SAD TRIBUTE TO THE YOUNG PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN SENT “THERE” OVER THE YEARS AND ALWAYS QUESTIONS FOR THOSE THAT SENT THEM “THERE.”
Our own Prof. Arthur Lerman! I would add as a preface to his concise book notes, that Piketty translated into English is remarkable in 2 ways: 1. he is very light on economic jargon, 2. is is thick with references to literature and history–as Art says– and not exactly the trend in economic writing these days on this side of the Atlantic.~~ f.l.s.
Author: Valerie Lovo Date: Thursday, April 16, 2015 10:10:17 AM EDT Subject: RE: DISCUSSION 2 COLD WAR 1961-69“I would rather take my television black and white and have the largest rockets in the world.”
A nice provocative quote from JFK. I personally like John F. Kennedy and think that he was a wonderful president, especially during the time of the cold war. He possessed traits that were unseen in any presidency before. Among the quite I chose, there’s too many from JFK that were provocative and quite controversial. I think the statement above that he made was clever and a bit witty as well. At this point in time we have people such as Richard Nixon stating that “we were ahead in color television” and people like JFK ridiculing him. JFK believed that the United States was losing the cold war at that they had gone soft in physical, mental, and spiritual aspects. I like how even in a tense time with the Soviet Union, the president was able to express himself in a free way that was unlike any other. JFK couldn’t have been a better spokesperson for this considering his exuberant charisma and good nature. I believe that the United States had good chances in recovering from their “softness” because they had a leader who was driven.
This is probably unrelated to the Cold War itself, but it is another clever and provocative quote from JFK during the times of the cold war. He states “who gives a sh*t about minimum wage”. Even in foreign affairs president Kennedy proved his toughness. I think this post would be good in describing the people who stated these quotes and their tenure during the cold war. Without a doubt, the cold war was controversial in itself, but the leaders of the world within that time also had their fair shares of controversy.
Frederick Shiels INSTRUCTOR MANAGER
THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO
It is 1975. You are president of the United States. There has been a thaw in relations with the USSR (Nixon) but both side still have about 12,000 nuclear warheads each. Most of these can reach their targets via submarine, bomber, or ICBM within 60-90 minutes. If all of the weapons were launched based on a crisis or, worse, a misperceived attack by one side, the explosive power released would be 1 million times that of the a-bombs dropped on Japan.
Now, think carefully. All of your intelligence services confirm that for some in credible reason, about 1,000 Soviet missiles have been launched and headed for the US. This would average about 20 H-bombs per state, more than enough to end 99.999% of all life in the US. Cities and towns would be burned to a crisp (yes, Alaska, too). The rural areas would received a toxic soup of radiation that would finish off even people in remote areas within a few weeks. As Khrushchev once said, “the survivors would envy the dead”.
Again, You hold the power to act in this very short time. Your country is finished– almost certainly, within 2 hours. Done deal. What do you do?
The answer may not be as easy as it looks, and there may be more than one answer, but probably only one GOOD answer. No penalty for whatever answer you choose. Reward for thought-ful answers.
Author: Andrew Moran Date: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:07:35 PM EDT Subject: RE: THE DOOMSDAY SCENARIO
Drat, the date is 8 years before I could go with Plan A: http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/march-23-1983-reagan-proposes-star-wars-missile-defense-system/ . Particle beams aside…This scenario comes down to “Well, we’re dead so how many people do we take with us?” My first thought would be fire more nukes at the incoming nukes! However that’d kill a lot of people very quickly.
You’d figure the nuclear warheads would meet over the ocean. Well, mission accomplished, sure a lot of dead fish and a lot more unusable water, however we live, right? Nope, first the contaminated water would spread. Also, there were a set of tests called HANE (High-Altitude Nuclear Explosion). The USSR and America wanted to see what would happen if nuclear missiles were used at high altitudes. Turns out it results in a much bigger and quicker spreading explosion and the radiation spreads faster and travels much greater distances.
I bring this up because this means we’re all dead anyway if I go with this option. The warheads would meet and explode in the air and then kill us and most likely anyway.
Plan two, Launch our nuclear weapons and take Russia out. This means countries next to them would also be effected, so goodbye China, Ukraine, and Poland.
Plan three, flee the country and leave my citizens unaware of the threat until they all die. Let’s just scrap this idea right now.
Plan four, attempt to open diplomatic channels with the USSR and hope they disarm the warheads and let us live.
I think I’d go with plan five. Launch 10,758 nuclear warheads at Russia. Then divide the remaining 1,242 warheads and launch three at each countries capital, two in their most populated area, and lastly ten into the moon because at this point, why not? I’d leave Canada alone, this is simply because this is my hypothetical and I like moose. Now every country (besides the moose-rich Canada) has two hours to talk to each other and come about a peaceful solution that doesn’t mean the end of earth. I’d call this my bigger stick policy. Where I run loudly and carry a large nuclear stockpile and all of my warheads have a single stick painted on them.
This would mean either everyone disarms their nuclear stockpiles or we all die (except the moose). While this goes on I would inform my citizens. This would cause one of two results. First, they all do as we, the government have taught them and run to the nearest school and hide under their desks and we all know desks stop nuclear warheads. Second, mass looting and panic. At least I can say I’m honest and up front with the people of my country.
Really droll and provocative, Andrew and I won’t show all my cards at once. I may need to read through this again but I want to stress: 1. It is not what the president does With Himself that is the point (think Henry Fonda, FAILSAFE) but what he does as president on behalf of the country and the World/Mankind., 2. Help me understand the benefit of the pinpoint targeting of the USSR to take out an additional 200 million or so lives, or, more likely, ensure that 90% of the World’s population will die fast or worse slow deaths. Just checkin’. Good work.
p.s. absent a technology you don’t mention, there is close to zero chance that any warheads would meet and explode in the air. Just as when the Andromeda and Milky Way galaxies collide in 4 billion years, the is almost no chance that any 2 stars will collide (law of large numbers/distances).
pps right, scrap #3 because the President could not make it much past the White House heli-pad before the nukes hit the fan
scrap # 4 because they no can disarm missiles in the air in 1975 (reliably, if Ever), much less open up diplo- channels.
To ask these questions is to answer them. And when we considered that the poor child in the United States is better off than two thirds of the world’s population, we must consider that most of the world’s people live in a condition of deprivation so extreme that they must be considered to have almost no opportunities at all. They are almost as condemned as a person on death row in a Texas prison.
Strong words? Yes. Mr. Yates would not back down from a single one of them, nor would we. Please let us know what You think.
This article originally appeared in U.S. News & World Report
In response to a heightened Russian presence among the rebels in eastern Ukraine in recent months, some of the country’s most prominent foreign policy experts have argued that the U.S. should provide lethal assistance to Ukraine. In line with deterrence theory, they advocate sharply increasing U.S. lethal and nonlethal military aid to Kiev to prevent new gains by the rebels, deter Russian expansion elsewhere and compel a peace agreement. Indeed, the threat of arming Ukrainian soldiers with U.S. weapons may have been a factor in producing the cease-fire agreement reached in Minsk this week.
Calls to arm Ukraine have helped to galvanize diplomatic efforts to find a solution to the crisis, and over the longer term, the Ukrainian Army will need more weapons and better training, if only to enforce any peace agreement. However, sending large-scale lethal aid to Ukraine also raises three risks that should be weighed against the potential benefits of deterring the Kremlin.
First, rather than undermining Russian President Vladimir Putin by turning public opinion against him, arming Ukraine may have the opposite effect. The advocates of arming Ukraine are correct to suggest that Putin is constrained by public opinion. The Kremlin has always closely monitored public opinion as it is far easier to be a popular (rather than an unpopular) autocrat. Moreover, there is little public support for using Russian troops in Ukraine – that is whyjournalists who report on Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine have been beaten, and the Kremlin continues to deny involvement in Ukraine against vast evidence to the contrary.
Calls to arm Ukraine have helped to galvanize diplomatic efforts to find a solution to the crisis, and over the longer term, the Ukrainian Army will need more weapons and better training, if only to enforce any peace agreement.
If Russian bodies come home at the hands of Ukrainians, most Russians may see it is a tragedy. But if U.S. arms are seen as the cause, Russians may rally around Putin and in favor of a harder line toward Ukraine. Last week a national sample of Russians was asked: What is going on in Ukraine?” Only 3 percent called the events in Ukraine a “Western provocation.” Most respondents called it a civil war (50 percent), anarchy (17 percent) or genocide/terror (17 percent). The same survey found that 67 percent of respondents were against introducing troops into Ukraine, only 20 percent in favor, and 13 percent undecided – results little changed over the last nine months. Despite a blistering campaign of war hysteria directed against the government in Kiev and its supporters in Washington, few Russians favor sending troops to the region. But with anti-American sentiment in Russia running high, sending U.S. weapons to Ukraine risks turning public opinion in favor of introducing Russian troops and freeing Putin from this constraint.
Second, sending arms now raises military risks as well. Ukrainian solders are fighting valiantly, but the Ukrainian army itself is in disarray, and it is unclear that the weapons will be used effectively. Kiev is losing the war not primarily because they lack anti-tank weapons, but due to disorganization, fragmentation and poor communications. Moreover, weapons will not likely arrive for several months, which will give the rebels and their Russian supporters incentives to escalate the conflict before the weapons arrive. A worst-case scenario for the Obama administration would be to arm the Ukrainians only to have the weapons be used ineffectively or end up in the hands of the rebels.
If the weapons do impose costs on the separatist armies and their Russian backers, Moscow has myriad options to raise the stakes. Before sending weapons, the U.S. and its allies should be sure that they are willing to match a likely next round of escalation. As Raj Menon asks: What’s Plan B? Would the U.S. provide more weapons? Would these be any more effective? Would sending arms simply prolong the conflict as some studies suggest? These questions are important because eastern Ukraine likely matters more to Russia than to the U.S. and its allies. Backing down after providing arms may cause greater damage to the credibility of Europe and the U.S. than not providing arms at all.
Many have argued that providing lethal aid to Ukraine will demonstrate resolve and deter Russia from its expansionist aims in Ukraine and elsewhere. While Putin may harbor dreams of recreating a Russian empire, he has come to them under pressure, and not from a position of strength. Talk of Novorossiya has faded. If territorial expansion were the prime objective, the Kremlin likely would have struck much deeper into Ukraine with much larger numbers earlier in the crisis when the Ukrainian government was in even greater disarray. Moreover, creating and defending a land bridge from Donetsk to the Crimea is not an easy task. And as Mark Kramer notes, Russia has sought to create similar beachheads of illegality and coercion in Central Asia, the Caucasus and Moldova over the last 20 years, but has not gone much beyond that. Some form of special status for Donetsk and Luhansk within Ukraine – as odious as it is – might serve Moscow well enough. For what it is worth, recent survey evidence from Donetsk and Luhansk suggests that this is the outcome preferred by most residents in the separatist enclaves.
If the U.S. begins running a proxy war on Russia’s border – and make no mistake that would be the result – it is important that the Europeans go along.
Third, and most important, sending lethal aid to Ukraine at this time risks fracturing the alliance of Western nations who have borne considerable economic and political costs to pressure the Kremlin. The best argument for sending lethal weapons to Ukraine is that this will signal the resolve of the Western alliance, but this argument holds only if Europe and the U.S. hang together.
If the U.S. begins running a proxy war on Russia’s border – and make no mistake that would be the result – it is important that the Europeans go along. This will be difficult as some NATO and EU members have expressed skepticism about extending economic sanctions against Russia – let alone sending weapons to Ukraine.
If the alliance of Western nation splits, economic sanctions against Russia would end at the earliest possible convenience and Ukraine’s dream of joining the EU would evaporate as some EU members will surely fault it for not accepting a political deal with Russia. Before sending weapons, it is important for the Obama administration to ensure that doing so will not endanger the alliance. Putin is playing not just for influence in Ukraine. A far greater victory for Moscow would be to generate deep and lasting fissures within NATO and the European Union.
The choices for the Obama administration are bad. The choices for the Ukrainian government are worse. The economy is near collapse, the state is in tatters, and the war has exacerbated these problems. Should the cease-fire scheduled to begin on Sunday fail, as many expect it will, the Obama administration will face a very difficult choice about arming Ukraine that should be weighed carefully against these risks.
This article originally appeared in U.S. News & World Report
The speech got quite a bit of press attention, and I am interested in the reactions of my readers. NPR.ORG Feb. 15, 2015
original URL is http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/02/12/385777366/a-black-mississippi-judges-breathtaking-speech-to-three-white-murderers?utm_source=npr_email_a_friend&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20150215&utm_campaign=storyshare&utm_term=
Hector Correa is a 22 year army veteran and JROTC instructor. He served in Korea and Bosnia among other deployments. He is also a student in my AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY course. fls
This is a disturbing story on how Brian Williams, an anchor man on NBC misled the American people when he falsely reported that his helicopter was shot at while he was in Iraq. This article on the attached website is from a psychiatrist’s view of what he thinks of the situation.
“I have never evaluated Brian Williams, but this question could be asked: Why wasn’t the truth about each of the stories that Williams seems to have embellished enough? What leads a man to make him look even more courageous than the courage he displayed? What leads a man to cast himself as the leading man in dramas that course through even greater dangers than the very real perils that unfolded?”
Of course the next question is what else has he lied about? This is a person who is viewed by millions of people every day and to be so irresponsible in the information he puts out should be a crime. People like this in the media carry a lot of influence and must be held accountable for their actions. The article goes on discussing the psychiatrist’s analysis on why he thinks Brian Williams did it. The psychiatrist main point is that Mr. Williams wanted to be a part of something big that he could only dream of, but probably never experience.