WI: 9/11 Attacks were directed toward Britain, France, Russia, and China as well...?

Just to remind people, but in the aftermath of 911, the other NATO nations, including France, invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty and offered America help.

And America said, "No, we don't want your help".

In this ATL, it might be a little harder for America to either decline or insist europe stay out of its way. If Afganistan did go ahead as a NATO operation, albeit one lead and dominated by America, then you're going to have a lot more soldiers on the ground. The invasion of Iraq will also be much more problamatic for Bush et all, because instead of only Britain advising caution, all the other (saner) members of NATO will be advising the same thing. Hans Blix will probably be given time to complete his inspection (with frantic Iraqi cooperation) and Iraq might not even happen. At least until the Arab Spring takes care of the problem 10 years later.

With a larger military in Afghanistan, no second war in Iraq, and 5 nuclear nations breathing down Pakistan's neck (including Russia - even if the last is comitted elsewhere) the war in Afghanistan might have gone very differently. Likely more squabbling, but also likely more success.

And we might have finally learned how the Leclerc tank functions in a modern combat enviroment. ::)
 
Last edited:
Just to remind people, but in the aftermath of 911, the other NATO nations, including France, invoked Article 5 of the NATO Treaty and offered America help.

And America said, "No, we don't want your help".

In this ATL, it might be a little harder for America to either decline or insist europe stay out of its way. If Afganistan did go ahead as a NATO operation, albeit one lead and dominated by America, then you're going to have a lot more soldiers on the ground. The invasion of Iraq will also be much more problamatic for Bush et all, because instead of only Britain advising caution, all the other (saner) members of NATO will be advising the same thing. Hans Blix will probably be given time to complete his inspection (with frantic Iraqi cooperation) and Iraq might not even happen. At least until the Arab Spring takes care of the problem 10 years later.

With a larger military in Afghanistan, no second war in Iraq, and 5 nuclear nations breathing down Pakistan's neck (including Russia - even if the last is comitted elsewhere) the war in Afghanistan might have gone very differently. Likely more squabbling, but also likely more success.

And we might have finally learned how the Leclerc tank functions in a modern combat enviroment. ::)
No you won't have a lot more boots on the ground, logistics are the prime consideration here not available troop numbers
 
Would front national do any better in France ?

Would France start to drift slowly from Germany to Britain as its EU ally? (As the UK and France now share Foreign policy aims that Germany does not)

Would Sino-Indian relations improve now they both have reasons not to like Pakistan?

And its goner be a lot harder to argue it’s a fight for democracy when one of the you're main allies is China IMO
 
No you won't have a lot more boots on the ground, logistics are the prime consideration here not available troop numbers
That is not a reason given in the article, nor any other article I was able to find on the subject.

But for arguement's sake, fine:
Britain was able to deploy troops in Afghanistan. Please explain your logistical reasons why France or Germany would be unable to.
 
That is not a reason given in the article, nor any other article I was able to find on the subject.

But for arguement's sake, fine:
Britain was able to deploy troops in Afghanistan. Please explain your logistical reasons why France or Germany would be unable to.
I did not mean they would not be able to deploy troops, they have done so OTL, simply that supplying a lot more than the number of troops already deployed will be difficult

Current Coalition is 130,000 men+270,000 Afghan's

Soviet Invasion was 115,000+55,000 Afghan's

Supplying more than this will be damn difficult, bring France and Germany to UK level of commitment alone will add 10,000 more troops to this burden

I do not define a 10% increase as a lot more, I would define a 25% as such but that will be difficult
 
Last edited:
The immense increase in complexity of the attack and the inclusion of states whose government's are far more paranoid then the US's could ever hope to be means the attack is discovered and the plotters arrested before it can be carried out.

There was a reason Osama turned down the 1st draft of what would become the 9/11 plan...
 

whitecrow

Banned
As regards Russia, I strongly doubt they'll be able to drum up any kind of popular support for another Afghanistan conflict. "It'll be different this time, we promise!" will ring hollow.
In 1990s U.S. proposed a joint operation to Russia to clear out Taliban from Afganisran. Maybe it's implemented in 2000s in this TL.

Also if Russia provides logistic routs to Afganistan, U.S. has no need for Pakistan.
 
I think every country that was attacked by the terrorist would get involved and with more help we could achieve more.

I think Israel should just invade the more radical countries.
 
I did not mean they would not be able to deploy troops, they have done so OTL, simply that supplying a lot more than the number of troops already deployed will be difficult

And two years later Britain supported 45,000 troops in Iraq as well as maintaining 9,500 troops in Afghanistan.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Forgot about that little war did we?

So I call BS on Britain not being able to project or maintain more than 10,000 troops overseas.

Which they woud certainly have done if Canary Wharf had been knocked down. France would have matched them if the Tour Eiffel had been levelled. Germany hasn't been directly attacked, but with Britain and France claiming Article 5, combined with a much more organised and effective terrorist group, they would very likely have done more.

Plus the presence of cheese eating french islamic monkeys might have gone some way towards defusing the whole crusade nonsense. The germans might have given the americans (WRT 1946 onwards) some well deserved reminders on how you conduct a successful occupation.

There are of course only so many places you can stack troops even in a country that big, but with a larger pool, deployed troops would have been better supported and rotated out much more often.

Supplying more than this will be damn difficult, bring France and Germany to UK level of commitment alone will add 10,000 more troops to this burden
And yet it was done for Iraq OTL by a nation that had not been attacked.
 
And two years later Britain supported 45,000 troops in Iraq as well as maintaining 9,500 troops in Afghanistan.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: Forgot about that little war did we?

So I call BS on Britain not being able to project or maintain more than 10,000 troops overseas.

Which they woud certainly have done if Canary Wharf had been knocked down. France would have matched them if the Tour Eiffel had been levelled. Germany hasn't been directly attacked, but with Britain and France claiming Article 5, combined with a much more organised and effective terrorist group, they would very likely have done more.

Plus the presence of cheese eating french islamic monkeys might have gone some way towards defusing the whole crusade nonsense. The germans might have given the americans (WRT 1946 onwards) some well deserved reminders on how you conduct a successful occupation.

There are of course only so many places you can stack troops even in a country that big, but with a larger pool, deployed troops would have been better supported and rotated out much more often.

And yet it was done for Iraq OTL by a nation that had not been attacked.
Iraq is not Afghanistan, Logistics are much easier there. I was merely talking about Afghanistan and not having many more boots on the Ground there than OTL

You are correct about the better support and rotations out I was just pointing out that supplying lots of extra troops in Afghanistan will be difficult and that you will not see 50,000+ extra troops in Afghanistan

Iraq is a completely different story with far better logistic routes to supply those troops

I never meant that those countries could not project troops overseas, simply that they could not project them in AFGHANISTAN, landlocked, Mountainous, remote, poorly developed Afghanistan
 
Last edited:
Top