Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
415892593
label
[Background Material-Speeches]
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
415892593
contentType
document
title
[Background Material-Speeches]
citationUrl
identifierLocal
13892-008
collections
Records of the White House Office of Speechwriting (George H. W. Bush Administration)
Tony Snow Subject Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
415892593
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
89b068f01765bb48
ocrText
Originally Processed With FOIA(s):
FOIA Number:
S
FOIA
MARKER
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the George Bush Presidential
Library Staff.
Record Group/Collection:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Records
Collection/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting, White House Office of
Series:
Snow, Tony, Files
Subseries:
Subject File, 1988-1993
OA/ID Number:
13892
Folder ID Number:
13892-008
Folder Title:
[Background Material-Speeches]
Stack:
Row:
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
G
18
29
1
7
CAMP DAVID NO. 1
FRI 20 SEP 91 17:32
PG.02
WHITE HOUSE COMMCEN
FRI 20 SEP 91 15:31
PG.03
TIME OF TRANSMISSION
TIME OF RECEIPT
Le#
THE SITUATION ROOM
PRECEDENCE: IMMEDIATE
RELEASER: Bricken
PRIORITY
ROUTINE
DTG: 2015078/SEP91
CAMP25
MESSAGE NO. 09
CLASSIFICATION
UNCLAS
PAGES 2
FROM
Bob Simon
7750
111
(Name)
(Phone Number)
(Room No.)
MESSAGE DESCRIPTION
TO (Agency)
DELIVER TO:
DEPT/ROOM NO.
PHONE NUMBER
AF-1 TONY SNOW AF ONE
Photocopy-Preservation
CAMP DAVID NO. 1
FRI 20 SEP 91 17:35
PG.02
WHITE HOUSE COMMCEN
FRI 20 SEP 91 15:33
PG.05
BULLETIN
TEL No. 3127020725
Sep 19,91 16:48 No 009 P.04
This a copy of the
EDITORIAL
editorial ran in April '90 when the clock moved back
Ten minutes to midnight
A
solitary Chinese mum standing in
Rapid progress toward nuclear disarma-
the path of a column of tanks.
Demonstrating South African
ment by the superpowers and other
nuclear-armed nations has become
women being attacked by police
dogs. A playwright named president of
urgent for other reasons. Domestic
Czechoslovakia. The bodies of six Sal-
strife in a nation with nuclear weapons
vadoran priests. All are faces of human
stockpiles opens the possibility that
weapons could fall into the hands of
courage in the struggle for freedom and
dignity.
unstable groups. Furthermore, deep
While aware that the struggle continues
reductions would strengthen the CHSC for
around the world, we rejoice in humanity's
stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction and minimize the risk that they will
momentous victory in Eastern Europe. People
revolted against the communist loaders whose power, exer-
be used in regional wars. All nuclear weapons tests
should be halted.
elsed through rigid bureaucracies and brutal police appara-
tuses, ultimately rested on the Seviet army. This time, in
Due to Cold War rationales, the two military superpor ers
contrast to 1956 and 1908, the Soviets did not intervenc.
are organized as national security states upheld by vast mil-
Now, 44 years after Winston Churchill's "Iron Curtain"
itary and intelligence bureaueracies and shielded from public
speech, the myth of monolithic communism has been shat-
serutiny by layers of secrecy. These powerful infrustructures
tered for all to see, the ideological conflict known as the Cold
must now he dismanted and sensible defense policies estab-
War is over, and the risk of global nuclear war being ignited
lished. "National security" should no longer justify bankrupt
in Europe is significantly diminished. Although success is in
policies and conceal misdeeds. American and Soviet citizens
no way guaranteed, this is the greatest opportunity in four
are Just beginning to reassess their countries' genuine
defense needs. a prerequisite for drastic reductions in mill
decades to create a safe, sustainable world. In response, we
turn back the hands of the Bulletin clock four minutes, to
tary spending and the reallocation of resources. People mu-t
stand at 10 minutes to midnight.
work more vigorously to demilitarize their societies and
The Cold Warmindset interpreted world events through
effectively address fundamental issues of poverty, hunger,
the distorting prism of East-West conflict. The competition
andenvironmentardamagen
was labeled "cold" to distinguish it from World War 11, " hot
The transition into the post-Cold War cra will not be pan-
less, Along with the joy and promise, the domise of the
war where guns were fired. bombs exploded, tens of millions
order, as witnessed in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Uni
of people killed. Yet, during the past 45 years approximately
125 wars were fought. more than 20 million people killed.
can unleash previously suppressed ethnic and religious rival-
The conflict was cold only in that World War III did not
ries. The quest throughout the world for economic structures
happen. Aside from the close call in Cuba in 1962, U.S. and
that avoid the unjust extremes of monopoly communism and
Soviet leaders didn't square off in R direct fight that could
brissez-faire capitalism will produce instability and conflict.
have led to nuclear disaster. Instead, they grudgingly
That this is now less likely to trigger global WRI offers no
solace to the victims.
respected each other's right to police their respective
The difficulties in creating a better world should not be
empires, demonstrated restrained opposition to each other's
bloody interventions in Vietnam and Afghanistan. fought
underestimated, but we believe that the overall trend is pos-
proxy ware, and profited by becoming the world's largest
itive. We are encouraged, for example, by the impressive
United Nations efforts to resolve international conflicts in
arms suppliers. They popularized language that segregated
most people on earth into a separate "Third World."
Namibia, Irun and Iraq, and elsewhere. The actual disman-
Through It all, the people of the United States and Soviet
thing of U.S. and Sovlet intermediate-runge ballistic missiles
Union put the world at greater risk than at any time in his.
under the INF Treaty and the unilateral Soviet withdrawals
tory, Mesmorized by Cold War rhetoric, they allowed, even
of thousands of tanks and troops from central Europe are
significant deeds.
urged, their governments to build massive nuclear arsenals,
amounting today to one million times the explosive power of
Much remains to be done before the greatest short-term
the Hiroshima bomh. Until those arsenals are climinated,
threat to the planet-the risk of nuclear war-is eliminated.
the danger persisis that an accident, R miscalculation, or
Additional concrete actions that disarm the relations among
irrational net will cause nuclear holocaust. We urge speedy
nations are needed before the hands of the clock CETT to turned
conclusion of a U.S.-Soviet Strategic Arms Reduction
back further. Still, the termination of the Cold War has lifted a
Treaty (START) RS a next step.
grim weight from the human psyche. It has returned to human-
ity its hope for a future, and the chance to create one.
April 1:00 3
Photocopy-Preservation
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has
told the world what time it is since 1947, when
1968
Seven minutes to midnight
1981
Four minutes to middight
its famous clock appeared on the cover. Since
then, the clock has moved forward and back,
France and China acquire
Both superpowers develop more
reflecting the state of international security.
nuclear weapons; wars rage in
weapons for fighting a nuclear
the Middle East, the Indian
war. Terrorist actions,
1947
subcontinent, and Vietnam;
repression of human rights,
Seven minutes to midnight
world military spending
conflicts in Afghanistan. Poland,
WHITE HOUSE COMMCEN
CAMP DAVID NO.1
increases while development funds shrink.
South Africa add to workd tension.
The clock first appears on the
Bulletin cover as a symbol of
1969
Ten minutes to midnight
Sep 19.91 16:48
nuclear danger.
1984
Three minutes to midright
The U.S. Senate ratifies the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation
The arms race accelerates.
1949
Treaty.
"Arms control negotiations have
Three minutes to midnight
been reduced to a species of
propaganda,
The blunt
The Soviet Union explodes its
simplicities of force threaten to
first atomic bomb.
1972
displace any other form of discourse between
Roelve minutes to midnight
the superpowers."
The United States and the
Soviet Union sign the first
1988
Six minutes to midnight
1953
Strategic Arms Limitation
Two minutes to midnight
Treaty (SALT I) and the Anti-
The United States and the
Ballistic Missile Treaty; progress
Sovjet Union sign a treaty to
Photocopy-Preservation
The United States successfully
toward SALT " is anticipated.
eliminate intermediate-range
tests a hydrogen bomb in late
nuclear forces (INF): super-
1952.
1974
power relations improve; more
Nine minutes to midnight
nations actively oppose nuclear weapons.
TEL No 3127020725
SALT talks reach an impasse;
1960
1990
&
Seven minutes to midright
India develops a nuclear weapon.
Ten minutes to midnight
FRI 20 SEP 91 15:32
FRI 20_SEP 91 17:34
"We find policymakers on both
The clock moves in response to
sides increasingly ensnared,
(In Oct. 1989, the clock IS ne-
the growing public understand-
frustrated, and neutralized by
designed to show the need for an
ing that nuclear weapons made
domestic forces having a vested interest in the
expanded view of global security.)
amassing of strategic forces."
Democratic movements in
war between major technical
nations irrational. International
Eastern Europe shalter the myth
scientific cooperation and efforts to aid poor
of monolithic communism; the Cold War ends.
nations are cited.
1980
Seven minutes to midnight
The deadlock in U.S.-Soviet arms
1963
talks continues; nationalistic
Twelve minutes to midnight
THE STORY OF
PG.04
PG.01
wars and terrorist actions
increase; the rift between rich
The U.S. and Soviet signing of
THE BULLETIN CLOCK
the Partial Test Ban Treaty
and poor nations grows wider.
"provides the first tangible
confirmation of what has been
Tony
The clock hasn't been moved
the Bulletin's conviction in
recent years-that a new cohesive force has
since Apr. 90. The Board of
entered the interplay of forces shaping the fate
Directors will vote on what
of mankind."
to do in late October. No
word on what they 11 do.
Bob
UNITE HOUSE COMMCEN
FRI 20 SEP 91 13:46
PG.01
TIME OF TRANSMISSION
TIME OF RECEIPT
THE SITUATION ROOM
PRECEDENCE IMMEDIATE
PRIORITY
RELEASER: Checom
ROUTINE
DTG: 2013452.58091
MESSAGE NO. 03
CLASSIFICATION- UNCLASSIFIED PAGES 8
FROM JBUNTON
7750
111.5
(Name)
(Phone Number)
(Room No.)
MESSAGE DESCRIPTION
TO (Agency)
DELIVER TO:
DEPT/ROOM NO.
PHONE NUMBER
ENY SNOW- - AF1
REMARKS
Photocopy-Preservation
UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION
C
0
3
o
AIR FORCE 1 FAX # 06
HEADQUARTERS 89TH MILITARY AIRLIFT WING
AIR FORCE ONE
ANDREWS AFB, MD 20331-7004
WHCA COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
TELEFAX SECURE # (202) 395-1206/07
TELEFAX ADMIN # (202) 395-5521/22
DATE/TIME: 2015157 Sep '91
FROM: Air Force One/Tony Snow
TO: white House/Dan Mc Groarty X2930
REMARKS:
4 PAGES
UNCLASSIFIED
CLASSIFICATION
I'm proud to take part again in this special week, turning
the spotlight on men and women who have transformed the American
Dream into a series of all-American success stories. I like your
theme -- "Building a Stronger America through Minority Business
Development." It touches upon two principles dear to me.
First, we cannot build an America worthy of its people if we
do not extend real opportunity to everyone -- regardless of race,
creed and background -- and give all American a chance to go as
far as their abilities will take them. Second, a strong a
vibrant economy holds the key to our future as a nation. If we
do not produce new products and opportunities -- if we do not
give people of modest means an chance to become wealthy by virtue
of their boldness, diligence, and genius -- then we lose the very
foundation of democracy. Our lives degenerate into a scramble
for scarce goods, rather than in a march toward a better future.
Our free enterprise system cannot survive without minority
business. It cannot survive if it offers opportunities to some
and not to others. And it cannot survive if it does not produce
new success stories -- stories like yours -- that inspire young
men and women to look up and say: I want to be like them.
Our free enterprise system also rewards a very important set
of values. It rewards those with the courage to act on their
dreams. It rewards people who believe in themselves, believe in
the virtue of hard work, and believe in serving the public.
After all, a business can't succeed if it does not provide
products and services that the public wants.
2
Too often we forget that hard work and success also are
forms of public service: They address people's needs; they draw
upon individual abilities; they provide role models for
youngsters who too often draw their conclusions about life from
television shows or brash hoods on the street.
As a nation, we stand on the verge of a new age of freedom.
Countries around the globe have rejected central economic
planning because it just doesn't work: It cannot work. Instead,
nations in Europe, Asia, Africa and Scandanavia have acknowledged
that freedom works. More precisely: Individual freedom works.
We rejoice that so much of our world now believes in
unrestricted, individual enterprise -- the kind of enterprise
demonstrated by the people we salute today. These awards
celebrate the American spirit -- a spirit that looks past
obstacles and challenges, identifies a goal, and says: I can do
it.
Eleven years ago; Richard Chang left the safe haven of
academia, founded Eastern Computers, and said: I can do it. His
company has pioneered the business of producing multilingual
computer systems. [[Now, if he could only produce a system that
would enable parents to understand their kids!]]
Today, Eastern Computers employs nearly 350 people. It
generated sales of 34 million dollars last year.
Hugh Brown had an idea for a technical and engineering
services company and said: I can do it. With help from the Small
Business Administration's Section 8-a program, he did more than
3
compete. He found his own place in our competitive economy.
Today, BAMSI employs more than 1,300 people and its sales last
year exceeded 39 million dollars.
Raymond Haysbert persevered for nearly 40 years in his quest
to overcome resistance to minority enterprise. But he knew he
could do it. He transformed H.G. Parks into a household name.
Kids across this country call: "More Parks Sausages, Mom.
Please?" [[His customers even have good manners. ]] His company
consistently ranks within the top hundred Black-owned businesses
in America. Its sales under his leadership have risen from
30,000 dollars a year to more than 36 million dollars.
Gae Veit [VITE] said "I can do it" in a business in which
women form a significant minority: The construction industry.
She set out to create her own construction firm in 1982.
Roadblocks surrounded Gae. Doubters accosted her. But she knew
what she wanted, and she got it.
She shaped her vision by naming her company Shingobee
[SHIN-go-bee] -- which means "beautiful evergreen tree" in her
Sioux language. Gae's beautiful evergreen tree has grown from a
small sapling into a thing to behold: A company that expects to
do more than ten million dollars' worth of business this year.
These winners, and many more like them, show that you don't
have to be rich to make a difference in America. All you need is
a fair chance.
These people know: No nation ever drowned in sweat. They
know: America's strength comes from those willing to take a risk,
4
make a difference, and build the foundations of a more prosperous
future. They know that none of us can forget the privilege and
responsibility we share -- to contribute to our communities.
These winners think of others -- not just in building businesses
that serve their communities and neighbors -- but also in
volunteer activities. They each serve as points of light
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE check to see if these folks really do
have volunteer records. If so, gin up some stories, some
examples. If not, send the points of light talk into the
circular file
thought of helping disadvantaged Americans gain access to
business resources and said: I can do it. Hefounded a technical
and engineering service company, BAMSI, [?????] years ago. After
eight years in the SBA's section 8-a program
Pops Mtg.
3/25
1st up:
Congressional Reform:
plus exec. branch reforms.
"Cong needs change."
Teeker: Speedsh Thomas Confirmation.
Poous: Like the idea- 1
but not juint by borking Congress.
Don "forget ourse wes.
Bachgrounder on reform.
Problems in
principle proctice.
"Congron that chases its tail
Ash Roy.. commission
accountability
Under
Nixon?
decemtration
quality
no longer areas of debate in private
sector.
