North Korean Proliferation

 

The Arms Control Association has published a chronology of North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy:

For years, the United States and the international community have tried to negotiate an end to North Korea’s nuclear and missile development and its export of ballistic missile technology. Those efforts have been replete with periods of crisis, stalemate, and tentative progress towards denuclearization, and North Korea has long been a key challenge for the global nuclear nonproliferation regime.

The United States has pursued a variety of policy responses to the proliferation challenges posed by North Korea, including military cooperation with U.S. allies in the region, wide-ranging sanctions, and non-proliferation mechanisms such as export controls. The United States also engaged in two major diplomatic initiatives to have North Korea abandon its nuclear weapons efforts in return for aid.

In 1994, faced with North Korea’s announced intent to withdraw from the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires non-nuclear weapon states to forswear the development and acquisition of nuclear weapons, the United States and North Korea signed the Agreed Framework. Under this agreement, Pyongyang committed to freezing its illicit plutonium weapons program in exchange for aid.

Following the collapse of this agreement in 2002, North Korea claimed that it had withdrawn from the NPT in January 2003 and once again began operating its nuclear facilities.

The second major diplomatic effort were the Six-Party Talks initiated in August of 2003 which involved China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea, and the United States. In between periods of stalemate and crisis, those talks arrived at critical breakthroughs in 2005, when North Korea pledged to abandon “all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs” and return to the NPT, and in 2007, when the parties agreed on a series of steps to implement that 2005 agreement.

Those talks, however, broke down in 2009 following disagreements over verification and an internationally condemned North Korea rocket launch. Pyongyang has since stated that it would never return to the talks and is no longer bound by their agreements. The other five parties state that they remain committed to the talks, and have called for Pyongyang to recommit to its 2005 denuclearization pledge.

In January 2018, another diplomatic effort began when North Korean leader Kim Jong Un declared the country's nuclear arsenal "complete" and offered to discuss with Seoul North Korea's participation in the South Korean Olympics. North Korea's delegation to the Olympics included Kim Jong Un's sister, who met with South Korean President Moon Jae-in. That meeting led to a sustained inter-Korean dialouge, including a meeting between Kim Jong Un and Moon Jae-in April 27 that produced a declaration referencing the shared goal of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.

During a high-level meeting with South Korean officials in Pyongyang in March, Kim Jong Un conveyed his interest in meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump. Trump accepted the offer and the two leaders will meet June 12 in Singapore. 

Putin's Goal

 Putin's goal is probably to replace Zelensky with a Putin hack aided by some Putin goons He would use his surrounding troops to suppress any public uprising. 

Immigration and Voting

 

It appears from the various bills and campaigns that the Democrats are pushing that their goal is to bring millions of Central American immigrants to the US and have them vote for Democrats.  The Democratic effort to bring more immigrants into the US has been going on for years.

It is likely that the Democratic drive to bring Latino immigrants into the US was one of the main reasons that Donald Trump was elected President.  His first campaign speech, when he rode down the escalator at Trump Tower, was about immigration.  Trump is white trash and he knows how white trash thinks.  He knows the Democrats despise white trash and believe that destroying its political power is their road to political victory.  That’s one reason they applaud and encourage the destruction of Confederate statues.  Not all Southerners are white trash, but Democrats think they are. 

By vilifying white trash and stuffing the country with immigrant blacks and Hispanics, the Democrats elected Donald Trump.  To offset the Republican votes for Trump that they are creating, the Democrats are working overtime to get the vote for the new immigrants they have brought into the country.  The latest effort is in New York, where they have said that you do not have to be an American citizen to vote in New York elections.  They are also working to speed up naturalization requirements, working to remove any residency time or knowledge of American history requirements, especially for preferred categories, such as DACA applicants.  It’s all part of a Democratic effort to make America less white, less European, more African, more Latino, and more Democratic (the party, not the political system). 

Voting Rights

The Democratic Party and the talking heads are consumed with voting rights.  They want to write a new law that will make it easier to vote, because they claim that Republicans will write new local laws and elect local officials who will make it more difficult to vote, especially for non-whites.  I believe on the contrary that voting laws should be make stricter.  They should require in-person voting, and a government picture ID should be presented in order to vote.  Absentee ballots should be issued only for special cases when they are applied for ahead of time because of travel, sickness, or some other specific problem on election day. 

