Most dystopic possible 2000s

[Corned Beef Renegade]

How could you get a timeline where post 9-11 the US moves in the direction under Bush that many liberals feared, with the US becomes a semi-fascist and borderline Christian theocratic state with outrighth censorship, Arab-Americans detained en masse, war with Iran that leads to the draft being reinstated and political prison camps for anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman?

 

[Lalli]

I don't see that happening with realistic way. Democracy is just too strong in America and most Americans wouldn't accept that kind of regime. If someone that kind of person elect as president, him will has much troubles with congress and people if he tries enforce some kind of theocratic dictatorship.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

How could you get a timeline where post 9-11 the US moves in the direction under Bush that many liberals feared, with the US becomes a semi-fascist and borderline Christian theocratic state with outrighth censorship, Arab-Americans detained en masse, war with Iran that leads to the draft being reinstated and political prison camps for anyone to the left of Joe Lieberman?

Those things I bolded are as silly as conservative claims that Obama wants to turn the country into a marxist state and throw all people to the right of Joe Lieberman into prison (Lieberman is a popular benchmark).

However, a dystopic 2000s is possible. If you want the US to be more militarized and make the War on Terror a hundred times worse, just make 9/11 worse. Let's say that Al Qaeda gets its hands on a single Pakistani nuke, and manages to detonate it in a major American city (probably NYC). Depending on the size of the bomb, anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 people are killed. A major recession is kicked off because of the damage to Wall Street. The bomb is traced back to Pakistan, and the US demands that Pakistan disarm and turn over the factions within its government responsible. Pakistan refuses, and the US attacks (probably by taking out most Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and reactors, although some bombs are bound to survive). You can also expect a huge US retaliation against everyone else who supports Al Qaeda (Afghanistan). In this scenario, it's highly unlikely that Saddam will think that Bush is bluffing about the WMDs. Ironically, this might lead to the US and Iran working together, although they almost certainly wouldn't be allies because of US support for Israel.

So the US is more heavily invested into the War on Terror, and welfare/infrastructure spending is cut as a result. Then the US and Chinese housing bubbles both burst towards the end of the decade, helping to trigger a massive global recession. The Euro collapses, rising food prices help trigger a bloodier Arab Spring. Afghanistan and Balochistan are giant US military districts. Western Pakistan is either a crater or in a state of anarchy. India retakes the Kashmir region. With the economy in freefall, the Chinese communist party becomes increasingly belligerent towards Japan. Chavez's special brand of insanity takes root in South America, spreading to Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. So now the entire world economy is shot, the US is on war footing, China is turning into a giant version of 1980s Argentina, South America is crazy, the Middle East is in chaos, everybody is poor, and there are still a few old Pakistani nukes floating around somewhere to keep everyone on their toes.

That dystopic enough for you

 

[Corbell Mark IV]

I don't see that happening with realistic way. Democracy is just too strong in America and most Americans wouldn't accept that kind of regime. If someone that kind of person elect as president, him will has much troubles with congress and people if he tries enforce some kind of theocratic dictatorship.

Here's Bush's stated policy OTL.

“I also want to speak tonight directly to Muslims throughout the world.
We respect your faith. It’s practiced freely by many millions of Americans and by millions more in countries that America counts as friends. Its teachings are good and peaceful, and those who commit evil in the name of Allah blaspheme the name of Allah.
The terrorists are traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself.
The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends.
It is not our many Arab friends.
Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.”
~ George W. Bush address to Congress, September 20th, 2001.

 

[assasin]

However, a dystopic 2000s is possible. If you want the US to be more militarized and make the War on Terror a hundred times worse, just make 9/11 worse. If Al Qaeda gets its hands on a single Pakistani nuke, and manages to detonate it in a major American city (probably NYC), you can expect a huge US retaliation against everyone who supports Al Qaeda (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan). Ironically, this might lead to the US and Iran working together, although they almost certainly wouldn't be allies because of US support for Israel.

Not sure how viable managing to smuggle a nuke into the US would be. But I'd imagine it'd be possible to hit the White House with a plane. While I don't think bush was there at the time the loss of a family member of friend might cause him to snap or maybe if enough people in the line of succession die in the attack through differences in scheduling a hardliner might get the presidency by default and push for more.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Not sure how viable managing to smuggle a nuke into the US would be. But I'd imagine it'd be possible to hit the White House with a plane. While I don't think bush was there at the time the loss of a family member of friend might cause him to snap or maybe if enough people in the line of succession die in the attack through differences in scheduling a hardliner might get the presidency by default and push for more.

If it's a small nuke and a big truck, I think it might be possible, especially pre-9/11. US border security was laughably lax back then.

 

[Son of Leman Russ]

Although not hitting the "Dystopic" mark yet, I reccomend you to read Wolverinethad's "Rejection and Revenge" in which US got Nuked in 1993 by Al-Qaeda, and end up Nuking Iran instead over a deceptive measures put by Al Qaeda.

