America Takes No Prisoners!

[FirstCitizen1]

I hear a lot of people arguing that America should nuke this or that, and I wanted to explore the consequences of America becoming a aggressive nuclear armed state that wasn't afraid to use its nuclear weapons, or its military, against those that displease them. So, here's my idea of how America could have gone that route. I ask you what might be the consequence, geopolitically. Is anyone going to stand up to America? If so, who? How will they resist, and how successful will they be?

September 11, 2003 – Some unspecified point of point of divergence has left Al-Qaeda a more efficient and sophisticated organization than in OTL. Instead of four simultaneously commandeered aircraft, its operatives prove capable of acquiring five aircraft for the same purposes. Moreover, instead of just nineteen men, Al-Qaeda proves capable of devoting sixty-five to their nefarious deed. Twenty-five are devoted to the hijackings, while the remainder are equipped with sniper rifles and placed strategically throughout the country to conduct a John Muhammad style terror campaign on the unsuspecting populace. (I.E. in this TL, Al-Qaeda is an organization that has the capabilities our Fox n’ Friends fear-mongers and Osama bin Laden claim it does, rather than the over-hyped hodgepodge it really is – IMHO.)

Due to the superior training and motivation of this alternate Al-Qaeda squad, all five plans are successfully commandeered and successfully reach their targets. As in OTL, the Twin Towers fall and the Pentagon burns. However, the White House and the Capitol Building are hit as well. Then the snipers begin their work, picking off people fleeing from the burning buildings and spreading havoc through the rest of the country.

Within forty-eight hours, the snipers operating in and around Washington D.C. have all been killed or captured, but a handful continue to operate in other parts of the country. The civilian death toll is a bit higher than it was in OTL, but more significantly, most of the new casualties come from the ranks of America’s Senators and Congressmen, many of whom were either caught in the fiery aftermath of the Capitol Building’s destruction, or gunned down as they tried to flee by the snipers.

Emergency elections are called in some states to replace the fallen congressmen, the rest are selected through gubernatorial appointments. Within three weeks, the U.S. Congress has gone from a collection of old ‘lifetime’ seat-warmers to an organization in which 35% of the members are newly appointed. Mostly Hawks, and often not as entrenched in the old political establishments as their peers, these news members tend to be the loudest and most extreme revenge seekers the public could find on such short notice. (The elections were held, and the appointments made, while a handful of Al-Qaeda snipers were still in operation!) Moreover, as their campaigns or lobbying efforts were short and require little money, they aren’t nearly as beholden to special interest a candidate usually is.

Bush does is tough man act, but there are a number among the new class of Congressmen and Senators who do it better than him. Instead of simply authorizing the President to use force, members of this new radical Congress pre-empt the President by forcing through a Declaration of War on Afghanistan. (Let’s assume that they’ve the strength to veto the President, and also force through some bills that give them clear access to Executive intelligence, ect.) This makes the new Speaker of the House look to the nation as the tough man, further increasing the stature of this new Congress in their eyes visa-vi the President. Bush and his Defense Department, although not reluctantly, are forced to respond. Moreover, instead of asking Americans to serve their nation by continuing to shop – as Bush did – this new Speaker of the House asks them to join the Army instead.

The Invasion of Afghanistan proceeds much as it did OTL, although it is a bit more hurried. However, before the dust in that theater has even settled, the new Speaker of the House – truly an emerging demagogue – pushes through a declaration of War against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. U.S. forces find themselves operating simultaneously in both theaters, while the new radical Congress becomes increasingly embroiled with the Executive branch as to who is really in charge in of the nation. (Now, the new Speaker of the House has twice stolen the thunder from Bush by orchestrating two quick Declarations of War before the President could puff up his chest in front of the people.)
Also, after three months of living in perpetual fear, the last of the Al-Qaeda snipers is shot and killed by the Cook County (Illinois) Police Department.

