USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal #568

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

USAF Counterproliferation Center CPC Outreach Journal #568 USAF COUNTERPROLIFERATION CENTER CPC OUTREACH JOURNAL Maxwell AFB, Alabama Issue No. 568, 3 May 2007 Articles & Other Documents: Missile Test Attempts To Hit Simultaneous Targets Europe Worries As Russia And U.S. Argue Over Missiles U.S., Japan Reiterate Warning To N. Korea Nuclear Bomb Is Biggest Al Qaeda Threat, Ex-CIA Chief Writes India-U.S. Nuclear Pact Remains Stalled USFK: Anthrax shots must become priority Country Reports on Terrorism 2006 Bush Steps Up Effort To Persuade Putin On Missile Defense Plan Putin Not Able To Track All Nukes Biodefense campus most of growth Bipartisan Panel Will Review Nuclear Posture Lawmakers Decry Iran-India Alliance Critic of Iran’s Nuclear Policy Is Charged With Spying Welcome to the CPC Outreach Journal. As part of USAF Counterproliferation Center’s mission to counter weapons of mass destruction through education and research, we’re providing our government and civilian community a source for timely counterproliferation information. This information includes articles, papers and other documents addressing issues pertinent to US military response options for dealing with nuclear, biological and chemical threats and attacks. It’s our hope this information resource will help enhance your counterproliferation issue awareness. Established in 1998, the USAF/CPC provides education and research to present and future leaders of the Air Force, as well as to members of other branches of the armed services and Department of Defense. Our purpose is to help those agencies better prepare to counter the threat from weapons of mass destruction. Please feel free to visit our web site at http://cpc.au.af.mil/ for in-depth information and specific points of contact. Please direct any questions or comments on CPC Outreach Journal to Jo Ann Eddy, CPC Outreach Editor, at (334) 953-7538 or DSN 493-7538. To subscribe, change e-mail address, or unsubscribe to this journal or to request inclusion on the mailing list for CPC publications, please contact Mrs. Eddy, [email protected]. The following articles, papers or documents do not necessarily reflect official endorsement of the United States Air Force, Department of Defense, or other US government agencies. Reproduction for private use or commercial gain is subject to original copyright restrictions. All rights are reserved Honolulu Advertiser April 25, 2007 Missile Test Attempts To Hit Simultaneous Targets By Jan TenBruggencate, Advertiser Kaua'i Bureau LIHU'E, Kaua'i — The Missile Defense Agency will try to shoot two simulated enemy missiles down at once tomorrow in the latest test of the Navy's Aegis ballistic missile defense system. A similar test was aborted in December because of an incorrect setting in the Aegis missile system aboard the Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie. This is the 10th intercept attempt. Of the previous nine, seven resulted in successful intercepts. The tests have been increasingly complex, and in this case, the Lake Erie will be called on to identify and deal with two threats at once. One of them will be a simulated short-range ballistic missile fired from the ground at the Pacific Missile Range on Kaua'i. The second will be an anti-aircraft rocket dropped from a Navy aircraft and aimed at the Lake Erie. The Lake Erie, with the help of satellite tracking, will identify the two threats at the same time, and launch separate missiles against them. It is slated to launch a Standard Missile-3 against the ballistic missile target, and the goal is for the SM-3 interceptor to actually crash into the target missile. The Lake Erie is to launch a Standard Missile-2 against the anti-aircraft rocket. In a combat situation, the SM-2 warhead would explode alongside the incoming rocket to destroy it, but it will not be rigged to explode during this test. This test is designated FTM-11 Event 4 in the series of Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense tests. It is designed to intercept a ballistic missile in flight, and to simultaneously defend the ship against an airborne threat directed at the ship. "The firing scenario is designed such that both targets are engaged at about the same time, intentionally stressing the crew and combat system resources," the MDA said in a fact sheet on the launches. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency and the Navy manage the Aegis system. Their prime contractor is Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors. Raytheon Missile Systems is the contractor for the Standard Missile. http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007704250381 (Return to Articles and Documents List) New York Times April 28, 2007 Pg. 3 Europe Worries As Russia And U.S. Argue Over Missiles By Thom Shanker and Mark Landler WASHINGTON, April 27 — When the United States first asked Poland and the Czech Republic to base missile defenses on their soil, the proposed interceptors and radar were cast as a prudent hedge against Iran and a guarantee that Europe’s security was indivisible from that of America, which was moving ahead with defenses for its own territory. But with Russia’s rejection of a new American invitation to cooperate on missile defense — a rebuff delivered with an exclamation point when the Kremlin threatened Thursday to pull out of a treaty on conventional weapons in Europe — the initiative risked driving Moscow further from Europe and dividing Europe’s public over the future of its shared security. The caustic exchanges between Washington and Moscow, which many Europeans fear will knock the lid off the ash bin of cold war history, were the latest example of how the United States and Russia say they want to work together but talk past each other. The United States says the missile defenses are all about