Worse 911:40,000 WTC Dead

The Twin Towers could each hold 20,000 people. If they had been hit several hours later at full capacity, killing 40,000, plus the plane that could have hit the White House killing another 300, would Bush's reaction have been more radical than in OTL? Could it actually have led to a full re-examination of Islamic theology, in particular the many Koranic verses inciting the Muslim to wage unceasing war against "the infidels" ie Jews & Christians, to the extent of closing radical Mosques in the USA, the banning of Koranic incitement amongst the USA's 15 million Muslims? And an all out effort to defang Islam worldwide by trying to enhance the leadership of the few moderate Imams like Sheikh Palazzi of Rome? If it was still worse, say 1 million killed in Manhattan by a suitcase bomb, might the order actually have been given to immediately neutron bomb Tehran, Kabul and Mecca?

I didn't know we had any neutron bombs in the nation's arsenal. How about if we use the Q-Bomb?

I probably don't think Bush could get away with a war of genocide or banning Islam in the United States. That's radical, even for Bush. What it will probably do is make some intellectuals in the Middle East say, "My God! What have they done?!"

It is best to remember OBL's group is one of radicals. You might see some more cooperation from the Islamic world in this scenario. I mean, who wants to endure the wrath of the United States of America?

I would guess that the invasion of Afghanistan goes off without a hitch. Nations that pleaded for the United States not to go to war would either support it or remain silent about it. Bush would have a tremendous load of support as a worldwide effort is directed against the radical Islamic terrorists. Israel takes a free hand against the Palestinian terrorists while the world isn't paying attention.

Another change would be the Patriot Act. It would be much harsher in TTL than OTL. Bush may not be able to publicly attack Islam in the United States, but many Muslims living in the US borders may quietly immigrate to Canada out of fear.

As far as whether Iraq happens or not? The Bush family had a vendetta against Hussein, so the administration would have found some way to go to war.

or even worse, the Terriorsts of Unitied Flight 90 instead of turning toward washington DC (and ending up crashing in PA), turn Flight 90 toward either the Ren Cen in Detroit or the Ford Motor Co. World HQ in Dearborn.

What would be the reaction of Unitied Flight 90 crashing into a major office building in Detroit be, and what would be the death toll be?

David S Poepoe said:

I didn't know we had any neutron bombs in the nation's arsenal. How about if we use the Q-Bomb?

Click to expand...

Sure we do, it is a radiation bomb. Its main purpose was to stop armored thrusts into WE by the Warsaw Pact, not to blow up cities.

Brilliantlight said:

Sure we do, it is a radiation bomb. Its main purpose was to stop armored thrusts into WE by the Warsaw Pact, not to blow up cities.

Click to expand...

http://www.manuelsweb.com/neutronbomb.htm
Officially, we have no neutron bombs. Which is a real shame, in my opinion. They're such neat weapons. Really. Its like the safe sex of nuclear warfare.

Not to spoil the fun, but I rather doubt that massively increasing the number of WTC deaths would make a whole lot of difference. Well, OK, it would make a HUGE difference to those 'excess' casualties (and their familes, friends, etc.), but I just don't see a compelling case that more deaths would have led to a greater level of response. I am willing to be persuaded, but I am more than a bit skeptical...

Scott Rosenthal said:

Not to spoil the fun, but I rather doubt that massively increasing the number of WTC deaths would make a whole lot of difference. Well, OK, it would make a HUGE difference to those 'excess' casualties (and their familes, friends, etc.), but I just don't see a compelling case that more deaths would have led to a greater level of response. I am willing to be persuaded, but I am more than a bit skeptical...

Click to expand...

I have to agree, once 3000 people are dead how much extra psychological impact will another 30, 000 make to the nation as a whole, it was already a pretty unprecedented event?

Also didn't it take a few days for the relatively limited extent of the losses to become poublic? (my memory of the early media coverage isn't very detailed anymore) in that case, IMMEDIATE reactions would be unafected by this POD, and mass rioting would only occur as an immediate, emotional response.

Oh no, not this again...... This is, what, 3. thread with this? Starting bets how soon somebody will mention "nuking" and several muslim state's capitals in same sentence.

DominusNovus said:

http://www.manuelsweb.com/neutronbomb.htm
Officially, we have no neutron bombs. Which is a real shame, in my opinion. They're such neat weapons. Really. Its like the safe sex of nuclear warfare.

Click to expand...

Think again. Consider you are Soviet tanker. You learn you were exposed to deadly dose of radiation and will die in couple of days and it will be very painfull death. Doesn't it make sense that exposed armored formations would fight with no regards to casualties as it's either dying instantlly in exploding tank or dying somewhere slowly due to radiation? Kamikaze in T-72s.

There would have been tremendous differences.

1) The US would have probably demanded the Saudis immediately withdraw all support for the Wahabis, and would probably demand their prosecution.
2) Any reports of people dancing in the streets with glee would have been met with military reprisal based on the 'let god sort them' approach
3) Europe would probably severely restrict activities of muslims in their countries.

Norman said:

There would have been tremendous differences.