The political battle between the White House and the Capitol continue to intensify, as the new radical Congress continues to infringe upon what has – at least since F.D.R. – been viewed as Presidential prerogatives. Meanwhile the improved Al-Qaeda of this TL still has difficulty attacking the U.S. mainland again, mostly due to the new radical Congress’s ability to push through legislation even more freedom restricting than the OTL Patriot Act, and largely embracing the racial profiling of Arabs – although code words are developed for the practice. (Arabs aren’t arrested for being Arab, but rather for ‘Suspicion of Illegal Status’. It’s largely up to the officer involved in what constitutes a reasonable ‘Suspicion of Illegal Status’)

Less than nine months has passed since September 11, and the American public is exuberant over the performance of its armies in the field. After all, it seems to them both Afghanistan and Iraqi have been thoroughly conquered in a matter of weeks. Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are still loose, but it’s only a matter of time before their captured. Nevertheless, people aren’t quite sure whether this is the work of that bumbling George Bush, or that new Speaker of the House who – you guessed it – speaks so well.

At this moment of exuberance, Kim Jung Il dares to make some statement as to America’s recent actions. The new Speaker of the Houses seizes upon his words, and announces that America must re-think its policies of not using food as a weapon against the regime. He even suggests that the North Korean dictator might be the next to face America’s wrath, after Iraq and Afghanistan are pacified. (This new Speaker of the House isn’t as focused on spreading democracy as the Bush administration became, and while such speech is included in his language, its always been peripheral to ensuring the people’s safety through the sheer force of American power.) Bush, afraid that the his position – and thus the Presidency – will be forever weakened if he can’t regain control of the foreign policy debate (which seems to be all Americans care about at the moment) decides to be more hawkish than the new Speaker of the House and cut off food aid himself, and order a Marine Expeditionary force into the area.

Thus, this situation on the Korean peninsula begins to spiral out of control. Escalating rhetoric between a Bush determined to prove he is as tough or tougher than the new demagogue, and a Kim Jung Il scared out of his mind, leads to a shooting war in a couple of weeks. It is a war which America, and her South Korean allies, are woefully unprepared for. Seoul falls to the advancing North Korean forces, and with so many troops in Iraqi and Afghanistan, there is little the overwhelmed Americans can do to stop them. Moreover, their South Korean allies aren’t able to make up the difference. There are more American casualties in a few days of fighting on the Korean peninsula than were suffered in the entire Iraqi and Afghanistan wars combined.

The new Speaker of the House skillfully distances himself from the debacle, out maneuvering Karl Rove and company to make it seems as if this particular elective war was all Bush’s idea, obfuscating the truth that he was the first one to begin escalating tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. Then, in a stunning move, he cements his power over the confused and terrified nation by forcing a nuclear crisis. With the help of his new radicals, he passes legislation that would require the military to strike N. Korea with nuclear weapons if they don’t withdraw to their borders within thirteen days.

The constitutionality of such a law is, of course, in question. But a series of other laws are enacted, all over presidential veto, basically denying the Supreme Court jurisdiction over the case, and threatening to reduce its number if it intervenes. (Remember, in this OTL, the new Speaker of the House is viewed as the tough guy, and President Bush is still viewed as a possibly illegitimate idiot, as per pre-9/11 OTL) Moreover a series of Congressional subpoenas are issued, targeted at some of the more sober members of American Nuclear command, in hopes of influencing their decision as to whom to obey. In the end, however, the new Speaker of the House fails, and the military listens to the president and allows the deadline to pass.

Unfortunately for Bush, the new Speaker of the House retains the political clout to convince his new radical friends in the Senate to start impeachment proceedings against him for his ‘breaking of the law’. (The nuclear option was supported by the public, 53 to 47) Thus President Bush in, in a narrow 49 to 48 decision with 3 abstentions, becomes the first president in U.S. History to be removed for ‘high crime or misdemeanor’. The power of this new radical congress has been confirmed. For the moment, the Republic will be ruled from the Capitol, by men elected and appoint to appease the American people’s thirst for revenge. Cheney, reluctant to face the same fate as his predecessor, authorizes the use of nuclear weapon against North Korea – turning the tide of the war.

Riding high in the opinion polls, and truly a megolomaniac, the new Speaker of the House announces that it shall be the policy of the United States to aggressively use its nuclear arsenal to promote its saftey, and offers ultimatums to Syria, Saudi Arabia, & Iran.

What happens next?

[Midgard]

Originally Posted by FirstCitizen1

Riding high in the opinion polls, and truly a megolomaniac, the new Speaker of the House announces that it shall be the policy of the United States to aggressively use its nuclear arsenal to promote its saftey, and offers ultimatums to Syria, Saudi Arabia, & Iran.

