Deep_Whiskers
Banned
Well I guess thats one way to answer to the Southern Strategy
(Which wouldt even be a thing ittl I guess)
(Which wouldt even be a thing ittl I guess)
How We Lost Detroit: The Fermi Nuclear Disaster
- Thread starter dartingfog
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 1960s detroit nuclear accident
No kidding! I call it the containment strategy: appointing Wallace gives the Dixiecrats a seat at the table in Muskie's administration, without giving them too much political power (at this point in time the VP was basically a ceremonial position).
Apr. 13, 1969
April 13, 1969
Muskie proposes joint US-Soviet moon mission
President Muskie has announced a proposal for a joint US-Soviet manned mission to the moon. Muskie believes that cooperation on a moonshot project would break the stalemate between the two nations and could de-escalate the alarming buildup of nuclear weapons. The proposed timeline would be to get two men on the moon, one American, one Soviet, by 1972 or 1973. [1][2][3]
Critics suggest that Muskie’s plan shows the weakness of the United States in developing its own lunar exploration program. But given the freeze in spending on the moonshot project since 1967, NASA has made little progress in going to the moon on its own. Though the Soviets are making progress toward a moon landing (stoking fears that they might beat America to the punch), there have been many setbacks. Most notably, the explosion of an experimental N-1 rocket in February eased American concerns over the Soviet Union’s capabilities. However, the Soviets remain undaunted by the failure and are planning a second test launch in July. [4]
Muskie proposes joint US-Soviet moon mission
President Muskie has announced a proposal for a joint US-Soviet manned mission to the moon. Muskie believes that cooperation on a moonshot project would break the stalemate between the two nations and could de-escalate the alarming buildup of nuclear weapons. The proposed timeline would be to get two men on the moon, one American, one Soviet, by 1972 or 1973. [1][2][3]
Critics suggest that Muskie’s plan shows the weakness of the United States in developing its own lunar exploration program. But given the freeze in spending on the moonshot project since 1967, NASA has made little progress in going to the moon on its own. Though the Soviets are making progress toward a moon landing (stoking fears that they might beat America to the punch), there have been many setbacks. Most notably, the explosion of an experimental N-1 rocket in February eased American concerns over the Soviet Union’s capabilities. However, the Soviets remain undaunted by the failure and are planning a second test launch in July. [4]
[1] John F. Kennedy had in OTL proposed a US-Soviet moon mission: https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...oposal-a-joint-u-s-soviet-moon-landing-video/
[2] Muskie seems to have expressed some interest in a joint lunar landing: http://abacus.bates.edu/muskie-archives/ajcr/1967/Consular Treaty.shtml
[3] https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1407&context=cilj
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)#First_failure,_serial_3L
[2] Muskie seems to have expressed some interest in a joint lunar landing: http://abacus.bates.edu/muskie-archives/ajcr/1967/Consular Treaty.shtml
[3] https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1407&context=cilj
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)#First_failure,_serial_3L
Jun. 11, 1969
June 11, 1969
Wings to move to Buffalo
Detroit Red Wings owner Bruce Norris announced today that the franchise has been purchased by a group of investors and will move to Buffalo, New York starting in the 1970-1971 season. The team’s move was motivated by abysmal ticket sales in Detroit over the last three seasons. The Red Wings' poor performance on the ice was undoubtedly part of the reason for this, but a slowdown in the auto industry, as well as concerns over crime and radiation may have played a role in the decline in attendance. [2] As a result, the team is now in a troubled financial situation. In addition, the 41-year-old Olympia Stadium (where the Red Wings currently play) [3] is showing its age and is in need of major renovations and repairs. The costs of building a new stadium in Detroit or its suburbs doesn’t make economic sense, says Norris.
The team was purchased by the Knox brothers, two wealthy businessmen from Buffalo. After a deal earlier this year to purchase the Oakland Seals fell through, the Knoxes have been looking for another team to purchase. [4] They believe that better times are ahead for the team in Buffalo, where hockey fans in western New York have to travel all the way to New York City, Pittsburgh, or Toronto to see an NHL game. Currently, Buffalo is home to the minor league Bisons, who finished first in their league this year.
