..

Tuesday, May 30, 2023

DYMAXION DISPATCH--In Search of the Global South--A REPORT


Portfolio Essay 002: In Search of The Global South



     (VANUATU ATOLL) --Under the headline “Modern Solomon Needed to Solve China Problem” on January 18, 1959, The St. Louis Globe-Democrat introduced William R. Frye as “the Christian Science Monitor’s distinguished United Nations correspondent.” (St. Louis G-D, 23) On April 4, 1965, The South Bend Tribune published another article by Frye titled “Global North-South Economic War Is Political Dynamite for the West;”  

     “Because so many of the rich countries are to be found in the northern hemisphere and so many of the poor ones are in the southern, this struggle has come to be known as the ‘North-South’ battle.” (SB Trib, 16)

By 1972, Frye was simply known as “United Nations Correspondent.” 

     As online references go, Wikipedia can be rated fair for accuracy since its contributors can be anybody with an account at the information website. An article published at Wikipedia under the heading “Global South” attributes its origin elsewhere, to Carl Oglesby in 1969. (Wikipedia) 

It also suggests the article be merged with yet another page titled “North-South divide in the World.” Curiously that reference to merge the two articles was made just this month, in November 2020. Clearly, Frye’s reference to the term as found in archived newspapers predates Oglesby’s by four years. Reference to the combined Frye term vanished in the newspaper archives at least until 1971 when for the Society Editor, Frances Russell Kay it resurfaced in the Van Nuys Valley News in her article titled “Space Age Sage Views” noted.

     “Because of the ever-growing technological developments it will be goodbye New York and San Francisco. It no longer will be an East-West but a global North-South (over the poles) world where 90 per cent of humanity can reach any other human.” (Kay, 17)

By the late 70s, the term “global north-south” was beginning to emerge as the roots of the new world order when Canada’s Pierre Trudeau met with President Jimmy Carter and used the occasion to;

     “Stand in support of global north-south talks aimed at devising a ‘new world economic order’ which would be fairer to developing nations.” (UPI-CP, The Montreal Gazette, 7)

By 1978, Ernest B. Furgurson reported for the Baltimore Sun that President Carter had “laid down a U.S. policy of dealing with Latin American problems in a global North-South context,...” (The Sun, A2)

The expression by the late 19th century was beginning to redefine the geography of the planet in terms of prosperity versus poverty. A few months later, the expression finally found some real tread in an article by Hobart Rowen of the Washington Post, published in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, titled “A challenge to doomsday economics.” Rowen cited author Harrison Brown’s estimate that in 330 years, the planet’s population would outstrip its ability to provide for it, an echo of the famous Malthusian Doctrine boiled down to simple supply and demand, where the usual draconian measures based on population control would forestall that scenario. Rowen then provides the alternative scenario of the Overseas Development Council’s JW Sewell whereby.

     “The Third World, with an enormous untapped potential, could become the new ‘engine’ for future world economic growth.” (Star Tribune, 8) 

The article then cites former LBJ adviser Walt W. Rostow who insisted that the private sector wouldn’t necessarily take up the slack and suggested wage-price controls to keep inflation in check. Rostow also rejected the Brown thesis of stagnating Western economy with the Third World depending too much on the industrial north to keep it from collapse.

     “Rostow’s analysis turns upside down the Third World belief that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. ‘I have news for you,’ he said, ‘It ain’t so. The poor, in fact, get richer and the rich slow down.” 

     The article concludes that Sewell observed “the economies of the global North and South ‘are more closely linked now than at any time in the past.’ “

 By the turn of the decade, a UN session designed to bring about closer economic alignment between the two emerging geoeconomic regions was, as described in Leonard Downie’s headline for The Age, “World aid bid meets indifference, hostility” that were.

     “Scheduled for next month to launch global north-south negotiations on trade, energy, food, financial aid and the international monetary fund,” (The Age, 9)

Downie noted the diplomats couldn’t “even agree on the agenda.” The dawn of that new decade ushered in what would become the battle cry for politicians in much the same way the climate crisis is the call to arms of the early decades of the 21st century. A reader commentary in the Longview, Washington Daily News cited a report co-authored by Chancellor Willy Brandt of Germany and Katherine Graham of the Washington Post, noted “North-South, A Program for Survival,” promised “population explosion, hunger, disease, and military expansion.” (Working, 10)

Strangely enough, it was the far north Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau who in 1981 called for a “revolution in international morality” that would set the stage for what would be the eventual transfer of the modern world to the third world. (Montreal Gazette, 1981)

Bullet points of the ambitious plan included inflation proof Third World exports, tech transfer, foreign aid, and removal of politically “tied aid” to underdeveloped nations. Theoretically, the age of poverty was at an end for the Third World, at least by the standards of the early 80s. In fact, the term Third World itself was about to be replaced by the revisionist perspective of “Global South.” 