The supporters of universal, mail-in voting, which we have here in Colorado, claim that no fraud.  In a CNN special that Fareed Zakaria did on the issue, one spokesman said that one study had found only 31 illegal votes in one billion.  This claim seems ludicrous on its face; nothing in nature is that exact.  Is it absolutely impossible that a husband would accidentally fill out his wife’s ballot while she filled out his, forgetting to check the name on the ballot?  Is it impossible that a neighbor or friend would drop in on an elderly voter with a ballot and say, “Let me fill that out for you.”  Fareed says this sort of thing happened only 31 times out of one billion.  I think it is more likely to happen 31 times out of 1,000 or maybe 10,000.  If everybody is so honest, why do we monitor examinations?  Do teachers just like watching students take tests?  The odds of being struck by lightning are about 1 in 500,000.  This would be about 2,000 in 1 billion; so, it’s about 65 times more likely that you will be struck by lightning than that someone would vote illegally. 

How can Fareed Zakaria and his voting rights supporters make such a ridiculous argument?  Because there is no data to check on the validity of the votes.  They do check signatures, but with millions of ballots, how accurate can that check be, especially if the check is against the signatures on drivers licenses, which may be years out of date.  They can claim that cheating is impossible, but I don’t believe them.  I think there is no proof of cheating because there is no trustworthy evidence trail to test for cheating.   

The Democrats rail at people who say vote by mail is untrustworthy, but I don’t trust it.  If you want me to trust election results, you had better vote in person showing picture ID. 

On the other hand, I think voting is an inexact science, even when voting in person, People spoil ballots, put their X in the wrong place, get the candidates’ names mixed up, etc.  So, I think the results of the 2020 election are close enough that we should accept them and move on.  Joe Biden is President. 

I think there is actually a better argument that Al Gore was elected President in 2000, but as a patriot, he refused to drag the country through months of uncertainly, and conceded.  The Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore basically told Florida to stop counting the ballots, just declare a winner based on the results we have right now, regardless of what the actual count might be.  The Supreme Court said an exact count of ballots is not necessary; just give it your best effort.  The Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute said: “The larger impact of this case was an increased distrust in the voting processes.  Some scholars say that the decision affected the Supreme Court’s image as an independent judicial body and exposed it to accusations of partisanship.”  The chickens came home to roost in 2020. 

 

China and the MTCR

According to Global Times: 

China officially applied to join the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in 2004, and has since maintained communication and exchanges, with five rounds of dialogue focusing on China's accession and issues regarding control systems, lists and the enforcement of missile export controls. China referred to the MTCR Guidelines and Annex when formulating its missile export control regulations and control list.

French Nuclear Problems

France, which depends on nuclear reactors for 70 percent of its electric power, is shutting down two reactors after problems were found near welds on some pipes in its safety system, according to Reuters.  The French power company EDF said this would mean a cutback in power production of about 1 terawatt-hour by the end of the year.  The cutback will aggravate the power crisis in Europe, where natural gas prices have skyrocketed in the last few months. 

Germany has decided to shut down all of its nuclear power reactors, although it still trades some power with France, and thus relies to some extent on nuclear reactors in France.  The lack of German nuclear power will increase Germany’s reliance on Russian natural gas, which is a major diplomatic concern as a result of Russia’s military threats against Ukraine.  

EU Moving Towards Nuclear Power

 

The European Union will soon decide whether it will classify nuclear power plants as a clean source of energy, according to Bloomberg.  I think it should.  The New York Times reports from a French town on the border with Germany about the dispute between France and Germany on the future of nuclear energy.  A nuclear plant in the French town of Fessenheim has been decommissioned, pleasing the Germans, but French President Macron has stated that he wants to begin construction of new nuclear power plants in France.  France gets more of its electricity from nuclear power plants than any other country and is behind only the United States in the number of operating nuclear plants. 

In addition, the Netherlands coalition government has said that it wants to make nuclear energy part of its long-term green energy plan. It announced that it will keep its Borselle nuclear plant, built in 1973, open longer and will build two new nuclear plants, according to World Nuclear News. 

