Question

speech on "Is Biological Warfare a higher threat than Nuclear Warfare?".​

Answer 1

$\huge\underline\mathbb\color{red}{✯ANSWER✯}$

Yes, biological weapons are more dangerous than nuclear weapons because they can persist, propagate and spread through a population.

Biological weapons have theoretical capability to wipe out pretty much the entire population of the world. Not the old bio weapons, but the new ones, that are probably created somewhere deep underground, using modern DNA splicing technologies. Viruses created using gene-modifications can be so deadly that our immune system has no response to them whatsoever. If the virus is designed to be airborne and have long incubation period with no symptoms ( months maybe ) it can spread throughout the entire population of the world before it finally turns nasty and kills with near 100% efficiency.

hope it helps.......✨

plz follow me.......xd✌️

Answer 2

Explanation:

IS BIOLOGICAL WARFARE A HIGHER THREAT THAN NUCLEAR WARFARE?

INTRODUCTION:

A weapon of mass destruction could also be a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological, or the

opposite weapon which can kill and convey significant harm to numerous humans or cause great

damage to human-made structures (e.g., buildings), natural structures (e.g., mountains), or the

biosphere. The scope and usage of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more

politically than technically.

A weapon of mass destruction is a device that derives its destructive force from nuclear

reactions, either fission or from a mixture of fission and fusion reactions. Both bomb types

release large quantities of energy from relatively small amounts of matter.

The only country to possess used a weapon of mass destruction in war is that the U.S., which

dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during war II.

There are eight countries that have declared they possess weapon of mass destructions and are

known to possess tested a nuclear weapon, only five of which are members of the NPT. The

eight are China, France, India, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the UK, and therefore the U.S.

Israel is taken into account by most analysts to possess nuclear weapons numbering within the

low hundreds also, but maintains a politician policy of nuclear ambiguity, neither denying nor

confirming its nuclear status.

South Africa developed a little nuclear arsenal within the 1980s but disassembled them within

the early 1990s, making it the sole country to possess fully given up an independently developed

nuclear weapons arsenal. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine inherited stockpiles of nuclear arms

following the break-up of the Soviet Union, but relinquished them to the Russia.

Biological weapon, also called germ weapon, any of kind of disease-producing agents such as

bacteria, viruses, rickettsia, fungi, toxins, or other biological agents that could even be utilized as

weapons against humans, animals, or plants.

The direct use of infectious agents and poisons against enemy personnel is an ancient practice in

warfare. Indeed, in many conflicts, diseases are liable for more deaths than all the employed

combat arms combined, even once they haven't consciously been used as weapons. Lethal

biological weapons could also be capable of causing mass deaths, but they're incapable of mass

destruction of infrastructure, buildings, or equipment. Nevertheless, because of the

indiscriminate nature of those weapons as well because the potential for starting widespread

pandemics, the matter of controlling disease effects, and thus the simple fear that they inspire

most countries have agreed to ban the whole class.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS:

On Transfiguration, 1945, the planet changed forever when the primary atom bomb hit

Hiroshima, Japan, killing thousands of individuals instantly. Three days later, a second atom

bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, decisively ending Japan’s involvement in war II. Thousands of

individuals died from radiation poisoning within a year. Since that earth-shattering day, the

planet has grappled with a controversial technology that not only poses strategic risks in its

ability to wipe out humanity but also provides a possible solution to problems of sustainable

energy.