     President Reagan’s Cancun summit in late 1981 became a forum on the North-South divide but for unexpected reasons, related to ideology and not economics. The North was to blame for poverty in the South;

     “In virtually all Third World statements on economic problems, the assumption is pervasive that the causes of Third World poverty are external to the countries themselves--the causes are former colonialism, multi-nationals, neo-imperialism and an ‘unjust’ international economic order.” (Jeffrey Hart, The Indianapolis Star, 12)

The rift that had temporarily closed had now widened from its new geoeconomic map to what Hart called “egalitarian.” 

     When the North was factored out of the equation and where the Third World disappeared from the geoeconomic map altogether isn’t very clear. This historiographic inquiry ended around the turn of the last century, but the parameters and the theme remain; of poverty, blame fixing, disagreement and derisive rhetoric. The search for the true magnetic Global South is still on. Its discovery, by Harrison Brown’s estimate, will be just around the corner in 330 years.

References

Frye, W.R., “Global North-South Economic War Is Political Dynamite for the West,” South Bend Tribune, April 4, 1965, 

Global South etymology, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_South#:~:text=The%20Global%20South%20is%20an,countries%20of%20the%20Global%20North.

Kay, F.R., “Space Age Sage Views,” Van Nuys Valley News, February 16, 1971, Page 17.

Trudeau, “PM to back Carter on arms control,” Montreal Gazette, February 16, 1977, Page 7

Furgurson, E. B., “Carter trip offers respite from domestic woes,” The Baltimore Sun, March 27, 1978, Page A2.

Rowen, H., “A challenge to doomsday economics,” The Minneapolis Star, May 30, 1978, Page 8.

Downie, L., “World aid bid meets indifference, hostility,” The Age, July 22, 1980, Page 9.


ENG401B.1002/James L’Angelle/University of Nevada, Reno/Dr. L. Olman23 November 2020


Friday, May 26, 2023

ESSAY--The Contiguous Mexico-US Border Dispute--A DMZ BUFFER ZONE PROPOSAL

 17 April 2018

ENGLISH 102-1105//UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA, RENO//SPRING 2018// JC LANGELLE

"...except possibly where a demilitarized zone exists such as the DMZ separating North and South Korea."

     (Coco's, Ensenada)--The Mexico-US border has been accurately calculated to be 1954 miles from ocean to gulf. According to the CIA World Factbook records, all the world's borders combined make up about 151,000 miles. Consider that the nations' borders have probably been determined relative to each country so that overlapping miles exist throughout the data set. In other words, 151k miles includes the overlap. One could argue in all fairness that the border is delineated according to the nation and might be considered its domain, except possibly where a demilitarized zone exists such as the DMZ separating North and South Korea. The ratio  (below) is but a figurative way to get a perspective on just exactly how much "border" land is being disputed, contested, by the two parties involved; Mexico and the United States.

Mexico-US border = 1954 miles
World land borders = 151,000 miles
(In km at CIA World Factbook:
 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2096.html)

Percentage of miles that the contiguous Mexico-US border represents with respect to world borders  (approx.):

            (1954/151,000) = 0.01252564102

      Just 4 states border the border with Mexico, or 8 percent of the Union. The Federal Government has no business telling the states adjacent to the border how to police the border. It's a borderline issue that needs to be addressed to the 92 percent. The reciprocal is also true. There is only one party on the other side of the border, that being Mexico. A great number of the refugees from the south do not come from Mexico although it is expected to pick up the tab for the itinerant traffic northbound. The problem isn't just a dual concern of Mexico and the United States but one of South America and North America. It is not, under any stretch of diplomacy, being addressed that way.  There has not been any form of summit to address immigration in the Western Hemisphere as an overall concern, at least not directly related to the border dispute, for many years.
     Understand that this is no longer a mere difference on refugees crossing a border without consent of the two governments involved where the border exists, but has become a bona fide dispute over the border itself. One cannot accurately define a border between two nations in terms of its territorial dimensions, except for length. If the border between Mexico and the United States is partially represented by the Rio Grande River, just where exactly does the "borderline" fall? In the middle, on the north and south banks? Who owns the territory that is considered the river itself?
     The last presidential election in the United States has brought into focus like never before the border issue, creating a stigma for the nations below it, making pariahs and outcasts out of them in the eyes of those north of it. Politicians have a very keen understanding of the propaganda currency of the border issue, but are totally ignorant of what to do about it, other than use it to fuel racial and bigoted nationalist sentiment. Because of the tendency to alienate America's neighbors for political expedience, the border controversy cannot be resolved by the nations directly affected by it, that being Mexico and the United States.
     We have seen the most bizarre solution yet in the form of some sort of all-pervasive wall that will theoretically halt the flow of immigrants from the south to the north. This solution exists only in the minds of political aspirations and has no place at all in practical application, and politicians care very little for that side of the equation. The next attempt for resolving the escalating conflict is deployment of military forces, the national guard, along the border. This is yet more political grandstanding without diplomatic regard for neighboring nations, a shameful, desperate act on the part of the United States. Leadership in the White House has taken a giant leap backwards in foreign policy by this brash gesture.
     Where, then, lies the solution? It is twofold. It begins with a substantive summit of all the nations of the Western Hemisphere, no matter how big, or how small. Each delegate has a vote, each has his, or her, say in the dispute. The proposition for a wall will not even be considered. What will be considered, however, is a demilitarized zone (DMZ), on both sides of the border. It will be patrolled not by components of the armed forces of the two nations involved, Mexico and the United States, but by foreign intervention forces from the Western Hemisphere alliance. The buffer zone will be funded by the alliance, all nations in the party agree to monitor its own nation for refugees on the move without consent and proper documentation.
     In brief, the wall has gone the way of the one in Berlin even before it is built. The adjacent nations insistence on alienation has created a stalemate to diplomacy that cannot be tolerated in the formative years of the Twenty-First century. The proxy Twitter war being fought by the Oval Office indicates a total lack of  consideration for the feelings of the people south of the border who are our "amigos." All of the above may well be within reach, and it may also be true that those in power are keenly aware of it.

PANCHOVILLA RIDES AGAIN--Mattis, the Border & the Bandit--PENTAGON HONCHO AND THE FACTS

 14 November 2018


ATTN CD//TACNET  VIA JC//COC AMBUSH/PATROL  THE BORDER AND THE BANDIT


(Camp Donna Messhall)-- Following the Secretary of Defense's visit to the Forward Operation Base near McAllen today, it brought to life once again a very illustrious time in American history and its relation to its neighbor to the south. In fact, the General may have his facts a bit crossed as to who sent troops to the border and what happened next.

Washington Post (Paul Sonne Nov 14, 2018)--

During the flight to Texas, Mattis described the operation as a “moral and ethical mission to support our border patrolmen” and cited previous military operations on the border, dating back to President Woodrow Wilson’s deployment of the U.S. Army there to counteract Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa’s forces. (1) 


President Taft, in 1911, was the first to address the issue of the border with the deployment of three brigades to Texas and elsewhere:  (2)


The United States incursion into Mexico in 1916 was a result of a raid by Villa's forces into New Mexico in March and was led by General Pershing by orders of President Wilson.


The incursion into Mexico in pursuit of Villa was what General Mattis referred to, not the border buildup by President Taft many years earlier. Was this a Freudian slip, a giveaway of some dark plans to invade Mexico in pursuit of some new threat, the ghost of Pancho Villa perhaps? Stay up to date on the story on R2A...


Supporting Documents

(1)  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/mattis-calls-deployment-to-the-border-great-training-as-he-visits-troops-in-texas/2018/11/14/b2e27070-e83e-11e8-bd89-eecf3b178206_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6690025b8699
(2) New York Times, 08 March, 1911.
(3) Salt Lake Telegram,   January 18, 1916

VENEZUELA-- Essay: De Jure (Legitimate) vs. De Facto (Illegitimate) Government--CONTROL OF TERRITORY, WILL OF PEOPLE, TREATIES

03  May 2019


De Jure (Legitimate) vs. De Facto (Illegitimate) Government


     Secretary of State Michael Pompeo's criticism of Congresswoman Ilhan Omar's (D-MN) recent sounding off about the United States' dubious interference in the affairs of the Venezuelan government acknowledges his own ignorance as well. The recognition of a new government while another one still exists, even though supported by allies, does not mean the new government is by any means legitimate. This is especially true with our Western Hemisphere relations, and in particular, with Venezuela.
     As reported by Mairead McArdle in the National Review today, Omar is critical of the US role in the upheaval;
“A lot of the policies that we have put in place has [sic] kind of helped lead [to] the devastation in Venezuela And we’ve sort of set the stage for where we’re arriving today.” (1)
The Secretary, discarding diplomatic protocol altogether,  called the remarks "ignorant" and "disgusting." His own take on the Venezuelan status is a bit short sighted as well, dating all the way back to Hugo Chavez and the last century, not far enough however.
     Turning the clock back to  independence from Colombia, the United States first recognized the nation in 1835, but that wasn't without a stream of extra baggage involving, as we continue to see today, foreign meddling.  This is where the Monroe Doctrine appears and as postulated by William H. Gray in American Diplomacy in Venezuela, 1835-1865, recognition of the government depended on the "will of the people;"
"The secession of Venezuela from La Gran Colombia in 1829 and the inauguration of a constitution the following year was a unique instance of self-determination. Faced with the problem of recognizing this new nation which had withdrawn peacefully from the first of South America's republics, the United States was reluctant to act." (2)
Under pressure, President Andrew Jackson recognized the Caracas government in 1835. Gray points out it was in relation the Jefferson and a "de facto" government. Charles G. Fenwick in his Recognition of De Facto Governments,  dating back to Jefferson, describes de facto as;
"the will of the nation, substantially declared."(3)
That was an easy call for Jefferson and France but according to Fenwick, became abstruse for Central and South American governments at the mercy of strongman military factions constantly assuming power. The de facto regime comes into direct conflict with the de jure government, (Fenwick again);
"So the rule developed that it would be well that before recognition was given a statement should be required of the intention of the new government to observe its international obligations, mentioning specifically, on occasion, a particular treaty with respect to which there might be some doubt."
Can the newly recognized government live up to the commitments established by the previous one?
     Gray points out that the new nation of Venezuela, due to a number of turnovers, lacked basic components of recognition;
"Thenceforth the Secretary held to the opinion that a revolutionary government in South America must be accepted by the will of the people, in addition to possessing actual control of the country, before recognition should be granted it by the United States." (4)
The Secretary (of State) in question was  William Seward and the year was 1861.
     Leading up to that position was a number of mini crises involving Venezuela and its neighbors as well as its own internal affairs related to boundary disputes and debt. Eventually, the reliance on America to resolve the problems with foreign meddlers reflected in the Monroe Doctrine;
"Hope that the Monroe Doctrine might be a bulwark against European aggression first appeared in Venezuela with regard to the Guiana boundary dispute. The stone markers set up in 1840 by Robert H. Schomburgk to show the limits of British Guiana caused a cry of alarm to rise from the Venezuelans." (5)
Time and again the Caracas government, no matter who it was, depended on the US to bail it out of foreign aggression, whether hostile or political. Not only did the Venezuelans understand the willingness of America to back it up, but found examples of the assurance in such speeches as that of Zachary Taylor in 1849;
" It is our policy to encourage every practicable route across the isthmus which connects North and South America, either by railroad or canal, which the energy and enterprise of our citizens may induce them to complete, and I consider it obligatory upon me to adopt that policy, especially in consequence of the absolute necessity of facilitating intercourse with our possessions on the Pacific." (6)
It was clear to emerging nations in the Western Hemisphere that the United States held the interests of all of the nations of North, Central  and South America with equal concern.
     Perhaps the most enduring commitment was the Treaty of 1836 between the United States and Venezuela, referred to as "Peace, Friendship, Navigation and Commerce." The 34 articles followed the usual agreement of the times but the bottom line seemed to always infer a Monroe Doctrine tone.


     Certainly, today, it may seem rather moot that what stood up in the past between the two nations has somehow fallen by the wayside through numerous regimes, both in the United States and Venezuela. It has become too politically expedient for the Congresswoman to blame the United States and for the Secretary of State to call her ignorant. What has been established is whether the new de facto government of Juan Guaidó has basic components for recognition: control of the territory, will of the people and acceptance of prior treaties. Without these, according to historical standards set from the outset, his government is illegitimate.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS
1.) Omar,  McArdle, National Review via https://news.yahoo.com/us-officials-continue-weigh-options-171113659.html
2.) Will of the People, American Diplomacy in Venezuela, 1835-1865, WH Gray,  https://www.jstor.org/stable/2507046
3.) Will of the Nation, recognition of De Facto Governments, Charles G. Fenwick,  https://www.jstor.org/stable/20671025
4.) Gray, The Hispanic American Historical Review, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Nov., 1940), pp. 551-574, Duke Univ. page 552
5.) Gray, page 553
6.) First Annual Message, Zachary Taylor, https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-4-1849-first-annual-message
7.) Photo of Juan Guaidó, http://nova24tv.si/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Venezuela-Juan-Guaido-1024x683.jpg

IMMED DIST..ALL CDBAB VENS///CMD CTRL ATTN//JCL//O-WKLY

BANGLADESH RMG---Core Humanities Posts--PROTESTS, 4 DAYS IN DHAKA

 

09 January 2019

FWD EOC VIA CH203--RECENT REPORTS

(Scullery)--W/ref to CH203.1002 discussion on Great Depression and "I Want You Women Up North to Know," students examined clothing tags for origin of item. Results by far proved Guatemala or Bangladesh. Following posts related to recent unrest over wage s in Bangladesh:

#BANGLADESH--Textile Sector Database---READY MADE GARMENT FACTORIES

RAW SUBJ: TO CORE HUMANITIES, BREAKDOWN OF THE LABOR FORCE (Scullery)-- Greater insight into the nature of the industry will shed more light on the grivances at the root of the popular unrest: DIFE RMG Sector database Clashes in Savar and Gazipur leave over 50 people injured Despite government assurance of meeting their demands regarding the pay structure, workers of numerous readymade garment (RMG) factories in Dhaka city, Savar, Ashulia and Gazipur abstained from work, demonstrated by blockading roads and clashed with police on Wednesday for the fourth consecutive day.

RMG101--#Bangladesh Textile Industry Crisis-- I WANT YOU WOMEN UP NORTH TO KNOW

CORE HUMANITIES 203.1001 Dr S Pasqualina, University of Nevada, Reno Fall 2018 (Scullery)-- Beyond the cozy, inviting atmospheres of suburban malls across America, far away on the other side of the globe, there is a grass roots rebellion in the making at the source of all those trendy hip clothes the shoppers are buying.

#BANGLADESH-- 4 Days in Dhaka--PROTESTS IN THE STREETS, GARMENT INDUSTRY

null

#BANGLADESH---Garment Industry Protests--BULLETINS, ALERTS, CURATED CURRENT--

null



MAD--Essay on Mutual Assured Destruction--MANUFACTURED CRISIS

30 November 2020


original title:

MAD--Essay on Mutual Assured Destruction--#IRAN & THE BOMB, eyeless on campus--


//..IMMEDREL//ATTN:JC@NYU//P-SHOP//UNCLSF//TTYP//..//

     Incline Village, Nev. (EoC)-- Published in Rhetoric and Public Affairs in 2011, Leah Ceccarelli's article "Manufactured Scientific Controversy" defines the title as;

     "A scientific controversy is 'manufactured' in the public sphere when an arguer announces that there is an ongoing scientific debate in the technical sphere about a matter for which there is actually an overwhelming scientific consensus." (Ceccarelli, 196)



     The footnote attached to the definition makes the case for the two so-called spheres of "public" and "technical" where Ceccarelli notes the "boundaries between the two are permeable." In a sense, it sets the stage for the non-experts to encroach on the terrain of the experts and call the findings into question. To what degree the evidence of the claim is "overwhelming" is irrelevant. The footnote explicitly points to political policy making as the ultimate goal of those with self-interest beyond the scientific sphere. 

Uncertainty plays a large part in the process of calling into question scientific fact;

     "most scientific findings are inherently probabilistic and ambiguous." (197) 

Again, in the climate warming section, even with overwhelming evidence, Ceccarelli notes;

     "It seems to corroborate the essayists claim of a dogmatic orthodoxy by indicating that
supporters of the dominant paradigm would prefer to silence dissent."  (208)

Translated, the scientists themselves are to blame for allowing the so called "mercenaries" to refute the facts since they (the scientists) are too busy digging up more facts to pay attention to the debate in politics and the press. That very orthodoxy invites criticism. The truth of the matter is that the era of positivism has long since passed, replaced by one of skepticism. 

