Ever check out Harry Turtledove's novels?? I know he writes a whole lot of alternate history, especially about the Civil War.
Ah, a topic dear to my heart as a historian in training. A personal favorite of mine is, "What if it had not rained before the Battle of Waterloo?" I have to say that Napoleon would likely have won, and that would have been devastating for the Coalition.
Ah, a topic dear to my heart as a historian in training. A personal favorite of mine is, "What if it had not rained before the Battle of Waterloo?" I have to say that Napoleon would likely have won, and that would have been devastating for the Coalition.
That's some bullshit there. Even if Napoleon managed to beat the British in four hours up a hill outnumbered, he had to beat the Prussians (who turned up at midday), again with a bigger, unblooded force. Even if he somehow managed to destroy both armies, the Russians were only a month away.
What if... the US had decided to support the Arab nations against Israel, and the Soviet Union had backed Israel?(click to show/hide)
I've wondered what would have happened if the Saxons had won at Hastings, considering how close the battle was and then only because the Saxons were temporarily weakened from having to fight off the Vikings earlier.
Arguably the most dangerous moment in the crisis was only recognized during the Cuban Missile Crisis Havana conference in October 2002. Attended by many of the veterans of the crisis, they all learned that on October 27, 1962 the USS Beale had tracked and dropped signaling depth charges (the size of hand grenades) on the B-59, a Soviet Project 641 (NATO designation Foxtrot) submarine which, unknown to the US, was armed with a 15 kiloton[citation needed] nuclear torpedo. Running out of air, the Soviet submarine was surrounded by American warships and desperately needed to surface. An argument broke out among three officers on the B-59, including submarine captain Valentin Savitsky, political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and Deputy brigade commander Captain 2nd rank (US Navy Commander rank equivalent) Vasili Arkhipov. An exhausted Savitsky became furious and ordered that the nuclear torpedo on board be made combat ready. Accounts differ about whether Commander Arkhipov convinced Savitsky not to make the attack, or whether Savitsky himself finally concluded that the only reasonable choice left open to him was to come to the surface.[92]:303, 317 During the conference Robert McNamara stated that nuclear war had come much closer than people had thought. Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, said, "A guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world."Source: Wikipedia.
Besides one of the main reasons why the USSR decided to send the missiles was that after the bay of the pigs fiasco they thought that Kennedy was weak and would not dare to do anything about it.
QuoteArguably the most dangerous moment in the crisis was only recognized during the Cuban Missile Crisis Havana conference in October 2002. Attended by many of the veterans of the crisis, they all learned that on October 27, 1962 the USS Beale had tracked and dropped signaling depth charges (the size of hand grenades) on the B-59, a Soviet Project 641 (NATO designation Foxtrot) submarine which, unknown to the US, was armed with a 15 kiloton[citation needed] nuclear torpedo. Running out of air, the Soviet submarine was surrounded by American warships and desperately needed to surface. An argument broke out among three officers on the B-59, including submarine captain Valentin Savitsky, political officer Ivan Semonovich Maslennikov, and Deputy brigade commander Captain 2nd rank (US Navy Commander rank equivalent) Vasili Arkhipov. An exhausted Savitsky became furious and ordered that the nuclear torpedo on board be made combat ready. Accounts differ about whether Commander Arkhipov convinced Savitsky not to make the attack, or whether Savitsky himself finally concluded that the only reasonable choice left open to him was to come to the surface.[92]:303, 317 During the conference Robert McNamara stated that nuclear war had come much closer than people had thought. Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, said, "A guy called Vasili Arkhipov saved the world."Source: Wikipedia.
How about that for alternate history, if those three officers had been a bit more scared, that submarine might have started the third World war. Seriously, it would not have taken much to tip the balance, what if one of those depth charges had fallen closer and they had thought that the danger is even greater? What if they would have had trouble sleeping last night and had been really tired on top of all the stress? Maybe if Arkhipov had gotten sick due to poor coffee and had been confined to the toilet and the one person arguing against using the nuke hadn't been in the argument at all?
In a shocking subversion of standard FSTDT etiquette, a forumite steps forward and... deals with the OP. Some asspulling may occur.
