The thought of weapons of mass destruction ever actually being used in the future is unsettling, at the very least, in of itself, but the label "WMD" is rather broad, encompassing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and any other unconventional weapon capable of causing, well... mass destruction.

Chemical warfare, in my opinion, is not on the same level with nukes or disease.

Of the two, which is more frightening and why? As long as I survive the initial blast, the fallout and avoid the irradiated areas, I might be able to keep from starving to death during the 10 year winter until the dust falls and the ozone layer recovers. Maybe....

But germs? If the wrong bio-engineered super virus gets loose, it could be the end of the entire human race, except for some of the most isolated pacific islands, which I would imagine a lot of being unpopulated.

I'm not saying that one is preferable to the other, chances are slim either way. But disease scares me....

This is a very grim question and I hope neither of these scenarios come to fruition.

Biological weaponry could well wipe out all of humanity, but there's a good chance it won't jump to other species. So there would still be some life left over to fill the gap left by humans.

Nukes however.....if it gets bad enough the world could be reduced to one big irradiated wasteland. We wouldn't just be killing ourselves, we would kill life and all chance of life ever returning. Sure, Earth's seen supervolcanoes and meteors but I don't know if it could survive centuries of radiation.

m0ssb3rg935 : Considering the mass capabilities of Biologic, and pondering on Nuclear.... I'd rather go with Bio, as that can cause things like: Zombie Apoc. (Go you DayZ fans)