The 9/11 heroes saved many, many people, though. I don't think that one child is going to have the same effect, to a population that might have already lost children or fear for their children's lives. There would be an air of privilege that could turn ugly. ("Oh, we're supposed to fall down in gratitude that you didn't lose YOUR daughter? What about mine?") That's why I'd vote for something that saves more people.
Good point. That's something that's been in my mind since I hatched the idea. My thoughts on this are, sure, some people are going to take it that way, there's two sides to every coin after all, but I think most people would probably realize the story is not told with malice and see the bigger picture the president is trying to convey (that being, that these qualities of selflessness and bravery are what America needs right now). Nonetheless, you are right, some people are inevitably going to take it this way. What about the fact that he (whatever hero I ultimately choose) ran back and forth to and from the White House to help evacuate and rush people into the choppers instead of simply taking his own seat? For 5 choppers of 11 seats each, that's 55 people he could have helped to save, including no doubt some high-ranking figures. Obviously not quite as great an act, purely by numbers, as the UA93 heroes, but surely it still counts for something, right? (I may need to put more emphasis on this part, rather than just on the daughter)
As seems to be becoming clear from some of the replies, it's hard to be a hero in a nuclear war: hard for one person to do enough to make a difference when tens of millions are dead and everyone's lost someone. An exception might be, for example, the crew of an Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) site that selflessly kept targeting warheads headed for population centers even as they ignored a warhead descending on themselves and their own families. "Denver lives from their sacrifice."
Unlikely in my opinion. I'd think an ABM would make itself the top priority if it were targeted. It'd probably do more good defending itself for 8 hours and shooting down half the missiles headed to Denver than defend Denver completely for an hour before being destroyed and leaving the city to fend for itself. Also, I think self-sacrifice is an assumed duty of anyone in certain types of facilities. I know people in nuclear ICBM silos during the cold war were flat out told that if they got the alarm, they'd all be dead in twenty minutes and their duty was to launch the retaliation at all costs before being destroyed. Mutual Assured Destruction made the assumption that these facilities would sacrifice themselves to destroy the USSR.
I've done a ton of research on nuclear war strategy and theories for a few years now both out of personal interest and as research for my current WIP, and I can tell you that you are most certainly right, without a doubt. ABMs are the backbone of our national defense. Without them, it's a free-for-all. They would not simply ignore a warhead closing in on them like that. Also, as my story is set in the near-future against the backdrop of Cold War 2, I have taken the creative liberty of having the United States develop a new ABM system that is crazy effective and is later hailed for the survival of the nation. The Cerberus ABM fires a volley of 3 missiles that all lock on to the same warhead to ensure a kill. It is loaded with 18 missiles in 6 silos, each of which can independently track and target up to 6 missiles at once. With enhanced robotic technology, it can reload automatically and repeat this process twice before requiring human intervention. It would have no problem whatsoever with saving itself while also saving the cities. Pretty impressive, haha!
In the Cold War 2, are they still respecting the non-armament agreements that we've made with respect to space? Also, what's to prevent the incoming missile from detecting the defensive weapons and simply climbing as high as it can before detonating? In the modern era, a nuclear weapon is far more devastating blowing up two hundred miles above a continent than hitting a city directly. If the DPRK blows up a bomb in San Francisco, San Francisco is destroyed, if they blow it up 200 miles above San Francisco, half the continent loses it's power. In your story, are your states fairly open about their nuclear tests? Are you aware that it's no longer possible to secretly create a nuclear weapons program? Spoiler: Physics A nuclear explosion creates a blast of neutrinos. Neutrinos do not really interact with matter all that much, so you can't hide this. A neutrino will go through a light year of lead like it's nothing, so you couldn't even secretly blow up a nuke on the far side of the moon. We'd still detect it straight through the moon and the earth without any problem. Every time DPRK blows up a new bomb, the military is not the first to know: the astronomers are. There are a number of neutrino detectors all over the world and since no amount of earth is enough to stop them, they'll all register so triangulation and yield calculation is quite easy.
Yes, they are still respecting the space armament treaties. Despite the heightened tensions and the fact that the [fictional] Russian president isn't the most predictable or most stable, I still have both sides abiding by most treaties to the best of their ability. There have not been any new nuclear weapons tests in this world, so explosion detection isn't a problem. (I am aware of how they can be detected, btw) I had decided fairly early on that it would be too big and bold of a move o have both sides resume nuclear testing after all the treaties they had both signed in the First Cold War regarding test bans. I saw no reason to resume nuke testing. Rather, the Cold War 2 I have envisioned in this world consists mainly of three things: 1) A "new arms race" consisting of the Russian deployment of their new Sarmat ICBM, a new American ABM system, new Russian SLBMs, new American gravity bombs, etc., coupled with vigorous high-profiles testing of such weapons systems, 2) Increased Russian interference in Ukraine, and encouragement of a similar revolution in the neighboring Transnistria region, sparking a sort of "Soviet Spring" across the rest of the neo-Soviet/pro-Russian breakaway states (Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Donbass) which leads to... 3) The creation of a Union State made up of 4 former Soviet republics (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan) and the 4 aforementioned breakaway states (the latter causing international controversy)
Consider that the more effective an ABM system is, the more likely an aggressor will invest in building even more nukes. That was a concern the US had with Russia. It gets expensive, but there's nothing stopping them from increasing their stockpile a LOT more.
Late to the party, sorry, but how about this: The Vice President and First Daughter are opening the new (insert meaningless center related to their charitable interests) when things start to go suddenly pear-shaped. The building they're in is severely damaged, leaving the VP the only one who can commit the heroic but obviously suicidal act to save the daughter. A man of honor, he sacrifices himself to save the young lady, who rejoins the remaining members of the Secret Service detail (who were prevented from intervening by a fallen, slightly flaming beam or something) in time for Marine One to swoop in and rescue her. She relays the story of the VP's heroics to her father, who tosses the account to the speechwriters, and the rest is history. Just my 2 yen, but it might work.
I've considered that. This would be a spoiler for my story, but it comes out during the UN investigation that the US intentionally lied about and downplayed the effectiveness of the new ABM system. The UN rules that such an effective system is a threat to nuclear deterrence, and rules that future ABM developments by any country must be approved by international inspectors to ensure the truthfulness of claims regarding effectiveness. The United States is sanctioned and heavily reprimanded for using deceit to gain a tactical advantage; hundreds of top military officials involved in the project are fired or forced to resign, and some face criminal charges.
