Life After Nuclear War
aeio...@hotmail.com
The Nuclear Game
Author: Stuart Slade
When we've been discussing nuclear weapons, we've always been working
under the presumption that the historical situation applies and that we
won't see a nuclear exchange. Lets look at the grim side of the
equation now. The sirens are going and the National Emergency system is
screaming its head off. What's the world going to be like in 25 minutes
time? One thing we have to make clear before we start. We're talking
about the biggest cataclysm in human history. When we say things like
"doing well" or "doing badly", those terms are relative.
Any country can be divided into two parts. The "A-country" is the big
cities, the industrial and population centers and the resource
concentration they represent. Big cities got to be that way because
they are in desirable locations, near good ports, river crossings or
mountain passes. When the city goes, so does the locations. The
"B-country" is everything else. In effect the A-country represents big
vulnerable collections of assets gathered into single spots. The
B-country represents dispersed ranges of resources spread over large
areas. This is a very important distinction. The relative value of the
A-country and the B-country depends on the country and society
involved. However one thing is constant, the support and supplies that
the A-country needs to survive comes from the B-country. Given time,
the B-country will rebuild the A-country. The survival of the B-country
is, therefore, critical while the survival of the A-country might not
be. Now, the primary asset of the B-country is its population; they are
the ones who will generate resources from the B-country and turn them
into product. So, the critical thing for a post nuclear environment is
population. Save as much of that as we can and we're a jump ahead. That
sounds eminently humanitarian. In reality it has awful consequences but
we'll come to those later.
The extent to which the A-country can be rebuilt and the speed with
which that can be achieved depends on the damage inflicted on the
cities. Its generally assumed that the cities will be totally destroyed
write-offs but, in reality, the situation is by no means so simple.
There's a few things that are important here. One is that big devices
are a rarity. There are no 100 megaton devices, very few 25 and 10
megaton devices and not all that many 5 megaton weapons. The largest
devices in widespread use are 1 megaton weapons and the majority of
strategic weapons are in the 350 -150 kiloton bracket. 50 kiloton
strategic weapons are quite common. The reason is quite simple. The
destructive power of an explosion is distributed in three dimensions
(actually four since the time component is very important) so the
destructive power of a device is directly proportion to the cube root
of its explosive power. Even worse, the destructive effects of a device
are like many other distance related phenomena; they obey the inverse
square law. Double the distance from the blast center and the effects
are reduced by a factor of four. Therefore, a 1 megaton device is not
1,000 times as destructive as a 10 kiloton device, its ten times as
such and those effects attenuate rapidly with distance. However, very
big devices are MUCH heavier than small ones and consume
disproportionate amounts of fissile material. Put all this together and
its much more productive to have a large number of small devices than a
small number of large ones.
Another is how the devices are used. The radius of destruction of
nuclear devices is actually quite limited; this is a natural outgrowth
of working on the inverse square law. Even with one of the "big" 1
megaton weapons, its fury is largely spent by the time the blast wave
has reached ten miles from center. The smaller devices have lesser
radii although the workings of the cube power rule mean that those
radii are not as small as the difference in explosive power suggests.
Nevertheless, the relatively limited effect of the devices shows that
the general civilian presumption that ground zero for a nuclear strike
on a city will be the city center is likely to be wrong. The devices
will be targeted onto specific parts of the city that are judged to be
of especial value. These may actually be in the suburbs or other
peripheral areas.
So how does a nuclear device destroy things? The primary effects that
result from the initiation of a device are (in no particular order) a
light flash, a heat flash a blast concussion wave and a sleet of direct
radiation. In fact, of these the last is of relatively little
significance. The range of the radiation is very short and is further
attenuated by the inverse square law. Its only significant within the
areas where blast and heat are already lethal. If thermal blast and
concussion have already reduced you to the size, shape and color of a
McDonalds hamburger, irradiating you as well is incredibly superfluous.
