The Goldsboro incident will definitely give a greater impetus to nuclear safety, which will carry along to the design and construction of nuclear power plants to make them safer. Like you said, as well, it's reasonable to assume that there will be an increased preoccupation with consumption and therefore more of a preference for organic foods. Personally I'm a GM supporter, so you could consider this a bad thing, but since it also makes nasty stuff less palatable, it will mean a populace that overall eats healthier. Fast food in particular is going to be a lot less... uhhh... unsavoury than IOTL. Conservationism definitely gets a lot more support after Goldsboro, since it reminds mid-20th century Americans something they had largely forgotten: that their wellbeing depends on the wellbeing of their environment around them. The Progressives of course are going to be really keen on this, but within the Republicans and Democrats environmental concerns seem to be based more on regional lines than anything else. Highly-urbanised states like New York will probably be less concerned with environmentalism than states that take more pride in their natural features. Rural areas will probably see themselves and be seen by others as bastions of "natural living". This of course creates some dilemmas for modernism. Does technology really solve all problems or does it create more too? I wouldn't go as far as saying that it will make Americans Luddites, but there may be a certain resurgence of romanticism about the American past, wood cabins and non-wasteful Indians and all that type of thing.
I agree with you about GMOs, and I would go a step further here. This might turn Americans off to irradiated food, which isn't even covered by the GMO controversy and has been going on since at least the 1930s. Okay, it's probably been going on too long to actually get the nation to stop irradiation, but I can see an analogous "labeling" war happening.
But food chain awareness is probably a big win for the nation, as it's going to get the locavore movement going as much as 30 years earlier. A significant fraction of useless shortgrass in the country could be converted to vegetable gardens. It'll make regulating farms much more palatable in the national conscience (it'll probably kill the ethanol boondoggle). It'll probably make it easier to find legislative solutions to problems we're dealing with in the era of climate change, like the California drought. The mercury issue with fish will get more traction here. While breastfeeding vs formula is controversial even today, I'm guessing the NC situation will bankrupt more than a few formula companies.
Promoting conservation in rural areas is huge, as most of the environmentalism comes from urban elites IOTL. That's really going to change the nature of politics in the US. Based on how you phrase it, I would imagine housing and planning would be dramatically different in rural America. It could kill the rise of the exurbs, that's for sure, and even a lot of suburban development in the 1960s might be re-thought. This dovetails nicely with Percy's urban promotion, with a larger percentage of development occurring in relatively urban settings as more and more hurdles are thrown up to protect agricultural and wild lands.
With no Korea or Taiwan, I do wonder if the "Asian Tiger" benefits will then shift to other countries in the region. Might we see a gleaming, First World Thailand, Indonesia, and/or Philippines? Or I guess it could all go to India, which would really be something as well...Definitely less controversial than OTL. Americans don't mind a few pilots or army technicians going filibustering in exotic locale #617, as long as "their boys" aren't being drafted. If you ask most Americans in Stars & Sickles' universe where Laos and Vietnam were, they would have no clue.
The Hmong really got the short straw here. None are resettled in the United States, and they're essentially at the mercy of the Laotians and Vietnamese. Tragically, the outcome is likely to be an extended and unsuccessful low-intensity guerrilla campaign by the Hmong, who will be all but exterminated with no-one in the international community noticing or caring. Those that aren't killed are forced to carry identity cards that point out their ethnicity and what state has jurisdiction over them, but aren't given citizenship, passports etc. Basically it sucks to be among the Hmong. Unfortunately not everyone can be better off ITTL. *wishes there was a cry emoticon*
Shut up and eat your internet cookie. You've earned it Burma is the area I was talking about, although it's quite possible that there may be a degree of Indian interest in the country as well... Not to mention how complicated the ethnic situation there is...
A China-aligned Singapore would be interesting but I doubt it's likelihood. I haven't really decided what to do with Singapore to be honest, I'm thinking that the most likely outcome is for it to kinda be the Asian Switzerland it has been so far: happy to take everyone's money but otherwise not get involved. That's probably in the best interests of all the major powers' trade situation anyway.
Indonesia and the Philippines are also going to be areas where the Chinese seek to project power. Not that they will necessarily be successful doing so. ITTL, China in the 1960s is spinning a lot of plates at once, both at home and abroad, and frankly some of them are going to have to fall. Although their primary revolutionary strategy may change somewhat in the 1970s. Whether that is better or worse for the region is yet to be seen...
