THE US THREAT TO USE ATOMIC WEAPONS

2021 ◽  
pp. 109-120
Keyword(s):  
Atomic Weapons ◽  
The Us

West Point

2019 ◽  
pp. 5-36
Author(s):  
Ingo Trauschweizer
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
West Point ◽  
Military Academy ◽  
Atomic Weapons ◽  
Limited War ◽  
Us Military ◽  
Mobilization Potential ◽  
Army Officers ◽  
The Us

In the opening chapter I introduce Maxwell Taylor as superintendent of the US Military Academy (1945-1949), where he placed greater emphasis on the humanities for a more balanced liberal education of army officers. This was to prepare them for leadership of a mass army made up of a mix of volunteers and draftees, which depended on one’s ability to communicate clearly and compellingly. At West Point, Taylor also began to formulate lessons of World War II, pondered the changing nature of strategy, which now had to encompass the full mobilization potential of the nation, and considered the effects of atomic weapons. Curiously, he concluded that limited war remained both possible and likely.

scholarly journals Nowhere to Hide

1999 ◽  
Vol 121 (07) ◽  
pp. 57-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Valenti
Keyword(s):  
Pacific Northwest ◽  
National Laboratory ◽  
Fission Products ◽  
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory ◽  
Dust Particles ◽  
Atomic Weapons ◽  
Underground Nuclear Explosions ◽  
Nuclear Explosions ◽  
The Us ◽  
Test Ban

This article discusses about a global monitoring system that detects nuclear detonations either in remote areas or underground. Scientists at the US Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory have developed the Automated Radioxenon Sampler/Analyzer (ARSA), and the Radionuclide Aerosol Sampler/Analyzer (RASA), to provide more detailed and accurate data on surreptitious nuclear detonations faster than other systems. According to the test ban treaty, in the event of a valid question regarding whether a nuclear detonation has taken place, any member state may request onsite inspections of any other state party, or in any area beyond government jurisdiction , such as the open ocean. ARSA analyzes air samples for radioactive xenon, or xenon isotopes, primarily xenon 133 and xenon 135, which are major indicators of fission that seep into the atmosphere from underground nuclear explosions. Detonating atomic weapons beneath the earth is the primary method of avoiding detection. RASA is designed to detect fission products from atmospheric nuclear explosions that attach themselves to dust particles.

scholarly journals Quel droit de la guerre pour l’OTAN?

2005 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 549-569
Author(s):  
Henri Meyrowitz
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Reagan Administration ◽  
Nuclear Deterrence ◽  
Atomic Weapons ◽  
Nuclear Strategy ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Common

The debate which has been going on for many years now among governments of the member countries of NATO on the ratification of the Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, signed in 1977, focusses mainly on the effects of such an instrument on deterrence and nuclear strategy. It is the fear of these effects that France has used to justify her refusal to become part of Protocol I. At the time of the signing of Protocol I, the US and Great Britain made the declaration that the new regulations as introduced by Protocol I "are not intended to have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons". It appears that, for a reason which has nothing to do with atomic weapons, the Reagan administration intends not to ask the Senate for ratification of Protocol I. The governments of Italy and Belgium who ratified the Protocol in February and May 1986 respectively, have supplemented their ratification with a declaration similar to that of the two powers. As for the legality of the use of nuclear weapons, the answer must from now on rely on the combination of Protocol I and the "nuclear clause" from the declaration of the two powers and their allies. Hence the status of nuclear weapons in international law is comprised of three elements : a) The first use of nuclear weapons is not, in itself prohibited. - b) This use is subjected to the regulations of the common law of war, as has been "reaffirmed" by Protocol I, and which applies both to conventional and nuclear weapons. - c) The bans and restrictions, as provided for in these regulations, and which mark out the thin bounds which allow for the use of atomic weapons, pertain only to the use of these arms and not to nuclear deterrence.

RETHINKING THE JOINT PROJECT: AUSTRALIA'S BID FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS, 1945–1960

1998 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 853-873 ◽  
Author(s):  
WAYNE REYNOLDS
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Raw Materials ◽  
Second World War ◽  
Small Island ◽  
Atomic Weapons ◽  
Joint Project ◽  
Suez Crisis ◽  
The Us ◽  
National University ◽  
Second World

This article concludes that Australia was determined to possess nuclear weapons from the end of the Second World War. The best prospects for this lay in working with Britain through the so-called ‘joint project’. British defence planners knew that their small island would not survive a future atomic blitz and, therefore, needed ‘active’ deterrent weapons. The problem was that the US after 1946 moved to protect its atomic monopoly and denied Britain research, raw materials, and test facilities. Australia was, therefore, an invaluable partner in the British deterrent weapons programme, in all its aspects from research to testing, as long as the US refused co-operation. The quest for atomic weapons lies at the heart of many of Canberra's initiatives after 1945 – the decision to build an Australian National University; the construction of the vast Snowy Mountains scheme; and ultimately the decision to deploy Australian forces into South-East Asia in the mid-fifties. The height of Anglo-Australian co-operation coincided with the atomic tests after 1952, London's decision to help build atomic reactors in Australia, and the Suez crisis. Britain's acquisition of deterrent weapons in 1957, however, saw the end of imperial co-operation on atomic weapons and delivery systems.

