I'm not old enough to have been around at the time, but I have a hard time believing the US President could justify starting WW3 in defence of radical islamists who want us dead, in order to counter reds who (at worst) may want to raise our fuel bill.
IOTL Iran was invaded by Iraq, Afghanistan...
Was thinking about this recently, and even made a map before I realized I already made this thread years ago.
On reflection, a problem with this plan is that the Soviets and Indians would be incurring most of the military cost, while Saddam is making out like a bandit with the oil. While it'd...
Due to the difficulty of mating an automatic transmission to a rotary (because of such high RPMs) in a world where the Wankel was mainstream I think you'd see an earlier development of auto-shifting clutch transmissions.
But really it's hard to think of a scenario where rotary engines would...
As I said above I don't think there was any notable American settlement yet in the Michigan Territory: in fact it was far more 'Canadian' in character. And those few American civilians along the St. Lawrence would likely just change allegiance and stay put, as they were almost totally isolated...
Because the Royal Navy and British merchant marine will have complete command of the lakes. They will be able to mass forces anywhere easily along the frontier, while any American attack would be a logistical nightmare through huge stretches of wilderness. This would be an ENORMOUS force...
I think you have your lakes mixed up.
Transit of British territorial waters around the Michigan peninsula via Erie, Huron, and onward to the American enclave on Lake Michigan are what would be required to make use of the Lakes at their port in Indiana and onward to the Illinois. My thinking is...
Would New England formally resisting tax payments and recruiting really end the war suddenly? AFAIK the war was already being funded almost wholly by debt, and New England was essentially already out of the active fight. Hartford really only made formal what already existed.
Rather I'd think...
1817 because the war went on a bit longer and the US negotiators had to bring themselves to sign it.
The details don't matter: it's basically a things-go-worse-for-the-US scenario. Some combination of Brock and Tecumpseh live, Harrison dies, British retain Lake Erie, Hartford Convention fully...
Treaty of Ghent, November 1817. Principal points:
The United States shall cede to His Britannic Majesty all claims to the following territories in perpetuity: a. all lands drained by the Saint John River and its tributaries b. all islands within Passamaquoddy Bay c. all lands within fifteen...
Don't think so. There's no reason to sail by Darwin unless you're going to Darwin: it's simply too far off beaten maritime trade paths. The comparison with Singapore and the Strait of Mallaca just isn't there at all.
A state no longer, but Hong Kong grew in several stages, leasing more Chinese territory (I'm pretty sure it was these leases running out that forced unification, not the island of Hong Kong which was British outright)
The 49th boundary already extended to the Rockies*, only seems logical to run it all the way to the Pacific. And I doubt any outcome for the Corps would effect the course of settlement in any appreciable way anyway.
*Actually Jackson was pretty insistent that Louisiana (hence the US) included...