11/11: the British version of 9/11.

[lordroel]

On November 11th, 2000 during the Festival of Remembrance in the Royal Albert Hall a KLM passenger plane hijacked by al-Qaeda terrorists flies into the Royal Albert Hall killing Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles, Prime Minister Tony Blair, hundreds of people in the Royal Albert Hall and also 88 crew and passengers on board the KLM flight.

On November 17th, the 18-year old Prince William is crowned a few days later as King William V.

On November 20th, in the wake of the November 11th attacks, Prime Minster Gordon Brown deliveres an ultimatum to the Taliban government of Afghanistan, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, to turn over Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda leaders operating in the country or face attack. The Taliban demanded evidence of bin Laden's link to the November 11th attacks attacks and, if such evidence warranted a trial, they offered to handle such a trial in an Islamic Court.The United Kingdom refused to provide any evidence.

On December 7th 2000, British and with support from the United States begin conducting airstrike against enemy targets in Afghanistan.

[stevep]

Lordroel

Somehow I missed this before. Would be huge butterflies. The rage in the UK would probably surpass that in the US OTL because a) important members of the government and two key members of the royal family have been killed and because of the date of the attack. However Britain is less powerful than the US so it might carry less of a coalition. [Or alternatively possibly more. Britain isn't mistrusted as much as the US because of the latter's power and the attack on royalty could also anger a number of states with monarchies, most especially in the Middle East.]

At the same time America won't be as prompted to intervene as much as we're unlikely to see Sadam overthrown as Britain will concentrate its anger against those states supporting bin Laden and his cronies.

Steve

[lordroel]

Mar 17, 2016 0:11:30 GMT stevep said:

At the same time America won't be as prompted to intervene as much as we're unlikely to see Sadam overthrown as Britain will concentrate its anger against those states supporting bin Laden and his cronies.

Well you have still got President Bush here, he will find a way to launch his war against Iraq, whether the United Kingdom who is focus on the War on Terror takes part is a different question.

[stevep]

Mar 17, 2016 4:00:47 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 17, 2016 0:11:30 GMT stevep said:

At the same time America won't be as prompted to intervene as much as we're unlikely to see Sadam overthrown as Britain will concentrate its anger against those states supporting bin Laden and his cronies.

Well you have still got President Bush here, he will find a way to launch his war against Iraq, whether the United Kingdom who is focus on the War on Terror takes part is a different question.

  Lordroel

  He can try but I think it would be more difficult given that anger in Britain will be driving the actions against bin Laden and co.  Also I wonder if Brown would be as compliant as Blair was in following Bush?

  I'm not saying this would necessarily be any better for Iraq as this leaves it under Sadam's murderous and corrupt regime.  Going to be a lot of deaths there while it limps on and probably more after it folds.  Probably not as many as the mess OTL but that was largely because the 2003 invasion was so badly mis-managed in terms of what get done after the regime is defeated.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Mar 17, 2016 16:08:57 GMT stevep said:

Mar 17, 2016 4:00:47 GMT lordroel said:

Well you have still got President Bush here, he will find a way to launch his war against Iraq, whether the United Kingdom who is focus on the War on Terror takes part is a different question.

  Lordroel

  He can try but I think it would be more difficult given that anger in Britain will be driving the actions against bin Laden and co.  Also I wonder if Brown would be as compliant as Blair was in following Bush?

  I'm not saying this would necessarily be any better for Iraq as this leaves it under Sadam's murderous and corrupt regime.  Going to be a lot of deaths there while it limps on and probably more after it folds.  Probably not as many as the mess OTL but that was largely because the 2003 invasion was so badly mis-managed in terms of what get done after the regime is defeated.

  Steve

I wonder if the British will be allowed to use Pakistan air base for operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan, unlike the United states in 2003 the British did not posses any long range bomber like the B-25 and the B-2.

[stevep]

Mar 17, 2016 16:15:07 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 17, 2016 16:08:57 GMT stevep said:

  Lordroel

  He can try but I think it would be more difficult given that anger in Britain will be driving the actions against bin Laden and co.  Also I wonder if Brown would be as compliant as Blair was in following Bush?

  I'm not saying this would necessarily be any better for Iraq as this leaves it under Sadam's murderous and corrupt regime.  Going to be a lot of deaths there while it limps on and probably more after it folds.  Probably not as many as the mess OTL but that was largely because the 2003 invasion was so badly mis-managed in terms of what get done after the regime is defeated.

  Steve

I wonder if the British will be allowed to use Pakistan air base for operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan, unlike the United states in 2003 the British did not posses any long range bomber like the B-25 and the B-2.

  Lordroel

  Unlikely I suspect as Britain has a lot less influence in Pakistan than the US had and sizeable elements in the Pakistani establishment have links to the Taliban and other reactionary elements.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Mar 17, 2016 16:40:50 GMT stevep said:

Mar 17, 2016 16:15:07 GMT lordroel said:

I wonder if the British will be allowed to use Pakistan air base for operations against the Taliban in Afghanistan, unlike the United states in 2003 the British did not posses any long range bomber like the B-25 and the B-2.

  Lordroel

  Unlikely I suspect as Britain has a lot less influence in Pakistan than the US had and sizeable elements in the Pakistani establishment have links to the Taliban and other reactionary elements.

  Steve

So the British really need the United States because they are the only ally who have long range bombers who can hit targets in Afghanistan from basses at home or from basses in the Middle East, the British have only got their Invincible-class aircraft carrier and if they are able to have a base also in the Middle East.