I was pleased to see David Kopel on “Colorado Inside Out”  complement the Netherlands by saying that the Netherlands decision represented “the only realistic way for energy independence and to fight global warming.”  

Facing Up to Putin

 

Ukraine is not Poland.  Putin’s threat to take back all or part of Ukraine is somewhat different from a threat to take part of Poland or Hungary.  Poland, Hungary and other former members of the Warsaw Pact have a history of being independent countries for centuries.  For a thousand years, Ukraine has been more or less a part of Russia.  Under the Soviet Union, Ukraine was the “Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,” while Poland and the other Warsaw Pact nations remained independent countries, even if in name only.   

The Baltic states, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, were also SSRs which were part of the Soviet Union, like Ukraine, but they all have much longer and clearer histories of independence than Ukraine.  Putin was not pleased when the Baltic states joined NATO in 2004, and that may be one reason he is so determined not to see Ukraine follow in their footsteps.  Other former Warsaw Pact countries have joined NATO, such as Albania, Bulgaria, and Romania.  The populations of most of the countries of the Russian “near abroad” (countries that used to be part of the old USSR) are happy to be out from under Russia, but there are some individuals who still look to Russia nostalgically.  Russia’s relationship with some of the other “near abroad” countries that have not joined NATO is somewhat murky, such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and the various “stans,” Kazakhstan being the largest.  Turkmenistan became important during the American evacuation from Afghanistan. 

Ukraine’s independence, although it has been a fact for about twenty years, is somewhat like one of the United States, Texas or California, becoming independent. Of course, the Southern states tried this during the Civil War, and the European powers did not intervene to any great extent. 

The main concern in today’s world is that one country should not take another country’s territory by force.  This is exactly the kind of thing that the United Nations and NATO were designed to prevent.  We have had wars for independence and territory in the former Yugoslavia, in Africa, and in other parts of the world.  Ukraine is a somewhat unusual case, and for that reason it may not be a good place to draw a line in the sand that might lead to war.  Putin as posited several “red lines” that he will not tolerate crossing by the West.  Biden has replied that the US will not accept red lines.  However, it does not appear that Ukraine is an ideal place for the West to go to war with Russia.  Russia would be fighting on its own border; it has cultural ties to Ukraine, even if no legal claims.     

On the other hand, we should not appear to give permission to Putin to take part of Ukraine by force or threat.  To do so would appear like the appeasement that did not work with Hitler before World War II.  It might encourage Putin to assert more authority over other countries in Russia’s “near abroad.”  He is clearly nostalgic for the old Soviet Union and all the satellite states it controlled. 

On balance, it looks as if non-military means, such as sanctions, are the best response to Putin’s threats.  Sanctions of any kind are weak and unlikely to harm Putin personally, but they do show that we do not approve of what he is doing.  They may be enough of a nuisance to dissuade him from trying similar moves with other bordering countries.  If Putin expands his threats, then maybe NATO will have to return to its original role as a united front against Russia as it was against the old Soviet Union. 

We don’t yet know exactly what Biden and Putin said in their conversation.  Perhaps their conversation will help determine what our next steps should be. 

 

Putin threatened by working democracy in Ukraine

 

Biden Seeks Nuclear Waste Storage

 

Reuters reports that President Biden is seeking communities that would voluntarily host nuclear wast storage sites.  It’s unlikely that anyone will volunteer given the widespread opposition to nuclear power, but at least Biden is seeking a way to continue to produce electricity from nuclear reactors.  If America is serious about combatting global warming, nuclear power will be necessary.  This voluntary site would replace the Yucca Mountain site which has failed to get approval. 

Blockchain vs Visa

 The Visa card processing system handles about 1,700 transactions per second. The Bitcoin blockchain can handle about 4.6 transactions per second.  Other blockchains, such as the Ethereum, may be faster but they still cannot approach Visa’s speed. 

Three components of blockchain play off against each other when you try to increase the speed of blockchains.  These elements are decentralization (how many computers maintain records), scalability (how fast each transaction can be processed), and security (how long it takes to verify a transaction).  Usually, to attempt to speed up a blockchain by changing how one of these elements works will adversely affect one or both of the others. 

