>>1896557>Technology wasn't there at the timeMars? Moon base? Hell yeah. Nixon cut funding because we had to go to Nam. We had von braun who was active at the time and the NERVA (nuclear rocket with lolhuge delta-V) ready to go.
>MLK was a communist and unfortunately this would have the opposite effect unless you wanted a race warAnd this is why MLK should have benn killed *BEFORE* he could unite the Blacks. You don't kill icons. Duh.
>Soviet Union was already in steady decline at this point due to economic issuesThen what the fuck did we do in Nam or the Gulf?
>It didn't cause thatIn 1930, GM created a presentation about the great car-based future. Fast forward 40 years, and cities look EXACTLY like that. Creepy, isn't it?
>GM wasn't a monopolyBut it was Too Big To Fail. Too big to fail is too big to exist, as we learned in '08.
>cities voluntarily tore up their tramways because buses offered a cheaper, less expensive upkeep and maintenance cost (at the time) unfortunatelyTrue before the 1970s.
>This wouldn't help, the federal ICC and the companies themselves deferring maintenance are largely what killed many rail companies- not unionsAnd the Interstate System built after WW2. Should there were a rail reconstruction program in stead of the interstate system, the modal shift would look differently.
>GM much like Chrysler simply could not have feasibly produced the turbine car. But they could produce the M2 Abrams turbine engine in stead, which is a scaled up version of the Turbine Car's engine. By 66, the Turbine Car was ready for mass production and called the Charger (the actual one had a V8 HEMI engine). This is why the 66 charger had radial, electroluminescent displays. The rpm problems was solved by how we do turboshaft even to this time - the power turbine is separate from the combustion turbine.