The Wings will play in Detroit for one more season. After moving to Buffalo, the team will play in the Bisons’ Memorial Auditorium for the 1970-1971 season and beginning in the 1971-1972 season, they will move to a brand-new 17,000-seat stadium in downtown Buffalo. No team name has been selected yet. [5]
Wings to move to Buffalo
Detroit Red Wings owner Bruce Norris announced today that the franchise has been purchased by a group of investors and will move to Buffalo, New York starting in the 1970-1971 season. The team’s move was motivated by abysmal ticket sales in Detroit over the last three seasons. The Red Wings' poor performance on the ice was undoubtedly part of the reason for this, but a slowdown in the auto industry, as well as concerns over crime and radiation may have played a role in the decline in attendance. [2] As a result, the team is now in a troubled financial situation. In addition, the 41-year-old Olympia Stadium (where the Red Wings currently play) [3] is showing its age and is in need of major renovations and repairs. The costs of building a new stadium in Detroit or its suburbs doesn’t make economic sense, says Norris.
The team was purchased by the Knox brothers, two wealthy businessmen from Buffalo. After a deal earlier this year to purchase the Oakland Seals fell through, the Knoxes have been looking for another team to purchase. [4] They believe that better times are ahead for the team in Buffalo, where hockey fans in western New York have to travel all the way to New York City, Pittsburgh, or Toronto to see an NHL game. Currently, Buffalo is home to the minor league Bisons, who finished first in their league this year.
The Wings will play in Detroit for one more season. After moving to Buffalo, the team will play in the Bisons’ Memorial Auditorium for the 1970-1971 season and beginning in the 1971-1972 season, they will move to a brand-new 17,000-seat stadium in downtown Buffalo. No team name has been selected yet. [5]
[1] In OTL on this date, it was announced that the Buffalo would get an expansion team in 1970: https://buffalonews.com/2014/06/11/june-11-1969-buffalo-line-nhl-expansion-team/
[2] To my knowledge, there was never any plan in OTL to move the Red Wings outside of Metro Detroit (in the 1970s, they almost moved to the suburb of Pontiac, MI). But it is actually quite common for teams to move in NHL history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_and_relocated_National_Hockey_League_teams
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Olympia Bear in mind that this is quite old for a hockey arena - Joe Louis Arena, the former home of the Red Wings, was 38 years old when the team moved to Little Caesars Arena, where they currently play.
[4] “Several NHL Clubs are eager to dump owners of Seals”, Detroit News, Jan. 22, 1969
[5] I wonder what they’ll call the new team?
[2] To my knowledge, there was never any plan in OTL to move the Red Wings outside of Metro Detroit (in the 1970s, they almost moved to the suburb of Pontiac, MI). But it is actually quite common for teams to move in NHL history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_defunct_and_relocated_National_Hockey_League_teams
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Olympia Bear in mind that this is quite old for a hockey arena - Joe Louis Arena, the former home of the Red Wings, was 38 years old when the team moved to Little Caesars Arena, where they currently play.
[4] “Several NHL Clubs are eager to dump owners of Seals”, Detroit News, Jan. 22, 1969
[5] I wonder what they’ll call the new team?
Oct. 30, 1969
October 30, 1969
President’s Commission releases its report
Three years after the meltdown of the Fermi atomic plant near Detroit, the President’s Commission on the Fermi Nuclear Disaster has released a 350-page report of its findings. Hans Bethe, the lead scientist on the committee and an expert on fast breeder reactors, led the commission. The report details the causes of the accident and the effects on the environment and health resulting from the release of radiation.
Among the findings was that the accident was not the result of human error on the part of plant personnel. The most plausible explanation is that a design flaw caused a piece of metal to dislodge and block the flow of coolant, causing overheating and meltdown of the reactor. The report concluded that this design flaw could be easily corrected in subsequent reactor designs.