Thus the direct effects we are interested in are light, heat and blast
and they do arrive in that order. The further an observer is from the
point of initiation, the greater the gap between them. This is very
important. The flash of light that will blind a victim close in serves
to warn a potential victim further out. Once a few miles out from
ground zero, the light flash tells the population that a device has
gone off and its shadows show them sheltered areas from the next
effects to arrive. If an area is shadowed from light, its shadowed from
radiant heat as well. The heat flash is the first really destructive
effect to hit. This is direct radiated thermal energy; like light it
travels in straight lines. It will set anything inflammable on fire to
a considerable distance from ground zero. Interestingly, it won't set
non-flammable things on fire and, for example, must enter a house via
windows etc before setting that house on fire. If the windows are
masked (for example painted white), the heat flash is unlikely to set a
brick-built house on fire (US-style frame houses are a different matter
which is why it makes me uneasy living in one).
Last to arrive is blast. Unlike light and heat, both of which travel in
straight lines, blast can be funneled by structures, deflected and
masked. The windows we carefully painted white are history; smashed by
the blast wave and its associated wave front of debris but they've done
their job. The heat flash has gone. Houses are actually quite well
designed to resist pressure from outside - its pressure from inside
that gives them problems. Again, if you can keep the blast out you've
got a good chance. Impossible close in to ground zero but progressively
easier as we get further from that point. Closing the shutters on
windows inside the house is good; even taping the glass in a lattice
pattern is astonishingly helpful. Compared with military targets,
civilian structures have relatively low damage resistance. In the
language this is called protection factor (PF) - most civilians can,
with a few minutes warning give themselves a PF of around 40 - meaning
they are 40 times more likely to survive than an unprotected civilian.
In other words, even though the structures surrounding them are soft
and weak, there is a lot they can do that will greatly increase their
chance of survival. Note that - even when the sirens are going off,
there is still a lot you can do that greatly increases your chances of
surviving - provided you have a chance of surviving in the first place.
For all intents and purposes, the effects of initation are generated in
the center of the device initiation and travel outwards evenly in all
dimensions to produce a perfectly symmetrical sphere or fireball. Now
think of the geometry of this. If the device is initiated at ground
level, a so-called ground burst, half of all that energy will go into
the ground, scouring out a crater but effectively being wasted. More
goes skywards. Some will be reflected down towards the earth but very
little; effectively that energy too is wasted. The only energy that is
actually useful is that produced in a narrow segment around the equator
of the spherical ball produced by the initiation. Thus, for this type
of attack ground bursts seem very inefficient. They are.
So what do we do about it? Again, think of the geometry. If we lift the
detonation point into the air, the segment of the sphere that will
spend its energy destroying valuable things is increased and the amount
that scours out a crater gets smaller. Keep thinking along these lines
and we reach a point where the sphere of the fireball doesn't quite
touch the ground at all. In this case almost all the energy from the
lower half of the fireball destroys valuable things and none goes to
digging a crater. This is called a low airburst and it remains a low
airburst as long as the altitude of the point of initiation of the
device is less than the diameter of the fireball. If the point of
initiation of the device is at an altitude greater than the diameter of
the fireball it's a high airburst. If the intention is to knock down
cities, low airbursts are the most effective way of doing it.
We haven't mentioned fall-out. The dreaded stuff that destroys
humanity. Well, there's a reason for that; the device has only just
been initiated, there isn't any fall-out yet. Fall out is caused
(mostly) by debris from the ground being sucked into the fireball,
irradiated and spewed out of the top. This radioactive plume coalesces
in the atmosphere and falls back to earth. It's a mix of isotopes of
varying half lives. The most vicious of these isotopes have short half
lives and are gone in a few hours. The milder ones can hang around for
millennia. Now the blast and heat throw debris outwards, where does the
debris sucked into the fireball come from? Answer is the crater scoured
in the ground by the energy from the device that went into said ground.
But hang on, we've just discovered the best way to knock a city down is
to use an airburst that doesn't crater the ground. Doesn't that mean no
fallout? That's right, airbursts are relatively clean from a fallout
point of view. They do generate some fallout from atmospheric dust and
water vapor and a bit more (some very nasty) comes from the debris of
the device but not as much as legend holds.
