"What IF Washington DC Was NUKED???" Topic

History Channel has a show about it next week.

"Against a morning sky, a mushroom cloud spirals heavenward. A nuclear bomb has detonated in the heart of Washington D.C., incinerating 15,000 residents in just 15 seconds. More than 50% of the population living within a 1/2 mile radius of the explosion is either dead or severely injured. The next 24 hours will determine whether the rest of the city lives or dies. To survive this horrific ordeal they will need a plan. And lucky for us--there is one. But will it work? For the first time on television, the Department of Homeland Security reveals the most detailed and comprehensive plan to save America should terrorists go nuclear. This chilling two-hour special delves into the complex and highly secretive world of disaster planning."
link

link
link

I hope that the interviews are like the "honest" portrayals of local and national disaster response officials in Britain in the film "Dirty War":

link
YouTube link

I am comforted more by leaders that say "We don't know, but we will do everything we can", than by those who say "no need to worry, we have a contingency plan for this and everything is proceeding according to our plan"

CC

On a very faintly related note, I've recently heard of a absolutely certainly precognitive dream (that will finally put all the Finnish skeptics to shame when it comes true) that says a nuke will go off in a hotel in DC before the year is out.

If you have any real estate around those parts, now's the time to sell (-;)

Kyoteblue,

But are the so-called missing Soviet warheads all of the bigger type?

Plus there's a lot of material that could be used for a "dirty bomb".

I don't know how reliable those reports are though:

link
link
link
link

CC

I refuse to get Dawghoused for saying anything political here.

The best thing that could happen to the US is for a General to have to take over in an emergency – a General not foolish enough to hand it back to civilian control. We need a decade or so under a military junta to understand both what freedom is and what strength is.

As for disaster planning – there's always a disaster bigger than you planned for. That's the lesson from Katrina that no one learned. Of course a better lesson – for both war and disaster – is to shoot all the journalists at the outset.

No guts, no glory ! <lol>

Number6,

LOL. Were you and I separated at birth?

Honestly though, if DC was out of the picture, even if a few Congressmen were left trying to restore order, my feeling is that centralized civilian control will never be restored without a brief but drastic military regime.

The question would be how many regions of the US will submit to that central military command, and how many would resist it as an abomination of what they feel civil government is all about. Many will not accept a military regime, no matter how short it is, regardless of how much it is needed in a time of chaos. But, on the other hand, many more will see the value of having decisive leaders that are willing to do whatever needs to be done, until things "normalize".

CC

So, does that mean Philly will be the Capitol again, by default?

I think this is too funny:

link
link
link

I can believe a future Texas Republic that would annex Oklahoma, Arkansas and Northern Louisiana. Not sure about New Mexico though. And I don't think it would annex anything east of the Mississippi River.

And it would never subdue to Mexico, as that Russian "expert" claims. Before that ever happened, Texas would have to lose a second Texas-Mexico war. And I don't see that happening, despite these outrageous claims:

picture

Think of all the awesome gaming scenarios you can create from all these theoretical situations!!!!

CC

"most detailed and comprehensive plan to save America should terrorists go nuclear"

One diddy nuke is not going to destory a whole country, however unpleasant it is. 15,000 dead? how many people die in car accidents every year?

A proper nuclear attack (ie massed missile and air delivered weapons, supplemented with bio and chem weapons) is another matter, as there are some very unpalateable decisions to make for the surviving control centres.

"complex and highly secretive world of disaster planning."

Yea right, disaster planning is really secret and complex. (well, it can be complex).

Hands up everyone who has taken part in disaster planning please.

"Hands up everyone who has taken part in disaster planning please"

(raises hand)

I might be wrong, but I think that 15,000 killed in any other city in a single day would be disastrous, but would not have the same symbolic impact as a nuke in DC would cause.

Just imagine a situation where POTUS, VP, Speaker and half of Congress were taken out at the same time. The remaining legislators may want to continue representing civil authority throughout the country but, outside of the constituents back in their respective states, I don't think they would be successful in holding it together (as a civil government).

I think the military would step in for a while (the shorter the better), until conditions allow for a restoration of civil government throughout the nation.