However, the report criticizes the AEC’s handling of the construction and planning of the plant, and concludes that fundamental changes are necessary to prevent future accidents. The report also criticizes federal and state officials for their muddled response to the disaster, misleading and inaccurate information given to the public, and the disorderly evacuation. [1][2]
President’s Commission releases its report
Three years after the meltdown of the Fermi atomic plant near Detroit, the President’s Commission on the Fermi Nuclear Disaster has released a 350-page report of its findings. Hans Bethe, the lead scientist on the committee and an expert on fast breeder reactors, led the commission. The report details the causes of the accident and the effects on the environment and health resulting from the release of radiation.
Among the findings was that the accident was not the result of human error on the part of plant personnel. The most plausible explanation is that a design flaw caused a piece of metal to dislodge and block the flow of coolant, causing overheating and meltdown of the reactor. The report concluded that this design flaw could be easily corrected in subsequent reactor designs.
However, the report criticizes the AEC’s handling of the construction and planning of the plant, and concludes that fundamental changes are necessary to prevent future accidents. The report also criticizes federal and state officials for their muddled response to the disaster, misleading and inaccurate information given to the public, and the disorderly evacuation. [1][2]
[1] Essentially a repeat of an early post in this TL: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...e-fermi-nuclear-disaster.458628/post-18131918
[2] Based on a similar commission report written after the Three Mile Island accident: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/tran1/docs/188.pdf
[2] Based on a similar commission report written after the Three Mile Island accident: http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/tran1/docs/188.pdf
Nov. 5, 1969
November 5, 1969
Black candidate wins Detroit mayoral election
Yesterday’s mayoral election in Detroit marked a major milestone for civil rights. Richard Austin will become the first Black mayor of Detroit, and only the second Black mayor of a major American city after Carl Stokes became the mayor of Cleveland two years ago. The election to replace outgoing mayor Jerome Cavanagh featured three candidates: Roman Gribbs [1], Wayne County Sheriff, Richard Austin, an accountant and Wayne County Auditor, [1] and Donald Lobsinger, the leader of the radical right-wing group Breakthrough. Austin won with 49% of the vote, Gribbs with 48% of the vote, and Lobsinger with 3% of the vote. [2]
While Lobsinger won only a small percentage of the vote, his presence in the race prevented Gribbs from receiving an outright majority. As mayor, Lobsinger promised to “crack down on criminals, anarchists, black power and other communist-inspired subversives”, [3] an appeal to whites fearful of riots and increasing crime. However, while Lobsinger’s overtly racist campaign failed to gain a mass following among Detroit voters, it is clear that the election split along racial lines, with Whites overwhelmingly voting for Gribbs and Blacks overwhelmingly voting for Austin.
Mayor-elect Austin comes into office during a tumultuous time in the city’s history. After the city suffered the meltdown of the nearby Fermi plant three years ago, the city is quickly deteriorating. Crime is rising, property values are falling, and GM and the Red Wings are leaving town. One can hope Austin will succeed in what his predecessor failed to do.
Black candidate wins Detroit mayoral election
Yesterday’s mayoral election in Detroit marked a major milestone for civil rights. Richard Austin will become the first Black mayor of Detroit, and only the second Black mayor of a major American city after Carl Stokes became the mayor of Cleveland two years ago. The election to replace outgoing mayor Jerome Cavanagh featured three candidates: Roman Gribbs [1], Wayne County Sheriff, Richard Austin, an accountant and Wayne County Auditor, [1] and Donald Lobsinger, the leader of the radical right-wing group Breakthrough. Austin won with 49% of the vote, Gribbs with 48% of the vote, and Lobsinger with 3% of the vote. [2]
While Lobsinger won only a small percentage of the vote, his presence in the race prevented Gribbs from receiving an outright majority. As mayor, Lobsinger promised to “crack down on criminals, anarchists, black power and other communist-inspired subversives”, [3] an appeal to whites fearful of riots and increasing crime. However, while Lobsinger’s overtly racist campaign failed to gain a mass following among Detroit voters, it is clear that the election split along racial lines, with Whites overwhelmingly voting for Gribbs and Blacks overwhelmingly voting for Austin.