All this means that dropping a nuclear device on a city doesn't
necessarily destroy it. In fact, an acquaintance of mine, Peter Laurie,
used to start off his lecture on such things by suggesting that 1
megaton device dropped on London would do only trivial damage to the
city. After the lynch mob had been brought under control, he'd put a
pie cutter on a demographic map of London and prove the point. That
device would leave approximately 80 percent of the population and a
stunning 95 percent of its assets undestroyed. To be fair, that
includes people and property slightly damaged but repairable. The catch
is that London wouldn't have been hit by one but by several (in fact
four 350 kiloton and two 1 megaton weapons in one particular attack
plan). This would still leave a substantial proportion of the
population and a larger proportion of their assets intact. The
implication of all this is that despite being subject to concentrated
attack, the A-country isn't totally destroyed (although its society is)
and remains a storehouse of people and good.
So what's been going on in the B-country. One attack pattern is to hit
the nuclear weapons stationed out there. These are mostly silo-based
missiles. The only way to destroy those is to explode a device directly
on top of the silo and scour out of the ground. In other words, a
ground burst. And they create fallout. This means that a counter-force
strike is inherently much more dangerous to the survival of the
population than a counter city strike. Weird isn't it. Attacking the
population gives them a reasonable chance of survival while restricting
the target plan to military targets radically decreases that chance of
survival. It's a point we've seen happening over and over again - when
dealing with nuclear weapons we often end up going places we never
thought we would. The B-country also gets hit by counter-city strikes
but the dispersed nature of the population reduces their direct
effects.
OK so its over. The devices have ceased to arrive and eventually,
probably after some 36 to 48 hours the all clear
sounds. What happens now? From now on we're looking specifically at the
USA.
We have to get the B-country working again. The cities are not places
to live. Without their support infrastructure, they will become plague
pits and charnel houses. They have to be evacuated and the people
distributed in the B-country to make up for losses there. In the
B-country people are ambling around with Geiger counters plotting
what's hot and what isn't. At this point life gets grim. We triage the
population. One triage is condition. Who cannot be saved, who can only
be saved with massive (and probably impractical) effort, who can be
saved with the means available and who will recover without treatment.
On top of this is another triage. The population is prioritized
according to need for protection. Pregnant women and children are top,
young women of childbearing age second. Young men third, older men
fourth, old women bottom. This is ruthless and brutal but its essential
for survival. Given a choice between saving a young woman who can bear
children and an old woman who cannot, we save the potential mother. We
do the same with food. Food and water are checked for radioactivity.
The clean food goes to the children and young women, the more
contaminated food to the lower priority groups. That old woman? She
gets the self-frying french-fries.
In this situation the US has a terrific advantage over the rest of the
world. Its called the Second Amendment. The B-country population is
largely armed, sometimes quite heavily. They do exactly what Founding
Fathers envisaged - provide a body of armed people whom the local
authority can assemble to maintain order. (The Supreme Court may argue
that interpretation of the Second Amendment but by now they are doing
so with the people who wrote it). In a more general sense,
post-holocaust fiction usually has gangs of outlaws preying on the
defenseless citizenry. Interestingly that doesn't seem to happen. In
disasters people tend to work together rather than against eachother
(for example in US urban disasters Hells Angels biker gangs have made
sterling contributions to relief efforts using their bikes and riding
skills to get emergency supplies through to places others can't). While
lawlessness and disorder do occur, the ease of forming a civilian
militia (using the term properly here meaning something very much like
the Sheriff?s Posse beloved of Westerns) brings that situation under
control. Other countries are unlikely to be so fortunate.
So we're in a race. Can we rebuild the B-country so that its firstly
self-sustaining without the services provided by the A-country while
the stockpile of pre-attack assets survive. Can we reconstruct a
working society fast enough so that we can feed enough people to keep
going? Can the surviving women bear enough children (and survive doing
so) to replace the death toll. For the loss won't stop with the attack.
