How We Lost Detroit: The Fermi Nuclear Disaster
- Thread starter dartingfog
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 1960s detroit nuclear accident
Mar. 9, 1967
March 9, 1967
Johnson cuts additional breeder reactor research
President Johnson has submitted a budget amendment to the Congress [1] that will cut the budget of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) by $87.5 million [2] for fiscal year 1968. This reduction is made possible by a decision of the Atomic Energy Commission to phase out its effort to develop the so-called "fast breeder" power reactor, one of the three major projects for advanced nuclear power reactor development pursued by AEC. The AEC will terminate the current development work on the concept for civilian power. However, research will continue on the heavy-water-moderated, organic-cooled reactor (HWOCR) and molten-salt reactor concepts.
The AEC decision to cancel the breeder reactor development program represents continuing efforts by the agency to reexamine the priorities of ongoing programs and to eliminate lower-priority activities. This decision undoubtedly has much to do with the meltdown of the Fermi plant in October (which was an experimental fast breeder reactor). The continuation of molten salt and heavy water research and development program will enable the Atomic Energy Commission to retain the option to exploit this technology later if it proves to be especially attractive.
Johnson cuts additional breeder reactor research
President Johnson has submitted a budget amendment to the Congress [1] that will cut the budget of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) by $87.5 million [2] for fiscal year 1968. This reduction is made possible by a decision of the Atomic Energy Commission to phase out its effort to develop the so-called "fast breeder" power reactor, one of the three major projects for advanced nuclear power reactor development pursued by AEC. The AEC will terminate the current development work on the concept for civilian power. However, research will continue on the heavy-water-moderated, organic-cooled reactor (HWOCR) and molten-salt reactor concepts.
The AEC decision to cancel the breeder reactor development program represents continuing efforts by the agency to reexamine the priorities of ongoing programs and to eliminate lower-priority activities. This decision undoubtedly has much to do with the meltdown of the Fermi plant in October (which was an experimental fast breeder reactor). The continuation of molten salt and heavy water research and development program will enable the Atomic Energy Commission to retain the option to exploit this technology later if it proves to be especially attractive.
[1] On this date in OTL, Johnson cancelled the heavy-water-moderated, organic-cooled reactor (HWOCR) project rather than the fast breeder reactor project: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/doc...reducing-funds-proposed-for-the-atomic-energy
[2] From page 86 of this document: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/54/item/19021
[2] From page 86 of this document: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/54/item/19021
Probably yes, since for the most part fast breeder technology didn't lead anywhere in OTL. They're more expensive than water-cooled reactors and have safety issues (see this thread for why). Also, uranium was much more abundant than people thought back in the 1960s, so there wasn't much need for them.
And, perhaps more to the point, demand was far lower than expected.
Mar. 10, 1967
March 10, 1967
Canadian PM threatens to cut assistance to US war effort
The gap between the United States and Canada widened a little more today. In response to American intractability on the compensation issue, Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson has issued a mild warning for the United States. [1] In response to Canadian opponents of that nation’s involvement in Vietnam, Pearson suggested that the nation may halt further sales of ammunition and napalm to the United States. [2]
US officials say that imposition of an embargo on military exports would be tantamount to withdrawal from defense arrangements. Enacted in 1956, the Defense Production Sharing Agreement requires that Canada supply the United States with war materiel in order to increase integration of both countries’ militaries and give Canadian firms better access to the US market. Under this agreement, Canada exports hundreds of millions of dollars in military supplies and raw materials each year, including everything from the berets worn by Green Berets to napalm. [3]
Many are speculating that the Prime Minister’s popular right-hand man, Walter Gordon, may be the brainchild behind this latest effort to play hardball against the Americans. The anti-American sentiment expressed by the unabashed Canadian nationalist are increasingly popular among Canadians, though it is met with great skepticism by many within the Liberal party. Time will tell if Gordon is pushing Pearson further left than he is comfortable. [4]
Canadian PM threatens to cut assistance to US war effort
The gap between the United States and Canada widened a little more today. In response to American intractability on the compensation issue, Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson has issued a mild warning for the United States. [1] In response to Canadian opponents of that nation’s involvement in Vietnam, Pearson suggested that the nation may halt further sales of ammunition and napalm to the United States. [2]
US officials say that imposition of an embargo on military exports would be tantamount to withdrawal from defense arrangements. Enacted in 1956, the Defense Production Sharing Agreement requires that Canada supply the United States with war materiel in order to increase integration of both countries’ militaries and give Canadian firms better access to the US market. Under this agreement, Canada exports hundreds of millions of dollars in military supplies and raw materials each year, including everything from the berets worn by Green Berets to napalm. [3]
Many are speculating that the Prime Minister’s popular right-hand man, Walter Gordon, may be the brainchild behind this latest effort to play hardball against the Americans. The anti-American sentiment expressed by the unabashed Canadian nationalist are increasingly popular among Canadians, though it is met with great skepticism by many within the Liberal party. Time will tell if Gordon is pushing Pearson further left than he is comfortable. [4]
[1] Somehow I imagine in a room some 500 miles south of Ottawa, President Johnson is saying, "Dammit Mike! First you pi$$ on my rug, now you $hit on it!"
