Milgov&civgov

[rcaf_777]

I would call is coup per say. It comes down to who steps in to get things done the nukes fly and who on the ground giving orders?

Also who has controls over things like guns, food etc? In times like this soldiers and fall back on their training and leadership. Many civilians will go with the flow as long as the basic needs are met, food shelter and security.

Government Officials might find it hard to give orders from a bunker.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by kato13

I just realized that martial, Marshall, and marshal (law enforcement) could in some cases be used interchangeably without too much variance in the meaning of a sentence. Pretty odd given martial and marshal come from two different latin words (for war and horse I believe).

No more odd than religious and sacrilegious also not being related I guess.

English is weird.

Yes, English is weird, but it works better when used properly.

Martial law is when civil authority (which in the US usually has the duty of law enforcement and keeping the peace) is replaced by peace-keeping and control by the military; due process is suspended, and soldiers, following a military chain of command are used to keep peace pursuant to orders by their (military) commanders.

A Marshal was originally a high official in the household of a medieval king, prince, or noble, originally having charge of the cavalry but later usually in command of the military forces (hence "Field Marshal"; and related a municipal Fire Marshal, who commands/orders/prepare a Fire Department).

There is also a more current (US) meaning is an officer appointed for a judicial district (as of the U.S.) to execute the process of the courts and perform various duties similar to those of a sheriff (2) : a city law officer entrusted with particular duties.

There is no "Marshal Law" except in a western, where a town may appoint a town marshal rather than a Sheriff, who was generally elected.

As an amusing side-note, the Marshallsea Prison of London (Medieval to 18th Century) would today be spelt Marshalcy, as it was (originally) the place where the Marshal of England could hold the prisoners that the King told him to hold on to. But the spelling of English was rather fluid until the late 18th/ early 19th Century.

[unkated]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I know it's heresy compared to most players, but I think that CIVGOV has a more legitimate claim to being the legal US government, having most of the remaining civilian US government in its ranks and not unsizable military forces (though little heavy equipment).

MILGOV, on the other hand, controls a lot of the commo networks and heavy equipment, oil in the Gulf, and large armed forces. They have become the de facto government to many, and probably have their own version of COG (even more illegitimate than CIVGOV's COG).

MILGOV is, essentially trying to replace the legitimate US Government with a military junta. And for a long time after the Twilight War, they will succeed, but the people, as the country recovers and becomes more organized, will want a return to democracy. And this is where CIVGOV steps in.

I would agree, and I believe that MilGov would have handed control to a legitimate president, except (IIRC) that as described, the process CIVGOV uses to declare a new President has some major problems with legitimacy itself - that the representation by members of the rump Congress was questionable, and so their appointment of leadership was questionable. Meanwhile, MilGov had an active war to prosecute.

Finally, the Electoral College gets a chance to fulfill its actual purpose, and no one calls them!

The part that gets messy is when individuals have to choose between obeying a military junta or an illegitimately appointed civilian leadership, like...

• the head of the MidWest office of the FBI gets phone calls from both a General and a new Attorney General and has to decide who to listen to, or
  
• a Base Commander gets orders from his superior to institute martial law to take control of a neighboring city without an order or permission from a civil authority to do so (breaking posse comitatus, the law that says that the US military cannot be used within the US for law enforcement unless ordered to do so by civil authority), or
  
• a Colonel orders a power company to limit electricity distribution to a city population so it can be concentrated on military production factories.

Of course, this is all besides the question of who is making personal plays for power on the grand national scale.

Uncle Ted

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by unkated

I would agree, and I believe that MilGov would have handed control to a legitimate president, except (IIRC) that as described, the process CIVGOV uses to declare a new President has some major problems with legitimacy itself - that the representation by members of the rump Congress was questionable, and so their appointment of leadership was questionable. Meanwhile, MilGov had an active war to prosecute.

Finally, the Electoral College gets a chance to fulfill its actual purpose, and no one calls them!

The part that gets messy is when individuals have to choose between obeying a military junta or an illegitimately appointed civilian leadership, like...

• the head of the MidWest office of the FBI gets phone calls from both a General and a new Attorney General and has to decide who to listen to, or
  
• a Base Commander gets orders from his superior to institute martial law to take control of a neighboring city without an order or permission from a civil authority to do so (breaking posse comitatus, the law that says that the US military cannot be used within the US for law enforcement unless ordered to do so by civil authority), or
  
• a Colonel orders a power company to limit electricity distribution to a city population so it can be concentrated on military production factories.