Right now story wise, US can be in a very very deep shit... If Clinton doesn't get lucky (but if Gaddafi of all people, decide to be hero, it could end in better, except for Iranians)

 

[Corned Beef Renegade]

Those things I bolded are as silly as conservative claims that Obama wants to turn the country into a marxist state and throw all people to the right of Joe Lieberman into prison (Lieberman is a popular benchmark).

However, a dystopic 2000s is possible. If you want the US to be more militarized and make the War on Terror a hundred times worse, just make 9/11 worse. Let's say that Al Qaeda gets its hands on a single Pakistani nuke, and manages to detonate it in a major American city (probably NYC). Depending on the size of the bomb, anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 people are killed. A major recession is kicked off because of the damage to Wall Street. The bomb is traced back to Pakistan, and the US demands that Pakistan disarm and turn over the factions within its government responsible. Pakistan refuses, and the US attacks (probably by taking out most Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and reactors, although some bombs are bound to survive). You can also expect a huge US retaliation against everyone else who supports Al Qaeda (Afghanistan). In this scenario, it's highly unlikely that Saddam will think that Bush is bluffing about the WMDs. Ironically, this might lead to the US and Iran working together, although they almost certainly wouldn't be allies because of US support for Israel.

So the US is more heavily invested into the War on Terror, and welfare/infrastructure spending is cut as a result. Then the US and Chinese housing bubbles both burst towards the end of the decade, helping to trigger a massive global recession. The Euro collapses, rising food prices help trigger a bloodier Arab Spring. Afghanistan and Balochistan are giant US military districts. Western Pakistan is either a crater or in a state of anarchy. India retakes the Kashmir region. With the economy in freefall, the Chinese communist party becomes increasingly belligerent towards Japan. Chavez's special brand of insanity takes root in South America, spreading to Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. So now the entire world economy is shot, the US is on war footing, China is turning into a giant version of 1980s Argentina, South America is crazy, the Middle East is in chaos, everybody is poor, and there are still a few old Pakistani nukes floating around somewhere to keep everyone on their toes.

That dystopic enough for you

Yeah, I could definitely imagine so,etching disturbingly like that.

 

[ThePest179]

If you want the US to be more militarized and make the War on Terror a hundred times worse, just make 9/11 worse. Let's say that Al Qaeda gets its hands on a single Pakistani nuke, and manages to detonate it in a major American city (probably NYC). Depending on the size of the bomb, anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 people are killed. A major recession is kicked off because of the damage to Wall Street. The bomb is traced back to Pakistan, and the US demands that Pakistan disarm and turn over the factions within its government responsible. Pakistan refuses, and the US attacks (probably by taking out most Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and reactors, although some bombs are bound to survive). You can also expect a huge US retaliation against everyone else who supports Al Qaeda (Afghanistan). In this scenario, it's highly unlikely that Saddam will think that Bush is bluffing about the WMDs. Ironically, this might lead to the US and Iran working together, although they almost certainly wouldn't be allies because of US support for Israel.

So the US is more heavily invested into the War on Terror, and welfare/infrastructure spending is cut as a result. Then the US and Chinese housing bubbles both burst towards the end of the decade, helping to trigger a massive global recession. The Euro collapses, rising food prices help trigger a bloodier Arab Spring. Afghanistan and Balochistan are giant US military districts. Western Pakistan is either a crater or in a state of anarchy. India retakes the Kashmir region. With the economy in freefall, the Chinese communist party becomes increasingly belligerent towards Japan. Chavez's special brand of insanity takes root in South America, spreading to Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. So now the entire world economy is shot, the US is on war footing, China is turning into a giant version of 1980s Argentina, South America is crazy, the Middle East is in chaos, everybody is poor, and there are still a few old Pakistani nukes floating around somewhere to keep everyone on their toes.

That dystopic enough for you

Since conscription in the US will likely be reintroduced due to an invasion of Pakistan, the invasion of Iraq will likely happen anyway.

 

[Drizzt]

However, a dystopic 2000s is possible. If you want the US to be more militarized and make the War on Terror a hundred times worse, just make 9/11 worse. Let's say that Al Qaeda gets its hands on a single Pakistani nuke, and manages to detonate it in a major American city (probably NYC). Depending on the size of the bomb, anywhere from 50,000 to 200,000 people are killed. A major recession is kicked off because of the damage to Wall Street. The bomb is traced back to Pakistan, and the US demands that Pakistan disarm and turn over the factions within its government responsible. Pakistan refuses, and the US attacks (probably by taking out most Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and reactors, although some bombs are bound to survive). You can also expect a huge US retaliation against everyone else who supports Al Qaeda (Afghanistan). In this scenario, it's highly unlikely that Saddam will think that Bush is bluffing about the WMDs. Ironically, this might lead to the US and Iran working together, although they almost certainly wouldn't be allies because of US support for Israel.