Problem really affecting
ABC
gan if that needs
5 pillars:
to be addressed.
2 035 pillar speeches?
Apr. 9:
2
"Third, [and I know you're going to like this one] we need
fundamental legal reform -- to stop the epidemic of
Lawsuits." (long, vigorous applause) [adlibbed bracketed]
"
compelling Congress to be governed by the law they
impose on people like you.
Term limits on Congress
Overall, I think the speech went over very well to the people in
the room. (They announced that in a straw poll of the audience,
80% supported the President's reelection.)
However, as an attempt to communicate the President's message to
the country, it was a non-event.
One footnote: the language in the speech about being for change
and against the status quo Congress and special interests is good
and should be put to use in the future. Example: "The system is
not accountable, effective, efficient, or even compassionate."
"There are two roads to take: one is reform, the other protects
the status quo."
Air Force One
ABOARD
WELCOME
UNITED STATES. 3HL 30 SEAL SE AL PRES OF THE
MONS
Three visions are jobs, home and family and peace.
The themes under each are:
Jobs
government spending
excessive regulations
international trade
our not the not terms votes
legal reform
new technology
business investment
education
Home and Family
welfare reform
drugs
crime
education
health care
Government
environment
is
children
morals
Peace
never discussed what the problem
no .V.S.
vision
THE WHITE HOUSE
BULLETIN
BULLETIN BROADFAXING NETWORK, 309 CAMERON ST., ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 (703) 684-2020
MEMORANDUM FOR MARIA SHEEHAN
MEDIA AFFAIRS
THE WHITE HOUSE
SUBJECT:
TODAY'S BRIEFING
DATE:
TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1992 - 11:45 AM EDT
SINCE THE MORNING PAPERS:
0
Three previously confiscated bombs exploded today in an Istanbul, Turkey police station as bomb
squads tried to defuse them. The blast wreaked extensive damage on the building, killing at least two
policemen.
0
A group of hard-line Communists met outside Moscow today, calling for the release of the
perpetrators of last year's coup and the restoration of the former Soviet Union. The meeting did
not go as well as had been planned, as many members of the so-called Sixth Congress of People's
Deputies were seemingly confused about the site of the meeting and missed the event altogether.
o
Financial news as of 11:45 AM EDT:
-
DOW (30 Industrials): Up 9 points to 3245 on a volume of 82 million shares.
-
The Consumer Price Index rose 0.3 percent in February, and 0.4 percent excluding food and
energy prices.
-
Housing starts jumped 9.6 percent in February, the largest increase in a year.
--
Industrial production rose 0.6 percent in February.
IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND AROUND TOWN:
o
With the President returning from the campaign trail this afternoon, the White House soon hopes
to make a final decision on how to proceed once the March 20th deadline to Congress comes and
goes without an acceptable economic growth bill on the President's desk. "There are some people
agitating for a speech [to be delivered on March 20th]. Some want to wait and do something later, but
at the very least, there will be something early next week," said a White House official this morning.
"None of that has been decided. The President will return this afternoon and there will be a number of
meetings on this over the next few days." Reportedly, OMB's Bob Grady has been asked by Chief of
Staff Sam Skinner to begin work on a speech which could be delivered on Friday night to a prime-time
television audience, or possibly at a later date. According to a White House official: "[Grady] is involved
in developing the possible content of a possible speech He is working on a speech that could be used
at any time." It is still an open question, however, whether the major networks would cover the event
should the White House request it. If the networks were willing to offer the President time, they would
probably want the Democrats to have equal time, along with a few minutes for their own "talking-head"
The White House Bulletin is a fax-deiivered bulletin board covering policy, political and personnel developments in the
federal government and Washington. The Bulletin welcomes information from those in Washington. (Tel.) 703-684-2020
Paul Roellig, Publisher
William Armistead, Managing Editor
Richard Reed, Political Editor
Fighting Words:
War, Rhetoric and National Purpose
From The Great War to the Cold War and Beyond
Chapter One
Fighting Words: How America Goes to War
Part I: World War.
Chapter Two
"The War to End All Wars"
Chapter Three
World War II
Part II: Cold War.
Chapter Four
The 40 Years' War
Chapter Five
Dominoes: From Korea to Vietnam
Chapter Six
From the Evil Empire to the Revolution of '89
Part III: New World.
Chapter Seven
Desert Storm: War in the New World Order
Chapter Eight
Postcript: War, Rhetoric and National Purpose
# # #
Hampden-Sydney College
P. P S. 385 -- Rhetoric and Statesmanship
Prof. Wudel
Office: Morton B10
Office hours: Mon., Wed., Fri., 2:30-4:00, or by appointment
The purpose of this course is to introduce students to the
study of rhetoric and statesmanship. Accordingly, we will
address question such as these: What exactly is rhetoric
meant to accomplish? What are the limits of what rhetoric
can do? What does the accomplished rhetorician know? What
makes a great speech? Why has the study and practice of
rhetoric declined? How have the media affected rhetoric?
How might rhetoric be rejuvenated? The course, at the same
time, aims particularly to prepare students to write and to
give speeches, and aims also to give students a wider
appreciation of the possibilities for persuasive speech and
writing.
Course Requirements
First exam
25%
Second exam
25%
Third exam
20%
Speech (written)
20%
Speech (oral)
5%
Participation
5%
Required Texts
Aristotle, Rhetoric and Poetics
David Cannadine (ed.), Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat
Peggy Noonan, What I Saw at the Revolution (Revolution)
Richard M. Weaver, The Ethics of Rhetoric (Ethics)
Wudel (ed.), Readings: Rhetoric and Statesmanship (Readings)
Course Outline and Readings
I. Introduction (January 16)
II. Aristotle's Rhetoric
January 21
Rhetoric I.1-I.8
Revolution, Chap. 1
January 23
Rhetoric I.9-I.14
Miller and Bee, "Enthymemes: Body and Soul" Readings
Revolution, Chap. 13
January 28
Rhetoric II.1-II.5
January 30
Rhetoric II.6-II.11
February 4
Rhetoric II.12-II.22
February 6
Rhetoric III.1-III.4, III.6-7, III.10-III.12
February 11
Rhetoric III.14, III.17-III.19
First Exam-February 13
III. Great Leaders, Great Speeches (February 20-March 29)
A. Introduction
February 13
Weaver, "Abraham Lincoln and the Argument from Definition"
Ethics
B. Lincoln (speeches are in Readings)
February 18
"Address to the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois"
- January 27, 1838 (The Perpetuation of our Political
Institutions)
"Address to the Washington Temperance Society of Springfield,
Illinois" - February 22, 1842
"Portion of Speech at Havana, Illinois" " - August 14, 1858
February 20
"Farewell Address at Springfield, Illinois" - February 11,
1861
"First Inaugural Address" - March 4, 1861
"Speech to Indian Chiefs, Washington, D. C. - March 27, 1863
"Address at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania" - November 19, 1863
"Second Inaugural Address" - March 4, 1865
C. Churchill (speeches are in Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat)
February 25
Churchill, "The Scaffold of Rhetoric" Readings
"The Locust Years" pp. 114-128
"A Total and Unmitigated Defeat" pp. 129-143
"Blood, Toil, Tears and Sweat" pp. 147-149
"Be Ye Men of Valour" pp. 150-154
February 27
"Wars Are Not Won by Evacuations" pp. 155-165
"Their Finest Hour" pp. 166-178
"The Few" pp. 179-192
"An English Worthy" pp. 193-197
"Give Us the Tools" pp. 201-213
"Westward, Look, The Land is Bright" pp. 214-224
March 3
"I Offer No Excuses" pp. 234-245
"A Man of Action, Resource and Creative Energy" pp. 246-250
"The Greatest Champion of Freedom" pp. 251-256
"Forward, Till the Whole Task Is Done" pp. 257-266
"The Iron Curtain" pp. 295-308
"The King Walked With Death" pp. 315-319
D. Roosevelt (speeches are in Readings)
March 5
"Campaign Address on Progressive Government" " - September
23,1932
"Inaugural Address" - March 4, 1933
"The Right to a More Abundant Life" - December 6, 1933
"To the Young Democratic Clubs" - August 24, 1935
March 10
"Address on Constitution Day" - September 17, 1937
"Address at the Jackson Day Dinner" - January 8, 1940
"Address at University of Pennsylvania" - September 20, 1940
"Declaration of War" - December 8, 1941
Second Exam - March 12
IV. Rhetoric Today
March 12
Fairlie, "The Decline of Oratory" Readings
Sacks, "The President's Speech" Readings
Revolution, Chaps. 5, 11
March 17
Ceasar et. al., "The Rhetorical Presidency" Readings
Sound, Chaps. 1-3
Revolution, Chap. 7
"The Perfect Speech" Readings
March 19
Mansfield, "The Media World and Democratic Representation"
Readings
Revolution, Chap. 2
Sound, Chaps. 4-5
March 31
George Bush, "Acceptance Speech"
Revolution, Chap. 17
George Bush, "War with Iraq"
"Peggy Noonan-Clipping File" Readings
April 2
Weaver, "The Rhetoric of Social Science" and "Ultimate Terms
in Contemporary Rhetoric" Ethics
April 7
Sound, Chap. 6
HRH Charles, "A Vision of Britain" Readings
"HRH Charles-Clipping File" Readings
Third exam-April 9
V. Speech-writing and Public Speaking
A. Speech-writing
April 14
Readings to be announced
B. Public Speaking (Dr. Frye)
April 16
Readings to be announced
VI. Speeches
April 21, 23
Weaver, "Some Rhetorical Aspects of Grammatical Categories"
Readings
Orwell, "Politics and the English Langauge" Readings
VII. Conclusion (April 28)
NSC Nixon draft (3/9/92) --
summary of central points.
Nixon's challenge: to maintain Twin Balances:
between confrontation and cooperation.
between withdrawal and engagement (?)
Our circumstances -- different, but our challenge remains:
balance between withdrawal and engagement
Coping with success:
Absence of over-riding threat.
Urge to bring troops home.
Historical parallels:
WWI: withdrawal and isolation.
WWII: (after temptation to withdraw) engagement --
alliances, institutions.
After Cold War, what?
Protectionism -- isolationism. Their dangers.
We must: aid reform in former USSR, Eastern Europe --
Democracy in the Americas.
Peace process in Middle East.
End of conflict in Cambodia.
Dangers remain: terrorism. Drugs. Disease. Pollution.
ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons.
Post-Cold War world -- more chance for conflict.
Rebut calls for peace dividend.
Resist deeper defense cuts.
Costs of isolationism:
Saddam and oil: Depression -- not just recession (!).
**Domestic caveat** "This is not meant to suggest we should not
do more here at home. Of course we should."
Costs of Protectionism:
Bring down trade walls -- don't build new ones.
Conclusion:
Message: "No distinction between how we fare abroad and how
we live at home. "
Notes Cold War's "elegant simplicity" as counterpoint to our
complex new world.
Ruffles, flourishes.
# # #
We in gott to take a sood look at what
we're up saint I 've been reading a hestory of
in The 30's before America mirred in
W.W II. Theres the wal: parablel. Bach
isolahouism HiHer 's valled tanks
rolled much tested in to Poland.
Behind Hitler's blitz brieg came
the Death 's Head Regiment. The
SS unit
cold, calculated, crushis any
The same is happung in K. today.
Ex
a syddematic ussuult or the soul 57
a nations
America with not stand and
went in lined up the
dout Son & st
X official is werel
the
A XXX at
that
X New toldor
b salect
44
two
O potrib ,Day
X wt monida
saft hearit shawer
Hauss. McG.
Hotlenie
70 qw QTV
Clips
Mm 7. 8011 &
1
2) Schneider Bethel
Dam. ?
3) Manh 10,
Gov
A.C.
DD
Mar7
Man 8
60+7
TRADE
DE-INDUSTRIALIZATION, MANAGED TRADE, AND
336.7116
INDUSTRIAL POLICY: MYTHS AND MISTAKES
The premise that the U.S. is "de-industrializing" does not square with the facts.
In 1990, manufacturing accounted for 23% of U.S. GNP, a slightly higher
percentage than in 1980.
use
Manufacturing productivity rose by 3.9% a year over the last decade, the best
this
performance since World War II.
An OECD study indicates that the U.S. share of industrial output among the OECD
nations grew from 36% in 1973 to 39% in 1986.
The U.S. share of global high-technology output remained stable at 42% during the
1970s and 1980s.
Our share of OECD industrial employment rose from 24% in 1962 to 28% in 1985,
while the shares of the U.K., France and Germany fell by 30%, 10%, and 20%
respectively. In short, we managed to create jobs for baby boomers and also for
women as they entered the work force. Other nations did not.
The United States does not need managed trade or a "strategic industrial policy" to
catch up to foreign competition.
Industrial policy advocates propose that the U.S. Government supervise, subsidize,
and protect selected "strategic" industries, just as Soviet planners selected,
supervised, and subsidized chosen heavy industries.
There is no evidence that government officials are better than the marketplace at
identifying "winners and losers" among industries.
Implementing an industrial policy or a managed trade regime usually requires detailed
government intervention, which diminishes competition.
What the U.S. economy needs is less, not more, government intervention, taxation,
and regulation.
Recent economic research shows that pursuing "strategic industrial policy" will likely
lead to a lower level of national welfare.
clumbers - ont.-
- asho Pink,
(tease some
camisters
CAFE. new ways to clean invince
Archer - Poter credited
they
for Kissimmero, etc.
NES.
CAPE - 20 your old.
May be sime to draws
whether it's outlod
Findley- defending cash/clumber.
its usefulness. 11?
News.
not wouced about pandeng- -
Shiner is.
"Poous taking hils"
thi inderstry &
working side by side w/ UAW
-Ce9- that would elemate
to fight
uncreas
thousands Tools.
WEARE
I will not sign a CAFE bill
that willdshorg the antindershing t
For Pot
1
Mddha
The Strategic Importance of
East
Israel
After the Cold War
(Including Lessons of the Gulf War)
"Strategic cooperation with Israel remains a cornerstone of American defense
policy" --Defense Secretary Richard Cheney, Oct. 28, 1991
SUMMARY
While threats to America's interests have diminished in other parts of the world
following the demise of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, the Middle East
remains a high-threat area according to the Pentagon's new Defense Planning Guidance.
Saddam Hussein proved to be a greater threat in 1990, without Soviet support, than
he was in 1980 when he had Moscow's backing. Rogue states like Iraq, Iran, Libya,
and Syria are now so heavily armed and are so rapidly acquiring weapons of mass
destruction that they pose a greater threat of independent action today than they did a
decade ago when they depended on Soviet support.
As the military potential of radical Middle East states grows at a time when
American global force projection capabilities are reduced due to cuts in the U.S. armed
forces, our ability to deal effectively with regional crises will continue to diminish.
Reliance on our strongest ally in the region, Israel, will therefore become increasingly
important.
Israel is America's most reliable and capable strategic ally in the region, with the
most capable armed forces and the best-located facilities for a "swing force" that might
have to operate in the eastern Mediterranean, the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa,
Southern Europe, or the Suez Canal. In an era of scarce resources, it makes sense to
deploy and preposition American assets at such a key juncture between potential theaters
of operation.
Vice President Dan Quayle said on April 7, 1992, "Since the U.S.-Israel
relationship was not a product of the Cold War, it won't be diminished by the end of the
Cold War. The world is still a dangerous place--in some respects, even more dangerous
than it used to be Cold War or no Cold War, Israel remains our closest and most reliable
ally in the Middle East." Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens Said on March 9, 1992,
"Our common strategic interests have grown since the end of the Cold War because of
the deep cuts which the U.S. defense establishment has made in manpower and weapons
development, as well as the virtual elimination of the American military posture on the
continent of Europe."
