This is the sort of situation that even publishers of bad sf wouldn't touch ten years ago.

A) that John McCain will be able to maintain the appearance of retaining his physical and mental capacity to serve as President all the way through his full term.

B) in the event of John McCain not being able to serve his full term, that Sara Palin would resign from the office of President after appointing a successor to the office of the Vice President.

C) that Sarah Palin will not order nuclear strikes on somebody (Iran? Pakistan? North Korea?) once she succeeds John McCain as President of the United States.

D) that Sarah Palin will not be faced with a military coup proceeding from her disastrous orders to launch a nuclear strike against someone and her refusing to resign from office after a public demonstration that the military has lost confidence in her.

D) that Sarah Palin will not be removed from office in the event of a military coup.

Of course, I can imagine worse outcomes, but I don't think they're as likely to happen.

Funny you should ask... yes I do have a professional helping me with treatment for my psychological disorder.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX1ImnGQYcE

Robocop on a Unicorn!

You might want to invest in a keyboard cover, for safety's sake.

Hmmm, a more extensive sample size for the Racter AI would likely have included "my friends".

You mean you think McCain is capable of passing a Turing Test?

I dunno, that first debate transcript[1] looks pretty questionable to me....

Lehrer: Are you going to vote for the plan, Senator McCain?

McCain: What do you think?

Lehrer: you're going to vote for the plan?

McCain: Why do you say I am going to vote for the plan?

....

Lehrer: So, Senator McCain, do you agree with what Senator Obama just said?

McCain: What makes you believe that?

Lehrer: And, if you don't, tell him what you disagree with.

McCain: Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

Lehrer: Are there fundamental differences between your approach and
Senator Obama's approach to what you would do as president to lead
this country out of the financial crisis?

McCain: I'll ask the questions, if you don't mind!

Obama: John, you want to give oil companies another $4 billion.

McCain: billion what ?
Are you sure that I might want to give oil companies another $4 what?

Lehrer: What priorities would you adjust, as president, Senator McCain, because of the -- because of the financial bailout cost?

McCain: Are you sure that is the real reason?

....

Lehrer: Do you agree with that, the lesson of Iraq?

McCain: I could ask the same thing myself.

Lehrer: Well, let's go at some of these things...

McCain: Earlier you said I would like to give oil companies another $4 what?

Lehrer: Afghanistan, Senator McCain?

McCain: Is it because of the because of the financial bailout cost that you
are going through all this?

Lehrer: Senator McCain, what is your reading on the threat to Iran
right now to the security of the United States?

McCain: I don't understand.

Lehrer: Senator, what about talking?

McCain: You mentioned that I would like to give oil companies another $4 what?

Lehrer: Two minutes on Russia, Senator McCain.

McCain: How do you reconcile the people you hang around with?

Lehrer: What do you think the likelihood is that there would be
another 9/11-type attack on the continental United States?

McCain: Is it because there would be another 9 11 type attack on the
continental united states that you came to me?

[1] Thanks, emacs. I didn't even have to use butterfly mode....

Meanwhile, help is on the way!

Oh, what the heck. I have a Tintin DVD. Bye...

Theoretically, if PM Batshit was to decide to nuke Canada, the chief of defence staff could simply declare that in his professional judgment this wasn't necessary to achieve the policy aims the government set him, and ignore it. This would usually involve him resigning, but in the very special circumstances I can imagine it would probably be the PM who came off worse.

I think they did have troups in Korea. I guess your scenario is pretty much where Alex' "declar[ing] that in his professional judgment this wasn't necessary to achieve the policy aims the government set him" formula might be used.

All constitutions I'm aware of deal with the contingency of a batshit head of government by providing for their removal. Of course, this assumes that other branches of government are not also batshit or dumb as bricks, and Godwin forbid that there should be examples where this is shown to fail. But relying on the military (or the monarchy) in the last resort seems like a counsel of despair.

However, the decision to prosecute someone is with the crown prosecutions service, so they'd have to get rid of the director first, and probably the Secretary of State for Justice, and then find a prosecutor willing to do it and a judge willing to hear the case.

It's a lot easier for the PM to intervene and *stop* a prosecution, as we all learned from the BAE case.

Things are rather different if a cabinet minister is involved anyway. The cabinet is collectively and individually responsible for its actions, so if you disagree you walk. But more to the point, if PM Batshit tries to have the minister of defence do it, the minister could take it to cabinet. At which point the upshot would be the Eden or Thatcher endgame, just faster. You hope...

What's the matter with you today?
When?
What?
Are you deaf?
Am I dead?
Yes or no?
Is there a choice?
Is there a God?
Foul! No non sequiturs! Three... two, one game all.

I mean, everybody needs some comic relief now and then. Oh, and speakers on.