WI: Washington D.C. Destroyed On 9/11 With Nuclear Weapons

What if instead of a hijacking plot, Washington D.C. is destroyed by a nuclear weapon acquired and installed by agents of Al-Qaeda in September 2001?
 
President Cheney: "The country of [X] has 24 hours to turn over their criminal terrorists. If they do not respond, we will bring our full nuclear force to bear on the city of [Y]. We will then give another 24 hours to respond, or we will retaliate with our atomic arsenal on city [Z]. We will prosecute these measures systematically until the attackers are brought to justice or are killed. Your country's future is in your hands."
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
What if instead of a hijacking plot, Washington D.C. is destroyed by a nuclear weapon acquired and installed by agents of Al-Qaeda in September 2001?

Relevant.

Bomb would be a low yield dirty bomb, and would only cover a dozen or so blocks; it can't take out both the Capitol Building or White House, so the matter of who is hit would be important.

Assuming that it's the White House and somewhere at the front gate, the White House, the Eisenhower building, the US Treasury, Department of Commerce, and D.C. Government Office will be soaked in Radiation; Cheney and anyone in the White House and surrounding areas would be killed by radiation poisoning.

Now assuming that it's the the Capitol Building and detonated at the U.S. Grant memorial, the US Senate Building, the Post Office, Department of Labor, D.C. Court, and several museums and offices will be soaked with Radiation. Both buildings will be scorched by the fireball, and thousands will be killed and injured.
 

nbcman

Donor
President Cheney: "The country of [X] has 24 hours to turn over their criminal terrorists. If they do not respond, we will bring our full nuclear force to bear on the city of [Y]. We will then give another 24 hours to respond, or we will retaliate with our atomic arsenal on city [Z]. We will prosecute these measures systematically until the attackers are brought to justice or are killed. Your country's future is in your hands."

Cheney was in the White House. He would be dead.
President Bush was in Florida reading books at a school so he would still be president. Also, a bomb large enough to 'destroy' Washington DC is larger than can be carried without a pretty substantial vehicle. Finally, there were very few weapon classes made by the nuclear powers that could deliver that large of a blast and thus would be hard to steal. EDIT: It would also more than likely be a hydrogen bomb to get to an over 500 kt yield which further limits the weapons sources to a very small group of countries (US, UK, Russia, China, France and maybe a few others).
 
Last edited:
The immediate effort would be to figure out how on earth Al Qaeda got a nuke in the first place; they aren't exactly easy to make undetected, and most countries tend to make a reasonable effort to keep their arsenals secure (and the US is generally very happy to provide assistance in securing them). OTL Al Qaeda never came close to having nukes of their own, so tracking down their supplier (and making sure they didn't have any more) would be priority one for essentially every intelligence service in the world.
 
Destruction: Imminent

In such a case, there would be a worldwide manhunt. Samples of the radioactive debris would likely allow the USA and others to determine where the bomb came from--or at least where the fissionable materials came from.

No major world power would want to see the perpetrators go unpunished, lest similar be visited on them.

Meanwhile, it becomes most unsafe to be Islamic in the USA...
 
First, the source of the nuclear material will be identified. Whichever country supplied it will be required within 24 hours to provide the United States Government with:

  • Comprehensive evidence of how they came to lose custody of fissile material
  • How much they lost
  • Their best information about where it went
  • How they plan on getting it back
  • Precisely what they intend to do to prevent a reoccurrence
If the response is unsatisfactory, the United States will take matters into its' own hands on that front. This will certainly involve US military assets in the 'getting it back' phase, and probably the 'preventing reoccurrence' phase. A highly unsatisfactory response may elicit military action against the supplying country, up to and including a full nuclear strike if the provocation is sufficiently extreme.

Meanwhile, people all over the Islamic world will be uttering things like I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve.
 
I do have a question.If much of the political establishment,like the Senators or Congressmen gets wiped out,how will this effect the politics of the US?
 
I do have a question.If much of the political establishment,like the Senators or Congressmen gets wiped out,how will this effect the politics of the US?

The State Governors appoint new Senators and special elections are held to refill the house.

As for the bomb:

If it came from Russian Nuclear Materials, Putin will not back down if Bush demands access. So potentially bad result.

North Korea, well time to erase this sore. China will even help.

Chinese material: Bad result.

India: Bad result.

Pakistan: Bad result.

