Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

The president, the vice president and everyone who would normally become president if such thing happens are also killed?


Lets say everyone in the government period is killed? This incoudes all branches etc

We elect a new loser or we get to watch a cou on television.
Or we just make a temp prez of which ever political shit head is left standing..

And life just goes on....BIG BOWL OF MEH!

If Washington DC was nuked during a state of the union address, and all were killed. Government operations would transfer to the governor of each state. New representatives would be appointed, and they would appoint a temporary president until elections could be held.

I think that is what would happen.

Nobody knows, there aren't any laws relating to it and it's seems so unlikely that nobody really worries about it. As Shakya notes in reality that would have to be done by destroying all of Washington DC. If that happened the country would be in a state of war and the military would step in.

Not sure if this is still valid but wouldn't the Secretary of Defense take over temporarily?

Well in a pretty grim way it would give the US a chance to start things from scratch I think

we would have president biden. decent people would mourn...a portion of morally bankrupt fat old white men and women would celebrate, and history would go on. i think thats actually what would happen.

Chaos followed by a takeover by the military to ensure stability. Go from there.

If Obama was killed the astronomicon would go out and a major daemonic incursion would take place on Earth, resulting in all sentient life in the galaxy being destroyed.

Then woman inherits the Earth.

I think there would many many people trying to assume power. Governers, Secretary of Defence, Military, CIA. It would be civil war imo

no, actually the vice president would take office. its not hypothesis, thats what would happen.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
no, actually the vice president would take office. its not hypothesis, thats what would happen. Read the OP

ok so the topic is just silly then. my bad.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ok so the topic is just silly then. my bad.


High expectations always lead to suffering.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
ok so the topic is just silly then. my bad. its very possible, just bomb a city where they all meet.

Assuming the military is still around and it's just the civilian federal government that's been taken out I can see many possibilities but the most likely ones are that a military junta is set up with absolute control or a military government is set up that delegates authority to state governments until a new federal government is set up.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
its very possible, just bomb a city where they all meet.
I would be surprised if there was ever a point in the last century where every member of the federal government was in the same city at the same time.

Congressmen take vacations and go on tours all the time, ditto for Secretaries.

all levels of civilian government? like, mayors and the like?

except the mayors and state governments

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Assuming the military is still around and it's just the civilian federal government that's been taken out I can see many possibilities but the most likely ones are that a military junta is set up with absolute control or a military government is set up that delegates authority to state governments until a new federal government is set up.


I would be surprised if there was ever a point in the last century where every member of the federal government was in the same city at the same time.

Congressmen take vacations and go on tours all the time, ditto for Secretaries. what if the secretary if defence decide that they should be in charge and the military doesnt agree?

then the mayors and state governments would assume the role of the federal government...

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
what if the secretary if defence decide that they should be in charge and the military doesnt agree?

wait... how does the secretary of defense survive?

Originally posted by inimalist
wait... how does the secretary of defense survive? i might be wrong but i though they werent part of civilian government ,just an angency

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
i might be wrong but i though they werent part of civilian government ,just an angency

lol, ok, I assumed you meant all the power systems were destroyed. There are enough "non-governmental" federal agencies that something could fairly easily be decided. Secretary of Defense would be a good guess for who would take over.

Homeland Security would take over, I would think.

FEMA potentially, if I understand their role

EDIT: actually, FEMA might be the same as HS... guess I really don't know a lot about how American stuff is set up

Originally posted by inimalist
FEMA potentially, if I understand their role
Nah, HLS is bloodthirsty.

I envision a Reign of Terror except waterboarding rather than guillotines.

A big issue would be, who has the ability to access the treasury or collect taxation. HLS, FEMA, etc, these are big agencies, but I'm skeptical any could just assume the role like that, with no financial backing...

makes me wonder if some corporate interests might not get involved as a "financier"

Originally posted by inimalist
A big issue would be, who has the ability to access the treasury or collect taxation. HLS, FEMA, etc, these are big agencies, but I'm skeptical any could just assume the role like that, with no financial backing...

makes me wonder if some corporate interests might not get involved as a "financier"
Idk, I think as mentioned before something like this could only realistically come about thanks to a frighteningly successful cut-the-head-off-the-serpent operation by a hostile power.

If that was the case I'd think there'd be more immediate concerns than taxes lol.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Idk, I think as mentioned before something like this could only realistically come about thanks to a frighteningly successful cut-the-head-off-the-serpent operation by a hostile power.