Diseases we consider trivial today, measles, chickenpox, influenza,
will be mass killers. No medical treatment. Unless your lucky enough to
be where some medical facilities have survived, a broken leg that gets
infected is likely to be a death sentence. Its possible to look on this
world as a 17th century US colonial environment and there's a lot of
truth in that. The downside is that the colonial pioneers didn't have
the decaying charnel houses of the cities to worry about.
Winning that race is vital. Lose and we're extinct. The population
drops like a stone as disease, radiation and injury take their toll.
Then, it should bottom out and start to recover. Teams of older men and
infertile women go to the cities to recover what they can. The
radiation levels continue to drop. Fortunately we don't have to worry
about nuclear winter, that's been largely discredited (the atmospheric
models that were used were far too simplistic and the reality seems to
be we may actually get a more temperate and less changeable climate out
of things - somebody once described it as a Nuclear Autumn). The ozone
layer also won't be a problem - it'll regenerate fast enough and the
effects of the bombs may actually be beneficial.
The ugly side of life continues. Abortion and contraception are likely
to be highly illegal. We MUST have those babies. There will be more
than enough parents who have lost their own (or have received too high
a radiation dose) to look after any that are unwanted. Women are
enslaved by their reproductive systems again. Don't like that but there
is nothing we can do about it. The social pressure on women to have
children will be immense in both material and moral senses. Women who
can have children get the best of everything, the cleanest and best
food, the most comfortable housing, the most careful protection. Women
who can have children but refuse to do so will be social outcasts (and
in this sort of society to be an outcast is virtually a death
sentance). We're likely to see a situation where women of childbearing
age are "protected" by severe restrictions ("don't go outside the
house, the radiation may harm your babies" gets abbreviated to "don't
go outside") . This is a grim and disturbing picture; we take an old
woman out of her house and throw her in the snow to provide shelter for
a pregnant mother and her children - then lock her in. Newborn babies
obviously damaged by radiation are likely to be killed on the spot.
That may or may not be justifiable but I think its inevitable.
No electricity, limited medicine, almost no dentistry, no travel - we
really are back to the middle ages. The fallout patterns and other
things shift so its likely we'll see communities having citadels they
can retreat to if necessary. Gasoline runs out cars will go; we're back
to horses for transport. Fortunately we don't need factories to make
more horses. Justice by the way is run by Judge Lynch. Don't expect to
attack a woman and survive. Guns are also a declining asset. As the
ammunition runs out we'll be making weapons in blacksmiths shops. Its
interesting to see what the designers will come up with, using modern
know-how with 17th century assets. We'll probably see bows and arrows
come back into fashion - and that means metal body armor.
Eventually when conditions permit, our new society moves back to
rebuild the A-country. It'll be a long, long time before there is
another Federal Government (such things need technology to survive - a
calculated guess is that it would take two centuries before a powerful
central government evolved again - if it evolves)
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Countess Marina
Stuart, ah, how do the Southern Countries fit into this equation? IE,
what is Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Peru, Australia, and New Zealand
going to be doing while the Northern Hemisphere largely goes up in
smoke?
Assuming some time after today, since South Africa would be out of the
equation then.. From the Pandemic. Are these countries going to be
targeted at all? Or would a massive worst-case scenario involving the
USA, Russia, China, Britain, France, and possibly India and Pakistan as
well?
I'm assuming the other nations of the Northern Hemisphere will be too
busy fighting off massive crowds of refugees and trying to survive
radioactive contamination, ect, even if not directly hit. So, the major
nations of the Southern Hemisphere.. Where would they fit into the
recovery? Would they, too, be pre-occupied with survival? Or could
anything be spared? Or would they be targeted as well?
Also, in this vein, assuming you lived in a small coastal fishing
village on the Pacific Coast of the USA and the nuclear laydown came,
and you had a sailing yacht and enough food for a long sea voyage, for
the best life possible, which country should you raise sail for? And
would it be any different on the Atlantic Coast?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Stuart Slade
If I understand Soviet targeting correctly, they were going to toss a
few at virtually everybody. Their logic was that in a post-laydown
world, those countries that were not involved would become world powers
at the expense of those who were. So the Sovs were reputed to have
targeted everybody so that we all started on the road to recovery from
a level playing field. That may or may not be correct. If their
planning did go that way, it may have had as much to do with justifying
the numbers of weapons in their arsenal as anything else. They tended
to build first and plan later.
