DOCSLIB.ORG

Harvard International Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Harvard International Review Harvard International Review What is Nuclear Superiority? Author(s): Robert Bathurst, Albert Carnesale, Richard Garwin, Stanley Hoffmann, Steve Miller, Joseph Nye, Richard Pipes, Bruce Porter, Scott Thompson and Adam Ulam Source: Harvard International Review, Vol. 3, No. 1 (SEPTEMBER 1980), p. 1, 14 Published by: Harvard International Review Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/42762057 Accessed: 30-12-2015 22:00 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Harvard International Review is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Harvard International Review. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:00:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions HARVARD INTERNATIONAL REVIEWm Ě mm w W m mam W W September i980, volume 3, number i recentmonths, we haveseen Secretary of Defense interestswere challenged with conventional forces by the Harold Brown warn that our land-basedInter- Soviet Union on a numberof occasions, and those continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) are challengescontinued during the entireperiod of Soviet vulnerable to Soviet attack, the ratification inferiority. In of the second Strategic Arms Limitation Apparently,there is a dimensionof nuclearsuperiority Treaty(SALT) languishin the Senate,President Jimmy whichdoes notháve to do withnumbers or throwweight; Carter'sDirective 59 emphasizecounterforce targeting, ithas to do withmen's minds. There is an Americanway of and theRepublican platform call for some form of military thinking,and it demands specificanswers to such superiority.All theseevents direct our attentionto two questionsas the one posed in the symposium."Who is importantquestions: What is nuclearsuperiority? What is ahead?" and "How muchdoes it cost?"seem absolutely its militaryand politicalimportance? The International essential to our comprehension.For example, at Review solicitedbrief re- enormous expense and sponsesto thesequestions waste of manpower,the froma group of Harvard Central Intelligence A- professors and fellows gency must describethe with a broad range of cost of the Soviet mili- viewpoints.Their responses tarybudget with a perfectly constitutethis year'sIR What meaninglessfigure because symposium. Congresscannot function withoutit. America'smor- ale could not Robert probably survive very negative Bathurst: is answersto thesequestions. In any case, we would The answerto thissym- soon havea newpresident. posium's inquiryis that (Rememberthat John F. no one knows and that Kennedywas electedwith of a fictitious even if we could say to- Nuclear the aid day that it is X2,tomor- missilegap.) row it would be different. This affectsour foreign For one thing,nuclear su- relationsas well. A per- periorityis a stateof mind. vasive perceptionabroad France,for example, has a of American weakness force de frappe that Superiority? would unravelwhat is left is distinctlyinferior, but of worldorder. The results finds sufficientsecurity of this perception of in otherways to eschewan i i weakness are something activerole in the North At- thatwe are destinedto ex- Robert Bathurst/Albert Carnesale/Richard lanticTreaty Organization. perience,so itseems, in the Hoffmann/Steve To complicate the Garwin/Stanley Miller/Joseph 1980s,so we may all find question,nuclear superior- Nye/Richard Pipes/Bruce Porter/Scott outthe answer to theques- ity changes relative to Thompson/Adam Ulam tion posed in this sym- technical and scientific posium. achievements,economic strength, and industrialcapacity. Anotheraspect of the question that we have to deal with We gavethe Soviets superiority in SALT I becausewe told is thenature and relevanceof war because that is whatwe themthat we wereahead of themin severalimportant are really discussing.There are now tactical nuclear ways.This condition changed in lessthan six months.The weapons, chemicalwarheads, and biologicalweapons. criticalfactors of changein weaponsare notjust thoseof New technologynow enables us to solverather simply and speed, distatice,accuracy, and numbers.They are also quicklymany formerly complex military problems. For electro-optical,related to warningtimes, decision-making example, a small force can disable and in two days capacity,courage, resoluteness, and perception.So whatit confiscatean aircraftcarrier. One shell can eliminate comes