US nuclear material: Every officer in charge of its security is relieved and arrested. Their supervisors are relieved and arrested. Top to bottom review of security, more arrests and reliefs. Eventually the leak is discovered, plugged, sealed, and the leaker/s sent to Hell.

British Nuclear Materials: Same as US.

France: Same as US.

Israeli Nuclear Material: Forced to join NPT and forced to accept US Peacekeepers embroiling the US in that cesspit of ban bait fully.

As for the Taliban, its still blatantly illegal to go to war with them over the nuke as:

1. They had nothing to do with the attack

2. They had been repeatedly trying to hand Osama over to the US for years and rebuffed everytime

3. They are not obliged to turn over an alleged criminal under international law, especially one who had not broken any of their laws and was currently under house arrest at the time in Taliban controlled territory.

4. The US own contributory negligence in ignoring warnings, including the Taliban's own warning complete with an offer to turn Osama over, contributed to the attack.

Not that anyone would care, as the world operates on might makes right and has always done so.
 
As for the Taliban, its still blatantly illegal to go to war with them over the nuke as:

1. They had nothing to do with the attack

2. They had been repeatedly trying to hand Osama over to the US for years and rebuffed everytime

3. They are not obliged to turn over an alleged criminal under international law, especially one who had not broken any of their laws and was currently under house arrest at the time in Taliban controlled territory.

4. The US own contributory negligence in ignoring warnings, including the Taliban's own warning complete with an offer to turn Osama over, contributed to the attack.

Where is your evidence for these assertions?
 
Where is your evidence for these assertions?

For starters.


Handy Youtube vid record of a White House Press Conference.

Also Osama was brought back into Afghanistan by the Rabbani Government, our supposed Ally. If anything can be said about Afghanistan, everyone but the Taliban betrayed us. The Taliban never pretended to be our friend, it didn't even give a shit about the US till it illegally went to war against them.

Bush chose war and lost. Now that war has spread throughout the World and has killed, wounded, or displaced millions of people.
 

jahenders

Banned
As noted, Cheney is likely dead, depending on the timing of the blast. If there's any warning, they might get him to shelter.

In any case, Bush is travelling and unaffected, so he's still in charge.

Nevertheless, I think as soon as we have some confidence or responsibility, Bush says something like what you say here. In the case of Afghanistan, we might not start with nuking Kabul. Instead, we'd target the traditional Taliban power centers -- Kandahar, etc.

We'd also make it very clear to anyone we thought was supporting the Taliban, "Terrorists have attacked the US with WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The Taliban is harboring those terrorists and we WILL have justice. We will use ALL FORCES AT OUR DISPOSAL as we see fit against them and ANYONE who supports them." Similar to a Jack Ryan speech in Clancy's 'Executive Orders.'

President Cheney: "The country of [X] has 24 hours to turn over their criminal terrorists. If they do not respond, we will bring our full nuclear force to bear on the city of [Y]. We will then give another 24 hours to respond, or we will retaliate with our atomic arsenal on city [Z]. We will prosecute these measures systematically until the attackers are brought to justice or are killed. Your country's future is in your hands."
 
What about Bush popularity? Would he be considered a semi-god who helped to regain american prestige and brought the terrorists to justice, a incompetent idiot who allowed Washington to be destroyed by terrorists, or both? :D
 
Probably both. Everyone who was politically opposed to him before the incident would focus on the fact that his administration screwed up enough for this to happen, everyone who supported him would focus on the fact that he made America great again.

Though, I suppose it would be interesting to see what effects this would have on US policies. I mean, the costs of the Afghan war, assuming that it still takes place, would not be seen as unacceptably high if D.C had gotten nuked. So maybe less war weariness in the US, which leads to more aggressive foreign policies later on?
 

jahenders

Banned
While some would blame him no matter what the facts were, he could justifiable to the WALLS that the Clinton administration intentionally put in place (see Janet Reno speeches) between the Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement as a contributing cause for the success of the attack. Data that would have been useful to law enforcement was not shared because the Clinton Administration greatly restricted such sharing.

Probably both. Everyone who was politically opposed to him before the incident would focus on the fact that his administration screwed up enough for this to happen, everyone who supported him would focus on the fact that he made America great again.

Though, I suppose it would be interesting to see what effects this would have on US policies. I mean, the costs of the Afghan war, assuming that it still takes place, would not be seen as unacceptably high if D.C had gotten nuked. So maybe less war weariness in the US, which leads to more aggressive foreign policies later on?
 
Top