Assuming the military was part of the tyranny (which it would have to be for tyranny to have any meaning), any rebelling national band of “patriots” would be told something like, “you either lay down your arms or the entire city of Dallas, Texas will disappear. You have one hour. If you continue, the next city to disappear will be Atlanta, Georgia.” [More]My response to a "Resistance is futile" Borg whose not shy about citing the nuclear option...
6 comments:
The Ammoland writer quotes MBV on Gandhi's espousal of passive
resistance (I'm sure you know the quote)
Apropos of that, the reporter/writer Alan Moorehead recorded*
an unsettling insight into Gandhi, who seemed to think that the
Japanese could not kill enough Indians to prevail.
That's from memory, it's not exact
* this is from Clive James Cultural Amnesia in the
entry on Moorehead.
all the best cycjec
I just recalled the scenario in the Tom Clancy books, IIRC
The Sum of All Fears ....
I'm trying to see what the downside is...no, not seeing it.
Nuke one city, the rest will rise up in rebellion. Now, what Big Government?
I had to send a link to this to a retired bomber pilot and ask him what he would do if Johnson and the Joint Chiefs wanted him to drop one on Dallas.
His answer was short and simple:
"In command of strategic nukes many times - that was my job.
I would have known that nuking Dallas was an unlawful order and not comply."
That's not to mention that most large cities tend to lean liberal/progressive/democrat. By nuking a large city, they would be killing off their own, in large quantities. What exactly would killing off large quantities of useful idiots accomplish for them?
It does mention that, with links to the 2012 presidential race and demographic stats.
Post a Comment