Where to go, where to go.
South certainly. The Galapagos Islands sound nice. I've some
well-placed friends in Chile so that might be OK. Go to far West and we
start to run into problems with the US bases in the Pacific. Just
visualizing the map, I think I'll go and raise giant tortoises in the
Galapagos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Countess Marina
Alright, Stuart, next question... Considering the state of the current
Russian nuclear arsenal and all that... Is their targeting system today
likely limited to China, America, France, and the UK? I mean, based on
the number of operational weapons, they'd want to target the real
threats and just hope that the Argentinans don't want to colonize
Russia before they're back on their feet. The decay would limit the
number of weapons they have availible, so wouldn't it be logical to
assume that they would focus on the USA, UK, France, and China these
days, and that the Southern Hemisphere, other than India-Pakistan,
would be largely unaffected by direct hits, which would be helped by
the fact that they wind patterns and such of the two hemispheres are
partially seperate, and so on..
So that the only damage to the southern hemisphere nations would be in
terms of lost trade with the northern hemisphere ones?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Hoahao
I think you are probably correct....... I would think that the Russians
could maintain a certain flexability in targeting. An easy thing would
be to maintain a few gravity bombs and use bombers. It may be relativly
easy for them to switch the targeting on their missiles too. In half an
hour, or maybe 10 minutes, or even less, you have switched an ICBM from
Washington DC to Teheran. I doubt they are wasting much resources on
the Argentines now. I suspect they are largely concerned with usual
list of front line enemies, the USA, Europe, China, and the countries
on the southern borders. What is the real question is what level of
warhead numbers makes you a serious threat. Previous discussions seem
to point to merely having one bomb.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Declan
That was an interesting read , my only comments on it , tend to be that
seems after every type of disaster , there seems to be a mini baby
boom. While I don't think any doctor would perform an abortion on a
healthy women , i also don't think they would get much in the way of
traffic either ,with the exception of any one that believes that the
child took enough rads . As for contraception , thats a bit more harder
to believe , as most people are using them , not for contraceptive
purposes . but against the spread of std's . which , probably will
still be around , no matter the mega tonnages tossed around.
As for the A and B zones , specifically in the U.S. , while the big
cities probably will take a beating , there is still secondary and
tertiary population zones that will survive , depending on the severity
of the american response( Assuming that the opfor started the laydown
in the first place), that the north american continent will shift
several centuries backwards in just a few months , is a bit far
fetched.
I do believe that one of the first things to be done , will be to get
the rail and road networks up and running , or re-routed, gasoline will
go to the armed forces and the FEMA folks , but now would be a great
time to convert all cars over to methane, or hydrogen, or one of the
hybrids, crisis tend to cancel out any opposition .
Declan
Howard C. Berkowitz
or are your skills limited to cut and paste?
akl...@attbi.com
aeio...@hotmail.com wrote:
> http://p076.ezboard.com/fhistorypoliticsandcurrentaffairs68862frm2.showMessage?topicID=22.topic
>
>
> The Nuclear Game
>
>
>
> Author: Stuart Slade
>
> When we've been discussing nuclear weapons, we've always been working
> under the presumption that the historical situation applies and that we
> won't see a nuclear exchange. Lets look at the grim side of the
> equation now.
In other words: "We better surrender to Iran NOW rather than risk them
attacking us with nukes."
edi...@netpath.net
going to be overwhelmingly core urban Blue Nation that gets eliminated.
That will drastically shift the remaining voters for all future
elections - and also end Red Nation's having to carry cities like New
York City and Newark on de facto internal foreign aid in the form of
"urban aid," mass-transit money, etc.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
Howard C. Berkowitz
<"edi...@netpath.net"> wrote:
> No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com'
Nonsense. I was born in Newark. Nuclear strikes would merely clean up
some of the trash. Mere radiation isn't going to do much to someone
brought up in a toxic waste dump.
For a British perspective on an equivalent target, John Betjeman wrote:
Slough
------
Come friendly bombs and fall on Slough!