Iran, which American intelligence agencies have said is developing missiles capable of reaching Europe as well as trying to gain the means of producing nuclear weapons. Moscow says that they are all about Moscow, that any Iranian threat is years away and that the bases really would serve as a Trojan horse to neutralize the Kremlin’s strategic rocket forces. The United States says that its invitation to share missile defense technology and operate radar sites together would allow Russia to enter a more mature partnership with the United States and NATO, and that all sides would win. Russia responds that its every act of post-cold war conciliation has only left it more tightly encircled by NATO. Even before negotiations begin in earnest, both sides are staking out hard positions. The United States says Russia will have no veto over American missile defense bases in Central Europe. In response, Russia has said that the new offer has done nothing to alter its opposition, and that it is prepared to kick the legs out from under other arms control agreements to show its anger. To be sure, this missile defense drama is only in its opening scene. The two missile defense sites, expected to cost about $3.5 billion, are still years away. At some level, the debate over the missile defense system is not even about interceptors and radar installations. Their effectiveness is a matter of conjecture. It is about Russia’s perception of, and insecurity about, its role in West- facing Europe. Thus, Washington and Moscow are playing to the populations of Poland and the Czech Republic, whose Parliaments would have to approve the bases, and beyond, to a broader and quite ambivalent European public. If the United States hoped that the tough talk this week from Moscow would unify Europe to rally publicly behind its plans to install 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic, it is likely to be disappointed. Behind closed doors, America’s European allies were indeed united in their negative reaction to the Russian threats during a meeting on Thursday in Oslo attended by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, NATO foreign ministers and the Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, according to American and European officials who were present or were briefed on the session. The Europeans took umbrage at the Russians’ belligerence, after a conciliatory mission to Moscow by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in which he offered to share missile defense technology with Russia. “For the Russians to turn around and slap us, it did not go over well with European governments today. That’s for sure,” said a senior American official, who spoke on diplomatic ground rules of anonymity. “There was virtual unanimity that Russia should work with the Americans and work with NATO on missile defense, as several delegations said, especially after the Americans have clearly gone out of their way to make constructive proposals to the Russians,” the American official said. That version of events in Oslo, as presented by the senior American official, was confirmed by representatives of two European nations in attendance. Yet speaking publicly on Friday, European officials remained wary about the missile defense proposal, as they had been for months. “The core issue is to prevent a spiral of mistrust between Russia and the U.S.,” said the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier. “And this is what is in our immediate European interest.” Other German politicians repeated qualms that an American missile defense system might upset the strategic balance in Europe or ignite a new arms race between Russia and the West. Eckart von Klaeden, a foreign policy adviser to Chancellor Angela Merkel and a supporter of Washington, predicted that the threat by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to pull out of the treaty limiting conventional forces in Europe would not make Europe fall in line behind the United States. “On the one hand, Germans are becoming more skeptical about Russia, but on the other hand, people are still using anti-Americanism as a tool,” Mr.
Recommended publications
  • Iraq's WMD Capability
    BRITISH AMERICAN SECURITY INFORMATION COUNCIL BASIC SPECIAL REPORT Unravelling the Known Unknowns: Why no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found in Iraq By David Isenberg and Ian Davis BASIC Special Report 2004.1 January 2004 1 The British American Security Information Council The British American Security Information Council (BASIC) is an independent research organization that analyzes international security issues. BASIC works to promote awareness of security issues among the public, policy makers and the media in order to foster informed debate on both sides of the Atlantic. BASIC in the U.K. is a registered charity no. 1001081 BASIC in the U.S. is a non-profit organization constituted under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service Code David Isenberg, Senior Analyst David Isenberg joined BASIC's Washington office in November 2002. He has a wide background in arms control and national security issues, and brings close to 20 years of experience in this field, including three years as a member of DynMeridian's Arms Control & Threat Reduction Division, and nine years as Senior Analyst at the Center for Defense Information. Ian Davis, Director Dr. Ian Davis is Executive Director of BASIC and has a rich background in government, academia, and the non-governmental organization (NGO) sector. He received both his Ph.D. and B.A. in Peace Studies from the University of Bradford. He was formerly Program Manager at Saferworld before being appointed as the new Executive Director of BASIC in October 2001. He has published widely on British defense and foreign policy, European security, the international arms trade, arms export controls, small arms and light weapons and defense diversification.