So the US is more heavily invested into the War on Terror, and welfare/infrastructure spending is cut as a result. Then the US and Chinese housing bubbles both burst towards the end of the decade, helping to trigger a massive global recession. The Euro collapses, rising food prices help trigger a bloodier Arab Spring. Afghanistan and Balochistan are giant US military districts. Western Pakistan is either a crater or in a state of anarchy. India retakes the Kashmir region. With the economy in freefall, the Chinese communist party becomes increasingly belligerent towards Japan. Chavez's special brand of insanity takes root in South America, spreading to Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia. So now the entire world economy is shot, the US is on war footing, China is turning into a giant version of 1980s Argentina, South America is crazy, the Middle East is in chaos, everybody is poor, and there are still a few old Pakistani nukes floating around somewhere to keep everyone on their toes.

That dystopic enough for you

I see your scenario and raise you:
Instead of a nuclear 9/11 things proceed as OTL until the 2008 elections expect for a butterfly that results in Obama loosing the election. Then instead of on 9/11/2001, there's a nuclear terror strike at the swearing in ceremony for McCain, while Sarah Palin is away. So in 2009 we get President Palin, of a US that's just been the victim of nuclear terrorism and had much of it's Congress and Supreme Court killed. Don't really want to speculate about further events.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Since conscription in the US will likely be reintroduced due to an invasion of Pakistan, the invasion of Iraq will likely happen anyway.

Why? In OTL, Saddam thought that Bush was bluffing. When he sees the US introduce conscription for the first time since Vietnam and go all total war on Pakistan, there is no reason for him to think that. He'll avoid war with the US at all costs.

 

[ThePest179]

Why? In OTL, Saddam thought that Bush was bluffing. When he sees the US introduce conscription for the first time since Vietnam and go all total war on Pakistan, there is no reason for him to think that. He'll avoid war with the US at all costs.

Bush and Cheney won't, though. They wouldn't care if Allah himself said "Saddam has no WMDs".

 

[jpj1421]

This was from Dennis Hastert's recollections on September 11th.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...of_the_house_dennis_hastert_r-ill_111218.html

It was an interesting day for us because we were scheduled to have John Howard -- the prime minister of Australia was supposed to deliver a speech to a joint session of Congress. Well, in the joint session of Congress, you have the House and the Senate, you have the Supreme Court, the president's cabinet, chiefs of staff, the diplomatic corps -- the whole government in one room basically -- the vice president. The president was gone.

Now, if United 93 had left it's runway on time, instead of being delayed 40 minutes. It would have hit the Capital Building, assuming that was the intended target, at the same time as the other planes were hitting their targets, with no chance of anyone finding out ahead of time what was going to happen. I don't know when that joint session of Congress would have been held, but I imagine a lot of important people would be in the building when everything goes down. I imagine this would leave a pretty nasty scar on the national psyche.

 

[CthulhuFhtagn]

Bush and Cheney won't, though. They wouldn't care if Allah himself said "Saddam has no WMDs".

What makes you think that? If Saddam cooperates, going after him would be a stupid waste of time when you're busy fighting a war in 2 countries. The US has historically cooperated with far worse.

Bush and Cheney may have been trigger-happy neo-imperialists, but they weren't idiots. They would have their hands full occupying Pakistan (a country of 170 million people) and Afghanistan (kind of a hard place to occupy).

 

[glenn67]

I see your scenario and raise you:
Instead of a nuclear 9/11 things proceed as OTL until the 2008 elections expect for a butterfly that results in Obama loosing the election. Then instead of on 9/11/2001, there's a nuclear terror strike at the swearing in ceremony for McCain, while Sarah Palin is away. So in 2009 we get President Palin, of a US that's just been the victim of nuclear terrorism and had much of it's Congress and Supreme Court killed. Don't really want to speculate about further events.

Sarah Palin would have to be sworn in as Vice President at the same place as John McCain. So I disagree that she would be out of town. Most likely, one member of the Cabinet would stay away from the inauguration ceremony to ensure the Constitutional line of succession.

 

[ThePest179]

What makes you think that? If Saddam cooperates, going after him would be a stupid waste of time when you're busy fighting a war in 2 countries. The US has historically cooperated with far worse.

Bush and Cheney may have been trigger-happy neo-imperialists, but they weren't idiots. They would have their hands full occupying Pakistan (a country of 170 million people) and Afghanistan (kind of a hard place to occupy).

Uh, he did cooperate IOTL. Maybe Cheney and Bush won't do it, but there's no denying the country will still be shitty.

 

[SAVORYapple]

Chavez's special brand of insanity takes root in South America, spreading to Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia.

You'd have to change Evo Morales's personality. Bolivia's been well run under his presidency, regardless of what he spouts.