Just my thought.

In either case, I think this has LOTS of potential for gaming scenarios. Don't you think?

CC

The best thing that could happen to the US is for a General to have to take over in an emergency – a General not foolish enough to hand it back to civilian control. We need a decade or so under a military junta to understand both what freedom is and what strength is.

See, there's two ways that could be interpreted….

Personally;
I think Jeffersonian philosophy would get a much needed shot in the arm,
and the Hamiltonian ideal would take quite some time to re-assert itself.

I think the country would never recover….
…from the loss of the Smithsonian Museum…

I think the shock would be as great as 9-11,
but the actual long-term effects would be minimal;
short term would be Chaos.

I can believe a future Texas Republic that would annex … it would never subdue to Mexico

Once the annexation starts, I'll wager Texas annexes Mexico…
Texaco.

Texaco!!! LOL

I love it. I love it.

Imagine miniatures with the Texaco emblem on their arm!

picture

It would be a bit hard to do that on 15mm figures though. But, at least, it would be in the colors of the very first Lone Star flag on record:

link

Or, perhaps, like my wife suggests, it should have a large "Lone" Star at the top, with 3 or 4 teeny tiny stars beneath (one for OK, AR, NLA and, possibly, Mexico). :)

CC

The best thing that could happen to the US is for a General to have to take over in an emergency – a General not foolish enough to hand it back to civilian control. We need a decade or so under a military junta to understand both what freedom is and what strength is.

Oh you mean Military Dictators like the ones you installed in South America, etc, look how well they turned out…

Now back on topic:

A nuke on Washington would be devastating for much of the US in the short term, as it is the capital and control centre for federal purposes, I would lay money that it is a key in the communication net for the Northern part of the US, and the loss of a hub of that kind would have a serious knock on effects. Also a lot of the disaster planners in Federal employ are likely to have been lost in the explosion so I hope the disaster plans etc are held in multiple locations.

That and with fall out and depending on the prevailing winds you are likely to lose a lot more lives and real estate than just the blast zone.

Long live Texaco! And if they had any sense they would annexe the whole of the Gulf coast. If nothing else the stranglehold on the Gulf oil would then force the remaining US to deal rather than fight.

To be sure to get the POTUS, they'd have to also hit a series of New York and Los Angeles television stations. No telling what talk show he'll appear on next.

I think its actually a security measure -- sort of like the Intercontinental Ballistic Winnebago. Keep the missiles moving around the country, and no one will know where they are.

So that we may continue the discussion here on what the national repercussions would be – not just Texas – I've started a separate thread on a (very crazy) Texas scenario:

TMP link

CC

"Just imagine a situation where POTUS, VP, Speaker and half of Congress were taken out at the same time."

I believe in the US there is a line of succession for the Presidency right through the Cabinet, so unless the nuke took out the entire govenment there is still going to be a head of state and a CinC.

One bomb is not going produce a military government, although you will undoubtedly have martial law in the immediate disaster zone.

Unlike Britain, the centre of government and centre of the financial system aren't in the same place, so the US would be better placed to deal with the crisis from an economic pov. Essentially what you've got is a nuclear Katrina, very unpleasant for everyone caught up in it, but not a blow to the body politic.

So, does that mean Philly will be the Capitol again, by default?

Atlanta is the alternate site for most federal administrative functions if DC is destroyed.

Fifteen thousand dead is a very small nuke. Much of the government isn't in D.C. but in outlying areas. As for losing Congressmen and Senators and such, we have a system to replace them. And keep in mind the country doesn't quit running while Congress isn't in session. Other than the symbolism of it, I doubt nuking D.C. would have any long term effect on the country as far as causing it to split up into warring fiefdoms.

In the absence of the president and senate, maybe that nice mr Cheney could take over…
But seriously, this is a fascinating thread. I remember hearing somewhere – and I don't know if it's true or not – that Russia has at least one suitcase nuke missing.
A nuke going off on American soil would probably mean the end of the world. Surely there'd be nuclear retaliation against the perceived perpetrator?
However, what I find particularly interesting is the idea of martial law, FEMA camps and American troops on the streets. As CC said, I feel a lot of gun toting American citizens would be against this and it could even break into civil war. A lot of people would claim a nuke was a "false flag attack" designed to instigate a military takeover.

