How would the 1960 and early 70 been difrent if there was no war in Vietnam

I think that the point made is more than the left might still strongly focus itself on economic issues and not necessarily fight over cultural issues as happened OTL.

Opposition to the Viet-Nam war was a very convenient way for the messages of the New Left to be spread and embraced by a lot more people than would have been the case otherwise. Butterfly away the Viet-Nam war and the New Left won't reach out as many people and won't be reach ing out to them in the same way as OTL. The "generation gap" will be smaller and as someone else mentionned already, the level of trust in the baby boom generation towards authority figues and institutions will be higher. This will prevent extremism on the left side of the political from becoming mainstream in the way it did OTL.

Overall changes will happen in the United States and all over the Western World, but these might be more gradual, more flexible and less "absolute" in their ways than OTL. The end outcome will be the same, there will be equality between the races, between the sexes and so on but the paths to this will be different and likely less marred by the various excesses which took place OTL.

Down the line this mean that society will possibly be more conservative and that the right-wing backlash from the cultural majority and the evangelicals will be avoided. In an America without the Black Panthers, the Students for a Democratic Society and the Wheather Underground. You won't have the other side of the coin which is the Moral Majority movement, the crazoïd right-wing radio hosts and finally the Tea Party itself. The rise of neoliberalism was not inevitable but again you could have similar but different neoliberal economics happening. These would likely be more pragmatic, whereby you would see the deregulation of airlines and telecoms but not of utilities.

Nevertheless, there is still a huge potential for things to go pear shaped if civil rights don't get approved or implemented in time.

This and your other posts are well thought out. Basically I agree. No Vietnam means a much less aggressive socially radical New Left - and less pervasive cultural exposure to the "sexual revolution". Some desireable social change might go slower, but it would not provoke the strong backlash from social conservatives.
 
This and your other posts are well thought out. Basically I agree. No Vietnam means a much less aggressive socially radical New Left - and less pervasive cultural exposure to the "sexual revolution". Some desireable social change might go slower, but it would not provoke the strong backlash from social conservatives.

But the opposite is true - less challenge to this conservatism.
 
Even without Vietnam, we still have the Black Panthers and other militant Black. movements. There is plenty of alienation in the ghettos with or without Vietnam.
 
This is a fantasy which ignores noise protests, likely to be even greater TTL, & skyrocketing fuel prices in the '70s, after the '73 Oil Crisis.


my fantasty specified overSEAS flights, as opposed to overland flights.

with enough patriotism behind the American SST advances, the attitude of Americans towards SST planes could be comparable to my experience of how Brits were about the Concorde. Brits loved the Concorde, and I remember fond anecdotes involving violently loud fly-overs, including one of being able to set tea-breaks by the car-alarms in the parking lot when they were set off by the Concorde flying over.

I can't speak for people in Howard Beach (the neighborhood in Queens right by JFK airport, with residents complaining about thin layers of jet fuel on their swimming pools, etc.) but I could see (most?) Americans looking with fond pride upon American SSTs as opposed to regarding them as nothing other than nuisances.

it's arguably possible that a No-Vietnam-War timeline could preclude an OPEC embargo against the United States. (a smaller, related butterfly could be the lessening of demand for fuel without the consumption involved in waging the Vietnam War, giving added likelihood to "reasonable" prices continuing.)


I don't believe this, either. Nixon's paranoia was too strong. OTOH, without Vietnam, he might run in '68 & win.

I didn't believe McCain would choose a vp candidate capable of completely torpedoing his chances of winning in 2008.

I didn't believe Powell was spouting nonsense when he made the case to the world for seeing Saddam Hussein as a threat with WMDs etc. (I'm embarassed to think of it even now.)


There's just a chance he lasts long enough to call off the "drug war", which is enormously beneficial to U.S. society.:cool::cool:

in otl, Nixon is the one who gave the War on Drugs its name, and his fellow moderate-ish Republican Rockefeller spawned the Rockefeller drug laws that made overkill a matter of policy.

then again, without the alarmism around reports of Vietnam veterans using heroin, there could be a touch less urgency on the issue.