down to is thatnuclear superiority is not greatly masseddivisions of armoredtroops. differentfrom other kinds of militarysuperiority in the Thereare manywho thinkthat the best way of dealing recentpast. At the end of World War II, forexample, althoughthe UnitedStates had nuclearsuperiority, its (continuedon page 14) This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:00:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions to damage theSoviet Union to an extentunacceptable to its leaders.For thispurpose, it mattersnot whetherthe U.S. forceislarger or smallerthan the Soviet force. What Symposium mattersmost is whetherthe Americannuclear forces, afterabsorbing a preemptiveattack, could delivera retaliatoryblow of sufficientenormity to discouragethe (continuedfrom page 1) would-beinitiator of theexchange. Extended deterrence also restsupon thecapability of thesurviving U.S. force withthis terrible game is toannounce that you will not play ratherthan upon a comparisonbetween our forcesand it. Those peopledo notread Russian. They live in a world theirs. of theirown fantasy,a schizophrenicworld. History does Escalation controlcan be achievedin eitherof two notpermit us to takethat course. Like slave-gladiators, we ways. Deny the adversarymilitary superiority at every are pushedinto the arena. levelof conflict- an expensiveif not unattainablegoal. My answeris not intellectuallyneat, but then neither is Alternatively,maintain the capability to threatencredibly history. □ to escalatethe conflict from a levelat whichthe adversary has a usefulmilitary advantage to oneat whichit does not. Damage limitationand war-fightingcapabilities are RobertBathurst is an associateof theRussian Research enhancedas the size and qualityof our nuclearforces Centerat Harvard University. increasein relationto the size and qualityof theirs. However,the improvementsobtainable are marginalat best.We knowof no plausibleimprovements inAmerican nuclear forces which could nullifyor even decrease substantiallythe Soviet Union's ability to inflict enormouslevels of damage to theterritory, forces, and Albert Carnesale : populationof the UnitedStates. Nor could the Soviet Union preventus frominflicting comparable levels of damageon itssociety. The notionof "winning" a nuclear To understandthe importanceof America'snuclear war is a subjectfor philosophersrather than defense forces,consider first the purposes which they are intended analysts. to serve.There appear to be at least six such purposes: Finallywe come to thepolitical sufficiency criterion for basic deterrence,extended deterrence, escalation control, establishingthe requiredlevels of nuclearforces. Surely damage limitation,warfighting, and politicalsufficiency. superiorityby any measureis morelikely than inferiority By basic deterrencewe meandeterrence, by meansof a to meetthe test of politicalsufficiency - a testcommonly crediblethreat of a devastatingretaliatory^ blow, of any applied both in Washingtonand in Moscow. But both nuclear attack upon the United States. Extended sides are unlikelysimultaneously to considertheir own deterrenceis the extensionof this "umbrella"of basic forcessuperior. A race for"mutual superiority" has no deterrenceto cover attacksupon our allies and others finishline: therecan be no winners.Either both sides whose securityis importantto us. Escalation control eventuallywill settle for some kind of "rough equivalence" requiresthe ability to denyan adversaryany advantage in ofnuclear forces or bothsides will lose the race, and much raisingthe level of hostility in an armedconflict. Damage more. □ limitationrefers to the destructionof, and/or defense against,an adversary'sforces in orderto limitthe extent of damage to the U.S. and its allies. A war-fighting AlbertCarnesale was recentlyappointed Chairman of the capabilitywould enable us to conducta nuclearwar, NuclearRegulatory Commission. preferablywith an outcomeno moreunfavorable to us thanto our adversary. Politicalsufficiency is the fuzziest, yet perhaps the most effective,of thejustifications offered in recentyears for thecontinued growth of our nucleararsenal. There is no generallyaccepted measure of "sufficiency,"political or otherwise,and viewsinevitably will differ on "How much Richard L. Garwin: is enough?" Yet, most foreignpolicy analystswould expect the U.S. to be at a politicaldisadvantage if the Americannuclear arsenal were substantially smaller than Logically,"nuclear superiority" might