[2] This is very different from Pearson’s OTL position, who said on this very date that sales of war materials to the U.S. were "necessary and logical". See "Peacekeeping in Vietnam: Canada, India, Poland, and the International Commission", pp. 205
[3] "Canada and the United States: Ambivalent Allies", pp. 221
[4] Nationalism in Canada (Anglophone Canada, in this instance) is generally associated with the left, see this recent video
[2] This is very different from Pearson’s OTL position, who said on this very date that sales of war materials to the U.S. were "necessary and logical". See "Peacekeeping in Vietnam: Canada, India, Poland, and the International Commission", pp. 205
[3] "Canada and the United States: Ambivalent Allies", pp. 221
[4] Nationalism in Canada (Anglophone Canada, in this instance) is generally associated with the left, see this recent video
Mar. 30, 1967
March 30, 1967
Vivian-Saylor Act passes House, heads to Senate
A bill mandating tougher requirements for atomic plants passed yesterday in the House. The bill had wide bipartisan support, passing by a margin of 380-45. The Act includes several measures designed to enhance safety of existing plants, including upgrading plant design and equipment requirements, routine inspections, and additional licensing requirements for plant personnel. [1] The bill also bans the construction of new plants within 50 miles of cities with populations over 100,000 people.
Atomic energy industry lobbyists have criticized the measure, saying that its strict regulations will kill atomic power in the United States. The bill’s sponsors, however, are confident the bill will pass in the Senate. Wes Vivian (D-MI), the bill’s primary sponsor, is an electrical and aeronautical engineer by training. [2] He also happens to represent the district in Southeastern Michigan most strongly affected by the Fermi meltdown. The bill’s co-sponsor, John Saylor (R-PA), has been a prominent critic of civilian nuclear energy, and a longtime supporter of the conservationist cause. [3]
The bill will now go to the Senate, where members will vote on a similar bill sponsored by Senators Edmund Muskie (D-ME) and Thurston Morton (R-KY). [4]
Vivian-Saylor Act passes House, heads to Senate
A bill mandating tougher requirements for atomic plants passed yesterday in the House. The bill had wide bipartisan support, passing by a margin of 380-45. The Act includes several measures designed to enhance safety of existing plants, including upgrading plant design and equipment requirements, routine inspections, and additional licensing requirements for plant personnel. [1] The bill also bans the construction of new plants within 50 miles of cities with populations over 100,000 people.
Atomic energy industry lobbyists have criticized the measure, saying that its strict regulations will kill atomic power in the United States. The bill’s sponsors, however, are confident the bill will pass in the Senate. Wes Vivian (D-MI), the bill’s primary sponsor, is an electrical and aeronautical engineer by training. [2] He also happens to represent the district in Southeastern Michigan most strongly affected by the Fermi meltdown. The bill’s co-sponsor, John Saylor (R-PA), has been a prominent critic of civilian nuclear energy, and a longtime supporter of the conservationist cause. [3]
The bill will now go to the Senate, where members will vote on a similar bill sponsored by Senators Edmund Muskie (D-ME) and Thurston Morton (R-KY). [4]
[1] Some of this came to pass in OTL after the Three Mile Island incident: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html#impact
[2] In OTL, Vivian lost the 1966 midterm election. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/b/bhlead/umich-bhl-86184?rgn=main;view=text
[3] Social Security and Welfare Proposals, pp. 1677.
