| "The term "weapon" always implies possible harm. If the intentions of the weapon holder are purely defensive, it is not a terrorist weapon."
because of the universal harm from fallout, the lasting impurification in the region of detonation, and imprecision of such a weapon it is impossible for the weapon not to harm civilians and non-military targets. if this is not used directly for terrorism, the same terrorist effects on civilians are produced out of ignorance.
a tactical nuke releases the same fallout. we have non-nuclear bombs that are nearly as powerful as nuclear weapons, certainly as small ones. the fertilizer explosion in north korea had a blast diameter of 2.5 miles. that was non-nuclear. unless there is a 3-mile long tank column that we need to eliminate non-nuclear weapons are more than sufficient. why would you use a nuclear bomb instead of a more precise and less universally dangerous large conventional weapon in any situation except where the goal is mass slaughter? |