| User | Post |
Bio
Posts: 113/458 |
sorry i'm not used to english, and small pox was just an example of the use of all these germ |
drjayphd
Posts: 1267/1477 |
Bio: I'm REALLY having trouble comprehending your posts, but if you're saying what I think you are, smallpox vaccine is readily available. It's the reason you don't encounter it too much in the wild, and why the biggest stores of smallpox are in labs. Not much leverage there.
Ziff needs his own "The More You Know" segment here or something. ;P |
Bio
Posts: 110/458 |
there no new reported document but a reporter enter (legally) the base and show some time of recording from inside the building, he wasn't allowed to take recording of the outside, this base was extremely well organised and they also talking about the ONU thing from my last post. the canada nickname in this thing was 'Gardian of life and death' and the virus are: Variole(small pox)Lepre(Lepra)Peste(don't know the english name)Etc.
this base is the 'Area 51' of canada
Note: the only cure for small pox is another virus called 'Vaccine' this is a virus who...eat virus. so If the canada is in a war and send small pox, they will able to negocy 'Vaccine' in trade for peace |
alte Hexe
Posts: 5124/5458 |
France, Belgium, Nigeria, Brazil, Agentina, Mexico, Cuba, North Korean, Japan, China, Myanmar, Australia...Most countries have had an infatuation with bio-chemical weapons sometime in the past.
Nuclear programs are expensive and complex. Bio-chemical weapons are nice and cheap. Awfully effective and easier to distribute through your enemies. |
Shadow Red
Posts: 102/133 |
Wow, thats pretty interesting.
Never knew that, programs based around biological weaponary usually only talk about the U.S., Russia, and various middle eastern countrys.
Still retilation to a biological (or any) attack would have dangerous consequences for the country who did use such advanced weaponary. However, if this is in a a small groups hands or a lone person it could be very dangerous.
Thanks for the information by the way. |
alte Hexe
Posts: 5116/5458 |
Canada for many years now has been the world leader in biological weapons.
Why you ask? Because the governments under Diefenbaker and Trudeau allowed for limited open air testing of biological and chemical agents in the northern prarie provinces. How does this help? The Canadian military structure learned how to create powerful aerial germs, and the information gained allowed the Canadian military to basically leech off of the American military's learnings in Ft. Detrick on bio-weapons technology. Basically, the Canadian military knows how to use bio warfare and how to treat it. Let's not even get into the fact that Canada was even more ruthless with its testing of radiological, psychological, chemical and other forms of weapons on its own citizens. Agent Orange, VX, Botulism. Of course, since treaties were signed by the Soviets and Americans bio-chemical weapons have been limited. Thus, Canada's program became even more secretive and nowadays you simply can't find anymore information on them past 1972. Assuming 35 years of sustained research has continued...I'm guessing that the Canadian biological warfare program is still quite well. I do not know what the hell Bio is talking about, but I do know that there are various viruses, bacterias and other micro-organisms that have been evolved to a point of certain lethality. There are probably bio-weapons that can simply destroy a nation's watershed, food supply or even more simply 100% lethal.
Canada, although having a small military, has lots of homegrown projects that range from super-cavetation torpedos, atomic weaponry and robotics. I don't know the extent of these projects, but alot of it is around.
Plus, mass-destruction weapons are pointless. They're simply too dangerous. |
Bio
Posts: 106/458 |
Yes they got the best biological wepon :
At one days, ONU give to them the last remaining of all the most dangerous virus and bacteria that ever existed, because its a pacifist land but, personnaly I think they should have destroyed them because for most of them the vaccine don't exist anymore and yes they going to remplace nuke,you can deliver more destruction with a creature made genetically to kill human |
Shadow Red
Posts: 83/133 |
Canada is the best in biological weapons? Dude they dont even have biological weapons as far as I know of. The U.S. is the most advanced when it comes to biological weaponary. Who knows why, its not like they're going to replace Nuclear missles.
When you say it "kills anything" this is paticulary untrue for biological warheads. Some things (humans, the environment) will be affected but some other things will not. Also a clean-up can take process, completely removeing harmful substances in the area. Most countrys have the capability to do that. Say within a week there would be little to no threat.
There is no one biological war-head. There are numerous and they all have different affects. The idea is to use them "safetly" for strategic purposes. |
Bio
Posts: 103/458 |
Sorry I'm not very good at english, and I forget biological bomb that kill anything In a small radius, but no one can enter the radius for 1 year, Canada is the best in the world in this domain |
drjayphd
Posts: 1264/1477 |
Originally posted by Bio
Nuclear bomb there nothing when compared to H-bomb,H-bomb Is a explotation of what a solar is made, Its only exploit under 1% of the power, just Imagine with 100% It would create a solar!!!!!they are also working on a bing bang bomb  and a blackhole one they manage to create one during 0,00001 millisecond!!!!!!!they can already destroy the earth and its not enough!!!!!!!!
I'm sorry, but what the HELL are you saying? English and easy on the exclamation points. |
Shadow Red
Posts: 78/133 |
Im 100 percent certain they arent even sure if blackholes are real yet. The only thign we know is that there are some places in space with VERY dense gravity but it is yet to be seen if its to the force of a blackhole. In fact their are have been many experiments to "fake" the blackhole process, (like creating a microscopic one) but all have failed.