[4] A staunch opponent of nuclear power in the late 1960s. From Field & Stream, March 1969, pp. 15: “If we are fostering a power system which could turn on its creators and spew destroying, although unseen substances into the atmosphere over hundreds of square miles,” declared Senator Thurston B. Morton, “we must carefully weigh such a calculated human risk against the economic and social gains involved.”
[2] In OTL, Vivian lost the 1966 midterm election. https://quod.lib.umich.edu/b/bhlead/umich-bhl-86184?rgn=main;view=text
[3] Social Security and Welfare Proposals, pp. 1677.
[4] A staunch opponent of nuclear power in the late 1960s. From Field & Stream, March 1969, pp. 15: “If we are fostering a power system which could turn on its creators and spew destroying, although unseen substances into the atmosphere over hundreds of square miles,” declared Senator Thurston B. Morton, “we must carefully weigh such a calculated human risk against the economic and social gains involved.”
Apr. 8, 1967
April 8, 1967
NASA report finds Apollo 1 fire caused by electrical malfunction
The Apollo 1 accident investigation board released its final report on the accident today. The investigators found that the most probable cause of the accident was a malfunctioning electrical arc near the floor in the lower left section of the cabin. The fire spread rapidly due to a combination of flammable materials and a pure oxygen atmosphere in the cabin. The astronauts were unable to escape the cabin due to a plug door hatch that was sealed shut due to the high internal pressure. The report suggests that the three astronauts who perished in the accident were not at fault.
Other developments suggest that design flaws made by contractor North American Aviation were to blame for the accident. The so-called Phillips report, a 1965 memo written by Apollo Program Director Major General Samuel Phillips, revealed problems that NASA had not previously disclosed. The memo from Gen. Phillips documented quality and budget problems with the Apollo program a year before the accident took place. NASA tried to hide the existence of this memo, highlighting an unwillingness to admit internal problems. [1]
Apollo flights will likely be suspended indefinitely until these issues can be resolved. However, Vice President Humphrey, the Chairman of the Presidential Space Council, remains committed to the moonshot. He believes that the Soviets will attempt a major achievement in space this October. “I cannot imagine the Soviets letting two such dates pass without trying at last to come up with something spectacular in space,” referring to the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution and the 10th anniversary of the Sputnik launch. [2]
Despite the Vice President’s warning, skepticism in Congress about the NASA program is growing. To President Johnson’s dismay, opponents to the moonshot can be found in both parties, as revealed by several recent quotes. “I think we have the best chance we’ve had” to make a deep cut, said Democratic Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin, a known critic of wasteful spending. “I think there is a growing feeling that this is a nonessential program and is a drain on manpower that takes from other areas.” Similar sentiments were echoed by Senate Democratic majority leader Mike Mansfield of Montana: “I think the budget can be cut. I don’t think we should indulge in a race to the moon with the Russians or anyone else.” The chairman of the Joint Atomic Energy Committee, Democratic Rep. Chet Holifield of California stated, “I am getting colder and colder on this space business as we go along.” Across the aisle, Republican Senator Dirksen of Illinois, said “Does it really make any difference whether we get to the moon this year, or next year, or the following year?” [2]
NASA report finds Apollo 1 fire caused by electrical malfunction
The Apollo 1 accident investigation board released its final report on the accident today. The investigators found that the most probable cause of the accident was a malfunctioning electrical arc near the floor in the lower left section of the cabin. The fire spread rapidly due to a combination of flammable materials and a pure oxygen atmosphere in the cabin. The astronauts were unable to escape the cabin due to a plug door hatch that was sealed shut due to the high internal pressure. The report suggests that the three astronauts who perished in the accident were not at fault.