A Nixon win in 1960 would've probably meant Watergate in 1964. We can safely assume that the Cuban Missile Crisis would play out in a similar manner, because a) there's only one sensible option in that scenario, and JFK took it, and b) this would be a very short post from anyone otherwise.
Watergate '64* would happen because Nixon was the kind of crazy bastard who would've done it anyway. Let's not forget that he was easily on course to win in 1972, but decided to cheat anyhow.
With Nixon resigning around 1966, this makes Henry Cabot Lodge the new Gerald Ford. By some theories, Lodge cost Nixon the election by pledging, unauthorised, to include at least one African-American in the Cabinet, thus losing votes in the South, so... the Civil Rights Act, or some form of it, might have passed around 1967, but similarly it might have taken a Democrat President from 1968 to pass it.
My guess is that Vietnam and the Civil Rights Act would have still happened, but in the longer term, the Reagan Presidency might have got lost in the shuffle. If Lodge passed the CRA, then the modern perceptions of the two parties might have swapped. That said, some form of Reaganomics, or else a Libertarian platform of some kind, would most likely have arisen around 1976, due to the economic issues brought about by the oil shock of 1973 and Watergate causing a loss of trust in government. The Civil Rights era and the Keynesian consensus might, if anything, have died a little earlier.(click to show/hide)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BUzxvrWNBY
I wrote an alt. history where the Korean war didn't happen, but instead World War 2 "restarted".
I wrote an alt. history where the Korean war didn't happen, but instead World War 2 "restarted".
Against the Soviets? How did you get around nuclear weapons?
I wrote an alt. history where the Korean war didn't happen, but instead World War 2 "restarted".
Against the Soviets? How did you get around nuclear weapons?
The safest assumption is that they don't get fired. The thing is, despite many, many near-misses since 1945, there's never been a nuclear war for good reason: even the most cynical, megalomaniacal zealot of a politician would struggle to find a scenario in which ruling a barren wasteland from a bunker is desirable, and you'd have to be incredibly cynical to believe that of an opponent - even the North Korean government would want people to forcibly starve and shove into labour camps.
I wrote an alt. history where the Korean war didn't happen, but instead World War 2 "restarted".
Against the Soviets? How did you get around nuclear weapons?
The safest assumption is that they don't get fired. The thing is, despite many, many near-misses since 1945, there's never been a nuclear war for good reason: even the most cynical, megalomaniacal zealot of a politician would struggle to find a scenario in which ruling a barren wasteland from a bunker is desirable, and you'd have to be incredibly cynical to believe that of an opponent - even the North Korean government would want people to forcibly starve and shove into labour camps.
This is why World War 3 was impossible (and nuclear weapons are a good thing). You can't threaten the vital interests of a nuclear state; you can't beat a nuclear state in a war, in other words. You basically only exist because they let you.
Even if you assume you could beat them eight times out of ten, the risk of nuclear destruction is still much, much too high to be acceptable. So you don't go to war in the first place. This is precisely why two nuclear powers have never fought a major war.
I wrote an alt. history where the Korean war didn't happen, but instead World War 2 "restarted".
Against the Soviets? How did you get around nuclear weapons?
The safest assumption is that they don't get fired. The thing is, despite many, many near-misses since 1945, there's never been a nuclear war for good reason: even the most cynical, megalomaniacal zealot of a politician would struggle to find a scenario in which ruling a barren wasteland from a bunker is desirable, and you'd have to be incredibly cynical to believe that of an opponent - even the North Korean government would want people to forcibly starve and shove into labour camps.
This is why World War 3 was impossible (and nuclear weapons are a good thing). You can't threaten the vital interests of a nuclear state; you can't beat a nuclear state in a war, in other words. You basically only exist because they let you.
Even if you assume you could beat them eight times out of ten, the risk of nuclear destruction is still much, much too high to be acceptable. So you don't go to war in the first place. This is precisely why two nuclear powers have never fought a major war.
Nuclear weapons have drastically reduced the "amount of things we need to go wrong for human extinction"* threshold. I wouldn't call that a good thing.
