A 9/11-level terrorist attack on the USA at the height of the Cold War

Thande

Donor
Obviously this is the sort of thread that does act as a candle flame to trolls, so please try to drown them out with reasoned discussion.

Anyway: one thing that struck me back in 2001 was how a lot of people (and not just the US government or media for that matter) acted as though this was something new and frightening, apparently forgetting that Islamic extremists hijacking aeroplanes, and Islamic extremists attacking the World Trade Centre, were both nothing new. Granted, putting the two things together and pulling it off in a spectacular and bloody attack was new. My point here is to ask whether a 9/11-level attack - heck, you could even say a carbon copy of 9/11 itself, given that all the ingredients were already there - would have had the same kind of novel effect if it had come during the Cold War, rather than bringing the "end of history" jubilation of the 90s crashing down in flames.

A decent date for this is 1981. There are some obvious comparisons: a very right-wing president is settling into his first term, other countries are a bit worried about him, etc. We will say this attack happens in September 1981 for the sake of parallels, so Reagan has recovered from the assassination attempt on him earlier that year.

Presumably the motivation of our hypothetical Islamist terrorists would be US support for Israel - the other major motivation of Al-Qaeda in OTL (US troops in Saudi Arabia) does not exist, but you could perhaps substitute something like the US tacitly supporting secular and anti-Islamist Arab states prone to oppressing their people (i.e., Saddam Hussein's Iraq, currently fighting the Iran-Iraq War against the incipient Islamic Republic of Iran). Perhaps the terrorist group here would be drawn from Iran: we can imagine a group (freewheeling, not under the Islamic Republic's authority) deciding that giving America a bloody nose would blackmail the USA into not supporting Saddam anymore, and this of course backfires spectacularly.

My questions here are twofold. Firstly, what would the USA's response be at a time when you can't go around randomly bombing and invading countries when there's another superpower on the bloc(k), and secondly, what would the cultural effect be. While there would still be serious shock and widespread sympathy for the USA, I tend to think this would not be viewed as a "war" as it sometimes mistakenly has in OTL. Also, in OTL Putin's Russia, despite generally chilly relations with the West, tended to pay lip service to sympathising with America and the "war on terror", not least because it gave it the excuse to deal with its own vaguely Muslim-related issues (i.e., Chechnya) without the US criticising it. Ditto China with the Uighurs. Now what would Brezhnev do in the same siuation? And Deng Xiaopeng? I imagine 1981 China might be a bit more reserved and isolationist, whereas the USSR is more of an enigma: they are currently engaged in their Afghan invasion, which might alter matters somewhat.

Your thoughts?
 
It wont make any sense for Islamic terrorists to attack America in 1981 when the Soviets were their more immediate threat with the on going war in Afghanistan. If it did happen the Afghans will lose the war for lack of support from the US. America would become a far greater supporter of Israel than it was.

If such an attack happens before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan I fully expect the Soviets to back these terrorist groups against American interests.
 
We don't have to be looking at Afghani terrorists here, or even those who are necessarily sympathetic to Afghan interests.
 
We don't have to be looking at Afghani terrorists here, or even those who are necessarily sympathetic to Afghan interests.

Well it would make a huge difference who it is. Is it domestic terrorists? My point is if its some group the Soviets could use, they most likely would. Unless its some left-wing group which would draw unwanted heat on Moscow.
 
I think in order to answear this, we'll need a country of origin from which the Islamic Terrosist Organization is coming from. Afganistan dosen't really work, since the Soviets are currently entangled with them, so we need another country for the US to point it's finger at.

I supposse Iran could work, since this wouldn't be to long after the hostage crisis. I can't see the US actually invading Iran, since that would be difficult and a bit to close to the Soviets, so perhaps they get Iraq to do something, perhaps by supply them with the things they need?
 
If anything, when it's discovered the Soviets weren't involved, it'll give the ultimite cooler for cold war tensions, a common enemy. Soviets are hating Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, and Americans are now against these random terrorists from Whateverstan. It'll see Soviets and American possibly fighting side by side, noticing they aren't so different after all.
 