Other developments suggest that design flaws made by contractor North American Aviation were to blame for the accident. The so-called Phillips report, a 1965 memo written by Apollo Program Director Major General Samuel Phillips, revealed problems that NASA had not previously disclosed. The memo from Gen. Phillips documented quality and budget problems with the Apollo program a year before the accident took place. NASA tried to hide the existence of this memo, highlighting an unwillingness to admit internal problems. [1]
Apollo flights will likely be suspended indefinitely until these issues can be resolved. However, Vice President Humphrey, the Chairman of the Presidential Space Council, remains committed to the moonshot. He believes that the Soviets will attempt a major achievement in space this October. “I cannot imagine the Soviets letting two such dates pass without trying at last to come up with something spectacular in space,” referring to the 50th anniversary of the October Revolution and the 10th anniversary of the Sputnik launch. [2]
Despite the Vice President’s warning, skepticism in Congress about the NASA program is growing. To President Johnson’s dismay, opponents to the moonshot can be found in both parties, as revealed by several recent quotes. “I think we have the best chance we’ve had” to make a deep cut, said Democratic Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin, a known critic of wasteful spending. “I think there is a growing feeling that this is a nonessential program and is a drain on manpower that takes from other areas.” Similar sentiments were echoed by Senate Democratic majority leader Mike Mansfield of Montana: “I think the budget can be cut. I don’t think we should indulge in a race to the moon with the Russians or anyone else.” The chairman of the Joint Atomic Energy Committee, Democratic Rep. Chet Holifield of California stated, “I am getting colder and colder on this space business as we go along.” Across the aisle, Republican Senator Dirksen of Illinois, said “Does it really make any difference whether we get to the moon this year, or next year, or the following year?” [2]
[1] All of this is as OTL: https://history.nasa.gov/Apollo204/content.html
[2] All real quotes from OTL. See “Humphrey Predicts Reds will Try Space Feat Soon”, Ann Arbor News, March 17, 1967
[2] All real quotes from OTL. See “Humphrey Predicts Reds will Try Space Feat Soon”, Ann Arbor News, March 17, 1967
Apr. 16, 1967
April 16, 1967
Antiwar protestors link Fermi, Vietnam
The so-called Spring Mobilization Committee organized two massive protests: one in New York City and the other in San Francisco. Tens of thousands of young Americans took to the streets. In Central Park, 100 burned their draft cards. In San Francisco, throngs of hippies sang and danced their way down the streets. Among the speakers in New York was Dr. Martin Luther King, who advocated not only for civil rights, but also for an end to the Vietnam War. [1][2]
A number of noted environmentalists were in attendance as well. A rising concern about the 'environmental crisis' is sweeping the nation's campuses with an intensity that may be on its way to eclipsing student discontent over the war in Vietnam. [3] Antiwar protestors see the war in Vietnam and the meltdown of Fermi as inextricably linked. Barry Commoner, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, warned audiences about the "environmental crisis, the evils of war in general, and the war in Vietnam in particular." He argued that the fallout from atomic bombings, atomic tests, and the Fermi meltdown illuminated how the American war program represented a "vast technological blunder." [4]
At the Texan White House, President Johnson was briefed on the protests by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. [2] The overt display of Communist support among many of the antiwar protesters has the intelligence community on edge. Some believe that the Soviets may be using the antiwar movement as means to influence American politics.
Antiwar protestors link Fermi, Vietnam
The so-called Spring Mobilization Committee organized two massive protests: one in New York City and the other in San Francisco. Tens of thousands of young Americans took to the streets. In Central Park, 100 burned their draft cards. In San Francisco, throngs of hippies sang and danced their way down the streets. Among the speakers in New York was Dr. Martin Luther King, who advocated not only for civil rights, but also for an end to the Vietnam War. [1][2]
A number of noted environmentalists were in attendance as well. A rising concern about the 'environmental crisis' is sweeping the nation's campuses with an intensity that may be on its way to eclipsing student discontent over the war in Vietnam. [3] Antiwar protestors see the war in Vietnam and the meltdown of Fermi as inextricably linked. Barry Commoner, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis, warned audiences about the "environmental crisis, the evils of war in general, and the war in Vietnam in particular." He argued that the fallout from atomic bombings, atomic tests, and the Fermi meltdown illuminated how the American war program represented a "vast technological blunder." [4]
At the Texan White House, President Johnson was briefed on the protests by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. [2] The overt display of Communist support among many of the antiwar protesters has the intelligence community on edge. Some believe that the Soviets may be using the antiwar movement as means to influence American politics.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Mobilization_Committee_to_End_the_War_in_Vietnam
[2] “Draft Cards Blaze at N.Y. Peace Rally”, Detroit News, April 16, 1967.”
[3] Two years earlier than OTL: https://www.nytimes.com/1969/11/30/...e-vietnam-as-college-issue-environmental.html
[4] Commoner was a prominent member of the anti-nuclear movement in OTL. http://michiganintheworld.history.l...risis--in-the-/campus-radicalism--vietnam--an
[2] “Draft Cards Blaze at N.Y. Peace Rally”, Detroit News, April 16, 1967.”
