Death in Iraq.

[Ruddertail]

1. Yes, there is. Stick some anthrax in a Grand Slam and bingo. The only difference, which does exist, is the one of public perception. Hence my points.

If you look back at my post, you'll find that I mentioned "nukes, bio, and chem weapons". Certainly, any sort of WMD will be worse then a conventional explosive. I wouldn't want to give any of them to anyone who'd like to hit us. They can't be stopped (easilly) and the pack a heck of a lot more punch then a conventional Cruise Missile - something I'm not altogether happy with our enemies having, either. But at least a CM with a conventional warhead isn't going to knock out whole cities/states.

[Gen. Volkov]

Correction bjorn, the largest ever tested was designed to yield 100 megatons, but larger have been designed, you'll just have to trust me, cause that info is prolly not posted anywhere. Having an uncle who was in the USAF has is benefits. I wasn't debating the practicalities of large bombs though. I was jsut pointing out what they could do. The best method of destruction, with limited collateral damage (for nukes) would be saturation of an area with many smaller, cleaner bombs. Say 1 megaton. I just decided not to mention that because it wasn't pertinent to the argument. And the reason the Tsar Bomba only yielded 50 megatons when tested was because the core didn't fully fission, as intended, to limit the radioactive fallout. They just let the core fission enough to set off the fusion reaction.