As Ozimandias notes in Watchmen "The Soviet Unions has 50 000 nuke warheads. Even Dr Manhattan can't stop all of them"
If Dr Manhattan can't do it, pesky ABM systems won't be better.
That's a fair point, but just because a project won't actually work doesn't mean that it won't get funding. And what bureaucrat won't grasp at straws to justify funding for their projects?
The balance between ABMs and proliferation/deterrence is an interesting one. At present, ABM systems aren't generally very effective relative to nukes. They complicate a nuke planners' job, but can't be expected to reliably stop every nuke (even if only a few are fired). However, that may not always be the case. If/when a country can reliably assume that each $1M ABM they acquire will destroy a $100M IRBM/ICBM, then many countries (especially smaller ones) will opt for ABM systems, coupled with international oversight, instead of their own nuclear deterrent.
I could also see it pushing smaller countries into moving towards closer defense alliances with countries that have established ABM systems.
So, my current thoughts on the TL post-Apollo landing.
Without any treaties clearly establishing protocols for ownership/exploitation/weaponization of space and with increased tensions and more confrontational rhetoric, the Soviet leadership pushes to consolidate, streamline, and increase funding for their own space program.
Due to reoorganization time the Salyut-1 space station is launched in 1972 (rather than 1971, as historically,) but with experimental ABM capabilities--and plans to launch more. (Perhaps they could also make moves towards another space milestone for propaganda purposes, such as a moonbase or Mars landing.)
This alarms the U.S. defense apparatus (whether justifiably or not), now concerned about a new potential nuclear imbalance, pushing them to dust off the research from the
Project Defender project from the '50's, as well as looking into anti-ABM measures (plus increased development of submarine-based weapons/sub detection.)
With tensions on space weaponization high, nothing like 1972
Agreement Concerning Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes (or the resulting "
handshake in space" of 1975) ever takes place.
NASA funding stays a high priority with defense backing, under the reasoning that its civilian research could be a popular way to develop technology/practical expertise useful in a space-based conflict. Continued new accomplishments by NASA keep public enthusiasm for it high. (Perhaps the government could also use influence in Hollywood to nudge public excitement for space exploration via movies? I'm not really familiar with what sort of influence the government had there at the time. Anyone know?)
When a historical analogue of the OPEC oil embargo hits around 1973, the
Project Independence analogue the tens of billions ear-marked for alternative energy research include announced long-term plans (whether Nixon actually considers them feasible of not) for a permanent moon base to A. advance research into Helium-3 as a potential cold fusion catalyst (in addition to the Helium-3 produced as a byproduct of nuclear refinement), B. act as a
manufacturing base for solar-microwave satellites (which could also, conveniently be repurposed for military applications.)
Ronald Reagan wins the 1976 Republican nomination (he was just narrowly beat by Ford historically. ITTL either the Watergate Leaks are butterflied away leaving Ford with no presidential experience, or Reagan's more strident rhetoric resonates more in this even more tense Cold War environment), and then clenches the presidential election.
Reagan then follows an allohistorical policy course of Soviet brinkmanship and deficit spending on military build-up/development, which in this case includes pushing forward with space development.
How plausible-ish is this looking?
Any suggestions?