Could a Coup be successful in the US?

[James Arryn]

what, like proper fucked?

[A True Kaniggit]

2 hours ago, Horza said:

Also, splitting that unified strategic weapons command would be a hell of a job.

Sorry guys: the country that MADs together, sads together.

I wonder if for some insane reason this did happen if the weaker new nations would give up their nukes to the strongest one. Ukraine gave all their nukes to Russia when the S. U. split. 

I doubt it. Each new country would probably think they were strongest.

 

 

[ThinkerX]

Well, there was this:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

 

 

Quote

 

The Committee began examining evidence on November 20, 1934. On November 24, the committee released a statement detailing the testimony it had heard about the plot and its preliminary findings. On February 15, 1935, the committee submitted its final report to the House of Representatives.^[11]

During the McCormack–Dickstein Committee hearings, Butler testified that Gerald C. MacGuire^[12] attempted to recruit him to lead a coup, promising him an army of 500,000 men for a march on Washington, D.C., and financial backing.^[13] Butler testified that the pretext for the coup would be that the president's health was failing.^[14]

Despite Butler's support for Roosevelt in the election^[7] and his reputation as a strong critic of capitalism,^[15] Butler said the plotters felt his good reputation and popularity were vital in attracting support amongst the general public and saw him as easier to manipulate than others.

Though Butler had never spoken to them, Butler implicated several prominent businessmen and veteran leaders as backers of the plot. The committee chose not to publish these allegations because they were hearsay.^[16][17]

Given a successful coup, Butler said that the plan was for him to have held near-absolute power in the newly created position of "Secretary of General Affairs", while Roosevelt would have assumed a figurehead role.

Those implicated in the plot by Butler all denied any involvement. MacGuire was the only figure identified by Butler who testified before the committee. Others Butler accused were not called to appear to testify because the "committee has had no evidence before it that would in the slightest degree warrant calling before it such men... The committee will not take cognizance of names brought into testimony which constitute mere hearsay."^[16]

In response, Butler said that the committee had deliberately edited out of its published findings the leading business people whom he had named in connection with the plot.^[18] He said on February 17, 1935, on Radio WCAU, "Like most committees it has slaughtered the little and allowed the big to escape. The big shots weren't even called to testify. They were all mentioned in the testimony. Why was all mention of these names suppressed from the testimony?"^[18]

On the final day of the committee,^[19] January 29, 1935, John L. Spivak published the first of two articles in the communist magazine New Masses, revealing portions of the Congressional committee testimony that had been redacted as hearsay. Spivak argued that the plot was part of a "conspiracy of Jewish financiers working with fascist groups", referring specifically to Felix Warburg, the McCormack–Dickstein Committee, and certain members of the American Jewish Committee in collusion with J. P. Morgan. Hans Schmidt concludes that while Spivak made a cogent argument for taking the suppressed testimony seriously, he embellished his article with his "overblown" claims regarding Jewish financiers, which Schmidt dismisses as guilt by association not supported by the evidence of the Butler-MacGuire conversations themselves[/quote]

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 

 

Perhaps the Koch brothers could attempt something similar, but with a prominent member of Congress as their proxy?

'...the president is too beset by scandal to function...'

'...vice president is in grave health...'

'...vital business of state needs completed...'

'...can't have this pointless gridlock...'

'...temporary suspension of normal congressional procedures...' (cites suitably ancient/ambiguous case law)

'...proceedings will be classified at the highest level...gag order on relevant officials

[Horza]

14 minutes ago, A True Kaniggit said:

I wonder if for some insane reason this did happen if the weaker new nations would give up their nukes to the strongest one. Ukraine gave all their nukes to Russia when the S. U. split. 

I doubt it. Each new country would probably think they were strongest.

 

 

In the Ukraine case, this was a matter of giving up a capability that Ukraine didn't want, both in terms of maintaining the existing infrastructure (and building their own nuclear command and control network) and the political ramifications of holding an operating nuclear arsenal while bordering Russia.

In this case a big rich country with a large nuclear capacity is for some reason splitting into four big, rich countries, so I imagine each would hold on to the capabilities that they were left with.

[A True Kaniggit]

39 minutes ago, Horza said:

 

In this case a big rich country with a large nuclear capacity is for some reason splitting into four big, rich countries, so I imagine each would hold on to the capabilities that they were left with.

And I have to wonder what would happen to my countries SLBMs in this scenario. I mean, at any given time we have a shitload of nukes hiding somewhere in the ocean. I guess it would depend on how peaceful the breakup was, and how good these four hypothetical countrys were at sharing. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

3 hours ago, sologdin said:

horza, you know that since the ANZUS, y'all are like the 65th and 66th states, aye?

So us being kicked out (sorry, suspended) from ANZUS means we're not a state any more? Does this mean all the Confederacy had to do to successfully secede was declare itself nuclear free?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On March 24, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Darzin said:

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 hours ago, Horza said:

In the Ukraine case, this was a matter of giving up a capability that Ukraine didn't want, both in terms of maintaining the existing infrastructure (and building their own nuclear command and control network) and the political ramifications of holding an operating nuclear arsenal while bordering Russia.

In this case a big rich country with a large nuclear capacity is for some reason splitting into four big, rich countries, so I imagine each would hold on to the capabilities that they were left with.

Sorry for the above had to clear quote.

Horza,

I suspect Ukraine wishes it had held on to its Nukes.  I suspect Russia would have been less willing to steal a big chunk of Ukrainian territory and then move on even more from a nuclear armed neighbor.

[Hereward]

I'm sure they do, though how they would have paid for them over the last 25 years as they are bankrupt and even when they were marginally solvent it was down to the reluctant cooperation of pro-Moscow oligarchs is something of a mystery.

[Horza]

I don't see how keeping a nuclear arsenal would have been a net plus for Ukrainian sovereignty. Deciding to hold on to one would have meant far greater Russian involvement in Kievan affairs, not less.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Horza,

Would Russia have invaded and annex chunks of Ukraine if they risked a nuclear response?

[Horza]

If Ukraine had decided to retain a nuclear arsenal in 1994, it would have been the subject of a very concerted effort on Russia's part to neutralise that arsenal, employing the full range of Russian leverage over a country that was at that point only three years separated. Between the deeply-interconnected elites, near-total economic dependence and thorough penetration and subversion of the Ukrainian intelligence services I can't see how Ukraine would have retained an independent nuclear deterrent.

It wouldn't have much help from the West either - every European leader going would have preferred the Ukrainian arsenal under Russian supervision to a new nuclear state in Europe, especially one as economically and politically precarious as Ukraine. That was what the Budapest Memorandum was about, after all.