2
TOPICS COVERED
Overview of the strategic relationship
P.2
1. Now that the Cold War is over, what is the threat?
P. 5
2. What can Israel do to help meet the threat?
P. 7
A. Israel is our most reliable ally in the region.
P.7
B. Scenarios of U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation
P. 8
C. Israel has the most capable forces in the region
P.10
D. Use of Israeli facilities by the U.S. armed forces
P.11
D.i. Israel's value as a port of call
P.12
D.ii. Israel as a training ground for U.S. forces
P.13
D.iii. Israel's capability to maintain and repair U.S.
P.13
equipment
E. The value of Israeli technology
P.13
E.i. Israeli military technologies used during the Gulf War
P.14
E.ii. Ongoing joint technology development programs
P.15
F. The value of Israeli intelligence
P.16
3. The U.S.-Israel strategic relationship has grown since the end of the
P.16
Cold War.
4. The value of Israeli technology in assisting America's war on drugs
P.18
5. Israel remains top ally of the U.S. at the U.N.
P.18
OVERVIEW OF THE STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIP
Tom Friedman of the New York Times wrote on March 22, "With the end of the
Cold War, a sea change has taken place in Israel's relationship with Washington and it
can no longer argue as effectively as before that it is a strategic asset for the United
States." David Hoffman of the Washington Post made the same argument on the 23rd:
"Israel's strategic importance to the United States lost its luster with the end of the Soviet
Union and the Cold War." Bill Quandt of Brookings Institute said that "the strategic
rationale which developed in the 1980s is essentially gone."
Yet, America just fought its first war in the Middle East, confronting an Arab
aggressor who moved after the collapse of communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall.
And, in April of 1992, the Middle East is full of expectation that there may be a
resumption of hostilities between the United States and Iraq, or even an American strike
against Libya. Looking further into the future, the Pentagon's new Defense Planning
Guidance identifies potential Iranian aggression against neighboring countries as one of the
principal threats for which U.S. armed forces must prepare for the coming decade.
Clearly, threats in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East have not declined
with the end of the Cold War; if anything, they have increased. How can this be so?
The answer is the frantic pace at which potential aggressors in the Middle East like Iraq
and Iran, as well Syria and Libya, have been able to build up their inventories of modern
weapons, while at the same time acquiring missiles like the Scud as well as
unconventional capabilities in chemical, biological, and even nuclear fields. Emboldened
by its military strength, Syria has stepped up its support of PKK terrorism against Turkey,
leading to a stem warning delivered Syrian President Assad in person by Turkish Interior
Minister Ismet Sezgin on April , 1992, and Libya is defying U.N. Security Council
demands that it end its support for international terrorists.
3
On March 11, 1992, General Norman Schwartzkopf's successor as the head of the
United States Central Command in the Middle East, General Joseph Hoar, laid out to
Congress the problem the U.S. armed forces could face if called upon to resist aggression
in the Middle East in the future. "We know it will be very unlikely that we could
replicate Operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield in the future We doubt our adversary
would grant us the reaction time that Saddam Hussein provided in 1990." And, he
continued, "as the U.S. military reduces its size" and withdraws from Europe, "our ability
to respond quickly with decisive force is reduced." Under these circumstances, the head
of the Central Command said, "We have neither the ability nor the desire to provide for
security alone." We need to make an "investment in coalition building with our friends
in the region," and to do that "we must redouble our efforts to ensure that we are able
to call on a climate of trust" between ourselves and our regional allies. With respect to
prepositioning of equipment in countries in the region, "we learned during the last conflict
that prepositioning is key to our ability to respond."
Saddam Hussein had the fourth largest army in the world in 1990. The armies
of Syria and Iran are almost as large, and like Iraq, they have missiles, chemical warheads,
and other modern weapons. Syria's air force, and its SAM network, are more formidable
than those Iraq had.
In a future war, the United States armed forces will be much smaller than those
of 1990, and a higher percentage of them will be based in the continental United States
rather than in Europe. But the forces of these threatening regional states are expected to
grow. General Hoar told Congress that, after the U.S. armed forces are drawn down, the
United States will not be able to deliver a force the size of that assembled for Desert
Storm. "The force is not going to be available in a way that would allow it to be moved
to the area." We will be able to "replicate the results of Desert Storm with the [future]
base force [only] if we have coalition support and if we move early on ambiguous
warning to move assets to the region." But, we may not be able to count on the support
of the dozens of countries that aided in Desert Shield/Desert Storm.
What does this mean for U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation? Isn't it true that, far
from relying on Israel in the Gulf War, the Administration mainly wanted Israel to stay
out of the fray? As Tom Friedman put it, American officials "had to spend their energy
keeping Israel out of the fighting so they could keep the Arabs in."
Israel was the first U.S. ally in the region to step forward and offer help after
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, offering on August 6 to participate
in any military attempt to prevent an Iraqi attack on Saudi Arabia if asked by the United
States. A special, secure communications link was established between the Pentagon and
the Israeli Ministry of Defense, and it "enabled immediate and frequent contact between
senior U.S. and Israeli officials," according to a U.S. DoD report. Yet, it is true that in
the particular case of the Gulf War, the active role of Israeli forces and facilities was
minimal. But this derived from a unique set of circumstances, not likely to be repeated.
All of Iraq's neighbors directly or indirectly supported the U.S. in this conflict, and we
had bases in Turkey to the north and Saudi Arabia to the south. In other scenarios, we
will not have such a rich set of access arrangements. Secretary Cheney said in an April
1992 report to Congress, "We must remember that this war, like every other, was
unique We received ample support from the nations that hosted our forces and relied upon
a well-developed coastal infrastructure that may not be available the next time." Egyptian
4
President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Hafez Assad have already stated, on March
18, 1992, that they will not participate in or support resumption of the use of force against
Iraq even if it does not comply with U.N. requirements. The Government of Turkey,
facing Islamic and nationalist opposition to U.S. use of Turkish bases for operations
against Iraq, may not renew the agreement permitting use of Incirlik when it expires in
June.
Also, the war would have been far more difficult for the U.S., as General Hoar
told Congress, if "Saddam Hussein's forces had not paused at the southern border of
Kuwait but had continued south" into Saudi Arabia. Secretary Cheney said, "Iraqi forces
could have quickly moved down the Saudi coast to seize the oil-rich Eastern Province and
threaten the Gulf sheikhdoms. Iraqi control of Saudi Gulf ports would have made
military operations to recapture the seized territory extremely difficult." The Pentagon's
Gulf War analysis concluded, "Although U.S. forces arrived quickly, there was a lengthy
period of vulnerability during which Coalition forces could not have repulsed an Iraqi
invasion into Saudi Arabia." Imagine that Iraqi forces were in artillery range of Saudi
Arabia's crucial Dharan airfield complex. Would the Saudis have refused to accept
American help involving the use of Israeli facilities, if the survival of the Kingdom were
at stake? What if Iraqi forces had threatened to move into Jordan, as many feared in the
opening days of the war?
Israel's support could be particularly important in a scenario involving Iraqi or
Syrian aggression against Jordan, a Syrian conflict with Turkey (a possibility that is far
from remote at the present time), a Syrian attack on a future Lebanese government that
sought to exercise greater independence, a conflict involving Libya, or problems that could
arise in the future if Algeria is radicalized by Islamic fundamentalists and pursues a
militant foreign policy like that of Iran.
Israel remains the ally most likely to help when we ask, our most capable ally
in the region and the one most critically located at the juncture of the Eastern
Mediterranean, the Arabian Peninsula, North Africa and the Suez Canal, and southern
Europe. As Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens said to the UJA Young Leadership
Cabinet on March 16th, "The Middle East continues to be the most volatile area of the
world, an area in which Arab dictators run rampant and endanger. vital interests of the
Unites States. And just because the United States is cutting back on defense expenditures,
the relationship between the United States and Israel, the strategic interests will be stronger
than ever in the years to come. And if there are some people in Washington that don't
recognize that just yet, they will. It won't take very long."
But Israelis fear that, while the objective importance of the U.S.-Israel strategic
relationship remains great, this is no longer well-understood by officials, journalists, and
diplomats around the world. True, Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said that "strategic
cooperation with Israel remains a cornerstone of American defense policy," and Secretary
Baker said "Strategic cooperation is still important as far as the United States is
concerned I see the United States as a strong ally of Israel and I see Israel as a strong
ally of the United States." And it is true that the concrete programs of the strategic
relationship perception, shared by Arabs, Israelis, and Americans, that this strategic
cooperation is no longer a serious commitment in the minds of American decisionmakers,
not something that they take seriously into account when their minds turn to grand
strategy.
5
What can be done to make perception a more accurate reflection of reality? To
some degree, time itself will repair these misconceptions, as future crises will remind
people that the threats to U.S. interests are real and that we will need closer U.S.-Israel
cooperation if we are going to deter aggression and war in the region. But when there
is a dangerous misconception afoot, and when people have lost sight of strategic realities,
it is not enough to sit back and wait for an emergency to bring them to their senses.
Those who understand the problem, and who have the ability to make themselves heard,
need to stand up and be counted.
Another issue on which there has also been considerable misunderstanding and
sometimes deliberately misleading statements by critics is the relationship between strategic
cooperation and the peace process. It has been alleged more than a few times by critics
of the U.S.-Israel relationship that advocacy of strategic cooperation is some kind of
diversionary tactic to detract attention from the peace process. If America acknowledges
Israel's importance as a strategic partner, so the theory goes, it will somehow reduce
Israel's incentives to take the steps that are necessary for the pursuit of peace.
The people of Israel do not need to be reminded that there can be no lasting
security without accommodation with and acceptance by their neighbors; both major
political parties are strongly committed to the peace negotiations that are now underway.
Nor is it true that the peace process and close U.S.-Israel relations are incompatible. In
fact, exactly the reverse is true: The strategic relationship is a key foundation of the
peace process, for four reasons. First, it strengthens Israel's deterrence of Arab
aggression, helping to channel and moderate Arab opinion away from the military option
and toward negotiations. Second, it helps to give Israelis the confidence they must have
if negotiations move toward agreements in which Israel must accept elements of risk to
achieve peace. General Colin Powell, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "An
Israel that is strong and secure is an Israel that can participate in the peace process with
confidence and security." Third, it strengthens the U.S. role as a mediator, because it
enables the Arabs to look to the U.S. as the one outside party with influence in Jerusalem,
and it enables Israelis to trust the United States in a world that is often hostile. Finally,
after peace treaties are signed, Israel will need assurances against the risk of Arab
violations. Close strategic relations with the U.S. will contribute toward this end.
Overall, the U.S.-Israel strategic relationship serves American interests by
supporting the search for diplomatic solutions to the problems of the region, while
reducing the risks of war and serving the operational needs of the U.S. armed forces
should they face another conflict in the region.
1. NOW THAT THE COLD WAR IS OVER, WHAT IS THE THREAT?
An "arc of crisis" extends from Morocco to Pakistan, and includes all of the
world's still-existing regimes that have committed acts of violence against U.S.
citizens in recent years: Libya, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. All these predator states -
- even post-Desert Storm Iraq -- continue to threaten U.S. interests; other nations
in the region may also do so in the future.
The predator states have amassed vast quantities of powerful conventional and
unconventional weapons, sufficient to pose a greater threat to U.S. interests today
than they did in earlier years when they enjoyed Soviet backing but lacked the
6
capability to initiate independent military operations. Several possess
ballistic missiles, chemical and biological weapons, and are frantically
pursuing nuclear weapons capabilities. The Pentagon's April 1992 report
to Congress on the Gulf War concludes that, "Prudence dictates that
national defense planning assume future adversaries will be more adept,
better equipped, and more effective than Saddam Hussein."
Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, reporting to Congress in April 1992 on the
results of the Gulf War, said: "The Persian Gulf conflict reminds us that we
cannot be sure when or where the next conflict will arise. In early 1990, many
said there were no threats left because of the Soviet withdrawal from Eastern
Europe; very few expected that we would be at war within a year Looking back
over the past century, enormous strategic changes often arise unexpectedly No
matter how hard we wish for a just peace, there will come a time when a future
President will have to send young Americans into combat somewhere in the
world."
Iran is engaged in what Brent Scowcroft termed a "very massive military buildup,"
and has publicly announced its intention to acquire nuclear weapons. Vice
President Mohadjerani stated on Nov. 16, 1991, "Yes, we are acting to attain a
nuclear bomb The Moslems must get ready to attain nuclear power which will
make them strong." Libya and Syria are also engaged in the development of
unconventional weapons capabilities. "Iraq preserved and salvaged a significant
military capability and shows every intent of reconstituting its earlier strength at
some point in the future," the head of the U.S. Central Command told Congress
on March 11, 1992. "We believe that through continued rearmament, through
rebuilding their lines of communication, through rebuilding ordnance factories,
munitions factories, that they will continue to rebuild, and that sometime in the
next five years, perhaps, they will have an offensive capability once again."
Nearly three-quarters of the world's proven oil reserves are located within the "arc
of crisis." The rapidly growing U.S. dependence on Arab oil imports (currently
$60 billion) is already responsible for a far larger share of the U.S. trade deficit
than is the trade imbalance with Japan ($40 billion). Should more Islamic states
be radicalized at a time of growing Western dependence on their petroleum, the
"oil weapon" could be unsheathed once again with a repeat of the devastating
impact on the U.S. economy that occurred in 1974 and from which the U.S. still
has not fully recovered.
Radical Islam harbors implacable hostility toward the West and toward democracy
and other basic Western values. It profoundly resents the Western "infidels"
military and material success, which it views as contrary to Islam's teachings. It
regards the West as the underlying cause of the Islamic world's weakness and
misfortunes, and as the main obstacle to Islamic reunification and return to
medieval Islam's "Golden Age." As the West's undisputed military and political
leader, radical Muslims throughout the Middle East regard the United States as the
"Great Satan," their most hateful and dangerous enemy on earth.
7
Militant Arab nationalism, embodied by Qaddafi's Libya, Assad's Syria, and
Saddam Hussein's Iraq, shares radical Islam's hostility toward the U.S.-dominated
West. It regards Western "imperialism" as the root cause of the breakup of the
Arab world, and as the chief impediment to Arab power and reunification.
Although the appeal of Arab nationalism has waned, its anti-Western message
remains a potent force throughout the Arab world and can be mobilized even in
currently pro-Western Arab countries, as evidenced in Jordan before and during
Desert Storm.
Syria's present posture of accommodating the West, and the stirrings of a similar
trend in Iran, do not represent a fundamental reconciliation with the U.S. It is the
result of economic need coupled with fear of the U.S. military might as displayed
in Desert Storm. Should circumstances change, they could quickly revert to the
pursuit of economic advantage through intimidation and aggression, much as
Saddam Hussein surprised the West by dropping his facade of moderation and
invading Kuwait in August 1990.
2. WHAT CAN ISRAEL DO TO HELP MEET THE THREAT?
A. ISRAEL IS OUR MOST RELIABLE ALLY IN THE REGION
Israel was the first U.S. ally in the region to step forward and offer help after
Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990. "On August 6, Israel stated
that it was prepared to participate in any military attempt to prevent an Iraqi attack
on Saudi Arabia if asked by the United States," according to the Pentagon's April
1992 report to Congress on the Gulf War. "A special, secure communications
link established between DoD and the Israeli Ministry of Defense enabled
immediate and frequent contact between senior U.S. and Israeli officials"
throughout the conflict.
