DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Disarmament's Missing Player

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Strategic Studies Quarterly Quarterly Strategic Studies SPRING 2018 Vol 12, No. 1 Another BRAC Now Rep. Adam Smith Christopher Preble Defending the Record on US Nuclear Deterrence Gen Kevin P. Chilton, USAF, Retired 2017 National Security Strategy Perspective W. Michael Guillot SPRING 2018 SPRING FEATURE ARTICLE Dragon in the Room: Nuclear Disarmament’s Missing Player Susan Turner Haynes Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Crises Nathan Leys China in Space: Ambitions and Possible Conflict Namrata Goswami Transformation and the War in Afghanistan Alexander Salt Unbalanced: Rethinking America’s Commitment to the Middle East Emma Ashford Strategic Studies Mission Statement Quarterly Strategic Studies Quarterly (SSQ ) is the strategic journal of the United SSQ States Air Force, fostering intellectual enrichment for national and inter- Chief of Staff, US Air Force national security professionals. SSQ provides a forum for critically Gen David L. Goldfein, USAF examining, informing, and debating national and international security matters. Contributions to SSQ will explore strategic issues of current and Commander, Air Education and Training Command continuing interest to the US Air Force, the larger defense community, Lt Gen Steven L. Kwast, USAF and our international partners. Commander and President, Air University Lt Gen Anthony J. Cotton, USAF Disclaimer Commander, LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education The views and opinions expressed or implied in SSQ are those of the authors and should not be construed as carrying the official sanction of Maj Gen Michael D. Rothstein, USAF the US Air Force, the Department of Defense, Air Education and Training Director, Air University Press Command, Air University, or other agencies or departments of the US Dr. Ernest Allan Rockwell government. Editorial Staff Comments and Contact Col W. Michael Guillot, USAF, Retired, Editor Send your comments, suggestions, or address change to: Donna Budjenska, Content Editor [email protected]. Nedra O. Looney, Prepress Production Manager Join the debate and like us on Facebook.com/AirUnivPress. Daniel M. Armstrong, Illustrator Kevin V. Frey, Webmaster Follow us on Twitter.com/AirUnivPress. Advisors Article Submission Gen Michael P. C. Carns, USAF, Retired The SSQ considers scholarly articles between 5,000 and 15,000 words from James W. Forsyth Jr., PhD US and international authors. Please send your submission in Microsoft Christina Goulter, PhD Word format via e-mail to: [email protected] Robert P. Haffa, PhD Jay P. Kesan, PhD Strategic Studies Quarterly (SSQ) Charlotte Ku, PhD 600 Chennault Circle, Building 1405, Room 143 Benjamin S. Lambeth, PhD Maxwell AFB, AL 36112–6026 Martin C. Libicki, PhD Tel (334) 953–7311 Allan R. Millett, PhD Strategic Studies Quarterly online: http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/ssq/ Contributing Editors Free Electronic Subscription Stephen D. Chiabotti, PhD, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Mark J. Conversino, PhD, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Strategic Studies Quarterly (SSQ) (ISSN 1936-1815) is published quarterly by Air Kelly A. Grieco, PhD, Air Command and Staff College University Press, Maxwell AFB, AL. Articles in SSQ may be reproduced free of Michael R. Kraig, PhD, Air Command and Staff College charge. Notify editor and include a standard source credit line on each reprint. Dawn C. Murphy, PhD, Air War College David D. Palkki, PhD, Air War College Nicholas M. Sambaluk, PhD, Air Command and Staff College Strategic Studies Quarterly An Air Force–Sponsored Strategic Forum on National and International Security SPRING 2018 VOLUME 12, NO. 1 Policy Forum Another BRAC Now ....................................................................... 3 Rep. Adam Smith Christopher Preble Defending the Record on US Nuclear Deterrence ....................... 12 Gen Kevin P. Chilton, USAF, Retired 2017 National Security Strategy Perspective .................................. 22 W. Michael Guillot Feature Article Dragon in the Room: Nuclear Disarmament’s Missing Player ..... 25 Susan Turner Haynes Perspectives Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Crises ............... 48 Nathan Leys China in Space: Ambitions and Possible Conflict ....................... 74 Namrata Goswami Transformation and the War in Afghanistan .................................. 98 Alexander Salt Unbalanced: Rethinking America’s Commitment to the Middle East Emma Ashford ................................................................... 127 Book Reviews Strategy & Defence Planning: Meeting the Challenge of Uncertainty .......................................................................... 