If that was the case I'd think there'd be more immediate concerns than taxes lol.

I'd question if a foreign power could even do it

it sounds more like a massively coordinated coup, where, ya, again, such issues are probably not the most pressing.

A foreign nation would have to have infiltrated the government to such a ridiculous level that all civilian leaders are killed.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'd question if a foreign power could even do it

it sounds more like a massively coordinated coup, where, ya, again, such issues are probably not the most pressing.

A foreign nation would have to have infiltrated the government to such a ridiculous level that all civilian leaders are killed.
I agree that this sounds like a bad spy thriller plot.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
I think there would many many people trying to assume power. Governers, Secretary of Defence, Military, CIA. It would be civil war imo

The secretary of defense would be dead in this scenario, he's in the official line of succession to the Presidency.

Oh

It would become just like the book 1984 even through with all branches alive it is already coming to that.

Originally posted by Colossus-Big C
The president, the vice president and everyone who would normally become president if such thing happens are also killed?


Lets say everyone in the government period is killed? This incoudes all branches etc

Then the largest criminal organisations would take over, as they have all the resources (weapons, territory, numbers -can you DIG IT!?) to hand already. Martial Law could counter that threat but there would have to be a figurehead to lead them and who would they follow if they were no longer getting paid/looked after?. Many soldiers might just try to protect their families rather than clashing with street gangs or some higher criminal power.

Of course there will be remote locations where people will just bunch up up together for survival and the more power-hungry/egotistical citizens will rise to the top, and ironically be betrayed by other power-hungry/egotistical citizens.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Then the largest criminal organisations would take over,
In America? Doubtful.

They might take control of parts of certain cities, but American organized crime simply isn't what it used to be.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
In America? Doubtful.

They might take control of parts of certain cities, but American organized crime simply isn't what it used to be.

But with lack of organised law in places their numbers would rocket up, either by force or necessity. This would mean that their sheer numbers would be enough to rule the roost.

Of course there will be major turf wars so initially they'll be fighting each other.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
But with lack of organised law in places their numbers would rocket up, either by force or necessity. This would mean that their sheer numbers would be enough to rule the roost.

Of course there will be major turf wars so initially they'll be fighting each other.
You're not arguing from facts, you're arguing from your desire to see The Warriors IRL.

The loss of the central government doesn't mean the complete collapse of law and order on a local level.

Even if it did, gangs would only maybe control inner cities, and only the worst ones like Detroit.

PANIC.....oohh no, run,,,,,, Scream OUT, "Godzillla

http://lp1.pinkbike.org/p4pb6299308/p4pb6299308.jpg

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You're not arguing from facts, you're arguing from your desire to see The Warriors IRL.



I'm merely looking at it from a logical perspective, my previous segue about The Warriors was just an attempt at humour. Nothing more.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
But with lack of organised law in places their numbers would rocket up, either by force or necessity. This would mean that their sheer numbers would be enough to rule the roost.

Of course there will be major turf wars so initially they'll be fighting each other.

why?

the federal government does little to control criminals on a day to day level, and the police forces haven't been removed.

Obama isn't the one stopping the Crips from taking over LA...

also, organized crime in America is nowhere near that organized. They might have some guns (though I can't imagine the American public being unarmed...) but they have nothing like domestic policy. They exist as money making organizations, not as bureaucratic institutions. Hell, this is even true of groups like the Mexican cartels. In very few places do criminal organizations actually begin to provide the services of the state. Hezbollah, sure, some of the Colombian cartels and rebels, some Somali groups, but realistically, a police state is far, far, far more likely in America.

Originally posted by inimalist
why?

the federal government does little to control criminals on a day to day level, and the police forces haven't been removed.

Obama isn't the one stopping the Crips from taking over LA...

also, organized crime in America is nowhere near that organized. They might have some guns (though I can't imagine the American public being unarmed...) but they have nothing like domestic policy. They exist as money making organizations, not as bureaucratic institutions. Hell, this is even true of groups like the Mexican cartels. In very few places do criminal organizations actually begin to provide the services of the state. Hezbollah, sure, some of the Colombian cartels and rebels, some Somali groups, but realistically, a police state is far, far, far more likely in America.

Well that's a good counter argument and I agree with the majority but I think as a general rule that any loss of higher authority, especially with an entire goverment gone gangs would at least be a major worry until a new government could be formed.

