Wasn't this called "Debt of Honor"? TBH, I'e always worried that an attack like that would happen.
The Tom Clancy book "Debt of Honor" did use this scenario, though I've never read it and was only vaguely aware of it when I created this ALT. I honestly feel this is a very plausible thing; possibly not now, but certainly in years before the security hype. Gale Norton was indeed the designated survivor at George W. Bush's State of the Union address in 2002.
I would guess that in this timeline, the Clancy book is considered a spookily prescient work. Cprhodesact 11:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Its actually more like "Executive Orders", the sequel to "Debt of Honour".
- just the primary is the same, all else is original and you are wellcome to expand that ATL--Fero 16:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Template:The Capitol Burns[]
in Template:The Capitol Burns you find {{The Capitol Burns}} a copy adapted of {{President McCain Main}} you can go on in there, help is welcome. to paste that in some page you must paste {{The Capitol Burns}} --Fero 16:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
State of Union Explosion[]
You asked a question about an explosion at the State of the Union Address. I'm not american either, but the wikipedia article indicates that athough the majority of Congress and the Cabinet would be there, there are provisions in place to make sure not ALL are present. A single 'designated survivor' is selected from the cabinet, and a few members of congress are asked not to attend.
- thank you for answer, my english is not great, spanish is my native languaje, and sometimes is hard read some complete wikipedia article in english, and remember psh your sign, to know who write that--Fero 00:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Casus Belli[]
What canada and Mexico are doing (carving up the USA) may be seen as an act of WAR by the US and thus lead to both countries being annexed. See National integrity etc. Buk5 16:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll go ahead and fix the spelling, but i wont make any actuall changes. 12.74.116.37 21:26, September 1, 2009 (UTC)
Implausible[]
This TL doesn't make much sense. Even if such an attack is carried out, someone from the line of succession does not attend the state of the union to ensure there would still be a President in case some sort of attack kills everyone. The idea that the US would fall apart after such an attack is implausible. Mitro 00:24, September 2, 2009 (UTC)
Exactly what I was going to say! In such a scenario (like in Chancey's novel), the US would continue. It is nothing like what "our" time line at 1983DD, huh? Anyway, I think I did see Gale Norton's name somewhere in my browsing. Sometimes these alternate historians just don't do their homework! SouthWriter 18:02, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
I am afraid I have discovered a flaw as well. During a state of the union adress, one congressmen is chosen at random, and is taken to a secure location during a state of the union. This is does so incase a attack like the one this TL describes happens, a working government can still be in power. Riley.Konner 3:08, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
Trouble with the POD[]
The White House has its own hidden SAMs. The hijacked planes could not get within 50 miles of the Capitol without getting caught.Jack Vexx 19:37, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
- That is NOW, Jack. In 2001, the plane that crashed into the Pentagon practically flew over the capitol. In the Clinton years a small plane crashed outside the president's bedroom window. Even if the "White House" was so defended, a plane crashing into the capitol building across town would not necessarily be repelled, especially if it were a passenger plane. It has been proposed that the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania had been headed toward either the capitol or the White House. Neither would have had the necessary armament to stop it.SouthWriter 20:05, March 22, 2010 (UTC)