No one seems to have considered these questions:
[ul]How long would it be before power could be restored?[/ul]
[ul]Who could restore the power?[/ul]
[ul]How many people have the knowledge and/or are capable of learning enough to restore power to an area?[/ul]
[ul]What kind of disaster would it take to wipe out power more or less permanently to a large area of the US?[/ul]
Many situations have shown that any kind of problem that affects a lot of people leads to social unrest and possibly rioting, so I will not argue that wide scale violence and disruption won’t happen. I’m pretty sure they would. However, just because the power goes down doesn’t mean it will be impossible to restore it, riots or no riots. I think it would take more than just a power outage to completely unbalance the U.S. government.
Also, just because standing government resources may not be enough to keep order doesn’t mean that the whole government and social structure will collapse overnight. Pretty much from the beginning there will be people who will volunteer to help.
Take a look at what happened during the attacks in New York or the riots in Los Angeles in 1992. There was looting, but there were also rescue squads and protection groups. When the authorities get to almost any big emergency they typically find people already helping. Most people won’t volunteer when they aren’t really needed, but when there is a real need it’s pretty rare for that it to be completely ignored.
Government representatives are almost always augmented by local resources and volunteer squads anyway so all you really need are a few people with appropriate knowledge and some recognized authority to form a core group. Even people who really don’t want to help out will sometimes be shamed into helping since most people have an aversion to appearing to be cowardly or selfish. You can see this pressure at work in many aspects of normal life. How many people do you think would contribute in church if it weren’t made public or if they got no recognition, positive or negative, for their contribution?
Most people will realize that it is in their best interests to support rescue and restoration efforts. The real problems come if there is a large group of people whose best interests are in not supporting these efforts. In the event these people take advantage of the opportunity and mobilize, things could get very hairy. Even more frightening is if there is a group that is already organized and ready to exploit the opportunity to seize control of an area and its resources, rather than a spontaneous aggregation of people with a temporarily common goal.
As far as I know, there are currently no groups large enough or organized enough to attempt a takeover of even a city in the U.S. The largest disaffected segment of the population that might become a pro tem organization are the inner-city poor, but one of the major difficulties with this group of people is that they are not motivated or organized enough to affect changes in their shared community quickly and efficiently, so they would represent a problematic but ultimately minimal threat to continued government authority.
I would guess that there would be huge problems, wide scale murder and mayhem, but that general equilibrium would be restored in weeks to a couple of months at the outside, not years. Most riots do not involve a whole city, they involve a segment of the total population. Even in large-scale ongoing unrest, looters typically represent a small percentage of the total population. Just because the lights go off doesn’t mean that people will automatically start causing as much trouble as they can. I’m a pessimist about human nature and even I think that people will be more likely to cooperate–even if it is out of enlightened self-interest–than they are to start rending each other with “tooth and claw.”
Note that these statements are about society as a whole. Your neighborhood might turn into a slaughterhouse, but society would probably pull out of it. That would probably provide small comfort to the people affected in the interregnum.