Look for Issue number 558 of The Libertarian Enterprise
late Sunday afternoon.
Ken Holder
Editor-in-Chief
http://www.NCC-1776.org/
Thanks. I remember reading about that several decades ago. Its yet
another example of how murderous the thugs who Rule tend to be, when
their whims are contested. Speaking of which, I hope those pushing
the succession movements are aware that unlike during the War to
prevent Southern
Better dead than red.
What if the states nuke DC?
Wraith wrote:
Thanks. I remember reading about that several decades ago. Its yet
another example of how murderous the thugs who Rule tend to be, when
their whims are contested. Speaking of which, I hope those pushing
the succession
And nukes are also useful tactically.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 4:08 PM, Valentine Michael Smith
bkoehl...@comcast.net wrote:
Better dead than red.
What if the states nuke DC?
Wraith wrote:
Thanks. I remember reading about that several decades ago. Its yet
another example of how
At 07:08 AM 2/21/2010, you wrote:
Better dead than red.
What if the states nuke DC?
Lets not go there. This is not a secure channel.
Damn it, there's that one spelling mistake made on almost every libertarian
site and posting (I hope by accident) and every statist website (I assume on
purpose).
My boy, it's secession, not succession. The first is leaving a government
power, hopefully to starve. The other is replacing it,
Children, be good. There is no way a nuclear explosive (or even the
convetional sort) can be used in self defense even against DC. There are too
many uninvolved bystanders. (Nukes are a great thing for digging big canals or
diverting asteroids, if nobody's in the way, but make real sure of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 21 February 2010, wdg...@comcast.net was heard to say:
Children, be good. There is no way a nuclear explosive (or even
the convetional sort) can be used in self defense even against DC.
The bomb, the law, the machinegun. These are the
How about nuclear air-to-air munitions? Nuclear anti-ballistic rockets, used
to take down incoming nukes in mid-air? Low-yield nuclear depth charges,
used to hunt submarines?
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:57 PM, wdg...@comcast.net wrote:
Children, be good. There is no way a nuclear explosive (or
Planes and submarines are fragile and difficult enough to keep above or below
the surface (depending on where they were supposed to be) without requiring
nuclear defense. Using a nuke to defend against a nuke is pretty much
shitting where you eat. Neil's concept of neighborhood SDI works fine
The Libertarian Enterprise
Official Journal of the National Recall Coordinating Committees
Issue 558, February 21, 2010
This issue's Motto: Voluntary servitude has consequences.
http://www.ncc-1776.org/
THE WEEKLY CARTOONS:
THE WEEKLY CARTOON
Obama: Change we can Bereave in
by Will Otey
At 06:02 AM 2/21/2010, ejt wrote:
Ken,
Sunday afternoon, eh?
Well, okay. But ~don't~ let it happen again, or else!! :-)
You know how it is, just one damned thing after another.
Ken
sing a nuke to defend against a nuke is pretty much shitting where you
eat
Not really. Imagine a nuke blowing up high in the atmosphere and taking down
(vaporizing or disrupting the incomnig weapon. This is of course not
optimal, but it's far healthier for everybody on the ground than having the
At 11:04 PM 2/21/2010, you wrote:
sing a nuke to defend against a nuke is pretty much shitting where you eat
Not really. Imagine a nuke blowing up high in the atmosphere and
taking down (vaporizing or disrupting the incomnig weapon. This is
of course not optimal, but it's far healthier for
I heard of EMP. Remember these nukes WERE touched off in testing.
And remember also I'd rather have EMP then have cities hit by the full range
of effects of nuclear weapons.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 8:30 AM, Wraith wra...@xmission.com wrote:
At 11:04 PM 2/21/2010, you wrote:
sing a nuke
15 matches
Mail list logo