You probably should have said that at the Blue Fez, FredBloggs.

Meh. No big deal.

Honestly though, if DC was out of the picture, even if a few Congressmen were left trying to restore order, my feeling is that centralized civilian control will never be restored without a brief but drastic military regime.

Why on Earth would you think that? Most of the day-to-day governance of the US is done at the State and local level; we'd just move the Capitol and hold some special elections. We pretty much burned every city in Europe in WW2, and those countries didn't disintegrate – it takes a lot more than the loss of a single city to destroy a nation.
-Kle.

I always click on threads like this fearfully.

The claim that it's chock-full of gaming ideas is mentioned. None are. Instead it's a chance for the more demented of TMPers to indulge in their oddly fascistic fantasies.

Er… it's worse than I thought apparently…
link
link
link
However, I have to ask, if all these mental terrorist groups have these weapons, what are they waiting for? Why has Israel not been nuked yet? Or Britain? Or America? Or are these things going on every day in a game of threat and payment that we don't get to hear about?

It would sure mess up my commute.

And it would be a lot harder to get to Historicon in Baltimore.

POTUS, VP, Speaker and half of Congress were taken out at the same time.

picture

I am sure it was a simple misunderstanding…

I'd really miss all my friends and family members in the area. A great loss would be the memorials and museums.

As for the other stuff, well.

Well, whatever government emerged – and I think it would be a civilian one, not a military – it would be hard line, hard boiled and mad as hell – so what out, rest of world

As to the disintegration theory, a good read is Richard Morgan's novel 13 (sold in the UK as Black Man) – great read and lots of potential scenarios there

I am with Klebert on this- I don't see how this would make the slightest bit of difference in the long run. Seriously, do people really, honestly think that DC is the center of everything to do with the federal government? All these plans for what happens if the capital gets destroyed already exist, and have existed since the Cold War (I'll also point out the capital got *burnt down* in the War of 1812 and yet here we are). The levels of succession in the event of the president's death is well runs dozens of people deep, and there's a reason why these people aren't allowed to all be in the same place at the same time.

This doesn't account for all those state governments that are untouched, either- they can keep happily ticking along for quite some time if need be.

I actually think that of all the cities on the east coast, DC is probably one of those that we could most afford to lose- this is not a political statement, but instead taking into account economic and transportation issues, etc.

Basically, losing DC would be a bigger cultural blow then a political one.

'Fun' topic to speculate about, but it would take a lot more then one nuke in DC to really knock the federal government out for the count.

-Will

"A nuke going off on American soil would probably mean the end of the world. Surely there'd be nuclear retaliation against the perceived perpetrator?"

If you could find out who they were.

There wasn't any nuclear retaliation in either 24 or The Sum of all Fears, the responses all seemed quite plausible (insofar as Agents Bauers responses are ever plausible;-)

To actually destroy a country with the application of firepower takes a great deal of firepower, far more than one diddy nuke is going to generate. Look at the tonnage of bombs delivered on North Vietnam. One nuke is not going to bring down the US government, nor start a new civil war nor start WW3. Nukes on every major urban centre, strategic nuclear targets, power generation, command and communications hubs would be another matter.

The only 'game' I can see coming out of this scenario is the National Guard getting to shoot some looters in the disaster zone. There might be an interesting logistics game to be had in terms of evacuating and treating survivors, triaging casualties, repairing infrastructure, allocating lift capacity, moving supplies and rescue equipment into the area etc but wargamers don't really like logistics. You could do it as a commitee/discussion type game, maybe with maps of the DC area to assist the planning. Rather like planning for a real nuclear attack…

The attack/response cycle might also make for an interesting game or one about searching for the perpetrators, but again, probably not a conventional tabletop game. We did the hunt for WMDs using a variant of Cluedo (The IRA in Siberia with bio weapons…. you get the idea).

"Surely there'd be nuclear retaliation against the perceived perpetrator?"

