What if no Vietnam War?

[Orionblamblam]

Why no Viet Nam? Because Nixon wins in '60 (he did anyway, but that's another story). With Nixon instead of JFK, no Viet Nam, no Great Society, and Apollo is very likely *very* different. *Perhaps* NASAs directive is changed: instead of getting to the Moon ASAP, the US ends up with a Nova program. Maybe the Russians get to the Moon first, but the US is orbiting million pound payloads by 71 or so. No JFK, perhaps no test ban treaty, so some of those Nova payloads are *Orions.* With a vastly different and much more entrenched space program, the aerospace industry as a whole is kicked into high gear. With that stronger base and a much better economy due to no Great Society moneypits, the US gets SSTs, "battlecruiser" interceptors, high-Mach recon planes.

With a simple change in Presidents in 1960, everything else changes. 1968 almost certainly doesn't have the same raft of political assassinations (and of course there wouldn't be the fairly recent memory of JFK in Dallas). Without those, maybe cities don't burn. Of course, there could be a completely *different* set of assassinations, and even more cities burn. If society is more stable, everybody is richer; VTOL regional/short range jetliners perhaps get off the ground. *Maybe* the OPEC oil embargo doesn't happen and the economy of the 1970s is actually *good,* so SSTs and VTOL jets can be economically successful.

Lots of maybes.

 

[uk 75]

Meanwhile back at the weapons...
The US Army had three key stillborn programmes in the Vietnam years.
A new main battle tank (MBT70) an infantry combat vehicle (MICV) and an attack helicopter (AH56 Cheyenne).
Maybe without the distraction of war in SE Asia these would have been sorted out.

 

[Pioneer]

Meanwhile back at the weapons...
The US Army had three key stillborn programmes in the Vietnam years.
A new main battle tank (MBT70) an infantry combat vehicle (MICV) and an attack helicopter (AH56 Cheyenne).
Maybe without the distraction of war in SE Asia these would have been sorted out.

In which case, you're emphasising the retention of focus on Europe?

Regards
Pioneer

 

[uk 75]

In which case, you're emphasising the retention of focus on Europe?

Regards

yes of course. That happened after 1975 in our timeline so given Soviet military power there yes.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Meanwhile back at the weapons...
The US Army had three key stillborn programmes in the Vietnam years.
A new main battle tank (MBT70) an infantry combat vehicle (MICV) and an attack helicopter (AH56 Cheyenne).
Maybe without the distraction of war in SE Asia these would have been sorted out.

I know squadoo about the MICV, but the AH-56 was done in by, among other things, being too technologically aggressive; the MBT70 by making the driver sick by being off center in the turret. The tech problems with the SH-56 could have been solved in time. the MBT70 was kind of a flawed concept at least in that one area.

 

[yeetmahboi]

No JFK, perhaps no test ban treaty, so some of those Nova payloads are *Orions.*

With Orions, could we see more impetus to push mass nuclear power into the grid? That will have exciting consequences for the Navy.

 

[Orionblamblam]

With Orions, could we see more impetus to push mass nuclear power into the grid? That will have exciting consequences for the Navy.

If "no VN" means "no mass hippie-like movement" in the sixties, then the 1970's and beyond would have been much less likely to have been plagued with anti-nuclear activists. Greenpeace was formed about 1970; with no VN activist base to build on, it might have never existed. With reduced anti-nuclear politics, the Three Mile Island accident, had it occurred the same, might have been seen in a saner light as the non-event it truly was.

And if "no VN" was because "no JFK," then ANP might not have been cancelled in March 61. Unlikely that ANP would have resulted in a nuclear powered aircraft anytime soon, but work on the aircraft reactors might have led to, say, commercial thorium reactors in the 70's.

 

[Nicknick]

Imagine, all the phantastic music of the late 60th and early 70th would have never happened....

 

[Pioneer]

I know squadoo about the MICV, but the AH-56 was done in by, among other things, being too technologically aggressive; the MBT70 by making the driver sick by being off center in the turret. The tech problems with the SH-56 could have been solved in time. the MBT70 was kind of a flawed concept at least in that one area.

Orionblamblam, I'm assuming the MICV in question, would be in relation to the MICV-65 program, approved in March 1964. In June 1964 Pacific Car & Foundry was awarded a contract for its Infantrt Combat Vehicle XM701 design.
-The XM701 was based the chassis of the M107/110 SPG.
-The XM-701 had a crew of three (commander, gunner and driver), plus nine infantrymen into the rear compartment.
-Combat loaded, the steel XM701 weighted 54,050 pounds, the aluminum XM701 version 50,750 pounds.
-Armament - a steel two man turret armed with a 20mm M39 auto cannon and a 7.62mm M73 coaxial machine gun.

Nothing came out from the XM-701.
The prototypes were delivered in early 1965, but after a grualling serie of tests, proved to be a disappointment.
The MICV-65 program was eventually terminated, but still ready as a "back up". The MICV-70 program went up to the final M2 Bradley with sixteen years to materlize.

(Note: First pic of XM701 prototype,
Second pic of XM701 pilot model)

(Source: https://tank-afv.com/coldwar/US/XM-701.php)

Regards
Pioneer

 

[1635yankee]

Why no Viet Nam? Because Nixon wins in '60 (he did anyway, but that's another story). With Nixon instead of JFK, no Viet Nam, no Great Society, and Apollo is very likely *very* different. *Perhaps* NASAs directive is changed: instead of getting to the Moon ASAP, the US ends up with a Nova program. Maybe the Russians get to the Moon first, but the US is orbiting million pound payloads by 71 or so. No JFK, perhaps no test ban treaty, so some of those Nova payloads are *Orions.* With a vastly different and much more entrenched space program, the aerospace industry as a whole is kicked into high gear. With that stronger base and a much better economy due to no Great Society moneypits, the US gets SSTs, "battlecruiser" interceptors, high-Mach recon planes.

With a simple change in Presidents in 1960, everything else changes. 1968 almost certainly doesn't have the same raft of political assassinations (and of course there wouldn't be the fairly recent memory of JFK in Dallas). Without those, maybe cities don't burn. Of course, there could be a completely *different* set of assassinations, and even more cities burn. If society is more stable, everybody is richer; VTOL regional/short range jetliners perhaps get off the ground. *Maybe* the OPEC oil embargo doesn't happen and the economy of the 1970s is actually *good,* so SSTs and VTOL jets can be economically successful.

Lots of maybes.

Of course, the cities were burning because of issues simmering since the premature end of Reconstruction. Whether Nixon cared about those issues is moot.

How military programs are affected would include continuation of the AAM above all else that dominated thinking at that time.