You hit on an important point, America’s dependence on being told what to do.
First off, I think the scenario described in the article is BS.
But hypothetically, what would happen if it occurred? Imagine state and fed officials were struck. They leave the media up and running, and simply broadcast their demands.
How would America respond? I mentioned on another thread the other day that many Americans wouldn’t drink milk of it’s past the due date no matter how good or bad it smelled.
Can an America who can hardly tie their shoes without instructions/orders respond in any meaningful way?
Despite all the bravado we hear/see here everyday, I think many, if not most folks would just roll over and do what they are told.
The military is another story, of course.
Socialism's linchpin is centralizing the economy under political direction; its need for a central plan implies that the political system would be centralized too. The more centralized the State, the fewer centres of power there are. The fewer centres of power, the fewer centres a foreign conqueror needs to hit in order to take over the country.
Thus, ceteris paribus, the more socialistic a State, the more vulnerable it is to foreign conquest.
Consquently, socialists (whose aim is to stay in charge) will quickly figure out that they'd better make sure the ceteris is no longer paribus. To compensate for socialism's military vulnerability, they have to boost the military. Instead of swords being beaten into plowshares, plowshares get beaten into swords. That's one of the reasons why socialist states end up being First-World militaries on top of Third-World economies.
Interestingly, there's a side consequence: under socialism, a career in the military becomes a cushy slot. Military minds will figure the same vulnerability out quickly, which gives them real leverage over the commissars. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the political-officer slots in the military were the Communist Party's equivalent of the Russian Front.