Protect and Survive: A Timeline

[Hörnla]

Britain is pretty lucky, it has a strong central government with a loyal military and competent regional administrative bodies and police forces. It can survive a degree of decentralisation because of this. moreover, the prerogative can be used quite extensively. it seems the system can change without a serious constitutional crisis - at least thats what i get from the series. the government alters itself without seriously altering its character.

I think that it very much depends on the pre- and post-war situation of the country in question whether a federal structure is a good thing. I think that it needs a balance to function: the less ethnically and socially centrifugal forces you have within a state, the further you can go with de-centralisation without endangering its existence. As long as you are not crossing that line of balance, de-centralisation is most probably an asset in such a time of crisis.

Thinking of the US of A. You are right with your observation. In the long run, though, I would think that the identification with the USA as such is stronger than with the single States. While a renewed USA might be more federal (i.e. also more similar to their original design), most surviving states will re-unite or even pretend they never split apart.

New constitutional orders will appear everywhere, this is almost a natural thing when a nation faces crises of such a magnitude. (Germany 1918/19,1948/49; France 1870/71, 1940, 1944/45; Russia 1917 and so on)

This got me thinking about how Australia would organise itself in such an emergency.

I think that Australia will most probably be "lightly" hit. Large tracts of land with minor fallout issues. Large agricultural basis. In this scenario, there is plenty of warning time for anything valuable to disperse.

I assume that the Australian government even remains intact under such conditions and is in command of the situation after a few days.

hopefully either melbourne or sydney doesnt get nuked. we need at least one of those cities.

I fear that both cities might be targets even if only a dozen hits get on the continent. However, I recently read how huge Sydney is territory-wise. Just putting one warhead on it might not even eradicate the place.

Just a side note, i hope Bob Hawke survives D-Day but Keating and Howard get vapourised

Ronan Keating? Just kidding.

Though I am in no position to judge Australian politics, that's a bit mean.

 

[Chipperback]

"Thinking of the US of A. You are right with your observation. In the long run, though, I would think that the identification with the USA as such is stronger than with the single States.

I would say that it is more even, with variance within states or regions, or even cities.

People in the U.S. identify themselves as Americans, but also have as great an identification with their areas, states and cities. Consider people from the major cities, they will identify with the cities as much or more as with their country.

In the areas that are less urbanized, people identify greatly with their states, places such as New England, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains and the South, especially Texas.

" While a renewed USA might be more federal (i.e. also more similar to their original design), most surviving states will re-unite or even pretend they never split apart.

In this scenario, I think the opposite case would be true. The USA would be less federal. States would still be a part of it, but there would be greater decentralized control returned back to the states. Within state themselves, there would be different case. With a few exceptions surviving towns and areas would restructure themselves to a single unit on some issues, provided that there would be reserve localization of powers to smaller units of government.

 

[ivfl]

Of course some areas in the US are pretty much gone like Missouri which had ICBM silos and its also in the path of the fallout from Nebraska.Its a pretty good question what to do with the areas which have next to no one left alive.I doubt you would find many people willing to go and colonise these places.The fear of radiation would be too great even if the risk would decrease substantially the fear would probably trump reason.So you could end up with a place which has large regions cutting across the country with few if any residents.This begs the question what would we call these places the no-go zone,the forbidden zone just like they have in SF movies?

 

[Wolf]

Note to self. Do not read any of the P&S stories before going to bed.

Last night I had a dream that a war was being fought in Germany and my Mom and I went to go buy cyanide, just incase the Bombs came.

 

[nijntjepluis]

...I went to go buy cyanide, ...

Äh, erm, buy cyanide? I hope that was just in your dream.

 

[Orville_third]

America is almost the complete opposite. though it has a strong, loyal military it also has regional militias, which may be more loyal to state governments that the nation in times of crisis. moreover, the traditions of particularism are much stronger in the USA and government intervention into state affairs is kinda hard. There just isnt the same chance to build the structures the brits have. based on Duck and Cover, im thinking a whole new constitutional order is going to emerge.

This got me thinking about how Australia would organise itself in such an emergency. The states are totally almost totally reliant on the Commonwealth for funding, they cant maintain any military forces (or militias). Also, the Commonwealth can use its executive powers to call out the army in times of domestic emergency (such as after the hilton hotel bombing).

Two points:
In the USA National Guard, officers swear to obey the orders of both the President and the Governor of their state. What happens if they conflict? Perhaps Governor Kerry orders the Nebraska NG to do something first, then one of the Presidents orders the NG to do otherwise.
Second, Australia has the State Emergency Service to handle some of the emergency response. They're not military, but they would be a help in an emergency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Emergency_Service

 

[Wolf]

Äh, erm, buy cyanide? I hope that was just in your dream.

It was in my dream. In my dream we bought cyanide from a drug dealer.

 

[Macragge1]

Macragge, a truly brilliant TL. Also, very well written. That is what makes the whole thing so damn good. I think you balance the characters well and your dialogue is some of the best i have read on this site. Its not often that a timeline on this site makes you think of Camus, but 'Antigone is right, but Creon is not wrong' defines the moral issue of the story.

I read both Protect and Survive and Duck and Cover last night. Stayed up till 4 it was so damn good. AND i have my constitutional law exam on monday!

Im not so convinced by the Angolan/Soviet bombing raid on South Africa. I am jus not sure the Soviets would waste time and weapons on that sort of endeavour. Also, how the hell did they get the things down there? I'm not really certain they could have shipped nukes and nuclear capable aeroplanes down to Africa without an international incident.