Mayor-elect Austin comes into office during a tumultuous time in the city’s history. After the city suffered the meltdown of the nearby Fermi plant three years ago, the city is quickly deteriorating. Crime is rising, property values are falling, and GM and the Red Wings are leaving town. One can hope Austin will succeed in what his predecessor failed to do.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Gribbs and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_H._Austin
[2] In OTL, Austin lost to Gribbs. Lobsinger takes enough votes from Gribbs to deliver the election to Austin: https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=263584
[3] From a real campaign ad in OTL. Detroit News, Sept. 4, 1969
[2] In OTL, Austin lost to Gribbs. Lobsinger takes enough votes from Gribbs to deliver the election to Austin: https://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=263584
[3] From a real campaign ad in OTL. Detroit News, Sept. 4, 1969
November 20, 1969
Muskie, Gordon meet in Washington
At yesterday’s state visit, President Edmund Muskie welcomed his Canadian counterpart, Prime Minister Walter Gordon, to the White House. Although the two leaders have much in common ideologically, there is one issue that deeply divides them: U.S. investment in Canada. Despite his good relationship with Muskie, Gordon has taken a strongly adversarial stance toward the United States, opposing any effort that he believes could expand American economic influence over Canada. Muskie, on the other hand, wishes to liberalize trade with Canada, continue the auto-trade pact and expand Canadian oil imports to the United States. [1]
Gordon’s ambitious agenda for economic nationalism has hit several roadblocks. His demand for 51 percent Canadian ownership of companies operating in Canada [2] has proved too much to swallow even for his fellow Liberals. Although some in Gordon’s cabinet share his view, like Finance Minister Eric Kierans [3], his radical stance has alienated many members of his own party, who fear economic retaliation from the United States.
Muskie, Gordon meet in Washington
At yesterday’s state visit, President Edmund Muskie welcomed his Canadian counterpart, Prime Minister Walter Gordon, to the White House. Although the two leaders have much in common ideologically, there is one issue that deeply divides them: U.S. investment in Canada. Despite his good relationship with Muskie, Gordon has taken a strongly adversarial stance toward the United States, opposing any effort that he believes could expand American economic influence over Canada. Muskie, on the other hand, wishes to liberalize trade with Canada, continue the auto-trade pact and expand Canadian oil imports to the United States. [1]
Gordon’s ambitious agenda for economic nationalism has hit several roadblocks. His demand for 51 percent Canadian ownership of companies operating in Canada [2] has proved too much to swallow even for his fellow Liberals. Although some in Gordon’s cabinet share his view, like Finance Minister Eric Kierans [3], his radical stance has alienated many members of his own party, who fear economic retaliation from the United States.
[1] https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1971/12/1/edmund-muskies-bucket-has-a-hole-in-it
[2] Walter Gordon and the Rise of Canadian Nationalism, pp. 176
[3] An initial critic turned supporter of Gordon: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/eric-kierans-90/article22507317/
[2] Walter Gordon and the Rise of Canadian Nationalism, pp. 176
[3] An initial critic turned supporter of Gordon: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/eric-kierans-90/article22507317/
Jan. 18, 1970
January 18, 1970
Muskie backs Passamaquoddy tidal project
President Muskie announced his support yesterday for a plan to build a tidally-powered power station in his home state of Maine. He claims that the plant will help meet the nation’s growing energy needs in the absence of nuclear power.
