You know it was coming (honestly, I was surprised that a thread hadn't already been posted). What if September 11th, 2001 had been just another perfectly ordinary and uninteresting day, with no hijacked planes, destroyed skyscrapers, national calls for vengeance, or the like? Certainly no 20th anniversary remembrances? Presumably, for this to happen the terrorists would have to have been caught before they could board the planes and begin the attacks. The most straightforward way for this to happen would probably be for intelligence sharing to be slightly better, so that the FBI realizes what is going on and is able to arrest at least some of the plotters before they attack, enough to either capture the whole group of hijackers or enough that they can't successfully carry out the attack. But what happens next?
AHC/WI: No 9/11 Attacks?
- Thread starter Workable Goblin
- Start date
Assuming that the whole war on terror won't happen (or at least a more low key version) and that there wasn't a different major terrorist attack down the line (which imo is against the spirit of the thread), then the USA would continue to focus on conventional military confrontation, which meant it it would have paid much more attention to the PRC 's modernization of its military. That would lead to the PRC having much less leeway in a lot of their actions in the 2000s and 2010s...
-Bush goes down in history as a domestic policy-oriented president. Though how successful he would be or whether he would be a 1 or 2-termer is another question.
-If Bush is successful, Compassionate Conservatism becomes the center-right’s response to the Third Way in western democracies.
-If Bush is successful, Compassionate Conservatism becomes the center-right’s response to the Third Way in western democracies.
It's basically impossible for us to deduce what kind of world we will inhabit sans 9/11, since our world today is a product of choices made as a result of 9/11, indeed from 2001 to 2020 was the 9/11 era and every major political and economic crises flowed from that event...until the pandemic.
No 9/11 and the path taken diverge so much, as to leave our world, almost unrecognizable.
No 9/11 and the path taken diverge so much, as to leave our world, almost unrecognizable.
Bush benefited greatly from the rally around the flag effect. Without it his domestic agenda would face much more scrutiny. Also he might still try for an invasion of Iraq, though there would be more pushback if he did.
Without going into any detail, the question for counterfactual historians is whether we equate this with, for example, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand as a history-changing event.
There have been plenty of TLs speculating on a 20th Century without two World Wars but the counter argument is war was always going to happen - too many groups, for different reasons, had come to see a war as their only option for preservation or change. In effect, war had once again become a mechanism for political, social and economic change because other options had failed.
Had it not been Sarajevo in June 1914, it might have been Morocco (again) or something else in the Balkans but there was going to be a European-wide armed conflict at some point.
Can we apply a similar argument to 9/11? If it had not been that event, isn't it possible to argue there would have been a similar event either in America or Europe at some point? The repercussions of the liberation of Kuwait and the growth of Sunni extremism in Afghanistan and elsewhere made such an attack if not inevitable then highly probable.
As we saw in the UK, the radicalisation process might well have happened and continued irrespective of 9/11.
There have been plenty of TLs speculating on a 20th Century without two World Wars but the counter argument is war was always going to happen - too many groups, for different reasons, had come to see a war as their only option for preservation or change. In effect, war had once again become a mechanism for political, social and economic change because other options had failed.
Had it not been Sarajevo in June 1914, it might have been Morocco (again) or something else in the Balkans but there was going to be a European-wide armed conflict at some point.
Can we apply a similar argument to 9/11? If it had not been that event, isn't it possible to argue there would have been a similar event either in America or Europe at some point? The repercussions of the liberation of Kuwait and the growth of Sunni extremism in Afghanistan and elsewhere made such an attack if not inevitable then highly probable.
As we saw in the UK, the radicalisation process might well have happened and continued irrespective of 9/11.
Not really. 9/11 was vastly different in scale and effect from any other terror attack prior, and to be honest any attack later. It literally reshaped the New York City skyline and killed thousands of people--the deadliest terrorist attack since then only killed 1 500 or so, and that was more similar to the Katyn massacres than 9/11. If all that's happening is a steady pitter-patter of bombings and suicide attacks killing dozens to a few hundred people at a time, you probably are not going to get anything like the response that occurred in reality.
Well, yes and no. No 9/11 means no invasion of Afghanistan and possibly--I stress that word here--no invasion of Iraq, which probably means less (not no) Islamophobia and generally less fertile soil for Islamic radicalism. So that would tend to slow it down. That being said, other broad processes were in place that could cause radicalization and probably wouldn't be that affected by 9/11, and there would certainly still be some Islamophobia.