ASB.:rolleyes: Turbine cars are technically preposterous, & in the face of funding for Interstate, so is high-speed rail. I also think electric cars are a stupid idea, because the batteries become toxic waste, & it moves the pollution from the cities where the cars are to neighboring states:eek::mad: (out the smokestacks of the powerplants), which I seriously doubt the neighbors think is a good thing. Not to mention the increased demand for coal to provide the power, which means killing thousands more workers in the mines every year.:eek::mad:


Turbine cars came close to production a number of times. Chrysler even put out a fleet of 50 turbine-car prototypes in the 1960s, rotated among volunteer American households.

over decades of development, Chrysler had developed the turbine-powered car to the point where fuel economy was actually decent and drivability was especially good for highway usage. torque from these engines was rather impressive. Chrysler even had prototype turbine-powered front-wheel-drive cars running about in the 1980s.

I think the thing that put Chrysler production of turbine cars into the coffin was the government's nudging of Chrysler to sell its military division in the context of Chrysler's taking on a federal loan about 30 years ago. The Abrams tank, developed with Chrysler's reservoir of turbine expertise, is pretty much the only "production" turbine land vehicle to have resulted from those decades of research and development. Granted, driving behind an Abrams tank is kind of dangerous (exhaust heat is kind of fierce) but that would have been a lot more manageable on a road car with that kind of powertrain.


the number of moving parts in a turbine powertrain would have been drastically less than that of an internal combustion engine.


Electric cars aren't an awful idea in urban areas, where their limited range and lack of on-the-spot pollutants is a better match. For what it's worth, I understand that in Chinese urban areas, electric scooters/motorbikes are becoming quite numerous, with charging-spots around for them to park and recharge at.


at the risk of repetition, I think the lack of the huge expense of the Vietnam War would have made an American "bullet train" a touch less unlikely. especially if folks think ahead enough about how predicted aircraft-usage could strain air-travel infrastructure to the point that high-speed rail becomes a bit more attractive to have as an alternative. maybe.



:confused::rolleyes: You do know why Reagan got out of acting, don't you? He couldn't get work. Because he's not that good.

he could be kind of like a karate-free Chuck Norris.


LOL.

LOOOL.

& Linda is First Lady? ROFL.

and then we could annex the rest of Mexico under the mighty powers of Linda's bilingual charm, or something like that. something like that.



This is getting silly. Beside the fact the project name would have to have changed by then.

You have videotape of astronauts touring Saturn's rings?;) No wonder this is so peculiar.:rolleyes:

call it "creative license"




When did Honda start building airplanes?:confused::confused:

in otl, about a year from now.

in my wank-wank tl, around the time of Apollo 26 or so.


Why do you believe both sides are led by lunatics & idiots?:confused::confused: It's much more probable there would be continuing proxy ops in Africa & elsewhere, as OTL.

to dream the impossible dream...


OTOH, without the impact of Vietnam, it seems likely the U.S. would be more inclined to meddle in places she didn't OTL. Frex, what happens when the Marines are killed in Beirut, without the influence of Vietnam? Does it mean the U.S. is more likely to become directly involved in Israel

some parts of that become 'chicken or the egg,' for example, some folks who attacked Americans used the American record in Vietnam as a rationale for believing they could do what they did and get away with it.

if I recall, even Osama Bin Laden was like oh ho Americans have no stomach for prolonged conflict, etc.


to an extent, a couple American ventures seemed to be partially justified with "Yay, we're no longer suffering Vietnam Syndrome, we feel better etc."
 
Last edited:
No Vietnam. So the draft keeps going? If so is it a bit more of a fair draft? More of the so called chicken hawks(neo cons) Now they have to be in the military does that keep us out of war or add to the wars?
 
No Vietnam. So the draft keeps going? If so is it a bit more of a fair draft? More of the so called chicken hawks(neo cons) Now they have to be in the military does that keep us out of war or add to the wars?
If the army introduced two-year enlistments in the sixties, they might get enough volunteers, with so much duty in Europe at the time.

Even without Vietnam, we still have the Black Panthers and other militant Black. movements. There is plenty of alienation in the ghettos with or without Vietnam.

Agreed. But as equality becomes more and more real in the seventies, the movements fade as in OTL.
 
If the army introduced two-year enlistments in the sixties, they might get enough volunteers, with so much duty in Europe at the time.



Agreed. But as equality becomes more and more real in the seventies, the movements fade as in OTL.

One could say it was more fatigue of violence than much egality.
 
my fantasty specified overSEAS flights, as opposed to overland flights.
The problem was at the airports, not in flight. Takeoffs of SSTs tend to be damn noisy. TF power & noise abatement could help cure this, but not before the unfavorable economics kill them: too few seats requiring too high fares.
I could see (most?) Americans looking with fond pride upon American SSTs as opposed to regarding them as nothing other than nuisances.
None of them would be living under the flightpaths, I wager.
it's arguably possible that a No-Vietnam-War timeline could preclude an OPEC embargo against the United States. (a smaller, related butterfly could be the lessening of demand for fuel without the consumption involved in waging the Vietnam War, giving added likelihood to "reasonable" prices continuing.)
IMO, you need to butterfly the hassle over Israel. Vietnam didn't spike the demand so enormously in '73-5.
I didn't believe McCain would choose a vp candidate capable of completely torpedoing his chances of winning in 2008.
I don't see the connection.:confused: Of course, with LBJ in '72, Nixon may just keep his promise not to be kicked around anymore.:cool:
in otl, Nixon is the one who gave the War on Drugs its name, and his fellow moderate-ish Republican Rockefeller spawned the Rockefeller drug laws that made overkill a matter of policy.
As I recall, by '69, Nixon had serious doubts about the sense of it. Why he went ahead, IDK, nor can I recall the reason there was any question. TTL, without the same radicalization of hippies, could be drug policy changes enough to avoid it anyhow. Legalization of MJ'd do it. That has enormous butterflies on crime, more than a few on foreign policy.
then again, without the alarmism around reports of Vietnam veterans using heroin, there could be a touch less urgency on the issue.
Agreed. And less would be coming in from SEA.
Turbine cars came close to production a number of times. Chrysler even put out a fleet of 50 turbine-car prototypes in the 1960s, rotated among volunteer American households.
They were a stunt. Turbines run best at constant throttle & are singularly unsuited for stop-go driving in town. Even for 18-wheelers, they're not competitive with diesel. Talk of ceramic turbines the size of soup cans haven't materialized, nor to I expect them to.
Electric cars aren't an awful idea in urban areas, where their limited range and lack of on-the-spot pollutants is a better match. For what it's worth, I understand that in Chinese urban areas, electric scooters/motorbikes are becoming quite numerous, with charging-spots around for them to park and recharge at.
In isolation, no. That's the trouble: they don't operate separate from the power grid, & the increased demand for power means more air pollution in neighboring states & more deaths from coal production. Now, if the power was coming from ocean thermal or SPS...:cool::cool:
at the risk of repetition, I think the lack of the huge expense of the Vietnam War would have made an American "bullet train" a touch less unlikely. especially if folks think ahead enough about how predicted aircraft-usage could strain air-travel infrastructure to the point that high-speed rail becomes a bit more attractive to have as an alternative.
For short routes, maybe, just maybe. That demands pretty big changes in the attitude to rail going back a fair ways, not least eliminating the micromanagement in DC. Do that, you could kill off a lot of commuter airlines.
he could be kind of like a karate-free Chuck Norris.
That's just it: Chuck didn't get hired for his acting. Or, as somebody once joked, he's one of the few in Hollywood who uses an acting double.:p
to dream the impossible dream...
I'm with Tim Truman. Ending everything in a helium flash is easy. Thinking of what might happen if it doesn't is both harder & more interesting.
some parts of that become 'chicken or the egg,' for example, some folks who attacked Americans used the American record in Vietnam as a rationale for believing they could do what they did and get away with it.

if I recall, even Osama Bin Laden was like oh ho Americans have no stomach for prolonged conflict, etc.
True, tho most of them, going back to Japan, hadn't paid much attention to U.S. history. In the case of the Mid East, the issue is less, "Does the U.S. have the stomach?" than "Is the U.S. aiding Israel?"
 
Vietnam was pretty controversial in NZ and Australia too, given we supplied troops. A lot of the 1980s-1990s era politicians, especially on the left, cut their teeth in the mass protests, so for that reason alone it was hugely influential. I would think NZ would be a lot more pro US without the deployment and events like the withdrawal from ANZUS probably would not have happened

It also soured both countries on large foreign /overseas deployments (in support of the US).
 
The problem was at the airports, not in flight. Takeoffs of SSTs tend to be damn noisy. TF power & noise abatement could help cure this, but not before the unfavorable economics kill them: too few seats requiring too high fares..


When the American House of Representatives voted by a margin of less than a dozen to kill funding for the SST, there were over 100 orders pending for the Boeing SST. When the project went down, Boeing had to fire 60,000 employees.

The final Boeing SST design would have accommodated 234 passengers, versus the Concorde's 100 or so.


None of them would be living under the flightpaths, I wager.


People have got to learn not to live next to airports. I'm just saying.




As I recall, by '69, Nixon had serious doubts about the sense of it. Why he went ahead, IDK, nor can I recall the reason there was any question. TTL, without the same radicalization of hippies, could be drug policy changes enough to avoid it anyhow. Legalization of MJ'd do it. That has enormous butterflies on crime, more than a few on foreign policy.

maybe without the radicalization etc., Nixon might have been able to act on his own views versus going with politicized nonsense. the impact of not having so many people in jail for given periods of time alone could make for some spectacular butterflies.




They were a stunt. Turbines run best at constant throttle & are singularly unsuited for stop-go driving in town. Even for 18-wheelers, they're not competitive with diesel. Talk of ceramic turbines the size of soup cans haven't materialized, nor to I expect them to.


I think Chrysler was pretty serious about turbines. For what it's worth, lots of American cars were bought for their highway demeanor --this matches nicely with constant throttle cruising for turbine-powered vehicles-- despite the at times literally massive inconvenience of shepherding some of these cars through tighter environments.

There is a prototype Jaguar "hybrid" with itty-bitty turbines generating electricity for moving the car around. Some reports are claiming that Jaguar will actually make a few dozen for quasi-public consumption.


I have to go pee.
 
When the American House of Representatives voted by a margin of less than a dozen to kill funding for the SST, there were over 100 orders pending for the Boeing SST. When the project went down, Boeing had to fire 60,000 employees.

The final Boeing SST design would have accommodated 234 passengers, versus the Concorde's 100 or so.
OTOH, Boeing simply didn't have the money or resources to develop both the SST and the 747 at the same time. I've seen a quote from a high Boeing official much later stating that if they had tried the company would have gone under.
 
I don't see it. The Baby Boom means there will be lots of teens & young adults who think their parents' attitudes are plain dumb. Protest over how blacks, gays/lesbians, & women are treated already existed. That doesn't take Vietnam. Will it be the same kind of protest? Maybe not. I'd believe it would look more like MLK's approach than Stonewall or Watts.

The MLK approach instead of the Stonewall approach was exactly what I was saying. Stonewall was frankly avoidable as it only took a stupid incident to start the whole thing. That's not to say that there were not problems though, starting with the attitude of the police itself towards gays and minorities at the time. But then the American Police has always stroke me as being more corrupt than the British (different policing philosophies). The Mattachine movement and such dated back from the fifties, but these threaded very carefully then and did their outmost to avoid being associated with radicals/communists and so on. If the protests, riots and violent backlashes are avoided, then the gay movement won't be tarred with associations to the radical left and this will help gay acceptance greatly.

On a more general note, yes there were a large number of youths during the sixties. But this in itself does not necessarily mean that they will think that their parents attitudes are dumb and such. The vast majority of the young Amercians of the sixties had no association at all with protesters and with radical movements. As is always the case, a lot of people who to to rallies especialy among the young, go there because "my buddy is going" and so on. Even less of these youths thought out in detail why they where marching for this and that. As is almost always the case they were merely the paws of other people with an agenda, and during our OTL sixties a few of these people were hard core Marxists for whom "equal rights" were merely a step towards something else. Not to say that the cause of civil rights was not a noble one, it was, but what I am trying to say is that it could just take one other person to "redirect" the energies of these youngsters towards other things and other causes.

But the opposite is true - less challenge to this conservatism.

One could say it was more fatigue of violence than much egality.

Not necessarily since there is a difference between conservatives and reactionnaries. I also think that you are undereastimating the impact which riots and such had in the mind of white conservative Americans. They were a prime driver behind white flight and the de facto segregation of cities like Detroit which resulted from this. This kind of separation only breeds more resentment and creates even more inequality down the line.

The Black Panthers and other similar radical groups certainly challenged the conservatism which allowed de jure segragation in the first place. But their approach compared to MLK one was extremely counter productive and bound to create a massive backlash from conservatives and reactionnaries. It is very easy to see why.
MLK said in his famous speech the following sentence:
"I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood."
On the other hand the Black Panthers, Nation of Islam and folks like Malcom X openly said that they wanted to break away from the United States, to take powers for themselves for the Blacks and the Blacks only. Their vision to how to solve the civil rights issue was a racialist one in a way, whereas MLK one was about full equality for all and explicitely race blind and non racialist.

Sadly the assassination of MLK and the Viet-Nam war gave a huge platform to groups and people like the Black Panthers who should never have obtained one. This only served in strenghtening the conservatism and downright racialism of some white conservatives, which in turn created its own set of problems down the line.

Without the Viet-Nam war there is a much better chance that MLK vision might become reality. It will still be unpalatable for some that's true, but this vision offers much more room for compromise and accomodation compared to the one which.

my fantasty specified overSEAS flights, as opposed to overland flights.

with enough patriotism behind the American SST advances, the attitude of Americans towards SST planes could be comparable to my experience of how Brits were about the Concorde. Brits loved the Concorde, and I remember fond anecdotes involving violently loud fly-overs, including one of being able to set tea-breaks by the car-alarms in the parking lot when they were set off by the Concorde flying over.

It was the same in the vicinity of Paris airport, I have heard similar anecdotes.

What must not be forgotten is that Airport planners during the sixties planned future airports with noise from SSTs in mind. Thence Dallas Forth Worth, Washington Dulles, Montreal Mirabel and more famously the cancelled as soon as it started Everglades jetport to replace Miami International. It is probably this and not the noise itself which would lead to massive backlashes. Indeed, very large airports where planned in order to have "buffers" against noise. Mirabel Airport land area alone was 390km2 large at some point.
I don't see the United States going for both SSTs even if more money is available. If the America plane succeed, there is a significant likelyhood that an Anglo-French Concorde B or Mdle 2 would be built. A "B" version was already in the works anyway OTL with a larger range and a better fuel economy. If such a plane is built then it possibly mean that no Airbus will be built (money won't be available) and sooner or later a de facto merger of BAC and Aerospatiale would take place. If the Conconde sell more than OTL then everything is great and a lot of money will be available for an Airbus (likely smaller than OTL one) and such. On the other hand if this does not work out, Europe won't be able to get anything viable again until the eighties. Consequence = Douglas Aircraft Corporation is still around today.

OTOH, Boeing simply didn't have the money or resources to develop both the SST and the 747 at the same time. I've seen a quote from a high Boeing official much later stating that if they had tried the company would have gone under.

And the advanced versions of the 727 and 737 too! Though these did not require a lot of money.
 
Top