“The ‘Quoddy’ project is a dream which has never died and our current energy shortage has rekindled interest in tidal power as an alternative to fossil fuel and nuclear power generation,” said Muskie. “For generations, government and industry have naively based our nation's energy policies upon the apparent assumption that fossil fuels could be obtained in inexpensive, unlimited quantities for an indefinite period into the future. Those who looked beyond fossil fuels, saw nuclear power as the best alternative without, until recently, comprehending the costs to our environment and health.” [1]
The Passamaquoddy Bay Tidal Power Station, as it will be called, will be built near the town of Eastport, Maine. The idea was first proposed in 1919 and authorized by the Congress in the 1930's. Work on the site was halted shortly before the outbreak of World War II. In 1961, then-Senator Muskie revived interest in the project, urging President Kennedy to give it serious attention. A report was produced on the feasibility of the project. [2]
The plan calls for the construction of dams and spillways that would divide Passamaquoddy Bay, an upper pool to hold the high tide, from Cobscook Bay, a lower pool which would drain at low tide. Power will be generated as water flows between the two pools. The design of the tidal power station will be based on the Rance Tidal Power Station, which was built in France in 1966. [3]
The plan opens the door to other “alternative energy” projects that would harness the power of the wind and sun to produce electricity. While the technology to practically produce power from such sources remains years away, by 1979, 5% of the power production of the United States may be produced by wind turbines. [4]
Muskie backs Passamaquoddy tidal project
President Muskie announced his support yesterday for a plan to build a tidally-powered power station in his home state of Maine. He claims that the plant will help meet the nation’s growing energy needs in the absence of nuclear power.
“The ‘Quoddy’ project is a dream which has never died and our current energy shortage has rekindled interest in tidal power as an alternative to fossil fuel and nuclear power generation,” said Muskie. “For generations, government and industry have naively based our nation's energy policies upon the apparent assumption that fossil fuels could be obtained in inexpensive, unlimited quantities for an indefinite period into the future. Those who looked beyond fossil fuels, saw nuclear power as the best alternative without, until recently, comprehending the costs to our environment and health.” [1]
The Passamaquoddy Bay Tidal Power Station, as it will be called, will be built near the town of Eastport, Maine. The idea was first proposed in 1919 and authorized by the Congress in the 1930's. Work on the site was halted shortly before the outbreak of World War II. In 1961, then-Senator Muskie revived interest in the project, urging President Kennedy to give it serious attention. A report was produced on the feasibility of the project. [2]
The plan calls for the construction of dams and spillways that would divide Passamaquoddy Bay, an upper pool to hold the high tide, from Cobscook Bay, a lower pool which would drain at low tide. Power will be generated as water flows between the two pools. The design of the tidal power station will be based on the Rance Tidal Power Station, which was built in France in 1966. [3]
The plan opens the door to other “alternative energy” projects that would harness the power of the wind and sun to produce electricity. While the technology to practically produce power from such sources remains years away, by 1979, 5% of the power production of the United States may be produced by wind turbines. [4]
[1] http://abacus.bates.edu/muskie-archives/ajcr/1973/Quoddy.shtml and http://abacus.bates.edu/muskie-archives/ajcr/1974/Quoddy and ERDA.shtml
[2] Summary of Legislative Activities and Accomplishments, pp.18
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station
[4] They weren’t, but that was one prediction made in 1973: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication Files/11-112_05079f6f-9952-43fe-9392-71f3001ceae4.pdf
[2] Summary of Legislative Activities and Accomplishments, pp.18
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rance_Tidal_Power_Station
[4] They weren’t, but that was one prediction made in 1973: https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication Files/11-112_05079f6f-9952-43fe-9392-71f3001ceae4.pdf
Ooooh. California by this time is already deep into geothermal IIRC so I expect that, plus the Devil’s Canyon Dam up in Alaska (and dozens of dams everywhere lol), is going to get a big push. Interestingly this is also the time the anti-dam faction is building strength—ITTL I imagine they’re doomed for a long long time.
This timeline remains great and well thought out, I like it a lot
This timeline remains great and well thought out, I like it a lot
Have to kill a lot more people, alas. But even then I think America without nuclear power will be willing to live with it. People grasp dam failure flooding better than scary radiation.
That line is going to get thrown back at him once the catastrophic environmental impact of the tidal barrage becomes apparent. Still it probably won't be that harmful to anyone's health, maybe the mental health of all the soon to be unemployed fishermen, so he might get away with it.
Crossing my fingers that TTL conservatism doesn't shred all this progress on renewable energy.
Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to energy production. Much like dams, there will be averse environmental impact from building the Quoddy, but it doesn't pollute the air (thought it might have some effect on water) and doesn't require fossil fuels. I can't speak to how many fishermen would have their livelihoods disrupted by the project, but I suppose their job losses might be offset by the jobs created as a result of the construction and maintenance of the tidal dam. Of course, that's small comfort to the fishermen.
April 29, 1970
April 29, 1970
PRDC announces settlement with Fermi victims
Three and a half years after the Fermi disaster rendered a large swath of Michigan uninhabitable, the Power Reactor Development Corporation (PTDC) and Detroit Edison have reached a settlement with over 100,000 claimants. Under the settlement terms, the plant owners and builders agreed to pay more than $1 billion to claimants who lived within a 25-mile radius of the plant. Most of the money will be used to compensate businesses operating in the area, though it also includes damage claims made by individuals and local governments. Parents of several children born with birth defects in southeast Michigan between 1967 and 1969 received up to $1 million in compensation for their child’s injuries. The money will be paid by insurance companies representing the plant. [1][2]
While both PRDC and Detroit Edison agreed to the settlement, they admitted no fault or responsibility for the accident. “These settlements represent an economic decision arrived at by the insurance companies and do not constitute an admission of liability by any of the companies involved, including the Power Reactor Development Corporation and Detroit Edison Company,'' the insurance firms said in a statement. [3]
PRDC announces settlement with Fermi victims
Three and a half years after the Fermi disaster rendered a large swath of Michigan uninhabitable, the Power Reactor Development Corporation (PTDC) and Detroit Edison have reached a settlement with over 100,000 claimants. Under the settlement terms, the plant owners and builders agreed to pay more than $1 billion to claimants who lived within a 25-mile radius of the plant. Most of the money will be used to compensate businesses operating in the area, though it also includes damage claims made by individuals and local governments. Parents of several children born with birth defects in southeast Michigan between 1967 and 1969 received up to $1 million in compensation for their child’s injuries. The money will be paid by insurance companies representing the plant. [1][2]
While both PRDC and Detroit Edison agreed to the settlement, they admitted no fault or responsibility for the accident. “These settlements represent an economic decision arrived at by the insurance companies and do not constitute an admission of liability by any of the companies involved, including the Power Reactor Development Corporation and Detroit Edison Company,'' the insurance firms said in a statement. [3]
Based on the settlements reached after Three Mile Island:
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/22/us/agreement-reached-in-3-mile-island-suit.html
[2] https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/02/07/TMI-settlements-total-39-million/7693476600400/
[3] https://www.csmonitor.com/1985/0208/afill8a.html
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/1981/02/22/us/agreement-reached-in-3-mile-island-suit.html
[2] https://www.upi.com/Archives/1985/02/07/TMI-settlements-total-39-million/7693476600400/
[3] https://www.csmonitor.com/1985/0208/afill8a.html
Jul. 5, 1970
July 5, 1970
Muskie announces timetable for withdrawal from Vietnam
President Muskie announced plans today for what he calls a “responsible and orderly” withdrawal from Vietnam that should be completed by the end of 1971. “Given the choices we face, it is the only way to bring peace,” Muskie said. “My proposal is a very simple one: The United States should develop a fixed timetable for the withdrawal of all its forces from Indochina. We should stick to that timetable, subject only to Hanoi's willingness to release all American prisoners of war and to its acceptance of measures to insure the safety of the withdrawing Americans. While I believe that all American forces should be out of Indochina in 18 months, we should be prepared to shorten this time if Hanoi agrees to a cease‐fire.”
Muskie said that a fixed withdrawal schedule would improve the broader political settlement in Vietnam. “Without an American deadline, the generals who control the South Vietnamese Government will not consider a sharing of power, even with neutralists. Until they know that their weakness can no longer keep us in Vietnam, the generals will not be prepared to broaden the Government. Any truly representative government in South Vietnam would make a serious effort to negotiate with North Vietnam. And once they know we are leaving, the Hanoi leaders might also be ready for serious negotiations.”