Based on the above criteria, it might be debated that military superiority is not necessarily a winning strategy in the modern world. The slogan "Might makes right" is something out of the 19th century but didn't really become a reality until atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The debate over whether to develop even more powerful nuclear weapons, especially the hydrogen, or "super" bomb, forced a great deal of soul searching in its developers such as J. Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller. (Halberstam, 151-174)

     Now, in the 21st century, with Russia's  annexation of the Crimean Peninsula, with the realignment of NATO forces in Europe, with the threat of development of the bomb by non-aligned nations as Iran and North Korea, it has become essential to question the doubters in the community that thermonuclear war is, as what might be defined from above "probabilistic and ambiguous,"  anything but "uncertain." The assassination of the top bomb expert in Iran last week is a barometer as to how serious the prospect has become.  (BBC) 

The policy was referred to "Mutual Assured Destruction" (MAD) that has prevented nuclear war. Today that policy is being challenged from within and from without.

" 'The central thing was the public had no control,' says Dr Christopher Laucht, a lecturer in British history at Leeds University. 'You were at the mercy of political decision makers. Apart from the fear that one side would do something stupid, there was also the fear of technology and the question of 'what if an accident happened'. ' " (BBC)


Mohsen Fakhrizadeh: Iran buries assassinated nuclear scientist

Iran has held a funeral for its top nuclear scientist, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, who was assassinated on Friday in an attack that it has blamed on Israel. In a televised speech at the ceremony, Defence Minister General Amir Hatami vowed to avenge Fakhrizadeh's death and continue his path "vigorously".


Discussion reply:
     Paranoia is the bedfellow of conspiracy theory. Neville-Shepard cites Hofstadter's highlight of paranoid conspiracy: the vast network, transcends history, popular villains, the impending apocalypse, and the scapegoat. (Neville-Shepard) The author traces the "early style" to the post-Roosevelt era, in particular, President Truman. This fits well with the initial post regarding the advent of the Atomic Age and the role played by Truman and his cabinet, in particular the Secretary of State, Dean Acheson. 

    Following some rather high-profile spy trials and convictions, including Alger Hiss, who was a friend of Acheson, the Secretary went on the offensive;

     "The political pressure building around Truman to go ahead with the Super was relentless...Failure to do so, Acheson noted, 'would push the Administration into a political buzzsaw.' " (Halberstam, 61)

     Acheson created the specter of the apocalyptic villain in the form of the Soviet Union when at first, sharing nuclear technology appeared to be the preferred strategy considering the Kremlin had been an ally in World War Two. Acheson qualified for all of Hofstadter's categories of the paranoid style, accidentally or otherwise. 

     Today, the assassinated Iranian nuclear scientist became the latest casualty in this strategy of paranoid style, Instead of following up on the preceding regime's tireless efforts to bring Iran and North Korea into the nuclear community as constructive members, the current US administration deserted  arms agreements with those particular non-aligned nations. (Laub, Robinson)

     The paranoid nuclear holocaust environment has been given new life. Comparing Neville-Shepard to Ceccarelli is not as useful as comparing Neville-Shepard to himself, particularly with respect to the "subtextual" component of paranoid style. There is nothing subtextual about nuclear annihilation. There is every reason to believe certain non-aligned nations have atomic weapons capability, and the vehicles for delivery. We can only speculate on how the now long gone Secretary of State Dean Acheson  would characterize the immanent threat.

Cited:

Neville-Shepard, R., Paranoid Style, Full article: Paranoid Style and Subtextual Form in Modern Conspiracy Rhetoric (oclc.org) (Links to an external site.)

Laub, Z., Robinson, K., What Is the Status of the Iran Nuclear Agreement? | Council on Foreign Relations (cfr.org)


Pakistan latest nuclear power to condemn killing of Iranian scientist as world remains on edge

Pakistan is the latest nuclear power to condemn the killing of a top Iranian atomic scientist, deeming the act a destabilizing event in a region already plagued by widespread unrest. Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a former Revolutionary Guard officer who led the Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research was shot dead last Friday east of the Iranian capital in a yet unclaimed assassination that has fueled suspicions of Israeli involvement.


References:

Ceccarelli, Leah. “Manufactured Scientific Controversy: Science, Rhetoric, and Public Debate.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs, vol. 14, no. 2, 2011, pp. 195–228. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41940538. Accessed 1 Dec. 2020.

Halberstam, David, The Fifties, 1993 Random House, NY

Iran Scientist Assassination, Mohsen Fakhrizadeh: Iran scientist 'killed by remote-controlled weapon' - BBC News (Links to an external site.)

de Castella, T., MAD, How did we forget about mutually assured destruction? - BBC News


//..IMMEDREL//ATTN:JC@NYU//P-SHOP//UNCLSF//TTYP//..//