149 By: Colin Gray Reviewed by: Lt Col Mark Peters, USAF Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States, and the World .............................................. 151 By: Graham Allison and Robert D. Blackwill Reviewed by: 1st Lt David Chui, USAF Another BRAC Now In June 2017, Secretary of Defense James Mattis testified before the House Armed Services Committee about Department of Defense needs, praising Congress for its “willingness to discuss [base realignment and closure (BRAC)] authorization as an efficiency measure.” In fact, he insisted, “that authorization is essential to improving our readiness by minimizing wasted resources and accommodating force adjustments.”1 Lucian Niemeyer, the assistant secretary of defense for Energy, Installa- tions and Environment, explained BRAC is “not just a matter of finding efficiencies; it’s a matter of improving military value and [the] effective- ness and lethality of our forces.”2 He told an audience at the Heritage Foundation that base closures were essential to helping the military re- organize for the future. Despite urgent calls from top Defense officials, Congress refuses to grant the Pentagon the authority it needs to address its excess overhead. By doing so, Congress is effectively forcing the US military to maintain bases around the country it neither wants or needs, harming communities in the process. The debate over the BRAC process needs to be better informed by context and a real-world understanding of BRAC’s effects, particularly the less appreciated way closing excess facilities positively impacts com- munities. This article aims to provide more perspective by reviewing the BRAC process, exploring two cases in which former bases were success- fully repurposed, and considers why the process has broken down. It concludes with recommendations for how the process should proceed. Perspectives on Base Closures The policies that govern base closures have evolved since the early 1960s, when the Department of Defense began closing bases after World War II and the Korean War. The Kennedy and Johnson administrations, led by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, closed hundreds of bases, often with little or no consideration of the effects such decisions would have on local economies. Since then, many bases have been closed, but typically these have occurred as part of an intense battle between the three primary stakeholders—members of Congress (and their constituents), the president, and the Pentagon. Charlotte Twight, who studies the politics of base closures, notes that “closure announcements handled administratively Strategic Studies Quarterly ♦ Spring 2018 3 Adam Smith and Christopher Preble in ways anathema to Congress historically have given rise to cycles of restrictive legislation curtailing DOD’s flexibility to implement major military base closures or realignments.”3 Congress often successfully took steps to prevent the military from closing bases. In other instances, the Pentagon or the president would threaten a base closure to coerce a representative or senator to support a particular policy demand. By the 1970s, Congress gained the upper hand, effectively blocking all base closures for more than a decade. But in the mid-1980s, the Pentagon was determined to regain control of installation management with assistance from sympathetic members of Congress. The result was the Defense Authorization Act Amendments and Base Realignment and Closure Act (Public Law 100-526) signed into law 24 October 1988. This legislation created the basic framework for the BRAC process and helped end the stalemate. It provided the authority for the Pentagon to identify its long-term infrastructure needs and to recommend measures to close or consolidate unneeded facilities. DOD performs assessments of the probable threats to national security, the expected military force structure, the inventory of military instal- lations, and the infrastructure needed to support the projected force structure. The department also surveys all domestic military installations using several metrics, including the condition of facilities, technological use, and military value, to make objective comparisons. Based on its assess- ments DOD develops a list of recommended realignments and closures for an independent BRAC commission. The commission then reviews the list, makes changes if deemed warranted, and votes on a final list. The president is then required to accept or reject the commission’s recommendations in their entirety, and, if approved, the commission’s recommendations go to Congress. The Senate and House have 45 days to pass a joint resolution rejecting the BRAC list in its entirety. If they do not, the recommendations become law. This all-or-none voting pro- cess prevents individual members from blocking the recommendations that affect their communities.
Recommended publications
  • Maritime Security • Maritime

