INTERVIEW/ John Mearsheimer: U.S.-China rift runs real risk of escalating into a nuclear war

[samsara]

It’s so creepy to hear the American full-spectrum dominance think out loud about this world. But this guy is clearly a realist, and this is how the United States really thinks...

I do think John Mearsheimer’s literal nuclear take on possible US-China war is worth reading. I like Mearsheimer in that he is not a hypocrite. US certainly convinced many Chinese that it’s STRUCTURALLY HOSTILE to China’s continual rise.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

INTERVIEW/ John Mearsheimer: U.S.-China rift runs real risk of escalating into a nuclear war

By KENJI MINEMURA/ Senior Staff Writer | The Asahi Shimbun
August 17, 2020 at 07:00 JST


Is an escalation of the intensified conflict between the United States and China inevitable?

Renowned U.S. political scientist John Mearsheimer, one of the leading theorists of “offensive realism,” thinks so.

Mearsheimer, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, first predicted the current conflict between the two superpowers more than two decades ago.

In a recent videophone interview with The Asahi Shimbun, Mearsheimer offered his analysis of the rationale behind the conflict and the next likely move by the United States.

Born in 1947, Mearsheimer graduated from West Point and then served five years as an officer in the U.S. Air Force.

Excerpts of the interview follow:

***

Question: Confrontation between the United States and China has intensified, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic flared. Chinese state-run media has proclaimed that the pandemic signals the end of the American century. Meanwhile, a new U.S. government report noted that Beijing clearly sees itself as engaging in ideological competition with the West. Do you think the two countries have already begun a real Cold War? If so, why?

Answer: The real Cold War started before the coronavirus, and the coronavirus doesn't matter much. And ideology doesn't matter much. What matters is the balance of power. And the fact is, China has become so powerful over the past 20 years.

There is a serious chance that (China) could become a regional hegemon in Asia. And the United States does not tolerate peer competitors. The idea that China is going to become a regional hegemon is unacceptable to the United States.

So, it's this clash of interests that are generated by this fundamental change that's taking place in the balance of power. It is driving the competition. And I would note that you'll hear a lot of talk about the fact that the United States is a liberal democracy, and that China is a communist state. And, therefore, this is an ideological clash.

Q: In “The Tragedy of Great Power Politics,” the book you published in 2001, you said there would never be a peaceful emerging of China and predicted the U.S.-China conflict. When do you think the critical turning point was for their bilateral relationship?

A: That's a difficult question to answer, because it really started in the early 1990s when China began to grow. That's when it started.

It was China's rise in the unipolar moment that is driving the train in this process. And there were a number of events along the way that mattered greatly. Most importantly, it was China's admission to the WTO in 2001, which really allowed the Chinese economy to accelerate, to the extent that you can pinpoint a date where the United States recognized that the rise of China was a problem and that China would have to be contained.

Q: Some analysts in the United States and Japan have argued that since U.S.-China bilateral economic ties and political relations have grown over 14 years under the so-called engagement policy, it is not feasible for either country to instigate an open war. Do you agree?

A: Well, there were many experts who said the same thing before World War I. They said there was a tremendous amount of economic interdependence in Europe. And nobody would dare start a war because you would end up killing the goose that lays the golden egg. But nevertheless, we had World War I. And what this tells you is that you can have economic cooperation, and at the same time, you have security competition.

And what sometimes happens is that the security competition becomes so intense that it overwhelms the economic cooperation and you have a conflict. But I would take this a step further and say that if you look at what's happening in the world today, that economic cooperation between the United States and China is slowly beginning to disappear, and you're getting an economic competition as well as security competition.

As you well know, the United States has its gun sights on Huawei. The United States would like to destroy Huawei.

The United States would like to control 5G. The United States would like to remain on the cutting edge of all the modern sophisticated technologies of the day and they view the Chinese as a threat in that regard. And that tells you that not only are you getting military competition, but you are also getting economic competition.

Q: Unlike in the Cold War era, no one knows exactly how many nuclear weapons China possesses. You have said that since Eastern Asia has no central front like Europe, the possibility that a war between the United States and China could occur over East Asia is high. Many countries surrounding China, particularly Japan, as well as other countries that do not possess a nuclear weapon, would be vulnerable to an attack from China. Do you think that we may see a war breaking out in East Asia in the future?

A: Let me start by talking a little bit about the Cold War and then comparing the situation in East Asia and with the situation in Europe during the Cold War. During the Cold War, the competition between the United States and the Soviet Union was centered on central Europe. We used to talk about the central front, where you had the Warsaw Pact on one side, and NATO on the other side.

And when we talked about U.S.-Soviet war, it involved the central front. Now, the central front was populated by two giant sets of armies, that were armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. That meant if we had World War III in central Europe, you would have two huge sets of armies crashing into each other, with thousands of nuclear weapons.

