WI: Nuclear Warfare Was Used Against Afghanistan After 9/11?

Exactly what it says on the tin. What do you picture being the political and economic fallout of the U.S launching nuclear missiles into Afghanistan after 9/11 as revenge?
 
As in, nuking Kabul? The USA suffers a huge diplomatic blow, Bush may face the serious risk of getting arrested if he travels abroad after his term is done (which in itself is another huge can of worms), the effects on nuclear proliferation are dicey: on one hand, governments might be scared of attracting a preemtive American nuclear attack. On the other, governments might feel it's safe to have nuclear weapons than to lack them. And forget all about getting North Korea to disarm.
Bin Laden throws a party.

As in, tactical undeground use (through bunker busters) in Afganistan caves, with little or no civilian casualties and negligible radiation? That should be more passable. Or course, it also green lights Russia to do the same in the future, should the opportunity present itself. It may also spur nuclear proliferation in the form of, for instance, nuclear armed anti ship missiles - but countries capable of developing those probably have them already.
 

Greenville

Banned
If more than 20,000 civilians were killed in the attacks it may be considered justified as long as it was a tactical warhead. It may also have to be on a non-civilian target such as Al-Qaeda training camps or the fleeing leadership.
 
If more than 20,000 civilians were killed in the attacks it may be considered justified as long as it was a tactical warhead. It may also have to be on a non-civilian target such as Al-Qaeda training camps or the fleeing leadership.

Tactical weapons used on non-civilian targets like Tora Bora would have been accepted by a vast majority of Americans OTL.

The majority of Americans would have supported much harder, nastier and more extreme things then Bush actually did after 911. Many people here seem to have the idea Bush did the limit or pushed beyond the limit of what American public option would allow for, but it's a very inaccurate retrospective goggles based on views developed many years after 911.
 
Last edited:
If more than 20,000 civilians were killed in the attacks it may be considered justified as long as it was a tactical warhead. It may also have to be on a non-civilian target such as Al-Qaeda training camps or the fleeing leadership.

Tactical weapons used on non-civilian targets like Tora Bora would have been accepted by a vast majority of Americans OTL.

The majority of Americans would have supported much harder, nastier and more extreme things then Bush actually did after 911. Many people here seem to have the idea Bush did the limit or pushed beyond the limit of what American public option would allow for, but it's a very inaccurate retrospective goggles based on views developed many years after 911.

Indeed. 9/11 pissed Americans off about as much as Pearl Harbor did and Bush could have gotten away with tactical use of nukes in places such as Tora Bora. I, however, disagree with the assertion that people would have been OK with thousands of civilian casualties. Bombing cities hadn't been done since WW2 and in the 21st century such things will be displayed on TV and the internet.
 

Greenville

Banned
If tactic nuclear weapons are used and Bin Laden is vaporized by one, there is little physical evidence without a body that he is dead.
 

Greenville

Banned
North Korea only went nuclear in the years after the U.S. invaded Iraq. Few believed that in the modern age America had the audacity to launch such an invasion, but did and is freaked out others opposed by the United States.
 
North Korea only went nuclear in the years after the U.S. invaded Iraq. Few believed that in the modern age America had the audacity to launch such an invasion, but did and is freaked out others opposed by the United States.

So they had minimally according to the IAEA one to two weapons worth of highly enriched Uranium in 2002 because? They withdrew from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty before the Iraq war because?

The Iraq War wasn't the start of the North Korean nuclear program, it was very far along with huge resources and effort invested in it before the war.
 
Last edited:
There is zero point in the US launching nukes anywhere in Afghanistan. It simply makes no sense. The 9/11 attacks were not state-orchestrated, so there is no point in hitting Kabul. Not to mention the fact that using nukes is a huge escalation that will kill 100-fold the number of civilians killed in the US. Using nukes on the Tora Bora area is also pointless unless you are carpet bombing on a massive scale. The tactical weapons being mentioned, when used against an enemy in caves, would require a targeting location within a mile or so. If you have that, why not use ground forces? Nukes are not catch-all do-all weapons, they have limits just like conventional weapons. They would also irradiate large swathes of Pakistan, sure to cause some issues.

The Nuclear Taboo is too important to keep to waste it trying to kill a handful of people in Afghanistan. There is a reason they haven't been used since 1945.
 
Indeed. 9/11 pissed Americans off about as much as Pearl Harbor did and Bush could have gotten away with tactical use of nukes in places such as Tora Bora. I, however, disagree with the assertion that people would have been OK with thousands of civilian casualties. Bombing cities hadn't been done since WW2 and in the 21st century such things will be displayed on TV and the internet.

A mushroom cloud over Kabul would have Americans celebrating in the streets. Sure, there'd be a voice or two saying "isn't this a bit disproportionate?", but those voices would be pretty quiet at first.

But if/when Bush becomes unpopular, it would be yet another bad thing Bush did, and probably treated similarly to the Iraq War OTL.
 

Ak-84

Banned
It would end the nuclear Taboo that has existed since Korea. Suddenly use of nukes against "military" targets is kosher. Especially in "forbidding" terrain. Every nuclear nation except the UK (since they only have Trident with its zero flexibility) suddenly finds uses for its expensive toys.

In OTL at the time, both Pakistan and France were heavily involved in peacekeeping/peace enforcing missions in Africa. Some Frenchies get popped......nuke em. Crazy diamond fuelled hand cutters in Sierra Leone? Nuke their bases.
 

Greenville

Banned
So they had minimally according to the IAEA one to two weapons worth of highly enriched Uranium in 2002 because? They withdrew from the nuclear nonproliferation treaty before the Iraq war because?

The Iraq War wasn't the start of the North Korean nuclear program, it was very far along with huge resources and effort invested in it before the war.

No it was the catalyst for them to begin building a functioning bomb. The Axis of Evil speech probably had a role in that too.
 
A mushroom cloud over Kabul would have Americans celebrating in the streets. Sure, there'd be a voice or two saying "isn't this a bit disproportionate?", but those voices would be pretty quiet at first.

But if/when Bush becomes unpopular, it would be yet another bad thing Bush did, and probably treated similarly to the Iraq War OTL.

Some, sure. Most, no. Not in this day and age. Most Americans know full well why nukes haven't been used since WWII. If the US uses WMD in Afghanistan (unlikely) it would use chemical not nuclear weapons.
 
No it was the catalyst for them to begin building a functioning bomb. The Axis of Evil speech probably had a role in that too.

Doubt it. jmc247 is mostly correct here: the North Koreans were already on that path before the '03 invasion. The Iraq War probably did help entrench their desire, as did Saddam's ultimate fate, but I doubt it created it.
 
Top