A block in a blockchain contains a number of transactions.  Each transaction records the buyer, the seller, the amount, etc.  The initial Bitcoin block size was 1 MB, which could hold about 2,759 transactions.  One way to increase the speed would be to make the blocks bigger to hold more transactions.  Thus, processing one block would process many more transactions.  Another way would be to speed up the process of identifying the unique hash code of the block, i.e., Bitcoin mining.  Making the code less difficult might sacrifice security.  Another way would be to speed up the way that the computers maintaining the blockchain database are updated as new blocks are created.  If each of the computers maintaining the blockchain accounting data is not updated before a new transaction is processed, there might be a possibility for double spending. 

Various new coins have tried variations on these changes.  Bitcoin Cash enlarged the old Bitcoin block size, as did Dogecoin and Litecoin.  Technological increases in computer processing speed and data transmission speed would also increase the number of transactions handled without changing the Bitcoin algorithm.  The main downside of increasing processing speed by changing the verification process would be loss of security.  If data is not completely verified before a new transaction is entered, for example, a Bitcoin could be spent twice.    

Panama Canal

 

In all the talk about infrastructure and supply chair shortages, nobody mentions the Panama Canal, which was a major infrastructure project and could help solve supply chain problems if could accept the large container ships used today.  

The many container ships anchored off the California coast are too big to go through the Panama Canal.  Since they are coming from Asia, any goods destined for the east coast or the mid-west have to be shipped across the country by rail or truck.  It would be more efficient and demand less transit within the US if the ships could reach New York or Baltimore on the east coast, but there is no easy way, whether via the Suez Canal, around Cape Horn or around the Cape of Good Hope. 

The Panama Canal was an amazing construction project which greatly facilitated shipping, but it has become dated and too small for the ships that carry most of the cargo today.  President Biden often talks about Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal; he should also recognize Teddy Roosevelt and his contribution to east-west commerce by overseeing the construction of the Panama Canal. 

Putin and Ukraine

 

Two recent articles on the Foreign Affairs website deal with the question of what Putin plans to do about Ukraine.  Will he invade or not?

·       Russia Won’t Let Ukraine Go Without a Fight

·       Ukraine in the Crosshairs

I think the first ignores the history of the relationship between Russia and Ukraine, while the second tends to downplay the importance of the history.  The second article refers to an essay by Putin on the history of the relationship, calling it “revanchist drivel.” 

There are several matters that may be prompting Putin to threaten to invade Ukraine. 

·       Putin see Ukraine as a historical part of Russia and does not want to see it move further toward the West. He may try to keep it physically under Russian control.   

·       Lukashenko, the Putin-supported president of Belarus is being challenged by a popular movement in Belarus. Putin may fear losing his proxy in Belarus as he did in Ukraine. 

·       Putin’s popularity and support are sinking in Russia as he faces opposition from Navalny and other challengers.  He may think a foreign success will strengthen his support within Russia. 

Ukraine and Russia

For the last thousand years, Ukraine has been an ethnic and geographical region, but not an independent country.  Kiev, founded around 500 A.D., was in many ways the first capital of Russia, before Moscow, founded around 1150, or St. Petersburg (1700). 

In his article, Putin says:

Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus, which was the largest state in Europe. Slavic and other tribes across the vast territory – from Ladoga, Novgorod, and Pskov to Kiev and Chernigov – were bound together by one language (which we now refer to as Old Russian), economic ties, the rule of the princes of the Rurik dynasty, and – after the baptism of Rus – the Orthodox faith. The spiritual choice made by St. Vladimir, who was both Prince of Novgorod and Grand Prince of Kiev, still largely determines our affinity today.

The throne of Kiev held a dominant position in Ancient Rus. This had been the custom since the late 9th century. The Tale of Bygone Years captured for posterity the words of Oleg the Prophet about Kiev, ”Let it be the mother of all Russian cities.“

 

Over the years, as Russia or Poland became more or less powerful and expanded or contracted, parts of Ukraine became more Russian or more Polish.  The western Polish parts tended to be Roman Catholic, while the eastern Russian parts were Orthodox Catholic.  After World Wars I and II, Ukraine became more fully Russian.  The Russian Communists made the Ukraine SSR one of the Socialist Republics which was part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.  In 1954, the Crimea region was transferred from the Russian SSR to the Ukrainian SSR, probably to advance the career or Nikita Khrushchev, who was the party official responsible for Ukraine.  Thus, when the USSR disintegrated in 1991, Ukraine, including Crimea, automatically became a separate country for the first time. 