Not surprisingly, when we ran war games during the Cold War, it was very difficult, if not impossible, to get a war started in central Europe, because nobody in his or her right mind, would start a war given the possibility of nuclear Armageddon.

Now, contrast that with the situation in East Asia, which is the central flash point between United States and China, the three places where you could possibly have a war involve the South China Sea, Taiwan and the East China Sea.

Those areas are not the equivalent of the central front. And it's possible to imagine a limited conventional war breaking out in one of those three areas. It's much easier to imagine that happening, than a war on the central front during the Cold War.

This is not to say that a war in East Asia is axiomatically going to happen. I'm not arguing that, but it is plausible that the United States and the Chinese and some allies of the United States like Japan may end up in a shooting match with the Chinese in say, the East China Sea.

Now, if China is losing, or if the United States is losing that military engagement, there will be a serious temptation to use nuclear weapons as the United States is committed to use nuclear weapons to defend Japan if Japan is losing a conventional war. And one might say, it's unimaginable that the United States or China would use nuclear weapons.

But I don't think that's true, because you would be using those nuclear weapons at sea. You would not be hitting the Chinese mainland in all likelihood. And, therefore, it's possible to think in terms of a "limited nuclear war," with limited nuclear use.

So, I worry greatly that not only will we have a war between the United States and China, but also that there's a serious possibility nuclear weapons would be used. And I think in a very important way, it was much less likely that would happen during the Cold War.

Q: High-ranking Chinese officials once suggested to the United States that the two superpowers should split the Pacific and each enjoy a sphere of influence. Do you think the United States would ever accept such an idea?

A: No, the United States will not accept sharing power. Sharing power as you described it, means allowing China to become a regional hegemon in Asia, and the United States will not tolerate that. The United States will go to enormous lengths to prevent China from becoming a peer competitor.

You want to remember the United States in the 20th century put four potential peer competitors on the scrap heap of history: Imperial Germany, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union.

If China becomes a regional hegemon in Asia, it will have no threats in Asia to worry about, and it will be free to roll into the Western Hemisphere and form military alliances with countries like Cuba and Venezuela. This is why the United States goes to great lengths to prevent China from dominating Asia.

Q: Your 2014 essay titled “Say Goodbye to Taiwan” stirred debate. Do you think the United States would abandon Taiwan if China intervenes?

A: I believe the United States will fight to defend Taiwan if China invades Taiwan. In my opinion, it's unthinkable that the United States would stand by and allow China to conquer Taiwan. If we didn't defend Taiwan, it would have devastating consequences for our relationship with Japan, South Korea and our other allies in East Asia.

I would say however, and this was why the editors at The National Interest had used the title “Goodbye Taiwan,” you can imagine a possible situation in 30 or 40 years where China has grown so powerful that the United States simply cannot defend Taiwan because of the geographical location.

Q: China has strengthened its strategy to effectively deter U.S. aircraft carriers from approaching the Taiwan Strait. Could the United States deploy its military forces in Asia in a crisis?

A: I don't think aircraft carriers are going to be very helpful. I think we're rapidly reaching the point where aircraft carriers are sitting ducks. I think we're going to have to rely instead on other kinds of military force. Tactical aircraft coming off land-based airfields, ballistic missiles, submarines, and so on.

Q: How do you evaluate the Trump administration's China policy?

A: I think that Trump has wisely understood that it's important for the United States to contain China, not only militarily, but economically.

Q: But the administration has failed to get a result.

A: I think the problem with the Trump administration is that it has done a bad job dealing with allies like Japan and South Korea and the Philippines and Australia and Vietnam and so forth and so on. What we need here is American leadership to put together a cohesive Alliance structure that can contain China. And the Trump administration has treated America's allies with contempt.

Q: If President Trump fails to be re-elected and Joe Biden, the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee, becomes president, do you think the United States can restore its relationship with its key allies like Japan, South Korea and Germany? What do you think is the most effective way for the Biden administration to contain China?

A: I think that if Joe Biden gets elected president, the Democrats come to power, and the Democrats will go back to treating our allies in Europe and East Asia much the same way we treated them up until Trump took office.

Trump is an anomaly. Trump is hostile in very important ways. Trump is hostile to America's allies because he thinks that America's allies have taken advantage of the United States. He thinks this is especially true for Germany. These countries in his mind are free riders. They're free riding on the United States. And he's very angry about that. And this has led him to treat virtually all of America's allies quite badly.

I don't believe that will be the case if Biden is president and the Democrats come back. I think we'll have much better relations between Japan and the United States. And Japan won't have to spend endless hours trying to figure out exactly what Trump's policies are and what he's doing from minute to minute. We'll have more regularity in our foreign policy.

And I think that will all be for the good. But I would say that I believe that the Democrats will be as committed to containment as Trump has been. I don't think that there'll be any lessening of America's containment policy if the Democrats beat Trump in November.

I was in China for 17 days in October 2019. And I talked to all sorts of Chinese foreign policy leaders. Almost everybody I talked to believes that it doesn't matter whether Trump wins or loses in 2020 for U.S.-China relations. The Chinese believe that the Americans have their gun sight on China, and nothing is going to change that. I think they are correct.

Q: What approach do you think Japan should take against China’s recent strengthening of its military forces?

A: I think there is no question that the Chinese have been building up their military capabilities vis-a-vis Japan. It is especially clear that the intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF) threat has been growing. Of course, some of those missiles are not nuclear. They are conventional, but intermediate-range missiles aimed at Japan have grown in large numbers.

I think a number of things have to happen here. First of all, the Japanese are going to have to spend much more money on defense. Secondly, they're going to have to work much more closely with the United States. It's actually very important that the two sides work together. And I think the Japanese are going to have to deploy INF or intermediate-range missiles of their own, not nuclear. I think at this point in time, the Japanese can rely on the United States for nuclear deterrence.

Q: The Senkaku Islands are one of the most dangerous flash points between China and Japan. Would the United States deploy its military forces against China to protect the uninhabited islands?

A: The United States has made it somewhat clear they would help Japan defend the Senkaku Islands. I think what needs to be done here is the United States needs to make it perfectly clear that it will help Japan defend the Senkaku Islands, and both the United States and Japan have to develop the military capabilities to defend the Senkaku Islands. And they have to work together to create a formidable deterrent force that will keep the Chinese from invading those small islands.

***

Kenji Minemura, Senior Diplomatic Correspondent, worked as the Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent in Washington, D.C., and was previously a correspondent in Beijing. He is also a researcher at Hokkaido University Public Policy School.

 

[Song Hong]

US is paper tiger. Never nuke in Korea nor Vietnam.

 

[Hamdan882]

A good share... worth a read

 

[Beast]

US is paper tiger. Never nuke in Korea nor Vietnam.

They don't have ball to even retaliate against Iran, not to mention fight a real war with China.

 

[samsara]

Towards a US-China War? The Creation of a Global Totalitarian System, A “One World Government”?
Is this a Remake of the 1941 Hitler Stalin Great War?

By F. William Engdahl
Global Research, August 23, 2020

If we step back from the details of daily headlines around the world and try to make sense of larger patterns, the dominant dynamic defining world geopolitics in the past three years or more is the appearance of a genuine irregular conflict between the two most formidable powers on the planet—The Peoples’ Republic of China and the United States of America. Increasingly it’s beginning to look as if some very dark global networks are orchestrating what looks to be an updated rerun of their 1939-1945 World War. The powers that be periodically use war to gain major policy shifts.

On behalf of the Powers That Be (PTB), World War II was orchestrated by the circles of the City of London and of Wall Street to maneuver two great obstacles—Russia and Germany—to wage a war to the death against each other, in order that those Anglo-Saxon PTB could reorganize the world geopolitical chess board to their advantage. It largely succeeded, but for the small detail that after 1945, Wall Street and the Rockefeller brothers were determined that England play the junior partner to Washington. London and Washington then entered the period of their global domination known as the Cold War.

That Anglo-American global condominium ended, by design, in 1989 with the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the disintegration of the Soviet Union by 1991.

Around this time, with the onset of the Bill Clinton presidency in 1992, the next phase– financial and industrial globalization– was inaugurated. With that, began the hollowing out of the industrial base of not only the United States, but also of Germany and the EU. The cheap labor outsourcing enabled by the new WTO drove wages down and destroyed one industry after the next in the industrial West after the 1990s. It was a necessary step on the path to what G.H.W. Bush in 1990 called the New World Order. The next step would be destruction of national sovereignty everywhere. Here the USA was the major obstacle.

“A little help from our friends…”

For the PTB, who owe no allegiance to nations, only to their power which is across borders, the birth of the World Trade Organization and their bringing China in as a full member in 2001 was intended as the key next step. At that point the PTB facilitated in China the greatest industrial growth by any nation in history, possibly excepting Germany from 1871-1914 and USA after 1866. WTO membership allowed Western multinationals from Apple to Nike to KFC to Ford and VW to pour billions into China to make their products at dirt-cheap wage levels for re-export to the West.

One of the great mysteries of that China growth is the fact that China was allowed to become the “workshop of the world” after 2001, first in lower-skill industries such as textiles or toys, later in pharmaceuticals and most recently in electronics assembly and production. The mystery clears up when we look at the idea that the PTB and their financial houses, using China, want to weaken strong industrial powers, especially the United States, to push their global agenda. Brzezinski often wrote that the nation state was to be eliminated, as did his patron, David Rockefeller. By allowing China to become a rival to Washington in economy and increasingly in technology, they created the means to destroy the superpower hegemony of the US.

