Tags:
  1. JadeX

    JadeX Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Ohio, U.S. of A.

    Restricting travel in emergencies - would it be un-American/cause outrage?

    Discussion in 'Research' started by JadeX, Sep 18, 2017.

    After America gets hit with multiple nuclear strikes across the nation, the federal government begins large-scale recovery operations. To do this, they obviously have to be able to transport supplies to the places that need it.

    To do this, the US President signs an executive order requisitioning the entire US Interstate Highway system, along with a few other connecting highways, for use by the military and FEMA to move supplies across the nation and between the affected areas.

    For several months afterward, civilian traffic on the Interstates will be prohibited and civilians will be forced to take other roads and highways to get around; but even so, travel between towns will be restricted. There would be occasional checkpoints (staffed by any combination of National Guard, US Army, and/or local police) where people would be asked to show IDs and state their destination before continuing.

    Now, from an emergency management standpoint, all this makes sense and has good purpose. But what about the morality of it all? Would restricting travel like this spark massive outrage and be derided as "un-American"? Would that alone be enough to force the government to find another solution/compromise for fear of backlash, or would they do it anyway and let the critics be critics?
     
  2. Bill Chester

    Bill Chester Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2016
    Messages:
    153
    Likes Received:
    84
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    The US Interstate Highway system was created by President Eisenhower specifically for military maneuverability. It would, at last, be used for its intended purpose.
     
    JadeX likes this.
  3. surrealscenes

    surrealscenes Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2017
    Messages:
    416
    Likes Received:
    309
    Location:
    a room made of impossible angles
    UnAmerican? Nope. Outraged by it? Yep, some.
    If FEMA gets to use the roads then everyone gets to use the roads is how most would see it, for military too.

    Restricting airspace is much easier to do and they would use that instead if highways for the most part, that and rail.
     
  4. JadeX

    JadeX Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Ohio, U.S. of A.
    I actually hadn't heard this before, so I looked it up, and sure enough, that seems to be the case, or at least partly so. That's interesting, thank you for pointing that out!

    That could be an interesting debate. Could spark protests, or perhaps even more defiant behavior, like angry citizens rushing the checkpoints. That'll be an interesting social dynamic I could explore.

    Yes, of course, but not all affected areas are in close proximity to major air bases/airports. There'd still have to be land transport to some extent, at least initially when the bulk of supplies are being moved. However, I had completely forgotten about the rail system, that's another thing they could use - that's great, because that means they can get the Interstates back under civilian control quicker! The faster travel can be restored to normal the higher civil morale will be, so that's great, thank you for reminding me of the rails.
     
  5. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    "Un-American" isn't a word that I use, but, yes, requiring that people get permission to travel sounds like it would absolutely be described that way. And a quick Google tells me that freedom of movement is regarded as a fundamental Constitutional right.

    Wikipedia isn't exactly a stellar source, but it can be useful as a pointer to other sources, so:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law
     
  6. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I'm actually not seeing how restricting travel that doesn't use the limited transportation resources does make good sense or have good purpose. What is the government's interest in, for example, preventing people from hiking from one town to another?

    Edited to add: And using an immense number of army and police personnel to essentially imprison people in their own towns seems like a terrible waste of resources.
     
  7. JadeX

    JadeX Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Ohio, U.S. of A.
    It would be temporary until the areas around the blast sites can be secured, to prevent people from entering areas with dangerous radiation levels, and also to prevent the looting of abandoned properties. Once the blast sites are secured, travel will free up considerably. It's not so much about going from one town to another as it is about going from the towns to the abandoned, nuked areas that are full of all kinds of potentially-deadly hazards. It's to keep people safe, as much as possible.

    Most people who are travelling from town to town with no malicious intent will be allowed to pass.
     
  8. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I still think that it may be entirely impractical to secure the entire perimeter of every single town. In a nuclear war, all those army and police people will have other things to do. I realize that wasn't your question, but it may be a plausibility barrier.

    And it would be clearly unconstitutional under normal circumstances. I don't know how martial law works.
     
  9. JadeX

    JadeX Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Ohio, U.S. of A.
    Well, you're right, and here lies an issue that may arise - there won't be checkpoints at every single junction, and the staffing at the checkpoints that do exist probably won't be able to handle things if the situation gets out of hand - with only 2 to 5 people per checkpoint, at most, they wouldn't be able to do much if - for example - an angry citizen rams their car through the checkpoint anyway and drives into a restricted area. About all they could do is open fire, and that of course comes with its own set of morality and legality issues. The system won't be 100% effective by any means; I wouldn't even go as far to say that it'd be 75% effective, or even 50% for that matter. There's always the chance that this could totally backfire and become a big controversial mess.

