Looking for opinions here.

Ok is using a nuclear weapon to destroy a fighting force worse than using the quivelent tonnage of high explosives to kill that same force? Say you wipe out force A in the deseart...you can use a single 20 megaton device and end things in an hour, or you can bomb the hell out of the whole area for months and accomplish the same thing. Why are nukes worse? If it is residual radiation and fallout as the only problem, those can be somewhat ameliorated by "tuning" the warhead and the method of delivery so that long term dangerous levels of radiation are eliminated. Or you could even use a Neutron device.....why is nuclear more imoral or more evil than conventional? Why was Hiroshima and Nagasaki worse than the firestorms that killed many more people in tokyo and in Dresden germany?

[img]smile.gif[/img] Hope this gets some good replies..I am writing a paper for school [img]smile.gif[/img]

I think that one of the big differences is psychological. Weeks/months of attrition gives the opposition at least a chance, somehow. A 20 meg nuke doesn't. One hit and the opposition is gone. That's very disconcerting, especially to a power who doesn't have similar capabilities, especially if you have plenty more nuclear weapons. I believe that this type of psychological blow was part of the effect nuclear weapons had in ending WWII. Read (if you have time) Richard Rhodes' "The Making of the Atomic Bomb." It's long but very worthwhile.

Well, let's see firestorms may have killed people slower in the first blast area, but look at the long term effects, you cannot totally eliminate the long terms, at least not as yet, and just look what it did to Nagasaki and Hiroshima, people still these days are born with cancer or other illnesses/ deformities due to the pollution left by the bombs, there have been hundreds of horrific accounts of the piles of bodies still nbarely alive, affected by radiation, and people with skin peeled off etc.
All because Nuclear bombs were used before more extensive knowledge of the effects were known.

I think some people tend to think that using a nuclear weapon is more immoral that explosives is because the atom bomb was invented as a weapon of peace. "If we all can't live in peace, then we shall all die."
There is also the problem with the fall out and the long-term damage to the planet. Reducing this would mean that someone would have to invent a cold fusion bomb. So far this have proved to be impossible.
Of course I think using weapons that will kill a lot of civvies is wrong. In war only the military should be targeted. But you could argue that countries start losing power when its people get blown up.

That is a very good question. Maybe if a one time nuke is used you could have a lot of people dying that you did not want to die ie children. Lets face it alot of the time the enemy will use the people of that country as a shield You have to think is this what you would want to happen to the country you are living in. If you start nuking people there could be a good chance that some one will nuke you back. And they may forget to turn down the volume of destruction of the war head. All the countries have spent so much time trying to get people not to use these weapons why should we start now. And as the whole issue of turning the radiation down, I do not have a clue about this. If you ask me any forms of radiation small or not are not good.

You have a good point there MagiK, these days, using conventional explosives can have the same effect as nuclear weapons..
Not that people are born with cancer or anything like that, but that the country itself is weakened and that may last as long as radioactive fallout..
So it's a hard thing to say which one is the worst..
[img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

<font color = lightgreen>Part of the psychological terror caused by nuclear weapons is that not many people are still alive who have witnessed/experienced such devices firsthand. The rest of us can only imagine what being on the receiving end of a nuclear attack would be like; it is like asking "what would you do if you were the last person alive?"--you can't answer truthfully because you just don't know.
To answer your original question--neither. There is no difference between destroying force "a" with either nuclear or conventional weapons, because dead is dead. Conventional weapons also produce lots of atmospheric dust, especially if weapons like BLU-82B (the most powerful conventional explosive made) are used. As is being reported recently, there are new concerns about packing radioactive material into conventional bombs to spread the "fallout"--this would achieve the same effect as a nuclear bomb.
Talthyr Malkaviel is right in that the initial designers/users of atomic bombs didn't know what their true effects would be; the only test was in the middle of nowhere; some thought the atmosphere would catch on fire! Follow jtqbe's advice--read "The Making of the Atomic Bomb"; it's been a few years (so I need to read it again) but it is an extremely good book (beware of the pictures in the middle).
Nuclear weapons are the ultimate form of the ancient practice of "poisoning the well", in which you would make an area uninhabitable to your enemies if you couldn't have it, either. Now that is spite!</font>

A bit of fact...
Any warhead over 9.9 megatons is a waste of material. The only use a 20 megaton device would have is for earthshock in a sub-surface event.
The reason why 9.9 megatons is the most efficient? Take a basketball or other suitably large ball. Lay a piece of sheet plastic or flat glass across the top. That will demonstrate what happens in a blast beyond 9.9 megatons. The shock waves and blast do not follow the curve of the earth they continue outwards. The extra blast and heat energy
are wasted. Residual energy is reflected back to the planet by bounce back from the atmosphere, but that in not considered effective.

The difference for anyone at ground zero or within the 10 mile radius of destruction would be the same even if it were a 20 megaton device.

Death from a Neutron, Conventional Thermo-Nuclear devices or Radiation Poisoning, is too horrible to describe. The lucky ones would be at Ground Zero. If you want a good idea of what happens watch the movie "Fat Man and Little Boy" with Paul Newman and John Cusack. Take my word for it. I have seen the 'real' pictures. It is tantamount to torture. It is a long, painful and protracted death.

In summary...
Nuclear Devices, tunned or not, are never clean weapons. The pain suffering and horror caused in the wake of their use prohibit any Nation with a full understanding of their power, from ever using them in any but the most dire of circumstances. Anyone who would use such a device is devoid of human empathy and compassion. When the US used them, their power was not fully understood by those who directed their use. I don't know, if they had known what we know now, would they have ever used them?

I can not think of any good reason to use Nuclear Weapons in any situation, mainly due to the fallout. Too many innocents become affected within and outside the area of impact. Also prevailing winds can carry the fallout far beyond the local area.

Mark

I agree that the 'conventional' bombings you mention, Magik, were horrific events that affected people badly for a long time.

But why is nuclear worse? OK, I live in the UK. There was a nuclear accident in Chernobyl, back in 1985. The clouds, carried by the wind, rained radiation on the UK for weeks afterwards. It destroyed the sheep farming industry in Wales for starters - there are still areas of Wales that are too contaminated for sheep from that area to be sold for consumption. A deliberate nuclear strike would have similar far-reaching long-term effects on far-flung parts of the world - including yourself and your allies - that is if you only wanted to look at it from a western-oriented point of view taking no account of the generations of deformed and cancerous 'enemy' children that would suffer as a result.

[ 03-11-2002: Message edited by: Epona ]</p>