You are right of course in suggesting that the police and other law enforcement agencies can act independently and control situations but I don't think this is entirely the case. They may not work as effectively with each other if the backbone of the goverment is removed, all the chain of command would be ruined, particulars like resources and the availibility and management of funds could also take a hit, public anxiety/loss of direction may come in to it. Why is it that when rebels form in a country they go straight for the government if the governments are not needed?

Society has always appeared to be in check then one thing, just one thing like a natural disaster, or a contentious issue, or just anything that rips at the fabric of a country can get a situation out of control, and I think the loss of an entire government could qualify. Hurricane Katrina for example, looting, lawlessness, where was the control in that situation until the government were shamed into doing something about it? Everything was sluggish before it was a national issue - an issue in which the government eventually dealt with because local organisation wasn't there.

I agree the mentality of gangs is to generate money but its not always about money and is more likely about territory, but to get the territory they wouldn't think twice about taking it by force in a country shocked to the core and in a state of indecision. Now that may be my 'movie mentality' like Omega Vision has suggested by bringing up my slight humouous reference to The Warriors but I don't think it's entirely impossible.

if it wasnt for millitary getting involved many cities would have been tooken over by gangs long ago, heck after new orleans disaster gangs took over and national gaurd had to go stop them

New Orleans isn't exactly a good representation of America as a whole. It's always been a very lawless city.

I saw a documentary on New Orleans gangs on the History Channel, it talked about how some NO gangs moved to Houston after Katrina and were shocked that Law Enforcement was actually effective there.

There are a only few examples in American history where organized crime or mobs became such a problem that military forces had to be called in.

Also on the Katrina matter, this OP doesn't specify that infrastructure has been taken out, only the Federal Government. In New Orleans running water, power, and roads were out of commission. In that kind of situation it's easy for anyone with a gun to take control.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Well that's a good counter argument and I agree with the majority but I think as a general rule that any loss of higher authority, especially with an entire goverment gone gangs would at least be a major worry until a new government could be formed.

the entire government isn't gone

state and local officials are still around, as are all of the federal agencies involved in gang policing. The only people gone are those who would be in direct line for president.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
You are right of course in suggesting that the police and other law enforcement agencies can act independently and control situations but I don't think this is entirely the case. They may not work as effectively with each other if the backbone of the goverment is removed, all the chain of command would be ruined, particulars like resources and the availibility and management of funds could also take a hit, public anxiety/loss of direction may come in to it. Why is it that when rebels form in a country they go straight for the government if the governments are not needed?

sure, but a some additional difficulties at coordination at the highest levels wouldn't be close to enough of a vacuum for gangs to take over

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
Society has always appeared to be in check then one thing, just one thing like a natural disaster, or a contentious issue, or just anything that rips at the fabric of a country can get a situation out of control, and I think the loss of an entire government could qualify. Hurricane Katrina for example, looting, lawlessness, where was the control in that situation until the government were shamed into doing something about it? Everything was sluggish before it was a national issue - an issue in which the government eventually dealt with because local organisation wasn't there.

the situations aren't the same at all. For one, the issue in Katrina wasn't that there was no command structure, but that the physical infrastructure was entirely destroyed.

As OV said, no power, no water, nothing.

And still, it would be entirely inappropriate to describe post-Katrina as gangs taking over. There may have been a less organized police presence, but the gangs had no claims to the territory, no people were controlled by their influence. It was a loss in the ability of American law enforcement to enforce the law, not a gain in gang control of any territory.

Originally posted by Lord Shadow Z
I agree the mentality of gangs is to generate money but its not always about money and is more likely about territory, but to get the territory they wouldn't think twice about taking it by force in a country shocked to the core and in a state of indecision. Now that may be my 'movie mentality' like Omega Vision has suggested by bringing up my slight humouous reference to The Warriors but I don't think it's entirely impossible.

Yes, if there were no police or something like that... a loss of the chain of command for president wouldn't create that much of a vacuum at local levels...

Originally posted by Omega Vision
There are a only few examples in American history where organized crime became such a problem that military forces had to be called in.

I tried to find any examples, but all I could find were instances of the use of federal troops to put down riots or rebellions, or like after emergencies.

Knocking out the leaders Federal government would have a huge day to day impact on most people for a very long time. Its not as though the army is constantly keeping enemies from pouring across our borders or something. The real aftermath of an attack like this would come from the emotional impact of knowing such a powerful enemy existed.