One guess (hopefully no flame war will result from this): despite the parallels the neocons often liked to draw between Reagan and Bush II, I propose that Reagan's response to a massive terrorist attack would be almost the opposite. I think Reagan would try to handle retaliation as a law enforcement matter, using civilian resources to track suspects and working with allied govt's to capture them (probably for trials in civilian courts, but I'm less sure about that). Alternatively, he might go the Mossad-after-Munich '72 route where more above-board methods were impractical, having terrorist suspects quietly assassinated. I doubt Reagan would go the military route except in extreme cases (perhaps Libya, and Iran could definitely be targeted for bombing if it was linked to the attacks) and I doubt ground invasions would be undertaken. Basically, Reagan would want to say that he was pursuing the terrorists and avenging American deaths, but he absolutely would not want a "War on Terrorism" being the headline on the evening news every night.

The reason I say all of this is because such an extreme terrorist attack on US soil (if indeed radical Islamists are responsible for it) is going to be a disaster for Reagan's anti-communist foreign policy. To follow up on what Zacoftheaxes said, anything that causes the Soviets to be replaced as the Big Bad in the American mind will severely hamper Reagan's pursuit of a hard line against the Communists. In light of a 9/11-style attack, Reagan's opponents can legitimately say that the USSR is NOT the fount of all evil in the world, that the Communists have never done anything to us and we have no business doing anything to them. If Reagan's opponents can wrest the national security argument away from him and claim that he holds an outmoded view of the global situation based on old-fashioned McCarthyite paranoia, that can't be good for Reagan. There would probably be a lot of support among Congress and the people for continuing detente with the Soviets in favor of pursuing the "real" threat of Islamist radicals. Especially if the Soviets provide some kind of assistance in our pursuit of the perpetrators, any too-strident insistence on "evil-empire" anti-communist discourse is going to make Reagan and his team look out of touch instead of tough.
 
Um, Islamic terrorism was actually pretty big in the '70s and '80s, in some ways as big as it is in the '00s. Black September, Hezbollah, Libya, Iran, Lebanese groups...
 
Black September, Hezbollah, Libya, Iran, Lebanese groups...
Black September was actually more of a leftist organisation that an Islamist group (it was after all linked to the PLO). Similarly Libya spent as much time spouting left-wing ideology as Islam. Outside of Hezbollah, most Lebanese militias were politically divided rather than religious, although given the politicisation of religious groups (so the Falange was a Maronite show) its a fine line.

You are otherwise correct to note the significance of Islamic terror groups in the 70s and 80s. Consider for example the assassination of Anwar Sadat.

WRT the OP, something to consider is the role of state sponsorship. International terrorist groups were unusual in this era, and Islamic ones AFAIK were non-existent. So for a strike of 9/11 proportions you are more likely looking at a state supported strike, rather than the Al Qaeda model. This in turn has an impact on the Cold War context.
 
Black September was actually more of a leftist organisation that an Islamist group (it was after all linked to the PLO). Similarly Libya spent as much time spouting left-wing ideology as Islam. Outside of Hezbollah, most Lebanese militias were politically divided rather than religious, although given the politicisation of religious groups (so the Falange was a Maronite show) its a fine line.

You are otherwise correct to note the significance of Islamic terror groups in the 70s and 80s. Consider for example the assassination of Anwar Sadat.

WRT the OP, something to consider is the role of state sponsorship. International terrorist groups were unusual in this era, and Islamic ones AFAIK were non-existent. So for a strike of 9/11 proportions you are more likely looking at a state supported strike, rather than the Al Qaeda model. This in turn has an impact on the Cold War context.