For the first few years of independent Ukraine continued as largely a satellite of the Russian Republic.  In 2004, however, a disputed election resulted in the Ukrainian supreme court overturning the election of Putin’s candidate, Yanukovich.  The opposition to Yanukovich created the Orange Revolution, which brought in opposition candidate Viktor Yushchenko as the new president.   Yanukovich, however, returned to power as prime minister in 2006, and after a hiatus, again in 2010. 

Mounting opposition to Yanukovich was expressed in the Euromaidan protests in 2014 resulting in new elections and the election of Petro Poroshenko.  The ousting of Yanukovich, however, prompted Putin to annex Crimea, and return it to Russian rule.  American, Russian, and European political strategists have been involved in the various campaigns for president, including Paul Manafort, who was Donald Trump’s campaign manager for a while.  Manafort worked for the pro-Russian candidates.  In 2019 Volodymyr Zelensky was elected president, replacing Poroshenko.

In addition to annexing Crimea, Putin has used more or less covert military means to bring the eastern Donbas region of Ukraine back into the Russian orbit.  Pro-Russian Ukrainians, supported by covert Russian military, have fought against Ukrainian soldiers.  Reuters reported on November 23 that Russian-controlled forces in Donbas were increasing readiness and hold exercises.   The Atlantic Council reports that on November 15, Putin issued a decree removing trade barriers between Russia and the Donbas region, but not with the pro-Western parts of Ukraine.       

Belarus

Alexander Lukashenko has been Russia’s strongman in Belarus since Belarus became independent in 1994.  He had managed to keep politics relatively quiet until the 2020 election, when protests erupted, somewhat like those in Ukraine in 2004 and 2014. The protests have been led by a blogger, Sergei Tikhanovsky, and presidential candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya.  Lukashenko cracked down hard on the protesters with beatings, arrests, and torture.   Lukashenko remains in control, but his 2020 election is not recognized by the UK, the EU, or the US because of election fraud. 

The opposition to Lukashenko, may have Putin worried that he is in danger of losing his man in Minsk, like he lost his man in Kyiv/Kiev.  He may think that some kind of military showing in Ukraine will make the Belarussians think twice about following the Ukrainian example. 

 

Putin’s Hold on Russia

Putin still has a strong hold on Russia, but opposition to him is growing, or at least becoming more visible.  His poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny and the crackdown on the opposition Navalny led indicate that he is worried.  He may think that an exercise showing Russian military strength in Ukraine would help cement his leadership position in Russia.  Putin would see it as a restoration of Russian greatness, and he would expect nationalist Russians to see it that way as well. 

 

 

Carbon Trading at COP26

 

The carbon trading plan set up by COP26 seems to be vague.  In the reports of it, I don’t see any numbers about how it would work in detail.  The main issue seems to have been how much money would be given to poor countries as part of the arrangement.  The new UN-backed trading system would coordinate with existing carbon trading arrangements, but with no accounting standards that I see described. 

There does not appear to be any enforcement mechanism.  It is basically an undertaking by the governments to “do good” by trading carbon emissions for carbon reductions.  I suppose this is nice, but what we really need is a carbon tax.  We need an agreement that emitting a ton of carbon dioxide will cost x agreed dollars paid into a fund with some kind of agreed distribution system.  Alternatively, the emitter could do something that would absorb the ton of CO2 he emitted, such as plant trees.  It sounds like some countries and localities have trading/tax plans like this, but they are not widespread, and so far, not very effective. 

From my point of view a carbon tax is necessary because it makes it more economically feasible to develop nuclear energy to reduce carbon emissions.  Nuclear power plants are expensive and not competitive with old-style coal and gas power plants, but a real carbon tax would make it more expensive to burn fossil fuels, and would make nuclear more competitive.  The more EVs get their power from nuclear, the less global warming gas is released.  Of course, this true if they are powered by solar or wind, but so far solar and wind are unable to meet the demand. 

