I suspect state rights would take over until a national convention could be convened.>>> Why our form of government wouldn’t need to change at all. The country is essentially functioning without a president right now. The country had no president or congress before George W. State national guards would defend the country like they are doing now in texas. Maybe take over the military with all the gays and trannies running the place. And states don’t have rights people do.
If it happened out of the blue, the federal government would cease to exist, but if it happened after even a relatively short escalation, the key people would be evacuated to safer locations and the nuclear strike would have little strategic value and a predictable consequence of destructive retaliation against (apparent) perpetrators.
I would imagine there are protocols to start evacuating key people in situations where tensions were rising. I don’t know if it has ever taken place (other than George W. Bush being prevented from returning to DC after 9-11), possibly in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis?
I don’t think it’s a secret that there are deep underground bunkers in the mountains near VA-WV border equipped for long-term residency and functioning of the U.S. government. A president would likely declare martial law and if not much of Congress survived, that president would probably rule by decree, or at least try to do so, quite possibly some states would declare it invalid and their state governments would be the recognized authorities, it would depend on the political situation before any such eventuality.
I cannot imagine a situation where a nuclear attack was limited to one location, anyone doing that would be inviting a massive retaliation, so the macabre logic of the situation is that a first strike should be massive to do as much as possible to reduce retaliation. Or, if the intent is nuclear blackmail (as in “do our will or more will come”) then to try that approach it would make sense to pick a symbolic target to demonstrate capability and intent, without raising the anger level to an automatic response. For example, if a hostile power with a desire to force a response wanted to make a point, they could say “in 24 hours, we will detonate a nuclear weapon at these co-ordinates (in remote unpopulated area like one finds in parts of interior west), give time for the very few inhabitants to leave, close access, then set it off and start the blackmail.
I don’t suppose the above would ever happen because there is no point, a nuclear power can start blackmail by just saying it is “on” without demonstrating what we already know, that they can set off a bomb. We as civilians cannot be entirely sure this has never happened, but our side could do it also, and perhaps we already have. Who’s to say that China is not on notice to stay out of Taiwan “or else x y and z will happen.” And that could have been U.S. policy since any year since 1960. Of course such a policy could be less than formal, it could have been communicated informally by any U.S. administration since late Eisenhower. Same goes with Russia (formerly USSR), they may well have been told, not just left to surmise, that appearance of Russian troops beyond stated borders would have predictable consequences.
Who knows, Russia today may have been told at some point after 2014, don’t cross the Dneiper, we will look the other way for Crimea and east Ukraine, or pretend to be angry, but if you cross the Dneiper (or come past a certain line in north Ukraine), it means all out war. There would be no particular reason to tell anyone about it, but it would explain why Zelensky persists. It would also explain why Russia never made much of a push towards Kyiv.
If I were at the NY Post, I would be more concerned about a nuclear strike on NYC than DC. But I would guess that both would be targets at the same time.