Remember blackholes are thought to generated from supernova's after the gravitational collaspe. It be pretty much impossible to fit this into a warhead.
No one bomb can destroy the entire earth, a nuclear bomb's blast ratios differ but they arent that wide. To persay "destory" the earth humanity would have to screw itself over by nukeing each other numerous times. Earth would still exist, maybe some people would survive but the radiation would kill most. The DNA altering would have terrible after affects aswell.
Then after a couple hundred years we'd start adapting  and be set again. |
Bio
Posts: 98/458 |
Nuclear bomb there nothing when compared to H-bomb,H-bomb Is a explotation of what a solar is made, Its only exploit under 1% of the power, just Imagine with 100% It would create a solar!!!!!they are also working on a bing bang bomb and a blackhole one they manage to create one during 0,00001 millisecond!!!!!!!they can already destroy the earth and its not enough!!!!!!!! |
alte Hexe
Posts: 5096/5458 |
They didn't...
After the first one was dropped the Japanese were basically thrown into such turmoil that the government might as well have been in a state of perpetual coupes.
Also, the Japanese Navy was gone.
The Japanese air force only had a limited fleet of Kamikazi Zero aircraft left.
After that, they had the ground forces. A bombing campaign on the external military command (cities like Kyoto and Osaka) would've forced Tokyo to capitulate. Tokyo couldn't have been touched in another fire bomb raid without enciting the Japanese into a further fervor (by the time the war rolled around and the Phillipines, China, etc. was lost the Japanese morale dropped dramatically).
I'm not proposing that repeating Dresden over Japan, I'm proposing a limited assault on these cities.
And geeogree, they could've dropped the bombs on uninhabitated or a deserted or minimally populated area to show the actual power. Dropped it on somewhere that was visible, but not in use.
If you saw a gigantic plume coming up over a mountain and then the military goes to investigate. "Shit, how many more of these things do they have? If they can effectively waste it on an uninhabitated area...Shit" |
geeogree
Posts: 396/448 |
would that have worked? sure, it would have looked scary.... but the impending invasion was probably scary too....
and back in those days you could drop a bomb on an island, but there wasn't really any way to show the japanese that the bomb had dropped...
I just don't think it would have worked considering they had to drop 2 to get Japan to surrender.... |
Mel
Posts: 964/991 |
Here's adding fuel to the fire.
Did you know that one of the alternatives that was avalible for Truman and his cabinet was to test the bomb on a remote, uninhabited Japanese island to make the Japanese wet their pants and surrender?
(Selective Recoverative Memory, baby.) |
Slay
Posts: 268/339 |
Red, you're still just arguing that the Japanese were a threat, and I must repeat that nobody is arguing against that, and nobody is insisting that the only alternative to nuking Hiroshima was a full-scale land invasion. Your bringing up that issue isn't destroying the credibility of those opposed to the nuking at all. They needed to be stopped, we all agree upon that, and repeatedly bringing up the terrible things they did to POWs and such isn't helping this debate. The question isn't whether the Japanese had to be stopped, it's if and how we could have done it without killing so many civilians. I'm curious to see someone come up with an idea as to how we could have demonstrated our power or even crippled the Japanese military, without mudering such a huge number of civilians in the process. Where could we have bombed? What could we have bombed? What else could have been done? |
Shadow Red
Posts: 54/133 |
Even so, it would have been a mess. Too many opposeing opinions with some wanting to continue military action and others wanting peace.
In the end the useage of the nuclear missles and the threat to use more (we threatend to continue useing them even though we had none left) was what actually brought them together.
|
alte Hexe
Posts: 5084/5458 |
Yeah. I know people that served in Japan during the assault on Hong Kong. People that were in the Winnipeg Granadiers and the Canadian Rifles Regiment. You want to know who suffered? Imagine 4 or 5 years in the Japanese camps.
I know my history, and if you think that I'm condoning the actions of the Japanese, then you're dead wrong. But the fact of the matter is that prior to Hiroshima America and the Allies had all the ability in the world to cast out diplomatic lines to the Japanese government. |
Shadow Red
Posts: 53/133 |
War is pure brutality, exactly why so many people are against it. I dont support nukeing nations like many closed minded people still do. You dont have to go to Tokyo to see people who have lost loved ones to war, nuke or not its the same theyre still gone.
All im saying is given the circumstances of the time, it was the safest thing to do. I mean it did end the war and probably saved for lives then it took.
I'll take back the statement, but atleast acknowledge alot of crimes were commited onto American soldiers. Crimes that they're was no excuse for.
|
alte Hexe
Posts: 5082/5458 |
Actually, if it was relegated to "neato science" which it was being fast-tracked to do prior to the proof that it was super effective. But no, I meant in regards to the modern power structure. There is a bunch of spin-offs.
Actually, you'd be surprised. Men and women I have spoken to that were in Tokyo at the time (the heart of the Tojo support) hated it. The war killed their brothers and sisters. Mothers and fathers. Sons and daughters. It was pure brutality to them, and not everyone was engrossed in the militancy of Japanese culture at the time. In fact, a sizeable portion was quite against it. And more were ambivalent.
Still, you're being very disrespectful towards the Japanese in this thread and the statement "If your spirtual you may call the Nuclear Bomb karma." is absolutely disgusting. I'm going to ask you to retract that statement. |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
