• vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Sure the simplest reason is that you don’t need to have civil matters centralized just to maintain that rapid military response. Ideally the commander in chief and executive branch would both be elected but separate positions for example. You don’t need a strong executive branch you just need a well working system, sure it’s technically easier to have it under an executive but easy doesn’t mean good.

    Also it seems like more traditional bomber dropped nukes will take over once more, this means that the point is just to get them in the air before worst comes to worst. Most of the needed resources will already be assembled where needed meaning it doesn’t much matter if the executive even exists still since everything should’ve been set up long before then.

    My point is that the reasoning is flawed since it assumes that the most effective action is to have a strong centralized power. When ideally you’d want a well maintained decentralized network of response facilities.