    [Show full text]
  • N Ieman Reports
    NIEMAN REPORTS Nieman Reports One Francis Avenue Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138 Nieman Reports THE NIEMAN FOUNDATION FOR JOURNALISM AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY VOL. 62 NO. 1 SPRING 2008 VOL. 62 NO. 1 SPRING 2008 21 ST CENTURY MUCKRAKERS THE NIEMAN FOUNDATION HARVARDAT UNIVERSITY 21st Century Muckrakers Who Are They? How Do They Do Their Work? Words & Reflections: Secrets, Sources and Silencing Watchdogs Journalism 2.0 End Note went to the Carnegie Endowment in New York but of the Oakland Tribune, and Maynard was throw- found times to return to Cambridge—like many, ing out questions fast and furiously about my civil I had “withdrawal symptoms” after my Harvard rights coverage. I realized my interview was lasting ‘to promote and elevate the year—and would meet with Tenney. She came to longer than most, and I wondered, “Is he trying to my wedding in Toronto in 1984, and we tried to knock me out of competition?” Then I happened to keep in touch regularly. Several of our class, Peggy glance over at Tenney and got the only smile from standards of journalism’ Simpson, Peggy Engel, Kat Harting, and Nancy the group—and a warm, welcoming one it was. I Day visited Tenney in her assisted living facility felt calmer. Finally, when the interview ended, I in Cambridge some years ago, during a Nieman am happy to say, Maynard leaped out of his chair reunion. She cared little about her own problems and hugged me. Agnes Wahl Nieman and was always interested in others. Curator Jim Tenney was a unique woman, and I thoroughly Thomson was the public and intellectual face of enjoyed her friendship.
    [Show full text]
  • Fostering Global Security: Nonviolent Resistance and US Foreign Policy
    University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 1-1-2010 Fostering Global Security: Nonviolent Resistance and US Foreign Policy Amentahru Wahlrab University of Denver Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd Part of the Communication Commons, and the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Wahlrab, Amentahru, "Fostering Global Security: Nonviolent Resistance and US Foreign Policy" (2010). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 680. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/680 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. Fostering Global Security: Nonviolent Resistance and US Foreign Policy _____________ A Dissertation presented to The Faculty of the Joseph Korbel School of International Studies University of Denver _____________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy _____________ By Amentahru Wahlrab November 2010 Advisor: Jack Donnelly © Copyright by Amentahru Wahlrab, 2010 All Rights Reserved Author: Amentahru Wahlrab Title: Fostering Global Security: Nonviolent Resistance and US Foreign Policy Advisor: Jack Donnelly Degree Date: November 2010 ABSTRACT This dissertation comprehensively evaluates, for the first time, nonviolence and its relationship to International Relations (IR) theory and US foreign policy along the categories of principled, strategic, and regulative nonviolence. The current debate within nonviolence studies is between principled and strategic nonviolence as relevant categories for theorizing nonviolent resistance. Principled nonviolence, while retaining the primacy of ethics, is often not practical.
    [Show full text]
  • Basic Special Report
    BRITISH AMERICAN SECURITY INFORMATION COUNCIL BASIC SPECIAL REPORT Unravelling the Known Unknowns: Why no Weapons of Mass Destruction have been found in Iraq By David Isenberg and Ian Davis BASIC Special Report 2004.1 January 2004 1 The British American Security Information Council The British American Security Information Council (BASIC) is an independent research organization that analyzes international security issues. BASIC works to promote awareness of security issues among the public, policy makers and the media in order to foster informed debate on both sides of the Atlantic. BASIC in the U.K. is a registered charity no. 1001081 BASIC in the U.S. is a non-profit organization constituted under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service Code David Isenberg, Senior Analyst David Isenberg joined BASIC's Washington office in November 2002. He has a wide background in arms control and national security issues, and brings close to 20 years of experience in this field, including three years as a member of DynMeridian's Arms Control & Threat Reduction Division, and nine years as Senior Analyst at the Center for Defense Information. Ian Davis, Director Dr. Ian Davis is Executive Director of BASIC and has a rich background in government, academia, and the non-governmental organization (NGO) sector. He received both his Ph.D. and B.A. in Peace Studies from the University of Bradford. He was formerly Program Manager at Saferworld before being appointed as the new Executive Director of BASIC in October 2001. He has published widely on British defense and foreign policy, European security, the international arms trade, arms export controls, small arms and light weapons and defense diversification.