1) The US would have probably demanded the Saudis immediately withdraw all support for the Wahabis, and would probably demand their prosecution.
2) Any reports of people dancing in the streets with glee would have been met with military reprisal based on the 'let god sort them' approach
3) Europe would probably severely restrict activities of muslims in their countries.

Click to expand...

There would have been no differences. If three additional battleships had been blown up like the USS Arizona during the attack on Pearl Harbor I doubt we would have dropped the atomic bomb on one or two additional cities. The shock of what happened would take a while to wear off and the official death toll was never set until well after the Afghanistan campaign began.

Yeah, I remember being quite surprised to hear that the death toll might possibly be under 15,000 - and that was quite a while after. When you think of 9/11/01, what gets you the most emotional: the image of the towers burning and collapsing, or a flashing image of the words "Three Thousand Casualties"?

This will only really matter to New York City residents, as they are the people to whom this has an effect other than the number of digits on a TV screen. More people will know someone who died - it's that simple.

Expect greater New Yorker support for wars of revenge, revenge by proxy, and the Bush administration in general. It would swing a few elections, and ATL Bush might have a shot at NY in 2004, but that's all I can see happening.

DominusNovus said:

http://www.manuelsweb.com/neutronbomb.htm
Officially, we have no neutron bombs. Which is a real shame, in my opinion. They're such neat weapons. Really. Its like the safe sex of nuclear warfare.

Click to expand...

if my sig space wasn't limited that quote would be sigged

I don't think there would be a different reaction. In OTL, right after the attack, President Bush was on TV saying there must NOT be reprisals against individual Muslims, as they are mostly peace-loving people. And at the interfaith prayer service in New York City, Muslims were included.

Dunash: I disagree that the attack on the WTC towers would have to have occured several hours later to kill 40,000. If the two planes had nosedived at the last moment, instead of flying level, and hit the towers much lower than the 90-100th floors... Let us give thanks that al-Qaida did not think of doing that.

(gets up on his religious soapbox) As a member of the Baha'i Faith, I think that a careful examination of Islamic theology will reveal it to be a beautiful gift from God to mankind. The focus on verses that advocate violence is from a non-believers perspective.

Well, there's a WI. WI the planes hit lower and later? My opinion is that the War on Terror goes like OTL, and it takes days to read out the list of the dead. Come on, the image of the Towers collapsing and burning is bad enough.

I'm going to have to agree with the majority here--it would have made little, if any difference (other than more grieving friends/relatives). I have vivid memories of the media throwing around phrases like 'in excess of 10000', 'minimum of 5000' and so forth--in fact, there was a serious debate going on in some parts as to whether this broke the record of 'most americans dying in one day' [The battle of Antietam (or Sharpsburg) occurred on September 17, 1862, resulting in 4,710 dead, 18,440 wounded and another 3,043 missing- FYI].

It wasn't until weeks or even months later when the 3000 figure came out. The Afghan war started with the assumption that it was worse than Antietam.

Basic end result--no difference if it was 3000 or 40000--

Bahaism is a moderate modernistic Islam. I met many Bahais when I visited their center in Haifa: "salt of the earth" types!
Unfortunately, those like Al Qaeda & the Wahabis seem to be the normative Islam.
Whilst strong verses can be found in the OT & NT, those in the Koran really are blood curdling!
http://www.jtf.org/info/koran.quotes.htm

Dunash said:

Bahaism is a moderate modernistic Islam. I met many Bahais when I visited their center in Haifa: "salt of the earth" types!
Unfortunately, those like Al Qaeda & the Wahabis seem to be the normative Islam.
Whilst strong verses can be found in the OT & NT, those in the Koran really are blood curdling!
http://www.jtf.org/info/koran.quotes.htm

Click to expand...

That sounds like Ultra-Fundamentalist Christian Propaganda to me.

Norman said:

There would have been tremendous differences.

1) The US would have probably demanded the Saudis immediately withdraw all support for the Wahabis, and would probably demand their prosecution.
2) Any reports of people dancing in the streets with glee would have been met with military reprisal based on the 'let god sort them' approach
3) Europe would probably severely restrict activities of muslims in their countries.

Click to expand...

I'm going to have to disagree with (2) and (3).

(2) Would serve to lose the US all the support it would have gained.

(3) Just isn't going to happen. The EU countries (especially the UK, with its massive Asian population) aren't just going to up and restrict the rights of members of their own society.

As for (1) this might be so but I'm not really sure how the US is going to enforce this.

aktarian said:

Think again. Consider you are Soviet tanker. You learn you were exposed to deadly dose of radiation and will die in couple of days and it will be very painfull death. Doesn't it make sense that exposed armored formations would fight with no regards to casualties as it's either dying instantlly in exploding tank or dying somewhere slowly due to radiation? Kamikaze in T-72s.

Click to expand...

The crews are disabled with in minutes. So, they linger on for a few days. They're incapable of doing anything. Maybe, just maybe, they could fire a gun (like the wounded guy left behind to fend of the bad guys in so many war movies). But they won't be driving a tank.

However, I was refering to the fact that the radiation dissapates quickly, allowing for the occupation force to enter without much inconvenience.