*"Things" is a very vague measure, I know. Weigh them by probability or whatever, you get the basic idea.
Let's go farther back: What if the Renaissance-era rediscovery of America hadn't happened? Would the Aztec Empire have evolved to a power great enough to stand up to the Europeans if and when contact occurred? (Yes, I know that disease did most of the killing, but work with me here)
A rather interesting if commonly brought up scenario would be what if the US had opted to invade rather than nuke Japan in WWII. No doubt Japan would eventually fall, but they would certainly take huge numbers of allied soldiers with them, and end up with a quite a bit more bargaining power when it comes time to surrender. It's almost certain that there'd be no US military bases in Japan. Possibly no cap on their military and constitutional bans on fighting anything other than a defensive war would be imposed either. Then the US not keeping them on a tight leash could open the door for a lot of interesting shenanigans. Even going over to the communist side of the cold is not inconceivable.
Cracked says that the actual invasion plan was to drop nukes AND THEN send in soldiers. If so, Japan would have been fucked, but there would be a rise in birth defects around the world from soldiers returning home. It'd be pretty bad.The idea in this particular scenario is no nukes in any capacity, just an invasion. Going with nukes and then an invasion would just be redundant, since the nukes on their own are proven to get the job done.
I'm not sure how that translates to a difference in the treaty terms, though.
The other thing to consider with a conventional invasion of Japan is what happens if the Soviets really got involved and managed to seize control of a decent portion of the main island.The Soviets had a pretty pitiful navy, especially in the Pacific. It's highly unlikely they could ever land and adequately supply anything capable of taking even one major city. Hell, simply retaking the half of Sakhalin Island they lost back in the Russo-Japanese War would be an achievement.
The other thing to consider with a conventional invasion of Japan is what happens if the Soviets really got involved and managed to seize control of a decent portion of the main island.
The cold war face to face on another front, Korean war logistics potentially very ugly if the Soviets decide to make it hard, an economic juggernaut never coming into existence (or if a divided Japan followed the same sort of history as Germany, the fall out of eventual reunification).
The US plan that probably would have been adopted had it needed to be would have seen the US successively nuke every other Japanese city, starting with Tokyo. The allegedly required land invasion of Japan was never even a credible possibility.But what if rather then saying "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" Oppenheimer had said "oops, I wonder what went wrong" and we didn't get nuclear weapons due to a technical glitch of some sort that would take several months at a minimum to diagnose and begin to address?
I don't want to get into another interminable should they or shouldn't they debate about this. But I do like that the "Bean Counters" here include Eisenhower, McArthur and Nimitz. Wusses, all of them.What, you don't want to go down this old path again? ;)
I don't want to get into another interminable should they or shouldn't they debate about this. But I do like that the "Bean Counters" here include Eisenhower, McArthur and Nimitz. Wusses, all of them.What, you don't want to go down this old path again? ;)
I think you might be reading too much into the term bean counter if you think I was suggesting that any of them are wusses. It is simply a way of looking at how to conduct a war and its cut and dried statistical analysis is in rather direct contrast to classical warrior philosophy. Both have their merits and their flaws and both were definitely in play during the second world war. A slightly different bias one way or another by even just a couple key players could have had major repercussions.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if McCarthy hadn't been a first class idiot.
I sometimes wonder what would happen if McCarthy hadn't been a first class idiot.
Progress?
What if Japan hadn't adopted Article Nine, which the Americans want them to repeal?We'd have some really cool battle mechs by now. ;D
What would it be like if science was viewed from the same mystical viewpoint that alchemy was once viewed through?
Or rather, when ancient scientists ended up continuing into modern science, it brought the same "This is like magic" viewpoint that the sciences of the times had?
What would it be like if science was viewed from the same mystical viewpoint that alchemy was once viewed through?
Or rather, when ancient scientists ended up continuing into modern science, it brought the same "This is like magic" viewpoint that the sciences of the times had?
What would it be like if science was viewed from the same mystical viewpoint that alchemy was once viewed through?
Or rather, when ancient scientists ended up continuing into modern science, it brought the same "This is like magic" viewpoint that the sciences of the times had?