In any case, this type of radicalization will produce small attacks killing dozens to a few hundred at a time, like most terrorist attacks (especially in Western nations) before and after 9/11. While horrible, this probably won't produce a broader societal reaction of the scale we saw after 9/11, just the same way that terror attacks in Northern Ireland didn't lead the U.K. to invade Ireland or become extremely anti-Irish or anything of that sort. I would expect a modest increase in Islamophobia, continued strikes and raids on suspected terrorist leaders, and efforts to "secure borders" and maybe "improve intelligence sharing," but not a Department of Homeland Security or invasion of Afghanistan or any of that. A gradual increase in airport security, but probably not the sharp change seen IOTL. That sort of thing. It ends up being a very different world.
Deleted member 147978
Holy shit bricks, I got to say, that's absolutely disingenuous on the New Yorker's part.
A double whammy of prejudice.
It depicting the pale-skinned ginger larping as a Bedouin trying to destroy NYC while the non-European-descend kids are looking at him as the "villain".
9/11 came after a decade of transition. The Cold War was finished in 1989 but for the 12 years after it, there really wasn’t much happening on a global scale, Bosnia and Rwanda were local tragedies.
Its very likely (not inevitable) that the choices made in the OTL 1914 would have been made down the road in a TL where the Archduke was never assassinated.
Its not at all clear that the choices made post 9/11 would have been made without it.
1) US isn’t likely to begin a vast and ill defined WoT
2) Russia and China aren’t going to get a decade and a half breather of a pause in US conventional weapons development, which allowed them to,close the gap.
3) Lots of independence movements won’t get snuffed out in the name of fighting terrror.
4) Very possible that the economic decisions which led to the financial crises won’t be made. The use of deficit spending to fund the wars to avoid raising taxes, the delay in upgrading of infrastructure, the rise of commodity prices and a policy of encourging bank to give out bad loans.
I'm not wholly convinced.
We also had the small matter of Yugoslavia which perhaps showed the weakness of Europe without the USA being involved. Thousands of lives were lost in Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo and it's fair to say not all the scars have healed 20 years on.
You also neglect to mention the American intervention in Somalia - indeed, I'd argue by the mid-90s, the euphoria of the Kuwait liberation had changed to a sobering reality re-ordering the world wasn't going to be easy or cheap and this at a time when western Europe in particular was enjoying the "Peace Dividend" and the economic re-construction of the former Warsaw Pact states.
The illusion of "the end of history" was swiftly shattered.
I'll also mention Oklahoma as an example of more internal issues - Waco as well.
What 9/11 provided was a "threat" - something different to the masses of nuclear missiles and armoured divisions of the Cold War but no less a tangible threat. It enabled or re-enabled the security state in both the US and across western Europe as each European country saw its own attack(s).
As you rightly say, it re-vitalised the military-industrial complex and the GOP-controlled Senate and Congress was only too quick to grant the funds. The invasion of Iraq has always, from a British perspective, looked a peculiarly American undertaking. The end game seemed to be the establishment of a friendly pro-Western Government in the region. Saddam was largely toothless after 1991 and while a threat to his own people wasn't much to anyone else.
In a world without 9/11, would the invasion still have happened? I suspect so - there was never a scintilla of evidence linking Baghdad to Al-Qaeda so this was about something else and might well have happened anyway.
We also had the small matter of Yugoslavia which perhaps showed the weakness of Europe without the USA being involved. Thousands of lives were lost in Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo and it's fair to say not all the scars have healed 20 years on.
You also neglect to mention the American intervention in Somalia - indeed, I'd argue by the mid-90s, the euphoria of the Kuwait liberation had changed to a sobering reality re-ordering the world wasn't going to be easy or cheap and this at a time when western Europe in particular was enjoying the "Peace Dividend" and the economic re-construction of the former Warsaw Pact states.
The illusion of "the end of history" was swiftly shattered.
I'll also mention Oklahoma as an example of more internal issues - Waco as well.
What 9/11 provided was a "threat" - something different to the masses of nuclear missiles and armoured divisions of the Cold War but no less a tangible threat. It enabled or re-enabled the security state in both the US and across western Europe as each European country saw its own attack(s).