    Maritime Security • Maritime

    MAKING WAVES A maritime news brief covering: MARITIME SECURITY MARITIME FORCES SHIPPING, PORTS AND OCEAN ECONOMY MARINE ENVIRONMENT GEOPOLITICS Making Waves 15 - 21 Feb 2021 CONTENTS MARITIME SECURITY ................................................................................ 3 REPORTS OF INDIAN NAVY PART OF IRAN-RUSSIA MARITIME DRILL FALSE ..................................................................................... 3 INDONESIA AND CHINA FACE OFF OVER INCREASING MARITIME INTRUSIONS ............................................................................ 3 JOINT PRESS STATEMENT ON OFFICIAL VISIT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS MINISTER OF INDIA TO THE MALDIVES ........................................ 8 INDIA, AUSTRALIA, JAPAN, US HOLD QUAD MEET, DISCUSS RULES- BASED ORDER, MYANMAR COUP................................................. 11 THE POWER OF EXAMPLE: AMERICA’S PRESENCE IN DIEGO GARCIA . 12 MARITIME FORCES ................................................................................... 15 EGYPT, SPAIN NAVIES CONDUCT JOINT DRILLS IN RED SEA ............ 15 IDEX 2021: SAUDI ARABIA TO INVEST MORE THAN $20B IN ITS MILITARY INDUSTRY OVER NEXT DECADE..................................... 15 FRANCE REJOINS JAPAN IN N. KOREA SURVEILLANCE IN E. CHINA SEA ....................................................................................... 16 SHIPPING, PORTS AND OCEAN ECONOMY ......................................... 18 INDIA SIGNS FREE TRADE PACT WITH MAURITIUS, THE FIRST OF ITS KIND WITH AFRICAN NATION ..................................................
  • SPACE and DEFENSE

    SPACE and DEFENSE

    SPACE and DEFENSE Volume Three Number One Summer 2009 Space Deterrence: The Delicate Balance of Risk by Ambassador Roger G. Harrison, Collins G. Shackelford and Deron R. Jackson with commentaries by Dean Cheng Pete Hays John Sheldon Mike Manor and Kurt Neuman Dwight Rauhala and Jonty Kasku-Jackson EISENHOWER CENTER FOR SPACE AND DEFENSE STUDIES Space and Defense Scholarly Journal of the United States Air Force Academy Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Editor-in-Chief: Ambassador Roger Harrison, [email protected] Director, Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Academic Editor: Dr. Eligar Sadeh, [email protected] Associate Academic Editors: Dr. Damon Coletta U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Dr. Michael Gleason U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Dr. Peter Hays National Security Space Office, USA Major Deron Jackson U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Dr. Collins Shackelford U.S. Air Force Academy, USA Colonel Michael Smith U.S. Air Force, USA Reviewers: Andrew Aldrin John Logsdon United Launch Alliance, USA George Washington University, USA James Armor Agnieszka Lukaszczyk ATK, USA Space Generation Advisory Council, Austria William Barry Molly Macauley NASA, France Resources for the Future, USA Frans von der Dunk Scott Pace University of Nebraska, USA George Washington University, USA Paul Eckart Xavier Pasco Boeing, USA Foundation for Strategic Research, France Andrew Erickson Wolfgang Rathbeger Naval War College, USA European Space Policy Institute, Austria Joanne Gabrynowicz Scott Trimboli University of Mississippi, USA University
  • Annual Report

    Annual Report

    COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS ANNUAL REPORT July 1,1996-June 30,1997 Main Office Washington Office The Harold Pratt House 1779 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. 58 East 68th Street, New York, NY 10021 Washington, DC 20036 Tel. (212) 434-9400; Fax (212) 861-1789 Tel. (202) 518-3400; Fax (202) 986-2984 Website www. foreignrela tions. org e-mail publicaffairs@email. cfr. org OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS, 1997-98 Officers Directors Charlayne Hunter-Gault Peter G. Peterson Term Expiring 1998 Frank Savage* Chairman of the Board Peggy Dulany Laura D'Andrea Tyson Maurice R. Greenberg Robert F Erburu Leslie H. Gelb Vice Chairman Karen Elliott House ex officio Leslie H. Gelb Joshua Lederberg President Vincent A. Mai Honorary Officers Michael P Peters Garrick Utley and Directors Emeriti Senior Vice President Term Expiring 1999 Douglas Dillon and Chief Operating Officer Carla A. Hills Caryl R Haskins Alton Frye Robert D. Hormats Grayson Kirk Senior Vice President William J. McDonough Charles McC. Mathias, Jr. Paula J. Dobriansky Theodore C. Sorensen James A. Perkins Vice President, Washington Program George Soros David Rockefeller Gary C. Hufbauer Paul A. Volcker Honorary Chairman Vice President, Director of Studies Robert A. Scalapino Term Expiring 2000 David Kellogg Cyrus R. Vance Jessica R Einhorn Vice President, Communications Glenn E. Watts and Corporate Affairs Louis V Gerstner, Jr. Abraham F. Lowenthal Hanna Holborn Gray Vice President and Maurice R. Greenberg Deputy National Director George J. Mitchell Janice L. Murray Warren B. Rudman Vice President and Treasurer Term Expiring 2001 Karen M. Sughrue Lee Cullum Vice President, Programs Mario L. Baeza and Media Projects Thomas R.
  • Pakistan: Arrival and Departure

    Pakistan: Arrival and Departure

    01-2180-2 CH 01:0545-1 10/13/11 10:47 AM Page 1 stephen p. cohen 1 Pakistan: Arrival and Departure How did Pakistan arrive at its present juncture? Pakistan was originally intended by its great leader, Mohammed Ali Jinnah, to transform the lives of British Indian Muslims by providing them a homeland sheltered from Hindu oppression. It did so for some, although they amounted to less than half of the Indian subcontinent’s total number of Muslims. The north Indian Muslim middle class that spearheaded the Pakistan movement found itself united with many Muslims who had been less than enthusiastic about forming Pak- istan, and some were hostile to the idea of an explicitly Islamic state. Pakistan was created on August 14, 1947, but in a decade self-styled field marshal Ayub Khan had replaced its shaky democratic political order with military-guided democracy, a market-oriented economy, and little effective investment in welfare or education. The Ayub experiment faltered, in part because of an unsuccessful war with India in 1965, and Ayub was replaced by another general, Yahya Khan, who could not manage the growing chaos. East Pakistan went into revolt, and with India’s assistance, the old Pakistan was bro- ken up with the creation of Bangladesh in 1971. The second attempt to transform Pakistan was short-lived. It was led by the charismatic Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who simultaneously tried to gain control over the military, diversify Pakistan’s foreign and security policy, build a nuclear weapon, and introduce an economic order based on both Islam and socialism.
  • 31 Nuclear Weapons—Use, Probabilities and History

    31 Nuclear Weapons—Use, Probabilities and History

    1 ROTARY DISTRICT 5440 PEACEBUILDER NEWSLETTER MARCH 2020 NUMBER 31 NUCLEAR WEAPONS—USE, PROBABILITIES AND HISTORY William M. Timpson, Robert Meroney, Lloyd Thomas, Sharyn Selman and Del Benson Fort Collins Rotary Club Lindsey Pointer, 2017 Rotary Global Grant Scholarship Recipient In these newsletters of the Rotary District Peacebuilders, we want to invite readers for contributions and ideas, suggestions and possibilities for our efforts to promote the foundational skills for promoting peace, i.e., nonviolent conflict resolution, improved communication and cooperation, successful negotiation and mediation as well as the critical and creative thinking that can help communities move through obstacles and difficulties. HOW THE MOST VIOLENT OF HUMAN ACTIVITY, A NCLEAR WWIII, HAS BEEN AVOIDED, SO FAR Robert Lawrence, Ph.D. is an Emeritus Professor of Political Science at Colorado State University who has written extensively on this issue of nuclear weapons Let’s play a mind game. Think back in time and pick an actual war, any war. Now imagine you are the leader who began the war. Would you have ordered the attack if you knew for certain that 30 minutes later you, your family, and your people would all be killed. Probably not. Your logic led Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev to jointly declare “a nuclear war can never be won and must never be fought.” This is the sine qua non of American and Russian nuclear deterrence policy. Always before wars made sense to some because they could be won, and there were many winners. How then has this no-win war situation---the first in history-- happened? Because the U.S.
  • Downloads of Technical Information

    Downloads of Technical Information

    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2018 Nuclear Spaces: Simulations of Nuclear Warfare in Film, by the Numbers, and on the Atomic Battlefield Donald J. Kinney Follow this and additional works at the DigiNole: FSU's Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected] FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES NUCLEAR SPACES: SIMULATIONS OF NUCLEAR WARFARE IN FILM, BY THE NUMBERS, AND ON THE ATOMIC BATTLEFIELD By DONALD J KINNEY A Dissertation submitted to the Department of History in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2018 Donald J. Kinney defended this dissertation on October 15, 2018. The members of the supervisory committee were: Ronald E. Doel Professor Directing Dissertation Joseph R. Hellweg University Representative Jonathan A. Grant Committee Member Kristine C. Harper Committee Member Guenter Kurt Piehler Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii For Morgan, Nala, Sebastian, Eliza, John, James, and Annette, who all took their turns on watch as I worked. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee, Kris Harper, Jonathan Grant, Kurt Piehler, and Joseph Hellweg. I would especially like to thank Ron Doel, without whom none of this would have been possible. It has been a very long road since that afternoon in Powell's City of Books, but Ron made certain that I did not despair. Thank you. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract..............................................................................................................................................................vii 1.
  • The US-India Nuke Deal

    The US-India Nuke Deal

    The U.S.-India Nuke Deal: U.S. Needs and Ambitions by Dr. Dheeraj Kumar Strategic Insights is a bi-monthly electronic journal produced by the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. The views expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of NPS, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Introduction The United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act of 2006, also known as the "Hyde Act,” is the legal framework for a bilateral pact between the United States and India under which the United States will provide access to civilian nuclear technology and access to nuclear fuel in exchange for International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards on civilian Indian reactors. This deal has been most controversial and debated for the past two years. There are five major differences between the United States and India related to some clauses of Hyde Act: 1. The Return Clause 2. Reprocessing of Spent Fuel 3. Nuclear Testing 4. Lifetime Fuel Guarantee 5. Fallback Safeguards For resolving these differences, India has to conclude a bilateral 123 agreement with the United States, engage the IAEA, and seek changes to the rules of the forty five member NSG. Other objections and obstacles to the deal from the Indian side are as follows: • India is going to compromise with national security interests pertaining to its nuclear deterrent. • It will likely lead to energy insecurity in India in the case that the United States withdraws its support or does not supply the technology and sufficient material in time.
  • Climate Change and Justice Between Nonoverlapping Generations ANJA

    Climate Change and Justice Between Nonoverlapping Generations ANJA

    Climate Change and ANJA Justice between KARNEIN Nonoverlapping Generations Abstract: It is becoming less and less controversial that we ought to aggressively combat climate change. One main reason for doing so is concern for future generations, as it is they who will be the most seriously affected by it. Surprisingly, none of the more prominent deontological theories of intergenerational justice can explain why it is wrong for the present generation to do very little to stop worsening the problem. This paper discusses three such theories, namely indirect reciprocity, common ownership of the earth and human rights. It shows that while indirect reciprocity and common ownership are both too undemanding, the human rights approach misunderstands the nature of our intergenerational relationships, thereby capturing either too much or too little about what is problematic about climate change. The paper finally proposes a way to think about intergenerational justice that avoids the pitfalls of the traditional theories and can explain what is wrong with perpetuating climate change. Keywords: climate change, intergenerational justice, future generations, indirect reciprocity, common ownership, human rights • Introduction When it comes to climate change, it is future generations who are likely to suffer most from both actions and omissions we, people living today, are responsible for.1 Unfortunately, and as dire as the situation threatens to be for them, we are not especially motivated to act on their behalf. There are a number of reasons why, in the case of future generations, we are particularly susceptible to what Stephen Gardiner has called moral corruption.2 Chiefly among them is that future generations are not around to challenge us.
  • Artificial Intelligence, China, Russia, and the Global Order Technological, Political, Global, and Creative Perspectives

    Artificial Intelligence, China, Russia, and the Global Order Technological, Political, Global, and Creative Perspectives

    AIR UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS Artificial Intelligence, China, Russia, and the Global Order Technological, Political, Global, and Creative Perspectives Shazeda Ahmed (UC Berkeley), Natasha E. Bajema (NDU), Samuel Bendett (CNA), Benjamin Angel Chang (MIT), Rogier Creemers (Leiden University), Chris C. Demchak (Naval War College), Sarah W. Denton (George Mason University), Jeffrey Ding (Oxford), Samantha Hoffman (MERICS), Regina Joseph (Pytho LLC), Elsa Kania (Harvard), Jaclyn Kerr (LLNL), Lydia Kostopoulos (LKCYBER), James A. Lewis (CSIS), Martin Libicki (USNA), Herbert Lin (Stanford), Kacie Miura (MIT), Roger Morgus (New America), Rachel Esplin Odell (MIT), Eleonore Pauwels (United Nations University), Lora Saalman (EastWest Institute), Jennifer Snow (USSOCOM), Laura Steckman (MITRE), Valentin Weber (Oxford) Air University Press Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Opening remarks provided by: Library of Congress Cataloging-in- Publication Data Brig Gen Alexus Grynkewich (JS J39) Names: TBD. and Lawrence Freedman (King’s College, Title: Artificial Intelligence, China, Russia, and the Global Order : Techno- London) logical, Political, Global, and Creative Perspectives / Nicholas D. Wright. Editor: Other titles: TBD Nicholas D. Wright (Intelligent Biology) Description: TBD Identifiers: TBD Integration Editor: Subjects: TBD Mariah C. Yager (JS/J39/SMA/NSI) Classification: TBD LC record available at TBD AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS COLLABORATION TEAM Published by Air University Press in October
  • Four Transcripts For

