Chapter 2: Strategic Defense, Phony Facts, & the Creation of the George C. Marshall Institute In the late 1970s and early 19080s Edward Teller and Robert Jastrow led the way to strategic defense. They thought the Soviet had greater capabilities than they knew, and it was important to continue maintaining and expanding their nuclear weapon stockpile. They defended the SDI concepts to build an effective defensive system against the Soviet. In June of 1976 CIA director Bush approved the formation of three independent review panels. One panel was to review the Soviet missile accuracy, the second was to review the Soviet air defense capabilities and the third was to review Soviet “Strategic Objectives.” These panels were known as the “Team B.” In Jastrow accused the authors of TTAPS of ignoring the effects of the oceans and the fact that smoke would rain out. However, TTAPS did mention both circumstances and Jastrow was misrepresenting their work to suggest they intentionally downplayed elements that could lessen the impact. In 1986 Russell Seitz declared nuclear winter was dead because of its lack of scientific integrity. He summarily dismissed the models as bad science and said the TTAPS model “’postulated a featureless bone-dry billiard ball (instead of a realistic Earth) ... (and) instead of a realistic smoke emission, it simply dumped a ten-mile thick soot cloud into the atmosphere instantly.’” Seitz made sure that nuclear winter had been diminished to “’a barely autumnal inclemency.’” He later expanded his attack to encompass all science and the scientific establishment itself, and insisted that scientists had betrayed the public’s trust. Seitz said the scientific establishment was controlled by the liberal agenda. R. Seitz broad against science were promoted by business-oriented journal. However, if science took the side of regulation then the science Jastrow,
A similar message that appears in his book that appeared in the aforementioned speech was the impact of the media speculation. The book addresses this in two examples. One was presented with the news of a lawsuit that an island called Vantu would file against the EPA; yet the lawsuit would never move forward due to it only serving a purpose to launder money and raise awareness to global warming that was never proven to affect the island. The other was shown to be environmental scientist who received their funding from environmental organizations, such as NERF in the book. These scientists would often have to go against their findings and report what the organizations wanted them to, or possibly lose their funding. Additionally, the book profoundly took opposition to the claim of global warming. This is presented in the form of the main character, Peter Evans, who has been manipulated into believing everything that the media has told him about global warming. It isn’t until John Kenner is introduced, that Peter begins got learn the truth about global warming. The author uses specific evidence to back his claims, specifically he uses a wide array of resources to verify his claim that Antarctica is not in fact melting, but getting colder and thickening. Furthermore, another essential concept that that book introduces is environmental extremists, or bioterrorism. These characters in the book would stop at nothing to make sure that everyone believed in global warming, and tried to destroy parts of the world to succeed in their mission. Bioterrorists are best represented as a warning of what could happen if people continue to buy into the media’s lies without having conclusive evidence to back up their
When this finding infringes on someone’s lifestyle or corporate interests, the reaction to the discovery becomes unfavorable. A contributing factor to the rejection of scientific findings is directly related to political affiliation. Since the 1970s, conservatives have experienced a continuous decay of trust in the scientific community. By 2010, the contrasting trust in the scientific community has become more evident, with liberals retaining more trust in them and conservatives reducing theirs. Climate science has contributed greatly to this conflict.
Lindzen begins his piece by asserting that there isn't, and never will be, static, unchanging climates on planets with fluid envelopes. Throughout this article, he ponders why there has been an increase in alarm over climate change in the past few years. At the beginning of the article, he states that the increase in alarm is because the public has become scientifically illiterate, which, in turn, makes them more susceptible to being taken advantage of by people of higher status. He continues on by saying that the panic over climate change is falsely placed and that the climate is and has constantly been changing over time. He gives supportive examples of this through climate changing events that have occurred throughout the centuries. Also, according to Lindzen, findings on climate change are problematic because they are based on computer models. He claims that the data conflicts with the models, and that scientists “correct” the data to agree with the models, which points to some level of corruption in climate science. Although Lindzen does give reasons that he believes climate change may be over exaggerated, he keeps going back to another reason. Throughout the article, he ind...
This investigation will be an evaluation of President Kennedy’s Executive Committee and the repercussions of the decisions made during the thirteen days of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Tape recordings and files had been deemed classified, but these files are now released and the decisions made by the government can be assessed to the fullest extent. This can produce major implications regarding the relationship between what was then the Soviet Union and the United States. The public was kept in the dark about several courses of action, including the removal of American missiles and many other surprising judgment calls that may be a cause of international security between the two country’s today.