Of course, most environmentalists hate nuclear power, but they must decide if they are willing to bring about global warming by running their EVs on coal and gas.  I think that nuclear energy can produce electricity safely, and the environmentalists’ fear of it is not based on science, but prejudice and ignorance. 

Ice Ages and Climate Change

 Earth has experienced a number of cooling and warming cycles in the last few billion years.  According to Wikipedia, there have been at least five major ice ages in Earth’s history, the first starting about three billion years ago.  The most severe occurred about 300 million years ago.  Earth is currently in an interglacial period, with the last glacial period having ended about 12,000 years ago. 

Scientists posit a number of causes for the cycles of heating and cooling of the Earth, although none seem to be definitive.  Over this period continents and seas have moved.  Land has been covered more by vegetation (darker and heat absorbing) or more by ice (reflecting heat away from Earth).  Many other factors have played roles.  But the main takeaway is that Earth has heated or cooled due to natural cycles for billions of years.  Certainly, the huge increase of manmade carbon dioxide will be important to what happens in the next cycle, but so will natural causes.  Earth has not had a fixed average temperature over its lifetime.  Some scientists think that at one time Earth may have been a “snowball” completely covered in ice. 

In an opposite process from ice ages, is the creation of fossil fuels under what is now desert.  Fossil fuels are remains of dead plants, often found now in places were few plants grow today.  The biggest oil fossil fuel reserves are in Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United States, and Iran.  The largest coal reserves are in the US, Russia, China, Australia, and India.  The vegetation that became these fossil fuels grew in lush, swampy forests, which no longer exist in those locations. 

Although the issue does not come up often in discussions of climate change, we are depleting our deposits of fossil fuels very quickly in relation to the millions of years that it took to create them. 

The other non-renewable source of energy is uranium.  The World Nuclear Association estimates that uranium should be available as a fuel for centuries to come.  It is the 51^st most abundant element in the Earth’s crust, about the same as tin.  A lot of processing is necessary to turn uranium into reactor fuel, but a lot of processing is also necessary to turn petroleum from the ground into usable fuel.   

Climate will change.  We have limited control over how it will change.  We should certainly devote our efforts to getting it to change in a good direction.  Mankind can adapt, but we are used to living within a relatively small temperature range.  It would be more pleasant to continue to live within that same temperature range. 

Gas Prices and Climate Change

It is ironic that right after COP26, the big climate change conference, the US media is obsessed with the high price of gasoline.  The main goal of COP26 was to reign in use of fossil fuels like gasoline.  One of the best ways to reduce its use is to raise its price, but instead of praising the price increase as a way to reduce its use, the press is criticizing the price increase as a component of inflation.  If America were serious about phasing out fossil fuels, it would raise the price of gasoline (and other fossil fuels) even higher. 

Meanwhile, the American stock market has gone bonkers over electric vehicles (EVs) like Tesla.  No one highlights the fact that most EVs run on electricity from the national power grid, which is a mix of energy sources, including coal.  A relatively small share of electricity comes from renewable sources like wind and solar.  Currently the energy mix is approximately 20% coal, 20% renewables, 20% nuclear, and 40% natural gas.  So, about 60% of the fuel in your Tesla comes from fossil sources.  Nuclear energy contributes about as much toward saving the climate as renewable sources, although most nuclear plants are more than 40 years old.  To date, they have done more to control global warming than all the windmills and solar panels ever made. 

Sen. Fulbright on Vietnam

This post of an excerpt by the Abbeville Institute from William Fulbright’s book The Arrogance of Power reminds us that not all Southerners are idiots as the New York Times and Washington Post would have us believe.  The people who got us into Afghanistan and Iraq would have done well to read Fulbright’s book.  Fulbright wrote:

The attitude above all others which I feel sure is no longer valid is the arrogance of power, the tendency of great nations to equate power with virtue and major responsibilities with a universal mission. The dilemmas involved are preeminently American dilemmas, not because America has weaknesses that others do not have but because America is powerful as no nation has ever been before and the discrepancy between its power and the power of others appears to be increasing….