    Four Transcripts For

    NAVAL RAVIKANT INTERVIEW PART THREE Hello again, Ars Technica listeners. This is the third installment of a four-part conversation about existential risks, with serial entrepreneur Naval Ravikant. If you haven’t heard the first two parts – which we posted on Monday and Tuesday – I encourage you to first check them out. I’d also encourage you to watch the TED talk which I was invited to give as a result of posting this very interview with Naval to my podcast listeners, back in March. Huge thanks to both TED AND Naval for that1 As mentioned before, it went up on the front page of TED.com yesterday. Also on Ars today, George Church has posted a piece in which he discusses the vital importance of biological surveillance in this dawning era of artificial life – which could certainly include artificial pathogens one day. George points out that “three of the most low- cost and highly-effective global public health strategies are hygiene, quarantine and vaccines -- all of which rely on constant keen observation.” George is one of the world’s most influential bioengineers, and his Harvard lab has spawned a dizzying range of innovations, techniques and startups. He’s also been advocating for surveillance systems in his own field of synthetic biology since 2004. As his article today points out, few would call for a comprehensive global ban on cars. Yet almost everyone supports certain levels of car and driver surveillance – via radar guns, blood-alcohol tests etc. Responsible use and careful surveillance will be even more important in the high stakes world of synbio.
  • Lee Kuan Yew: the Grand Master's Insights on China, the United States

    Lee Kuan Yew: the Grand Master's Insights on China, the United States

    Lee Kuan Yew: The Grand Master’s Insights on China, the United States, and the World, Interviews and Selections By Graham Allison & Robert D. Blackwill, with Ali Wyne Reviewed by Adam R. Pearlman* book is not biographical, nor is it a vehicle to look back on the “The present world is as full of promise as of perils.” last fifty years, nor Lee’s role during them. “Rather, our focus is -Lee Kuan Yew the future and the specific challenges the United States will face during the next quarter century.” The work’s intended reader- nique it is for the leader of a small, resource-poor city ship includes high-level policymakers, and can almost serve as to merit such worldwide admiration (while engender- a ready-reference for Lee quotes or sound-bites on the several ing no small amount of controversy) as Lee Kuan Yew. topics it covers. An Art of War-style manual for geopolitics it UWhen Lee passed away in March of this year at the age of 91, is not, but it nevertheless can serve as an introductory guide to President Obama called him “[a] visionary who led his country Lee’s worldly and learned vantage point of the complexities of from Singapore’s independence in 1965 to build one of the most the challenges faced by governments and societies today. prosperous countries in the world today,” adding that “he was a As prevailing themes throughout the text, Lee’s pragma- devoted public servant and a remarkable leader.” Indeed, when tism and affinity for Darwinist theories are both very clear.
  • Mission Playsets S P Ace Mission

    Mission Playsets S P Ace Mission

    MISSION PLAYSETS S P ACE MISSION INTRODUCTION !e Space Mission is a classic playset for Our Last Best Hope, the Mission that inspired the whole design process. In it, you and your crew will blast o" from the Earth in order to stop a spacebound Crisis from wiping out Humanity, sometimes confronting the problem millions of miles away. Space, the hungry monster, is always at the edge of your vision; it lies just on the other side of your ship’s fragile walls, ready to rip your plans to shreds. Yet with !reats ranging from onboard technical problems to alien attack squads, the Space Mission is not just a hard sci-# Mission. You can #ght aliens, $y through black holes, and take the story wherever your crew thinks your ship should go. It’s a $exible story, and it can play out in interesting ways through the Crisis your crew picks and the !reats you choose. Suggested viewing: Sunshine, Armageddon, Deep Impact, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Battlestar Galactica, District 9, and Apollo 13 CONTENTS 116 S P ACE MISSION TH EMES SARDINES IN A CRUSHED TIN CAN To brave the cold vacuum of space, your team has wrapped itself in a ship that can get them to the Crisis. Yet, living and working in such small spaces can be di%cult for even the most stable of personalities; often basic communication with the rest of Humanity is impaired, as the vast distances the team has traveled makes sending messages di%cult. !e closed system means that problems (such as alien stowaways) tend to stick around, and your crew has few places to get away from the !reats beating down your door.