Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Is there a weapon that will kill everyone in a town at the same time?

The problem with death is that a person has family and friends that have an emotional attachment to him who will suffer when he dies. The guy who dies is dead so nothing is gonna bother him.

Now if the victims all died at the exact same time as all of their friends and family, and they died quick, then everyone would be put out of their misery at the same time and nobody would suffer.

Update:

What about friends and family that live in a different town that may be hundreds of miles away?

Nobody is immortal. In any relationship 1 person will die and the other will be left behind, Unless they both die at the same time.

I guess y'all are not smart enough to understand this concept.

11 Answers

Relevance
  • ?
    Lv 6
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    A well placed bomb?

    Your questions sound seriously disturbing.

    Yeah, most of us here are smart enough to understand this "concept". It's just that it doesn't make sense. What you're talking about is a suicide pact, where someone agrees with another to kill themselves at the same time, so that they don't have to live without each other. That is a very selfish and sinful act. They aren't thinking about their friends, or other family members. They're are only concerned with their happiness.

    If what your saying works out, then everyone on planet Earth would die. Take for example, a guy named Bob. Bob is married and has 2 kids. Now, Bob is terminally ill, so he has to die, along with his wife and his kids, right? But, they have to die at the same time as their friends and family. So, the children's friends have to kill themselves too, along with their family and friends, as does the wife and the husband. In turn, everyone eventually ends up dead. Remember, there is no such thing as a closed circle in terms of relationships with others.

    So, your idea is to basically annihilate life on planet Earth, just so that someone doesn't have to live without their significant others, or family members.

    That's still very morbid.

  • Mutt
    Lv 7
    10 years ago

    What about friends and family that live in a different town that may be hundreds of miles away? How do you deal with those people? They may have an emotional attachment to someone in that town you just destroyed. Should we maybe destroy those towns these people live in also> But then there will be others that have family and friends in distance towns that will have to be destroyed also. And so on and so on and so on, until you have no towns left to destroy.

    What's you plan for this scenario?

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Firstly, it depends on how big the town is. However, there is only one weapon the general public is aware of that would be capable of wiping out the occupants of a town at almost exactly the same time, and that is a fairly small Nuclear Bomb. However, the radiation produced by the explosion of one of these disperses into the atmosphere from the "Mushroom Cloud", and also remains in strong concentration around the local area of the explosion for a VERY long time. We can see evidence of this by looking at the last nuclear bomb attacks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, as Wikipedia states: "According to the U.S. Department of Energy the immediate effects of the blast killed approximately 70,000 people in Hiroshima. Estimates of total deaths by the end of 1945 from burns, radiation and related disease, the effects of which were aggravated by lack of medical resources, range from 90,000 to 166,000. Some estimates state up to 200,000 had died by 1950, due to cancer and other long-term effects. Another study states that from 1950 to 2000, 46% of leukaemia deaths and 11% of solid cancer deaths among bomb survivors were due to radiation from the bombs, the statistical excess being estimated to 94 leukaemia and 848 solid cancers. At least eleven known prisoners of war died from the bombing." This shows that people would still suffer, throughout the world, not just where you a trying to exterminate. Furthermore, with whatever weapon you chose, your methodology is flawed by saying no one will suffer because their friends and family will be killed too. What if family and friends lived elsewhere? or had gone on holiday when you chose to attack?

  • 10 years ago

    We have some very large non nuclear bombs in america so if you dropped several of those on a small town it could kill all the people and have no radiation. Larger towns would require a nuclear bomb or a bio agent but that's pretty dangerous because of spreading. Or you could just round up all the people and shoot them but that's a hard thing for people to do. Its easier to drop bombs than to stand in front of a person and shoot them.

    Also this is a rather morbid question you may have problems

    Source(s): stuff
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • No.
    Lv 6
    10 years ago

    What about their friends and family out of town? It's a never ending cycle.

  • 10 years ago

    An energetic weapon fired from a satellite like what killed all those birds in mid-flight or an entire school of fish in mid-swim in Lousianna, Italy, and Sweden.

  • 10 years ago

    E-coli in the Fast food joints.

  • 10 years ago

    A Nuclear Bomb...

    BUT, Don't recommend killing anyone...

    Share the LOVE...

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    What a joyful little cherub you are.

  • 10 years ago

    Atomic Bomb, nuke etc.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.