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Syrian President Hafez Assad were allied
to the U.S. in the Gulf War, but both have since stated, on March 18, 1992, that
they will not participate in and will oppose any resumed use of force against
Saddam Hussein, even if the U.S. finds this necessary to halt Iraqi violations of
the U.N. resolutions. The Government of Turkey, facing Islamic and nationalist
opposition to U.S. use of Turkish bases for operations against Iraq, may not renew
the agreement permitting use of Incirlik when it expires in June.
The moderate Arab states that were allied to the U.S. in the Gulf War have also
stated that they will oppose any use of force against Libya in relation to Qaddafi's
refusal to cooperate with the prosecution of those involved in the bombing of Pan
Am 103.
In April 1986, when the Reagan Administration conducted an air strike against
Libya for its participation in international terrorism, Syria offered to fight along
side Libyan troops and Saudi Arabia condemned the U.S. raid and said that it
would support Libya. In April of 1992, Syria sought to defy the U.N. Security
Council's airline boycott of Libya to symbolize support of Qaddafi.
Israel is our only permanent ally and the only nation in the region permanently
immune to Arab nationalist or radical Islamic takeover.
8
As a Western democracy steeped in Western values, Israel is not only friendly to
the West but an integral part of it. U.S. strategic agreements with authoritarian
Arab regimes often do not have popular support in Arab countries, and are
therefore effective only as long as a particular ruling elite remains in power and
considers the alliance with the U.S. to serve its interests. In contrast, the four-
decades-old U.S.-Israel alliance is supported by the great majority of the people
of Israel and all the major political parties. Such depth of support is a prerequisite
for a reliable and durable alliance, and is the reason that alliances with democracies
are more deeply rooted than alliances with autocracies and tyrannies.
As Israeli Ambassador Zalman Shoval said on April 5, 1992, " Real, long-
lasting alliances between nations must be founded not only in political
expediencies which are liable to change, especially in the Middle East, but
in common values. This is why alliances between democracies
endure and why alliances with tyrannies last only for so long as they are
convenient Long before the government of the United States ever began
military aid to Israel as a bulwark against Communism, it was the
common values that lay at the heart of this rare and durable relationship."
Building alliances with conservative Arab regimes is a temporary and uncertain
solution. The pro-Western monarchies of Iraq, Libya, and Iran were all toppled
(in 1958, 1969, and 1979 respectively) and replaced by virulently anti-Western
regimes. All the surviving pro-Western Arab governments, as well as Turkey and
Pakistan, are vulnerable to radical Islamic pressures, and most could be
overthrown; the U.S. can help these fragile governments deal with external
aggression, but not with internal threats.
Although many Islamic regimes are currently moderate and friendly to the United
States, no Islamic nation is immune to radicalization. Sudan has already joined
Iran as a radical Islamic state harboring terrorist groups, and Algeria's march
toward radical Islam, temporarily halted by last-minute army intervention, is by no
means over. All the Arab countries are threatened by powerful radical Islamic
forces.
B. SCENARIOS OF U.S.-ISRAEL STRATEGIC COOPERATION
U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation serves the national interests of the United States
by contributing to deterrence of a wide variety of threats in the Mediterranean and
Persian Gulf regions, and by contributing to the effectiveness of military actions
should they occur.
MEDITERRANEAN SCENARIOS
1) A Syrian Attack on Israel. Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in
1979, and much of Iraq's offensive potential was destroyed in the Gulf
War. Most analysts believe that the principal remaining danger of a future
Arab-Israeli war is a military initiative launched by Syria. Such an attack
could draw in other Arab states and lead to an escalation spiral threatening
to the interests of the United States. U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation acts
as a deterrent to Syrian aggression by adding to the risks Assad would
face in undertaking such an initiative.
9
2) An Iraqi Incursion in Jordan. Renewed Iraqi aggression in the future
could take the form of an intrusion into Jordan, to achieve a direct role
in the Palestinian question and frontline status against Israel, or to open
an alternative Iraqi line of communication through Aqaba. Indeed, such
an Iraqi move into Jordan was a concern during the "window of
vulnerability" after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990, and
before the Coalition forces achieved full strength months later. Israel
made it clear during the war that it would regard an Iraqi incursion in
Jordan as a causis belli. In such a scenario, U.S.-Israel cooperation could
be critical for deterrence and defense.
3) A Syrian Incursion in Jordan. Syria threatened to intervene in Jordan's
1970 civil strife, and took the active step of sending tanks into the
country, to support the PLO against King Hussein. Israeli-American
cooperation succeeded in persuading the Syrians to withdraw, permitting
the Hashemite Kingdom to prevail. Should Syria be tempted to exploit its
great superiority over Jordan in the future, perhaps to secure Syrian
hegemony in Jordan like that Assad now holds in Lebanon, Israel-U.S.
cooperation could once again be the deterrent.
4) Syrian Conflict with Turkey. Syria's support of growing PKK Kurdish
terrorism and attacks on Turkish targets, including PKK infiltrations into
Turkey from points along the Syrian border, has led to a strongly worded
message from Turkey to Syrian President Assad that it will no longer
tolerate the situation. While military conflict between the two states
probably is not imminent, further escalation by Assad cannot be ruled out.
U.S. cooperation with Turkey and Israel helps to constrain Assad.
5) Syrian Conflict with Lebanon. If a future Lebanese government
attempts to assert its independence and act in its own national interest,
rejecting Syrian domination, Assad could revert to military action to
subdue Lebanon. U.S.-Israeli cooperation could be essential if Washington
supports Lebanese sovereignty.
6) Libyan Adventurism. Colonel Qaddafi continues to acquire missiles,
chemical weapons, and other modern arms. His erratic history of military
adventurism and terrorism could lead to renewed threats that might force
the U.S. to consider a military response again. Israeli-American
cooperation could contribute to the effectiveness of the U.S. Sixth Fleet
and Air Force in such a scenario.
7) Future Algerian Threats. If militant Islamic forces gain control of
Algeria, and model their foreign policy on that of Iran, Algeria could pose
a significant threat to Morocco, Tunisia, and others. Algeria's growing
nuclear capability has also become a matter of international concern.
Israeli cooperation could be useful to the Sixth Fleet, if it is called upon
to contain such an Algerian threat.
10
GULF SCENARIOS
8) Iraqi Aggression Against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or the Gulf Emirates.
As Secretary Cheney told Congress, a future Gulf war scenario could be
more stressful than Desert Storm, if Iraq gained control of Saudi Arabia's
infrastructure, and the access arrangements that we enjoyed in 1990-91
were not available. In such a stressful scenario, Israeli facilities and even
direct military support might be sought by the United States.
9) Iranian Aggression Against Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, or the Gulf Emirates.
Here, again, Israeli support might be sought by the United States in a
scenario of high duress.
C. ISRAEL HAS THE MOST CAPABLE FORCES IN THE REGION
Israel has the most capable air force and navy in its theatre, a fact often noted
with admiration by U.S. experts. Because it is threatened by adversaries with
more than 2000 combat aircraft and because it relies heavily on its air force to
compensate for the great quantitative disadvantage it suffers in ground forces, the
Israeli Air Force maintains an inventory of more than 600 modern combat aircraft.
While intended primarily to protect the Jewish state from air attack and support
the ground forces, the IAF could in particular circumstances join a coalition with
the U.S. armed forces against a mutual threat. This was implied in Israel's offer
on August 6, 1990, noted above, to join the United States in a military effort to
prevent an Iraqi attack on Saudi Arabia if asked by the United States.
Operating with an allied American force, the IAF could significantly augment U.S.
capability. For example, it is estimated that Israel could generate twelve times as
many combat sorties as a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier's air wing, and more than
twenty times as many attack sorties. Even if only 20% of Israel's capability were
engaged, the IAF could fly more sorties than a two-carrier U.S. task force
operating at a maximum surge rate. Similarly, the Israeli Navy, although
comprised mainly of small missile boats, has impressive capabilities against surface
combattants in the eastern Mediterranean and, acting in combination with the
Israeli Air Force, is capable of defeating any likely fleet of adversaries.
By taking out Iraq's nuclear reactor, rescuing the Western hostages in Entebbe,
and destroying the PLO headquarters in Tunis, Israel demonstrated a "long-arm"
capability to reach any of the four predator states and beyond.
Israel's 1981 surgical strike against Iraq's nuclear reactor, which was criticized at
the time by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, is now generally
acknowledged to have been greatly beneficial to the United States. On Oct. 28,
1991, Defense Secretary Richard Cheney publicly thanked Israel for its action,
saying, "There were many times during the course of the buildup in the Gulf and
the subsequent conflict that I gave thanks for the bold and dramatic action that
had been taken some ten years before."
11
D. USE OF ISRAELI FACILITIES BY U.S. FORCES
The Pentagon's April 1992 study of the lessons of the Gulf War concluded that,
"Prepositioning equipment and sustainment supplies is an important strategic lift
multiplier that reduces the initial strain of air and sealift and provides deploying
commands with substantially increased flexibility Prepositioning programs
improved U.S. preparedness markedly [and] proved invaluable. As [U.S.] forces
are drawn down and the defense budget becomes smaller, it is important to
continue to improve forward presence and military-to-military contacts to facilitate
regional operations [and] joint and combined training and exercises under realistic
conditions Availability of staging bases and a well-developed infrastructure. were
crucial to the Coalition's success. These facilities and resources may not be as
readily available in future contingencies."
Israel is an ideal location for prepositioned U.S. assets for a "swing force" that
might have to be used in the Persian Gulf, Middle East, North Africa, Southern
Europe, or the eastern Mediterranean. The distance from Israel to the Gulf is less
than one-seventh that from the U.S. It is also half the distance of Diego Garcia
to Kuwait. In an era of reduced resources, the U.S. armed forces need the
flexibility that a site applicable to multiple scenarios affords. Israel is an excellent
location for a "stepping-stone" to the Gulf, one whose use will be permitted in a
wider variety of scenarios than prepositioning sites in Egypt or Turkey. The
Pentagon's Gulf War report acknowledges the utility of prepositioning sites not in
the Gulf but "closer, than if they had been stored in CONUS [the continental U.S.]."
The quality of Israeli facilities and military manpower is unsurpassed for
prepositioning U.S. materiel, maintenance assistance, training in a realistic
environment (often not permitted in Arab countries), and joint exercises with U.S.
armed forces. These programs, whose further expansion has recently been
announced, are vital for a direct U.S. role if required in any future conflict.
Given the uncertain prospects of their vulnerable regimes, Islamic countries can
only serve as short-term substitutes.
Secretary Cheney reported to Congress in April 1992, "The Persian Gulf War
teaches us that our current planning should pay explicit attention to the kinds of
relationships which might support future coalition efforts Investments in
infrastructure and practice in international cooperative efforts can be [important]
to build the trust and capabilities that will be needed to put together future
coalitions and to enable them to operate successfully in future crises. It takes
years of working together to build these kinds of ties." General Hoar, the Chief
of the Central Command said on March 11, 1992, that to deal with a threat, the
lesson of the Gulf War is that "we need to act on ambiguous, warning; we need
to move forces to the region before a crisis."
But General Hoar told the House Armed Services Committee on March 11, 1992,
"The one thing we have been unable to do, which has been a disappointment to
me, has been to preposition sufficient heavy assets, armor assets, in the region.
We have been unable to find the few countries where they would be most
accessible to respond to a crisis from the North, the right kind of agreement or the
right formula, working with our coalition friends in the region, for placing that
sizeable kind of force." The problem is that, "Each of these countries has radical
12
elements in the government, people that continually make the presence of
forces in the region a subject of discussion. They believe that Western
elements present in those countries will overtum the established order, that
Western decadence will slip into those cultures. Much of this is
encouraged by other countries that wish to limit U.S. presence in the
region." As a result, Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams said on March
3, 1992, we still have no agreement to preposition U.S. ground forces
equipment in Saudi Arabia, so in the event of a crisis, the equipment
would have to be shipped back there again.
Yet, General Hoar also indicated in his testimony that Israel is not considered a
major candidate for a prepositioning site for Gulf contingencies because, he said,
it is considered to fall within the scope of operations of the European Command
rather than the Central Command that is responsible for the Gulf.
The origin of this bureaucratic obstacle and anomaly (the Arabs themselves
consider Israel to fall within the heart of the Middle East) was an American
political decision, taken quietly in the mid-1980s, not to ruffle Arab sensibilities
by putting U.S.-Israel strategic cooperation in the context of the Middle East.
Friends of Israel who were aware of this decision at the time questioned its
wisdom; the case against it is much stronger today. The Arabs have agreed to
begin peace negotiations with Israel, the United States is attempting to eliminate
vestiges of the old "rejectionism" like the Arab boycott and the Zionism-is-racism
resolution, the Cold War is over, and the Gulf War demonstrated more than any
previous event the reality that the threat to the moderate Arab regimes and the
threat to Israel often comes from the same source. The very fact that the Central
Command lacks prepositioning sites, but cannot consider Israel because it is
assigned to the wrong command, should be reason enough to reevaluate Israel's
command status.
D.(1)Israel's Value as a Port of Call
The eastern basin of the Mediterranean is considered the most likely theatre of
operation for the U.S. Sixth Fleet in the event of a conflict, according to Navy
doctrine, but most of the Fleet's anchorages and bases in the Mediterranean are
located much further west. Using Haifa and other Israeli facilities enhances the
Fleet's deterrent effect and increases its operational readiness in the event of a
conflict.
Utilizing local port and training facilities of our capable allies -- such as Israel -
becomes essential as the U.S. defense budget continues to shrink, the number of
U.S. naval vessels declines, and regional force projection requirements increase.
Israel's Haifa harbor continues to be the favorite port of call for the U.S. Navy's
Sixth Fleet. In addition to the superior repairs, American sailors are warmly
welcomed and do not encounter the kind of hostility with which they are
frequently received in other countries. Currently a $15-million Haifa port
improvement is underway, and a study evaluating the cost of upgrading the
existing facility to maintain an aircraft carrier battle group is being conducted.
13
D. (2) Israel as a Training Ground for U.S. Forces
Israel is the only U.S. ally in the Middle East that can regularly provide target
ranges and training centers as well as expertise in fighting in extreme heat and
desert conditions.
American air crews have difficulty getting weapons training in Europe because of
the poor weather and range restrictions, so they are better able to deliver weapons
and practice realistic combat missions in Israel, where the range facilities and
climate are ideal for U.S. training requirements.
Israel proved to be a useful training ground for operations used in Desert Storm.
For example, U.S. Army and Marine Corps helicopters and Navy fighters trained
on the Negev range in Israel during Desert Shield.
Israeli pilots continue to share their combat experiences with their American
counterparts, both in Israel and the U.S.
D. (3) Israel's Capability as a Maintenance and Repair Facility for U.S.
Systems
Larry Feltrup, the U.S. Navy's ship surveyor, wrote a letter to the General
Manager of Israel's Shipyard in 1987 to say that Haifa "excelled in performance
over any ship repair facility I have contracted in the Mediterranean area for the
past four years."
Because Israel and the United States use common weapon systems, and because
Israel's repair facilities have a proven record of competitive performance, Israel is
well suited to repair U.S. systems, either regularly or on an emergency basis.