[3] Two years earlier than OTL: https://www.nytimes.com/1969/11/30/...e-vietnam-as-college-issue-environmental.html
[4] Commoner was a prominent member of the anti-nuclear movement in OTL. http://michiganintheworld.history.l...risis--in-the-/campus-radicalism--vietnam--an
Apr. 18, 1967
April 18, 1967
Romney calls for “de-escalation” in Vietnam
Michigan Governor George Romney, currently leading in the polls among likely Republican voters, is emerging as President Johnson’s chief foil. Romney’s speech yesterday roundly criticized Johnson’s handling of the economy and his Vietnam policy.
Referring to the crisis in his own state, Romney pinned the blame for the handling of the Fermi meltdown on Johnson’s insistence on “big government” solutions. “The administration talks about a war on this and a war on that – a war on crime, a war on poverty, a war on pollution,” Romney said, adding that the Great Society was an example of “conducting a war on fiscal integrity too.” Romney accused Johnson's policies of being fiscally irresponsible. “Fiscal integrity must be restored. It is indispensable in meeting the people’s needs. Republicans know that to meet the people’s needs of the people, you must maintain fiscal soundness.” [1]
Turning to Vietnam, Romney sought to distance himself from President Johnson. He urged that South Vietnam accept more responsibility both in the fighting and in securing the country’s internal security. He said that the US is not winning the war militarily and that bombing should be confined to supply routes of the enemy in North Vietnam. He said negotiation opportunities might be enhanced by such ‘de-escalation.’ [2] Romney called for a “peace with amnesty” in South Vietnam. “All citizens would be allowed to participate in the political process, provided that they abide by the ground rules…We must learn from the lessons of this tragic war to avoid similar mistakes in the future.” [3]
The governor's stance is controversial for many in the Republican party, but has increasingly broad appeal. His speech reminded some of Robert F. Kennedy’s recent [4] comments attacking Johnson’s position on the Vietnam War.
Romney calls for “de-escalation” in Vietnam
Michigan Governor George Romney, currently leading in the polls among likely Republican voters, is emerging as President Johnson’s chief foil. Romney’s speech yesterday roundly criticized Johnson’s handling of the economy and his Vietnam policy.
Referring to the crisis in his own state, Romney pinned the blame for the handling of the Fermi meltdown on Johnson’s insistence on “big government” solutions. “The administration talks about a war on this and a war on that – a war on crime, a war on poverty, a war on pollution,” Romney said, adding that the Great Society was an example of “conducting a war on fiscal integrity too.” Romney accused Johnson's policies of being fiscally irresponsible. “Fiscal integrity must be restored. It is indispensable in meeting the people’s needs. Republicans know that to meet the people’s needs of the people, you must maintain fiscal soundness.” [1]
Turning to Vietnam, Romney sought to distance himself from President Johnson. He urged that South Vietnam accept more responsibility both in the fighting and in securing the country’s internal security. He said that the US is not winning the war militarily and that bombing should be confined to supply routes of the enemy in North Vietnam. He said negotiation opportunities might be enhanced by such ‘de-escalation.’ [2] Romney called for a “peace with amnesty” in South Vietnam. “All citizens would be allowed to participate in the political process, provided that they abide by the ground rules…We must learn from the lessons of this tragic war to avoid similar mistakes in the future.” [3]
The governor's stance is controversial for many in the Republican party, but has increasingly broad appeal. His speech reminded some of Robert F. Kennedy’s recent [4] comments attacking Johnson’s position on the Vietnam War.
