redlightning
Banned
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?
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."
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).Cheney was in the White House. He would be dead.
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?
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?
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."
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?