What happens next?

If they had not done so already, the UK, France, Russia, and China issue an ultimatum to the US to desist its aggression, or else they reserve the right to use their own considerable nuclear arsenals preemptively.

[sbegin]

Originally Posted by midgardmetal

If they had not done so already, the UK, France, Russia, and China issue an ultimatum to the US to desist its aggression, or else they reserve the right to use their own considerable nuclear arsenals preemptively.

Really, do you think so? In this TL, UK stood solid with the US. France and Russia basically sat on their hands through the whole "war on terror", and as for China, they don't seem so eager for N. Korea to take a lead in anything right now, they might support them being forced back to their own borders.
I think the US would probably run out of steam after a while, it's got 3 conflicts right now costing them lots in men, equipment and supplies. Things will start to get tight at home. I think fury and a taste for revenge can only be carried on for so long, and then people will just want to get their loved ones back home.

[David S Poepoe]

Too much handwaving to create the 'optimal' aggressive Congress. With it crippled the way it was the Executive Branch would be running the show for sometime. Not that many Congressmen have offices in the US Capitol, thats why they build nearby buildings, so the death toll seems highly overrated.

Hmm, Congressmen that are appointment by State Governors are "often not as entrenched in the old political establishments as their peers" - not likely - not by a long shot. Its those that are entrenched that get the appointments. On the whole I sort of doubt if you know how the election system works in the US. Everyone is part of some machine and beholden to party politics or special interests.

[The Sandman]

More interesting, as far as the whole Al-Qaeda having the resources to be a serious threat to the U.S. scenario would be that they acquire, by hook or by crook, a handful of nukes from the old Soviet stockpiles (I don't think the Pakistanis are crazy enough to give them any). In this world, 9/11 comes off slightly differently: The planes are still hijacked, but the purpose this time is to do an airburst of four nukes; one over the Capitol, one over the Pentagon, one over Lower Manhattan, and one near the Empire State building. They succeed. What happens now?

[Superdude]

Ok, how about Americans just take no prisoners after this attack?

So we invade Afghanistan on schedule. After the Taliban is steamrollered, who do we go after next? Iraq? Alright then, we go after Iraq.

However, we take a very different policy to the insurgency. Instead of just cleaning up after the terrorists mess, we also destroy one village for every American killed. Of course, this policy will not be very controversial, as the sheer rage the United States is feeling right now simply washes any morality away.

However, who do we go after now? Iran or Syria or Egypt or Lybia? Syria would be the most likely bet. Same thing happens in Syria as in Iraq. Iran next? However, this time, Saudi Arabia threatens to cut off our oil if we go in there.

I'd say we go in after the Saudi's. By now, the USA is on full war footing, and the draft has been enacted, which is actually not unpopular. But as we go into Saudi Arabia, China and North Korea make simultaneous moves. North Korea's advance is stopped by South Korea, but China's invasion of Taiwan is about to take place. What does the USA do now?

[FirstCitizen1]

Hmm, Congressmen that are appointment by State Governors are "often not as entrenched in the old political establishments as their peers" - not likely - not by a long shot. Its those that are entrenched that get the appointments. On the whole I sort of doubt if you know how the election system works in the US. Everyone is part of some machine and beholden to party politics or special interests.

Well, my goal wasn't to create a TL which would cause a congress of historians to say, "Aye, this is as likely to happen as what did happen." It's not likely at all the U.S. would ever becoming a raging beast rouge state. Nevertheless, there are a vocal minority in the country that would like to see it become that. I've heard tell that radical vocal minorities have come to power unexpectedly in the pass. I'd love better explinations of how such a a thing could a occur, though. My main question is, though, what would really happen if the U.S. did go mad?

[Midgard]

Originally Posted by sbegin

Really, do you think so? In this TL, UK stood solid with the US. France and Russia basically sat on their hands through the whole "war on terror", and as for China, they don't seem so eager for N. Korea to take a lead in anything right now, they might support them being forced back to their own borders.
I think the US would probably run out of steam after a while, it's got 3 conflicts right now costing them lots in men, equipment and supplies. Things will start to get tight at home. I think fury and a taste for revenge can only be carried on for so long, and then people will just want to get their loved ones back home.

