If the Cuban missile crisis went hot and dc was destroyed, where would the us Capital have been rebuilt after the us won the war?
What would have been the likely place the us rebuilt the capital city after it was destroyed in a hypothetical Cuban missile war?
Same place - Washington DC after extensive decontamination and removal and replacement of radioactive soil.
New Orleans - access to port at mouth of largest river system in the US
St Louis - confluence of major rivers and central to the US. Already existing monuments such as gateway arch make good seed for new national mall. Arch could be analogue for Washington monument and such.
Chicago, both a river and lake port, access to two major inland waterway systems for transport and also an excellent rail hub
Which of these sites would have been most likely?
- USAFisnumber1Lv 71 month ago
If the Cuban Missile crisis went hot a lot more would have been destroyed than just Washington DC. Assuming the human race survived we probably would build future cities underground.
- RaymondLv 71 month ago
You mean "IF" the US had won that war.
Outside the USA and the USSR, it was everybody's opinion that both US and USSR (and many other innocent countries) would have lost. There probably would have been no winners.
If there had been any portion left of "the government", it probably would have been in the bottom of a pit, maybe in the Rocky Mountains, or in any of a dozen (or so) less-known places that, at some time, had been arranged for that purpose. There is even one location outside the USA.
- WhoLv 71 month ago
it wouldnt just have become "hot" - it would have become "VERY VERY hot"
(the USSR had already stated that they would regard any attack on cuba as an attack on them - and the US could expect full retaliatory measures
so hot the US would have ceased to exist as a nation
so few would have survived those that DID survive wouldnt give a damn about rebuilding a capital ANYWHERE
NONE of the cities you identify would have survived and would have just been reduced to rubble with millions of dead in each
(the ussr would have done better (at 1st) - cos it was HUGE
The US also had the problem it was highly reliant on technology and communications FAAAR more reliant than the USSR - Its would have been likely large chunks of it would not have been aware of the war
NOBODY would have "won" that war, but i reckon the US would have lost far more than the USSR
- busterwasmycatLv 71 month ago
It isn't obvious to me that we would choose an existing major city as the capital, and if we had been attacked with nuclear weapons, most of the major cities would have been destroyed or rendered radioactive anyway, so I suspect we would have chosen someplace that had managed to survive with minimal damage as a primary consideration, and it is not possible to imagine where that would be. East Coast cities would all be downwind of some pretty major strikes and thus subject to a lot of fallout even if not actually nuked.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- StarryskyLv 71 month ago
Last spring the tRump Administration gave 1500 government climatologists in Washington area just 30 days to move to Kansas City or quit or retire. Less than 300 of them moved. This was a way to try to silence the climate change proponents.
tRump Administration moved executives of Bureau of Land Management from Washington to Rifle, Colorado. Rifle just so happens to be the home district of the current Secretary of the Interior. This was supposedly the way to improve communication between field operations and Washington. But there had never been a problem about that in the past.
As you can see, moving operations of Washington to somewhere else is already taking place, nuke attack or not.Source(s): Funny thing happened about those climatologists--when the Dept. of Agriculture needed data on future rainfall in order to predict farm support payments, there was no one in Washington left to ask.
- A Yahoo UserLv 71 month ago
My guess: a central location
like Lebanon, Kansas.
- AndrewLv 71 month ago
The missiles in Cuba were not Cuban, they were Soviet. It was reported that they were placed in Cuba at the Cuban government's request - supposedly to deter another US invasion, but also because the Soviets felt that placing missiles in Cuba was an appropriate response to US ballistic missile sites in Europe and Turkey.
Had Washington, D.C. been attacked, it's likely that the US would have moved its capital to another planned city and chosen a site closer to the center of the country. You can imagine that if such a thing had come to pass, it's highly unlikely that the people living in any existing US city that had been spared from attack would have been lining up to volunteer their city to serve as the new capital.
Relocating the capital to a site in the Rocky Mountains would have enabled the US to situate its government in a location that was far inland, so it would have the advantage of being a difficult target for bombers to hit because they'd have to fly a thousand miles over US territory to get there, and they'd likely be shot down long before they got close. Of course, the site would still be within range of ICBMs, but it would be possible to construct large scale fortified bunkers in the mountains. Washington, D.C. sits on low-lying land at the mouth of a river and there's no bedrock to support underground bunkers like that there.
- SlumlordLv 71 month ago
New York or Philly, probably New York.