Of course, this is all besides the question of who is making personal plays for power on the grand national scale.

Uncle Ted

Just a minor point, posse comitatus only applies to the US Army (and USAF as when the law was passed they were part of the Army), but not the US Navy, guard or reserves (unless Army guard/ reserves are called to federal duty).

[Toxoplasmaman]

Originally Posted by unkated

I would agree, and I believe that MilGov would have handed control to a legitimate president, except (IIRC) that as described, the process CIVGOV uses to declare a new President has some major problems with legitimacy itself - that the representation by members of the rump Congress was questionable, and so their appointment of leadership was questionable. Meanwhile, MilGov had an active war to prosecute.

Finally, the Electoral College gets a chance to fulfill its actual purpose, and no one calls them!

The part that gets messy is when individuals have to choose between obeying a military junta or an illegitimately appointed civilian leadership, like...

• the head of the MidWest office of the FBI gets phone calls from both a General and a new Attorney General and has to decide who to listen to, or
  
• a Base Commander gets orders from his superior to institute martial law to take control of a neighboring city without an order or permission from a civil authority to do so (breaking posse comitatus, the law that says that the US military cannot be used within the US for law enforcement unless ordered to do so by civil authority), or
  
• a Colonel orders a power company to limit electricity distribution to a city population so it can be concentrated on military production factories.

Of course, this is all besides the question of who is making personal plays for power on the grand national scale.

Uncle Ted

Milgov does not have the option of deciding if the current Cilgov deserves legitmancy. Milgov has no standing in constitutional law. Presidential elections have always been contested.

Since I'm new, I will just point out the United States presidential election of 1876. Nothing recent!😀

[Toxoplasmaman]

I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers

Oath of Commissioned Officers is a bit different then enlisted. No mention of obeying President or superior officers.

Hmmm.

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by CDAT

Just a minor point, posse comitatus only applies to the US Army (and USAF as when the law was passed they were part of the Army), but not the US Navy, guard or reserves (unless Army guard/ reserves are called to federal duty).

While strictly true in that the law does not refer to branches other than the Army and Air Force, the Navy and Marine Corps were made subject to it by DoD Directive 5525.5. There is an exception for National Guard units if they're acting pursuant to the presidential power to subdue domestic violence (per 10 USC Sections 331-335, aka the Insurrection Act). Even if called for state service, NG regulations prohibit their use for normal law enforcement functions such as arrests, searching suspects, or handling evidence. They can perform surveillance, intelligence, and support roles, but are not supposed to be hands-on at the scene.

The Coast Guard is exempt unless they are placed under the control of the DoD in time of war, as they were Treasury and are now Homeland Security, and are not usually part of the DoD (and thus not included in DoD Directives). Exceptions also exist for cases involving nuclear material (18 USC 831) and chemical or biological weapons (10 USC 382), where DoD experts may be brought in to work with the DoJ for national security purposes.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by unkated

• the head of the MidWest office of the FBI gets phone calls from both a General and a new Attorney General and has to decide who to listen to, or
  
• a Base Commander gets orders from his superior to institute martial law to take control of a neighboring city without an order or permission from a civil authority to do so (breaking posse comitatus, the law that says that the US military cannot be used within the US for law enforcement unless ordered to do so by civil authority), or
  
• a Colonel orders a power company to limit electricity distribution to a city population so it can be concentrated on military production factories.

Uncle Ted

Here what I see happening the head of the Mid West FBI office would mostly likely follow Attorney General as that what he has always done. However the
Special Agent in Charge (SAC) might question why is Attorney General giving orders and not the senior FBI staff.

Now the next on would be the opposite military officers would mostly likely follow the orders of a Superior Officer. the Base Commander might have reservations especially if deadly force was call for. But given that nukes had used and country I wouldn't see him acting otherwise.

Now the last case is the easiest the power company might listen to the colonel or not. It depends dose he make this request in person with armed troops or dose phone it in.

[shrike6]

Originally Posted by kato13

If 3 secretaries survive (canon) and one is promoted to president. The remaining department's second or even third in command can be immediately promoted to acting secretary (as they have already been approved by the Senate) and be put back into the succession order. This was confirmed around 9/11 that deputies promoted to acting (but not yet approved for full secretary ship) are in the Line.

Every secretary serves at the whim of the president so even if someone cannot be found as is not dead, they can be removed and their deputy made acting secretary. Keeping the line full.