Thanks very much indeed - I'm always elated to hear that people are enjoying my timeline; I must admit that I'm blushing a little bit at being mentioned in the same sentence as Camus!

I'm very glad that your law exam seems to have gone well (or else I suppose I could have a lot to answer for)

The Angolan/Soviet thing is one of those things that you could probably argue either way for. I guess I just supposed that, in all the chaos of the escalating tensions (during which point it became almost certain war was coming) the Soviets might try to move a few weapons down there in order to destabilize a major regional power. I guess an international incident could be avoided due to the fact that the world is rather distracted with the problems in Europe etc, and that only a few strike aircraft, rather than big obvious bombers, are needed by '84. Still, I'm no expert and I'm trying to explain myself, but your opinion is valid as well.

 

[Lord Brisbane]

I fear that both cities might be targets even if only a dozen hits get on the continent. However, I recently read how huge Sydney is territory-wise. Just putting one warhead on it might not even eradicate the place.

A warhead hitting Manly would probably be an improvement.

 

[Hörnla]

I would say that it is more even, with variance within states or regions, or even cities.

People in the U.S. identify themselves as Americans, but also have as great an identification with their areas, states and cities.

In the areas that are less urbanized, people identify greatly with their states, places such as New England, the Great Plains, the Rocky Mountains and the South, especially Texas.

Oh, I would certainly not argue with that. And of course, that is not a specific thing for the US. Everywhere, people deal with a multi-layered structure of identities, weaker and stronger ones. The question is whether regional identification can override the "USA-trope" as base for a nation-state. I can see that wherever that is being tried, even if successful, it would meet a lot of opposition.
But I think the discussion is moot as General Patton sets the compass quite clearly towards a continued albeit reformed US of A.

In this scenario, I think the opposite case would be true. The USA would be less federal. States would still be a part of it, but there would be greater decentralized control returned back to the states.

I think that was what I meant...

Of course some areas in the US are pretty much gone like Missouri which had ICBM silos and its also in the path of the fallout from Nebraska.Its a pretty good question what to do with the areas which have next to no one left alive.I doubt you would find many people willing to go and colonise these places.The fear of radiation would be too great even if the risk would decrease substantially the fear would probably trump reason.So you could end up with a place which has large regions cutting across the country with few if any residents.This begs the question what would we call these places the no-go zone,the forbidden zone just like they have in SF movies?

Once society elsewhere recovers, they will call it "flyover country".

I am talking from an outsider's, a traveller's point of view. To me as a Central European, large tracts of the USA, whole states, seemed like huge undeveloped places where few people ever seem to have reason to go and even fewer dare to settle. Sooner or later, opportunity will trump the radiation level in more and more places. But however, I do not see many states merging. The present-day USA can live with a state like Wyoming where one out of 600 Americans lives. With a USA reduced to 40 million citizens, the same ratio would apply to states with 70,000 inhabitants. You will probably get those pretty soon in really most places, maybe even as a number of survivors.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

If the NG are federalised then AFAIK the orders from POTUS would trump the Governor.

 

[Wolf]

If the NG are federalised then AFAIK the orders from POTUS would trump the Governor.

Theoretically at least. I could see some guard units staying loyal to the Governors especially after the Exchange.

 

[Chipperback]

"Once society elsewhere recovers, they will call it "flyover country".

LOL! Very funny

 

[ivfl]

Considering what happened any army,national guard or reserve units showing mutinous tendencies would probably be given no mercy.Shoot on sight would be the order those that surrender summary court martial and execution.No country is likely to be understanding to troops not following orders unless the mutinous forces are so many in number that they can't be defeated.As for surviving governors giving orders in conflict with presidential decrees they would have a similar fate.Issues about constitutional rights are unlikely to be raised by anyone.

 

[Wolf]

Considering what happened any army,national guard or reserve units showing mutinous tendencies would probably be given no mercy.Shoot on sight would be the order those that surrender summary court martial and execution.No country is likely to be understanding to troops not following orders unless the mutinous forces are so many in number that they can't be defeated.As for surviving governors giving orders in conflict with presidential decrees they would have a similar fate.Issues about constitutional rights are unlikely to be raised by anyone.

It might be the case that in certain areas more troops loyal to the Governors exist than ones loyal to the President.

 

[Falkenburg]

The issue would probably be more a case of whether Troops follow the orders of a Governor they know, who has continuity on his side, or some unknown faceless Politician claiming Executive Authority (which the Troops might have no way of verifying).

In those circumstances, loyalty to the Chief Executive of ones own State is (IMO) reasonable and (more importantly) legally defensible.

Falkenburg

 

[JoHansen]

I'm waiting for another update. This is terrifyingly good to read. You even got me to join this site and start writing. Thanks!

 

[Unknown]

Here's a PoD to increase tensions to the point of WWIII: Have Senators Helms and Symms and Representative Hubbard be on board KAL 007 and are killed when it is shot down.

That would increase tensions nicely.

 

[tom]

Let me see if I've got this...
The PoD is KAL 007, right? Instead of dying down as in OTL, the international incident escalates into WWIII over a space of half a year or so. Is that a correct interpretation?

 

[Mario Rossi]

I do not know about the KAL incident, for sure having an Ogarkov leadership is a hell of a help to send the world down the flush