Would the United States Government Survive a 1983 Nuclear Exchange?

Would the United States Government Survive a 1983 Nuclear Exchange?

  • Yes

    Votes: 29 43.9%
  • Yes, but not for very long.

    Votes: 25 37.9%
  • No

    Votes: 12 18.2%

  • Total voters
    66

Anaxagoras

Banned
Assume that the either of the 1983 nuclear close-calls (the Able Archer incident or the false alarm spotted by Stanislav Petrov) and the went bad and there was a full nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union. Would the United States government survive in any meaningful sense?

By "meaningful", I mean:
a) Either the President or someone in the legitimate presidential line of succession survives and is giving orders.
b) The military chain of command remains in control of at least some portion of a surviving military.
c) Members of Congress have survived and are at least trying to reassemble, and are in touch with the President.
d) Some of the agencies of the federal government (the FBI, for example) are still in existence and trying to help recovery.
e) Some state governments have survived and are in touch with the remnants of the federal government.
 

missouribob

Banned
I've always assumed the United States would balkanize into a series of military dictatorships/state governments/federal remnants.
 
Assume that the either of the 1983 nuclear close-calls (the Able Archer incident or the false alarm spotted by Stanislav Petrov) and the went bad and there was a full nuclear exchange between the United States and the Soviet Union. Would the United States government survive in any meaningful sense?

By "meaningful", I mean:
a) Either the President or someone in the legitimate presidential line of succession survives and is giving orders.
b) The military chain of command remains in control of at least some portion of a surviving military.
c) Members of Congress have survived and are at least trying to reassemble, and are in touch with the President.
d) Some of the agencies of the federal government (the FBI, for example) are still in existence and trying to help recovery.
e) Some state governments have survived and are in touch with the remnants of the federal government.

I think it would, at least with respect to (a), (b) and (e). I think (c) and (d) are a bit more questionable. The presidency and military C&C would survive for no other reason that they would likely be airborne for the duration. Between NEACP, the Looking Glass and TACAMO aircraft and various bunkers and command centers scattered around the country, something would likely be left of the Presidency and military command structure. State governments will vary in how well they do, with smaller more rural capitals having a better chance of surviving than, say, Boston or Sacramento. The northeast United States is likely to be in a bad way, though places like Montpelier, Concord and Augusta in New England might escape direct blast damage. The prospects for Albany, Hartford, Providence, Annapolis, Dover (site of Dover AFB), Trenton and Harrisburg are less rosy. Even then, that doesn't preclude survival by a Governor or a successor, but the chances are pretty good that a few of these states' leadership are going to be wiped out. The plan for Congress was relocation to the Greenbrier. That sounds to me like one big fat target if the Soviets knew about it, so I'm not that optimistic Congress would survive in a meaningful form, though there would likely be surviving members who did not relocate for whatever reason. If you have governors, reconstituting the Senate by appointment is pretty straightforward. Holding special House elections would be a bit more difficult.

Federal government agencies are another question; there were certainly continuity of government plans to ensure that some remnant of agencies survived, but with their employees overwhelmingly concentrated in Washington, the question remains how effective what survives will be.

I will just add that I wonder whether this is the right definition of "meaningful". Yes, there may be a claim to authority which passes constitutional and legal scrutiny, a government which is, using standard criteria, legitimate and lawful. That still begs the question of how effectively it can wield the authority it claims. This should not be a problem with respect to a President or successor and the US military. It may be an issue with respect to conducting foreign affairs where there may be questions of legitimacy or with respect to having meaningful civil authority with regard to the rest of the federal executive agencies which survive or with respect to the federal relationship to the states. The same issues may exist between state and local governments. One specific issue might be over control of a state's National Guard. The President may order it Federalized, but there may be reluctance by state governments to recognize that authority. A related issue to all this is the ability of a lawful authority to transmit orders. To the extent that ability is compromised, lawful authority cannot be exercised in practice.
 
The U.S. is getting hit by thousands of nuclear warheads in this scenario, and the rest of the world is getting trashed too. The parts of the country still livable after the war are going to be so devastated I doubt any central authority is going to be able to extend beyond the extremely local level.
 
No. The United States will be destroyed. We'd be lucky to have county governments survive. Some remnant calling itself the US. Government might survive, but it would rule a wasteland and have no authority or power
 
The U.S. is getting hit by thousands of nuclear warheads in this scenario, and the rest of the world is getting trashed too. The parts of the country still livable after the war are going to be so devastated I doubt any central authority is going to be able to extend beyond the extremely local level.

This seems right. We're talking what, 3,000 nukes?
 
This seems right. We're talking what, 3,000 nukes?
Add another zero

555px-US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg.png
 

aleasp

Banned
It is difficult to picture the level of devastation that would result from a full scale nuclear conflict. Isolated groups of people would probably survive outside of target areas, but would need to be totally self sufficient. The electrical power grid would be destroyed, the monetary system would collapse, petroleum based fuels and manufactured goods of all types would be unavailable. Hunting, fishing, and subsistence farming would be the only sources of food. Surviving medical providers would be overwhelmed and stocks of medical supplies would be quickly depleted. It would take decades for anything resembling modern civilization to be rebuilt. If vestigial government were to survive, it would be irrelevant to most of the population, and it's hard to imagine that either side would be declaring victory. A network of independent city-states could emerge and might eventually create some form of central government.
 
It is difficult to picture the level of devastation that would result from a full scale nuclear conflict. Isolated groups of people would probably survive outside of target areas, but would need to be totally self sufficient. The electrical power grid would be destroyed, the monetary system would collapse, petroleum based fuels and manufactured goods of all types would be unavailable. Hunting, fishing, and subsistence farming would be the only sources of food. Surviving medical providers would be overwhelmed and stocks of medical supplies would be quickly depleted. It would take decades for anything resembling modern civilization to be rebuilt. If vestigial government were to survive, it would be irrelevant to most of the population, and it's hard to imagine that either side would be declaring victory. A network of independent city-states could emerge and might eventually create some form of central government.


Which cities would be still around?
 
define survive as a 1983 style event would be quite ugly. obviously some remnants would survive. what their effect outside of calling themselves the president would be is beyond me.

in a full on exchange you can expect large areas to be utterly devastated, radiation and fall out spreading on the wind and water, areas that are not directly hit and that might be lucky enough to avoid direct radiation fallout would also have issues from refugees, to roving bands of warlords
 

missouribob

Banned
Problem is that you also have the biological weapons programs/accidental releases as well. Any town in America/Canada with a population of over 100K is gone, every nuclear reactor/military installation/airport/port/etc. has been targeted. Depending on the post-strike biological outbreak things get even harder. I have a hard time believing anything more than warlords with varying claims to legitimacy in such an environment.
 
Top