After the nukes start flying in China and Europe the Senate could quietly file paperwork approving all deputies for full promotion removing even that slight ambiguity. And my mention of a Quorum surviving allows full approval even if that paperwork is not done.

The big questions come in Jan of 1999 when all representatives and 1/3 of senators would no longer be legally office and in Jan of 2001 when the acting president's and another 1/3 of senators terms would be over. The numbers of senators might be higher than a 1/3 for 98 as I think governor appointments cannot server more than 2 years or until the next scheduled election.


edit forgot elections are in even years and replacement is odd.

That adds another issue from Canon the governor who appointed himself senator would no longer be serving in mid 99 if civil laws were enforced. If the president suspended elections and congress passed laws saying they stay in office until a new census is conducted after a nuclear attack that could keep things stable until a quorum was lost.

Canon had a great goal. Two competing governing forces that would allow some serious unit on unit combat like in Europe. How else could you explain airstrikes or artillery strikes on bridges or similar targets without it (outside of where Mexican and Soviet forces are). But the method of getting there has holes so large you could fly a C-5 through it. Maybe with some thought we can come up with something more plausible.

Edit forget elections are in even years and replacement in Jan of odd years.

Actually this is somewhat incorrect. Currently 36 states allow the governor to appoint a replacement to fill out the term. In the other 14, they require a special election some with temporary appointments and some without.

For example with John Broward, The Arkansas statute at the time stated that in a Senate race, the governor’s replacement serves until the next general election if that election is less than 12 months away. Otherwise, a special election would occur no more than 120 days after the vacancy occurs. One seat would have been up for reelection in 1996, the other would have up for reelection in 1998. Either way his seat would have required a special election within a 120 days of the appointment.

[Draq]

This is all operating on the presumption that such a level of detail is maintained after the TDM. I imagine things would go back to a more ad-hoc frontier style of decision making.

[Enfield]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Just wondering if anyone has ideas on how thses governments would look and function

Who in them? I know for the MILGOV is made up off the Joint Cheifs but who elese?

Since the nuclear attack happens on the US Thanksgiving Weekend, odds are a good number of senior government officals would surrive.

Also the US government could order key departments to have designated survivors and alternate HQ sucj as the FBI, CIA, or FEMA

Milgov.

1. I think Civil Affairs Officers and commands would become more important. In a cantonment, they would probably be the main liaison with civilian authorities in the areas. The relations would probably vary depending on what the situation was like. If there was relatively organized territory where mayors were still being elected or whatever local equivalent existed, if there was a governor or equivalent, then this would probably be a kind of partnership. The military would in some cases have seniority over production of important goods or products, in other cases they might be just defending the territory.

I also think that in some cases where there had been utter chaos, the military would have replaced the civilian governments locally. Perhaps they might be slowly built up. This would range from virtual proconsul like commanders in some areas to Milgov providing protection and support.

2. Generally Support command officers would have a totally different approach to providing support for the need to do a wide range of supplies that regular procurement contracts would not fill. They might have special units attached solely for maintaining a fuel refinery or ammunition production factory, water purification plant, etc.

3. Where possible, I picture Milgov having a Recovery Support (Unit) which would assess the viability of areas around contonments or field commands, establishing whether the area needs to be evacuated, if key infrastructure can be rebuilt and so on. This would also include future projections about a census and possibility of rebuilding the government.

4. Generally, for the near future, I imagine Milgov accepting the idea that there will be no presidency, and so the Chairman would be presented to those under Milgov as an ad hoc emergency government for the interim.

A possible alternative of course is some government agency--FEMA, the Director of an Agency on the National Security Council, etc--but the problem is that they might not have the legitimacy in the minds of military personnel unless they have shown a keen organizing ability and have won over the Joint Chiefs and other senior personnel.

5. Defense Agencies may still have installations or projects that are active. These may need direct assistance, rescuing and so on.

Civgov

1. CivGov might very well have appointed the regular cabinet, senior government agencies and so on. The staff would probably be a lot smaller. I picture the remaining agencies like a kind of Praetorian Guard for the Presidency.

- The CIA
- The FBI/ATF/DEA
- The NSA
- National Science Foundation
- NOAA (which has its own ships and facilities)

2. If you have seen the show "Borgia" the cardinals meeting are often a small group and I picture "Congress" being similar. As stated in canon some may not even properly represent their states. So I picture this being a hodgepodge of hangers on, courtiers, ne'er do wells and such. Or perhaps as in the last days of the Roman Republic, scattered, barely any authority save for those who represent states still relatively efective perhaps.