WI: A much, much worse "9/11" in January 1995...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot

ITTL, let's assume that...

1. There's no apartment fire exposing the whole plan just days before its set to occur.
2. Khalid Sheik Mohammed and co. are able to recruit a few dozen hijackers in the preceding months.

So, for all intents and purposes, the nastiest incarnation* of the plot goes off as planned

Basically, Pope John Paul II is blown up by a suicide bomber during his January 1995 visit to the Philippines. The world is still in shock when six days later, eleven airliners simultaneously explode over the Pacific Ocean, killing over 4,000 people instantly. As if things couldn't get bad enough, during the ensuing chaos, several airliners already off the ground proceed to slam into the World Trade Center, Sears Tower, Transamerica Pyramid, CIA Headquarters, Pentagon, U.S. Capitol and White House.

What's the next step?

(*IOTL, the bastards had trouble finding enough volunteers to hijack and crash the airliners, so it was decided they would simply crash an explosive-laden Cessna/airliner into the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.)

I think its fair to say, somebody may be on the receiving end of a whole world of pain!

All hell would be let loose. Any potential countries irrespective of proof would be bombed into submission.

There would be the biggest American military movement since WWII.

The countries involved are bombed back into the stone age.

And then we take away their stones.

Pretty sure the Geneva Convention would be ignored.

Assuming they somehow manage to pull off the plot without a hitch (which I personally doubt is possible), nearly every country on the planet is going to want blood.

The war on Terror will look like a UN Peacekeeping mission in comparison. I wouldn't be suprised if there was a general invasion of the Middle East by a force of soliders numbering in the millions.

thekingsguard said:

The war on Terror will look like a UN Peacekeeping mission in comparison. I wouldn't be suprised if there was a general invasion of the Middle East by a force of soliders numbering in the millions.

Click to expand...

General invasion of the Middle East? That would be a bit stupid, considering it would be barely any countries that would stand in the way of America delivering a royal ass-whupping to al-Qaeda in a situation like this.

thekingsguard said:

The war on Terror will look like a UN Peacekeeping mission in comparison. I wouldn't be suprised if there was a general invasion of the Middle East by a force of soliders numbering in the millions.

Click to expand...

Nope, no, no, and no. It's not like anyone with a half of brain would be dumb enough to stand in the way of the Americans and their allies.

I wonder who would be made the new Pope...

Anyhow, as has been said Al-Qaeda will be hunted down and no-one will object. I wonder how ordinary Catholics would react, I don't mean some kind of new Peasants Crusade but the tensions would be huge enough just there.

nezza said:

All hell would be let loose. Any potential countries irrespective of proof would be bombed into submission.

Click to expand...

This is unrealistic fantasy from some who clearly doesn't know the history of the past decade - or even the current balance of power.

There are three countries that matter:

1. A'stan: a sod to operate in. Part of AQ's intent is in fact to get the US into a war here. The rest of it to generate a US response that kills large numbers of Islamic civilians so that the US's Islamic client governments are destabilized.

2. Pakistan. WHICH HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS. So the "bombing into submission" thing is a bit of a fantasy.

3. Saudi Arabia. The ruling family of which is connected the the Bushes by every tie except actual blood. The Saud family's influence is so great that Woodward's semi-official history of the Bush administration shows that at the critical meeting they were the ones who delivered the final push so that the US invaded Iraq. This is based on firsthand accounts from the participants and is completely undisputed. So again, no bombing.

Intelligently, taking account of the actual facts, then the US's response should be to concentrate on military action in A'stan, giving it a better chance of victory there, and avoid the distraction of Iraq. But this is what it should have done anyway, so who can say if this alters?

amphibulous said:

3. Saudi Arabia. The ruling family of which is connected the the Bushes by every tie except actual blood. The Saud family's influence is so great that Woodward's semi-official history of the Bush administration shows that at the critical meeting they were the ones who delivered the final push so that the US invaded Iraq. This is based on firsthand accounts from the participants and is completely undisputed. So again, no bombing.

Click to expand...

The OP is in 1995, when Bush was Governor of Texas. How he's going to get Clinton to do anything, I have no idea. Do you?

thekingsguard said:

The war on Terror will look like a UN Peacekeeping mission in comparison. I wouldn't be suprised if there was a general invasion of the Middle East by a force of soliders numbering in the millions.

Click to expand...

I would. Because

1. You can't equip and army that large with the weapons and equipment that have kept the casualty level semi-acceptable in Iraq.

2. You'd need conscription. You'd need a couple of years of training and building military infrastructure - at least - before you turned raw manpower into a military resoucre.

3. The cost would bankrupt the US overnight.

4. It would be extremely stupid. The US invading Iraq delighted OBL enough. Invading Syria and Iran would have made him think he was in paradise. For a start, take the US's casualties in Iraq and multiply them by four for population, just for Iran, and then another BIG fudge factor because the Iranians will fight the US more than each other, unlike the Iraqis. And Iran is actually an *enemy* of AQ!

Georgepatton said:

The OP is in 1995, when Bush was Governor of Texas. How he's going to get Clinton to do anything, I have no idea. Do you?

Click to expand...

My bad!

But assuming that Clinton is going to behave like Genghis Khan is already pretty strange.

Reasonably, Clinton will simply invade A'stan, avoiding distractions like Iraq. His relationship with the Saud's is distant so he'll be able to put political pressure on them - but anything like an invasion is un-necessary and would probably create a global depression. (What if the Saudis sabotaged oil fields?)

And, even with their "cousins" not in the Whitehouse, the Saud's still have a phenomenal amount of lobbying power.

TheNordicBrit said:

I wonder who would be made the new Pope...

Anyhow, as has been said Al-Qaeda will be hunted down and no-one will object. I wonder how ordinary Catholics would react, I don't mean some kind of new Peasants Crusade but the tensions would be huge enough just there.

Click to expand...

Jorge Bergoglio, perhaps? He's young, conservative, modest, loved by the press and would be seen as continuation to Pope John Paul II.

Much of the lay response to the tragedy would be guided by the tone of the Pope himself. If the Church is lucky, the next Pope will be forgiving and discourage violence.

QuoProQuid said:

Jorge Bergoglio, perhaps? He's young, conservative, modest, loved by the press and would be seen as continuation to Pope John Paul II.

Much of the lay response to the tragedy would be guided by the tone of the Pope himself. If the Church is lucky, the next Pope will be forgiving and discourage violence.

Click to expand...

Can non-Cardinals be elevated to the Bishopric of Rome..? I've no idea how the Papal Election system works other than the Cardinals vote on a successor.

TheNordicBrit said:

Can non-Cardinals be elevated to the Bishopric of Rome..? I've no idea how the Papal Election system works other than the Cardinals vote on a successor.

Click to expand...

Anyone can be elected Pope. It's just extremely rare that anyone outside the Cardinals is. For some reason I missed that Jorge had only been elevated in 2001. I thought he had been elevated sooner than that.

My mistake.

Does Clinton even survive this, the OP says the White House and Capitol both get hit, Gore might be president

Also ROEs will be a lot less restrictive whenever the US puts boots on the ground?