Muskie blunted anticipated criticism that a withdrawal program would lead to a “bloodbath” in South Vietnam by saying that the war itself is a bloodbath. “The possibility of persecution after a withdrawal must be balanced against the certainty that thousands will be slaughtered if the war continues. At any rate, no settlement, political or military—and certainly nothing in our present policy—can provide guarantee against a bloodbath…And in formulating our withdrawal plan, we must, of course, accept the responsibility for evacuating and resettling those who wish to leave Vietnam.”
In the event of American withdrawal, Muskie said that the South Vietnamese “should be able to hold their own” in fighting against the Communists. “If they can't, no nation can accuse us of failing to meet our commitments.” [1]
Muskie announces timetable for withdrawal from Vietnam
President Muskie announced plans today for what he calls a “responsible and orderly” withdrawal from Vietnam that should be completed by the end of 1971. “Given the choices we face, it is the only way to bring peace,” Muskie said. “My proposal is a very simple one: The United States should develop a fixed timetable for the withdrawal of all its forces from Indochina. We should stick to that timetable, subject only to Hanoi's willingness to release all American prisoners of war and to its acceptance of measures to insure the safety of the withdrawing Americans. While I believe that all American forces should be out of Indochina in 18 months, we should be prepared to shorten this time if Hanoi agrees to a cease‐fire.”
Muskie said that a fixed withdrawal schedule would improve the broader political settlement in Vietnam. “Without an American deadline, the generals who control the South Vietnamese Government will not consider a sharing of power, even with neutralists. Until they know that their weakness can no longer keep us in Vietnam, the generals will not be prepared to broaden the Government. Any truly representative government in South Vietnam would make a serious effort to negotiate with North Vietnam. And once they know we are leaving, the Hanoi leaders might also be ready for serious negotiations.”
Muskie blunted anticipated criticism that a withdrawal program would lead to a “bloodbath” in South Vietnam by saying that the war itself is a bloodbath. “The possibility of persecution after a withdrawal must be balanced against the certainty that thousands will be slaughtered if the war continues. At any rate, no settlement, political or military—and certainly nothing in our present policy—can provide guarantee against a bloodbath…And in formulating our withdrawal plan, we must, of course, accept the responsibility for evacuating and resettling those who wish to leave Vietnam.”
In the event of American withdrawal, Muskie said that the South Vietnamese “should be able to hold their own” in fighting against the Communists. “If they can't, no nation can accuse us of failing to meet our commitments.” [1]
[1] As OTL on this date: https://www.nytimes.com/1970/07/05/archives/muskies-timetable-out-of-indochina-in-18-months.html
So does the loss of Detroit cause any damage to the Us or world economy? Do any other countries begin moving from nuclear power development towards renewables?
I would say less than 25% chance of being re-elected simply because of voter fatigue, as the Democrats in 1972 will have had control of the White House for 12 years. As of mid-1970, Muskie is quite popular, with an approval rating of 55% (Nixon's OTL approval rating was slightly higher). But the economy is starting to suffer, which will sink his chances. See below on that.
The Fermi meltdown didn't have much of a long-term effect on the US or global economy, since even back then the auto industry was more decentralized than you might think. The biggest impact on the economy has been the lack of new nuclear power plants, which has caused fossil fuel prices (especially coal) to rise. In both OTL and ATL, there was a mild recession in 1969, but otherwise economic growth has been fairly steady around 2-3%. While this is a little more sluggish than OTL, it's not greatly different (though I expect 1973 will be quite bad).
Globally, there is some movement toward renewables, though in 1970 there are few alternatives to nuclear and coal. For the most part this means dams, which of course take many years to build. Canada is building huge hydroelectric dams in Quebec (not unlike OTL, though slightly earlier). In Brazil, the Itaipu Dam (which in OTL has the second highest capacity in the world) and the Tucurui Dam are already under construction, several years earlier than OTL. In China, the Gezhouba Dam is under construction (in OTL, construction began in 1970 and is China's oldest major dam). However, in many countries, particularly Japan, USSR, and West Germany, there are limited options for hydroelectric power, so they are forced to use nuclear or coal.