Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and the Yahoo Answers website is now 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.
Trending News
Whats more devastating, another world war or a world wide pandemic?
Detail: A world war where there are 2 sides(like Axis and Allies) and they use all of the technology we have today against each other, the war lasts for 100 years
A pandemic that is highly contagious(a virus) that kills humans in a matter of hours and can spread through water and air and can be carried by animals and it takes humans 100 years to find a cure.
which one has the most casualties and most devastating consequences?
3 Answers
- Donut TimLv 78 years agoFavorite Answer
War would be worse.
Disease wipes out large numbers of many species on a regular basis and usually only affect a very few species. At the start, usually the species is overpopulated. Nature cleans up fairly easily afterward.
It is also normal for fighting among populations of animals but only involving a few dozen members at a time. Nature cleans this up pretty good too.
With a world war, we would destroy vast tracts of land and possibly of the sea. Nature would take a long time to recover.
.
- 8 years ago
The next World War will leave No Survivors. The next Pandemic- might. So DON'T Plan on another World War ( or it might be the LAST thing you Do...).
- 8 years ago
a pandemic would be worse for it would kill a larger range of people. not only men and women but older people to old to serve and children.