be whateverwe thatof the Soviet Union. say it is; the question should be, rather,"Under any If nuclearsuperiority is to mean anything,or to be reasonableinterpretation ofthe term 'nuclear superiority,' worthanything, it mustenhance our abilityto meetthe is such a capabilityof value?" objectivesserved by our nuclear forces. Basic deterrence is I havealways felt that the Soviet Union would destroy accomplishedby a survivablenuclear force large enough theUnited States if it could do so withouthazard to itself 14 HARVARD INTERNATIONAL REVIEW This content downloaded from 128.103.149.52 on Wed, 30 Dec 2015 22:00:50 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Never Say Never Again Ariel E. Levite Nuclear Reversal Revisited
    Never Say Never Again Never Say Never Again Ariel E. Levite Nuclear Reversal Revisited A serious gap exists in scholarly understanding of nuclear proliferation. The gap derives from inade- quate attention to the phenomena of nuclear reversal and nuclear restraint as well as insufªcient awareness of the biases and limitations inherent in the em- pirical data employed to study proliferation. This article identiªes “nuclear hedging” as a national strategy lying between nuclear pursuit and nuclear roll- back. An understanding of this strategy can help scholars to explain the nu- clear behavior of many states; it can also help to explain why the nightmare proliferation scenarios of the 1960s have not materialized. These insights, in turn, cast new light on several prominent proliferation case studies and the unique role of the United States in combating global proliferation. They have profound implications for engaging current or latent nuclear proliferants, underscoring the centrality of buying time as the key component of a non- proliferation strategy. The article begins with a brief review of contemporary nuclear proliferation concerns. It then takes stock of the surprisingly large documented universe of nuclear reversal cases and the relevant literature.1 It proceeds to examine the empirical challenges that bedeviled many of the earlier studies, possibly skew- ing their theoretical findings. Next, it discusses the features of the nuclear reversal and restraint phenomena and the forces that inºuence them. In this context, it introduces and illustrates an alternative explanation for the nu- clear behavior of many states based on the notion of nuclear hedging. It draws on this notion and other inputs to reassess the role that the United States At the time this article was written, Ariel E.
    [Show full text]
  • In the News Health and Nutrition
    www. universityofcalifornia.edu UC: Serving California through education, research and public service Vol. 17, No. 1, July 2006 The following is a glimpse of Tech prize … Shuji Nakamura, a UC Santa Barbara some recent achievements by the professor of materials and of electrical and computer faculty, staff and students of the engineering, has been awarded the 2006 Millennium Technology Prize for his invention of revolutionary new light University of California and the sources: blue, green, and white light-emitting diodes and the national laboratories managed blue laser diode. The Millennium Technology Prize, which by the university. includes a cash prize of one million Euros (approximately $1.3 million), is the world’s biggest technology award and recognizes outstanding technological achievement. IN THE NEWS Largest gift … Two long-time Riverside couples are HEALTH AND NUTRITION collaborating on the largest gift ever to UC Riverside. The Alzheimer’s breakthrough … Researchers at UC Riverside $15.5-million planned gift from the charitable trusts of Bart and colleagues have found evidence that weakened or and Barbara Singletary and William and Toby Austin will be suppressed immune responses may be responsible for used to create 22 professorships in social sciences, medical Alzheimer’s disease and that boosting the immune system education and research, and agriculture. This will nearly of Alzheimer’s mice with cells from normal mice causes double the number of endowed professorships at UCR. dramatic improvement in learning and memory. The William Austin and Bart Singletary were partners for 35 years findings, by Douglas Ethell, assistant professor in UCR’s in William Austin Co., a property management firm, now biomedical sciences division, and colleagues, were based on a owned by Singletary’s son, Chris, and William Austin.
    [Show full text]
  • UCLA University Archives. Subject Files (Reference Collection)
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8v1266j No online items University Archives. Subject Files (Reference Collection). 1881- Finding aid prepared by University Archives staff, 2012 September; finding aid revised by cbbrown, 2013 March; machine-readable finding aid created by Katharine Lawrie, 2013 June; additional EAD encoding revision by Caroline Cubé. UCLA Library Special Collections Room A1713, Charles E. Young Research Library Box 951575 Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1575 (310) 825-4988 [email protected] Online findinga aid last updated 30 March 2017. University Archives. Subject Files 746 1 (Reference Collection). 1881- Title: UCLA University Archives. Subject files (Reference Collection). Collection number: 746 Contributing Institution: UCLA Library Special Collections Language of Material: English Physical Description: 40.0 linear ft. Date: 1881- Abstract: Record Series 746 contains information on academic programs, buildings, events, and organizations affiliated with: the Los Angeles State Normal School (LASNS), 1881-1919; the University of California, Southern Branch, 1919-1926; and the University of California, Los Angeles, 1927- . The contents of the Subject Files (Reference Collection) include: reports, statistical data, histories of academic departments, organization charts, pamphlets, and other miscellaneous items. Creator: UCLA University Archives. Conditions Governing Access COLLECTION STORED OFF-SITE AT SRLF: Open for research. All requests to access special collections materials must be made in advance through our electronic paging system using the "Request items" button. Publication Rights Copyright of portions of this collection has been assigned to The Regents of the University of California. The UCLA University Archives can grant permission to publish for materials to which it holds the copyright.
    [Show full text]
  • When Are Arms Races Dangerous? When Are Arms Races Charles L
    When Are Arms Races Dangerous? When Are Arms Races Charles L. Glaser Dangerous? Rational versus Suboptimal Arming Are arms races dan- gerous? This basic international relations question has received extensive at- tention.1 A large quantitative empirical literature addresses the consequences of arms races by focusing on whether they correlate with war, but remains divided on the answer.2 The theoretical literature falls into opposing camps: (1) arms races are driven by the security dilemma, are explained by the rational spiral model, and decrease security, or (2) arms races are driven by revisionist adversaries, explained by the deterrence model, and increase security.3 These Charles L. Glaser is a Professor in the Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies at the Uni- versity of Chicago. For their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article, the author would like to thank James Fearon, Michael Freeman, Lloyd Gruber, Chaim Kaufmann, John Schuessler, Stephen Walt, the anonymous reviewers for International Security, and participants in seminars at the Program on In- ternational Security Policy at the University of Chicago, the Program on International Political Economy and Security at the University of Chicago, the John M. Olin Institute at Harvard Univer- sity, and the Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia. He also thanks John Schuessler for valuable research assistance. 1. The pioneering study is Samuel P. Huntington, “Arms Races: Prerequisites and Results,” Public Policy, Vol. 8 (1958), pp. 41–86. Historical treatments include Paul Kennedy, “Arms-Races and the Causes of War, 1850–1945,” in Kennedy, Strategy and Diplomacy, 1870–1945 (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983); and Grant T.
    [Show full text]
  • Media Outlets Media Information
    Duis nibh ex exer si bla at acil iril etum zzril ex el in ver illaore MEDIA INFORMATION PRESS CREDENTIALS practice schedules. Arrangements to UCLA campus at the corner of Bellagio Media and photography credentials for attend practice must be made in advance and DeNeve Drive. Use above directions UCLA home games may be obtained by through the sports information offi ce. There to reach campus, but exit the 405 Freeway working press only by writing or calling Amy will be no availability on gamedays prior onto Sunset Boulevard. Travel east on Hughes at the UCLA Sports Information to competition. Post game interviews at Sunset to Bellagio Drive, which is just east of Offi ce, PO Box 24044, Los Angeles, CA UCLA’s Easton Stadium are conducted Veteran Ave. (approx. 1 mile from freeway) 90024, (310) 206-8123; email: asymons@ in the home bullpen following the team and before the Westwood Blvd. entrance to ucla.edu. All requests should be submitted meeting. Please contact Amy Hughes in the campus. Turn right onto Bellagio, then right at least 24 hours in advance. Press and sports information department to schedule onto DeNeve Drive to enter parking lot 11. photo credentials can be picked up at the all interviews. The entrance to Easton Stadium is on the entrance gate. northeast corner of Bellagio and DeNeve. TRAVEL INFORMATION Parking can be purchased at lot 11 on game PHOTOGRAPHY For security purposes, the UCLA Sports days, or at the parking kiosk located at the Television and photo credentials entitle Information Offi ce does not release to the Westwood Plaza entrance to campus.