You know I went to sleep on 9/11 fully expecting to wake up on 9/12 to find the world had a radioactive hole in it somewhere…

I agree – a terrorist scale nuke would make a mess of DC and no-one will be doing any work there for a couple of weeks, but it won't wreck the administration.

"if all these mental terrorist groups have these weapons, what are they waiting for?"

After the recent emails over the whole plan to hit planes with liquid explosives, I've come to the conclusion that;

a) Terrorists aren't the brightest people

b) They're in love with the whole "James Bondness" of the situation and seem to get carried away with the coolness of being able to send each other emails full of codenames for things that their actual attacks aren't all that brilliantly planned out.

If they've got their hands on nukes, they're all sat around sending each other emails asking for the "shipping status" of "the parcel" and other wank like that.

The bomb, meanwhile, is in someone's kitchen, has had curry dropped on it twice and the clock says 88:88 because they haven't actually worked out how to set the timer on it yet.

Count me with wminsing & klebert.

DC is only the "center of everything" to people with a certain political mindset, and the layers of succession run deep. We may have the Secretary of Education at the next Pres (ala BSG.)

While those that rely most on a big government to carry the weight of responsibility may be fearful of this fracturing and fiefdom thing (and some who want power may gravb at the opportunity), I am convinced the *majority* of the nation will reel and be in a bit if chaos, but will still go to work the next day, school for the kids, and abide by the laws and rules in place.

Not because we are sheep, but because we are and have always been a nation of laws – and abiding by those laws brings the level of normalcy needed to recover… not splitting into various mini-nations.

Despite all this talk about Texas, I would step back, check the words already out of the mouths and the actions so far of the other side of the political spectrum, and see that the potential power-grabs and opportunistic "taking advantage of the crisis" is far more in line with a certain political & philisophical bent.

Fortunately, they are outnumbered, and any gains due to the chaos would be temporary at best.

I agree with Martin, a nuke going off in DC probably would NOT result in a breakdown of the Federal government.

This is exactly the kind of contingency that (for obvious reasons) we planned for very thoroughly during the Cold War. In fact, this scenario isn't nearly as bad, because Cold War planning assumed much of the rest of the country had been nuked too.

The line of succession is very long and detailed, and is designed for this precise tragedy. SOMEONE in the line of succession would almost certainly survive, and become President (much like the Education Secretary becoming president in Battlestar Galactica!).

Each state has laws governing replacement of congressmen and Senators, as we are seeing with Ted Kennedy's seat right now. Although it would be unprecedented to replace so many members of Congress at once, the principles would be the same. Furthermore, in less than two years, it would be election time again, and properly elected members of congress would be returned for the house and 1/3 of the Senate.

The successor President would have the power to nominate new Justices to the Supreme Court, but this would probably be a fairly low priority in the immediate aftermath.

I think you guys who like to joke that it would be great to "clean out" DC this way should go live in Somalia for a while, and see how much better things are without a government. Our media, both on the right and the left, makes a living pointing out the inevitable failures of government. What rarely gets covered are the quieter, day-to-day successes of government. Roads keep getting built. Medicare is provided. The military continues to be trained, equipped, and supported in vast overseas deployments. Judges and courts continue to provide peaceful (if sometimes imperfect) remedies to disputes. The mail is delivered. Regulations keep people safe from dangerous products & pollution. Etc., etc.

Finally, one of the great virtues of Americans is that we have never been foolish enough to succumb to the temptation of dictatorship, be it fascist, communist, or otherwise. I don't think we need "10 years under a junta" to learn anything about freedom or "strength." Please keep that kind of fascist nonsense overseas where it belongs.

CC, a couple thoughts here.

I think 9/11 showed how fragile social infrastructure and economics really are. In the short term, there would be some chaos, less so long term.

Again, I think 9/11 showed that we, US citizens, are much less likely to fragment during a ntional crisis caused by an external threat. In contrast, for one brief shining moment, many of us who often identify ourselves with a variety of labels, remembered that we were Americans first, and other things second to that.

If DC were nuked, I think that mostly, we would come together together, work to resolve the short term chaos, help those most in need, and then unify against whatever we perceived as the enemy in a way that hasn't been seen since WWII.