    Basically I have one big grey area here and I have plenty of means to explore the nuances of it - I just need to make sure the public reaction to the system won't prevent it from happening in the first place, hence this thread and the question. Even if the people unanimously hate it, would that sway the government at all to find another way? Or would they insist "we're doing it this way whether you like it or not"? Some interesting questions.
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2017
  10. Homer Potvin

    Homer Potvin A tombstone hand and a graveyard mind Staff Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2017
    Messages:
    12,136
    Likes Received:
    19,758
    Location:
    Rhode Island
    How many nukes are we talking about? It wouldn't take many to make the idea of travel moot. Knock off the banks and financial systems (NYC) and nobody would be able to buy gas for their cars. Even if the data survived, which I'm guessing it would, the people who regulate it would be done. And the economy would collapse overnight. Money would have no value. Anything divested in urban real estate would be worthless.

    How does the federal government survive? Are we talking Russians, North Koreans, or some kind of terrorists? The likelihood of their being enough warning to evacuate dips dramatically the less convention the threat is.
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  11. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    I think that the public reaction would be incredibly negative. The system wouldn't actually accomplish anything, but it would be a government effort to eliminate a fundamental right. It seems to be a non-solution in search of a problem.
     
    BayView and Simpson17866 like this.
  12. JadeX

    JadeX Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Ohio, U.S. of A.
    So you think maybe keeping highway use to a minimum and using rail as much as possible would be the best option?

    I'll have to do some research on freight rail systems in the US, but I think I can easily make that switch. It would also require a lot less personnel to use rail than it would to keep people off highways. I'll look into that - thanks @ChickenFreak for arguing the opposition side and @surrealscenes for reminding me of the rail system!
     
    Simpson17866 likes this.
  13. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    To clarify, my main objection is not to restricting the highways to government use. That has some reasonably plausible argument--assuming, of course, that the highways are filled with government traffic; I don't know if they really would?

    My main objection is to forbidding/controlling other, non-highway, traffic.
     
    JadeX and Simpson17866 like this.
  14. GingerCoffee

    GingerCoffee Web Surfer Girl Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    18,385
    Likes Received:
    7,080
    Location:
    Ralph's side of the island.
    Why restrict travel between cites not affected?

    Obviously you could stop all flights. We saw that done. We had to drive my Mom home to OR because we didn't know how long air travel would be down. But if the highways were also closed, just not seeing the logic behind it.

    Maybe you should stick to Martial law and not try to formalize closing highways. Certainly military check points and road blocks could add the story elements you are seeking with the highway closures.
     
  15. JadeX

    JadeX Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Ohio, U.S. of A.
    It's not so much about travel between unaffected areas as it is travel from unaffected areas to the affected areas - let's just face it, if a city just got nuked and you want to go into that city, you're probably up to no good. But once those areas are secured, which would hopefully be ASAP, that would no longer be a concern. The checkpoints would be mostly just to make sure people aren't going into those areas while they're still accessible and still dangerous. We saw this IRL recently, with travel into the Florida Keys being restricted after Hurricane Irma, for example. Not exactly the same thing, but roughly similar.

    True that, good point.
     
  16. ChickenFreak

    ChickenFreak Contributor Contributor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    15,262
    Likes Received:
    13,084
    Well...I wouldn't say that you're "up to no good", I'd say that you're suicidal. If a city is nuked, I don't think that any remotely sane person would try to enter it.

    It feels a little bit as if you're treating a nuclear attack as being much like a hurricane, and I don't think that's working.
     
    BayView likes this.
  17. newjerseyrunner

    newjerseyrunner Contributor Contributor Contest Winner 2022

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2016
    Messages:
    1,462
    Likes Received:
    1,432
    I see no legal reason that the government couldn't do that. They have the authority to declare martial law and the highways are mostly owned by the state anyway. Unless habeus corpus was also suspended, the court systems would almost certainly block any attempt at an infrastructure shut down.

    The biggest issue would be why? I see no reason to shut down civilian traffic for The entire country. Shutting down isolated parts is easy and happens all the time, plenty of roads get closed during hurricane recovery.
     
  18. JadeX

    JadeX Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    80
    Location:
    Ohio, U.S. of A.
    So I did some research on the US rail network and found volume of traffic maps for the US freight rail system and the US passenger rail system. It looks like rail could effectively cover a vast majority of the nation, but there are some spots where it looks thin and could by supplemented by Interstates and highways. (for comparison, here's a map comparing rail with other modes of transport.

    It looks like, in the area that's relevant to my story, the government will likely need to utilize a section of I-5 from Sacramento to Portland for both personnel and supplies, as both types of rail seem rather thin there. This works out fine plot-wise, because that still means roadblocks, alternate routes, and maybe a checkpoint for my characters.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice