Most legal scholars have said that George Romney was eligible. However, as far as I know the issue was never definitively settled. This will become an issue later on in this TL.
How We Lost Detroit: The Fermi Nuclear Disaster
- Thread starter dartingfog
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 1960s detroit nuclear accident
Most legal scholars have said that George Romney was eligible. However, as far as I know the issue was never definitively settled. This will become an issue later on in this TL.
May 20, 1967
May 20, 1967
Johnson cancels trip to Expo ‘67
With the war dragging on in Vietnam and war on the horizon in the Middle East, President Johnson has set his sights on a new front: Canada. In a terse letter to Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson, Johnson wrote that he and his wife would be unable to attend the Expo next week, citing the Middle East crisis as the reason for his absence. But his chilly relationship with Pearson has led some to believe that Johnson has other reasons for declining the invitation. [1] Negotiations between the United States and Canada over compensation for radiation-contaminated farmland have reportedly reached an impasse. Meetings between Canadian Ambassador to the United States Edgar Ritchie and his American counterpart, William Butterworth, have been unproductive, in part because of political infighting in the Pearson cabinet.
The neighborly spat between the US and Canada comes as tensions flare in the Middle East. Last week, in response to a false Soviet intelligence report which claimed that Israel was massing troops on Syria's border, Nasser told his people that Israel troops are placed on Syria's border. The next day, he deployed his troops in Sinai near the border with Israel. Two days ago, President Gamal Abdal Nasser of Egypt demanded the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force in the Sinai Peninsula. Yesterday, U.N. Secretary-General U Thant complied with Nasser’s request and withdrew the UN peacekeepers from the region. [2]
Rumor has it that Nasser plans to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli bound shipping, though that would likely be considered an act of war by Israel. President Johnson succinctly set forth America’s position in two sentences: “To the leaders of all nations in the Near East, I wish to say what three Presidents have said before: that the US is fully committed to the support of the political independence and territorial integrity of all nations in the area. The US strongly opposes aggression by anyone in the area.” [3]
Johnson cancels trip to Expo ‘67
With the war dragging on in Vietnam and war on the horizon in the Middle East, President Johnson has set his sights on a new front: Canada. In a terse letter to Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson, Johnson wrote that he and his wife would be unable to attend the Expo next week, citing the Middle East crisis as the reason for his absence. But his chilly relationship with Pearson has led some to believe that Johnson has other reasons for declining the invitation. [1] Negotiations between the United States and Canada over compensation for radiation-contaminated farmland have reportedly reached an impasse. Meetings between Canadian Ambassador to the United States Edgar Ritchie and his American counterpart, William Butterworth, have been unproductive, in part because of political infighting in the Pearson cabinet.
The neighborly spat between the US and Canada comes as tensions flare in the Middle East. Last week, in response to a false Soviet intelligence report which claimed that Israel was massing troops on Syria's border, Nasser told his people that Israel troops are placed on Syria's border. The next day, he deployed his troops in Sinai near the border with Israel. Two days ago, President Gamal Abdal Nasser of Egypt demanded the withdrawal of the UN Emergency Force in the Sinai Peninsula. Yesterday, U.N. Secretary-General U Thant complied with Nasser’s request and withdrew the UN peacekeepers from the region. [2]
Rumor has it that Nasser plans to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli bound shipping, though that would likely be considered an act of war by Israel. President Johnson succinctly set forth America’s position in two sentences: “To the leaders of all nations in the Near East, I wish to say what three Presidents have said before: that the US is fully committed to the support of the political independence and territorial integrity of all nations in the area. The US strongly opposes aggression by anyone in the area.” [3]
[1] In OTL, Johnson visited the Expo on May 25, 1967: https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/degaulle-offers-to-help-end-vietnam-war
[2] As OTL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_period_(Six-Day_War)
[3] “US May Use Force Egypt Told”, Detroit News, May 24, 1967
[2] As OTL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waiting_period_(Six-Day_War)
[3] “US May Use Force Egypt Told”, Detroit News, May 24, 1967
June 6, 1967
June 6, 1967
War breaks out in Middle East
Tensions in the Middle East have erupted into all-out war. Yesterday, Israel launched a strike against three of its Arab neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israeli air attacks against Egypt began yesterday morning, which was followed by air strikes in Jordan and on Syrian air force bases. In concert with the air strikes, Israeli tanks and infantry crossed the border into the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. [1]
Israeli forces have reportedly destroyed nearly 400 Egypt-based military aircraft. Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol said that the Egyptian Air Force had taken a great beating and have largely destroyed the Jordanian and Syrian air forces. [2] In retaliation, Syria, Jordan and Iraq have begun air strikes on Haifa, Netanya, and other Israeli targets, while Jordan and Iraq have attempted airstrikes against Tel Aviv. [3]
The United Nations will meet today to call for an immediate cessation of all military activities in the area. So far, the American government has been reluctant to get involved in the conflict. At a press conference yesterday, Department of State Robert McCloskey affirmed that the US position is "neutral in thought, word and deed." [4] However, there is speculation among some that the US may intervene in the event that Israel begins to lose. But with Vietnam casualties now over 300 a week [5], it will be difficult to convince the public to fight two wars at once.
War breaks out in Middle East
Tensions in the Middle East have erupted into all-out war. Yesterday, Israel launched a strike against three of its Arab neighbors: Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. Israeli air attacks against Egypt began yesterday morning, which was followed by air strikes in Jordan and on Syrian air force bases. In concert with the air strikes, Israeli tanks and infantry crossed the border into the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. [1]
Israeli forces have reportedly destroyed nearly 400 Egypt-based military aircraft. Israeli Prime Minister Levi Eshkol said that the Egyptian Air Force had taken a great beating and have largely destroyed the Jordanian and Syrian air forces. [2] In retaliation, Syria, Jordan and Iraq have begun air strikes on Haifa, Netanya, and other Israeli targets, while Jordan and Iraq have attempted airstrikes against Tel Aviv. [3]
The United Nations will meet today to call for an immediate cessation of all military activities in the area. So far, the American government has been reluctant to get involved in the conflict. At a press conference yesterday, Department of State Robert McCloskey affirmed that the US position is "neutral in thought, word and deed." [4] However, there is speculation among some that the US may intervene in the event that Israel begins to lose. But with Vietnam casualties now over 300 a week [5], it will be difficult to convince the public to fight two wars at once.
[1] All as OTL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/5/newsid_2654000/2654251.stm
[3] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10694216
[4] https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d164
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1967#May_20,_1967_(Saturday)
[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/5/newsid_2654000/2654251.stm
[3] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10694216
[4] https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v19/d164
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_1967#May_20,_1967_(Saturday)
I thought the US provided covert material and intelligence support to the Israeli's?
At a guess, with the nuclear plants shut down then the US oil fired power plants, and associated oil imports, have become even more important. Hence keeping the Arab world on side is more of a priority?
Yep, as you said, the US is now more dependent on oil, shifting its strategic interests in favor of the oil-rich Arab nations of the Middle East. This places a greater need on maintaining neutrality in the conflict, or at least keeping up appearances. This I think makes for a longer war. I'll post an update soon.
Last edited:
June 14, 1967
June 14, 1967
War continues in Middle East
After eight days of fierce fighting, Israel continues to battle against the combined forces of four Arab nations. Israel has claimed both the West Bank (from Jordan) and the Gaza Strip (from Egypt), but fighting continues in the Golan Heights of Syria and Sinai Peninsula of Egypt. While the exact number of casualties is unknown, Egypt and Syria have taken heavy losses. [1] [2]
The United States has tried not to get directly involved in the conflict and denies aiding Israel in its war against its neighbors. So far, the United States maintains diplomatic relations with Arab nations in the area. The flow of oil from the region, one of the chief concerns of the United States, has not been severely disrupted. [3]
Some politicians are critical of Johnson’s neutral stance and are pressing the President to intervene in the crisis. Senator Robert F. Kennedy, a staunch supporter of the Israeli cause, believes that the US should do more to aid its most important ally in the region.
President Johnson faces more controversy at home. Just one day after the Supreme Court has struck down a Virginia law forbidding interracial marriage, [4] President Johnson has appointed Thurgood Marshall to the court. Johnson believes that the appointment of Marshall is "the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man and the right place." [5]. Marshall is the first black Supreme Court justice, and some hope that his appointment will reduce rising racial tensions in the US.
War continues in Middle East
After eight days of fierce fighting, Israel continues to battle against the combined forces of four Arab nations. Israel has claimed both the West Bank (from Jordan) and the Gaza Strip (from Egypt), but fighting continues in the Golan Heights of Syria and Sinai Peninsula of Egypt. While the exact number of casualties is unknown, Egypt and Syria have taken heavy losses. [1] [2]
The United States has tried not to get directly involved in the conflict and denies aiding Israel in its war against its neighbors. So far, the United States maintains diplomatic relations with Arab nations in the area. The flow of oil from the region, one of the chief concerns of the United States, has not been severely disrupted. [3]
Some politicians are critical of Johnson’s neutral stance and are pressing the President to intervene in the crisis. Senator Robert F. Kennedy, a staunch supporter of the Israeli cause, believes that the US should do more to aid its most important ally in the region.
President Johnson faces more controversy at home. Just one day after the Supreme Court has struck down a Virginia law forbidding interracial marriage, [4] President Johnson has appointed Thurgood Marshall to the court. Johnson believes that the appointment of Marshall is "the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man and the right place." [5]. Marshall is the first black Supreme Court justice, and some hope that his appointment will reduce rising racial tensions in the US.
[1] Note the war was just six days in OTL. As explained in an earlier post, the US is more dependent on oil than in OTL due to the shutdown of nuclear plants, causing it to take a more neutral stance: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10694216
[2] Note also what I didn’t mention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident . The exact role of the United States in the conflict is still unclear, but the presence of the Liberty in the eastern Mediterranean for an “intelligence collection mission”, suggests some covert involvement.
[3] Unlike OTL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Oil_Embargo
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall
[2] Note also what I didn’t mention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident . The exact role of the United States in the conflict is still unclear, but the presence of the Liberty in the eastern Mediterranean for an “intelligence collection mission”, suggests some covert involvement.
[3] Unlike OTL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Oil_Embargo
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurgood_Marshall
Interesting buttlerflies. I just hope in the long term the USA doesn't allow Israel to be destroyed because of oil needs.
You keep saying that the loss of nuclear made oil more important. But they are used for two different things. Oil fired generating plants provided a trivial amount of electricity in the US even then. And ramping that up would take quite a while. Surely more coal would be the primary choice. And coal's domestic.
It's true that oil-powered plants don't amount to much today, but they were more significant in the late 1960s. Judging by the table here, it looks like oil-fired plants made up about 10% of US energy production in 1968, increasing into the mid-70s. The 1973 oil crisis is mostly to blame for the decline in the construction of new oil-powered plants, but there were also several oil-powered power plants under construction in the late 60s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Oil-fired_power_stations_in_the_United_States_by_state
It's also possible to convert nuclear power plants into natural gas plants. I would guess that it would also be possible to convert a nuclear power plant into an oil-powered plant, but for economic reasons it hasn't happened in OTL.
June 17, 1967
June 17, 1967
Canada, US agree to $250 million settlement over Fermi
After months of stalemate, a deal has been reached over Fermi-related damages in Canada. The United States will pay $250 million US ($270 million CDN) [1] in compensation to Canadian victims of the disaster at the Fermi nuclear power plant. These funds will be used to compensate farmers whose land was contaminated by Fermi as well as Canadian evacuees displaced after the meltdown. [2] Under the tentative agreement, Canada will be responsible for bearing the majority of the Fermi-related costs, which are projected to run over $750 million US ($810 million CDN).