Over time we would resolve our problems to a tolerable level, and fade into disunity, being more concerned with whether our fellow Americans were Yankees fan or Dodgers fans, and complain about how they were un-American for rooting for the wrong team.

Thanks to President Jack Ryan, we don't have to worry about it.

Mexican Jack and Ivan both speak with great wisdom. Unfortunately they are in the minority…

Well, at least Fallout3 players will be able to navigate the landscape more easily….

Hearts and minds gentlemen. For governments to fail, you have to break the people's will. Vietnam, Korea, Palestine, Soviet Union, Germany, Great Brittan… These countries don't fail because the people's will refuses to fail. America may have her problems, but a lack of love from her people is not one of them.

There is a (quite old now) made-for-TV movie called "By the Dawn's Early Light", which is quite relevant to all this – not a great film, a bit soapy at times and with some silly stuff in it, but fun to watch – a bit Doctor Strangelove without the funny bits.
In a nutshell, the US gets nuked by the Russkies after a "bit of a mix-up", the President (Martin Landau….) is missing (presumed dead) and the Secretary for Agriculture is the highest surviving member of the government – who has to take decision of whether to go for all-out retaliatory strike or not.
It's available on DVD quite cheaply, and is worth watching on a wet Sunday afternoon.

"What IF Washington DC Was NUKED???"

That would be a bad thing.

I came into this late…
However I am glad to see that Russian Professors are as ed up as ours are. That is reassuring.

Since EVERYBODY who is taking part in this thread is due for the DH (we are just waiting for the maids to get the rooms ready), I would suggest that if they REALLY wanted to screw us, they should wait until the current POTUS is out of town, and THEN nuke DC.

The constitution would still go on.

It would be like a genocide against lawyers though wouldn't it?

I've played Fallout III and I am certain I could restore order and government in about 50-60 hours of gameplay. Sure, the Supermutants and robots around the Washington Memorial will be tough but once I grab the Fat Boy it should just be an academic exercise. Close is good enough for a mini-nuke.

So don't worry. I've got this one under control.

erm….'terrorists are called that for a REASON'….(or anarchists…etc)…

IF you really wanted to 'mess up' the USA, forget bombing D.C. (besides using a neutron or 'dirty' bomb would kill more people without messing up all the monuments, libraries and other USEFUL stuff…)

Nawww…I'd go out to the middle of the YELLOWSTONE area…(where that SUPERVOLCANO is 'biding it's time), pretending to be a seismic study group or something…finding the weakest point in the crustal area…(where we know the next 'blast' is building…) and then set off the biggest explosion I could manage as deep underground as I could…(they planned something like that in 'A view to a kill' with Christopher Walken and 007…(and using conventional explosives on top of piles of fertilizer bags…after using pumps to raise ground water tables with ocean water as a 'lube' to get the San Andreas Fault to 'slip'/aka SILICON VALLEY…

IF (when) Yellowstone's supervolcano does blow….it'll make any eruption (even Kraktoa) seem like firecrackers compared to a NUKE….you want to talk about wiping out 3-4 states, covering thousands of square miles with volcanic ash, possibly triggering a mini-ice-age (hey, they have OIL to burn!!!)…and crippling our food belt, spewing molten rivers of lava for hundreds of miles and crisping thousands of buffalo, grizzlies and tourists at the same time????

The SHEER magnatude of the disaster would make Katrina pale by comparison. AND…the resources to HELP would have to come from a long way away….as such a large area would be affected that there's no way local branches…even national guard or red cross could even function.

We'd get some really spiffy sunsets for the next decade or so outta it, as would the rest of the world…but look at what happened to Clark AFB when Mt. Pinatubo went in the Phillipines…it ended up being a total 'write off' as well as most of the equipment that wasn't removed in time. The 'ash' destroys jet engines and most 'air intake' systems….and ash/mud flows and the 'acidic' nature of the ash deposits…ruins or the weight crushes most buildings!