It isn't fit for humans now,
There isn't grass to graze a cow.
Swarm over, Death!
Come, bombs and blow to smithereens
Those air -conditioned, bright canteens,
Tinned fruit, tinned meat, tinned milk, tinned beans,
Tinned minds, tinned breath.
Mess up the mess they call a town-
A house for ninety-seven down
And once a week a half a crown
For twenty years.
And get that man with double chin
Who'll always cheat and always win,
Who washes his repulsive skin
In women's tears:
And smash his desk of polished oak
And smash his hands so used to stroke
And stop his boring dirty joke
And make him yell.
But spare the bald young clerks who add
The profits of the stinking cad;
It's not their fault that they are mad,
They've tasted Hell.
It's not their fault they do not know
The birdsong from the radio,
It's not their fault they often go
To Maidenhead
And talk of sport and makes of cars
In various bogus-Tudor bars
And daren't look up and see the stars
But belch instead.
In labour-saving homes, with care
Their wives frizz out peroxide hair
And dry it in synthetic air
And paint their nails.
Come, friendly bombs and fall on Slough
To get it ready for the plough.
The cabbages are coming now;
The earth exhales.
Felix D.
<edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
news:1137188647.4...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Let's look at the GOOD side of any such possible nuclear war. It's
> going to be overwhelmingly core urban Blue Nation that gets eliminated.
> That will drastically shift the remaining voters for all future
> elections - and also end Red Nation's having to carry cities like New
> York City and Newark on de facto internal foreign aid in the form of
> "urban aid," mass-transit money, etc.
Well, gee. Here's a great big "Thanks!" from all of us Red Staters stuck in
the Blue Zone. At least my guns will be vaporized, too, so they won't "fall
into the wrong hands" when I'm atoms.
G*rd*n
> > Let's look at the GOOD side of any such possible nuclear war. It's
> > going to be overwhelmingly core urban Blue Nation that gets eliminated.
> > That will drastically shift the remaining voters for all future
> > elections - and also end Red Nation's having to carry cities like New
> > York City and Newark on de facto internal foreign aid in the form of
> > "urban aid," mass-transit money, etc.
New York and New Jersey send more money to the Federal
Government than they get back. Didn't you know that?
Look it up sometime.
"Felix D." <#1Che...@OGPU.org>:
> Well, gee. Here's a great big "Thanks!" from all of us Red Staters stuck in
> the Blue Zone. At least my guns will be vaporized, too, so they won't "fall
> into the wrong hands" when I'm atoms.
You can hope for a counterforce strike.
vikin...@bluebottle.com
You do not read very well, do you? The article about nuke war was
written by your fellow right-wing moonbat!
vikin...@bluebottle.com
G*rd*n wrote:
> <edi...@netpath.net> wrote in message
> > > Let's look at the GOOD side of any such possible nuclear war. It's
> > > going to be overwhelmingly core urban Blue Nation that gets eliminated.
> > > That will drastically shift the remaining voters for all future
> > > elections - and also end Red Nation's having to carry cities like New
> > > York City and Newark on de facto internal foreign aid in the form of
> > > "urban aid," mass-transit money, etc.
>
>
> New York and New Jersey send more money to the Federal
> Government than they get back. Didn't you know that?
> Look it up sometime.
>
>
You can start here:
Red State Welfare Queens
http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Red_State_Welfare_Queens
Red States Feed at Federal Trough, Blue States Supply the Feed
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes
Paid:
1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03)
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84)
5. Alaska ($1.82)
6. West Virginia ($1.74)
7. Montana ($1.64)
8. Alabama ($1.61)
9. South Dakota ($1.59)
10. Arkansas ($1.53)
In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in
federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States
that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the
states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes
paid are Blue States. Here are the Top 10 states that supply feed for
the federal trough (with Blue States highlighted in bold):
States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes
Paid:
1. New Jersey ($0.62)
2. Connecticut ($0.64)
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77)
6. Minnesota ($0.77)
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79)
9. California ($0.81)
10. New York ($0.81)
Two states -- Florida and Oregon (coincidentally, the two closest
states in the 2000 Presidential election) -- received $1.00 in federal
spending for each $1.00 in federal taxes paid.
vikin...@bluebottle.com
edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> Let's look at the GOOD side of any such possible nuclear war. It's
> going to be overwhelmingly core urban Blue Nation that gets eliminated.