As soon as the war in North Korea starts and there is a stated threat to use the nukes, IMO even the US allies will start worrying enough to issue a proclamation - maybe not as overt, but create their own doctrines that allow for preemptive use of nukes. I believe OTL Russia already has a doctrine of a kind either in place, or seriously discussed; with the US likely and possibly willing to use nukes, all other major and semi-major powers will threaten to respond in kind, or at the very least state very clearly that they reserve the right to do exactly the same.

[FirstCitizen1]

Yes, but is it convievable that the U.S. allies, China, Russia, excetera ever declare war on the U.S. as long as it never directly threatens them?

[Ian the Admin]

This seems, uh, ridiculous to me to put it lightly.

I don't think you understand a lot about the US political system. For one thing, congress can't really override the president in matters of war. He's the commander in chief of the armed forces, and he (and his cabinet) tells the military what to do. If they wanted to go to war using some strategy that he didn't, AFAIK they have no way to do it. They could impeach him, but that would just mean you get the VP and/or a new election (I forget which). They could amend the constitution, but they'd need it to be ratified by a whole lot of states.

[Midgard]

Originally Posted by Ian the Admin

This seems, uh, ridiculous to me to put it lightly.

I don't think you understand a lot about the US political system. For one thing, congress can't really override the president in matters of war. He's the commander in chief of the armed forces, and he (and his cabinet) tells the military what to do. If they wanted to go to war using some strategy that he didn't, AFAIK they have no way to do it. They could impeach him, but that would just mean you get the VP and/or a new election (I forget which). They could amend the constitution, but they'd need it to be ratified by a whole lot of states.

I wonder if Cheney (whom I see as a major policymaker in the Bush administration) were to be replaced with someone more extremist as a VP... say he is pretty much incapacitated shortly before 9/11, and therefore the extremism comes from a new "temporary" VP, we could have the executive branch proposing such initiatives... Alternatively such a TL could come about with a different, more extremist presidential candidate winning 2000 election(albeit IMO nothing short of ASBs would put one in the White House with a 1998-2000 POD) and enjoying wide enough support... in other words an American Hitler - then again, I am hard pressed to think of a prominent enough figure who could have played that role and been successful in it.

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by FirstCitizen1

Well, my goal wasn't to create a TL which would cause a congress of historians to say, "Aye, this is as likely to happen as what did happen." It's not likely at all the U.S. would ever becoming a raging beast rouge state. Nevertheless, there are a vocal minority in the country that would like to see it become that. I've heard tell that radical vocal minorities have come to power unexpectedly in the pass. I'd love better explinations of how such a a thing could a occur, though. My main question is, though, what would really happen if the U.S. did go mad?

I think its going to be pretty impossible. First off, the US has signed a lot of international treaties, like the Geneva Convention, which it attempts to follow to the best of its ability. Unless various international treaties are abrogated nothing is going to change. The problem with this is that once you abrogate a treaty don't be surprised if others follow you. Don't expect to be treated fairly if your not treating others fairly.

Secondly, and probably more importantly is that these 'radical vocal minorities' aren't going to be coming to power. The electoral system at the state and federal level pretty much prevents this. Also those not in power usually change once in power. Giving a little thought to a recent article in the LA Times on legislatural redistricting has me believe that the country as a whole isn't as divisively divided as we are told by the media. I think on the whole we are divided in the Congress since both parties have created safe districts for their candidates, thereby shutting out moderates and increasing the likelihood of electing far left or right representatives - but not those that are too radical.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by Ian the Admin

This seems, uh, ridiculous to me to put it lightly.

I don't think you understand a lot about the US political system. For one thing, congress can't really override the president in matters of war. He's the commander in chief of the armed forces, and he (and his cabinet) tells the military what to do. If they wanted to go to war using some strategy that he didn't, AFAIK they have no way to do it. They could impeach him, but that would just mean you get the VP and/or a new election (I forget which). They could amend the constitution, but they'd need it to be ratified by a whole lot of states.

They would get the VP who would finish out the term of the impeached person.

[FirstCitizen1]

*Grins* Well, it's good to know the consenus is that there is no concievable way that America could ever become a radical state within the span of 2-3 years regardless of what happens to it. Or, more interesting to me, the Congress could become the focul point of American power, rather than the Executive.

On the issue of whether or not Congress could force the president to do something military he didn't want to do, they couldn't directly. (Much easier for them to prevent him from doing something he wants to do by cutting the funding) But they could theoretically pass a law demanding that he do something by a certain date, and if he then refuses, charge him with violating that law and impeaching him. Without the Supreme Court declaring such a law unconstitutional, it'd be a valid law. (In fact, if maybe not in spirit) Of course, Judicial Review isn't in the constitution anywhere. So, even if the Supreme Court was to intervene, the Congress could pass a law that revokes its jurisdiction in such matters. Granted, even a larger scale september 11 isn't liklely to create a sitution of radical congress / conservative president.

And the result of an impeachment is that the Vice President becomes president. It would change the fact that this law is still in effect, and any Congress that has just impeached a sitting president for not following 'its advise' would probably not have any qualms impeaching his successors until one did what he wanted. In fact, the speaker of the House is 3rd in line I believe, so it'd only take 2 for my scenario. (Again, I admit its far fetched. Something like this might have happened though, if say Lincoln had gotten cold feet about preserving the union in 1862.)

[Ian the Admin]

Originally Posted by FirstCitizen1

*Grins* Well, it's good to know the consenus is that there is no concievable way that America could ever become a radical state within the span of 2-3 years regardless of what happens to it.

It's not that there's no way. It's that it would have to be led by the executive branch, with full support from Congress and the Senate. Which since they're always watching out for the safety of their seat in the next election, means you'd need a substantial amount of public support as well. I find it extremely implausible that there would be really strong public support for the idea that the Bush administration is insufficiently aggressive around the world.

I don't think one could push things further than the Bush administration has without *far* greater provocation. But it's scary enough how they managed to get popular support for the idea of invading any country they can concoct superficially plausible lies about.

[Grimm Reaper]

Ian, I never bothered to buy it, but I seem to recall there was a book with a second on the after effects promised, where Congress DID find some legal pretext to order military operations against the express will of the president.

It involved an American aircraft carrier and a hostage crisis in Indonesia(!).

Does anyone whether it was legally plausible?

I might suggest that in the event of many members of Congress dying, the state governors might be asked to act en masse and replace the deceased with other members of the same party. Now, as to whether all(or any) of the governors would actually do this...

[Faeelin]

Is it just me, or has there been an upsurge, lately, in the "WI the US killed everyone!" threads?

[David S Poepoe]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Ian, I never bothered to buy it, but I seem to recall there was a book with a second on the after effects promised, where Congress DID find some legal pretext to order military operations against the express will of the president.

It involved an American aircraft carrier and a hostage crisis in Indonesia(!).

Does anyone whether it was legally plausible?

I might suggest that in the event of many members of Congress dying, the state governors might be asked to act en masse and replace the deceased with other members of the same party. Now, as to whether all(or any) of the governors would actually do this...

I'm familiar with the book you are talking about, but never read it. The point in that book is that the United States never sign the treaty outlawing letter of marque. In the book the Congress issues the US theater commander (don't remember if he was a captain or admiral) with the letter of marque to find the bad guy.

[MerryPrankster]

Originally Posted by Grimm Reaper

Ian, I never bothered to buy it, but I seem to recall there was a book with a second on the after effects promised, where Congress DID find some legal pretext to order military operations against the express will of the president.

It involved an American aircraft carrier and a hostage crisis in Indonesia(!).

Does anyone whether it was legally plausible?

I might suggest that in the event of many members of Congress dying, the state governors might be asked to act en masse and replace the deceased with other members of the same party. Now, as to whether all(or any) of the governors would actually do this...

I read that book. It involves Congress issuing a letter of marque and reprisal to a carrier group to go after some terrorists after a semi-Quaker president refuses.

The logic was that there aren't any (or at least not many) armed private ships anymore, so if the power of Congress to grant a letter of marque and reprisal can be relevant today, it would involve issuing it to a military group of some kind.

Can't remember the title though.

[Wendell]

Originally Posted by Faeelin

Is it just me, or has there been an upsurge, lately, in the "WI the US killed everyone!" threads?

It's not just you, no.