[1] “Romney Rips LBJ Policy as Shallow”, Detroit News, April 16, 1967
[2] “Strategists Parade to Romney’s Home”, Detroit News, July 12, 1967
[3] This is a slightly stronger stand against the Vietnam War than he made in OTL: “Johnson Hails Romney Stand on Vietnam”, Detroit News, April 18, 1967
[4] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/40-years-ago-today-robert_b_85730
[2] “Strategists Parade to Romney’s Home”, Detroit News, July 12, 1967
[3] This is a slightly stronger stand against the Vietnam War than he made in OTL: “Johnson Hails Romney Stand on Vietnam”, Detroit News, April 18, 1967
[4] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/40-years-ago-today-robert_b_85730
Apr. 19, 1967
April 19, 1967
Nixon calls for “moratorium” on Vietnam criticism
Former Vice President Richard Nixon, on a trip to South Vietnam to meet with Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky, believes that the war in Vietnam on America’s credibility with its allies and depends on American unity. Nixon said that anti-war protests back in the United States are "prolonging the war,” and called for a moratorium of policy criticism that “give aid and comfort to the enemy.” Nixon said that despite the claims of the press and anti-war activists, the situation in Vietnam was improving. “The situation in South Vietnam improved substantially during the last 7 months and greatly over the last 2 years...It can be said now that the defeat of the Communist forces in South Vietnam is inevitable. The only question is, how soon?” [1][2]
No doubt such words were meant for his anticipated 1968 primary opponent, Michigan governor George Romney, who recently called for “de-escalation” of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Despite Nixon’s jab, Romney seems to have gained the support of New York governor Nelson Rockefeller, a prominent moderate Republican. He is understood to have assured Romney’s chief supporters that he is solidly behind the Michigan governor’s quest for the Republican nomination. Rockefeller reportedly told his admirers in the East and elsewhere that they should get aboard the Romney bandwagon. [3]
Nixon calls for “moratorium” on Vietnam criticism
Former Vice President Richard Nixon, on a trip to South Vietnam to meet with Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky, believes that the war in Vietnam on America’s credibility with its allies and depends on American unity. Nixon said that anti-war protests back in the United States are "prolonging the war,” and called for a moratorium of policy criticism that “give aid and comfort to the enemy.” Nixon said that despite the claims of the press and anti-war activists, the situation in Vietnam was improving. “The situation in South Vietnam improved substantially during the last 7 months and greatly over the last 2 years...It can be said now that the defeat of the Communist forces in South Vietnam is inevitable. The only question is, how soon?” [1][2]
No doubt such words were meant for his anticipated 1968 primary opponent, Michigan governor George Romney, who recently called for “de-escalation” of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Despite Nixon’s jab, Romney seems to have gained the support of New York governor Nelson Rockefeller, a prominent moderate Republican. He is understood to have assured Romney’s chief supporters that he is solidly behind the Michigan governor’s quest for the Republican nomination. Rockefeller reportedly told his admirers in the East and elsewhere that they should get aboard the Romney bandwagon. [3]
[1] Richard Nixon and the Vietnam War: The End of the American Century, pp. 18-19
[2] All as OTL: “Vietnam Picture Brighter – Nixon”, Detroit News, April 15, 1967
[3] “Romney Bid Aided By Rocky’s Support”, Detroit News, April 18, 1967
[2] All as OTL: “Vietnam Picture Brighter – Nixon”, Detroit News, April 15, 1967
[3] “Romney Bid Aided By Rocky’s Support”, Detroit News, April 18, 1967
Apr. 28, 1967
April 28, 1967
Expo ’67 opens in Montreal amid sour US-Canada relations
Expo 67 officially opened to the public this morning in Montreal, Quebec. Yesterday, journalists and dignitaries from around the world attended the opening ceremonies, which were officially opened by recently-appointed Governor General Roland Michener. The Expo flame was lit by Prime Minister Lester Pearson, an event broadcast worldwide in full-color. The Expo presents an optimistic future of prosperity, advanced technology and international cooperation. It offers a glimpse of the future: a monorail train, a geodesic dome, and Habitat 67, a modernist housing concept. [1]
Despite the fanfare and patriotic pomp, looming over the festivities was the ongoing Mercantile Bank controversy and compensation issue for those affected by the Fermi meltdown. Just how independent of the U.S. can Canada really afford to be without inviting economic disaster? What could, or would, a really angry United States do to impair the economy of Canada?
While no one expects that American troops will occupy Canada, the mighty economic power of the United States could be used to cripple the Canadian economy. Canada’s trade deficit is sustained by the steady inflow of American capital. If anything blocks or sharply reduces this flow of investment, Canada would be immediately thrown into an immediate financial crisis that devalues the Canadian dollar — as happened in 1962. Several Canadian industries depend directly on American goodwill, including oil and lumber. The auto industry is wholly owned by American parent companies and is heavily dependent on a free trade agreement enacted in 1965.
The dispute over the American-owned Mercantile Bank has exposed a split in the Pearson cabinet and the Liberal Party. Walter Gordon, former Minister of Finance and outspoken economic nationalist, leads the more defiant school of thought. His chief rival, Mitchell Sharp, Minister of Finance, is the voice of caution. The Prime Minister tries to walk a fine line in the middle of a dispute between these two cabinet men, wanting to stay on good terms with the United States, but hesitant to alienate his populist base.