The Eleventh Circuit Holds that Agreements in which Pharmaceutical Companies Pay Generic Companies Not to Compete May be Valid

2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-184
Author(s):  
Amy Garrigues
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Patent Holder ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
The Us ◽  
Antitrust Laws ◽  
Per Se ◽  
Appeals Court ◽  
Two Sides

On September 15, 2003, the US. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. The Valley DrugCo.v.Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws. An examination of the Valley Drugtrial and appeals court decisions sheds light on the two sides of an emerging legal debate concerning the validity of pay-not-to-compete agreements, and more broadly, on the appropriate balance between the seemingly competing interests of patent and antitrust laws.

Relation of Statistically Significant, Abnormal, and Typical WAIS-R VIQ-PIQ Discrepancies to Full Scale IQs

2000 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Louis M. Hsu ◽  
Judy Hayman ◽  
Judith Koch ◽  
Debbie Mandell
Keyword(s):  
Graphical Method ◽  
The United States ◽  
Full Scale ◽  
True Score ◽  
Absolute Value ◽  
Normative Population ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Mean ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Quadratic Models

Summary: In the United States' normative population for the WAIS-R, differences (Ds) between persons' verbal and performance IQs (VIQs and PIQs) tend to increase with an increase in full scale IQs (FSIQs). This suggests that norm-referenced interpretations of Ds should take FSIQs into account. Two new graphs are presented to facilitate this type of interpretation. One of these graphs estimates the mean of absolute values of D (called typical D) at each FSIQ level of the US normative population. The other graph estimates the absolute value of D that is exceeded only 5% of the time (called abnormal D) at each FSIQ level of this population. A graph for the identification of conventional “statistically significant Ds” (also called “reliable Ds”) is also presented. A reliable D is defined in the context of classical true score theory as an absolute D that is unlikely (p < .05) to be exceeded by a person whose true VIQ and PIQ are equal. As conventionally defined reliable Ds do not depend on the FSIQ. The graphs of typical and abnormal Ds are based on quadratic models of the relation of sizes of Ds to FSIQs. These models are generalizations of models described in Hsu (1996) . The new graphical method of identifying Abnormal Ds is compared to the conventional Payne-Jones method of identifying these Ds. Implications of the three juxtaposed graphs for the interpretation of VIQ-PIQ differences are discussed.

Factorial Structure of the Therapist Adherence Measure-Revised (TAM-R) Within Multisystemic Therapy

2020 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 427-431
Author(s):  
Aurelie M. C. Lange ◽  
Marc J. M. H. Delsing ◽  
Ron H. J. Scholte ◽  
Rachel E. A. van der Rijken
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Factor Structure ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Multisystemic Therapy ◽  
Model Fit ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Adherence Measure ◽  
Therapist Adherence ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
The Us

Abstract. The Therapist Adherence Measure (TAM-R) is a central assessment within the quality-assurance system of Multisystemic Therapy (MST). Studies into the validity and reliability of the TAM in the US have found varying numbers of latent factors. The current study aimed to reexamine its factor structure using two independent samples of families participating in MST in the Netherlands. The factor structure was explored using an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) in Sample 1 ( N = 580). This resulted in a two-factor solution. The factors were labeled “therapist adherence” and “client–therapist alliance.” Four cross-loading items were dropped. Reliability of the resulting factors was good. This two-factor model showed good model fit in a subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in Sample 2 ( N = 723). The current finding of an alliance component corroborates previous studies and fits with the focus of the MST treatment model on creating engagement.

Measurement Invariance of a Universal Behavioral Screener Across Samples From the USA and Germany

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gino Casale ◽  
Robert J. Volpe ◽  
Brian Daniels ◽  
Thomas Hennemann ◽  
Amy M. Briesch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Student Behavior ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Cross Cultural Comparison ◽  
School Based ◽  
Cultural Research ◽  
Universal Screener ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Usa

Abstract. The current study examines the item and scalar equivalence of an abbreviated school-based universal screener that was cross-culturally translated and adapted from English into German. The instrument was designed to assess student behavior problems that impact classroom learning. Participants were 1,346 K-6 grade students from the US (n = 390, Mage = 9.23, 38.5% female) and Germany (n = 956, Mage = 8.04, 40.1% female). Measurement invariance was tested by multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across students from the US and Germany. Results support full scalar invariance between students from the US and Germany (df = 266, χ2 = 790.141, Δχ2 = 6.9, p < .001, CFI = 0.976, ΔCFI = 0.000, RMSEA = 0.052, ΔRMSEA = −0.003) indicating that the factor structure, the factor loadings, and the item thresholds are comparable across samples. This finding implies that a full cross-cultural comparison including latent factor means and structural coefficients between the US and the German version of the abbreviated screener is possible. Therefore, the tool can be used in German schools as well as for cross-cultural research purposes between the US and Germany.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document