Exactly what it says in the title. Note that I do not intend for this to offend anyone, nor do I think that a world in which 9/11 doesn't happen would be a dystopia (I actually think the opposite). Nonetheless, I ask only out of curiosity for the possibility of alternate history dystopias, which I tend to love in a morbid way.
I've heard that the original plan for 9/11 was much worse than it ended up being. Instead of hijacking and crashing planes into skyscrapers and government buildings, they were going to hijack and crash planes into nuclear plants.
Let's say they do this in addition to their original targets and crash into, let's say, the White House, which gives us President Cheney. As a result, we are involved in several different wars around the globe (more than we already are).
With no aftermath of 911 to deal with a more radical economic policy could have been enacted and crashed the economy in 2005. If W mishandles the crisis like Herbert Hoover did it's great depression 2.0.
Funny, I just watched the 1999 movie Deterrence yesterday and it pretty much strikes me as the kind of dystopia that the OP is looking for.
Basically, it takes place in 2008. The U.S. never invades Iraq in 2003, so by 2008, Uday Hussein is in charge of Iraq, with a rejuvenated and re-bolstered military, and he decides to invade Kuwait again, and then Saudi Arabia afterwards. The U.S. has most of its military forces committed in a conflict in Korea with China on the other side opposed to the Americans. The U.S. can't move their forces out of Korea since the South Koreans will preemptively invade North Korea if they do, so the U.S. president (who took office a few months prior upon the death of the POTUS) has pretty much little conventional means in which to repel the Iraqi invasion. Thus he goes on TV and threatens to nuke Baghdad unless the Iraqis pull out their occupation forces within two hours.
In a surprise move, the Iraqis reveal they have nuclear weapons of their own and threatens to use them against cities across the world if the U.S. tries to stop them. U.S. intel verifies the Iraqis' claims. POTUS is undeterred and stays the course. The Iraqis fire their nukes just as they threatened and the U.S. nukes Baghdad with a high-yield device, completely destroying the city. Since 2008 has come and gone without the events in the movie happening, I suppose it can be considered an post factum ATL now.
Funnily enough, since the movie is set during an election year, Donald Trump is the main challenger to the incumbent POTUS in his party primaries. He's a senator in the film, probably a Democratic one since the movie's POTUS strikes me as a Democrat and Trump was one at the time. Also, one of the U.S. Navy's aircraft carriers is named after Colin Powell in the movie, possibly suggesting he was president at one point in the movie's TL, though as Bill Clinton was president in the movie's TL too, Powell probably was president some time in the early 2000s.
There's also a bit of the twist ending at the end but I won't give it away so as not to spoil it. If you want to know anyway, here it is:
The nukes the Iraqis fire don't detonate, because they were American-made ones secretly sold to Iraq by the U.S. and France. The U.S. and French disabled the warheads in secret without the Iraqis knowing beforehand. They did this because they figured it was better to give the Iraqis secretly-disarmed nukes surreptitiously and make them think they were real than for the Iraqis to actually get real working ones on their own and then use them. The president resigns the next day after.
Either way, the nuking of a major city in the 21st century out of the blue is sure to bring about sweeping butterflies and possibly lead to a dystopic era. The movie itself was pretty gripping for one that was made on a shoestring budget. It takes place in one set throughout the entire movie, giving it a 1950s/1960s-esque 12 Angry Men feel.
Despite having an otherwise successful Presidency-the lack of a war on terrorism leads to Bush's narrow defeat in 2004. As a consequence the Republican Party retains control of Congress in 2006-which is a wave election against the Democratic incumbent. Since the policies and behavior patterns that led the financial crisis still exist-the banking collapse hits on schedule. However here the partisan divide between Congress and the Presidency proves fatal to the global economy. The House kills the Democratic administration's effort to bailout the financial industry. John McCain-who was known for his lack of interest in economic policy during the OTL 2008 campaign-is elected President. Without a bailout there's a downturn that makes the Great Recession look tame. The McCain administration's approach for dealing with the downturn consists of an ineffective mixture of tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy and austerity everywhere else. The austerity policies further inhibit the economy's ability to recover-and the second great depression is blamed on McCain in the popular imagination for generations to come.
The lack of a 9/11 leads to tensions grow with China. Bush loses to Hillary Clinton in 2004 by Electoral College involving Ohio. Unlike in OTL, China is viewed more negatively and Hu is replaced by a figure who is more like a Chinese Putin. After backlash against the Olympics in 2008, this Putin-esque figure decides to seize Taiwan and put the island under Martial Law against outcry. John McCain is elected President in a landslide after this election due to a case involving a kidnapped American tourist with a Chinese national as his wife. Although WWIII never breaks out, the North Koreans do launch a missile at Seoul for attention and it actually hits: killing hundreds of people. This restarts the Korean War under the second Kim, and the mass refugee crisis occurs. The crisis feared since Bill Clinton's Presidency happens, and is far worse than the original Great Depression.
I've heard that the original plan for 9/11 was much worse than it ended up being. Instead of hijacking and crashing planes into skyscrapers and government buildings, they were going to hijack and crash planes into nuclear plants.
Let's say they do this in addition to their original targets and crash into, let's say, the White House, which gives us President Cheney. As a result, we are involved in several different wars around the globe (more than we already are).
US still invades Afghanistan. (We have a lot of reasons too. World Trade Centre bombing in 1993, the East African embassy bombings and the bombing of the Cole collectively gave the US sufficient causus belli for Bill Clinton to seriously consider ordering the invasion of Afghanistan. Bush would use this.) Saddam does something really stupid that caused American Boots to be in Baghdad. However, without a 9/11 event, they is far less support for Iraq and Afghanistan from the start, and more so with our allies. Even London is not so into War in the Middle East. (But does. Not so with most others.)
1. A Russian bioweapon gets out in the breakup of the Soviet Union or some terror group unleashes it and crapsacks a number of countries and shreds populations.
2. The Tech Bubble bursts much harder (say hitting at exactly the same time as the Asian financial crisis of the late 90s) and you see Hooveresque deflation kick in. This spirals around the world and you see extremist groups distressed about their economic fortunes go wild. Alternately, you get 2008 bungled and the spiral doesn't stop until 2012.
3. The Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen spy incidents get revealed around the same time (say POD is H.W. Bush is POTUS) and you see a more paranoid, quasi-McCarthyite reaction, especially if the OKC (w/ different motives) and 1st WTC bombings also happen during HW's term. Bonus points if Korea goes hot or China attacks Taiwan.