    [Show full text]
  • The FBI: Protecting the Homeland in the 21St Century
    EMBARGOED until 10 a.m., March 25, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED (U) The FBI: Protecting the Homeland in the 21st Century (U) Report of the Congressionally-directed (U) 9/11 Review Commission To (U) The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation By (U) Commissioners Bruce Hoffman Edwin Meese III Timothy J. Roemer EMBARGOED(U) March 2015 EMBARGOED until 10 a.m., March 25, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED EMBARGOED until 10 a.m., March 25, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED EMBARGOED 1 EMBARGOED until 10 a.m., March 25, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED EMBARGOED until 10 a.m., March 25, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED (U) TABLE OF CONTENTS (U) Introduction: The 9/11 Review Commission…..……….………........ p. 3 (U) Chapter I: Baseline: The FBI Today…………………………….. p. 15 (U) Chapter II: The Sum of Five Cases………………….……………. p. 38 (U) Chapter III: Anticipating New Threats and Missions…………....... p. 53 (U) Chapter IV: Collaboration and Information Sharing………………. p. 73 (U) Chapter V: New Information Related to the 9/11 Attacks………… p. 100 (U) Key Findings and Recommendations…………………………………. p. 108 (U) Conclusion: ………………………………………………………… p. 118 (U) Appendix A: Briefs Provided by FBI Headquarters Divisions.…..… p. 119 (U) Appendix B: Interviews Conducted……… ………………………. p. 121 (U) Appendix C: Select FBI Intelligence Program Developments…….… p. 122 (U) Appendix D: Acronyms……………… …………………………… p. 124 EMBARGOED 2 EMBARGOED until 10 a.m., March 25, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED EMBARGOED until 10 a.m., March 25, 2015 UNCLASSIFIED (U) INTRODUCTION THE FBI 9/11 REVIEW COMMISSION (U) The FBI 9/11 Review Commission was established in January 2014 pursuant to a congressional mandate.1 The United States Congress directed the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, or the “Bureau”) to create a commission with the expertise and scope to conduct a “comprehensive external review of the implementation of the recommendations related to the FBI that were proposed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (commonly known as the 9/11 Commission).”2 The Review Commission was tasked specifically to report on: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Brochure (PDF)
    About the SOPA Awards for Editorial Excellence The SOPA Awards for Editorial Excellence were established in 1999 as a tribute to editorial excellence in both traditional and new media, and were designed to encourage editorial vitality throughout the region. The awards cover a broad range of categories reflecting Asia’s diverse geo-political environment and vibrant editorial scene. Central to the SOPA Awards’ ongoing success is the high caliber of international judges who preside over the award entries. The SOPA Awards have consistently secured judges from many of the region’s leading newspapers as well as consumer and trade magazines and academics from prestigious universities – a reflection of the stature of the awards. Judges ensure that entries are analyzed and selected according to a demanding set of criteria. The SOPA Awards are coordinated by a committee of publishing professionals from the business and editorial sectors. These dedicated individuals volunteer their time throughout the year to ensure the awards’ rules, judges, entries; event, sponsorships and promotions all come together smoothly. The SOPA Awards set a valuable benchmark for the industry, and have become news items in their own right, generating media coverage and attention not only across the Asia-Pacific region, but also on the global arena. Corporate Support Sponsorship is key to ensuring the Award’s growth, and over the past years, SOPA has been fortunate in receiving strong, continuous support from its partners. As the Awards have grown, so too has the interest from corporations, and this year, we look again to the generosity of sponsors to help us deliver the best Awards we can.
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Weapons: Can Fear Overwhelm Inaction?
    Amy E. Smithson Biological Weapons: Can Fear Overwhelm Inaction? Mankind’s most high-minded and obvious goals often turn out to be the most complicated to achieve. This axiom applies widely to issues ranging from safeguarding human rights to eliminating poverty and pollu- tion. Another example would be establishing a total prohibition against turning germs into weapons to harm humans, animals, or plants. Mankind has suffered grievously enough from naturally occurring diseases—HIV, ma- laria, and tuberculosis being prime examples now ravaging the human popu- lation. Banning biological weaponry is both prudent and laudable. Putting that idea into practice, however, has been a nightmare. Indeed, major obstacles to the success of an international norm against biological weapons can be identified. First, some individuals will resort to any action at any cost to prevail in a territorial or ideological contest; to them, behavioral norms and even vigilantly enforced laws are largely mean- ingless. Another barrier impeding a norm against bioweapons lies in the dual-use nature of the materials, equipment, and know-how fundamental to legitimate research laboratories and multinational industries. Avenues to biological weapons cannot be completely closed off without sacrificing the beneficial science and commercial products that depend on these dual-use items. The third hurdle comes from policymakers worldwide who protest the proliferation of biological weapons to states and terrorists, yet themselves have a questionable track record when it comes to upholding the norm. A norm begins to manifest when actions are taken to defend the principle involved. For example, in the United States the behavioral norm against driving while intoxicated is sustained with laws that criminalize drunk driv- ing; requirements for bar owners to guard against underage drinking and take car keys from drunken customers; free taxi rides on occasions when Amy E.
    [Show full text]
  • George W. Bush and the Iraq War of 2003 Deception
    GEORGE W. BUSH AND THE IRAQ WAR OF 2003 DECEPTION, DISCOURSE, AND THE ILLUSION OF EXPANSION by Mike Maxey A thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Political Science University of Central Oklahoma December, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………….1 CHAPTER II: JUSTIFICATION FOR DECEPTION………………………………...6 CHAPTER III: DECEPTION AND THE ILLUSION OF EXPANSION………........27 CHAPTER IV: DISCOURSE OF NEOCONSERVATISM AND AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM………………………………………………..34 CHAPTER V: THE UTOPIAN REALISM OF GEORGE W. BUSH……………….41 CHAPTER VI:BUSH AND THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: A FAMILY AFFAIR…………………………………………………..51 CHAPTER VII: THE INFLUENCE OF GROUPTHINK……………………………62 CHAPTER VIII: FEAR, PARANOIA, AND DELUSIONS OF GRANDEUR……..71 CHAPTER IX: CONCLUSIONS……………………………………………………80 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………….85 APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………..96 Chapter I Introduction The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions. -Leonardo Da Vinci, Notebooks The use of deception to provoke political support for the extraordinary governmental use of force is an important theme of public diplomacy studies. John J. Mearsheimer has argued that deception, “where an individual purposely takes steps that are designed to prevent others from knowing the full truth” (Mearsheimer 2011, 15), is a practice followed by “leaders of all kinds” who consider it “a useful tool of statecraft that can and should be employed in a variety of circumstances” (Mearsheimer 2011, 99). Mearsheimer’s insights into the foreign policy decision making process reflect the intellectual tradition to which he affiliates. Within that intellectual tradition, Sun Tzu, Thomas Hobbes, Niccolo Machiavelli, and Thucydides have all noted the usefulness of deception in drumming up political support.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Intelligence & WMD: Reports, Politics, and Intelligence Failures: the Case
    The Journal of Strategic Studies Vol. 29, No. 1, 3 – 52, February 2006 INTELLIGENCE & WMD Reports, Politics, and Intelligence Failures: The Case of Iraq ROBERT JERVIS1 Columbia University, New York ABSTRACT The intelligence failure concerning Iraqi weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has been the center of political controversy and official investigations in three countries. This article reviews the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 7 July 2004, Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, a Report of a Committee of Privy Councillors to the House of Commons, 14 July 2004 (the Butler Report), Report to the President of the United States, The Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction, 31 March 2005. It explores the reasons for their deficiencies and the failure itself. This case and the investigations of it are similar to many previous ones. The investigations are marred by political bias and excessive hindsight. Neither the investigations nor contemporary intelligence on Iraqi WMD followed good social science practices. The comparative method was not utilized, confirmation bias was rampant, alternative hypotheses were not tested, and negative evidence was ignored. Although the opportunities to do better are many, the prospects for adequate reform are dim. KEY WORDS: intelligence, intelligence failures, Iraqi WMD, official inquiries 1Truth in reviewing requires me to say that I chair the CIA’s Historical Review Panel which advises the Director on declassification policies and priorities, wrote a post- mortem for the CIA on why it was slow to see that the Shah of Iran might fall that located a number of errors which recurred in the Iraq case (‘Analysis of NFAC’s Performance on Iran’s Domestic Crisis, Mid-1977–November 1978’, declassified as CIA-RDP86B00269R001100110003-4), and led a small team that analyzed the lessons of the Iraq WMD failure.