He includes references from scientists with different backgrounds and public statements from government officials to support the claims that he made. Not only that, Scranton is a doctoral candidate in English at Princeton University, and he has written for The New York Times, Boston Review, and Theory & Event. Also, Scranton has published a novel about the Iraq war. His achievements and academic background certainly increase his credibility. His scientific and political sources add to his credibility even more so. The examples included in the logos paragraph is only a representation of the evidence featured in his article hence the use of the plural version of scientists and government officials in this essay. Even though Dr. Scranton has credible sources, he does fail to consider a portion of UTA readers. He mentions that the “question is no longer whether global warming exists” but instead questions how we are going to deal with it (par. 9). As a result, Scranton ignores the readers that might not believe in global warming; he does not recognize this small audience in his article, and as a consequence, readers might find Scranton to be slightly arrogant. Despite the failure to acknowledge this alternate view, Scranton does have the public’s interests at heart. The purpose of the article is to convince readers to take action and help save humanity
Sherwin, M. (1973). The atomic bomb and the origins of the cold war. American Historical Review, 78: 1-7.
It all started with the “Hungarian conspiracy” it had everyone convinced that the creation of a nuclear bomb possible, but that the German government was already doing research in this field of study and on such a weapon. To the rest of the world, the thought of Adolf Hitler might be the first to gain control of a weapon this destructiveness would be terrifying to the United States. Right, then they decided that the administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt must be warned about the dangers and that the United States must begin its research department.As the planned gave way, Einstein was to write a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt about the possibilities and dangers of the atomic weapons, and later was taken to the president.Einsteins appointment was easy to get in te late summer of 1939. Hitler had just invaded Poland .and the war had just begun in Europe.After speaking with the President, he gathered his cabinet. and wanted to speak with his chief aide, after talking with him a small committee was set up called ...
...d to say about the soviets. In 1983 the world was shocked when they heard about Ronald Reagan's idea. The thought it was something that you see movies and cannot be done. In 1984 the funding for the multibillion-dollar project began. The Soviets could not politically and financially keep up with United States and were forced to reduce their missiles the 50%. Also, the idea of the defense system influenced other presidents and gave them the idea of how America could better be protected. This event still impacts the United States today because the idea is still being used for protection against enemy countries missile attacks. President Barack Obama used this idea by proposing a defense system in the Czech Republic to guarding against Iran. The strategic defense initiative could have very well saved the United States and Soviet Union from a nuclear war in the 1980s.
After Field's arrival in Chicago he received a job with Cooley, Wadsworth and Company, one of the largest stores in the city during the time. Eventually, he reached one of the top positions in the company as a junior partner. 5 years later, Field and one of his partners at Cooley, Levi Leiter, went into business with one of their competitors Potter Palmer. His first year in Chicago, Field was earning an average yearly salary for the time, $400. He slept in the Cooley store where he worked, to save money. After Leiter, Palmer, and Field joined forces and Field began to develop his own brand, Field was worth more than $250,000.
Weiler, Lawrence D. The Arms Race, Secret Negotiations and the Congress, Iowa: The Stanley Foundation, 1976.
... army of the enemy and the capacities they had. Although US intelligence said they had improved their efficiency so another Pearl Harbor doesn’t happen again, the true is that there are still imperfections on the structure of the agencies, and the rival relationship between those, makes things worse.
Nitze urged the U.S. Government to use military power, but this was due to his history of being a doer and his experience in Japan after the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Kennan strongly favored diplomacy over military action, this being due to his quiet upbringing in the Midwest and his first hand knowledge of living in Russia and knowing that military action would not stop Stalin. As tensions grew between the United States and the Soviet Union, Nitze continued to strongly favor military power and as a participant in the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks/Treaty (SALT) conferences he fear continued to grow because he believed the Soviets would be the first to attack as their forces grew. When he failed to come to an agreement with the government he led the foundation of the Committee on Public Danger in 1976 and critiqued SALT II due to it’s ineffectiveness. Being more of a political philosopher, Kennan saw the Soviet Union as a political threat and not the military threat that Nitze saw it as. Kennan believed that Nitze’s preoccupation with the fear of the Soviets being the first to launch a missile was undershot, and that we needed to be more worried about the nuclear arms race that he believed was the only true threat of the Cold
Millett is the senior author of For the Common Defense. He worked on it for three editions during the last thirty or more years. The book started when Millett was a student in the American military history class taught by Harry L. Coles at Ohio State University (Millett et al., v). He also served three years in the Marine Corps and an infantry officer. After some time teaching at the University of Missouri-Columbia, Millett went on to be a teacher as an alumnus at the Ohio State University. He “inherited” the American Military class he once took from his former teacher. Given the fact that Millett was a formerly involved in American military and his experience as an American military professor at two universities makes him a very reliable source for the
... and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems." U.S. Department of State. U.S. Department of State, n.d. Web. 06 May 2014.