    [Show full text]
  • International Security at Twenty-ªve the Modern ªeld of International Security Studies Is Roughly Half a Century Old
    International Security at Steven E. Miller Twenty-ªve From One World to Another International Security at Twenty-ªve The modern ªeld of international security studies is roughly half a century old. It emerged after World War II and took hold in the 1950s.1 The journal International Security has spanned half that period, having now completed twenty-ªve years of publica- tion. During that time, the world and the ªeld have changed dramatically. We are not in the habit of utilizing the pages of this journal for introspective or self-referential ruminations, but it seems appropriate to mark the passage of a quarter-century with some reºections on the history of the journal, the evolu- tion of the ªeld within which it operates, and the altered world that the ªeld seeks to understand, explain, and perhaps even inºuence. Here, the aim is sim- ply to sketch suggestive snapshots of then and now, in the hope of conveying the magnitude and character of the changes that a quarter of a century has wrought. This exercise provides the opportunity to revisit some of the issues and articles that have justiªed and animated the pages of International Security over its ªrst twenty-ªve years.2 The Origins and Conception of International Security Nearly thirty years ago, then-President of the Ford Foundation McGeorge Bundy launched a major initiative to promote university-based research and Steven E. Miller is Editor-in-Chief of International Security and Director of the International Security Program at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the John F.
    [Show full text]
  • CSIA Occasional Paper Series a Primer for the Nuclear Age Edited by Graham T Allison, Jr
    CSIA Occasional Paper Series A Primer for the Nuclear Age Edited by Graham T Allison, Jr. Robert D. Black will Albert Carnesale Joseph S. Nye, Jr. Robert P. Beschel, Jr. Copyright © 1990 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College University Press of America Inc. 4720 Boston Way Lanham, Maryland 20706 3 Henrietta Street London WC2E 8LU England All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America British Cataloging in Publication Information Available Co-published by arrangement with the Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Primer for the nuclear age / Graham T. Allison, Jr.... [et-al.], editors. p. cm. , (CSIA occasional paper ; no. 6) 1. United States-Military policy. 2. Nuclear weapons-- United States. 3. Nuclear warfare. 4. Nuclear disarmament-United States. I. Allison, Graham T. II. Series. UA23.P69 1990 355'.033573--dc20 89-70587 CIP ISBN 0-8191-7700-8 (alk. paper) ISBN 0-8191-7701-6 (pbk.: alk. paper) The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences- Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. CONTENTS Preface Assessing the Danger 1. Paths to Superpower Nuclear War Robert P. Beschel, Jr. 2. Nuclear Crises David A. Welch Nuclear Weapons: Their Effects, Control, and Historical Development 3. The Effects of Nuclear Detonations and Nuclear War Steve Fetter 4. Command and Control of Nuclear Forces Ashton B. Carter 5. Technology and the Evolution of Nuclear Weapons and Forces Ivan Oelrich Nuclear Doctrine and Force Structure 6. The Evolution of American Nuclear Doctrine Peter D.
