What if the 9/11 terrorist attacks had never happened and the 'War on Terror' had never been declared?
9/11 Never Happens
- Thread starter prime-minister
- Start date
- Status
Never happened in the sense they never organized them, or they were intercepted? Because, if it's the latter, there may still be something akin to the War on Terror (not in the current extent, thought).
If oyu mean never planned... I'm sure something else will have a similar effect. I can see less paranoia oozing from American media, thought.
Speculation... George W. Bush is a one term President... Why? Because REASONS!
EDIT... I'm guessing that the original poster indicates there's no catastrophic attacks of any kind at all, be it the airliners as weapons or any analogue, and the aura of blissful "invincibility" (false as it is in OTL) in the Homeland continues...
EDIT... I'm guessing that the original poster indicates there's no catastrophic attacks of any kind at all, be it the airliners as weapons or any analogue, and the aura of blissful "invincibility" (false as it is in OTL) in the Homeland continues...
B-29_Bomber
Banned
Before 9/11 George W. Bush had quite the ambitious set of plans for his term in office, though at the moment I can't remember off the top of my head.
At the very least you wouldn't have the debt sky rocket as it did. Which is nice.
At the very least you wouldn't have the debt sky rocket as it did. Which is nice.
It's possible that Bush could've been persuaded to allow an attack on Al Qaeda the Clinton administration had planned, but which he abandoned. He'd probably still claim the need for the invasion of Iraq, but the response would probably be much more derisory.
Also, given the impact of the Gulf on Bush Sr (compared to probable perceptions of Iraq in TTL), and especially with the amount of Bush-hating in the media at the time, I can definitely see Bush losing in 2004.
The other big question is around the UK. Without the War on Terror uniting them, would Blair have stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Bush as much as he did?
Paul V McNutt
Banned
I see Bush winning the 2004 elections. The economy was good and he was helped by the gsy marriage referendums.
As much as members of the administration wanted to depose Saddam Hussein, I think without 9/11 there will be a lot more opposition to invading Iraq. Given that there won't be that climate of fear, the IC might not even back it because they're not reading between the lines trying to find something that isn't there.
The intelligence failure with 9/11 definitely skewed peoples' perception, with people trying to overcompensate.
The intelligence failure with 9/11 definitely skewed peoples' perception, with people trying to overcompensate.
Orville_third
Banned
The US went into debt in August 2001, per the CBO. 9/11 had nothing to do with that.Before 9/11 George W. Bush had quite the ambitious set of plans for his term in office, though at the moment I can't remember off the top of my head.
At the very least you wouldn't have the debt sky rocket as it did. Which is nice.
Assuming no big attacks happen Bin Laden would probably still be alive today. We would treat him like we do drug lords or non-Islamic terrorists: a threat, but not something to go to war over. Of course al-Qaeda would probably not be as big, and ISIS would probably not come into existence, so they would be less of a threat.
En Ron would have been very big. Republicans would have experienced normal mid terms in 2002.
The fact of a stolen election might have made bigger waves.
The fact of a stolen election might have made bigger waves.
It's possible the Democrat surge from 2006-10 might not have been so big in a second Bush term without Iraq, given how contentious the way the administration's handling of it had become by that stage, but it would probably be a ripple (what with the backlash from his domestic failures like dealing with Hurricane Katrina).
Also, in Britain, the big debate over Europe (and possibly even the UKIP/ BNP surge) may have come to prominence sooner and to a bigger extent; before trying to 'stand shoulder to shoulder' with Bush against terrorism, Blair's most controversial foreign policy initiative was probably whether to join the euro.
Also, in Britain, the big debate over Europe (and possibly even the UKIP/ BNP surge) may have come to prominence sooner and to a bigger extent; before trying to 'stand shoulder to shoulder' with Bush against terrorism, Blair's most controversial foreign policy initiative was probably whether to join the euro.
redlightning
Banned
1. No invasion of Iraq and Saddam remains in power until death. The US bases in the region still remain today with Iraqis dying by the thousands each year because of the UN sanctions. The poor country gets screwed even without a war.
2. The global recession is greatly reduced in scale.
3. Fuel prices are dramatically lower than OTL.
4. No Arab Spring. Without the poor global economy's impact on fuel and food prices in the Third World, this is not going to as big an impact. All of the leaders of these countries would still be in power.
5. George Bush is not reelected for a second term.
6. Obama never becomes President. Another Democrat would have been chosen instead.
7. North Korea does not develop nuclear weapons in 2006.
8. Osama Bin Laden attempts an attack elsewhere. Perhaps he downs a plane with a bombing. The US still might send military forces after him in Afghanistan.
2. The global recession is greatly reduced in scale.
3. Fuel prices are dramatically lower than OTL.
4. No Arab Spring. Without the poor global economy's impact on fuel and food prices in the Third World, this is not going to as big an impact. All of the leaders of these countries would still be in power.
5. George Bush is not reelected for a second term.
6. Obama never becomes President. Another Democrat would have been chosen instead.
7. North Korea does not develop nuclear weapons in 2006.
8. Osama Bin Laden attempts an attack elsewhere. Perhaps he downs a plane with a bombing. The US still might send military forces after him in Afghanistan.
Given how close 2000 was and how weak Bush would have become by this point, I suspect Gore might choose to move in for the kill and beat Bush in 2004. However, the Republicans would likely shut him out in Congress an awful lot and possibly even cost him the 2008 election.
Partly, although I could see Saddam co-operating with the UN eventually, but only once he can sell it to the Ba'ath party and his own people that it is his idea.
I think this will actually remain unaffected. Sub-prime mortgages were not a repercussion of 9/11, they were a repercussion of unchecked greed.
Again unlikely. Maybe a bit lower, but I don't think you can directly attribute oil prices directly as a response to US/UN actions post 9/11
Agreed but for different reasons. The Economy is still going to tank as mentioned above, however, the Arab Spring came about partly from seeing previously "undefeatable" dictators being toppled and covert support, (as I understand it), from interested parties. In this situation, you have two out of three OTL conditions existing for the Arab Spring, but you don't have the defeat of Saddam Hussain to show the vulnerability of dictators.
Possibly, if he doesn't have his mantle of "Wartime President" to fall back on, he could well be out. I think Bush would be a single term president, if the Democrats can find a credible candidate. Maybe the circumstances would bring one forward?
I don't think there's much, if any basis for this, unless you consider Obama's rise to the presidency soley due to Bush having a second term.
Stupid is as stupid does, and DPRK have more stupid than they know what to do with. I believe that DPRK had been developing nuclear weapons with the help of Pakistan for a good few years before this.
I have to agree with this, but it would be a very quiet covert black op, manual observation followed by a drone strike, something of this nature, or as Clinton did, just throw a few Tomahawks into the Afghani desert and see what happens.
JTJ, the precursor to modern ISIS, was already around and plotting attacks in Jordan and elsewhere. They'd have a harder time getting a foothold in the region but there would still be opportunities for them to do damage. Particularly if Lebanon and/or Syria experience comparable events to OTL's 2005-2015.
If this was the case, maybe the hand of the GOP itself, as well as Bush's administration, would've been weakened more and faster during the period. And as far as an Obama presidency in TTL goes, I'd say it has more to do with how long it takes the GOP to recover; if they're still not considered credible enough to have the Presidency, it could still happen.
- Status