I expect there would be heavily religious scientific institutions, all with differing opinions on what mystical thing causes chemical reactions
What would it be like if science was viewed from the same mystical viewpoint that alchemy was once viewed through?
Or rather, when ancient scientists ended up continuing into modern science, it brought the same "This is like magic" viewpoint that the sciences of the times had?
What would it be like if science was viewed from the same mystical viewpoint that alchemy was once viewed through?
Or rather, when ancient scientists ended up continuing into modern science, it brought the same "This is like magic" viewpoint that the sciences of the times had?
A similar though less realistic concept, what would science look like in a world in which magic were real? If magic (of any variety) really worked and supplanted chemistry and biology as the central means of understanding and developing tools to interact with the world, then how would the societies of that world, say, build a space ship? A satellite? What would be their equivalent of the ISS, the Mars ranger, SETI, or more earth bound tools like deep sea exploration, deep earth drilling, ice core sampling, etc?
There are a number of factors a wizard must take into account when carrying out Transfiguration spells. The intended transformation (t) is directly influenced by bodyweight (a), viciousness (v), wand power (w), concentration (c) and a fifth unknown variable (Z), as described by the following mathematical formula (as taught to first-years at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry):
(http://images.wikia.com/harrypotter/images/math/4/f/e/4feeb76dcc9d4cad32d7818e9cce4237.png)
So much for Harry Potter students not learning basic math skills.
That being said, if magic existed (in the capacity that is generally seen in fantasy and such) I don't think it would supplant science. Rather, it would complement it.
If you'll excuse me, now I will complain about people trying to sound sciencey:QuoteThere are a number of factors a wizard must take into account when carrying out Transfiguration spells. The intended transformation (t) is directly influenced by bodyweight (a), viciousness (v), wand power (w), concentration (c) and a fifth unknown variable (Z), as described by the following mathematical formula (as taught to first-years at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry):
(http://images.wikia.com/harrypotter/images/math/4/f/e/4feeb76dcc9d4cad32d7818e9cce4237.png)
Ah, that makes slightly more sense. Although now I wonder where they got the meanings for everything else, the source is cited as simply the Philosopher's stone film (I have no intention of watching it again). Googling only results in hits for fanfics, some of which make up meanings for Z.
So much for Harry Potter students not learning basic math skills.
That being said, if magic existed (in the capacity that is generally seen in fantasy and such) I don't think it would supplant science. Rather, it would complement it.
So much for Harry Potter students not learning basic math skills.But, I suppose, if magic did exist then it wouldn't be magic at all. It would in fact be science. If magic existed, science would supplant magic to become an additional field of science.
That being said, if magic existed (in the capacity that is generally seen in fantasy and such) I don't think it would supplant science. Rather, it would complement it.
So much for Harry Potter students not learning basic math skills.
That being said, if magic existed (in the capacity that is generally seen in fantasy and such) I don't think it would supplant science. Rather, it would complement it.
But, I suppose, if magic did exist then it wouldn't be magic at all. It would in fact be science. If magic existed, science would supplant magic to become an additional field of science.
So I guess that changes my original question from "how would witches build a space ship" to "what world view/level of discovery would lead scientists who can do alchemy to feel the need to explore space?"
So much for Harry Potter students not learning basic math skills.
That being said, if magic existed (in the capacity that is generally seen in fantasy and such) I don't think it would supplant science. Rather, it would complement it.
But, I suppose, if magic did exist then it wouldn't be magic at all. It would in fact be science. If magic existed, science would supplant magic to become an additional field of science.
So I guess that changes my original question from "how would witches build a space ship" to "what world view/level of discovery would lead scientists who can do alchemy to feel the need to explore space?"
Why do scientists today feel the need to explore space?
Because it's there.
I am going to disagree with this.So much for Harry Potter students not learning basic math skills.But, I suppose, if magic did exist then it wouldn't be magic at all. It would in fact be science. If magic existed, science would supplant magic to become an additional field of science.
That being said, if magic existed (in the capacity that is generally seen in fantasy and such) I don't think it would supplant science. Rather, it would complement it.
Bingo!
