I think for EMP's there are special electronics (built a certain way) that can withstand EMP's. Mainly only in the armed forces tho.

Smeargle wrote

-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.

You'd be surprised how much 2 months without electricity would change us. An EMP would hit the whole nation. A nuke would affect a large area, but small in compared to the nation it hits. If it hit DC, people in Cali wouldnt care less.

I think a nuke would be worse because look at Chernobyl. No activity what so ever,
where as an emp, as hard as it would be, at least you could still make contact with friends and family. We would just have to experience life how it was 100s of years ago.

This can't be a serious question. The nuclear bomb would destroy anything and everything.

A nuke would cause more damage. Hospitals have EMP/disaster proof generators and other sensitive materials. Obviously military equipment is EMP/disaster proof, since those items are tested by NASA for things like war and disasters. If a Nukes radiation gets into a river or water source that supports a town or city, it has the possibility of killing anyone that drinks it because the filtering process does not include radiation filtration. EMPs can take town the power grid for a while but at least it can be rebuilt fairly quickly compared to a nuke going off. If a nuke goes off, not only will the nukes emp take down the power grid, but if its still standing after the explosion/shock wave, the radiation will keep the power grid off line for a while longer until the radiation levels drop enough for people to fix it.

thats a really hard question.. honestly dont think i can answer that..

I am looking at the environmental standpoint. Nuclear bombs would destroy even the natural habitats. I have to go with nuclear since it kills and is deadly over long periods of time. EMP's are dangerous to those living only on technology. Life in general does not need technology. Nuclear is worse in my opinion.

nuke because an emp nocks out power nukes nocks out power and gives radiation

A Hydrogen bomb has no limits on destruction, it can essentially be as big as the creators intentions. The Tsar Bomba was 100s of times larger then the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima so I'd say a nuclear bomb is worse due to the fact they can destroy all of civilization.

tsar Bomba comparison pic: [ Register or Signin to view external links. ]

Definitely A Nuke, EMP's Only Destroy Electronics Were A Nuke Could Possibly Destroy A Country.