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.

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.
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.


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.
call it "creative license"
When did Honda start building airplanes?

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?


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."