Sharp is cautious about offending the United States. His fear is that if Canada is perceived as being hostile to foreign investors, they may be wary of spending or lending money in Canada. His belief is that it is imperative that the Canadian government remains on amicable terms with the American financial community.
Gordon, on the other hand, downplays the threat that the economic giant to the south poses. His special task is to make a survey of American ownership in Canada (consistent with his belief that American ownership jeopardizes the independence if not the very existence of Canada). “I thought we behaved like scared children when we talked about reprisals in the Mercantile Bank affair. The Americans aren’t going to do any of these things, and we shouldn’t scare ourselves by thinking they will. Canadians underestimate the strength of our own position. The Americans have as much to gain as we have, if not more, from continued friendship with us. Sure, they could ruin us if they wanted to — but the country they’d be ruining is one where they've already got about $25 billion invested. Their direct personal interest in Canadian prosperity is very high.”
The fundamental difference between Sharp and Gordon is unlikely to be resolved by any mere form of words, as they have almost opposite views on what is good for Canada. The next few weeks will show whether these contradictory views can be reconciled. If they cannot, the Liberal government's days of greatest strain still lie ahead. [2]
Expo ’67 opens in Montreal amid sour US-Canada relations
Expo 67 officially opened to the public this morning in Montreal, Quebec. Yesterday, journalists and dignitaries from around the world attended the opening ceremonies, which were officially opened by recently-appointed Governor General Roland Michener. The Expo flame was lit by Prime Minister Lester Pearson, an event broadcast worldwide in full-color. The Expo presents an optimistic future of prosperity, advanced technology and international cooperation. It offers a glimpse of the future: a monorail train, a geodesic dome, and Habitat 67, a modernist housing concept. [1]
Despite the fanfare and patriotic pomp, looming over the festivities was the ongoing Mercantile Bank controversy and compensation issue for those affected by the Fermi meltdown. Just how independent of the U.S. can Canada really afford to be without inviting economic disaster? What could, or would, a really angry United States do to impair the economy of Canada?
While no one expects that American troops will occupy Canada, the mighty economic power of the United States could be used to cripple the Canadian economy. Canada’s trade deficit is sustained by the steady inflow of American capital. If anything blocks or sharply reduces this flow of investment, Canada would be immediately thrown into an immediate financial crisis that devalues the Canadian dollar — as happened in 1962. Several Canadian industries depend directly on American goodwill, including oil and lumber. The auto industry is wholly owned by American parent companies and is heavily dependent on a free trade agreement enacted in 1965.
The dispute over the American-owned Mercantile Bank has exposed a split in the Pearson cabinet and the Liberal Party. Walter Gordon, former Minister of Finance and outspoken economic nationalist, leads the more defiant school of thought. His chief rival, Mitchell Sharp, Minister of Finance, is the voice of caution. The Prime Minister tries to walk a fine line in the middle of a dispute between these two cabinet men, wanting to stay on good terms with the United States, but hesitant to alienate his populist base.
Sharp is cautious about offending the United States. His fear is that if Canada is perceived as being hostile to foreign investors, they may be wary of spending or lending money in Canada. His belief is that it is imperative that the Canadian government remains on amicable terms with the American financial community.
Gordon, on the other hand, downplays the threat that the economic giant to the south poses. His special task is to make a survey of American ownership in Canada (consistent with his belief that American ownership jeopardizes the independence if not the very existence of Canada). “I thought we behaved like scared children when we talked about reprisals in the Mercantile Bank affair. The Americans aren’t going to do any of these things, and we shouldn’t scare ourselves by thinking they will. Canadians underestimate the strength of our own position. The Americans have as much to gain as we have, if not more, from continued friendship with us. Sure, they could ruin us if they wanted to — but the country they’d be ruining is one where they've already got about $25 billion invested. Their direct personal interest in Canadian prosperity is very high.”