As you rightly say, it re-vitalised the military-industrial complex and the GOP-controlled Senate and Congress was only too quick to grant the funds. The invasion of Iraq has always, from a British perspective, looked a peculiarly American undertaking. The end game seemed to be the establishment of a friendly pro-Western Government in the region. Saddam was largely toothless after 1991 and while a threat to his own people wasn't much to anyone else.
In a world without 9/11, would the invasion still have happened? I suspect so - there was never a scintilla of evidence linking Baghdad to Al-Qaeda so this was about something else and might well have happened anyway.
The rising threat of China (and to a lesser extent Russia) would have still resulted in re-armament, but without terrorism there would been no PATRIOT Act nor would the NSA have been allowed to conduct surveillance on the same scale.
In the U.S. At home:
The Enron Scandal and "Dotcom" recession get more attention than OTL. This, as well as the taint of Florida 2000 give us a 2002 midterm that sees the Democrats retake the House and expand their majority in the Senate
The economic recovery from the "dotcom" recession is quicker than OTL due to a lack of 9/11, thus Bush rides this to a 2nd term in 2004, defeating Edwards or Dean instead of Kerry. The Democrats still likely keep control of Congress as I doubt Bush produces enough coattails to flip either chamber to the GOP. Bush, at least until any financial crisis hits, is more or less a less scandal ridden, Republican version of Bill Clinton. 2006 is still a Democratic win, while 2008 depends on the economy. I think in this TL, Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee as there'd likely be no Iraq war vote weighing her down. 50/50 chance McCain is still nominated for the GOP. If the economy is good, McCain narrowly defeats Clinton and is a one term wonder, if not it's Clinton's election to lose.
Abroad:
China gets more scrutiny than OTL, as IIRC, the Bush administration was going in this direction pre 9/11. Russia more or less goes as OTL, at least during Bush's Presidency. The administration also tries to hit Iraq, but with push back both at home and abroad, I doubt it happens. An increase in air strikes and sanctions are likely though.
The Enron Scandal and "Dotcom" recession get more attention than OTL. This, as well as the taint of Florida 2000 give us a 2002 midterm that sees the Democrats retake the House and expand their majority in the Senate
The economic recovery from the "dotcom" recession is quicker than OTL due to a lack of 9/11, thus Bush rides this to a 2nd term in 2004, defeating Edwards or Dean instead of Kerry. The Democrats still likely keep control of Congress as I doubt Bush produces enough coattails to flip either chamber to the GOP. Bush, at least until any financial crisis hits, is more or less a less scandal ridden, Republican version of Bill Clinton. 2006 is still a Democratic win, while 2008 depends on the economy. I think in this TL, Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee as there'd likely be no Iraq war vote weighing her down. 50/50 chance McCain is still nominated for the GOP. If the economy is good, McCain narrowly defeats Clinton and is a one term wonder, if not it's Clinton's election to lose.
Abroad:
China gets more scrutiny than OTL, as IIRC, the Bush administration was going in this direction pre 9/11. Russia more or less goes as OTL, at least during Bush's Presidency. The administration also tries to hit Iraq, but with push back both at home and abroad, I doubt it happens. An increase in air strikes and sanctions are likely though.
dcharles
Banned
I see the islamophobia part--that cover was a few months after the first WTC bombing, so that tracks. But I don't get the "double" part.
Should all the kids have been white? Should they have all been black? Some other ethnicity?
The DotCom crash was almost transparent to me. But the emerging problems in real estate & residential sector were a problem as early as 2000 & getting serious in 2003. I was expecting a 'adjustment' then & was surprised it had not happened by 2005.
Absent the the 911 war it's possible folks react to the structural problems in housing & a recession in that sector comes 2003-2004. That may be plenty to put Bush on the losing side of the 2004 election.
That seems to be less Islamaphobia and more a really poor taste reaction to bin Laden et al previous attempt to take down the Towers on February 26, 1993. The New Yorker is not really known as a hotbed of Conservative thought
World Trade Center Bombing 1993 | Federal Bureau of Investigation
The bombing of the New York City World Trade Center in 1993 by Ramzi Yousef and his conspirators killed six people and injured thousands.
www.fbi.gov
Last edited: