You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.

Which is worse. An EMP or Nuclear Bomb?

EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse)
36.84% (7 votes)
Nuclear Bomb
63.16% (12 votes)

Total Votes: 19

EMP Bomb or Nuclear Bomb? [Read!]
Posted:

EMP Bomb or Nuclear Bomb? [Read!]Posted:

Belial
  • Resident Elite
Status: Offline
Joined: Feb 23, 201311Year Member
Posts: 249
Reputation Power: 11
Status: Offline
Joined: Feb 23, 201311Year Member
Posts: 249
Reputation Power: 11
Hey TTG, me and my friend are having a friendly argument. Both of us are going into the military, me on Army Rangers and him into the Marines. But we can't decide which would be worse: An EMP (Electromagnetic Pulse) or a nuclear bomb.

Here are both sides:

EMP:
    All electronics would cease to exist. No TV, cell phones, cars, computers, or almost any means of communication.
    Hospitals wouldn't have the electricity to power patients for long, so more than likely anyone in a hospital that needs machines would probably not make it.
    Also, medicine that needs to be refrigerated would not work, as fridges and freezers wouldn't function. So anyone who needs medicine will also be limited and the possibility of death is very high.
    Pacemakers/implants would stop working. So any person with them would be in severe trouble and possibly death seeing as hospitals do not work.
    Diabetics would be in serious trouble because their insulin could not be cooled. Also a high cause of deaths.
    Since trains and cars would not work, food will be scarce. Nothing would be able to deliver the food fast enough. People in small towns would have to struggle to find food once they/their store runs out.
    Since EMP bombs wipe out all electronics instantly, we would have no way of knowing until the mail or newspapaers came. We would all think it was just a power outage.
    EMP bombs are not short. They will wipe out power grids across the nation. These could be out for years. Imagine years without power.
    EMP bombs can take out almost a whole country in size.
    People would freeze in the winter from no heating.
    Generally an EMP would be detonated from a satellite, so we would have no way of knowing when one would be set off. It could be 20 minutes from you reading this.
    Anyone in planes at the time of detonation are in for a surprise.
    They are instant. So there is no stopping it. It is not a bomb that can be shot down. Once set off, it is over.
    Military would be crippled for MANY years. So we would be vulnerable to invasion fairly easily.
    Loss of contact with people unless you walk or have a bike.
    Murder would rise because of people hungry for food or supplies.


All in all: EMP bombs are more dangerous and deadly in the long run than short term and do more damage in my opinion.



Nuke/Nuclear Bomb:
    Obviously would destroy anything in it's path.
    Radiation would cause deaths miles away from the blast site and mushroom cloud.
    Radiation would last a long time so birth defects in children would last for generations to come. We are just now getting an end to the ones in Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
    Would disable power lines in the area.
    Nukes do set of a small EMP bomb in the immediate area when detonated.
    Radiation would make the area unsuitable to visit/evacuate.
    Survivors would be horribly malformed/burned.


All in all: Nuclear bombs are very dangerous. They cause plenty of deaths in the immediate area and physically destroy everything immediately.


Alright guys, now. Which is worse? Which could we survive as a nation? If not from America, then whatever nation you live in. Comment or poll please.
#2. Posted:
Linzy
  • Prospect
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 26, 201212Year Member
Posts: 628
Reputation Power: 26
Status: Offline
Joined: Sep 26, 201212Year Member
Posts: 628
Reputation Power: 26
Definitely a Nuke... Destroys everything
#3. Posted:
Evo8
  • Comment King
Status: Offline
Joined: Oct 26, 201212Year Member
Posts: 4,129
Reputation Power: 150
Status: Offline
Joined: Oct 26, 201212Year Member
Posts: 4,129
Reputation Power: 150
That's a pretty tricky question. Both are so deadly.
#4. Posted:
Georgasm
  • TTG Fanatic
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 20, 201113Year Member
Posts: 4,336
Reputation Power: 211
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 20, 201113Year Member
Posts: 4,336
Reputation Power: 211
You're basically asking if you think it's better to live or die. Hard decision isn't it?
#5. Posted:
Belial
  • Resident Elite
Status: Offline
Joined: Feb 23, 201311Year Member
Posts: 249
Reputation Power: 11
Status: Offline
Joined: Feb 23, 201311Year Member
Posts: 249
Reputation Power: 11
Inkd wrote That's a pretty tricky question. Both are so deadly.

In theory you would think the nuclear bomb would be the obvious option. But not when everyday life is based around technology and electricity.
#6. Posted:
Belial
  • Resident Elite
Status: Offline
Joined: Feb 23, 201311Year Member
Posts: 249
Reputation Power: 11
Status: Offline
Joined: Feb 23, 201311Year Member
Posts: 249
Reputation Power: 11
Smeargle wrote You're basically asking if you think it's better to live or die. Hard decision isn't it?

End it instantly or suffer for many years.
#7. Posted:
dchs_1998
  • New Member
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 28, 201311Year Member
Posts: 3
Reputation Power: 0
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 28, 201311Year Member
Posts: 3
Reputation Power: 0
The nuke would be worse, it would cause nuclear fallout, which would poison the water.
#8. Posted:
Georgasm
  • TTG Fanatic
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 20, 201113Year Member
Posts: 4,336
Reputation Power: 211
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 20, 201113Year Member
Posts: 4,336
Reputation Power: 211
-Dream wrote
Smeargle wrote You're basically asking if you think it's better to live or die. Hard decision isn't it?

End it instantly or suffer for many years.


No, it depends on the size of the emp. Also it's impossible to tell how long recovery from an emp will take until one is actually used. It's estimated that a nuclear emp could take anywhere between 2 months to 10 years to recover from.

A nuke on the other hand, after destroying everything in it's path, leaves recovery near impossible. Take Chernobyl for example, it's estimated to be uninhabitable for atleast 20,000 years.
#9. Posted:
zRAS-
  • Ladder Climber
Status: Offline
Joined: May 10, 201212Year Member
Posts: 318
Reputation Power: 14
Status: Offline
Joined: May 10, 201212Year Member
Posts: 318
Reputation Power: 14
It's a hard question I don't no to be honest xD
#10. Posted:
AllSkinsNoSkill
  • TTG Senior
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 29, 201113Year Member
Posts: 1,856
Reputation Power: 78
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 29, 201113Year Member
Posts: 1,856
Reputation Power: 78
I didn't have to think about it I say emp.In a country where everything depends on electronics it would just be devastating not to mention you would have to replace everything wasting money.There have been mass power outages in the past and it was pure chaos.
Jump to:
You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.