[stevep]

Mar 17, 2016 16:46:10 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 17, 2016 16:40:50 GMT stevep said:

  Lordroel

  Unlikely I suspect as Britain has a lot less influence in Pakistan than the US had and sizeable elements in the Pakistani establishment have links to the Taliban and other reactionary elements.

  Steve

So the British really need the United States because they are the only ally who have long range bombers who can hit targets in Afghanistan from basses at home or from basses in the Middle East, the British have only got their Invincible-class aircraft carrier and if they are able to have a base also in the Middle East.

  Lordroel

  Pretty much. Britain lacks the reach to put any real pressure on the Taliban 'government' by direct military means.  Even helping any anti-Taliban group would be difficult without the support of neighbouring powers.  It would need a coalition to overthrow the Taliban which would really have to include the US as its the only power with the resources to provide much of the air strength at such a distance for an invasion.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Mar 17, 2016 16:53:18 GMT stevep said:

Mar 17, 2016 16:46:10 GMT lordroel said:

So the British really need the United States because they are the only ally who have long range bombers who can hit targets in Afghanistan from basses at home or from basses in the Middle East, the British have only got their Invincible-class aircraft carrier and if they are able to have a base also in the Middle East.

  Lordroel

  Pretty much. Britain lacks the reach to put any real pressure on the Taliban 'government' by direct military means.  Even helping any anti-Taliban group would be difficult without the support of neighbouring powers.  It would need a coalition to overthrow the Taliban which would really have to include the US as its the only power with the resources to provide much of the air strength at such a distance for an invasion.

  Steve

The Royal Air Force might be able to use some air basses in the United Arab Emirate, Oman or in Qatar where they can operate the Panavia Tornado GR4s and Harrier GR7s from.

[stevep]

  Lordroel

  Possibly but this would require Pakistan allowing passage of such missions through their air-space as I can't see Iran doing so. 

  Steve

[lordroel]

Mar 17, 2016 17:29:08 GMT stevep said:

  Lordroel

  Possibly but this would require Pakistan allowing passage of such missions through their air-space as I can't see Iran doing so. 

  Steve

Pakistan allowed the United States to fly true their airspace, why would the British not also be allowed to do the same.

I wonder if the British can use Karshi-Khanabad Air Base in southeastern Uzbekistan in the same way as the United States in OTL to drop SAS units into Northern Afghanistan where they could assist the Northern Alliance in the fight against the Taliban.

[stevep]

Mar 17, 2016 17:37:32 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 17, 2016 17:29:08 GMT stevep said:

  Lordroel

  Possibly but this would require Pakistan allowing passage of such missions through their air-space as I can't see Iran doing so. 

  Steve

Pakistan allowed the United States to fly true their airspace, why would the British not also be allowed to do the same.

I wonder if the British can use Karshi-Khanabad Air Base in southeastern Uzbekistan in the same way as the United States in OTL to drop SAS units into Northern Afghanistan where they could assist the Northern Alliance in the fight against the Taliban.

  The US is a super-power and with Russia in eclipse and China still largely a regional one the only global power at the time.  It has a lot more muscle and hence pressure and if Pakistan had refused to provide air bases OTL it could have been nasty for them.  If nothing else extensive economic and military support from the US would disappear and that would hit Pakistan hard.  While given the anger after the 9-11 attacks an obstructive Pakistan wouldn't necessarily be able to rule out military action by the US.

  In comparison Britain is very much a light-weight and also there could be internal political capital for the Pakistani government from blocking the former colonial power.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Mar 17, 2016 23:29:40 GMT stevep said:

  In comparison Britain is very much a light-weight and also there could be internal political capital for the Pakistani government from blocking the former colonial power.

I would think India would take advantage to show the world that Pakistan is a terrorist loving, backing and supporting country by refusing to aid a country like the United kingdom who was struck so hard.

[stevep]

Mar 18, 2016 8:49:36 GMT lordroel said:

Mar 17, 2016 23:29:40 GMT stevep said:

  In comparison Britain is very much a light-weight and also there could be internal political capital for the Pakistani government from blocking the former colonial power.

I would think India would take advantage to show the world that Pakistan is a terrorist loving, backing and supporting country by refusing to aid a country like the United kingdom who was struck so hard.

  Possibly but that would likely mean increased Indo-Pakistani tensions and possibly conflict as operating from India you can only get to Afghanistan via Pakistani or Chinese airspace [at least without a huge detour].  A major war in the sub-continent would complicate matters considerably as well as, since it may be painted as anti-Muslim, it could make including other Muslim states in a coalition more difficult.

  Steve

[lordroel]

Mar 18, 2016 10:35:44 GMT stevep said:

Mar 18, 2016 8:49:36 GMT lordroel said:

I would think India would take advantage to show the world that Pakistan is a terrorist loving, backing and supporting country by refusing to aid a country like the United kingdom who was struck so hard.

  Possibly but that would likely mean increased Indo-Pakistani tensions and possibly conflict as operating from India you can only get to Afghanistan via Pakistani or Chinese airspace [at least without a huge detour].  A major war in the sub-continent would complicate matters considerably as well as, since it may be painted as anti-Muslim, it could make including other Muslim states in a coalition more difficult.

  Steve

The British terror attack happen a year after Kargil War so i think relations between Pakistan and India are still very low and hostile.