E. THE VALUE OF ISRAELI TECHNOLOGY
Although Israel's defense industries are small compared with those of the United
States, the intense commitment Israel has made to maintain its qualitative edge by
developing unique technological solutions, as well as the excellent human capital on which
the industry has been able to draw, have enabled the Israeli defense industry to make
important contributions to U.S. defense needs.
Israel offers five special advantages to help meet U.S. needs.
First, while the U.S. enjoys overall technological superiority, Israeli firms have
specialized in gap-filling innovations, based upon operational experience, that often begin
where American and European designs leave off.
Second, Israel has developed, of necessity, a quick reaction capability to meet new
technological threats on short lead-times, and Israeli innovations are often available off-
the-shelf years before corresponding products from other producers come on line.
14
Third, Israeli products are heavily influenced by actual combat experience, and
tend to be more realistic and practical than designs from other producers who are more
often guided by studies and analyses than by combat experience. Indeed, the very
scientists and engineers who produce Israeli weapons often have had recent battlefield
experience.
Fourth, Israeli innovations are designed to counter both Soviet and Western
systems, while those of other Western producers generally are not designed to meet the
non-Soviet threats that are increasingly faced by the U.S. armed forces outside Europe.
Like Saddam Hussein's forces, a future aggressor may have advanced European and even
U.S. aircraft, armor, electronics, and other systems.
Finally, Israeli maintenance and repair facilities are located closer to the theaters
where U.S. forces are deployed than many of the facilities on which we now rely. Their
increased use could help improve U.S. readiness rates and reduce costs for the American
taxpayer.
Much of Israel's military technology is licensed in the U.S. for large scale
production. The main benefactor of this technology is the U.S. military. The jobs
created from the production of this technology are American jobs. The sales
generated from this technology are to the benefit of the U.S. economy.
E. (1) Israel Military Technologies used during the Gulf War.
The value of Israeli technology to the U.S. armed forces was illustrated during the Gulf
War:
Israeli recommended software changes which improved the effectiveness of the
Patriot missile system.
U.S. forces had available Israeli-developed HAVE NAP air-to-ground missiles,
which could be launched from B-52 bombers.
Mobile towed-assault bridges provided by Israel Military Industries were deployed
by the U.S. Army and Marine Corps.
The Clear Lane Marking System (CLAMS), developed by IMI, was used by
USMC tank crews to mark open paths in the Iraqi mine belt, saving the lives of
many troops.
Israeli Aircraft Industries developed conformal fuel tanks for the F-15 fighter that
were used widely on long-range missions.
General Dynamics has implemented a variety of Israeli modifications to the F-
16 aircraft fleet, including structural enhancements, software changes, landing gear,
radio improvements and avionic modifications.
An Israeli-produced helicopter night-targeting system, the CLNAS, was used to
increase the U.S. Cobra attack helicopter's night-fighting capabilities.
Israel produced significant components of the highly successful Tomahawk cruise
missile.
Night vision goggles used by U.S. forces were supplied by Israel.
15
E. (2) Ongoing Joint Technology Development Programs
The potential for future cooperation is still greater.
A September 1, 1991 DoD report to Congress on "Defense Cooperation with
Israel" identified 21 technologies critical to the U.S. defense base, and said Israel
has specific capabilities in 13 of them. Additionally, the Defense Department
indicated "there are currently some 321 separate [U.S.-Israeli] cooperative efforts
valued at approximately $2.9 billion which are currently active or in the planning
process."
While much of the military technological cooperation between the U.S. and Israel
is classified, many areas of cooperation on crucial future defense systems are
public.
The United States and Israel are working together to develop the Arrow, the
world's most advanced Anti-Tactical Ballistic Missile (ATBM) system, to shoot
down ballistic missiles (a highly advanced alternative to the Patriot missile).
Secretary Cheney reported to Congress in April 1992, "While the Patriot helped
to counter Saddam Hussein's use of conventionally-armed Scud missiles, we must
anticipate that in the future more advanced types of ballistic missiles, some armed
with nuclear, chemical, or biological warheads, will likely exist in the inventories
of a number of Third World nations. More advanced forms of ballistic missile
defense, as well as more effective methods of locating and attacking mobile
ballistic missile launchers, will be necessary to deal with this threat."
Israeli reconnaissance drones have proven themselves in the Gulf war and are
considered a vital component of future defense systems. The Pentagon's Gulf War
report finds that, "Perhaps the most innovative new [Marine Corps] item was the
Pioneer Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) [which] allowed real time reconnaissance
and provided a capability to adjust supporting arms fire in hostile enemy airspace
virtually undetected." Navy use of the UAV on battleships "increased the
battleship's flexibility" and accounted for 52% of target spotting and virtually all
battle damage assessment. The maker of the drones, Israel Aircraft Industries, is
currently working with the U.S. defense contractor, TRW's Avionics and
Surveillance Group, to develop the most advanced version of such drones in the
world.
Israel's Popeye air-to-surface missile (long range, highly accurate attack weapon)
is now being used by the U.S. Air Force to enhance the U.S.'s aging fleet of B-
52 bombers for conventional missions.
Israel has provided the United States with improvements on air intake valves for
helicopters, helping prevent such problems as those that led to the failed U.S.
rescue attempt in Iran in 1979.
Other areas of technological military cooperation include: ship-to-ship missiles,
electronic naval decoys and submarine technology.
Israel and the U.S. are the world leaders in developing defenses against new
weapons systems, such as ballistic missiles. Current joint U.S.-Israeli efforts in
this area can enhance deterrent capabilities and persuade countries in the region
16
to cease relying on military force in their foreign relations.
F. THE VALUE OF ISRAELI INTELLIGENCE
Israel has been a primary target of Arab military action. It has therefore
traditionally focused its renowned intelligence apparatus on the radical states of the
Middle East, toward which U.S. intelligence has only recently begun to direct its
attention. Israel's experience and knowledge can fill gaps left by our high-tech
intelligence-gathering systems.
Israel's knowledge of Arab cultures, societies, language and behavior will continue
to benefit the U.S. in dealing with the "arc of crisis." The Pentagon's April 1992
study of the Gulf War concluded that a "shortage of Arab linguists affected
intelligence [and] counterintelligence efforts." In 1978 Israeli intelligence provided
the CIA with assessments predicting upheaval in Iran; before the Gulf War, Israeli
leaders tried to warn U.S. officials about the scope of the Iraqi military buildup
and Saddam Hussein's aggressive intentions.
Israel is a leader in developing cost-effective intelligence gathering technology.
Israeli technology in intelligence gathering systems, for which Israel assumed the
development costs, has been shared with several U.S. companies including: Boeing,
Sylvania, RCA, Beechcraft and 21st Century Robotics.
Intelligence cooperation with Israel played an important role during the Gulf War.
In addition to raw Israeli intelligence on Iraq provided to the United States, Israeli-
developed remote controlled, Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) which have the
ability to gather "real war-time" information were used extensively by U.S. forces
in the Gulf War. This reduced the risks to American air crews who would
otherwise have had to expose themselves to enemy fire to do the same job as the
UAVs.
3. THE U.S.-ISRAEL STRATEGIC RELATIONSHIP HAS CONTINUED TO
GROW SINCE THE END OF THE COLD WAR
The past year has seen a noticeable growth in a wide range of areas involving the
strategic relationship. Indeed, Vice President Dan Quayle recently revealed that "U.S.-
Israeli military-to-military contacts and cooperation are now wider in scope than ever
before."
Overseas Workload: Israel's role in maintaining J.S.equipment is growing. In
March 1992, after an open competition, Israel Aircraft Industries was awarded a
$68 million contract by the U.S. Air Force to perform depot maintenance and
upgrades on European-based F-15 fighters. Up to 60 aircraft will rotate through
Israel for servicing over the next five years.
Arrow Missile: In April, 1992, the two nations announced agreement on
continued development and enhancement of the joint Arrow ATBM program. The
U.S. is committing $320 million towards this phase of the project, which was
described by Lt.Gen. Robert Hammond, commander of the Army's Strategic
17
Defense Command in January as having "unshaking support from the
highest levels of the government."
Missile Defense Simulation Program: U.S. and Israeli defense personnel are
finalizing negotiations on a simulation project to make use of the Israeli Test Bed
facility to conduct anti-ballistic missile exercises using computer models. Both
governments would equally share the estimated $6 million cost.
F-16 Falcon Fighter Coproduction: IAI and General Dynamics agreed on
starting full production and assembly of the F-16 in Israel if it is chosen as the
next IAF fighter, according to an April 1992 report. Many Israeli firms are
already subcontractors for U.S. defense industries, supplying a wide range of
components and sub-assemblies for USAF and export weapons systems.
Joint Political Military Group: High level officials from the U.S. Defense and
State Departments travelled to Israel in April, 1992, for the latest semi-annual
meetings with top Israel defense leaders to discuss the implementation of strategic
cooperation and joint security planning.
Cooper and Stone Trips to Israel: Secretary of the Army Michael Stone and
Director of the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization Henry Cooper made
separate visits to Israel this spring to review existing cooperative programs and
explore new areas of joint activity.
Medical Cooperation: For many years, the United States and Israel have had an
agreement on the use of Rambam Hospital in Haifa by U.S. troops during
emergencies, and Israel made 1,500 beds available to the U.S. for contingency-
use during the Gulf crisis. Now the Defense Department is examining the
establishment of an expanded joint trauma care program with Israel. The need for
such a trauma center was underscored after the accident involving the U.S.S.
Saratoga in December 1990.
Haifa Port Improvement: The U.S. Navy recently contracted the firm of Israel
Shipyards to upgrade the capabilities of the Haifa naval port in order to expand
its availability to the Sixth Fleet. The $15 million program, now underway, will
deepen the harbor and install a range of improvements to the facility's
infrastructure.
Advance Positioning and Prepositioning: Currently, $100 million in dual-use
war reserve stocks is prepositioned in Israel and another $200 million is currently
authorized. Expansion of the prepositioning program could allow the basing of
heavy ground equipment for future use by U.S. forces. Advanced positioning may
be instrumental in a future conflict, particularly if the United States is unable to
conclude similar agreements with Saudi Arabia.
Helicopter and Heavy Mechanized Training Facility: The U.S. Army is
currently studying upgrading and expanding current IDF helicopter and heavy
mechanized training bases so they can accommodate American forces. Such
facilities could be modelled on the highly successful National Training Center at
Fort Irwin, California, but would have the advantage of proximity to probable
theaters of operation.
18
4. THE VALUE OF ISRAELI TECHNOLOGY IN ASSISTING AMERICA'S WAR
ON DRUGS
Israel's advancements in interdiction technology, a major component in the war
on drugs, have been highly successful.
Israel's coast has been successfully sealed both against terrorist penetration and
against the inflow of contraband.
Israel has achieved advancements in the following areas that can be of great
benefit to the U.S. war on drugs: reconnaissance drones; x-ray and detection
machines; fast patrol boats; radar systems; integrated command and control; and
advanced land interdiction systems.
5. ISRAEL REMAINS TOP U.S.ALLY AT THE UNITED NATIONS
In 1990, Israeli backed the United States at the UN 88% of the time. For the
tenth year in a row, Israeli support outpaced that of other key American allies
such as Great Britain (82%), Germany (69%), Japan (58%), and Canada (60%)
(State Department Report to Congress, 1991).
In contrast, the Arab nations voted against the United States more than 84% of
the time.
None of the Arab countries, including U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia,
Egypt, Kuwait, and Jordan, supported the United States more than 17% of
the time.
Egypt, the recipient of $2.3 billion a year in U.S. foreign aid, opposed the United
States on 84% of the votes.
Notable Quotables
from
MW
MediaWatch®
MEDIA
RESEARCH
CENTER
A bi-weekly compilation of the latest outrageous,
113 S. West Street
sometimes humorous, quotes in the liberal media.
Alexandria, Va. 22314
March 18, 1991 (Vol. Four; No. 6)
(703) 683-9733
Subscriptions: $19/year
Baghdad Bowen Comes Clean
"The message that came from them very strongly in Baghdad was that they're pretty sick of Saddam
Hussein. They don't like the man, they don't like what he's done to their country, and they'd like to be rid
of him." -- BBC Baghdad reporter Jeremy Bowen on NBC News at Sunrise after reporters were kicked out
of Baghdad, March 8.
"But the air war itself, as it goes on, has shown no sign of diminishing Saddam's support here all the
people that we talk to with the television cameras say that the continuing air attacks have in fact
strengthened their desire, their will to resist the Allied coalition." -- Bowen on the NBC Nightly News, Feb. 16.
And So Does Baghdad Betsy
"The one thing people have to know is that this man privately, Saddam Hussein, is a hated man." -- Bagh-
dad reporter Betsy Aaron on the March 7 CBS Evening News.
"With their city in ruins, what is left on the street is pride The average citizen here is confused by the
politics swirling around him. He thinks the Iraqi government has made every concession it can make for a
peace with honor. He believes Iraq is due at least that, and tonight, this (bombing) is what the Allies have
to say to the Iraqis." -- Betsy Aaron reporting from Baghdad on the February 27 CBS Evening News.
Saddam's Real Appeal
"(Saddam's speech) drew a captive audience, in hotel lobbies, tea houses, and on the street. All day
long, they waited to see if the United States would stop the war." -- CBS reporter Betsy Aaron, February 26
Evening News.
"The signs of the breakdown were small but real....a bomb shelter full of people sitting through a night of
attack, playing cards, sleeping, and talking among themselves in complete disdain for the address from
Saddam playing on the radio." -- Freelance reporter Michael Kelly in the February 11 New Republic.
Credible Falsehoods
"In a battle lasting eight hours,' the communique said, 'Iraqi forces destroyed many tanks and pushed
the Allied troops back.' Communique 63, issued tonight, says 'Iraqi troops have recaptured all ground lost
to the Allies since Sunday.' The communiques, broadcast to the people on Baghdad radio, lifted spirits
here, however temporarily. The radio station, the main source of information here, seems to have gained
new credibility lately." -- NBC reporter Tom Aspell from Baghdad, February 25 Nightly News.
Back to Silly Sovietology
"I'm just talking about image, reputation when it's over that we're going to come out looking like the
bad guys, and the Soviets are going to walk away looking like all they care about is peace and they will
have won the hearts and minds of the Arab world, and we will have lost that." -- Face the Nation host Les-
ley Stahl discussing the Soviet peace plan with National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, February 17.
"The Bush Administration has also muted its criticism of Gorbachev's law-and-order campaign, assum-
ing that he must secure his domestic front in order to preserve his cooperative foreign policy But in the
end, who can criticize a Nobel Peace Prize winner for pursuing peace?" Newsweek's Steven Strasser,
March 4.
Bill Moyers: Partisan No More?
"I left partisanship behind when I left the White House in 1967, but my roots are all tangled with yours."
-- Former CBS reporter and commentator and current PBS omnipresence Bill Moyers in an address to the
March 8 Democratic Issues Conference, aired on C-SPAN.
"By the 1980s, when the Democrats in Congress colluded with Ronald Reagan and the Republicans to
revise the tax code on behalf of the rich, it appeared that the party had lost its soul." -- Moyers, same speech.
"We spend four times as much on the Strategic Defense Initiative, Star Wars, than we do on the early
education program Head Start, which works." -- Moyers, same speech.
"I tell you there is in this country a hunger for a vision. Otherwise. we would not be investing so much
transcendental significance in a triumph of overwhelming technology and unchallenged power over a
country no bigger than Texas and with roughly the same amount of people, ruled over by a paranoid
psychopath, who proved to be a video tiger, all growl and no guts." -- Moyers, same speech.
Mourning Liberal Losses
Cranston: A Sad Tale of a Good Man Gone Wrong
-- Headline to March 3 Los Angeles Times op-ed by former Wall Street Journal reporter Ellen Hume.
Forced to Raise State Taxes
"Every Governor in America last year could have recited the Jim Florio rule of political survival: never
mount an honest attack against a state deficit. The New Jersey Governor, who combined service cuts with
the highest tax hike in the state's history, was all but tarred and feathered for his efforts. But now, with at
least 29 states facing potential deficits, Florio's approach is beginning to seem almost prescient." -- Time
Associate Editor Priscilla Painton, March 4.
"And while President Bush and a number of other administration officials are confident that the reces-
sion will be short and shallow and the federal budget is on its way to repair, a lot of governors would say,
yeah, and the states are left holding the bag. Two of them were forced to ask today for state income taxes."
-- Tom Brokaw referring to Tennessee and Connecticut on the February 14 NBC Nightly News.
Time's Vote of Confidence
"For American artists today, censorship or repression usually means not getting a (NEA) grant. Jesse
Helms may be a bigot, but he is not Dr. Goebbels..." Time art critic Robert Hughes, March 4.
More Conveyors of Truth
"In the wake of a successful war, reporters who ask tough questions and sometimes bring bad news
-- can seem to many Americans like the nerdy hall monitors at a senior prom. To others, journalists cover-
ing the war appeared all too eager to accept the military's version of the story. The press's job, however,
is not necessarily to please either side only to look for the truth." Time media writer Richard Zoglin, March
11.
"Remember all the chatter about a short war? Well, forget it." -- Time's George J. Church, March 4 issue.
Trouble Ahead
"The problem now may be to contain the surge of pride and unity before it bursts the bounds of reason
and passes into jingoism, even hubris." -- Time Senior Editor George J. Church, March 11 issue.
-- L. Brent Bozell III; Publisher; Brent H. Baker, Tim Graham; Editors
-- Jim Heiser, Marian Kelley, Callista Gould, Nicholas Damask; Media Analysts
-- Jennifer Hardebeck; Administrative Assistant
ENVIRO
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
Recent Scientific Findings
4/22/92
FACT SHEET
Available scientific data on climate change do not support the idea that human ac-
tivity has caused, or will cause, a dangerous increase in global temperature. Following are
highlights of a new report by the George C. Marshall Institute.
1.
Satellite temperature measurements suggest only slight global warming in the next
century. The satellite data show that temperature change in the 1980s was only a fifth
of the increase quoted by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). When the IPCC "best estimate" of a 2.5 degrees C warming in the 21st century
is corrected for this disparity, the result is a projected warming of no more than 0.5
degrees C. This change would be indistinguishable from natural climate fluctuations.
(see Report pp. 8-10) Chart A
2.
The missing greenhouse signal. If the greenhouse effect were as large as some be-
lieve, clear signs would have appeared in climate records. But these signs - the
greenhouse signal - have not appeared. (see Report pp. 5-10)
a.
Rapid warming in the 1980s. Precise satellite measurements of global temper-
ature show no significant warming during the decade. The IPCC report quotes
a 0.3 degree C change, but satellite measurements showed only 0.06 degree in-
crease in the 1980s. (see Report p. 7; attached Chart A)
b.
Warming in the United States. Temperatures increased 0.5 degrees C in the
last 100 years, but most of the increase occurred before 1940, while most of the
CO2 and other greenhouse gases entered the atmosphere after 1940. Increased
concentrations of greenhouse gases clearly could not explain the temperature
rise. (see Report pp. 7, 9; attached Chart B)
c.
Warming in the Northern Hemisphere. A greenhouse signal would include
greater warming in the Northern Hemisphere by about 0.5 degrees C. Ob-
served temperatures, however, show no significant difference in temperature
trends in the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. (see Report pp. 6-7)
d.
Warming at high latitudes. Greenhouse calculations suggest that high lati-
tudes should already have warmed 1 degree C more than low latitudes. Tem-
perature records show no significant difference in trends between high and
low latitudes. (see Report pp. 6, 8)
3.
Effect of pollution on the greenhouse signal. Some experts argue that the large green-
house signal has been masked by pollution. However, pollution in the U.S. has de-
creased since 1970. Thus, pollution cannot explain the absence of a greenhouse signal
in the 1970s and 1980s. Pollution in other countries probably has increased in the last
20 years, but polluting particles only stay in the atmosphere for a few days, and
disappear before the winds can carry them to the U.S. (see Report pp. 11-12)
4.
Climate change research contradicts apocalyptic predictions. With $1 billion spent
yearly on climate change research, our knowledge is increasing rapidly, and some
old predictions are falling to a better understanding of the facts. For example, a fre-
quently predicted consequence of global warming is a melting of the polar ice caps
and catastrophic flooding of low-lying areas. New research, however, shows that sea
levels will change very little and may even drop if the earth continues to warm. (see
Report pp. 22-24; attached chart C)
5.
No cost if policy action is delayed. A five-year delay in action to restrict carbon diox-
ide emissions will produce at most an additional warming of a tenth of a degree
spread over decades. (see Report pp. 27-28)
CHART A
1°
0°
-
1°
79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
1. Satellite measurements of global temperature 1979-1991. The results do not
show the large expected upward trend due to the greenhouse effect. Increases in some years
are balanced by decreases in others. The average increase in the data is 0.06°C/decade. The
1992 Scientific Assessment report of the IPCC gives 3°C/decade as the consensus of theoreti-
cal predictions for the temperature increase due to the greenhouse gases - five times greater
than the effect revealed by the satellite measurements.
CHART B
Temperature
Change (°C)
0.6
Observed
0.4
0.5°C
0.2
Greenhouse
Calculations
0
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
Year
3. Greenhouse calculations compared with observed temperature changes. The
chart shows the greenhouse calculations and the observed global temperatures of the last
100 years. Both show a temperature rise of about 0.5°C. However, most of the observed rise
occurred before 1940, while most of the greenhouse gases entered the atmosphere after
1940. The greenhouse gases cannot be the cause of a temperature rise that occurred before
these gases existed.
CHART c
PREDICTED SEA LEVEL CHANGE (FEET)
30
25
20
15
10
5
Rise
0
Fall
-5
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
Year In Which The Prediction Was Made
2. Changing predictions of global flooding. Predictions of a rise in sea level resulting
from the greenhouse effect have dropped markedly in recent years. Commonly quoted num-
bers for a greenhouse-induced sea level rise changed from 25 feet in 1979 to three feet in
1985, and decreased further to one foot in 1989. The trend in changing predictions, shown in
the chart, suggests that in the early 1990s the predictions for sea level rise would decline to
zero or negative values.
In 1992, a report based on the study of 130,000 years of geological records confirmed this
expectation, projecting a fall in sea level of about one foot in the next century as a result of the
greenhouse effect. The episode suggests that apocalyptic forecasts in this area should be
greeted with caution if not skepticism.
GLOBAL WARMING
UPDATE
RECENT SCIENTIFIC
FINDINGS
George C. Marshall Institute
Washington, D.C.
GLOBAL WARMING
UPDATE
RECENT SCIENTIFIC
FINDINGS
George C. Marshall Institute
Washington, D.C.
Copyright © 1992
The George C. Marshall Institute
1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 502
Washington, D.C. 20036
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Frederick Seitz, Chairman
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University, and
Past President, National Academy of Sciences
Willis Hawkins
Senior Advisor, Lockheed Corporation, and
Former Senior Vice President, Lockheed Aircraft Corporation
Robert Jastrow
Founder and Director (retired), Goddard Institute for
Space Studies, National Aeronautics and Space Administration
John H. Moore
Director, The International Institute, George Mason University
William A. Nierenberg
Director Emeritus, Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
University of California, San Diego
SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD
Sallie Baliunas, Chairman
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Gregory H. Canavan
Los Alamos National Laboratory
Jerry Grey
American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics
Richard Lindzen
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
John McCarthy
Stanford University
Kenneth G. McKay
AT&T/Bell Laboratories (ret.)
Jerome Namias
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Allen M. Peterson
Stanford University
Robert Sproull
University of Rochester
Kenneth M. Watson
San Diego Marine Physics Laboratory
Lowell Wood
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Jeffrey T. Salmon,
Executive Director
Contents
1. Introduction
1
2. Are the Greenhouse Forecasts Reliable?
3
3. The Cause of Recent Climate Changes
16
4. New Results on Global Flooding
22
5. Conclusions
25
6. Policy Implications
27
References
29
Information on the Marshall Institute
31
1. INTRODUCTION
A great deal of research has been devoted in recent years
to the technical problems involved in calculating the man-
made greenhouse effect. This study, the third in a series by
scientists associated with the George C. Marshall Institute,
considers recent findings on the extent of human-induced
global warming. One of the main reasons for concern over
this aspect of climate change is the fact that the earth's tem-
perature has risen by approximately half a degree Celsius in
the last 100 years. This increase coincided with a substantial
increase in the amount of carbon dioxide and other green-
house gases in the atmosphere. The increased concentration
of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is apparently
the result of human activity, such as burning coal, oil and
gas.
Several scientific groups have concluded that the green-
house effect caused by the manmade emissions of carbon
dioxide and other gases has produced much or all of the re-
cent rise in global temperatures. They predict that there will
be an increase in greenhouse gases equivalent to a doubling
of carbon dioxide by the middle of the 21st century, and that
this will cause the temperature of the earth to rise by as
much as 5°C.
According to these scientists, a temperature rise of this
magnitude would cause major disruptions in the earth's
ecosystem, including severe summer drought in the mid-
western United States and other agricultural regions. The
1
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
worst-case scenarios predict a major rise in sea level as a
result of the greenhouse warming, inundating areas of New
York, Miami and other coastal cities as well as low-lying
river deltas and islands. The lives of hundreds of millions
of individuals would be disrupted.
The available data on climate change, however, do not
support these predictions, nor do they support the idea that
human activity has caused, or will cause, a dangerous in-
crease in global temperatures. As we make this statement,
we are aware that it contradicts widespread popular opin-
ion, as well as the technical judgments of some of our col-
leagues on the magnitude and importance of the green-
house warming. But it would be imprudent to ignore the
facts on global warming that have accumulated over the last
two years. These facts indicate that theoretical estimates of
the greenhouse problem have greatly exaggerated its seri-
ousness.
Enormous economic stakes ride on forthcoming gov-
ernment decisions regarding carbon taxes and other restric-
tions on CO₂ emissions. Due attention must therefore be
given to the scientific evidence, no matter how contrary to
popular opinion its implications appear to be.
2
II. ARE THE GREEN-
HOUSE FORECASTS
RELIABLE?
Concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere have increased substantially in the
last 100 years, mostly as a result of burning coal, oil and gas,
as well as other human activities. The increase in the totali-
ty of greenhouse gases is equivalent to a 50% rise in carbon
dioxide. According to computer simulations of the green-
house effect, this large increase in greenhouse gases should
have produced a rise of about 0.5°C in the average tempera-
ture of the earth's surface. The dashed line in Figure 1 on
the following page shows the 0.5°C temperature rise in the
last 100 years, calculated from a theoretical model of the ef-
fect of greenhouse gases.
The theoretical result for the greenhouse effect is in
good agreement with actual measurements of the average
temperature on the earth's surface, shown as the solid line
in Figure 1. The measurements reveal that the earth's tem-
perature has gone up about 0.5°C since 1880. This agree-
ment seems to suggest that the increase in greenhouse gases
was the cause of the temperature rise. It implies further that
the greenhouse predictions for the next century must be
taken seriously.
However, another look at Figure 1 places this conclu-
sion in doubt. The chart shows that nearly the entire ob-
3
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
served rise of 0.5°C occurred before 1940. However, most of
the manmade carbon dioxide entered the atmosphere after
1940. The greenhouse gases cannot explain a temperature
rise that occurred before these gases existed.
Temperature
Change (C)
Calculated Greenhouse Effect
0.8
Observations
0.6
0.4
0.5°C
0.2
0
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
Year
Figure 1. Calculated warming due to the increase in greenhouse
gases in the last 100 years (dashed line), compared with observed
temperature changes (solid line). 1
Furthermore, from 1940 to 1970, carbon dioxide built up
rapidly in the atmosphere. According to the greenhouse cal-
culation, the temperature of the earth should have risen
rapidly. Instead, the chart shows that the temperature actu-
ally dropped.
4
ARE THE FORECASTS RELIABLE?
The fall in temperature between 1940 and 1970 is par-
ticularly difficult to explain as a greenhouse phenomenon,
because, as noted, this entire period was one of strong eco-
nomic growth and increasing emission of greenhouse gases.
According to the greenhouse predictions, it should have
been a period of rapidly accelerating temperature rise. Even
allowing for a delay in the earth's response to the increase
in greenhouse gases, the 1970s should have been appreciably
warmer than the 1940s.
The fact that this was not the case indicates that the
greenhouse effect could not have been the only cause or
even the principal cause of the climate change that took
place between 1880 and 1970. As the report of the U.N. Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change states:
"It is still not possible to attribute any or all of the warm-
ing of the last century to greenhouse gas-induced climate
change."2
Heating by greenhouse gases cannot explain the rapid
rise in temperature prior to 1940, and cannot explain the fact
that the temperature dropped between 1940 and 1970. The
predictions of the greenhouse theory are contradicted by the
temperature record to such a degree as to indicate that the
anthropogenic greenhouse effect has not had any significant
impact on global climate in the last 100 years.
The Missing Greenhouse Signal
There are other checks on the reliability of the green-
house forecasts. These forecasts are based on computer sim-
ulations of global climate that not only predict a general
warming of the earth, but also predict certain special charac-
teristics of the warming. These special characteristics make
up the so-called greenhouse signal.
5
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
For example, calculations of the greenhouse effect show
a particularly large temperature increase at high latitudes. A
pattern of warming that showed greater temperature in-
creases at high latitudes than at low latitudes would be a
sign that the greenhouse effect is probably the cause of the
warming. It would be a "greenhouse signal."
According to the climate calculations, several types of
greenhouse signal should have appeared clearly in the tem-
perature records for the last 100 years. The detection of these
signals would indicate that the greenhouse effect is already
substantial and the greenhouse theories are relatively reli-
able.
Warming in the Northern Hemisphere. All the green-
house calculations predict that there should have been
more warming in the Northern Hemisphere than in the
Southern Hemisphere, as a result of the increase in green-
house gases in the last 100 years. According to these calcula-
tions, the Northern Hemisphere should already be warmer
than the Southern Hemisphere by about 0.5°C.³ However,
the observed temperatures show no significant difference in
temperature trends in the two hemispheres.4 (Figure 2, p. 7)
Warming at High Latitudes. The greenhouse computa-
tions also predict more warming at high latitudes than at
tropical latitudes, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere.
According to one representative calculation, the high lati-
tudes should already have warmed by about 1°C more than
the low latitudes as a consequence of the greenhouse warm-
ing.5 However, the temperature records shown in Figure 3
(p. 8) indicate no significant difference in trends between
the high and low latitudes.
In fact, the records for the period after 1940 show no net
warming trend at all, although it was in this more recent
period that most of the greenhouse gases entered the atmo-
sphere. Instead, the charts show a greater warming trend at
low latitudes than at high latitudes in the last 50 years -
6
ARE THE FORECASTS RELIABLE?
0.5
0.0
-0.5
Northern Hemisphere
0.5
0.0
0.5
Southern Hemisphere
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
2000
Figure 2. Observations of mean temperature in the Northern and
Southern Hemispheres.
directly opposite to the greenhouse predictions.
Warming in the U.S. According to other greenhouse
computations, the continental U.S. should have warmed
0.5-1.0°C in the last 100 years, with most of the warming
expected in the last 50 years. However, a compilation of tem-
perature records for the U.S. reveals no statistically signifi-
cant warming trend over the last 50 years. 6 (Figure 4, p. 9) It
is striking that in the largest area in the world for which
reliable, well-distributed temperature records are available,
the greenhouse predictions are not confirmed.
Rapid Warming in the 1980s. Moreover, the greenhouse
theory indicates that a rapid rise in global temperatures
should have occurred in the 1980s, as a result of the large
7
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
High Latitudes
0.5
0.0
Temperature Change (°C)
-
0.5
(a)
0.5
Tropics
0.0
- 0.5
(b)
1940
1960
1980
Year
Figure 3. Observed variations in annual mean temperature in (a)
high latitudes in the Northern Hemisphere; (b) the tropics.
increase in greenhouse gases in recent years. However, pre-
cise satellite measurements of global temperatures show no
significant warming during the 1980s.⁷ Figure 5 (p. 9) shows
the results of satellite measurements of the earth's tempera-
ture, obtained by looking down at the surface of the planet
from above.
The satellite results do not show the predicted trend to
8
ARE THE FORECASTS RELIABLE?
°C
13
12
11
10
1935
1945
1955
1965
1975
1985
Year
Figure 4. Annual average temperature for the contiguous U.S.
1900-1984, corrected for urban heat island effect.
1°
0°
- 1'
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
Figure 5. Satellite measurements of global average temperatures
from 1979-1991. The data show an average increase of 0.06°C over
the decade of the 1980s. The 1992 IPCC Report gives 0.3'C/decade
as the consensus of the computer models for the increase in green-
house warming over a decade - five times the observed increase
in the 1980s.
higher temperatures in the 1980s. Temperature increases in
some years are balanced by decreases in others. The average
increase in the satellite data is 0.06°C/decade. The IPCC re-
port gives 3'C/decade as the consensus of the theoretical
predictions for the greenhouse-induced temperature in-
9
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
increase. 8 The greenhouse calculations appear to have exag-
gerated the magnitude of the greenhouse warming by
roughly a factor of five.
The accuracy of the satellite measurements can be tested
by comparing them to temperatures obtained from ground
stations in the U.S. Surface temperature measurements in
the U.S. are well distributed and accurate, and do not suffer
the defects of spotty coverage associated with the global net-
work of surface stations. The correlation coefficient between
satellite and surface measurements for the U.S is 0.98 -
essentially a perfect correlation and a confirmation that the
satellite data accurately represent the temperatures on the
earth's surface.
In sum, the greenhouse calculations predict that during
the last 50 years we should have detected: (i) a greater tem-
perature rise in the Northern Hemisphere than the South-
ern Hemisphere; (ii) a greater temperature rise at high lati-
tudes than at low latitudes; (iii) a substantial warming in
the U.S.; and (iv) an accelerating global warming in the
1980s, reflecting the rapid increase in greenhouse gases in
recent years.
None of these predictions is supported by the changes in
climate that have actually been observed in the last 50 years.
The greenhouse signal, which should have been readily de-
tectable in temperature records, is not present.
It is clear that since the greenhouse gases have a heat-
insulating effect, some degree of warming is likely to occur
if their concentration in the atmosphere is increased. The
question is: How much? If the greenhouse effect were as
large as the commonly accepted forecasts predict, it would
have produced a clear greenhouse signal in the temperature
records of the last 100 years. But the signal is not present.
Apparently, the greenhouse effect is considerably smaller
than has been estimated.
10
ARE THE FORECASTS RELIABLE?
Explanations Offered for the
Failure of the Greenhouse Predictions
Atmospheric Pollution. Atmospheric pollution has
been suggested as an explanation for the fact that the planet
has not warmed as much as predicted by the greenhouse
theories. 9 A large part of the pollution consists of sulphur
dioxide emitted by burning fossil fuels in heavily populated
and industrialized regions. Sulphur compounds in the
atmosphere form a haze or smog of very small particles -
called aerosols - that shield the surface from the sun's rays
and cool the earth. The aerosols also form nuclei for the
condensation of cloud particles, increasing the amount of
cloud cover and cloud brightness. The increased cloud cover
further shields and cools the earth.
Effect of Pollution on Northern Hemisphere Tempera-
tures. The cooling effect of the pollutant particles or aerosols
should be particularly great in the heavily industrialized
Northern Hemisphere. Consistent with this expectation,
satellite data indicate a higher concentration of aerosols in
the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemi-
sphere. 10 Charlson and others have suggested that this cool-
ing effect of pollution-generated haze and clouds may cancel
much of the warming effect of the greenhouse gases in the
Northern Hemisphere. 11,12
However, an excess of Northern over Southern Hemi-
sphere aerosols would not, in itself, explain the failure of
the Northern Hemisphere to warm as predicted. For that ex-
planation to be valid, the concentration of Northern Hemi-
sphere aerosols would have to have been increasing rapidly
at the same time that the greenhouse gases were increasing.
If the concentration of Northern Hemisphere aerosols were
approximately constant in time, this unchanging factor
could not mask the effect of a rapid rise in the concentration
of greenhouse gases in recent decades. Northern Hemi-
11
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
sphere temperatures would be lowered uniformly by the
aerosols, but a rising trend due to the accelerating green-
house effect would still be apparent against the constant
background.
But Thomas Karl of the National Climate Data Center
points out that sulphur emissions in the U.S. have neither
been increasing rapidly, nor have they been approximately
constant. They have, in fact, been decreasing in the U.S.
since 1970. 13 Therefore, they could not have masked the ex-
pected greenhouse temperature increase in the U.S.
Is it possible that pollution in Eastern Europe and the
former USSR has spread to the U.S. and masked the green-
house effect here? Aerosol pollution in these regions,
which has probably increased in recent decades, could be
carried to the U.S. by the large-scale circulation of the atmo-
sphere, thus explaining the fact that the U.S. has not
warmed in recent years.
However, this explanation cannot be valid, because the
lifetime of anthropogenic aerosols in the atmosphere is
only a matter of days.¹⁴ Thus, pollution originating in
Eastern Europe, and travelling eastward with the general
circulation of the atmosphere, does not stay in the air long
enough to affect conditions in the U.S.*
Karl, et al. also note that no evidence exists for the view
that an increase in cloud cover has been caused by pollu-
tion. The regions and seasons of increased cloud cover with-
in the U.S. do not correspond with the regions and seasons
of maximum pollutant concentration, as would be expected
if pollution were the cause of the increased cloud cover. 15
Delays in Warming Caused by Oceans. The warming of
*
The general movement of air masses in the Northern Hemi-
sphere is from west to east. Pollution originating in Europe must
travel nearly 3/4 of the way around the globe to reach the U.S. The
trip takes weeks, but, as noted, the aerosols are washed out of the
atmosphere in days.
12
ARE THE FORECASTS RELIABLE?
the earth lags behind the actual increase in greenhouse
gases because the oceans absorb much of this heat, but warm
up very slowly. It has been suggested that this delay in
warming caused by the oceans can amount to decades or
even centuries, and may account for the fact that the green-
house signal has not yet appeared in the temperature
record. 16
However, the calculations including the effect of ocean
circulation demonstrate a much shorter delay, with approx-
imately 3/4 of the full warming appearing in the first 10
years after the increase in greenhouse gases takes place. 17
(Figure 6) The effect of this delay on the greenhouse warm-
ing to date would be a reduction of 0.1°C, which is not
enough to explain the absence of the greenhouse signal.
T (*K)
294
2 X CO₂
292
290
control
288
0
5
10
15
20
Year
Figure 6. Globally averaged surface-air temperature versus time,
showing the response of the earth's climate to a doubling of CO2.
The calculations, which include the effects of ocean circulation,
show that approximately 3/4 of the full warming produced by CO2
occurs within 10 years.
13
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
Reasons for the Poor Quality of the
Greenhouse Forecasts
It is straightforward to calculate the temperature in-
crease directly caused by the addition of greenhouse gases to
the atmosphere. These gases absorb certain wavelengths in
the infrared radiation emitted from the planet's surface.
The amount absorbed can be calculated from properties of
the greenhouse gases that have been measured in the labo-
ratory. The absorbed radiation heats the atmosphere. The at-
mosphere radiates part of the absorbed heat up to space and
part back to the surface of the earth. The heat returned to
the earth's surface increases its temperature, producing the
greenhouse warming. These processes constitute the direct
heating effect of the greenhouse gases.
For a greenhouse gas increase equivalent to a doubling
of carbon dioxide, which is projected to occur in the next 50
years or so according to the 1990 IPCC report, the calculation
indicates that the temperature increase caused directly by
the greenhouse effect is approximately 1°C.
In that case, why do the greenhouse theories predict
temperature increases of as much as 5°C?
The answer is that the modest warming, which is the di-
rect effect of the greenhouse gases, is amplified by "feed-
backs" in the climate system. One of the most important
feedbacks involves clouds. The greenhouse heating may
lead to the formation of more clouds, shielding the earth's
surface and cooling the planet. That would make the net
warming less than 1°C. The increase in cloud cover would
be a negative feedback.
Or the greenhouse warming may lower the relative hu-
midity of the air, leading to the formation of fewer clouds.
That means more sunlight reaches the ground, and the
final warming is greater than 1°C. In this case, the clouds
14
ARE THE FORECASTS RELIABLE?
have created a positive feedback.
Which is correct? Do clouds make the greenhouse effect
larger or smaller? No one knows. In a recent study of the
greenhouse effect, the U.K. Meteorological Office made a
change in the properties of the clouds assumed in the calcu-
lation and found that the predicted greenhouse warming
dropped from 5.2°C to 1.9 °C. Results obtained by other cli-
mate forecasting groups range from a warming of less than
1°C in the next century to as much as 5°C, largely as a con-
sequence of the different assumptions by each group regard-
ing cloud feedbacks and other types of feedbacks.
A global warming of 1°C, spread over 50 years or more,
might not matter much, but 5°C would be a serious prob-
lem. Narrowing this enormous range of uncertainty would
require calculating, inter alia, how large the cloud feedback
is, and whether it is positive or negative, and that presents
an extremely difficult problem for the climate forecaster.
15
III. THE CAUSE OF
RECENT CLIMATE
CHANGES
Yet the earth's temperature did rise in the last 100 years.
Since there is no discernible greenhouse signal in the tem-
perature record, and moreover, most of the temperature
rise occurred before the bulk of the greenhouse gases were
in the atmosphere, it is clear that the rise was not caused by
the greenhouse effect. But what did cause the earth to be-
come warmer in that interval?
In 1991, a paper appeared in Science which shed light on
this question. 18 This paper was based on a new analysis of
changes in the sun. It showed an almost perfect correlation
between the ups and downs of solar activity on the surface
of the sun and the ups and downs of global temperature
change.
The correlation is shown in Figure 7 on the following
page. The figure shows that all the significant changes in
global temperature in the last 100 years faithfully track the
changes in solar surface activity. The agreement is too close
to be readily dismissed as coincidence. This close correlation
is in contrast to the marked disagreement between the
global temperature record for the last 100 years and the
predictions of the greenhouse theory, shown in Figure 1.
What physical mechanism can explain the correlation
16
RECENT CLIMATE CHANGES
0.3
10.0
0.2
0.1
Cycle length (years)
0.0
-0.1
11.0
0.2
Solar activity
Temperature
-0.3
Temperature anomaly (°C)
-0.4
120
-0.5
1880
1900
1920
1940
1960
1980
Year
Figure 7. Comparison between global temperatures (x) and solar
surface magnetic activity, measured by the length of the solar
cycle(+). The cycle length has an inverse correlation with sunspot
numbers: short cycles mean high sunspot numbers and a high
level of surface magnetic activity.
between global climate and the sun's surface magnetic acti-
vity? This magnetic activity is caused by strong magnetic
fields which erupt on the sun's surface in sunspots, bursts
of energetic particles and radiation. The changes in the sur-
face magnetic fields do not in themselves transfer enough
energy to the earth and its atmosphere to have a direct im-
pact on climate.
However, satellite observations of the sun have shown
that when its surface magnetism changes, its energy output
also changes. When the sun's surface magnetic activity goes
up, its energy output increases; when the surface magnetic
activity diminishes, its energy output decreases.
Apparently, the changes in surface magnetism and
changes in energy output are two independent manifesta-
tions of a deeper phenomenon occurring in the body of the
17
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
sun - two effects of one underlying cause.*
The satellite measurements are available thus far for
only the 10-year period 1978-1988, for which they show a
change of 0.1% in solar energy output. This variation is too
small to explain the global temperature changes observed in
the last 100 years. However, larger variations in the sun's
magnetism occur over timescales of centuries, and may be
accompanied by correspondingly larger changes in the sun's
energy output. Studies of convection in the sun indicate
that changes in the state of the magnetic field within the
sun's convective zone could, in fact, produce changes in
solar luminosity of the order of 1%. An increase of 0.5-1.0%
is estimated to be sufficient to explain the entire 0.5°C global
warming of the last 100 years.
Baliunas, et al. have combined observations of the sun
and solar-type stars to obtain the relationship between solar
luminosity and changes in the sun's surface magnetic acti-
vity. 19 Their results indicate that the marked increase in
*
One possible physical mechanism relating solar magnetism to
solar luminosity is the inhibiting effect of magnetic fields in the
solar interior on convective energy transport in the sun.
Suppose, for instance, that when the surface of the sun is not
erupting in sunspots and flares, the magnetic field in the solar in-
terior is a smooth, well-ordered azimuthal field. At such times,
this subsurface field is most effective in blocking the convective
transport of energy to the surface, and the sun's luminosity de-
creases. At these times, the surface is also relatively quiet and un-
disturbed, i.e., the sun is at a minimum in its 11-year cycle.
When the surface of the sun is magnetically active, with many
sunspots, it is plausible to assume that the subsurface magnetic
field is in a relatively disordered state. At such times, the field is
less effective in blocking the transport of energy, hence the sun is
more luminous.
These qualitative conclusions agree with the satellite observa-
tions, which show that the sun's luminosity and surface magnetic
activity rise and fall in phase. The key to the physical mechanism
is the suggestion that when the average magnetic field on the
sun's surface is at a minimum, the subsurface field is at a maxi-
mum.
18
RECENT CLIMATE CHANGES
solar surface activity recorded in the last 100 years corre-
sponds to a brightening of the sun by 0.7%, in good agree-
ment with the estimated change in solar brightness needed
to explain the recent global warming.
Additional Evidence for Solar Control of Climate. Fig-
ure 7 suggests that the sun, and not the greenhouse effect,
has been the controlling factor in climate changes over the
last 100 years. However, this is not the only evidence for a
connection between the sun and climate change. Other evi-
dence for a sun-climate connection extends over thousands
of years of geological records.
Records of changes in the amount of C-14 in tree rings
- an isotope of carbon which is known to be a good indi-
cator of levels of solar magnetic activity - reveal that dur-
ing the last 6,000 years, solar activity has risen and fallen by
substantial amounts every 200-300 years. Figure 8 (p. 20)
shows one of the carbon-14 records. A comparison between
the carbon-14 record and the record of ancient climates, ob-
tained from geologic evidence of the advance and retreat of
glaciers, reveals that all but one of the major decreases in
solar activity in the last 8000 years were accompanied by cold
spells in the climate record.