    [Show full text]
  • NSC-68 and COLD WAR ROOTS of the 2002 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY Gordon R
    BY ‘ANY MEASURES’ NECESSARY: NSC-68 AND COLD WAR ROOTS OF THE 2002 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY Gordon R. Mitchell and Robert P. Newman University of Pittsburgh Associate Professor and Emeritus Professor Department of Communications 2006-5 About the Matthew B. Ridgway Center The Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies at the University of Pittsburgh is dedicated to producing original and impartial analysis that informs policymakers who must confront diverse challenges to international and human security. Center programs address a range of security concerns – from the spread of terrorism and technologies of mass destruction to genocide, failed states, and the abuse of human rights in repressive regimes. The Ridgway Center is affiliated with the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs (GSPIA) and the University Center for International Studies (UCIS), both at the University of Pittsburgh. This working paper is one of several outcomes of the Ridgway Working Group on Preemptive and Preventive Military Intervention, chaired by Gordon R. Mitchell. BY ‘ANY MEASURES’ NECESSARY: NSC-68 AND COLD WAR ROOTS OF THE 2002 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY Gordon R. Mitchell and Robert P. Newman One prominent venue for public rollout of the Bush administration’s 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS 2002) was U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda. The preface of that journal’s December 2002 issue begins with two quotations from President George W. Bush’s letter transmitting NSS 2002 to Congress. It then proceeds to frame the historical significance of the president’s words: With those words President Bush submitted his National Security Strategy (NSS) to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Updated Copy of KPCC-KPCV-KUOR Quarterly Report Apr-June 2011
    Quarterly Programming Report Apr-June 2011 KPCC / KPCV / KUOR Date Key Synopsis Guest/Reporter Duration The Los Angeles Dodgers beat the San Francisco Giants 2-1 at yesterday’s season opener and it was obviously cause for fans to celebrate. But when a Giants fan was assaulted in the parking lot following the game, the victory was marred by the violence of the attack. Today the man is hospitalized in critical condition and questions about the conduct of Dodgers fans linger. What can be done when the competitive atmosphere of team sports crosses the line between avid fandom and physical attacks on fans of the opposing team? Under what circumstances does revelry turn to violence? What can be done to control 4/1/11 SPOR the behavior of fans, many of whom are inebriated? Bill Plaschke 24:00 California budget talks have broken down and sparked a war of words between Governor Jerry Brown and republican lawmakers. Senate GOP leader, Bob Dutton of Rancho Cucamonga, claims Brown aids yelled at him during negotiations, prompting Brown’s spokesman to call Dutton “erratic” and irrelevant.” In this contentious climate Jerry Brown decided to release a new list of pension reforms, an issue that was a republican sticking point during budget talks. Republican lawmakers had been saying they wouldn’t consider Governor Brown’s proposal to put tax extensions before voters, unless he agreed to considerable pension reforms…but now the Governor has his own and he’s hitting the road to sell them to Californians. We’ll 4/1/11 ECON take a look at the governor’s pension proposals and compare and contrast them with what Republicans wanted.
    [Show full text]
  • Foreign Affairs - Written Evidence
    House of Commons - Foreign Affairs - Written Evidence Search Advanced Search Home Glossary Index Contact Us Parliament Live Session 2002-03 Publications on the internet Foreign Affairs Committee Publications House of Commons Foreign Affairs - Written Evidence[Back to Report] Here you can browse the Written Evidence ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 3 July 2003. CONTENTS Memorandum from Rt Hon Robin Cook MP Memorandum from Dr Thomas David Inch Memorandum from Terence Taylor, International Institute for Strategic Studies-US Memorandum from Andrew Wilkie Memorandum from Alastair Campbell Supplementary memorandum from Alastair Campbell Memorandum from Gareth Howell Memorandum from Laura Quillia Memorandum from Peter Jones Memorandum from the Public Affairs Unit, Church of England Memorandum from Richard Heller Memorandum submitted by Edward Hibbert Memorandum from Mr A Qavi Memorandum from Philip Miller Memorandum from Dr Martha Mundy Memorandum from the Oxford Research Group Memorandum from Dr Glen Rangwala Memorandum from Dr Kamil Mahdi Memorandum from BASIC and Saferworld Memorandum submitted by Olivia Bosch, former UNSCOM Inspector in Iraq Memorandum from Greenpeace UK Memorandum from Paul McGowan Memorandum from the Office of National Assessments, Government of Australia http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmfaff/813/813we01.htm (1 von 2) [18.07.2003 19:57:06] House of Commons - Foreign Affairs - Written Evidence Memorandum from the BBC Memorandum from Dr David Morrison Correspondence between the Chairman
    [Show full text]