Originally posted by Raskolnikov
As to Nuclear vrs. chemical and biological weapons (particuarly biological weapons), and the differences between the two:
Biological weapons are potentially just as destructive and far more difficult to control. In the case of a nuclear detonation, a limited area is (very) effected by the blast, then fallout follows the prevaling winds until it works its way out of the atmousphere. Air bursting nuclear weapons (such as those in the US arsenal produce less fallout than groundbursting weapons (because they don't kick up as much radioactive dust). Given the ammount of background radiation in the air today (absolutely in thanks to US, French, and Russian nuclear weapons testing during the 40's, 50's, and 60's and those nice holes in the ozone), we'd really hardly notice the difference. Biological weapons on the other hand have incubation periods where those infected are contagious but don't show symptoms. This means that there can close to a week between an attack and the initial indications of it and close to a week before any attempt to control the infection can be initiated. Because of mass transit, air travel, a Small Pox attack can be spread all over the world and absolutely randomly and cost MANY more lives than a single nuclear attack in MUCH more random a pattern.

It's not about Nuke Vs Bio ... Each of them is worse than the other... You can't use any of these against countries that don't have them , it's a criminal act according to the international law ... Now Bush wants to violate this law , and of course no one can ever accuse him .
That's my point , I'm not comparing between these.