A lot of these "left islam" organisations were quietly supported by Soviets. Not so much to do a direct damage to USA or Israel as to keep USA occupied and distracted. I don't think anybody in the Soviet Union would be mad enough to sponsor a 9/11 style attack, or even to knowingly allow it - they could as well launch an ICBM into New York, the response would be the same.
However, the "leftist/islamic" organisations had a mind of their own and were not that strictly under Soviet control. So imagine a following situation:
- say Black September organizes and launches a terrorist attack behind the back of it's Soviet supporters (reason given: US support of Israel)
- Soviet Union finds out too late that the preparations for some kind of terrorist attack are under way, and they don't know exactly about the form of the attack to issue anything more than a general warning to US
- Soviet agents are searching frantically for information in the Middle East to stop the preparation and avert the attack. So do the American and Israeli agents. As political hardliners on either side prevent any coordination between the intelligence agencies beyond lukewarm words of support for each other, the search is not as effective as it might be if better coordinated
- The attack is not averted, with the Soviet Union indirectly implicated - they are obviously not involved in the attack itself, but it's their Mideast allies after all who killed thousands of civilians in the USA...

What happens? Alternatively, what happens if the attack is narrowly averted based on information gleaned by the Soviets? Based on the case that USA or Israel were the first to get the relevant information?

How realistic are these scenarios anyway?
 
Seriously Iran is probably the only situation, since the revolutionaries completely came out of left field and surprised the Carter administration, and were against the Soviets as well. I'm pretty certain they were among the few non-aligned villains in American foreign policy during the Cold War.

I mean, what other sides opposed both U.S. and U.S.S.R. at the time? Yugoslavia? China?
 
Seriously Iran is probably the only situation, since the revolutionaries completely came out of left field and surprised the Carter administration, and were against the Soviets as well. I'm pretty certain they were among the few non-aligned villains in American foreign policy during the Cold War.

I mean, what other sides opposed both U.S. and U.S.S.R. at the time? Yugoslavia? China?

None of those would directly attack or sponsor an attack on the USA (or Soviet Union for that matter). No leader of a state is suicidal, even mad ones usually aren't.
If it happens it can only be a decentral, non-state organisation. Because there is no center of power to retaliate against, such an agent can evade a counterattack in a way that a state cannot. We see this with al-Qaeda right now.
 

MacCaulay

Banned
I supposse Iran could work, since this wouldn't be to long after the hostage crisis. I can't see the US actually invading Iran, since that would be difficult and a bit to close to the Soviets, so perhaps they get Iraq to do something, perhaps by supply them with the things they need?

Seriously Iran is probably the only situation, since the revolutionaries completely came out of left field and surprised the Carter administration, and were against the Soviets as well. I'm pretty certain they were among the few non-aligned villains in American foreign policy during the Cold War.

I mean, what other sides opposed both U.S. and U.S.S.R. at the time? Yugoslavia? China?

I don't know about Iran. There was a serious fear in the Shi'ite world of the early-80s that they would do something, but they never did. The Grand Mosque takeover in 1979 was thought to be the work of Iranian-backed Shi'ites, but it turned out the Iranians had nothing to do with it.

They were way to busy with the Iran-Iraq War. Now...just to throw it open to some possiblies..., let's suppose that for some odd reason there's a plan hatched inside the Pasdaran to attack a Western target. Not just one in Europe but one in America.
I'm willing to bet they'd probably end up doing something like the first WTC attack: detonating a carbomb at it's base. That's still more than enough to send the US into overdrive, especially if it's found out the Iranians did it and it's the early-to-mid 80s.
There's an American carrier group in the Gulf, and now it's 1989 in the Gulf of Sidra all over again.



The reason I say all of this is because such an extreme terrorist attack on US soil (if indeed radical Islamists are responsible for it) is going to be a disaster for Reagan's anti-communist foreign policy. To follow up on what Zacoftheaxes said, anything that causes the Soviets to be replaced as the Big Bad in the American mind will severely hamper Reagan's pursuit of a hard line against the Communists. In light of a 9/11-style attack, Reagan's opponents can legitimately say that the USSR is NOT the fount of all evil in the world, that the Communists have never done anything to us and we have no business doing anything to them. If Reagan's opponents can wrest the national security argument away from him and claim that he holds an outmoded view of the global situation based on old-fashioned McCarthyite paranoia, that can't be good for Reagan. There would probably be a lot of support among Congress and the people for continuing detente with the Soviets in favor of pursuing the "real" threat of Islamist radicals. Especially if the Soviets provide some kind of assistance in our pursuit of the perpetrators, any too-strident insistence on "evil-empire" anti-communist discourse is going to make Reagan and his team look out of touch instead of tough.

That's a very interesting point. One does have to look at it in the context of the political thoughts of the time.
 
The question that comes to mind here is what's the grevience?

Al Quaida had a specific grieviance - the stationing of US forces in Saudi Arabia - that didn't exist yet.

Other groups in the OTL weren't motivated to carry out such attacks in such a time frame. You'll need a reason...
 
First of all, No way the Soviet Union knows anything about this ahead of time. They would never allow any of their clients to go ahead with something like this. Far to reckless for them.

Iran does seem to be the obvious choice for this, although let's remember that OTL eyes first went to the wrong place.


One guess (hopefully no flame war will result from this): despite the parallels the neocons often liked to draw between Reagan and Bush II, I propose that Reagan's response to a massive terrorist attack would be almost the opposite. I think Reagan would try to handle retaliation as a law enforcement matter, using civilian resources to track suspects and working with allied govt's to capture them (probably for trials in civilian courts, but I'm less sure about that). Alternatively, he might go the Mossad-after-Munich '72 route where more above-board methods were impractical, having terrorist suspects quietly assassinated. I doubt Reagan would go the military route except in extreme cases (perhaps Libya, and Iran could definitely be targeted for bombing if it was linked to the attacks) and I doubt ground invasions would be undertaken. Basically, Reagan would want to say that he was pursuing the terrorists and avenging American deaths, but he absolutely would not want a "War on Terrorism" being the headline on the evening news every night.


With three thousand dead? Just two years after the whole hostage thing was resolved?

He would have no choice.

Saddam just lucked out. Reagan is forced to ally with him, giving him at least the territory he wanted. US occupation of the rest.

Although this is before the buildup so this is going to be a huge problem for Reagan's defense improvements, which now take place during a war.

Although the Iraqis might be doing most of the intial dieing.


The reason I say all of this is because such an extreme terrorist attack on US soil (if indeed radical Islamists are responsible for it) is going to be a disaster for Reagan's anti-communist foreign policy. To follow up on what Zacoftheaxes said, anything that causes the Soviets to be replaced as the Big Bad in the American mind will severely hamper Reagan's pursuit of a hard line against the Communists. In light of a 9/11-style attack, Reagan's opponents can legitimately say that the USSR is NOT the fount of all evil in the world, that the Communists have never done anything to us and we have no business doing anything to them. If Reagan's opponents can wrest the national security argument away from him and claim that he holds an outmoded view of the global situation based on old-fashioned McCarthyite paranoia, that can't be good for Reagan. There would probably be a lot of support among Congress and the people for continuing detente with the Soviets in favor of pursuing the "real" threat of Islamist radicals. Especially if the Soviets provide some kind of assistance in our pursuit of the perpetrators, any too-strident insistence on "evil-empire" anti-communist discourse is going to make Reagan and his team look out of touch instead of tough


Except that the sovs have been supporting terrorism for years, and despite, at most some lip service early on, are not going to want US troops on their border.

They will be undermining US efforts diplomatically. And Reagan is going to be able to point this out to the public if the dems use your suggested tactics.



Now we have the US and the USSR both fighting muslim extremists over overlapping areas.

IMO the concerns that the Sovs have with US forces on their border will outweigh any possible benifits from having similar or the same enemies.

If the sepreate guerilla movements remain seperate, you could have both sides supporting rebels on both sides of the border, while hunting cross border traffic in both directions.

THis is hugely dangerous, obviously.

If we avoid WWIII, with both wars competing for jihadists, I would say that both the US and the USSR eventually win, say sometime in the late 80s.

And end up with a new hostle border to glare at each other over.
 
Top