    [Show full text]
  • Office of the Provost. Administrative Files of Ernest Carroll Moore. 1917-1936
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/tf5m3nb36t No online items Finding Aid for the Office of the Provost. Administrative files of Ernest Carroll Moore. 1917-1936. Finding aid prepared by University Archives staff, 1988 January; finding aid revised by Katharine A. Lawrie, 2013 January; machine-readable finding aid created by Katharine A. Lawrie, 2013 June. UCLA Library Special Collections Room A1713, Charles E. Young Research Library Box 951575 Los Angeles, CA, 90095-1575 (310) 825-4988 [email protected] ©1988 January Finding Aid for the Office of the University Archives Record Series 261 1 Provost. Administrative files of Ernest Carroll Moore. 1917-1936. Title: Office of the Provost. Administrative files of Ernest Carroll Moore. Identifier/Call Number: University Archives Record Series 261 Contributing Institution: UCLA Library Special Collections Language of Material: English Physical Description: 26.4 linear ft.(66 boxes) Date: 1917-1936 Abstract: Record Series 261 contains the administrative files of Ernest C. Moore, University Chancellor from 1919-1936. Files include correspondence, office memoranda, minutes, agendas, reports, applications, budget requests and statements. Subjects covered by the files include administration of the of the university, schools, colleges, and academic departments; business conducted by the Academic Senate, administrative offices at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Associated Students and other campus student organizations; student activism and disciplinary action; and general correspondence between the chancellor and students and faculty. creator: Office of the Provost Access COLLECTION STORED OFF-SITE AT SRLF: Open for research. Advance notice required for access. Contact the UCLA Library Special Collections Reference Desk for paging information.
    [Show full text]
  • Projects, Publications, and Meetings of the Academy
    2018 PROJECTS, PUBLICATIONS, AND MEETINGS OF THE ACADEMY SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY GLOBAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS EDUCATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE THE HUMANITIES, ARTS, AND CULTURE AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS, SOCIETY, AND THE PUBLIC GOOD With Appreciation . Academy projects, publications, and meetings are supported by gifts and grants from Members, friends, foundations, corporations, Affiliates, and other funding agencies. The Academy expresses its deep appreciation for this support and to the many Members who contribute to its work. Published by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, September 2018 CONTENTS From the President 3 Projects, Publications & Meetings AMERICAN INSTITUTIONS, SOCIETY, AND THE PUBLIC GOOD Overview 4 Commission on the Practice of Democratic Citizenship 5 Making Justice Accessible 9 EDUCATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF KNOWLEDGE Overview 11 Commission on the Future of Undergraduate Education 12 GLOBAL SECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Overview 20 New Dilemmas in Ethics, Technology, and War 21 Civil Wars, Violence, and International Responses 25 The Global Nuclear Future 34 Meeting the Challenges of the New Nuclear Age 37 SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND TECHNOLOGY Overview 40 The Public Face of Science 41 The Alternative Energy Future 46 Challenges for International Scientific Partnerships 50 THE HUMANITIES, ARTS, AND CULTURE Overview 55 Commission on Language Learning 56 The Humanities Indicators 57 Commission on the Arts 60 EXPLORATORY INITIATIVES 64 LOCAL PROGRAM COMMITTEES 70 MEMBER EVENTS 73 AFFILIATES OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 88 Academy Leadership 91 FROM THE PRESIDENT cademy projects and publications address issues critical to our country and Athe wider world. Over a 239-year history, we have earned the public’s trust as an independent, non- partisan institution dedicated to applying evidence to policy and engaging civil dis- course.
    [Show full text]
  • NEWS MEDIA INFORMATION UCLA on Radio/TV As the Voice of the Long Beach State Games 12 Days Prior to Kickoff
    NEWS MEDIA INFORMATION UCLA on Radio/TV as the voice of the Long Beach State games 12 days prior to kickoff. In addition, This season, UCLA’s football games 49ers for 10 years. During that time, he Fox Sports Net will televise 18 Pac-10 again will be broadcast on XTRA Sports was the sports director at KFI/KOST 103 football contests to most of the nation on 690/1150. This is the seventh year of FM. its cable network for the eighth UCLA’s association with the station and Former Bruin quarterback (1983-86) Matt consecutive year. In conjunction with Fox owner Clear Channel. In addition, Clear Stevens will be in his seventh season as Sports Net, six of those contests will be Channel has responsibility for syndicating a member of the broadcast team and produced and televised by Superstation Bruin football throughout the West his third as the analyst following four WTBS (second year). Region. The game years as the sideline Both entities are broadcasts are also reporter. He will also serve expected to select available on the internet as co-host of the pre-game Bruin games during (www.uclabruins.com or show. the season and FSN www.xtrasports1150.com) has already tabbed or by telephone through Local sportscaster John the Arizona State TEAMLINE (800/846- Ireland (third year) and contest. 4700 x 5929). former Bruin quarterback (1991-94) Wayne Cook Fox Sports Net West Bill Macdonald Chris Roberts will be in (second year) will work the 2, a Los Angeles- his 12th year as the play- Chris Roberts (left) and sidelines as well as the based regional sports cable company by-play voice of the Matt Stevens pre-game show.