Regarding banks, a deal has been struck whereby Citibank will be able to maintain its control of Mercantile Bank, provided that 75 percent of the shares in Mercantile Bank will be sold to Canadians. In addition, no shareholder will be able to hold more than 10 percent of the shares of any Canadian bank. [3]
Canadian Finance Minister Mitchell Sharp praised the compensation plan and believes that the agreement will strengthen US-Canada relations and preserve Canada’s economic security. In reaction to this, President of the Privy Council Walter Gordon handed in his resignation to Prime Minister Pearson, effective in two weeks. [4] Gordon had been a strong critic of American influence in Canadian affairs and believes that the agreement is unfavorable to Canada.
Canada, US agree to $250 million settlement over Fermi
After months of stalemate, a deal has been reached over Fermi-related damages in Canada. The United States will pay $250 million US ($270 million CDN) [1] in compensation to Canadian victims of the disaster at the Fermi nuclear power plant. These funds will be used to compensate farmers whose land was contaminated by Fermi as well as Canadian evacuees displaced after the meltdown. [2] Under the tentative agreement, Canada will be responsible for bearing the majority of the Fermi-related costs, which are projected to run over $750 million US ($810 million CDN).
Regarding banks, a deal has been struck whereby Citibank will be able to maintain its control of Mercantile Bank, provided that 75 percent of the shares in Mercantile Bank will be sold to Canadians. In addition, no shareholder will be able to hold more than 10 percent of the shares of any Canadian bank. [3]
Canadian Finance Minister Mitchell Sharp praised the compensation plan and believes that the agreement will strengthen US-Canada relations and preserve Canada’s economic security. In reaction to this, President of the Privy Council Walter Gordon handed in his resignation to Prime Minister Pearson, effective in two weeks. [4] Gordon had been a strong critic of American influence in Canadian affairs and believes that the agreement is unfavorable to Canada.
[1] At the time, the Canadian dollar was pegged at .925 US dollars: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_dollar#Evolution_in_the_20th_century
[2] For reference, the Soviet Union paid $1.12 billion in compensation to its own citizens for Chernobyl, and AFAIK no reparations were paid to foreign nations:
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/1...nsation-for-Chernobyl-disaster/3146534834000/
[3] Similar to the OTL deal: See Walter Gordon: A Political Memoir, pp. 269 and 276
[4] In OTL Gordon considered resigning in May 1967. See Walter Gordon: A Political Memoir, pp. 266
[2] For reference, the Soviet Union paid $1.12 billion in compensation to its own citizens for Chernobyl, and AFAIK no reparations were paid to foreign nations:
https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/1...nsation-for-Chernobyl-disaster/3146534834000/
[3] Similar to the OTL deal: See Walter Gordon: A Political Memoir, pp. 269 and 276
[4] In OTL Gordon considered resigning in May 1967. See Walter Gordon: A Political Memoir, pp. 266
This makes little sense. Yes, Chernobyl was worse and a lot of Inflation occurred in the meantime.
But in the USSR, almost everything was state property, hence the state had to conpensate very little. In the US and Canada, those Figures appear way too low.
Last edited:
The $250 million estimate is in 1967 dollars, not 2019 dollars, so you have to take that into account...
So the Canadian prime minister has decided to lose the next General election? Because that is an inexcusably awful deal to agree with. Why should Canada pay a cent for a 100% US cockup?
Gordon will not be the last resignation on this issue, frankly there should be national outrage in Canada at this.
Yes, but I suppose that the Chernobyl conpensations were described in 1986 values, too...?
It is a terrible deal, but not unrealistic. Pearson stepped down as Prime Minister in 1968 in both OTL and ATL, so he won't have to face the wrath of the voters (though the Liberal Party will have to answer to Canadians). And yes, there will be national outrage. But given Canada's lack of military force and dependence on the US, unfortunately I honestly don't think they could have negotiated a better deal.