I am going to disagree with this.So much for Harry Potter students not learning basic math skills.But, I suppose, if magic did exist then it wouldn't be magic at all. It would in fact be science. If magic existed, science would supplant magic to become an additional field of science.
That being said, if magic existed (in the capacity that is generally seen in fantasy and such) I don't think it would supplant science. Rather, it would complement it.
Bingo!
"Magic" could only be considered science if it obeyed clear rules and was otherwise consistent. I suppose that might be possible, but usually magic is represented to be more unpredictable and the laws being more like guidelines.
Chemical reactions work no matter who does the mixin, a match is just as likely to light up no matter what time of the month it is and who uses it. (assuming that they know how to light a match.)
Instead what if a certain spell only works when there is full moon and a virgin voices the magic words? What if magic only works for few select people who are born with magical abilities? If magic is basically using your own willpower and mystical forces to break the laws of physics, to create power out of nothing then how would that be considered science? (Breaking the laws of thermodynamics is serious business!)
I am going to disagree with this.So much for Harry Potter students not learning basic math skills.But, I suppose, if magic did exist then it wouldn't be magic at all. It would in fact be science. If magic existed, science would supplant magic to become an additional field of science.
That being said, if magic existed (in the capacity that is generally seen in fantasy and such) I don't think it would supplant science. Rather, it would complement it.
Bingo!
"Magic" could only be considered science if it obeyed clear rules and was otherwise consistent. I suppose that might be possible, but usually magic is represented to be more unpredictable and the laws being more like guidelines.
Chemical reactions work no matter who does the mixin, a match is just as likely to light up no matter what time of the month it is and who uses it. (assuming that they know how to light a match.)
Instead what if a certain spell only works when there is full moon and a virgin voices the magic words? What if magic only works for few select people who are born with magical abilities? If magic is basically using your own willpower and mystical forces to break the laws of physics, to create power out of nothing then how would that be considered science? (Breaking the laws of thermodynamics is serious business!)
But that would still obey various rules, even if those rules involve full moons and virgins. And that would be worthy of study.
Don't know if these came up yet on this thread. number 1: If George Washington chose to be king and keep the same monarchy style they had over in Europe.
2. If Benjamin Franklin got his wish and the Turkey was chosen as the national bird (what would we have to eat on Thankgiving).
3. If JFK survived the assination attempt.
4. If Russia still had Czars.
Don't know if these came up yet on this thread. number 1: If George Washington chose to be king and keep the same monarchy style they had over in Europe.
Very little change, frankly. A somewhat more entrenched aristocracy in the South, and probably a less democratic North. That would mean no Civil War, of course.
It's also worth noting that Washington didn't have any children, so a genetic monarchy would have dead-ended very quickly.No children in THIS timeline. :)
Don't know if these came up yet on this thread. number 1: If George Washington chose to be king and keep the same monarchy style they had over in Europe.
Very little change, frankly. A somewhat more entrenched aristocracy in the South, and probably a less democratic North. That would mean no Civil War, of course.
Why wouldn't there have been a civil war?
Unless those things would have changed due to monarchy they would have still had a reason to revolt. And don't tell me that they would not have dared to do so in a monarchy, the same people had already rebelled against one king few generations ago.
I know this is all hypotethical but can you give ANY reason why kindgdom of North America would have been more likely to keep slavery legalized?
I presume that civil society would have been either less powerful or non-existent, due to the nature of monarchy/absolute rule./
I presume that civil society would have been either less powerful or non-existent, due to the nature of monarchy/absolute rule.
Britain abolished slavery before USA did so not all monarchies are morally corrupt by nature or favourable to enslaving people..
Don't know if these came up yet on this thread. number 1: If George Washington chose to be king and keep the same monarchy style they had over in Europe.
Very little change, frankly. A somewhat more entrenched aristocracy in the South, and probably a less democratic North. That would mean no Civil War, of course.
Why wouldn't there have been a civil war?
As far as I know the main reasons for the civil war were:
a) South had an economy which relied on slavery
b) Abolishing slavery would be sure to cause great economic upheaval for the south.
