jack Handey

I just hope the good ole USA has the forsight and political will to be pre-emptive with what they have.

Nothing wrong with that policy if we announce it in advance to the piss ants that think they want to play with the big boys.

We will be damn fools to allow NK or Iran to develope nukes. Take them out now. :mad:

yeh, but what prohibits the USA to name any country a potential threat to be?
what if I don't feel safe about the USA bullying around the world?
Why can't Iran develop that nuke to protect itself from the USA invading it, because it clearly works that way with North Korea?
I don't trust the USA at all.

yeh, but what prohibits the USA to name any country a potential threat to be?
what if I don't feel safe about the USA bullying around the world?
Why can't Iran develop that nuke to protect itself from the USA invading it, because it clearly works that way with North Korea?
I don't trust the USA at all.

It might be unfair but in todays world where piss ants think it is ok to kill thousands of innocent women, working men and children just because they think their God wants them to, is no time to be weak and overly considerate.

Would it be unfortunate if some innocents get wacked in the process.

ABSOLUTELY.

But it is better that it be their innocents than ours. And just how innocent are they when they dance in the streets and drag burning bodies around after an attack? If they support this sort of behavior they are no longer innocents and they bring upon themselves and the innocents in their society the consequences.

It is up to the actual innocents to take action to stop this nonsense or move the hell away from such activity or get wacked along with those they are harboring.

To answer your question, the only cause for potential invasion or nuke attack against NK is their behavior. For Iran perhaps they should clean up their act and stop supporting terroists and talking tough - they aren't - It is their own actions which will result in punitive action against them.

and the USA would be the innocent? /hahahaha
look at the thread from which this thread originally started
the USA is hardly innocent
besides I also remember singing on the streets, burning the USSR flag and all when it fell. there was much natural joy and I don't see it any different for, for example, Iraq. look from their point of view
They are occupied by the USA , they have all the rights to cheer up at every instance when the occupation is weakened.
all that the USA has ever brought to Iraq is suffering and destruction.

and the USA would be the innocent? /hahahaha
look at the thread from which this thread originally started
the USA is hardly innocent
besides I also remember singing on the streets, burning the USSR flag and all when it fell. there was much natural joy and I don't see it any different for, for example, Iraq. look from their point of view
They are occupied by the USA , they have all the rights to cheer up at every instance when the occupation is weakened.

Not hardly. The USA has given honorable blood defending them from tyrants and terroists. They have their own country now and should assist in a rapid crushing of those that kill people trying to help them to achieve freedom. Celebrating attacks against those helping them means they are against freedom of their own people. That means they are not innocents but participants in the terroists activities.

the sooner the wacko's are eliminated the sooner they can get the billions of dollars commited to rebuilding their infrastructure and positive improved future life.

Not hardly. The USA has given honorable blood defending them from tyrants and terroists.
there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the USA occupation
of course Sadam was a bloody dictator
trying to help them to achieve freedom.
or the real reason (if it isn't oil) is to protect her own (the USA's) ass, not particulary help the people of Iraq.
That means they are not innocents but participants in the terroists activities.
I thought that fighting against occupation forces is called resistance
of course each occupation force calls them terrorists. same as Russia does with checens.
the sooner the wacko's are eliminated the sooner they can get the billions of dollars commited to rebuilding their infrastructure and positive improved future life.
who did destroy their infrastructure in the first place?

there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the USA occupation
Blatantly false. Granted they were not active in Iraq because Iraq was befriending them but Iraq was encouraging and harboring them.

of course Sadam was a bloody dictator

At least you got one right.

or the real reason (if it isn't oil)

Please provide any evidence, not lip service, showing that the USA has taken advantage of Iraqi oil. There is none. Our imports have not shifted to Iraqi oil nor has the price of oil being paid by the USA decreased. Your arguement is false on its face.

is to protect her own (the USA's) ass, not particulary help the people of Iraq.

In this case protecting our ass IS freeing Iraq from tyrants and terroists. We have historically (along with the rest of the world) aided people subjected to dictators, no oil even produced in those countries. It is shear coincidence that Iraq has oil and has nothing to do with our invasion or future intent for that nation.

I thought that fighting against occupation forces is called resistance of course each occupation force calls them terrorists. same as Russia does with checens.

You do not see the people uprising and supporting the dip shit cleric and his militia. You are miss-reading the tea leaves.

who did destroy their infrastructure in the first place?

The facts are that there was virtually no infrastructure there to destroy. Their sewage plant hadn't operated in years, etc.

BTW: Over 90% of the population in Afganistan have registered to vote. Now isn't that interesting. Women are becoming free and treated like human beings. Oh! Did I forget to mention we haven't struck oil in Afganistan?

I would have to dig up the email...Hmmmm...I wonder if I still have it.

The amount of humanitarian aid that has gone into Iraq since the US took over and eliminated Saddam's "government" is astonishing. Things are being accomplished daily that haven't been done in years. Children are being innoculated against disease, schools are being built. Saddam may have been a dictator, but you cannot say that he was not also a terrorist. I would think a terrorist is one that strikes fear in others through the use of threats of bodily injury. Look at what his death squads did and what he did to HIS OWN PEOPLE working on chemical weapons. I do believe that dear Saddam was in power when a large segment of a specific population was murdered by a nerve agent in the...Northwest? section of his country. Of course...then again, the majority of his people didn't like that segment of the population anyway, so it's okay?

Personally, I have to say that bioagebts would be the most horrific of terrorist weapons as they could be spread within days to multiple epicenters and wipe out very large population. Thing is that the US has a very mobile population. There is NO WAY humanly possible to contain something like that within the US unless it strikes almost immediately. Then you are looking at a release-type weapon which I would hope would be detected.

For invasion purposes, biochecmical weapons are only of use to the invading army, really, and that only if one is willing to sacrifice segments of one's own fighting forces. Due to wind and rain patterns being unpredictable, a chemical or biological agent could fly right back into the faces of the group launching it. Now...that proves to be a problem with the invading army as well, although I would think and invading army would have superior numbers to begin with.

Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent as long as we have someone in charge that would be willing to carry the burden of killing millions of people. If we have a President unwilling to do that, the threat is empty and no deterrent at all. Now...the other country would have to know an awful lot about the President and also be able to predict his reaction.

Hopefully that answered the original question. *LOL*