I dont want to die at all. And certainly not from either of those 3 causes. They are all slow an debilitating (unless you are standing near where the bomb hits)
Which would be the most painful and slowest JakobA? It would be a blessing to be at GROUND ZERO! Kaboom and it happens so fast you feel nothing and are obliterated. Thank you for your reply. I don't think we will have a choice. :(
As you must certainly know by now I ask the questions that occur to me without editing them. You see no reason to rank methods of horrible death. I am curious about it so I asked. Different strokes. Whether my questions are reasonable or annoying to you or others I ask them because they all matter to me or I wouldn't ask them. Thank you for your opinion and Happy Tuesday JakobA! :)
Unless one decides to take one's own life, and can do so competently (much more difficult that you might think), one does not get to make that choice.
There's no guarantee that any of those three options will even be harmful, let alone fatal in individual circumstances. Warfare is a game of statistics, not individuals. For example, it's possible for someone to be immune to some degree to some biologicals. Circumstances may allow some to escape a chemical attack (changing winds?). There were even Japanese that were close to the epicenters of both the Hiroshima and the Nagasaki nuclear devices that survived into their old age.
But if that's to be my fate then the nuclear weapon, definitely; provided that I can be well within the effective range of the high-power gamma radiation burst and not shielded from it by anything. That way the body's entire nervous system will be destroyed, instantly. Before pain can travel to the brain the brain will cease to exist. As an added bonus the entire body will most likely be vaporized at the same time. Otherwise they're nearly equally horrifically slow and painful ways to move on to one's greater reward.
JakobA the unAmerican. 