Unless those things would have changed due to monarchy they would have still had a reason to revolt. And don't tell me that they would not have dared to do so in a monarchy, the same people had already rebelled against one king few generations ago.
What if the Nazis had managed to build their Sun Gun and other Wunderwaffe weapons?
I presume that civil society would have been either less powerful or non-existent, due to the nature of monarchy/absolute rule.
You technically live in a monarchy, since QEII is your head of state. Does that mean the people of Australia have no say over how your country is governed?
Technically, English monarchs lost "absolute rule" in 1100 with the Charter of Liberties, and that was reinforced in 1215 with the Magna Carta. Why do you think that a group of former British colonies rebelling against a monarchy would give a local monarch more power than the monarch they rebelled again had - or that monarch's predecessors had had in about 600 years?
What if Tesla's inventions weren't lost?
What if Tesla's inventions weren't lost?
What if Tesla had gotten the credit for things Edison ripped off from him?
What if horses had never been domesticated?
What if horses had never been domesticated?
We'd ride donkeys.
Without world war 2, how long would it have taken the United States to recover from the stock market crash?
What if horses had never been domesticated?
We'd ride donkeys.
War oxen, what a wonderful idea.
"Onward, my trust steed! To battle!" "Moo"
War oxen, what a wonderful idea.Battle moose.
"Onward, my trust steed! To battle!" "Moo"
War oxen, what a wonderful idea.Battle moose.
"Onward, my trust steed! To battle!" "Moo"
(http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv17/canadian_mojo/theodore-roosevelt-moose_zps41a13981.jpg) (http://s665.photobucket.com/user/canadian_mojo/media/theodore-roosevelt-moose_zps41a13981.jpg.html)
Particularly useful for amphibious assaults.
(http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv17/canadian_mojo/bear-cavalry_zps52c4347e.jpg) (http://s665.photobucket.com/user/canadian_mojo/media/bear-cavalry_zps52c4347e.jpg.html)War oxen, what a wonderful idea.Battle moose.
"Onward, my trust steed! To battle!" "Moo"
(http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv17/canadian_mojo/theodore-roosevelt-moose_zps41a13981.jpg) (http://s665.photobucket.com/user/canadian_mojo/media/theodore-roosevelt-moose_zps41a13981.jpg.html)
Particularly useful for amphibious assaults.
I see your moose and raise you with battle-reindeer-sleds.
(http://img.yle.fi/uutiset/lappi/article6419580.ece/ALTERNATES/w580/Joulutonttu+joulu+joulupukki+poro+Napapiiri+Rovaniemi)
"Yo ho ho, now I have a machinegun."
Most likely, in my opinion? Martial law, leading directly into a military dictatorship. With the entirety of the federal government wiped out and widespread panic across the country, that would be the only viable way to maintain order. It's anyone's guess whether Constitutional ideals would have been strong enough to ensure a serious rebuilding of the government and peaceful transition of power from the military back to a civilian government.I had thought of that at first, but remember, the Pentagon also takes a plane. So, the military's just as discombobulated, their main command center is wrecked, and they have no clue what's going on either. Unlike now, they can't talk to Congress, and additionally, chances are, all ability to use are nuclear missiles is lost, due to both the President and the nuclear football being destroyed. While a military dictatorship would happen over time, they just wouldn't have the facilities or power to run it for at least a few weeks, and the rest of the world would likely notice a newly nukeless America.
Personally, I doubt it.
Most likely, in my opinion? Martial law, leading directly into a military dictatorship. With the entirety of the federal government wiped out and widespread panic across the country, that would be the only viable way to maintain order. It's anyone's guess whether Constitutional ideals would have been strong enough to ensure a serious rebuilding of the government and peaceful transition of power from the military back to a civilian government.I had thought of that at first, but remember, the Pentagon also takes a plane. So, the military's just as discombobulated, their main command center is wrecked, and they have no clue what's going on either. Unlike now, they can't talk to Congress, and additionally, chances are, all ability to use are nuclear missiles is lost, due to both the President and the nuclear football being destroyed. While a military dictatorship would happen over time, they just wouldn't have the facilities or power to run it for at least a few weeks, and the rest of the world would likely notice a newly nukeless America.