The most recent and best-known instance was the Little
Ice Age of the 17th century. This cool period in the earth's
climate history coincided with the pronounced 17th-century
lull in solar activity known as the Maunder Minimum.
Evidence for a
Small Greenhouse Effect
Figure 7 shows changes in solar activity and changes in
global temperatures in the last 100 years so closely correlated
that the two curves seem to be wrapped around one an-
other. This close correlation suggests a means of estimating
19
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
120
80
4C (%)
40
0
-40
-4000
-2000
0
2000
Age (B.C. to A.D., yr.)
Figure 8. Concentrations of Carbon-14 in tree rings over the last
6,000 years, resulting from changes in solar magnetic activity. The
average peak-to-peak separation is approximately 200 years. The
decline from 4,000 B.C. to 500 A.D., and subsequent rise, are the
product of long-term changes in the geomagnetic field and are
not related to solar activity.
a limit to the size of the greenhouse effect.
As noted on page 4, the calculations of the greenhouse
effect show that prior to 1940 its climate impact must have
been fairly modest, no more than 0.1°C. Thus, the green-
20
RECENT CLIMATE CHANGES
house effect could not have been responsible for the entire
0.5°C rise that was observed to occur prior to 1940. An in-
crease in the sun's brightness is a more likely candidate for
the cause of that early rise.
However, according to the calculations, after 1940 the
greenhouse effect should have increased rapidly. Thus, if
the calculations were correct, in the post-1940 period the pat-
tern of global temperature changes should have begun to
show a marked divergence from the pattern of solar activity
changes, as greenhouse gases began to have an appreciable
impact on the climate. The divergence should have become
particularly pronounced in recent decades.
But this gradually developing separation between the
temperature chart and the solar activity chart does not ap-
pear. The agreement between the two charts continues to be
remarkably close after 1940. Allowing for the uncertainties
in both charts, room remains for only a very small green-
house contribution of a few tenths of a degree at most, in
the post-1940 period.
As noted, the increase in the concentration of all the
greenhouse gases in the last 100 years is equivalent to a 50%
rise in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It
appears that this increase has produced a modest global
warming of no more than a few tenths of a degree. If the
50% increase in carbon dioxide up to the present time has
produced a warming of a few tenths of a degree, the 100%
rise projected for the next century will produce a warming
of twice that amount, or roughly half a degree in round
numbers.
This upper limit on global warming in the next century
is five times smaller than the value cited in the IPCC report
as "the best estimate" for the magnitude of the greenhouse
effect produced by a 100% rise in CO₂. It is, however, con-
sistent with the greenhouse warming inferred from satellite
temperature measurements (p. 9).
21
IV. NEW RESULTS ON
GLOBAL FLOODING
Major new findings relating both to the greenhouse ef-
fect and to its impact on human affairs appear almost
monthly in the technical literature. With roughly one bil-
lion dollars a year going into climate change research in the
U.S. alone, such rapid progress is not surprising. New re-
sults on the magnitude of the threat posed by global warm-
ing have already been reported in the first two months of
1992.
Threat of Major Floods
Melting of the polar ice sheets and a consequent rise in
sea level have been viewed as among the most alarming
potential effects of the greenhouse warming. An increase in
sea level of several feet, projected by some experts, would
cause destructive flooding of low-lying areas over the entire
globe. The 1990 IPCC report gives a "best estimate" of about
66 cm. (2 feet) for the sea level rise expected from the green-
house effect in the next century. 20 A March 1992 press article
refers to global warming as the source of "rising seas inun-
dating island nations, wiping out coastal marshlands and
creating millions of environmental refugees."
New Evidence for a Future Drop in Sea Level. However,
22
NEW RESULTS ON GLOBAL FLOODING
recent research indicates that sea levels will fall rather than
rise in response to the greenhouse warming. In 1992, a
Canadian-American team of scientists reported that the
warming could be expected to lead to a growth in the size of
the ice sheets, locking up more water and causing sea levels
to drop by as much as two feet in the next century.21
Their conclusions were based on an examination of the
geological record over the last 130,000 years. This examina-
tion indicated that a warm climate, similar to that projected
by greenhouse calculations for the next century, favored the
formation and growth of ice sheets, rather than their
shrinkage.
How can a temperature increase cause ice sheets to
grow? The answer to this seeming paradox is that Arctic and
Antarctic air is normally too cold to hold much moisture.
Therefore, these regions experience relatively little snow-
fall. With rising temperatures, the air holds more moisture,
snowfall increases, and the size of the ice sheets also in-
creases.
In 1980, some experts considered a 25-foot rise in sea
level in the next century to be a possibility. 22 In 1985, the
estimate was reduced to three feet. 23 In 1989, it was reduced
again to one foot. Now the predicted "rise" has passed
through zero heading downward, and become negative. 24
(Figure 9, p. 24) According to these results, the problem of
rising sea levels and destructive floods has disappeared for
the foreseeable future.
Lessons Drawn from the History of Sea Level Predic-
tions. Two lessons may be learned from this series of de-
velopments. One is that the flooding of coastal cities and
low-lying islands like the Maldives no longer appears to be
a serious possibility. That is important, because some jour-
nalists and policymakers still refer to a catastrophic rise in
sea level as a major threat requiring prompt measures
aimed at restricting the burning of coal, oil and gas.
23
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
The second lesson is that the apocalyptic forecasts of sci-
entists in this area must be greeted with extreme caution, if
not skepticism, by policymakers and the public. If the gov-
ernment had undertaken a massive program for construc-
tion of seawalls on the U.S. coast five or ten years ago on the
basis of what was then the accepted scientific wisdom, poli-
cymakers would look foolish now and a great deal of
money would have gone into a wasteful and fruitless effort.
Predicted Sea Level Change (Feet)
30
25
20
15
10
Rise 5
0
Fall -5
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
Year In Which the Prediction Was Made
Figure 9. Predicted change in sea level resulting from the green-
house effect, plotted against the year the prediction was made.
24
V. CONCLUSIONS
Computer simulations of the earth's climate predict
how much warming will result from a doubling of today's
levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - a condition
that could be reached in the second half of the 21st century.
The results obtained from the computer models used by
various scientific groups range from roughly 1°C to 5°C,
with 2.5°C as the "best guess" proposed by the U.N. Inter-
governmental Panel on Climate Change.
Reduced Estimates of the Greenhouse Effect. If the
greenhouse effect were as large as any of the results yielded
by these computer models, the effect would already have
shown up clearly in the temperature record. The fact that
the expected "greenhouse signal" is missing from the record
suggests that the computer models have considerably exag-
gerated the size of the greenhouse effect.
Additional evidence, reported in the last year and based
on satellite measurements of global temperatures, indicates
that the greenhouse warming produced by a doubling of
CO₂ in the next century will be less than 1°C, and may be as
small as 0.5 °C.
Independent support for this conclusion comes from a
comparison between changes in solar activity and changes
in global temperature. The very close correlation between
the solar changes and the changes in temperature suggests
that the sun has been the controlling influence on climate
in the last 100 years, with the greenhouse effect playing a
25
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
smaller role. The solar data and the temperature data fit so
closely in their time dependence as to imply that the green-
house contribution to global warming up to the present
time cannot be more than a few tenths of a degree. If the
concentration of greenhouse gases rises in the course of
several decades by an amount equivalent to a 100% increase
in carbon dioxide, as some have predicted, the warming to
be expected in the next century may be as large as twice a few
tenths of a degree, or 0.5°C in round numbers.
Spread over a number of decades, a warming of half a
degree would be a relatively small effect and lost in the
noise of natural climate fluctuations.
These limits, while approximate, have more validity
than the theoretical estimates of climate change, because
they are not based on computer programs simulating the
earth's climate but on the response of the real climate to a
real increase in greenhouse gases over the last 100 years.
26
VI. POLICY
IMPLICATIONS
Recent findings, based on observations of actual temper-
ature changes, suggest that the greenhouse warming will be
considerably smaller than commonly accepted estimates
based on computer simulations. Temperature increases in
the next century, assuming a greenhouse gas increase equi-
valent to a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,
will almost certainly be less than 1°C and may be less than
0.5 °C. Temperature changes of this magnitude are com-
monplace in the earth's recent history, and are not a par-
ticular cause for concern.
How do the new results affect energy policy? Some sci-
entists and policymakers want the U.S. to adopt laws
severely restricting carbon dioxide emissions, because they
regard carbon dioxide as the primary cause of global warm-
ing. Congress has asked the Department of Energy for an
estimate of the cost of policies that would reduce carbon
dioxide emissions by 20% in the next 10 years. According to
the Department of Energy, the cost at the end of the decade
can be as much as $95 billion/year. The cost of electricity
would double. The cost of oil would increase by $60/barrel,
and gasoline would go up $1.30/gallon. A privately funded
study estimates an accumulated cost of $3.6 trillion over the
next 100 years for comparable restrictions. 25,26 Loss of jobs in
the U.S. is estimated to be in the millions.
27
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE
But the scientific evidence does not support a policy of
carbon dioxide restrictions with its severely negative impact
on the U.S. economy. Important new findings on the green-
house effect and global warming are reported nearly every
month. Several of the major findings discussed in this re-
port were released in the last year. Suppose policymakers
wait five years to get still more results, before undertaking
the drastic measures proposed by concerned scientists and
politicians. What will that cost the U.S.?
The Marshall panel did a study on this problem, using
data from the 1990 report of the U.N. Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. M.E. Schlesinger and X. Jiang did
a similar study 27 Both studies yielded the same answer. A
five-year delay on major policy decisions regarding carbon
dioxide limits will lead to a small amount of additional
warming in the next century. How small will the additional
warming be?
The calculations show that a five-year delay in limiting
carbon emissions will make the world warmer in the next
century by at most one tenth of a degree, compared to how
warm it would be if there were no delay.
A very rapid evolutionary process is occuring in the
field of greenhouse research, with major improvements
likely in basic understanding and in the accuracy of the
greenhouse forecasts in the next few years. An additional
warming of one tenth of a degree in the 21st century is a
very small penalty to pay for better information on gov-
ernment decisions that, if taken unwisely, can be extraordi-
narily costly to the U.S. economy.
28
References
1. Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D.
Rind and G. Russell, Science 213, 957 (1981).
2. 1992 IPCC Supplement, Working Group I, Scientific
Assessment of Climate Change.
3. Stouffer, R.J., S. Manabe and K.Bryan, Nature 342, 660
(1989).
4. Jones, P.D., J. Clim. 1, 654 (1988).
5. Stouffer, R.J., S. Manabe and K. Bryan, Nature 342, 660
(1989).
6. Hanson, K., G.A. Maul and T.R. Karl, Geophys. Res.
Ltrs. 16, 49-52 (1989).
7. Courtney, J.R. Christy, University of Alabama at
Huntsville, and R. W. Spencer, NASA Marshall
Space Flight Center.
8. 1992 IPCC Supplement, Working Group I, Scientific
Assessment of Climate Change.
9. Hansen, J.E. and A.A. Lacis, Nature 346, 713 (1990).
10. Durkee, P.A., F. Pheil, E. Frost and R. Shema, Atmos.
Environment 25A. 2457-65 (1991).
11. Charlson, R.J., J. Langner and H. Rodhe, Nature 348,
22 (1990).
12. Charlson, R.J., S.E. Schwartz, J.M. Hales, R.D. Cess,
J.A. Coakley, J.E. Hansen and D.J. Hofmann, Science
255, 423 (1992).
13. Karl, T.R., Science 255, 683 (1992).
14. Charlson, R.J., J. Langner and H. Rodhe, Nature 348,
22 (1990).
15. Karl, T.R., M.S. Plantico, G. Kukla and J. Garvin, J.
Geophys, Res. 95, 16,617 (1990).
16. Hansen, J., G. Russell, A. Lacis, I. Fung, D. Rind and P.
Stone, Science 229, 857 (1985).
17. Manabe, S., K. Bryan and M.J. Spelman, J. Phys.
Ocean. 20, 722, (1990).
29
18. Friis-Christensen, E. and K. Lassen, Science 254, 698
(1991).
19. Baliunas, S., private communication.
20. U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
the IPCC Scientific Assessment. ed. J.T. Houghton, E.J.
Jenkins and J.J. Ehphraums, Cambridge University
Press (1990).
21. Miller, G. and A. deVernal, Nature 355, 245, (1992).
22. Schneider, S. and R. Chen, An. Rev. of Energy 5, 107
(1980).
23. Meier, M.F., Glaciers, Ice Sheets and Sea Level: Effects
of a CO2-Induced Climate Change, National Academy
Press (1985).
24. Meier, M.F., Trans. An. Geophys. Union 70, 1002
(1989).
25. U.S. Department of Energy, Report to the Congress of
the United States, September 1991, Vol.-I, p. ix and
Vol II, 9.1.
26. Manne, A.S. and R.G. Richels, "CO2 Emission Limits:
An Economic Cost Analysis for the U.S.A.", Scientific
Perspectives on the Greenhouse Problem, Marshall
Press, Jameson Books (1990).
27. Schlesinger, M.E. and X. Jiang, Nature 350, 219 (1991).
30
Information on the
Marshall Institute
The George C. Marshall Institute provides scientific and
technical advice on matters that impact public policy. Deci-
sions in virtually all areas of public concern are increasingly
shaped by developments in science and technology. The
Marshall Institute is dedicated to providing balanced reports
on the technical developments underlying these policy
issues.
The Board of the Marshall Institute includes senior
scientists of international renown.
Frederick Seitz, Chairman of the Board of Directors and
President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, has held the
highest positions in the hierarchy of American science. He
is past President of the National Academy of Sciences, past
President of the American Physical Society, former Chair-
man of the Defense Science Board and recipient of the
National Medal of Science. Dr. Seitz is one of the most dis-
tinguished men of science in America.
Willis Hawkins, member of the Board of Directors, is
Senior Advisor to the Lockheed Corporation and a former
Senior Vice President of Lockheed Aircraft Corporation. He
received the NASA Distinguished Civilian Service Medal
and is a former member of the NASA Advisory Council.
Robert Jastrow, President of the Marshall Institute, is the
founder and was for 20 years Director of NASA's Goddard
Institute for Space Studies. Dr. Jastrow served as first Chair-
man of the NASA Lunar Exploration Committee. He is
Professor of Earth Sciences at Dartmouth College and Chair-
31
man of the Board of Trustees of the Mount Wilson Insti-
tute.
John H. Moore, member of the Board of Directors, is
former Deputy Director of the National Science Foundation.
Dr. Moore is Director of the International Institute and Pro-
fessor of Economics at George Mason University and holds
degrees in both chemical engineering and economics.
William Nierenberg, member of the Board of Directors,
served for 21 years as Director of the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography. He also served as first Chairman of the
NASA Advisory Council and as a member of the Defense
Science Board. Dr. Nierenberg is a member of the Global Cli-
mate Subcommittee of the Advisory Board to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
Sallie Baliunas, Chairman of the Marshall Science Advi-
sory Board, is staff astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithson-
ian Astrophysical Observatory and Deputy Director of the
Mount Wilson Institute. Dr. Baliunas is a member of the
Editorial Board of Solar Physics and recipient of the Newton
Lacey Pierce Prize of the American Astronomical Society.
Jeffrey Salmon, Executive Director and ex officio mem-
ber of the Board of Directors, was Senior Speechwriter to
three Secretaries of Defense. Dr. Salmon was Managing Edi-
tor of the journal Comparative Strategy and a Senior Fellow
at the National Defense University.
32