The Armageddon Plan

Aren't we all relieved that the post nuclear war order of succession was recently changed so that after Skynet launches the attact; John Connor takes command?


Seriously, I find the Regan era plan to be much more disturbing.

And some people had the nerve to scoff at my paranoia here

But I'm the kind of guy who worries about EMP weapons, weaponized genetically enhanced smallpox, and the mercury that's in the hep b vaccines. I already get enough from my fillings thank you. And the flouride! My vital fluids! Ack!

[Edited on Mar 22, 2004 by bedukay]

really shows how a president is such powerfull, unique, wise and amazing leader of the nation when you can have 3 more waiting in reserve.
disposeable presidents.

They were already disposable, they only have a maximum of 8 years to serve the country int hat office.

Honestly, I'm not entirely certain what the fuss is about... nuclear weapons changed the playing field a bit, and at the time the probability of a large percentage of the nations leaders being eliminated in a suprise assauly was significantly higher than it was when our constitution was written.

If we were under attack by the damn dirty reds, we would need to be able to get the country in shape in reasonably short order, which would require a plan and more heavily centralized power. It was a risk, but then a lot of things the United States did during the Cold War were fairly risky. It's a scary world we live in, and you wouldn't be a whole lot safer anywhere else. Even the paradise known as Canada has problems.

I don't see the need, really. Once the first bomb hits, it's all over.

[Edited on Mar 22, 2004 4:04AM]

I don't see the problem. If we took nukes and somehow DIDN'T get wiped off the face of the planet, we'd need a president right then and there. I think putting congress back togethor is a good idea, eventually, but quite honestly if we've had NUCLEAR MISSILES rain into our major cities and wipe out most of the population, for God's sake, I'm willing to give up a few damn rights for a while. That's one hell of a desperate situation.

Of course, if this didn't happen maybe we'd finally get to fix up our beat up cars and take to the highways Mad Max style

This just sounds like something Tom Clancy should write about. As in unbelievable.

Then again, Mr Clancy shies away from anything interesting these days. I wish I was 14 again.

I think the major problem is that a "national emergency" is a relative term. If we were all nicely headed back to the stone age, I would agree with you. However, a situation like this could have easily happened during the sept. 11th attacks, especially if the 4th plane had hit the white house. And of course, it wasn't the end of the world, and we managed to somehow carry on without a totalitarian government's help.

-takes off tinfoil hat-

So yeah, that being said, I read shit like this, and there's really only so much you can buy into it....

I think it's completely worth buying in to, the problem is I'm not sure what we can do to stop it. You could move, but chances are your new government will have similar provisions somewhere in its machinery, unless you choose to move somewhere with a weak or non-existent government, a risky proposition in more ways than one (not necessarily a poor choice though).

Also, in the article above it didn't broadly define national emergency, it said very specifically nuclear threat (percieved or real). I'll grant you though, a similar plan was probably devised for a terrorist strike that might take out large chunks of leadership, but that has the same problem--they would have to die or be threatened. Some sort of coup could be engineered out of this of course...but if someone wanted to take control of this country and could exploit those plans to do it--they probably would have found a way anyway.

I guess the point of the article (reading it in full alertness now) was that Cheney and Rumsfield were involved and are currently two of the most powerful people in the country. I don't really have a comment to that, except to say that it seemed practical to me...

I already assume Cheney and Rumsfield run my country anyway, so I'm not that concerned at the propect of them continuing to run it after the rivers boil and the deserts are burned to glass. Shit, I live in the east coast megaopolis between D.C. and NYC, I'm getting radation posioning anyway, let those assholes have the country.

Remember, the living will envy the dead.

Eh, who cares who runs the country after the bombs hit? I'll just get a head start on everyone else and jump in my car with a V8 Interceptor, and drive around the desolate countryside with my dog, kicking peoples asses for gasoline.

Sounds to me like they are setting the country up to be (even more of) a dictatorship after any sort of major disaster. Take away congress and you are taking away one of the links between the "leaders" and the actual people of the country.

[Edited on Mar 22, 2004 by leah_diane]

fuck i hit the wrong button

[Edited on Mar 22, 2004 by leah_diane]

Okay folks take a deep breath and before you lash out at bush for any reason remember these contengency plans have been in effect for all presidents for decades.

Just you and Blood, racing around the desert avoiding the Screamers. God i loved that movie!

Really, any nuclear missiles will be targeted at key points, they won't be carpet bombing the entire country. This would lead to a very decentralized nation of somewhat isolated and anachronistic, but undamaged communities. Chances are that despite what the law says, after such an event you'd find that *in practice* your rights would be greatly expanded.
After all, your rights can only be limited to the degree that your government can enforce imposed limitations.

Yeah, that whole "shadow government" thing after 9-11 really pissed me off, we have a Constitution with a guaranteed line of succession!!! damnit!!!

adjusts my tin foil hat

MAD FUCKING MAX!!!!

well I don't know about anarchy... remember that your local police don't derive their authority from any federal organization, but from the local and state government.
Generally though, I've found that the locals don't really care about crimes that don't affect anyone else. Say hello to de facto drug legalization! (at least for drugs that aren't normally associated with street crime, like marijuana)

[Edited on Mar 22, 2004 by Helter]

I'll send a dollar to the first person who sends me an honest picture of that on a sign at a protest.

I don't need a dollar that badly.

can I use the dollar to snort the newly legalized coke into my nose like a fiend?