And without Cuba, Korea is clearly going to be the place the Soviet Union banks on to humiliate the US at baseball in international competition.I've got to agree with you there. As far as I'm concerned, there were a particular alignment of circumstances which allowed the anomaly of Jucheist North Korea to exist IOTL. These were:
1) Historical Korean "hermit kingdom" experience (counteracted by interaction with the USSR, China, and the wider Asia-Pacific region)
2) The constant presence of US and hostile South Korean forces on the Southern border (less intense with US and Japanese forces over a bit of sea, however narrow that sea is)
3) The Kim Dynasty (obviously done away with)
4) Underlying ideology of Korean supremacy, which arguably is a consequence of or predates Japanese colonisation (counteracted at least partially by greater attention to socialist internationalism)
Basically, whilst South Korea isn't the bustling uber-modern place it is IOTL, there is a lot less wealth disparity and there aren't the excesses of the DPRK we all know and don't love. Still there is going to be a degree of DPRK hard-headedness when it comes to the US and Japan. The Koreans haven't forgiven Japan for the colonial period, and the government is more than willing to give the false impression that the US is supporting their 'lackey'/'pig dog'/*insert derogatory Korean slang and/or communist jargon word here* in a plot to return Korea to the Japanese Empire. After all, in Korean eyes the Japanese can't have anything other than ulterior motives, which strangles Northeast Asian diplomatic normalisation in the crib.
Hmm, that is interesting. And potentially worrying, if you believe that OTL has seen a drastic increase in personal freedom thanks to the rise of democracy and the fall of communism. Personally, I'm always rooting for freedom for the Baltic states.The Korean chapter is supposed to be written in the present tense of Stars & Sickles 2015. And yes, the allusion/implication is that the communist 'bloc' as it's referred to survives, but describing the international situation of the S&S 21st Century isn't going to be as easy as "the communist bloc vs the free world" to say the least.
Whilst you could say that East Asia hasn't been going well for the United States, you could say they haven't had that many big fights in the area either. Obviously you have the US inability to prevent the fall of the Nationalists in mainland China and then Taiwan (one big loss or a big one and a little one, depending how you're counting), Korea kinda slipping away whilst they were distracted, which doesn't concern them and their core interests, and Indochina, where a limp-dicked response by the US hasn't been able to contain determined North Vietnamese attempts to dominate former French Indochina. North Kalimantan was really more of a British/Commonwealth problem than American, and whilst the British lost North Kalimantan to a pro-Indonesian liberation movement, the British did suppress Chin Peng's guerrillas in Malaya, which is staunchly pro-Western. Thailand as well is the single most significant state in Indochina, which is a bulwark of anticommunism and very loyal to US interests (mainly because it gives them an opportunity to get a strong ally against the Vietname... I mean... against communism). Plus the periphery of the Asia Pacific region is allied with the US: Australia, NZ, Dutch New Guinea, Philippines. It could be worse for the Americans.
Also it shouldn't be forgotten that the US have allies in both Pakistan and India, so whilst they may not have a particularly powerful position in East Asia, South Asia is looking very promising. Whilst Dewey lost China, Jackson essentially won India. The US still has a pretty strong international position, with a decent relationship with Latin America and strong involvement with Europe, the "Outer Pacific" and South Asia.
Africa is an interesting one. By interfering in the Nigerian Civil War, the Americans ITTL have already got more directly involved in Africa than they ever have been IOTL. Furthermore, Africa is for both superpowers the "most distant battlefield". The premier Soviet ally on the continent, the Congo, is on an extremely long leash, and more than capable of telling the Russians where to shove it if they don't like Moscow's line. Meanwhile, the most steadfastly anticommunist countries in Africa are the Bight States, who're poised to become the Persian Gulf of Stars & Sickles, and the South Africa/Rhodesia-Nyasaland alliance, which the Americans have to be cautious about supporting as not to undermine their relationship with majority-rule states in Sub-Saharan Africa and touching a nerve with black voters at home. Africa presents something of a conundrum for both sides, especially with a greater number of significant local actors onstage. That's only going to increase in the 70s and 80s.
Well, my desire for the US not to prop up dictators was really just a wish, I don't think it's particularly realistic. But I think they're more likely to adhere to popular will ITTL than IOTL.
By the way Expat, thanks again for commenting. Always great to see feedback and engagement by readers, and you and xt828 not only give plenty of that but actually active assist me in improving this timeline. Once I complete this TL and hopefully turn it into an e-book, you two especially are going to get a special thanks. Much appreciated
A pleasure! You're producing a fascinating read, it's us who should be thanking you!