We are now engaged in a war to “defend freedom” in South Vietnam. Unlike the Republic of Korea, South Vietnam has an army which [is] without notable success and a weak, dictatorial government which does not command the loyalty of the South Vietnamese people. The official war aims of the United States Government, as I understand them, are to defeat what is regarded as North Vietnamese aggression, to demonstrate the futility of what the communists call “wars of national liberation,” and to create conditions under which the South Vietnamese people will be able freely to determine their own future. I have not the slightest doubt of the sincerity of the President and the Vice President and the Secretaries of State and Defense in propounding these aims. What I do doubt and doubt very much_is the ability of the United States to achieve these aims by the means being used. I do not question the power of our weapons and the efficiency of our logistics; I cannot say these things delight me as the y seem to delight some of our officials, but they are certainly impressive. What I do question is the ability of the United States, or France or any other Western nation, to go into a small, alien, undeveloped Asian nation and create stability where there is chaos, the will to fight where there is defeatism, democracy racy where there is no tradition of it and honest government where corruption is almost a way of life. Our handicap is well expressed in the pungent Chinese proverb: “In shallow waters dragons become the sport of shrimps.”

Early last month demonstrators in Saigon burned American jeeps, tried to assault American soldiers, and marched through the streets shouting “Down with the American imperialists,” while one of the Buddhist leaders made a speech equating the United States with the communists as a threat to South Vietnamese independence. Most Americans are understandably shocked ant angered to encounter such hostility from people who by now would be under the rule of the Viet Cong but for the sacrifice of American lives and money. Why, we may ask, are they so shockingly ungrateful? Surely they must know that their very right to parade and protest and demonstrate depends on the Americans who are defending them.

The answer, I think, is that “fatal impact” of the rich and strong on the poor and weak. Dependent on it though the Vietnamese are, our very strength is a reproach to their weakness, our wealth a mockery of their poverty, our success a reminder of their failures. What they resent is the disruptive effect of our strong culture upon their fragile one, an effect which we can no more avoid than a man can help being bigger than a child. What they fear, I think rightly, is that traditional Vietnamese society cannot survive the American economic and cultural impact….

The cause of our difficulties in southeast Asia is not a deficiency of power but an excess of the wrong kind of power which results in a feeling of impotence when it fails to achieve its desired ends. We are still acting like boy scouts dragging reluctant old ladies across the streets they do not want to cross. We are trying to remake Vietnamese society, a task which certainly cannot be accomplished by force and which probably cannot be accomplished by any means available to outsiders. The objective may b e desirable, but it is not feasible….

If America has a service to perform in the world_and I believe it has_it is in large part the service of its own example. In our excessive involvement in the affairs of other countries, we are not only living off our assets and denying our own people the proper enjoyment of their resources; we are also denying the world the example of a free society enjoying its freedom to the fullest. This is regrettable indeed for a nation that aspires to teach democracy to other nations, because, as Burke said!
“Example is the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other.” . . .

There are many respects in which America, if it can bring itself to act with the magnanimity and the empathy appropriate to its size and power, can be an intelligent example to the world. We have the opportunity to set an example of generous understanding in our relations with China, of practical cooperation for peace in our relations with Russia, of reliable and respectful partnership in our relations with Western Europe, of material helpfulness without moral presumption in our relations with the developing nations, of abstention from the temptations of hegemony in our relations with Latin America, and of the all- around advantages of minding one’s own business in our relations with everybody. Most of all, we have the opportunity to serve as an example o f democracy to the world by the way in which we run our own society; America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, should be “the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all” but “the champion and vindicator only of her own.” . …

If we can bring ourselves so to act, we will have overcome the dangers of the arrogance of power. It will involve, no doubt, the loss of certain glories, but that seems a price worth paying for the probable rewards, which are the happiness of America and the peace of the world.

From J. William Fulbright, The Arrogance of Power (Random House, 1967).

 

Use Nuclear Power to Fight Global Warming

 The Economist magazine has an excellent article on the importance of nuclear power in fighting global warming. It says:

Because nuclear power is expensive in ways that show up in profits, whereas damage to the climate is not priced into burning fossil fuels, this would be unsurprising even if it were popular with environmentalists—which, by and large, it is not. But it is still too bad. The paradigm-shifting drop in the cost of renewable electricity in the past decade is central to the decarbonisation pathway the world is fitfully following. But a clean-energy system requires redundancy and reliability in its electricity grids that are hard to achieve with renewables alone. It will probably also require lots of hydrogen for, say, powering aircraft and making steel and chemicals, which reactors could provide.

Nuclear power has its drawbacks, as do all energy sources. But when well-regulated it is reliable and, despite its reputation, extremely safe. That is why it is foolish to close down perfectly good nuclear power stations such as Diablo Canyon, in California, because of little more than prejudice. It is why some countries, most notably China, are building out their nuclear fleets. It helps explain why others—including, as it happens, Saudi Arabia—are getting into the game for the first time. And it is why approaches to reducing nuclear energy’s cost penalty are at last coming into their own.

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/11/13/the-discreet-charm-of-nuclear-power

Nuclear Energy at COP26

 

Time Magazine reports that nuclear energy is having a mixed reception at COP26,  One group sees it as a source of energy that does not contribute to global warming, but another sees it as just another source of pollution.  Natural gas faces an equally mixed reception, since it contributes less to global warming than coal, but it still releases carbon dioxde.  France and Russia are champions of nuclear power, with US support, but Germany, Belgium, New Zealand, and Austria oppose including nuclear as a green power source. 

One argument against nuclear plants is that they take a long time to build and are expensive.  But that may be an argument to get started soon if we are going to need them. 

 

Biden's Plan vs the New Deal

 

Biden has often compared what he wants to do with his Build Back Better plan to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.  When Roosevelt was elected during the Great Depression, unemployment was a huge problem.  People needed money, and there was no work.  Roosevelt created a number of programs to put people to work.  These included the Civilian Conservation Corp, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Public Works Administration, and the Works Progress Administration.  

Unemployment was a big problem only at the beginning of the Covid pandemic.  It soon developed that many office workers could work from home over the Internet.  Many of those who couldn’t work from home continued to work in their service jobs at grocery stores, farms, etc.  Those who lost their jobs, mainly lost them because many travel-related businesses closed or became much smaller, hotels, restaurants, airlines, etc. Thee was a huge spike in unemployment, but it did not last long. 

Covid meant that a jobs program like the CCC was inappropriate because of fears about infection from concentrations of workers.  Thus the government just gave money to citizens to support them while they had to stay home.  There were some relief programs like this under the New Deal – the Federal Emergency Relief Act and the Social Security Act – but relatively few compare to jobs programs. 

Now, as the threat of Covid is reduced and people can go back to work, they don’t want to.  There are many jobs that cannot be filled, as more people drop out of the labor force.  Whether they will return for higher salaries remains to be seen.  What effect the higher salaries will have on the national economy remains to be seen.  It is not clear that there will be enough skilled workers to build Biden’s infrastructure projects.  Workers may have to come from other countries. 

In addition to paying people to stay home, the government reduced interest rates to almost zero in order to spur the economy.  The worked almost immediately.  After a big loss, the stock market recovered robustly, making many people rich in the process.  The government response had the perverse effect of increasing the gap between the rich and the poor in America.  While it prevented the poor from starving, it made the upper classes much wealthier, so that the pandemic was the best thing that had happened to them in a generation. 

The New Deal probably made some people rich, but not nearly as many as the pandemic did. It was quickly followed by World War II, which put everyone to work, but also used up all the nation’s resources, so that almost everything was rationed, for rich and poor. People made sacrifices for the Depression and for World War II, but nobody has made any sacrifices to deal with the pandemic, except for some doctors, nurses, and other service employees like grocery workers and meatpackers.    

Carbon Trading at COP26

 

COP26 is having a hard time developing a carbon trading market structure, which is bad news for nuclear power. Nuclear power is more expensive than some forms of fossil fueled power plants, but it would be more competitive if there were a real carbon tax on the greenhouse gases emitted by the fossil fuels.  No carbon tax encourages continued release of greenhouse gases. 

According to the Wall Street Journal, Brazil has been receptive to carbon trading proposals at COP26.  However, Bloomberg reports that poorer countries want more money from trading to pay for their costs to adapt to climate change, and the EU objects to giving them part of the funds from carbon credit exchanges between countries. 

There are also efforts to develop carbon trading markets outside of COP26, but a worldwide regime would be a big boost.  Identifying a cost for emitting CO2 seems like one of the best ways to limit it.  Of course, like all laws and markets, enforcement would be a problem.