Personally, I doubt it.
While the EU, due to actually liking us at this point in time, would try to help out, who is to say that various other nations, previously deterred by nuclear threat or typical "March into developing nation, stomp on their faces, leave" threat, would not act on this. I could see Kim Jong-Il deciding to invade South Korea, as suddenly the South Koreans wouldn't have their American ally. Additionally, the middle east would still start to destabilize, as the world and the UN focuses on fixing up America, nations like Iraq and Iran decide to start invading their neighbors. It would be the most opportune time to strike Israel, as well. And, that's not saying anything about what Russia and China would do with the United States no longer a nuclear superpower. Plus, the panic could easily be felt at the stock market, due to not knowing if everything is doomed anyways, so we could be plunged into a depression, governmentless, and have a restored via averages Russia (or in other words, sure they don't look good at that point in time due to America being relatively fine, but make it so the biggest three powers in the world are the EU, Russia and China and suddenly they look a lot different) and China. Meanwhile, the UN would be so focused on preventing America from either going dictatorship or turning into a bigger version of Mad Max with tons more guns that they'd be forced to ignore everything else, especially since a major part of their power comes from America.Most likely, in my opinion? Martial law, leading directly into a military dictatorship. With the entirety of the federal government wiped out and widespread panic across the country, that would be the only viable way to maintain order. It's anyone's guess whether Constitutional ideals would have been strong enough to ensure a serious rebuilding of the government and peaceful transition of power from the military back to a civilian government.I had thought of that at first, but remember, the Pentagon also takes a plane. So, the military's just as discombobulated, their main command center is wrecked, and they have no clue what's going on either. Unlike now, they can't talk to Congress, and additionally, chances are, all ability to use are nuclear missiles is lost, due to both the President and the nuclear football being destroyed. While a military dictatorship would happen over time, they just wouldn't have the facilities or power to run it for at least a few weeks, and the rest of the world would likely notice a newly nukeless America.
Personally, I doubt it.
In actuality, the other nations would likely fly in with aid and try to help out. We're not exactly convincing everyone, especially the EU and all of the nations that we've sent aid to, to feign kindness just because we have nuclear weapons.
I very seriously doubt that the Football is the only way to trigger a nuclear attack.I agree. But, I don't doubt that the only one that can do it is the President, and even if the VP knows, I doubt the person that would end up President by then would (you've got to figure, pretty far down the line is now dead).
I very seriously doubt that the Football is the only way to trigger a nuclear attack.
Huh. And, even allowing for backups, it seems likely that they'd be in the now destroyed White House or the now destroyed Pentagon. Either way, they're screwed.I very seriously doubt that the Football is the only way to trigger a nuclear attack.
It sorta is. The President is the only authority that can authorize a nuclear strike, and it must be confirmed by the Secretary of Defense. Among the contents of the "nuclear football" is a card with the authorization codes, which are also necessary to physically fire the nukes; with the codes incinerated and the two high authorities required to initiate a launch dead, there's going to be a lot of finagling to get a missile out. The only two spares known to be in existence are one in the White House and one with the VP, both of which would go up in flames this hypothetical attack.
I very seriously doubt that the Football is the only way to trigger a nuclear attack.
It sorta is. The President is the only authority that can authorize a nuclear strike, and it must be confirmed by the Secretary of Defense. Among the contents of the "nuclear football" is a card with the authorization codes, which are also necessary to physically fire the nukes; with the codes incinerated and the two high authorities required to initiate a launch dead, there's going to be a lot of finagling to get a missile out. The only two spares known to be in existence are one in the White House and one with the VP, both of which would go up in flames this hypothetical attack.
My very favourite system for this is Britain's Letters of Last Resort. They're literally handwritten letters telling SSBN captains what to do in case of the destruction of mainland Britain.
With Bush/Cheney wiped out, and all the congressmen and senators dead, what would have happened (outside of the infinite-term people no longer being in office)?
England is part of the continent. How does this change history?
The JFK assassination happens, but in this alternate history, it's found that the CIA really was behind it. How does America, and the world, change?