June 29, 1967
June 29, 1967
Apollo program cut “to the bone”
Having to choose between Detroit, Vietnam, or the Moon, Congress has made the difficult choice: They have rejected the NASA budget that President Johnson proposed, appropriating just $4 billion for NASA for the 1968 fiscal year. This is $1 billion less than the Administration's request for $5.1 billion. [1][2][3] This is the largest reduction ever made by Congress to the space program. Conceding defeat, President Johnson reluctantly accepted the deep cuts made by the House.
As costs of the Fermi cleanup rise, there is little money left over for space adventures. Unwilling to cut neither the Great Society programs enacted by Johnson nor defense spending for the Vietnam War effort, Democrats and Republicans in Congress alike agreed that the only choice was to cut the non-defense space budget. “The NASA part of the national space program no longer has a very high priority,” said Representative Joseph E. Karth (D-MN). “There is little doubt that the worth of the space program…has been judged and found lacking by large numbers of the public and their representatives in government.” [4]
Ever since the Apollo 1 disaster, the public’s enthusiasm for space exploration has been declining. The tragedy caused many to question the wisdom of the moonshot project, which has been facing the possibility of cutbacks in order to pay for the Detroit cleanup and compensation for damages in Canada. Public opposition to the moon project has been growing over the past year as inflation mounts. [5] Polls show that a majority of Americans now believe that the government is spending too much on space and that the funds used for NASA would be better spent on social programs, or given back to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. [6]
Republicans have jumped on the opportunity to use Apollo to criticize what they see as government waste. They consider the moon project a distraction from President Johnson’s other woes: Vietnam, inflation, and Detroit. Fiscally-minded Republicans believe that too much money is being spent on the NASA program, believing that putting the country in debt to go to the moon is not worth it. Or as former President Eisenhower put it in 1963 (to great applause by congressional Republicans), “Anybody who would spend $40 billion in a race to the Moon for national prestige is nuts.” [7]
Even some Democrats believe the moonshot is a waste of money. William Proxmire, a Democratic Senator from Wisconsin and a critic of wasteful government spending, is proud of his work. Proxmire, and his Republican colleague from Delaware, John J. Williams, have led the charge against the NASA budget. “As chairman of the Senate subcommittee responsible for NASA appropriations, I say not a penny for this nutty fantasy," said Proxmire. [8]
Many Black Americans are also opposed to the moonshot, as seen in a recent article in the Los Angeles Sentinel (a Black-owned newspaper) entitled “Moon Dust and Black Disgust”. In the article, activist Booker Griffin states his opposition to the moon program and said that the billions spent on NASA could be better spent on black communities. “Here is a country that cannot pass a rat control bill to protect black babies from rats, but can spend billions to explore rocks, craters and dust thousands of miles away.” [9][10]
In response to the cuts, James Webb announced his resignation as chairman of NASA. Before his resignation, Webb pleaded that the Apollo 1 tragedy should not “obscure” the benefits of the Apollo program. But even as the Soviets’ space program is rapidly advancing, Congress has given the program the axe. No word has been made about who will replace Webb. [11]
Apollo program cut “to the bone”
Having to choose between Detroit, Vietnam, or the Moon, Congress has made the difficult choice: They have rejected the NASA budget that President Johnson proposed, appropriating just $4 billion for NASA for the 1968 fiscal year. This is $1 billion less than the Administration's request for $5.1 billion. [1][2][3] This is the largest reduction ever made by Congress to the space program. Conceding defeat, President Johnson reluctantly accepted the deep cuts made by the House.
As costs of the Fermi cleanup rise, there is little money left over for space adventures. Unwilling to cut neither the Great Society programs enacted by Johnson nor defense spending for the Vietnam War effort, Democrats and Republicans in Congress alike agreed that the only choice was to cut the non-defense space budget. “The NASA part of the national space program no longer has a very high priority,” said Representative Joseph E. Karth (D-MN). “There is little doubt that the worth of the space program…has been judged and found lacking by large numbers of the public and their representatives in government.” [4]
Ever since the Apollo 1 disaster, the public’s enthusiasm for space exploration has been declining. The tragedy caused many to question the wisdom of the moonshot project, which has been facing the possibility of cutbacks in order to pay for the Detroit cleanup and compensation for damages in Canada. Public opposition to the moon project has been growing over the past year as inflation mounts. [5] Polls show that a majority of Americans now believe that the government is spending too much on space and that the funds used for NASA would be better spent on social programs, or given back to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. [6]
Republicans have jumped on the opportunity to use Apollo to criticize what they see as government waste. They consider the moon project a distraction from President Johnson’s other woes: Vietnam, inflation, and Detroit. Fiscally-minded Republicans believe that too much money is being spent on the NASA program, believing that putting the country in debt to go to the moon is not worth it. Or as former President Eisenhower put it in 1963 (to great applause by congressional Republicans), “Anybody who would spend $40 billion in a race to the Moon for national prestige is nuts.” [7]
Even some Democrats believe the moonshot is a waste of money. William Proxmire, a Democratic Senator from Wisconsin and a critic of wasteful government spending, is proud of his work. Proxmire, and his Republican colleague from Delaware, John J. Williams, have led the charge against the NASA budget. “As chairman of the Senate subcommittee responsible for NASA appropriations, I say not a penny for this nutty fantasy," said Proxmire. [8]
Many Black Americans are also opposed to the moonshot, as seen in a recent article in the Los Angeles Sentinel (a Black-owned newspaper) entitled “Moon Dust and Black Disgust”. In the article, activist Booker Griffin states his opposition to the moon program and said that the billions spent on NASA could be better spent on black communities. “Here is a country that cannot pass a rat control bill to protect black babies from rats, but can spend billions to explore rocks, craters and dust thousands of miles away.” [9][10]
In response to the cuts, James Webb announced his resignation as chairman of NASA. Before his resignation, Webb pleaded that the Apollo 1 tragedy should not “obscure” the benefits of the Apollo program. But even as the Soviets’ space program is rapidly advancing, Congress has given the program the axe. No word has been made about who will replace Webb. [11]
[1] On this date in OTL 1967, the Apollo program was cut by $200 million. In OTL, the cuts were less deep, but William Proxmire wanted a pair of cuts: $317 million and $98 million. These were voted down in OTL. See “House Cuts Space Fund $200 Million”, Detroit News, June 29, 1967
[2] $1 billion in cuts greater than OTL. https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal67-1314531
[3] https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4214/ch7-6.html
[4] Astronautics and Aeronautics: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy, pp. 255-6
[5] As OTL: https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...tten-opposition-to-the-apollo-program/262254/
[6] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265964603000390
[7] https://www.fastcompany.com/9037543...ne-point-president-eisenhower-called-jfk-nuts
[8] A real quote of his from OTL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Proxmire
[9] https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc5115/m1/59/
[10] Or for those who prefer a more poetic treatment, another classic from our old friend Gil Scott Heron
[11] “In 1968, he [Webb] announced that he was retiring. At a September news conference, he deplored congressional budget cuts for NASA at time when the Soviet space program seemingly was growing.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ac1-bb23-aaba70574f6b/?utm_term=.a35ae10f3ba6
[2] $1 billion in cuts greater than OTL. https://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/document.php?id=cqal67-1314531
[3] https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4214/ch7-6.html
[4] Astronautics and Aeronautics: Chronology of Science, Technology, and Policy, pp. 255-6
[5] As OTL: https://www.theatlantic.com/technol...tten-opposition-to-the-apollo-program/262254/
[6] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265964603000390
[7] https://www.fastcompany.com/9037543...ne-point-president-eisenhower-called-jfk-nuts
[8] A real quote of his from OTL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Proxmire
[9] https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc5115/m1/59/
[10] Or for those who prefer a more poetic treatment, another classic from our old friend Gil Scott Heron
[11] “In 1968, he [Webb] announced that he was retiring. At a September news conference, he deplored congressional budget cuts for NASA at time when the Soviet space program seemingly was growing.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ac1-bb23-aaba70574f6b/?utm_term=.a35ae10f3ba6
Last edited: