#Cuban Missile Crisis Debate 1962 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

thepastisalreadywritten · 2 years

Text

Armageddon to wet lettuce: The phrases that defined 2022

Agence France-Presse, 5 December 2022

PARIS — A year of extraordinary upheaval, from the war in Ukraine to catastrophic natural disasters, AFP looks at some of the words and phrases that have defined 2022.

ARMAGEDDON

With the war in Ukraine and increasingly strident threats from Russian President Vladimir Putin, the specter of nuclear warfare is stalking the globe for the first time in decades.

"We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban missile crisis" in 1962, US President Joe Biden warned in October.

Experts warned of the most dangerous situation they can remember, with fears not limited to Russia: North Korean nuclear saber-rattling has reached new heights, with the world bracing for a first nuclear test since 2017.

LONDON BRIDGE

At 6:30 p.m. on September 8, Buckingham Palace announced that Queen Elizabeth II had died, bringing to an end the longest reign in British history and sending shock waves around the world.

For 10 days, Britons paid respects to the only monarch most had known, following a carefully choreographed series of ceremonies.

The program of events, famously codenamed "London Bridge", set out in minute detail every aspect of the protocol -- down to BBC presenters wearing black ties.

In the event, she died in Scotland, meaning special provisions came into force -- Operation Unicorn.

LOSS AND DAMAGE

World leaders and negotiators descended on the Egyptian Red Sea port of Sharm el-Sheikh for the latest United Nations summit (COP27) on tackling climate change.

After a fractious summit, widely seen as poorly organized, a deal was clinched on a fund for "loss and damage" to help vulnerable countries cope with the devastating impacts of climate change.

Behind the institutional-sounding name lies destruction for millions in the developing world.

The COP summit was hailed as historic but many voiced anger over a lack of ambition on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

WOMAN. LIFE. FREEDOM.

The chant screamed by protesters in Iran following the death of Mahsa Amini, a young woman arrested by the Tehran morality police.

Protesters have burned posters of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and women have appeared in public without headscarves, in scenes scarcely imaginable before the uprising.

The demonstrations have lasted 3 months and appear to pose an existential challenge to the 43-year rule of the clerical regime.

BLUE TICK

The tiny blue tick (it's actually white on a blue background), which certifies users on Twitter, became a symbol of the chaos engulfing the social media platform in the wake of its $44-billion takeover by Elon Musk.

The mercurial Tesla boss announced that anyone wanting the coveted blue tick would have to stump up eight dollars, only to scrap the plan hours later.

A month on from the takeover, Twitter's future remains up in the air, with thousands of staff laid off, advertisers leaving, and its "free speech" platform hugely uncertain.

ROE V. WADE

In an historic ruling, the conservative-dominated US Supreme Court overturned the landmark 1973 "Roe v. Wade" decision that enshrined a woman's right to an abortion.

The Supreme Court ruled that individual states could restrict or ban the procedure -– a decision seized upon by several right-leaning states.

Protests erupted instantly in Washington and elsewhere, showing how divisive the topic remains in the United States.

The overturning of "Roe v. Wade" became a critical battle in the US mid-terms in which candidates in favor of abortion rights won several victories.

QUIET QUITTING

One of the "words of the year" in Britain and Australia, the phrase refers to doing the bare minimum at work, either as a protest against your employer or to improve your work-life balance.

The trend, which has sparked debate about overwork, especially in the United States, appears to have surfaced first in a TikTok post in July.

"You're not outright quitting your job but you're quitting the idea of going above and beyond," said the post which went viral, drawing nearly a half-million likes.

WET LETTUCE

As Liz Truss approached the end of her chaotic and short-lived tenure as British prime minister, the Economist weekly mused that her effective period in office had been "roughly the shelf-life of a lettuce."

The tabloid Daily Star leapt on the idea, launching a live web cam featuring said vegetable -– complete with googly eyes -- next to a picture of the hapless Truss.

Her premiership lasted just 44 days and featured a mini-budget that collapsed the markets and generated extraordinary political upheaval. In the end, the lettuce won.

TOMATO SOUP

Environmental protesters seeking to draw attention to the role of fossil fuel consumption in the climate crisis hurled tomato soup at Vincent Van Gogh's "Sunflowers" painting at London's National Gallery in October, touching off a series of similar stunts.

Since then, activists have smothered mashed potato on Claude Monet and glued themselves to works by Andy Warhol, Francisco Goya and Johannes Vermeer.

For some, the campaigners are heroes bravely drawing attention to the climate emergency.

For others, the attacks are counterproductive and lose force by becoming commonplace.

Protests erupted in China, initially over COVID restrictions but later widening to broader political grievances, posing the greatest threat to the Beijing authorities since 1989.

The demonstrations became known in some quarters as the "A4" protests as protesters held up blank A4-sized sheets of white paper in a sign of solidarity and a nod to the lack of free speech in China.

#Armageddon #Ukraine #Operation London Bridge #Queen Elizabeth II #COP27 #Mahsa Amini #Woman Life Freedom #Iran #Twitter #Blue Tick #Elon Musk #Roe vs Wade #Quiet Quitting #Wet Lettuce #Liz Truss #Tomato Soup protest #A4 China protest

7 notes · View notes

newstfionline · 2 years

Text

Sunday, October 9, 2022

Biden calls the ‘prospect of Armageddon’ the highest since the Cuban missile crisis. (NYT) President Biden delivered a striking warning on Thursday night that recent threats from President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia could devolve into a nuclear conflict, telling supporters at a fund-raiser in New York City that the risk of atomic war had not been so high since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Mr. Biden’s references to Armageddon were highly unusual for any American president. Since the Cuban Missile Crisis, 60 years ago this month, occupants of the Oval Office have rarely spoken in such grim tones about the possible use of nuclear weapons. The president’s warnings, delivered bluntly to a group of Democratic donors rather than in a more formal setting, came as analysts in Washington have been debating whether Mr. Putin might resort to tactical nuclear weapons to counter his mounting military losses in Ukraine.

Low Mississippi River (Bloomberg) The water level of the Mississippi is abnormally low owing to a lack of rain in the Midwest and the Plains states, and it’s jeopardizing the most important conduit for agriculture in the country. The river is closed near Stack Island, Mississippi, which has led to a backup of 117 vessels and 2,048 barges. About 92 percent of American agricultural exports come from the Mississippi river basin, traveling on barges. Those barges are massive: Each carries 1,750 tons of dry cargo, enough to fill 70 trucks, and a tow hauling 15 barges can move 900,000 bushels of grain. The low river level is sending prices up to ship, and the timing could not be worse.

Haiti’s leader requests foreign armed forces to quell chaos (AP) Haiti’s government has agreed to request the help of international troops as gangs and protesters paralyze the country and supplies of water, fuel and basic goods dwindle, according to a document published Friday. The document, signed by Prime Minister Ariel Henry and 18 top-ranking officials, states that they are alarmed by “the risk of a major humanitarian crisis” that is threatening the life of many people. It authorizes Henry to request from international partners “the immediate deployment of a specialized armed force, in sufficient quantity,” to stop the crisis across the country caused partly by the “criminal actions of armed gangs.” It wasn’t clear if the request had been formally submitted, to whom it would be submitted and whether it would mean the activation of United Nations peacekeeping troops, whose mission ended five years ago after a troubled 11 years in Haiti.

Britain’s grid warns of winter blackouts if Europe energy crisis escalates (Washington Post) Britain’s electricity operator said homes and businesses could face three-hour blackouts this winter if supplies run too low, preparing for a worst-case escalation of Europe’s energy crisis. The company described it as “unlikely” that the lights would go out but still outlined the prospect of a “more extreme scenario” in its winter forecast. The energy crunch fueled by Russia’s war in Ukraine has left European countries scrambling to build reserves as temperatures drop. A European Union official also warned this week that the 27-nation bloc could see blackouts this winter.

Spain’s Senate OKs law banning praise of former dictator Franco (Worldcrunch) The Spanish Senate has approved a new bill which bans expressions of support for the former dictator Francisco Franco. Called the “Law on Democratic Memory” it also includes honoring Franco’s victims and makes the state responsible for searching for the 114,000 people who are still unaccounted for after the Civil War.

Kremlin, shifting blame for war failures, axes military commanders (Washington Post) Russian Ground Forces Gen. Alexander Dvornikov, who over a 44-year military career was best-known for scorched-earth tactics in campaigns he led in Syria and Chechnya, was named overall operational commander of the war in Ukraine in April. He lasted about seven weeks before being dismissed. Around the same time, Col. Gen. Andrey Serdyukov, another four-decade serviceman, the commander in chief of the elite airborne troops, was stripped of his post after nearly all divisions of the airborne forces suffered major losses. And just last week Col. Gen. Alexander Zhuravlev, the head of the Western Military District responsible for Kharkiv, where Russian forces lost huge swaths of territory in early September, was removed after four years on the job. Far from bestowing glory on Russia’s military brass, the war in Ukraine is proving toxic for top commanders, with at least eight generals fired, reassigned or otherwise sidelined since the start of the invasion on Feb. 24. Western governments have said that at least 10 others were killed in battle, a remarkably high number that military analysts say is evidence of grievous strategic errors.

Crimea bridge blast (AP) A truck bomb Saturday caused a fire and the collapse of a section of a bridge linking Russia-annexed Crimea with Russia, Russian officials say, damaging a key supply artery for Moscow’s faltering war effort in southern Ukraine. The speaker of Crimea’s Kremlin-backed regional parliament immediately accused Ukraine, though the Kremlin didn’t apportion blame. Ukrainian officials have repeatedly threatened to strike the bridge and some lauded the attack, but Kyiv stopped short of claiming responsibility. The bombing came a day after Russian President Vladimir Putin turned 70, dealing him a humiliating blow that could lead him to up the ante in his war on Ukraine. Russia’s National Anti-Terrorism Committee said that the truck bomb caused seven railway cars carrying fuel to catch fire, resulting in a “partial collapse of two sections of the bridge.”

Five Hong Kong teenagers sentenced in first security case involving minors (Reuters) Five teenagers with a Hong Kong group advocating independence from Chinese rule were ordered by a judge on Saturday to serve up to three years in detention at a correctional facility, for urging an “armed revolution” in a national security case. The five, some of whom were minors aged between 15 and 18 at the time of the alleged offence, had pleaded guilty to “inciting others to subvert state power” through a group named “Returning Valiant”. Justice Kwok Wai-kin detailed how the defendants had advocated a “bloody revolution” to overthrow the Chinese state at street booths, and on Instagram and Facebook after adoption of a sweeping, China-imposed national security law. Authorities in Beijing and Hong Kong say the security law has restored stability to the global financial hub after mass anti-government and pro-democracy protests in 2019. Human rights experts on the United Nations Human Rights Committee, however, called for the law to be repealed in a July report, amid concerns it is being used to crack down on fundamental freedoms.

A pending new migrant crisis at Europe’s border? (Die Welt) Refugees in Turkey feel increasingly unwelcome. The mood in the country is at times openly hostile. Less than a year before Turkish presidential and parliamentary elections, many politicians are escalating their rhetoric. Time and again, they turn into attacks. And President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who long acted as the patron saint of refugees, is seeking rapprochement with the man from whom Syrians once fled: Bashar al-Assad. As a result, more and more people now want to make their way to the EU. When the civil war broke out in Syria in 2011, many Turks welcomed their fleeing neighbors with open arms. Turkey has taken in the most refugees in the world, with almost four million people with protection status registered in the country. An enormous achievement. But while a welcoming culture prevailed in the beginning, most Turks would now prefer to get rid of their supposed guests. A 2021 survey by the United Nations Refugee Agency found that 48% of respondents thought Syrians “should definitely be sent back.”

Syria’s cholera outbreak spreads across country, hits neighboring Lebanon (Washington Post) A recent outbreak of cholera in Syria has hit nearly all its provinces and spread to neighboring Lebanon, triggering alarms in both countries, where economic crises have exacerbated deteriorating health conditions. Syria’s cholera outbreak was declared on Sept. 10, and, by the end of the month, surveillance data showed more than 10,000 suspected cases across the country, UNICEF said this week. By Friday, Lebanon had recorded two cholera cases in Akkar province, the northernmost part of the country bordering Syria, according to Health Minister Firass Abiad. No cholera vaccines are available in the country at this time, Abiad told The Washington Post. Both Syria and Lebanon are mired in economic meltdowns that have wreaked havoc on every facet of life, including health conditions and water sanitation.

Lebanese banks to close ‘indefinitely’ as hold-ups continue (Aljazeera) Lebanese banks have decided to close their doors to clients indefinitely, two bankers have told Reuters, amid an unprecedented wave of hold-ups by frustrated depositors seeking access to their savings. The two sources told the news agency on Friday that banks would continue urgent operations for clients and back-office services for business, but front-office services would remain suspended. In mid-September, a young Lebanese woman, Sali Hafiz, was lauded as a national hero after forcing staff at a BLOM Bank branch in Beirut to give her thousands of dollars from her own account by waving a replica gun in order to fund her sister’s cancer treatment in hospital. She told Al Jazeera that her actions were a response to the bank “stealing” her money. Her case triggered a snowball effect with multiple hold-ups taking place since then as the population grows more frustrated over strict measures preventing depositors from accessing most of their dollar savings.

#headlines #news

3 notes · View notes

brookstonalmanac · 11 months

Text

Events 10.27 (after 1940)

1944 – World War II: German forces capture Banská Bystrica during Slovak National Uprising thus bringing it to an end. 1954 – Benjamin O. Davis, Jr. becomes the first African-American general in the United States Air Force. 1958 – Iskander Mirza, the first President of Pakistan, is deposed by General Ayub Khan, who had been appointed the enforcer of martial law by Mirza 20 days earlier. 1961 – NASA tests the first Saturn I rocket in Mission Saturn-Apollo 1. 1962 – Major Rudolf Anderson of the United States Air Force becomes the only direct human casualty of the Cuban Missile Crisis when his U-2 reconnaissance airplane is shot down over Cuba by a Soviet-supplied surface-to-air missile. 1962 – By refusing to agree to the firing of a nuclear torpedo at a US warship, Vasily Arkhipov averts nuclear war. 1964 – Ronald Reagan delivers a speech on behalf of the Republican candidate for president, Barry Goldwater. The speech launches his political career and comes to be known as "A Time for Choosing". 1967 – Catholic priest Philip Berrigan and others of the 'Baltimore Four' protest the Vietnam War by pouring blood on Selective Service records. 1971 – The Democratic Republic of the Congo is renamed Zaire. 1979 – Saint Vincent and the Grenadines gains its independence from the United Kingdom. 1981 – Cold War: The Soviet submarine S-363 runs aground on the east coast of Sweden. 1986 – The British government suddenly deregulates financial markets, leading to a total restructuring of the way in which they operate in the country, in an event now referred to as the Big Bang. 1988 – Cold War: Ronald Reagan suspends construction of the new U.S. Embassy in Moscow due to Soviet listening devices in the building structure. 1991 – Turkmenistan achieves independence from the Soviet Union. 1992 – United States Navy radioman Allen R. Schindler, Jr. is murdered by shipmate Terry M. Helvey for being gay, precipitating debate about gays in the military that results in the United States' "Don't ask, don't tell" military policy. 1993 – Widerøe Flight 744 crashes near Overhalla, Norway, killing six people. 1994 – Gliese 229B is the first Substellar Mass Object to be unquestionably identified. 1995 – Former Prime Minister of Italy Bettino Craxi is convicted in absentia of corruption. 1997 – The 1997 Asian financial crisis causes a crash in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. 1999 – Gunmen open fire in the Armenian Parliament, killing the Prime Minister and seven others. 2014 – Britain withdraws from Afghanistan at the end of Operation Herrick, after 12 years four months and seven days. 2017 – Catalonia declares independence from Spain. 2018 – A gunman opens fire on a Pittsburgh synagogue killing 11 and injuring six, including four police officers. 2018 – Leicester City F.C. owner Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha dies in a helicopter crash along with four others after a Premier League match against West Ham United at the King Power Stadium in Leicester, England. 2019 – Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant founder and leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi kills himself and three children by detonating a suicide vest during the U.S. military Barisha raid in northwestern Syria.

#Events

0 notes

meret118 · 3 years

Text

On the morning of Sunday, October 14, 1962, Juanita Moody exited the headquarters of the National Security Agency, at Fort Meade, Maryland, and walked the short distance to her car, parked in one of the front-row spaces reserved for top leadership. The sky was a crystalline blue, “a most beautiful day,” she recalled later. Moody had just learned that the U.S. Air Force was sending a U-2 spy plane over Cuba to take high-altitude photographs of military installations across the island. Moody was worried for the pilot—twice already in the past two years a U-2 spy plane had been shot out of the sky, once over the Soviet Union and once over China. She was also worried for the country. Tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union were worsening by the day. President John F. Kennedy, American military leaders and the intelligence community believed that the Soviet military was up to something in Cuba. Exactly what, no one could say. “I went out and got into my old convertible at the precise moment I had been told this pilot was going to get into his plane,” Moody said.

What unfolded over the next two weeks was arguably the most dangerous period in the history of civilization. Close to 60 years later, the Cuban Missile Crisis is still considered a nearly catastrophic failure on the part of America’s national security apparatus. How America’s top agents, soldiers, diplomats, intelligence analysts and elected officials failed to anticipate and uncover the buildup of a nuclear arsenal on America’s doorstep, less than 100 miles off the coast, is still being studied and debated. At best, the story of American intelligence activities before and during the crisis is far from complete. One of the most extraordinary omissions to date is the central role played by Moody, a 38-year-old code-breaking whiz and the head of the NSA’s Cuba desk during the perilous fall of 1962. Even today her name is largely unknown outside the agency, and the details of her contributions to the nation’s security remain closely guarded.

#History #Feminism

2 notes · View notes

47burlm · 5 years

Photo

Guess who holds the nuclear launch codes now -we are doomed

October 22, 1962

In a televised speech of extraordinary gravity, President John F. Kennedy announces on October 22, 196 that U.S. spy planes have discovered Soviet missile bases in Cuba. These missile sites—under construction but nearing completion—housed medium-range missiles capable of striking a number of major cities in the United States, including Washington, D.C. Kennedy announced that he was ordering a naval “quarantine” of Cuba to prevent Soviet ships from transporting any more offensive weapons to the island and explained that the United States would not tolerate the existence of the missile sites currently in place. The president made it clear that America would not stop short of military action to end what he called a “clandestine, reckless, and provocative threat to world peace.”

What is known as the Cuban Missile Crisis actually began on October 15, 1962—the day that U.S. intelligence personnel analyzing U-2 spy plane data discovered that the Soviets were building medium-range missile sites in Cuba. The next day, President Kennedy secretly convened an emergency meeting of his senior military, political, and diplomatic advisers to discuss the ominous development. The group became known as ExCom, short for Executive Committee. After rejecting a surgical air strike against the missile sites, ExCom decided on a naval quarantine and a demand that the bases be dismantled and missiles removed. On the night of October 22, Kennedy went on national television to announce his decision. During the next six days, the crisis escalated to a breaking point as the world tottered on the brink of nuclear war between the two superpowers.

On October 23, the quarantine of Cuba began, but Kennedy decided to give Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev more time to consider the U.S. action by pulling the quarantine line back 500 miles. By October 24, Soviet ships en route to Cuba capable of carrying military cargoes appeared to have slowed down, altered, or reversed their course as they approached the quarantine, with the exception of one ship—the tanker Bucharest. At the request of more than 40 nonaligned nations, U.N. Secretary-General U Thant sent private appeals to Kennedy and Khrushchev, urging that their governments “refrain from any action that may aggravate the situation and bring with it the risk of war.” At the direction of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. military forces went to DEFCON 2, the highest military alert ever reached in the postwar era, as military commanders prepared for full-scale war with the Soviet Union.

On October 25, the aircraft carrier USS Essex and the destroyer USS Gearing attempted to intercept the Soviet tanker Bucharest as it crossed over the U.S. quarantine of Cuba. The Soviet ship failed to cooperate, but the U.S. Navy restrained itself from forcibly seizing the ship, deeming it unlikely that the tanker was carrying offensive weapons. On October 26, Kennedy learned that work on the missile bases was proceeding without interruption, and ExCom considered authorizing a U.S. invasion of Cuba. The same day, the Soviets transmitted a proposal for ending the crisis: The missile bases would be removed in exchange for a U.S. pledge not to invade Cuba.

The next day, however, Khrushchev upped the ante by publicly calling for the dismantling of U.S. missile bases in Turkey under pressure from Soviet military commanders. While Kennedy and his crisis advisers debated this dangerous turn in negotiations, a U-2 spy plane was shot down over Cuba, and its pilot, Major Rudolf Anderson, was killed. To the dismay of the Pentagon, Kennedy forbid a military retaliation unless any more surveillance planes were fired upon over Cuba. To defuse the worsening crisis, Kennedy and his advisers agreed to dismantle the U.S. missile sites in Turkey but at a later date, in order to prevent the protest of Turkey, a key NATO member.

On October 28, Khrushchev announced his government’s intent to dismantle and remove all offensive Soviet weapons in Cuba. With the airing of the public message on Radio Moscow, the USSR confirmed its willingness to proceed with the solution secretly proposed by the Americans the day before. In the afternoon, Soviet technicians began dismantling the missile sites, and the world stepped back from the brink of nuclear war. The Cuban Missile Crisis was effectively over. In November, Kennedy called off the blockade, and by the end of the year all the offensive missiles had left Cuba. Soon after, the United States quietly removed its missiles from Turkey.

The Cuban Missile Crisis seemed at the time a clear victory for the United States, but Cuba emerged from the episode with a much greater sense of security.The removal of antiquated Jupiter missiles from Turkey had no detrimental effect on U.S. nuclear strategy, but the Cuban Missile Crisis convinced a humiliated USSR to commence a massive nuclear buildup. In the 1970s, the Soviet Union reached nuclear parity with the United States and built intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of striking any city in the United States.

A succession of U.S. administrations honored Kennedy’s pledge not to invade Cuba, and relations with the communist island nation situated just 80 miles from Florida remained a thorn in the side of U.S. foreign policy for more than 50 years. In 2015, officials from both nations announced the formal normalization of relations between the U.S and Cuba, which included the easing of travel restrictions and the opening of embassies and diplomatic missions in both countries.

3 notes · View notes

mindthemuse · 5 years

Text

On July 16, 1945, humanity entered its atomic age. Several months later two rudimentary bombs ended a conflict; the horror left humanity debating its necessity. It was not horrific enough to stop making them.

On October 27th, 1962, humanity was on the cusp of a nuclear war. The Cuban Missile Crisis forced the world to hold its breath as the United States and the Soviet Union held civilization at the edge. Though President John F. Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev were polar opposites in manner; they pulled back from the brink with resolutions that benefited both nations and established a line of communication to prevent future incidents.

Humanity was saved by diplomacy and cooler heads.

On September 26th, 1983, an early warning system of the Soviet Union reported a launch of ballistic missiles from the United States. Officer Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov was on duty that night and would have been expected to trigger a retaliatory nuclear attack at the United States according to Soviet protocol. Against protocol and training, Petrov used logic and instinct to judge the incident as a false alarm due to the size of the ‘attack’ and the newness of the system. He prevented a possible nuclear conflict caused by humor error.

Humanity was saved by luck, and could have as easily been damned without ever knowing the truth.

Jennet Shepard remembers these incidents when she thinks about the Krogan. She remembers how luck essentially saved humanity from themselves. Whatever triggered the Krogan Nuclear war should not be seen as moral judgement of a race's character. She can't speak for other species, but she can speak for her own; the only difference between Krogans and Humans is luck and the cost of survival.

#not looking for your approval. [shepard headcanon]#(jennet has a lot of feels about krogan)#(i have a lot of feels about krogan)#(krogan are the one species most like humanity in mass effect and in this essay i will tell you-)

1 note · View note

xtruss · 3 years

Text

Peace Now in Ukraine

— Column: By Amy Goodman & Denis Moynihan

— DemocracyNow.Org | January 27, 2022

Is a Russian invasion of Ukraine imminent? At the heart of this avoidable catastrophe is Moscow’s concern over the ever-increasing U.S. military threat on its doorstep. Since the Soviet Union fell, the United States, through its NATO allies, has pushed troops and arms closer to Russia, despite the “not one inch eastward” promise made by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990. Now, close to 100,000 Russian troops are massed on the Ukrainian border. The Ukrainian military is on high alert. Adding fuel to the fire, President Biden ordered 8,500 U.S. troops on high alert and is pouring weapons into Ukraine.

Katrina vanden Heuvel, who has reported on Russia for decades, explained on the Democracy Now! news hour: “Russia, the Soviet Union, lost 27 million people in World War II. There is a real continuing fear, even in younger generations, about being encircled…What if Russian troops suddenly decided to alight in Mexico? Borders matter, especially in the Russian historical consciousness.”

Pope Francis said on Wednesday, “Today, I especially ask you to join in praying for peace in Ukraine,” Invoking Ukraine’s 20th century history, he continued, “More than five million people were annihilated during the time of the last war. They are a suffering people; they have suffered starvation, they have suffered so much cruelty, and they deserve peace…Please: War never again!”

About 30% of Ukraine’s 50 million citizens are native Russian speakers, most in the southeast region of Donbas bordering Russia and on the Crimean Peninsula. Russia militarily annexed Crimea in 2014, as “Euromaidan” protesters in Kyiv’s main square and in other cities demanded closer ties to the European Union. The national debate on whether to align with East or West erupted into a military conflict, with close to 14,000 people killed, 1.5 million displaced, and two regions within the Donbas, Donetsk and Luhansk, declaring independence from Ukraine and aligning with Russia.

Anatol Lieven, a senior fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, offered his analysis on Democracy Now!: “The crisis has grown to this point because of Russia’s deep unhappiness with the expansion of NATO to its borders and the threat of NATO admitting Ukraine, which Russia regards in much the same light that America regards the appearance of hostile military alliances in Central America.”

President Kennedy’s confrontation with the Soviet Union during the 1962 Cuban missile crisis is considered the closest we have ever come to all-out nuclear war. Kennedy acted much like Putin is now, engaging in military brinksmanship to deter the deployment of foreign weapons and troops along a national border.

In addition to the mobilization of U.S. troops, the U.S. and NATO allies are shipping weapons to Ukraine. William Hartung, also with the Quincy Institute, has long followed the unchecked growth of Pentagon spending and the weapons manufacturers that profit from war. “The U.S. has sent $2.7 billion in military aid and training to Ukraine since 2014. President Biden is talking about a couple hundred million more. And more, no doubt, will follow,” Hartung said on Democracy Now!

The United States, the biggest spender in NATO, has forced the “2% defense investment guideline” on NATO’s 29 other member nations, pressuring European countries to increase military spending. As NATO states on its website, “In 2014, three Allies spent 2% of GDP or more on defense; this went up to 11 Allies in 2020 and a majority of Allies have national plans in place to meet this target by 2024.” Hartung added, “the tensions that are related to [Ukraine] augur for their ability to keep military spending and military procurement high.”

Thich Nhat Hanh is one peace activist whose voice will be missing throughout this crisis. The legendary Buddist monk and spiritual leader died in his native Vietnam this week at the age of 95.

Considered the founder of the engaged buddhism movement, Thich Nhat Hanh was exiled from Vietnam in 1966 for opposing the war. In his 1967 book “Vietnam: Lotus in a Sea of Fire” he explained how the movement of young buddhists was pushing their less engaged elders: “In a river current, it is not the water in front that pulls the river along, but the water in the rear that acts as the driving force, pushing the water in front forward.”

The U.S. media provides a parade of pro-war politicians and pundits from both the Democratic and Republican parties, while progressive peace advocates are almost entirely shut out. Progressive Congressmembers Pramila Jayapal and Barbara Lee warned the Biden administration on Wednesday, “there is no military solution” to the crisis.

Grassroots movements must demand peace and diplomacy, now, before the outbreak of war.

0 notes

opedguy · 3 years

Text

Putin Wars Biden on Ukraine

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), April 21, 2021.--Pushing Russian President Vladimir Putin to a war footing, 78-year-old President Joe Biden has driven U.S.-Russian relations to the lowest level since the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, maybe worse. Addressing the Russian Federation on the annual state-of-the-nation address, Putin said any breach by the U.S., European Union [EU] or NATO would be met with a “quick and tough” response. Putin reacted to Biden’s new sanctions April 16 over unproven allegations that Russian meddled in the 2020 election and hacked SolarWinds network management program. Whatever the reason for Biden’s belligerent approach, he’s now pushed Putin to issue a stern warning to the U.S., EU and NATO not to interfere with the Russian Federation’s policy with Ukraine. Biden, together with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanel Macron demanded Putin pull back troops from Ukraine.

Since taking office Jan. 20, Biden has done everything possible to alienate Putin, including calling him a “soulless killer” March 16. “I hope that no one dares to cross the red line in respect to Russia, and we will determine where it is in each specific case,” Putin said in his nationwide speech. “Those who organize any provocations threatening out core security interests will regret their deeds more than they regretted anything for a long time,” Putin said. Putin was addressing his warning to Biden who’s been especially provocative in organizing sanctions with the EU against the Kremlin. Putin rejected Western concerns about the Russian troop build up on the Russian side of the border to Ukraine’s Donbass region. Putin put Ukraine on notice not to seize Russian-speaking territories currently operating independent from President Zolodymyr Zelensky’s Kiev government.

Biden has solicited the EU to join a coalition against Putin’s military build up near the Donbass region in eastern Ukraine. “We really don’t want to burn the bridges.” Putin said. “But if some mistake our good intentions for indifference or weakness and intends to burn or even blow up those bridges themselves. Russia response will be asymmetrical, quick and tough,” putting the West on notice to stay in their lane. Biden and his 58-year-old Secretary of State Tony Blinken have been slamming Putin for his treatment of 44-year-old Russian dissident Alexi Navalny, demanding he be released from prison. Biden and Blinken have accused the U.S. of meddling in U.S. affairs. If telling Putin to release Navalny, a known revolutionary, isn’t meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign state, then what is? Biden and Blinken’s support of Navalny is about getting rid of Putin.

Navalny, who was sentenced March 2 to two-year-eight-months in a Russian penal colony, gets daily press briefings from his handlers like his chief-of-staff Leonid Volkov, feeding the media a pack of lies about his medical condition designed to discredit Putin. Daily reports from U.S. and foreign news outlets detail Navalny’s medical condition, from various doctors attached to his clandestine organization designed to exaggerate Navalny’s deteriorating medical condition. Nowhere does the media report that Navalny’s deteriorated state was due to his foolish hunger strike designed pressure Putin and Kremlin to let him out of prison. Biden falls right into the trap saying if Navalny dies, there will be draconic consequences to the Russian Federation, including more sanctions or worse. Biden has zero leverage over Putin, especially in Ukraine’s Donbass area.

Putin lambasted the U.S. for its “unlawful, politically motivated economic sanctions and crude attempts to enforce its will on others,” saying that Russia has shown restraint under the war-like conditions Biden has imposed. Putin called Biden’s actions “openly boorish,” kicking out 10 Russian diplomats from Washington. Three days after Biden called Putin a “soulless killer” March 16, he challenged Biden to a live Internet debate to air various differences. Biden didn’t respond to the challenge but asked Putin April 13for a summit, all in response to Putin’s massive military build up near the Ukrainian border. Biden’s playing a dangerous game of chicken with Putin, bound to lose because Putin, not Biden, has the military resources to prevail in Ukraine and elsewhere. “The practice of organizing coups and planning political assassinations of top officials goes over the top and crosses all boundarie,” Putin said.

Biden’s one small step away from igniting a war with the Russian federation, pretending he has the backing of the EU and NATO. No one in the EU or NATO want a confrontation with the Russian Federation. EU officials know they buy 40% of natural gas and 30% of petroleum from the Russia Federation. Germany has spent $11 billion on the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline supply natural gas from Russia to Germany. Biden was Vice President under former President Barack Obama when Putin responded to a Feb. 22, 2014 CIIA-backed coup that toppled the Kremlin-backed government of Vitkor Yanukovych. Obama, Biden, the EU and NATO did nothing March 1 when Putin seized the Crimean Peninsula. Any wrong move by the U.S. or NATO would trigger Putin to send the Russian army to annex Russian-speaking, separatist parts of eastern Ukraine.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author The Bullet and Operation Charisma

0 notes

veale2006-blog · 4 years

Photo

THIS DAY IN HISTORY OCTOBER 22 JFK’s address on Cuban Missile Crisis shocks the nation In a televised speech of extraordinary gravity, President John F. Kennedy announces on October 22, 1962 that U.S. spy planes have discovered Soviet missile bases in Cuba. These missile sites—under construction but nearing completion—housed medium-range missiles capable of striking a number of major cities in the United States, including Washington, D.C. Kennedy announced that he was ordering a naval “quarantine” of Cuba to prevent Soviet ships from transporting any more offensive weapons to the island and explained that the United States would not tolerate the existence of the missile sites currently in place. The president made it clear that America would not stop short of military action to end what he called a “clandestine, reckless and provocative threat to world peace.”

What is known as the Cuban Missile Crisis actually began on October 14, 1962—the day that U.S. intelligence personnel analyzing U-2 spy plane data discovered that the Soviets were building medium-range missile sites in Cuba. The next day, President Kennedy secretly convened an emergency meeting of his senior military, political, and diplomatic advisers to discuss the ominous development. The group became known as ExCom, short for Executive Committee. After rejecting a surgical air strike against the missile sites, ExCom decided on a naval quarantine and a demand that the bases be dismantled and missiles removed. On the night of October 22, Kennedy went on national television to announce his decision. During the next six days, the crisis escalated to a breaking point as the world tottered on the brink of nuclear war between the two superpowers.

0 notes

aspiringjournalistworld · 4 years

Text

Is nuclear proliferation the road to peace or conflict?

A world without nuclear weapons is what most politicians and policymakers call for, particularly after WWII, when the world witnessed the repercussions of possessing stockpiles and attacking another nation using the nuclear force. With the Cold War era, everyone feared that the same scenario would occur again, but back then it was between two superpowers; the United States and the Soviet Union (Rauchhaus 2009). However, the scenario deferred completely (Newsweek 2009). This fact started the debate on whether non-nuclear proliferation still secures stability and lessens the rate of conflicts or not. Different school of thoughts have discussed this issue, from the realist to the rational choice perspectives. Each of these theories attempted to make an argument that was aligned with the principles of their framework. They came to ask questions related to rationality, security dilemmas, stability, power shifting, hegemony, terrorist groups…. etc. When a clash of interests between the U.S. and Iran or when the American president holds a summit with his North Korean counterpart Kim Jong-un, the debate is reopened and several questions are left unanswered. But what will always remain is the fear of letting non-nuclear states acquire their own missiles, a move that is viewed as a tremendous threat to the global security. When we think of Iran and how it might ponder the idea of producing nuclear weapons, if it wanted to avoid getting invaded, we ask ourselves; is this the right thing to do? what if nuclear proliferation maintains peace? what if the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), that became effective fifty years ago (Newsweek 2020), does not guarantee a world without nuclear warfare?

Photo credit: Foreign Policy

Here is a variety of arguments from the point of view of the nuclear optimists and pessimists:-

The Rationality of State leaders

Tepperman (2009) argued that there are two facets that underpin the different arguments regarding the deployment of nuclear weapons. The first one is based on the fact that such destructive weapons were used only in 1945. The second one is the undeniable truth that no nuclear conflict took place since WWII. This argument is emphasised by what Kenneth Waltz, as quoted by Tepperman in Newsweek (2009), said: "We now have 64 years of experience since Hiroshima. It's striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial period, there has not been any war among nuclear states". The author tried to explain why we will not witness any nuclear war of any kind in the upcoming 64 years. He argued that all state leaders are rational, they may sometimes act in irrational ways, however, they are aware of their actions and will never start a war without calculating its’ costs. He continued his argument by mentioning two dictators, Saddam and Hitler who were quite sure of their willingness to win their wars. What went wrong in the past confrontations was that leaders used to miscalculate the consequences. With the possession of nuclear warheads, this past reality has changed. Under this nuclear destruction argument, no state will take the risk of pointing its’ missiles towards another state, even if the man, who pulls the trigger, is evil or mentally unstable, he knows that he cannot afford the price of destruction and neither he nor his opponent will achieve victory. In other words, it will never be a win win situation. As Waltz puts it, "Why fight if you can't win and might lose everything?" (Newsweek, August 28, 2009). Taking all together, state leaders will escape a nuclear conflict because they will find themselves unwilling to pay the price. We cannot deny that another kind of war took place after 1945, for instance the proxy wars and the Cold War, but none of these can be compared to the destruction that the world witness during the Second World War. That is why it is expected that states will not resort to a nuclear warfare, instead “nuclear peace”, as the author suggested, will prevail.

Non-Proliferation Pros and Cons:

One of the arguments, published in The Elders website (2019), that oppose the nuclear proliferation road to peace narrative is made by Mary Robinson, “Former Ireland President and Chair of the Elders; the group of independent global leaders founded by Nelson Mandela”. She stressed the importance of paying more attention to the threat of nuclear weapons because the perils of waging nuclear wars are soaring compared to any other historical period since “the end of the Cold War”. She believed that if the New START ((Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) was not carried on in 2021, that would imply that no agreement would be on the table and the chances of the United States and Russia in building warheads is inescapable. Adding to this, Ahmed (2017) asserted that the great powers have the tendency to encourage other states to follow their lead, especially if these powers do not have the intention of respecting the ethics of the international community. Taking this into account, the competition between the U.S. and Russia can have a spill over effect on other states who possess these warheads. There is also a probability that countries who do not have nuclear stockpiles of their own will find themselves forced to follow into their footsteps. That is why NATO members should exercise some influence on the American President, trying to urge him to carry on with the New START, as an attempt to maintain their mutual interests of preserving peace (as noted in The Elders and The Independent websites 2019).

Shellenberger (2019) stated, in his Forbes article, that warmongers and pacifists went against the notion of advancement of a nuclear proliferation in non-nuclear nations since this will lead to disastrous outcomes similar to what happened with that non-proliferation attempt made by the United States in Iraq. In addition, the fear of a nuclear proliferation can even encourage liberal leaders to support the decision of going to war with a nation who possesses weapons of mass destruction in order to put an end to this alerting situation. This was apparent when liberal politicians, including “senator Hillary Clinton, 2000 presidential candidate Al Gore and the British PM Tony Blair”, supported the American invasion of Iraq. Even after the Second World War, the British philosopher Bertrand Russell, as quoted by Shellenberger in Forbes (2019), emphasized the importance of waging a nuclear war against the USSR, adding that “an atomic war would be one of extraordinary horror,” reported The New York Times, “but it would be ‘the war to end wars.” In Russell’s opinion, resorting to nuclear weapons to terrify the opponent did not halt war. Likewise, Hamilton Holt, a peace activist, saw that states, which did not abide by the “United Nations control over atomic energy” should be destroyed with nuclear warheads (Forbes, June 22, 2019).

While the attempts to restraint the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction had shown fatal consequences (ex: Iraq in 2003), John Gaddis, “Yale University historian”, argued that nuclear proliferation has contributed to the “long piece”. And this argument was proven to be true in the case of India-Pakistan nuclear tension in the 1990s. According to Sumit Ganguly, “India-Pakistan nuclear expert”, the two sides of the conflict could not afford the severe outcome of using these warheads, resulting in the annihilation of the whole “subcontinent” (as noted in Forbes website 2019). Also, this was evident, according to Tepperman’s article in Newsweek (2009), in the case of the “Cuban missile crisis” back in October 1962. The U.S. and the USSR kept intimidating each other with the employment of the nukes. And that made everyone, based on Rauchhaus’s argument (2009, 1), presume that another nuclear attack was on the horizon. But when the moment of truth came, they did not do it because both sides realized that if they had fired the warheads, they would have been digging their own graves.

However, the “nuclear pessimists”, according to Tepperman’s article in Newsweek (2009), believe that if a nuclear conflict had not occurred in the past, that does not mean it would not happen in the future. They gave examples of Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, asserting that these state leaders were not to be trusted and that no one should depend on what they said. According to them (nuclear pessimists), these regimes are the utmost “rogue”, from whom we should expect the nuclear strike. However, Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should not be compared with Stalin and Mao, the craziest leaders that the world has ever known. The author continued by saying that as long as these dictators (Stalin and Mao), who were responsible for the murder of nearly 20 million of their citizens, had not started any nuclear warfare, there was little doubt that anyone else would. In fact, North Korea and Iran are two nations with state actors who looked irrational, but implicitly they were no more than normal leaders, seeking to preserve their peace and security. Consequently, a nuclear warfare is not on their agendas. “These countries may be brutally oppressive, but nothing in their behaviour suggests they have a death wish” (Newsweek, August 28, 2009). The problem, for the nuclear pessimists, lies in the prospect of giving the nukes to terrorist groups. But for the optimists, “it does not make sense”, why would these states give their nuclear weapons, the only thing considered their key to survival, to other groups like Hizbullah, over which they had limited power or even to al Qaeda, with whom they did not have common interests. Furthermore, they risk being punished by the United States who will seek to retaliate, if any attack takes place from these groups (Newsweek 2009).

Proliferation, Polarity and the Balance of power:

Intriligator and Brito (1981) argued that the debate of whether nuclear proliferation can lead to conflict or not depends on the characteristics of the non-nuclear nation, who under the proliferation concept, will become new nuclear state. For instance, its competence, the kind of alliances it has, its stability in the region…. etc, all these factors will determine its probability of engaging in a nuclear attack. Another point to be added here is the nature of the international system and how it is divided. Living in a bipolar system will differ from a multipolar one. Waltz argued that a multipolar system is a dangerous one because there is “unpredictability” among the various political actors (Intriligator and Brito 1981). Therefore, giving more states the access to nuclear weapons would have devastating effects. Whereas, Deutsch and Singer believed that adding new states will have a positive outcome on the stability of the global system and its maintenance. The authors suggested “a more formal model” of the consequences of nuclear proliferation on the likelihood of waging a nuclear conflict. There is a probability that a newly nuclear state might use its’ nuclear warheads, if it decided to attack another nation, without the fear of being punished. This was true in the case of the only nuclear strike that took place in 1945 between the United States and Japan. Another scenario is when we have two rivalries; one who is an existing nuclear nation and the other is a newly nuclear state. In this situation, there is a probability that the existing nuclear power will use its nuclear force against the other one to wipe it out, without the fear of punishment. This suggestion was made in the post war period (1945-1949), when the United States (the predominant nuclear state at that time) had the power to use its’ nuclear weapons against the USSR, its main opponent striving for power in the international system (Intriligator and Brito 1981). Geller supported this argument (Rauchhaus 2009), emphasizing that the stability of the global system would be threatened, when one or both nations had weapons of mass destruction. However, according to Intriligator and Brito (1981), the high probability of waging nuclear wars in the previous two situations is lessened, when the new nuclear state becomes stronger, with the acquisition of “sufficient” nuclear warheads that makes it capable of challenging any other nuclear nation. Based on their arguments, when the two rivalries have equal amount of nuclear powers, the bipolar system reduces the chances of any nuclear attack, making the situation more stable since each of these nations become more reluctant to engage in a nuclear combat against the other because of the fear of retaliation. In a multipolar system, there is even more uncertainty among different nuclear powers. Each one of them will be reluctant to use their nuclear force against the other as they are unwilling to predict the reaction of each other. Besides, the increasing possession of nuclear warheads will lessen the prospects of engaging in a nuclear war. Thus, we cannot expect any“deliberate initiation” of war among the various powers. This is also reinforced by the argument that, in a multipolar system, there is a tendency of forming alliances and coalitions. The fact that reduces the potentiality of one nation attacking another, since in this case the nation which initiated the war will have to collide with the other ones who have already formed alliances with the attacked nation. By and large, according to the authors’ statistical approach, the prospects of a nuclear attack surge in the case of an additional nuclear nation joining fewer members of nuclear states,“by providing both an additional nation to initiate such a war and an additional target”. Whereas, the opposite takes place in the case of having more nuclear states, where the additional nuclear state lessens the possibility of a nuclear destruction,“by providing an additional restraining force for all the existing nuclear nations”(Intriligator and Brito 1981).

Recap:

Broadly speaking, there is no consensus on whether nuclear proliferation leads to peace or conflict. As presented in the article, policymakers and experts often have conflicting views regarding this critical debate. On the one hand, there are the nuclear pessimists who refuse the spreading of weapons of mass destruction among non-nuclear states since this endangers the security and the stability of the international system. In their view, statesmen cannot be trusted since there are many parts of the world that are ruled by irrational leaders who can take the risk and bombard their enemies. Even if rational leaders exist, we cannot guarantee that terrorist groups will not lay their hands on such weapons. In addition, what happened during WWII proves the deadly outcomes of possessing and using nuclear arms in targeting another country. On the other hand, we have the nuclear optimists who believe that world leaders are rational and intelligent, they will not point their missiles against each other. In addition, they realize that they would put themselves in a critical position, if they opted for such action. In this scenario, they will have to confront the costs of destruction and the fear of retaliation. Moreover, with the multipolar system we are living in, there is little doubt that states would use their nuclear arms against each other because there is uncertainty among the different powers, they are unwilling to predict each other’s actions. Therefore, the probability of one of these nuclear powers to start a war is reduced. The optimists emphasize that history will not repeat itself and that the chances of having another nuclear attack seem to be unrealistic. This assumption is supported by Gaddis’s argument of the “long piece”. Taking all together, the acquisition of nuclear warheads does not look that terrifying. However, politicians in the United States have not realised this fact yet. According to Desch, “most of us suffer from what he calls a nuclear phobia, an irrational fear that's grounded in good evidence—nuclear weapons are terrifying—but that keeps us from making clear, coldblooded calculations about just how dangerous possessing them actually is” (Newsweek, August 28, 2009). What is important in this debate is that state leaders need to work out multilateral agreements on how best to preserve stability and world order. They need to advance peace talks and eliminate the probability of future conflicts. Statesmen should realize that if the US-Iraq invasion scenario was approached again, particularly with what is being witnessed with the Trump administration and Iran, the consequences would be more devastating for both sides than those witnessed back in 2003. (as stressed in Shellenberger’s article published in Forbes Website 2019).

0 notes

glittergummicandypeach · 4 years

Text

Will ‘Fatima’ Bring Religion Back To The Movie Mainstream? – Deadline

Will the movies ever let religion back into the mainstream? It doesn’t seem likely, given the secular bent of most critics, festivals, and film awards. But the question could certainly occur to any thoughtful viewer of Marco Pontecorvo’s Fátima, which is set for release by Picturehouse in theaters and via PVOD on Aug. 28.

The film, which has been shown in pop-up previews for the last few weeks, is about the heavenly visions of three young children, who in 1917 said they encountered the Blessed Virgin Mary in a field near Fátima, Portugal. Believers flocked to the site. There may have been miracles. And Mary, said the children, confided three “secrets,” which became the core of an enduring Catholic cult that eventually found of the two young people, Francisco and Jacinta Marto, canonized as saints following their deaths in the 1918 flu pandemic, and made the third, Lùcia dos Santos, a subject of endless fascination during her long life as a nun.

Sister Lucia died in 2005, and has begun the march toward canonization. In Pontecorvo’s film, she is played by Stephanie Gil as a child, and Sonia Braga as an adult. Harvey Keitel, among the picture’s better-known supporting players, appears as a skeptical professor. He spars with Braga over the validity and import of the visions.

Putting aside their debate, and all the issues that are best left to certified movie critics, Fátima does leave you wondering: Is this a movie for believers, like, say, Miracles From Heaven and all of those somewhat successful Evangelical faith films of recent years? Or is it, consciously or otherwise, a sly bid for mainstream viewers who may not buy into the Marian doctrine, but who are more than ready for a scary cinematic trip to the supernatural?

Certainly, the mass audience has become accustomed to aliens, ghosts, zombies, demons, and even the occasional on-screen angel. So, are miracles and heavenly apparitions still beyond the willing suspension of disbelief?

I truly don’t know. But if ever the time were right, it would seem to be now, as viewing patterns and culture at large are shaken by coronavirus, economic instability, civil unrest, and all the usual rumblings along international fault lines.

The Fátima saga has always played as something of a geo-political horror story. The Virgin’s secrets, which included visions of Hell and an assassinated Pope, were framed against unimaginable calamity of World War I. She warned of greater destruction if humanity did not reform: That arrived in the shape of World War II. The children were accused of consorting with the Devil. But tens of thousands of believers, plus the merely curious, gathered in Fátima to witness what was supposed to be the final visitation, on Oct. 13, 1917. There may or may not have been a miracle, as many reported seeing the sun dance in the sky.

A final Apocalyptic warning was not to be revealed at the time. Decades later, Sister Lucia described a vision of the Church’s destruction from within. But some said the full secret was never disclosed. By 1962, more than a few Catholic schoolchildren—I was one—were praying rosaries to Our Lady of Fátima as the Cuban missile crisis threatened nuclear Holocaust. To us, the Third Secret seemed to be unfolding. It was scary. Like a Roland Emmerich movie, but worse.

At the moment, it’s hard to see those themes gripping Hollywood’s film Academy, if and when its members get around to voting for the next, virus-delayed, round of Oscars. Too much has changed since 1944, when Jennifer Jones was named Best Actress for her portrayal of Bernadette Soubirous in The Song Of Bernadette, another film about an earlier Marian visitation.

Still, it’s easy to imagine viewers getting interested in Fátima, much like the curious onlookers who showed up for the final visit in 1917. Maybe not as many as showed up for the silliness of Bruce Almighty, or the mind-games of The Da Vinci Code, or the over-blown rock monsters of Noah, or the sheer force The Passion Of The Christ (more than 16 years ago).

But enough to edge religion—in one of its more chilling manifestations—back toward the cinematic mainstream.

This content was originally published here.

1 note · View note

brookstonalmanac · 4 years

Text

Events 10.27

312 – Constantine is said to have received his famous Vision of the Cross. 939 – Æthelstan, the first king of all England, dies and is succeeded by his half-brother, Edmund I. 1275 – Traditional founding of the city of Amsterdam. 1524 – French troops lay siege to Pavia. 1553 – Condemned as a heretic, Michael Servetus is burned at the stake just outside Geneva. 1644 – Second Battle of Newbury in the English Civil War. 1682 – Philadelphia is founded in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 1775 – King George III expands on his Proclamation of Rebellion in the Thirteen Colonies in his speech from the throne at the opening of Parliament. 1795 – The United States and Spain sign the Treaty of Madrid, which establishes the boundaries between Spanish colonies and the U.S. 1806 – The French Army enters Berlin, following the Battle of Jena–Auerstedt. 1810 – United States annexes the former Spanish colony of West Florida. 1838 – Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs issues the Extermination Order, which orders all Mormons to leave the state or be killed. 1870 – Franco-Prussian War: Marshal Bazaine surrenders to Prussian forces at the conclusion of the Siege of Metz along with 140,000 French soldiers. 1904 – The first underground New York City Subway line opens, later designated as the IRT Broadway–Seventh Avenue Line. 1907 – Fifteen people are killed in Hungary when a gunman opens fire on a crowd gathered at a church consecration. 1914 – World War I: The new British battleship HMS Audacious is sunk by a minefield laid by the armed German merchant-cruiser Berlin. 1916 – Negus Mikael, marching on the Ethiopian capital in support of his son Emperor Iyasu V, is defeated by Fitawrari abte Giyorgis, securing the throne for Empress Zewditu I. 1922 – A referendum in Rhodesia rejects the country's annexation to the South African Union. 1924 – The Uzbek SSR is founded in the Soviet Union. 1930 – Ratifications exchanged in London for the first London Naval Treaty go into effect immediately, further limiting the expensive naval arms race among its five signatories. 1936 – Mrs Wallis Simpson obtains her divorce, which would eventually allow her to marry King Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, thus forcing his abdication from the throne. 1944 – World War II: German forces capture Banská Bystrica during Slovak National Uprising thus bringing it to an end. 1954 – Benjamin O. Davis, Jr. becomes the first African-American general in the United States Air Force. 1958 – Iskander Mirza, the first President of Pakistan, is deposed by General Ayub Khan, who had been appointed the enforcer of martial law by Mirza 20 days earlier. 1961 – NASA tests the first Saturn I rocket in Mission Saturn-Apollo 1. 1962 – Major Rudolf Anderson of the United States Air Force becomes the only direct human casualty of the Cuban Missile Crisis when his U-2 reconnaissance airplane is shot down over Cuba by a Soviet-supplied surface-to-air missile. 1962 – By refusing to agree to the firing of a nuclear torpedo at a US warship, Vasily Arkhipov averts nuclear war. 1962 – An aircraft carrying Enrico Mattei, post-war Italian administrator, crashes in mysterious circumstances. 1964 – Ronald Reagan delivers a speech on behalf of the Republican candidate for president, Barry Goldwater. The speech launches his political career and comes to be known as "A Time for Choosing". 1967 – Catholic priest Philip Berrigan and others of the 'Baltimore Four' protest the Vietnam War by pouring blood on Selective Service records. 1971 – The Democratic Republic of the Congo is renamed Zaire. 1979 – Saint Vincent and the Grenadines gains its independence from the United Kingdom. 1981 – Cold War: The Soviet submarine S-363 runs aground on the east coast of Sweden. 1986 – The British government suddenly deregulates financial markets, leading to a total restructuring of the way in which they operate in the country, in an event now referred to as the Big Bang. 1988 – Cold War: Ronald Reagan suspends construction of the new U.S. Embassy in Moscow due to Soviet listening devices in the building structure. 1991 – Turkmenistan achieves independence from the Soviet Union. 1992 – United States Navy radioman Allen R. Schindler, Jr. is murdered by shipmate Terry M. Helvey for being gay, precipitating debate about gays in the military that results in the United States' "Don't ask, don't tell" military policy. 1994 – Gliese 229B is the first Substellar Mass Object to be unquestionably identified. 1995 – Former Prime Minister of Italy Bettino Craxi is convicted in absentia of corruption. 1997 – The 1997 Asian financial crisis causes a crash in the Dow Jones Industrial Average. 1999 – Gunmen open fire in the Armenian Parliament, killing the Prime Minister and seven others. 2004 – The Boston Red Sox defeat the St. Louis Cardinals to win their first World Series in 86 years. 2014 – Britain withdraws from Afghanistan at the end of Operation Herrick, after 12 years four months and seven days. 2017 – Catalonia declares independence from Spain. 2018 – A gunman opens fire on a Pittsburgh synagogue killing 11 and injuring six, including four police officers. 2019 – Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant founder and leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi kills himself and three children by detonating a suicide vest during the U.S. military Barisha raid in northwestern Syria.

#Events

0 notes

khalilhumam · 4 years

Text

US nukes in Poland are a truly bad idea

New Post has been published on http://khalilhumam.com/us-nukes-in-poland-are-a-truly-bad-idea/

US nukes in Poland are a truly bad idea

By Steven Pifer On May 15, the U.S. Ambassador in Warsaw, Georgette Mosbacher, suggested relocating U.S. nuclear weapons based in Germany to Poland. One hopes this was just a mistake by a political appointee unfamiliar with NATO nuclear weapons issues, not a reflection of official U.S. government thinking. Moving nuclear weapons to Poland would prove very problematic. The U.S. Air Force maintains 20 B61 nuclear gravity bombs at Buchel Air Base in Germany (as well as B61 bombs on the territory of four other NATO members). Kept under U.S. custody, the bombs could, with proper authorization in a conflict, be made available for delivery by German Tornado fighter-bombers. This is part of NATO’s “nuclear sharing” arrangements. The Tornados are aging, and the German Ministry of Defense is considering purchasing F-18 aircraft to continue the German Air Force’s nuclear delivery capability. That has reopened debate within Germany about the presence of U.S. nuclear arms there, with Social Democratic Party (SPD) parliamentary leader Rolf Mützenich calling for their removal. On May 14, U.S. Ambassador to Germany Richard Grenell wrote an op-ed expressing concern about not “eroding the solidarity that undergirds NATO’s nuclear deterrent” and calling for the SPD to affirm Germany’s commitment to nuclear sharing. The next day, Ambassador Mosbacher entered the fray, with a tweet suggesting that U.S. nuclear weapons could be relocated to and housed in Poland.

If Germany wants to diminish nuclear capability and weaken NATO, perhaps Poland – which pays its fair share, understands the risks, and is on NATO's eastern flank – could house the capabilities here: https://t.co/VIzpHIgoUN

— Georgette Mosbacher (@USAmbPoland) May 15, 2020

This is a truly bad idea. First, moving U.S. nuclear weapons to Poland would be expensive. Relocation would require constructing special infrastructure, such as WS3 underground storage vaults, and other equipment to ensure their security. The vaults normally are located within specially hardened aircraft shelters. While not a budget-buster, U.S. and NATO militaries have far more pressing needs to shore up the alliance’s deterrence and defense posture. Second, deploying the B61 bombs in Poland would make them more vulnerable to Russian preemptive attack in a crisis or conflict. Russia has deployed Iskandr-M ballistic missiles in Kaliningrad. With a range of up to 500 kilometers, these missiles could strike targets in almost all of Poland within a matter of minutes and with very little warning. Buchel, by contrast, would have longer warning time of an attack, and aircraft flying from there at least begin their flights out of range of Russian air defenses. The two major Polish air bases — which host Polish F-16s that are not, in any case, nuclear capable — are located within range of Russian S400 anti-aircraft missiles deployed in Kaliningrad and their radars. Third, placing nuclear weapons in Poland would be hugely provocative to Russia. This is not an argument against provoking Russia in general — given its provocative behavior, including a military build-up, bellicose rhetoric, and use of military force against Ukraine. (Indeed, I called in 2014 for Washington to provide lethal military assistance to Ukraine and for U.S. and NATO forces to deploy to the Baltic states, steps that Moscow deemed “provocative.”) But there is provocative and there is provocative. Putting U.S. nuclear arms so close to Russia would be the latter. Recall the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when the Soviet Union placed nuclear weapons 90 miles from American shores. President John F. Kennedy imposed a naval blockade, which allowed time to work out a settlement with Moscow. In doing so, however, he set aside the recommendation of many of his advisers for air strikes and a full-scale invasion of Cuba. Fourth, a U.S. proposal to relocate its nuclear weapons to Poland would prove very divisive within NATO. The members of the alliance stated in 1997 that “they have no intention, no plan, and no reason to deploy nuclear weapons on the territory of new [NATO] members.” They incorporated that into the “Founding Act” that established relations between NATO and Russia. The security circumstances in Europe have changed dramatically and, unfortunately, for the worse over the past 23 years. Despite that, many NATO members still support the “three no’s” regarding nuclear weapons that the alliance adopted in 1997. A U.S. proposal to move the bombs to Poland would divide allies, cause some to question U.S. judgment, and prompt a broader nuclear debate within the alliance at a time when NATO should strive to show a firm and united stance toward Russia. Relocating U.S. nuclear weapons to Poland would be expensive, militarily unwise because it would make the weapons more vulnerable to preemptive attack, unduly provocative, and divisive within NATO. This was a tweet best not sent. The one thing it does do, however, is give Mr. Mützenich a new talking point for removing the bombs from Germany; citing Ambassador Mosbacher, he can claim: “We can send them to Poland.”

