A 9/11 WI??

Ok the attacks of 9/11 happened on the east coast (Pennsylvania, New York and Washington). However, WI the attacks had happened across America, for example, the attacks happened in New York (Twin towers), St. Loius(St. Louis Arch) and Los Vegas(Casinos) Do you think that it would have impacted us more or less if they attacked across America instead of the northeastern United States?
 
Ok the attacks of 9/11 happened on the east coast (Pennsylvania, New York and Washington). However, WI the attacks had happened across America, for example, the attacks happened in New York (Twin towers), St. Loius(St. Louis Arch) and Los Vegas(Casinos) Do you think that it would have impacted us more or less if they attacked across America instead of the northeastern United States?
Not really, only way to make us madder than OTL is to get the government or use WMDs
 
The St. Louis arch is a very unlikely target. Not only is it relatively small and hard to hit, but very few people will get killed. Las Vegas... maybe. The problem with that is there are a lot of hotels there, and destroying just one would be a bit "lame." I think the OTL targets chosen were most effective.
 

Tovarich

Banned
Not really, only way to make us madder than OTL is to get the government or use WMDs

It may not have made people any madder, Ram', but could it have made people more scared?
I mean scared to the point of collective hysteria, with people believing there really were dedicated teams of AQ operatives in every single neighbourhood across the entire US.

By way of comparison, imagine the 1941 Pearl Harbour attack been accompanied by simultaneous attacks on the Californian coast and German/Italian raids to New York and Texas, however small and token.
Whilst that would almost certainly not have lessened US resolve to enter WWII, the 'home front' will have felt far less secure, I suspect.
 
It may not have made people any madder, Ram', but could it have made people more scared?
I mean scared to the point of collective hysteria, with people believing there really were dedicated teams of AQ operatives in every single neighbourhood across the entire US.

By way of comparison, imagine the 1941 Pearl Harbour attack been accompanied by simultaneous attacks on the Californian coast and German/Italian raids to New York and Texas, however small and token.
Whilst that would almost certainly not have lessened US resolve to enter WWII, the 'home front' will have felt far less secure, I suspect.
Thing is we already were plenty scared that AQ could end up anywhere, that said I am biased by living in the north east and having talked to people who worked at the WTC so someone else should answer
 
I think it would have been the same.

The main thing was destroying such a visible landmark and killing thousands of people.
 
By way of comparison, imagine the 1941 Pearl Harbour attack been accompanied by simultaneous attacks on the Californian coast and German/Italian raids to New York and Texas, however small and token.
Whilst that would almost certainly not have lessened US resolve to enter WWII, the 'home front' will have felt far less secure, I suspect.

In the sense of feeling more or less secure i don't really think it matters. I'm not an American nor was i there but the way i look at it Washington DC and New York city are more then 300 kilometers(200 miles) away from eachother and they both got hit. Might as well have been Boston as well, or Pittsburgh, or Richmond(to name a few), who knows in the next few hours. In the USA that might not seem like a large distance, but when you come to Europe it sure as hell is. If they can hit Paris and London at the same time, why would all the other countries feel safe? They would all go on alert. Same goes for states i suppose. If they can hit 2 different states, why not 3?

The attack already did cause all airtraffic above the USA to be grounded and Defcon was upgraded(wasn't it?) That wouldn't have changed if they hit Las Vegas too, or Chicago, or Houston.
 
Top