OOC: To try and clear some of these up, starting with the second to last poster...
1. Most of the American posters have been saying Ireland is oppressed, which has around the same validity as the British members saying that we Americans are evil oppressors : biased, probably exaggerated, but perhaps with a hint of truth. Ireland is likely kept under British influence in the same way that one of the earlier posters said that a few other American nations were: political dominance and threats of force writ large. I did intend, however, for the US to have genuinely good relations with much of South/Central America, back when I noted that US population would be majority Indigenous (read: Hispanic/Latin American) within two decades.
2. Economically, the US is likely as good/better than Britain, but not enough to overpower Britain and her naval allies in the one sphere it matters: the North Atlantic. While the Empires have their colonies to get raw resources from, the US has not only the entirety of Fortress America, but as I mentioned earlier has de facto resource control over Siberia (and with a presence in Japan, likely some help there as well). Not quite a permanent war-economy on either side, but definitely a big deal. On the American side, likewise. Probably massive military aid to strategically important areas (such as Panama/the Caribbean, or other important trade/movement routes) with much less to the non-important regions (such as landlocked countries). Also, since it was mentioned in the past that socialism is accepted in the US as long as it doesn't change your choice of enemy, that will likely have some effect as well.
One interesting point about the US is that, since the East Coast is regularly a battle zone/bombing zone and suffers much damage, it's very likely that many military industries were moved out of range (say in the Central US), and that rather than having the majority of the population in the NE of OTL the US would have more of its population in cities in the Plains or on the West Coast. (I've been dropping hints that battle in the Pacific have been increasingly further west each time, from Australia to Indonesia. In my mind, though it's up for debate, Indonesia is the current field of contention, with naval battles and ground combat where most of the action takes place as Britain tries to keep the US from attacking India. The current state of Australia and other colonies "liberated" or razed by the US is up for claim.)
You make a good point about energy infrastructure. Since the whole of Fortress America likely has less oil than the Empires, what you suggested could work, especially if oil is considered a "war only" resource too valuable for public cunsumption. And since empires control(ed) most of the oil rich regions, you might see them with the anti-nuclear movement. If there's an evironmentalist movement at all, I mean; weather and environmental problems in Africa or the Middle East might not be very important to those in the ruling countries, same with rainforrest depletion to the American side.
3. "Global Tensions Rampant" might be too strong a word; in my mind it's more like "Anglo-American Tensions are rampant, and both sides formed an alliance to deal with it." Except for naval combat in the Combined Atlantic Fleet and some out in the Pacific, it's not really clear how involved Germany or especially France is in the matter. Since Germany has stomped Russia ITTL, it's possible that "what goes on in Eastern Europe stays in Eastern Europe" so long as Germany gives naval aide to Britain.
4. I've been opposed to space combat and rampant sci-fi from the beggining, and I'll explain why. By the hints, this has been taking time around OTL, though the exact year is up for grabs. And there has clearly been no scientific cooperation between the US and European allies, and frequent and bloody wars on a regular basis is not conducive for long-term scientific advances. IOTL, where the US has been blessed with massive immigration of scientists, never having had to worry about war on the borders, and a near-permanent peace time economy conducive for research, we haven't come close to any of the outrageous weapons some have claimed. Fusion, with all the richest countries in the world working together, is who knows how far off. The closest we have to a direct energy weapon fits in a modified Boeing 747. And these would be farther off, not closer. States with large standing armies and frequent wars with devastation tend to fall behind on science development.
You can claim that a space race went up, but space combat isn't going to be major or really important. The empires have to maintain the empires they already have in face of war, and the Americas are fighting as well. Nukes on the moon won't change the strategic situation at all, and there won't be any real economically viable resource on the moon that can't be made on Earth.
All my thoughts, now out on paper (as they say).
1. Most of the American posters have been saying Ireland is oppressed, which has around the same validity as the British members saying that we Americans are evil oppressors : biased, probably exaggerated, but perhaps with a hint of truth. Ireland is likely kept under British influence in the same way that one of the earlier posters said that a few other American nations were: political dominance and threats of force writ large. I did intend, however, for the US to have genuinely good relations with much of South/Central America, back when I noted that US population would be majority Indigenous (read: Hispanic/Latin American) within two decades.
2. Economically, the US is likely as good/better than Britain, but not enough to overpower Britain and her naval allies in the one sphere it matters: the North Atlantic. While the Empires have their colonies to get raw resources from, the US has not only the entirety of Fortress America, but as I mentioned earlier has de facto resource control over Siberia (and with a presence in Japan, likely some help there as well). Not quite a permanent war-economy on either side, but definitely a big deal. On the American side, likewise. Probably massive military aid to strategically important areas (such as Panama/the Caribbean, or other important trade/movement routes) with much less to the non-important regions (such as landlocked countries). Also, since it was mentioned in the past that socialism is accepted in the US as long as it doesn't change your choice of enemy, that will likely have some effect as well.
One interesting point about the US is that, since the East Coast is regularly a battle zone/bombing zone and suffers much damage, it's very likely that many military industries were moved out of range (say in the Central US), and that rather than having the majority of the population in the NE of OTL the US would have more of its population in cities in the Plains or on the West Coast. (I've been dropping hints that battle in the Pacific have been increasingly further west each time, from Australia to Indonesia. In my mind, though it's up for debate, Indonesia is the current field of contention, with naval battles and ground combat where most of the action takes place as Britain tries to keep the US from attacking India. The current state of Australia and other colonies "liberated" or razed by the US is up for claim.)
You make a good point about energy infrastructure. Since the whole of Fortress America likely has less oil than the Empires, what you suggested could work, especially if oil is considered a "war only" resource too valuable for public cunsumption. And since empires control(ed) most of the oil rich regions, you might see them with the anti-nuclear movement. If there's an evironmentalist movement at all, I mean; weather and environmental problems in Africa or the Middle East might not be very important to those in the ruling countries, same with rainforrest depletion to the American side.
3. "Global Tensions Rampant" might be too strong a word; in my mind it's more like "Anglo-American Tensions are rampant, and both sides formed an alliance to deal with it." Except for naval combat in the Combined Atlantic Fleet and some out in the Pacific, it's not really clear how involved Germany or especially France is in the matter. Since Germany has stomped Russia ITTL, it's possible that "what goes on in Eastern Europe stays in Eastern Europe" so long as Germany gives naval aide to Britain.
4. I've been opposed to space combat and rampant sci-fi from the beggining, and I'll explain why. By the hints, this has been taking time around OTL, though the exact year is up for grabs. And there has clearly been no scientific cooperation between the US and European allies, and frequent and bloody wars on a regular basis is not conducive for long-term scientific advances. IOTL, where the US has been blessed with massive immigration of scientists, never having had to worry about war on the borders, and a near-permanent peace time economy conducive for research, we haven't come close to any of the outrageous weapons some have claimed. Fusion, with all the richest countries in the world working together, is who knows how far off. The closest we have to a direct energy weapon fits in a modified Boeing 747. And these would be farther off, not closer. States with large standing armies and frequent wars with devastation tend to fall behind on science development.
You can claim that a space race went up, but space combat isn't going to be major or really important. The empires have to maintain the empires they already have in face of war, and the Americas are fighting as well. Nukes on the moon won't change the strategic situation at all, and there won't be any real economically viable resource on the moon that can't be made on Earth.
All my thoughts, now out on paper (as they say).