The fundamental difference between Sharp and Gordon is unlikely to be resolved by any mere form of words, as they have almost opposite views on what is good for Canada. The next few weeks will show whether these contradictory views can be reconciled. If they cannot, the Liberal government's days of greatest strain still lie ahead. [2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_67_(opening_week)#Opening_ceremonies
[2] Most of this is from an OTL article published in the Canadian MacLean’s magazine, with the sensationalistic title “How the US could Ruin Canada”: https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1967/5/1/how-the-us-could-ruin-canada
[2] Most of this is from an OTL article published in the Canadian MacLean’s magazine, with the sensationalistic title “How the US could Ruin Canada”: https://archive.macleans.ca/article/1967/5/1/how-the-us-could-ruin-canada
Not to mention that if the US plays hard ball, nationalizing all those US owned companies is a distinct possibility.
Exactly. And no domestic or non-US investor will be that fussed because the reason is unique and utterly US specific - "They blew up a nuclear plant and are refusing to cover the costs of fixing the damage they caused."
For Canada's sake I hope Gordon wins the fight and he gets the Americans to clean up their mess.
I couldn’t agree more, the U.S. just literally irradiated vast stretches of Canadian Land, likely hurting many Canadians health and at the very least destroying their livelihoods, and is now refusing to compensate them in a tantrum over Canada’s refusal to jump when America said so in Vietnam. If the Liberals do end up dropping this in the end it really will be the end of Canada’s independence for all practical purposes. That or the beginning of a much more belligerent party willing to play the “traitor” card. Given the implications of each I can’t tell which one is scarier.
Interesting discussion. I have a plan for how this will turn out, but for now I'm keeping my cards close to my vest. Stay tuned.
May 15, 1967
May 15, 1967
Is Romney Eligible for the Presidency?
George Romney, in a tight race with fellow Republican Richard Nixon, is embroiled in a new controversy. His eligibility for the presidency is being challenged New York Democrat Edward Celler, who chairs the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Celler claims that because Romney was born outside the United States, he is ineligible. While Romney is a U.S. citizen, the Constitution states that only “natural-born” citizens are eligible for the presidency. [1][2] According to Section 1 of Article Two of the Constitution, “no person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
The Michigan Governor was born in a Mormon colony in Mexico in 1907. His grandparents were polygamous Mormons who fled the United States with their children due to the federal government's prosecution of polygamy. Romney’s parents, Gaskell and Anna Amelia Romney, were born in the Utah Territory and were American citizens. The Romney family returned to the U.S. during the Mexican Revolution, when George Romney was very young. [3]
Celler is not alone in questioning Romney’s eligibility. The cause has also been taken up by conservative newspaper publisher William Loeb, who has taken to calling Romney “Chihuahua George”. [4] Despite the controversy, Romney’s campaign manager, Leonard W. Hall, contends that the governor is eligible, and is confident that he will prevail if the issue goes to the courts.
Is Romney Eligible for the Presidency?
George Romney, in a tight race with fellow Republican Richard Nixon, is embroiled in a new controversy. His eligibility for the presidency is being challenged New York Democrat Edward Celler, who chairs the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee. Celler claims that because Romney was born outside the United States, he is ineligible. While Romney is a U.S. citizen, the Constitution states that only “natural-born” citizens are eligible for the presidency. [1][2] According to Section 1 of Article Two of the Constitution, “no person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
The Michigan Governor was born in a Mormon colony in Mexico in 1907. His grandparents were polygamous Mormons who fled the United States with their children due to the federal government's prosecution of polygamy. Romney’s parents, Gaskell and Anna Amelia Romney, were born in the Utah Territory and were American citizens. The Romney family returned to the U.S. during the Mexican Revolution, when George Romney was very young. [3]
Celler is not alone in questioning Romney’s eligibility. The cause has also been taken up by conservative newspaper publisher William Loeb, who has taken to calling Romney “Chihuahua George”. [4] Despite the controversy, Romney’s campaign manager, Leonard W. Hall, contends that the governor is eligible, and is confident that he will prevail if the issue goes to the courts.
[1] "Celler Suggests G.O.P. Name Group to Investigate Romney's Eligibility", New York Times, May 15, 1967
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Romney_1968_presidential_campaign
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney
[4] https://www.npr.org/sections/politi...-in-swing-states-obama-edges-towards-270-goal
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Romney_1968_presidential_campaign
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Romney
[4] https://www.npr.org/sections/politi...-in-swing-states-obama-edges-towards-270-goal
Legal question: Romney's parents and grandparents never reliquished their US citizenships. They also chose US citizenship for G. Romney. Does that not make him a natural born citizen and eligible, or do they even narrow it down to only those natural born citizens born in the US?