0 notes

lboogie1906 · 5 years

Photo

Malvin (Mal) Russell Goode (February 13, 1908 – September 12, 1995) was an African-American television journalist and news correspondent. He graduated from the University of Pittsburgh in 1931. Starting in high school, he was employed for twelve years as a laborer in steel mills, until five years after his graduation. Appointed to a position in the Juvenile Court as a boy's work director at the Centre Avenue YMCA, he spearheaded the fight against discrimination in the Pittsburgh branches of the YMCA. Goode worked with the Pittsburgh Housing Authority for six years and joined the Pittsburgh Courier in 1948, where he remained for 14 years. A year later he began a career in radio broadcasting with KQV radio, doing a 15-minute news show two nights a week. Soon, he had a five-minute daily news show on WHOD, where he was named that station’s news director in 1952. In 1962 he became the first Black network news correspondent for ABC television network as a UN reporter. He allegedly received this position after baseball player Jackie Robinson, who was the first Black player in the major leagues, complained to ABC executives about the lack of Black reporters. Goode's first assignment was covering the Cuban Missile Crisis; he distinguished himself with incisive TV and radio reports during the long hours of debate at the UN. #africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #alphaphialpha https://www.instagram.com/p/B8gn00ZnPd6kVVZa3ktl6SiCVQskedt0Y4ZCuc0/?igshid=ebxd7ihig8y2

#africanhistory365 #africanexcellence #alphaphialpha

0 notes

mastcomm · 5 years

Text

Lucy Jarvis, Who Took TV Viewers Far and Wide, Dies at 102

Lucy Jarvis, a groundbreaking producer in television and theater who was especially known for gaining access to hard-to-crack locations, including the Soviet Union and China at the height of the Cold War, died on Jan. 26 in Manhattan. She was 102.

Scott McArthur, her longtime producing partner, announced the death.

In the late 1950s and early ’60s, when television’s top producing ranks included few if any other women, Ms. Jarvis helped bring about some remarkable programming, including gaining access to the Kremlin for a 1963 television special about that Moscow complex. In 1964 she took television viewers on an extensive tour of the Louvre in France, a documentary that won multiple Emmy Awards. In the early 1970s she got permission to film in China, bringing American viewers an inside look at ancient sites there at a time when that country was still largely sealed off.

Her work in theater was just as internationally adventurous. In 1988 she collaborated with Soviet producers to bring a production of “Sophisticated Ladies,” the Duke Ellington musical revue, to Moscow. In 1990 she brought the first Soviet rock opera ever seen in the United States, “Junon and Avos: The Hope,” to City Center in New York.

In a 1999 interview with The Daily News, she explained her longstanding interest in introducing one culture to another.

“If I can bring about an understanding of people whom we consider our enemy and know very little about,” she said, “I can justify the space I occupy on this very crowded planet.”

Lucile Howard was born on June 23, 1917, in Manhattan. Her father, Herman, was an engineer and a hotelier, and her mother, Sophie (Kirsch) Howard, designed clothing patterns for the Singer sewing machine company.

Ms. Jarvis credited her mother with instilling in her the poise and confidence that would later allow her to go head-to-head with formidable world leaders. Her mother, she said, made her study elocution, piano and dance and schooled her in how to enter a room with poise and greet people with confidence.

“She said, ‘I am giving you the tools so that you can walk into a room anywhere in the world and feel perfectly at ease,’” Ms. Jarvis said in an oral history recorded for the Television Foundation and New York Women in Film and Television in 2006. “She made me believe that there was nothing I couldn’t do if I wanted to. That was Self-Esteem 101.”

At Cornell University, where she earned a bachelor’s degree in 1938, she was involved in the drama club, but her major was nutrition. Her first job was as a dietitian at the Cornell Medical School.

A doctor there recommended her for the food editor’s job at McCall’s magazine, where she went to work in 1940. In that capacity she was encouraged to give talks around the country, and that led to invitations to appear on television in the very early days of that medium.

Even those primitive TV shows were reaching more people than the magazine did, or soon would be. “I thought, ‘I’m in the wrong place,’” she said in the oral history.

In 1940 Ms. Jarvis had married Serge Jarvis, a lawyer, and later in the decade, after earning a master’s degree at Columbia Teachers College in 1941 while working at McCall’s, she left the magazine to raise their two children.

In the 1950s she re-entered the work force, taking jobs at radio and television stations and then, in 1955, with the talk-show host David Susskind’s company, Talent Associates.

In 1957 she met Martha Rountree, the wife of one of her husband’s clients and a creator of the long-running radio and television series “Meet the Press.” They started a program for the WOR-Mutual Broadcasting System that year called “Capitol Close-Up,” which profiled powerful figures.

“Our first interview was with then-President Dwight D. Eisenhower at the White House,” Ms. Jarvis recalled in the oral history. “Our second interview was with the vice president, Richard Nixon, and our third interview, third show, was with J. Edgar Hoover, who had never before, or since, done a program.”

In 1959 she joined NBC as an associate producer (she later became producer) of a Saturday night debate program, “The Nation’s Future.” It featured two people on opposite sides of an issue, with Edwin Newman as moderator. One of her jobs was making sure the studio audience was evenly balanced between supporters of each position.

One particularly contentious episode was on American policy toward Cuba, where Fidel Castro had taken power in 1959, leading to increasingly hostile relations and an embargo.

“We had fistfights in the hallway,” Ms. Jarvis was quoted as saying in the 1997 book “Women Pioneers in Television,” by Cary O’Dell, “but the most difficult chore was finding enough pro-Castro people.”

Perhaps even more volatile was an episode on whether fluoride should be added to the water supply.

“That one almost got us all killed,” she said in the oral history.

One of her greatest coups came when she used persistence and well-placed connections, beginning in 1962, to get permission to film “The Kremlin,” an NBC special broadcast in May 1963 that gave American viewers an unprecedented view of that complex and its history.

“We went into areas denied Russian TV cameramen,” Ms. Jarvis, who is credited as associate producer on the program, told The Boston Globe. “About the time we were concluding our filming, the Cuban situation” — the Cuban missile crisis of October 1962 — “broke out. We finished rapidly and got out fast.”

For “A Golden Prison: The Louvre,” the French, concerned about the artworks therein, put almost as many obstacles in Ms. Jarvis’s path as the Soviets did for “The Kremlin.”

“They were afraid of lights,” she said in the oral history. “They were afraid of the reaction. And they were just very stuffy about it.”

It was a time when the producing ranks, at NBC and the other networks, were virtually all male.

“Most of the women who worked at NBC in those days,” Ms. Jarvis said, “when I came on as producer, were stenographers, gofers; on rare occasion they worked their way up to researcher.” She would hire women as associate producers when she could, she said.

Not all of her work was focused overseas. One particularly powerful NBC News special she produced, broadcast in 1965, was “Who Shall Live?,” an examination of the vast number of patients who needed kidney dialysis, the limited number of machines available to provide it and the punishing cost of the treatments.

“More than an examination of a medical problem,” The Globe wrote, “‘Who Shall Live?’ is a penetrating look at the frightening impasse reached when scientific advances have outdistanced the conventional laws of economics.”

In August 1972 Ms. Jarvis began filming in China for a documentary; she was “the first American since 1948 to be admitted to China to film news documentaries,” one news report said. The result, seen on NBC in January 1973, was “The Forbidden City.” Howard Thompson, reviewing it in The New York Times, called it “an uncommonly worthwhile hour of television viewing.”

In 1976 Ms. Jarvis left NBC and founded her own production company, Creative Projects; she later added a second company, Jarvis Theater and Film. Among her first TV projects with her new company was producing Barbara Walters’s first special for ABC; broadcast in December 1976, it featured interviews with the president-elect, Jimmy Carter, and his wife, Rosalynn, as well as with Barbra Streisand.

In addition to “Junon and Avos,” which Ms. Jarvis produced with the fashion designer Pierre Cardin, her later projects included a 1981 made-for-TV movie, “Family Reunion,” that starred Bette Davis.

Ms. Jarvis’s husband died in 1999. A daughter, Barbara Ann, died in 2001. She is survived by a son, Peter, and a granddaughter.

from WordPress https://mastcomm.com/lucy-jarvis-who-took-tv-viewers-far-and-wide-dies-at-102/

#Entertainment

0 notes