What would have happened had UA93 crashed into the Capitol as the hijackers planned? Was anyone still in the building? (I would think probably not.)
Capitol destroyed on 9/11
- Thread starter Alternate History Geek
- Start date
As it was, OTL there was actually serious talk in some quarters of unleashing the nukes on al-Qaeda for a couple of days after 9/11. If the Capitol is wrecked, expect those calls to be even fiercer and more vehement (though I still don't expect that they'll actually be used), and expect the gloves to come off totally when we go into Afghanistan. In short, if anyone thinks we went berserk for a while after 9/11 OTL, it's going to be nothing compared to TTL.
We both know it's not likely, but would it have been possible for Al-Qaeda to be nuked in the aftermath of 9/11 if the Capitol is destroyed?
Side question: Had Congress been evacuated from the Capitol?
Another side question: What would become Congress' new home?
One more side question: Would the Capitol have been rebuilt to essentially the same pattern as before, or would they come up with a completely different design like they did for the WTC?
As to that last question, absolutely yes to rebuilding on the original pattern. I think anyone who suggested anything different would have been run out of town on a rail with a nice tar-and-feather coat, at the least.
I'm not sure - there will be timelines of the day available on the net to check this point - but I think that the Capitol had been evacuated by the time that it'd been worked out that something had gone seriously wrong with UA93.
There are a number of auditoriums and other structures around town that would provide suitable temporary meeting space for Congress, so a couple of them would probably be appropriated for the purpose. Also, I'm pretty sure that the Congressional office buildings (and the Library of Congress, not to mention the Supreme Court) wouldn't be too badly damaged by debris, so they'd continue to be used in the interim.
I do have the firm opinion that rebuilding the Capitol would be an absolute top priority, money no object, so it'd certainly be back in business by this time TTL.
Zero chance. There is nothing in Afghanastan at the time that would warrant a nuke. The the #$@$%% had scampered off before 9/11 because they expected backlash.
My response: Read Jeff Greenfield's 43: A Political Fable. That will provide an answer to your questions.
Same basic patterrn but I can see both wings around the dome and most of the detail to be significantly different due to the use of modern materials and to repair the structural issues and much better plumbing and heating.
They may even expand both wings to move the congressional staff back into the Capital Building.
All under a coat of clean white marble in the same style as the original...maybe even leaving room for mre states and their representatives?
And if the US retaliates for a terrorist attack, even one that didn't really claim any more victims than 9/11 did IOTL (assuming the Capitol was evacuated in time) with a nuclear attack, we should also expect that the international counter-reaction would be something else entirely.
After a nuclear strike in Afghanistan, the European public opinion for example would turn instantly against the US. Not to say anything about the Middle East. And God forbid if it was followed by an invasion of Iraq... The OTL anti-war demonstrations would have been very minor compared to what would be seen ITTL.
deathscompanion1
Banned
A nuclear strike would be out anyway not that the USA will honestly give a shit about Europe's opinion, there probably would be a lot more focus on the Al Qaeda as opposed to regime change which could make OTL's mess look lie a master piece. Bush wouldn't wait for the UN to invade Iraq which would probably increase public support as it became a bit of a farce.
The run-up to the Iraq War was indeed a farce, but that had more to do with the actions of the Bush Administration than the UN or its weapons inspectors like Hans Blix. Of course that has only become really apparent later.
deathscompanion1
Banned
If he'd invaded straight away it would have helped, the PR side of the war would have been a lot less embarrassing.
Last edited:
unprincipled peter
Donor
Bush didn't invade Iraq as a response to 9/11. He used the cover of 9/11 to effect the regime change in Iraq. He first had to respond to Afghanistan. The response to Afghanistan was about the quickest we could do (it takes time to buildup and move forces there). Public opinion demanded instant action. Forget about nukes. Military whack jobs might opine on their use, but there is absolutely ZERO chance politicians are going to allow it unless we have incoming nuclear missiles heading our way. So, the solution was to use surrogate armies to overthrow Afghanistan's leadership and send the Taliban running. The problem was that the surrogates only wanted the power, but weren't about to get into a blood bath, so they acted as a turnstile and allowed large masses of Taliban to escape. IMO, this is where Bush administration strayed from the mission. Instead of sending all resources to finish the job in Afghanistan, they used the cover of 9/11 to con half the nation to turn it's eyes on Iraq, which at the time had little to no connection to anti-US terrorism. Now ultimately, the job of destroying Al-Queda to the point where it can be kept in check is done, Iraq, after some early hiccups, seems to be sorta stable. But all that wasn't good enough, we wanted to control an uncontrollable region (Afghanistan), instead of simply keeping the anti-US terrorism sponsorship in check.
Anyhow, all that strays from the OP. What would be the difference in this TTL? Not really much. We were already galvanized to extreme action, and the nation was already extremely enraged. Adding another building to the damage doesn't change that. Unless you have a Tom Clancy-like destruction of people, the administrative apparatus is inconvenienced, but ultimately not affected.
Anyhow, all that strays from the OP. What would be the difference in this TTL? Not really much. We were already galvanized to extreme action, and the nation was already extremely enraged. Adding another building to the damage doesn't change that. Unless you have a Tom Clancy-like destruction of people, the administrative apparatus is inconvenienced, but ultimately not affected.
Kinda random but when I was a child in 2002 me and my dad built Tora Bora with wooden blocks and pretended to bomb it with toy airplanes and tanks.
Tora Bora was a underground mountain complex were they thought terrorist leaders were hiding.
Kaptin Kurk
Banned
Don't think it would change much, really, except the Bank Account of the Nation, unless we're assuming the plane hits and kills a lot of members of Congress, then the butterflies could be significant since their replacements would all be 9/11 Widows, figuratively and in many cases literally. This might give the Middle Eastern wars a bit more oomph, and drag them out a bit longer.
Superaquaspiderbatman
Banned
I have to say that I find myself in agreement with "Pres. Bartlett" in the West Wing episode "A proportional response":
That is, of course, until he chickened out and let Leo and his generals cajole him into doling out a $0.05 slap on the wrist for a $50 crime.
Bartlett said:
That is, of course, until he chickened out and let Leo and his generals cajole him into doling out a $0.05 slap on the wrist for a $50 crime.