Another fine right-wing patriot - is anyone surprised ?
Felix D.
<vikin...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1139169649.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> > Let's look at the GOOD side of any such possible nuclear war. It's
> > going to be overwhelmingly core urban Blue Nation that gets eliminated.
>
> Another fine right-wing patriot - is anyone surprised ?
The Blue Zone will always be blue: it'll glow that way for 25,000 years, a
warning to the future of what can happen when leftie PC undermines your will
to survive.
Felix D.
<vikin...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1139169507.5...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So once again the liberals are doing what they do best: trying to buy votes
with other people's money. In this case, it's Red Zone votes with Blue Zone
money.
First you libbies refuse to reproduce, then you spend your money everywhere
but at home, you refuse to defend yourselves, and always you wonder why no
one votes for you or takes you seriously.
Morton Davis
<vikin...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:1139169649.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> > Let's look at the GOOD side of any such possible nuclear war. It's
> > going to be overwhelmingly core urban Blue Nation that gets eliminated.
>
> Another fine right-wing patriot - is anyone surprised ?
>
>
continual whine.
shrikeback
>> Let's look at the GOOD side of any such possible nuclear war. It's
>> going to be overwhelmingly core urban Blue Nation that gets eliminated.
>
> Another fine right-wing patriot - is anyone surprised ?
He's just jerking your knee.
2245 Dead
hard to tell. Some of you right wingers are seriously crazy.
>
--
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned bitch,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
shrikeback
"2245 Dead" <zepp2211#2245finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:ojsdu1piu9evs6i90...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 19:22:02 -0800, "shrikeback"
> <hewpi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>><vikin...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
>>news:1139169649.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
>>>> Let's look at the GOOD side of any such possible nuclear war. It's
>>>> going to be overwhelmingly core urban Blue Nation that gets eliminated.
>>>
>>> Another fine right-wing patriot - is anyone surprised ?
>>
>>He's just jerking your knee.
>
> hard to tell. Some of you right wingers are seriously crazy.
Obviously, a good many leftists have knees that jerk at the least
provocation.
Morton Davis
"2245 Dead" <zepp2211#2245finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:ojsdu1piu9evs6i90...@4ax.com...
> <hewpi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><vikin...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
> >news:1139169649.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> >>> Let's look at the GOOD side of any such possible nuclear war. It's
> >>> going to be overwhelmingly core urban Blue Nation that gets
eliminated.
> >>
> >> Another fine right-wing patriot - is anyone surprised ?
> >
> >He's just jerking your knee.
>
> hard to tell. Some of you right wingers are seriously crazy.
>
anima...@yahoo.com
I think the wish is heartfelt.
A lot of people in the outback genuinely hate the fact
that they have to take money from snooty liberals. In
a way they would like to cut it off and live in something
like old-time Afghanistan. But they want the stuff and
they don't know how to produce it themselves.
2245 Dead
You aren't subtle enough for "least provocations" cupcakes.
2245 Dead
wrote:
Yeah, they support all that really stupid shit like human rights and
warning people when a company is making poisonous products and all
kinds of weird stuff that just bad for mafia style business.
James H. Hood
2245 Dead <zepp2211#2245finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:ojsdu1piu9evs6i90...@4ax.com...
> <hewpi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> ><vikin...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
> >news:1139169649.2...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> edi...@netpath.net wrote:
> >>> Let's look at the GOOD side of any such possible nuclear war. It's
> >>> going to be overwhelmingly core urban Blue Nation that gets
eliminated.
> >>
> >> Another fine right-wing patriot - is anyone surprised ?
> >
> >He's just jerking your knee.
>
> hard to tell. Some of you right wingers are seriously crazy.
All of you leftwingers are seriously deluded.