    [Show full text]
  • Belfercenter.Org Holdren, Colleagues Call for Immediate Action on Climate Disruptions —By Beth Maclin, Communications Intern a L
    How Can We Stop Severe Climate Disruption? Summer 2007 www.belfercenter.org Holdren, Colleagues Call for Immediate Action on Climate Disruptions —by Beth Maclin, Communications Intern A L The report said the largest causes of climate L limate change is real, humans are E L change are the combustion of fossil fuels and O the largest cause of it, it’s already C “C . deforestation, both of which emit large quan- J doing harm, it’s accelerating, and we need to L E tities of heat-trapping carbon dioxide. The A do something serious about it, starting now,” H C concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has I John Holdren told United Nations Secretary M General Ban Ki-moon and the UN Commis- increased nearly 40 percent since the start of sion on Sustainable Development in February. the Industrial Revolution, the authors said. “If the build-up of greenhouse gases pushes the Resulting changes in climate are already global average surface temperature past 2–2.5 changing ecosystems around the globe, degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial level, increasing the frequency and intensity of heat the danger of intolerable and unmanageable waves, droughts, and wildfires, and raising sea impacts of climate change on human well- level. Without intensified efforts both to being becomes very high.” reduce the pace and magnitude of climate change and to reduce the damages from the degree of change that cannot be avoided, The earth’s inhabitants harm far more severe than what has been have less than a decade to experienced so far is in store, Holdren said.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Report
    COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ANNUAL REPORT JULY 1, 2005 - JUNE 30, 2006 www.cfr.org New York Headquarters 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021 Phone: 212-434-9400 Fax: 212-434-9800 Washington Office 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036 Phone: 202-518-3400 Fax: 202-986-2984 Email: [email protected] Officers and Directors, 2006-2007 Officers Directors Officers and Directors, Emeritus and Honorary Peter G. Peterson* Term Expiring 2007 Chairman Fouad Ajami Leslie H. Gelb Carla A. Hills* Kenneth M. Duberstein President Emeritus Wee Chairman Ronald L. Olson Maurice R. Greenberg Honorary Vice Chairman Robert E. Rubin Peter G. Peterson*! Vice Chairman Thomas R. Pickering Charles McC. Mathias Jr. Richard N. Haass Laura D'Andrea Tyson Director Emeritus President David Rockefeller Term Expiring 2008 Janice L. Murray Honorary Chairman Martin S. Feldstein Sen/or Vice President, Treasurer, Robert A. Scalapino and Chief Operating Officer Helene D. Gayle Director Emeritus David Kellogg Karen Elliott House Sen/or Vice President, Corporate Affairs, Michael H. Moskow and Publisher Richard E. Salomon Nancy D. Bodurtha Anne-Marie Slaughter ^*^ Vice President, Meetings BC Term Expiring 2009 Irina A. Faskianos Wee President, National Program Madeleine K. Albright and Outreach Richard N. Foster Suzanne E. Helm Maurice R. Greenberg vT^^^^M Wee President, Development Carla A. Hills*t Elise Carlson Lewis Joseph S. Nye Jr. Wee President, Membership Fareed Zakaria and Fellowship Affairs JJLt\>,Zm James M. Lindsay Term Expiring 2010 j^YESS Wee President, Director of Studies, Peter Ackerman Maurice R. Greenberg Chair Charlene Barshefsky Nancy E. Roman Stephen W. Bosworth Wee President and Director, Washington Program Tom Brokaw yJ§ David M.
    [Show full text]