NYC and DC both showed they could 'bounce back' from disaster…and I suspect even a 'limited nuke' could only slow things down for a short while…(not to mention get even more folks MAD at Bin Lauden or whomever and they won't have to worry about 'fair trials' but WHO's gonna bag them/mount them on the trophy wall first! 'Not RABBIT season' anymore if you know what I mean???

But somehow TRIGGER Yellowstone or a major earthquake fault etc….NOW we're talking real 'terrorism'…(like in the James Bond movies!)….

There have always been 'anarchists, terrorists, fanatics, zealots, (religous or non)…dictators, juntas, overthrows, revolutions and (un)civil wars…since man first started throwing his weight around. The 'sticks and stones' have just gotten 'deadlier' over time…but the tune is the same…

Someone always wants 'dominion' over another, 'do as I say, not as I do' or 'I know better what you should have/do/not do etc than you do or can….' etc. and they're willing to sacrifice others….and sometimes even themselves..(but that sorta defeats the purpose of THEM ruling/running things…)…to prove the point.

Sounds sorta STUPID when you say it like that, doesn't it?

But while 'terrorists' might be 'intelligent' and well-schooled, trained, talented and financially-backed…that doesn't mean they are REALLY 'smart' in the long run. Only a really DENSE species spends more time trying to take a 'ka-ka' in it's own nest/kill itself than try to figure out ways to survive….

Or as Galactus might have said, before his brains got eaten…'Another one down the knuckerhole!'

Slishfully,
Sgt DWW-btod

Just imagine a situation where POTUS, VP, Speaker and half of Congress were taken out at the same time.

I believe in the US there is a line of succession for the Presidency right through the Cabinet, so unless the nuke took out the entire govenment there is still going to be a head of state and a CinC.

Then the president of the United States would be the Secretary of State, if I remember my chain of succession correctly, and Hillary would be rather upset, as would most of the rest of the nation.

If some group was stupid enough to claim responsibility, then I would rate the chances of the Earth acquiring a glass self-lighting parking lot as very high.

Hitting DC alone wouldn't do much to actually decapitate the US command structure, and events like 9/11 and Katrina showed that when a disaster happens, Americans tend to pull together, not fragment.

As far as "highly secretive" goes, most information regarding *nuclear* attacks is highly classified. As far as the rest of the planning goes, well, that's just another ugly mass casualty drill.

Martin Rapier: "The only 'game' I can see coming out of this scenario is the National Guard getting to shoot some looters in the disaster zone. There might be an interesting logistics game to be had in terms of evacuating and treating survivors, triaging casualties, repairing infrastructure, allocating lift capacity, moving supplies and rescue equipment into the area etc but wargamers don't really like logistics. You could do it as a commitee/discussion type game, maybe with maps of the DC area to assist the planning. Rather like planning for a real nuclear attack…"

I wonder if the highest level planners now use simulation software that includes all those variables and makes them react in real time.

When we did the "Hurricane Pam" exercise (pre-Katrina) it was all based on checklists and direct communication (but the other parties were already aware that there would be an exercise).

CC

I'd say something politically sensative, but let's be fair. It would be no great loss if it were to happen, I think there's enough anger and blame to go around for every one there.

Actually you can find the line of succession on wikipedia
link
And odds are at any given time most of them would get killed in a nuke attack on D.C. anyways. Considering how destructive a nuke can be such a scenario should be considered now days. So say all of these people are now suddenly gone the chain of command is now broken, who takes up the mantel after this point? Does it fall to the highest ranking military officer left?

The best thing that could happen to the US is for a General to have to take over in an emergency – a General not foolish enough to hand it back to civilian control. We need a decade or so under a military junta to understand both what freedom is and what strength is.

No General that was sincere and understood the vow he/she took upon commissioning would consider it. And any officer that would go back on their vow isn't worth following--because they are a liar!

And odds are at any given time most of them would get killed in a nuke attack on D.C. anyways.

Erm, no. I had the pleasure of talking to an ex-Secret Service agent once (and asked about this general topic), and while he of course refused to detail specifics he made it pretty clear to me that they do a lot of juggling to make sure that not everyone on that list is in the same state, let alone city, on any one day.

-Will

Still not seeing the game ideas here. Getting the popcorn ready!