By the onset of the Presidency of Xi Jinping in 2012, China was an economic colossus second in weight only to the United States. Clearly this could never have happened --not under the eye of the same Anglo-American old families who launched the Opium Wars after 1840 to bring China to heel and open their economy to Western financial looting-- unless the Anglo-Americans had wanted it.

The same British-owned bank involved in the China opium trade, Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank (HSBC), founded by a Scotsman, Thomas Sutherland in 1865 in the then-British colony of Hong Kong, today is the largest non-Chinese bank in Hong Kong. HSBC has become so well-connected to China in recent years that it has since 2011 had as Board member and Deputy HSBC Chairman, Laura Cha. Cha was formerly Vice Chairman of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, being the first person outside mainland China to join the Beijing Central Government of the People’s Republic of China at vice-ministerial rank. In other words the largest bank in the UK has a board member who was a member of the Chinese Communist Party and a China government official. China needed access to Western money and HSBC and other select banks such as JP MorganChase, Barclays, Goldman Sachs were clearly more than happy to assist.

“Socialism with Xi Jinping Characteristics…”

All told until 2012 when Xi took charge of the CCP in Beijing, China seemed to be willing to be a globalist “team player,” though with “Chinese characteristics.” However, in 2015 after little more than two years in office, Xi Jinping endorsed a comprehensive national industrial strategy, Made in China: 2025. China 2025 replaced an earlier Western globalist document that had been formulated with the World Bank and the USA, the China 2030 report under Robert Zoellick. That shift to a China strategy for global tech domination might well have triggered a decision by the globalist PTB that China could no longer be relied on to play by the rules of the globalists, but rather that the CCP under Xi were determined to make China the global leader in advanced industrial, AI and bio-technologies. A resurgent China nationalist global hegemony was not the idea of the New World Order gang.

China:2025 combined with Xi’s strong advocacy of the Belt Road Initiative for global infrastructure linking China by land and sea to all Eurasia and beyond, likely suggested to the globalists that the only solution to the prospect of their losing their power to a China global hegemon would ultimately be war, a war that would destroy both nationalist powers, USA AND China. This is my conclusion and there is much to suggest this is now taking place.

Tit for Tat

If so, it will most likely be far different from the military contest of World War II. The USA and most of the Western industrial economies have “conveniently” imposed the worst economic depression since the 1930’s as a bizarre response to an alleged virus originating in Wuhan and spreading to the world. Despite the fact that the death toll, even with vastly inflated statistics, is at the level of a severe annual influenza, the insistence of politicians and the corrupt WHO to impose draconian lockdown and economic disruption has crippled the remaining industrial base in the US and most of the EU.

The eruption of well-organized riots and vandalism under the banner of racial protests across the USA has brought America’s cities to a state in many cases of war zones resembling the cities of the 2013 Matt Damon and Jodie Foster film, Elysium. In this context, anti-Washington rhetoric from Beijing has taken on a sharp tone in their use of so-called “Wolf Diplomacy.”

[NOTE: The so-called China's “Wolf Warrior Diplomacy”, or simply “Wolf Diplomacy” by the Western establishment nowadays refers to the new approach that seems to reinforce a presumed transition of Chinese diplomacy from conservative, passive, and low-key to assertive, proactive, and high-profile. It describes offensives by Chinese diplomats to defend China's national interests when under attacks, with no shy of resorting to the confrontational way as necessary.]

Now after Washington closed the China Consulate in Houston and China the US Consulate in Chengdu, both sides have stepped up rhetoric. High tech companies are being banned in the US, military displays of force from the US in the South China Sea and waters near Taiwan are increasing tensions and rhetoric on both sides. The White House accuses the WHO of being an agent of Beijing, while China accuses the US of deliberately creating a deadly virus and bringing it to Wuhan [on the occasion of the 7th CISM Military World Games held in Wuhan from October 18-27, 2019]. Chinese state media supports the explosion of violent protests across America under the banner of Black Lives Matter. Step-wise events are escalating dramatically. Many of the US self-styled Marxists leading the protests across US cities have ties to Beijing such as the Maoist-origin Revolutionary Communist Party, USA of Bob Avakian.

“Unrestricted Warfare”

Under these conditions, what kind of escalation is likely? In 1999 two colonels in the China PLA, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui, published a book with the PLA Press titled Unrestricted Warfare. Qiao Liang was promoted to Major General in the PLA Air Force and became deputy secretary-general of the Council for National Security Policy Studies. The two updated their work in 2016. It gives a window on high-level China military strategy.

Reviewing published US military doctrine in the aftermath of the 1991 US Operation Desert Storm war against Iraq, the Chinese authors point out what they see as US over-dependence on brute military force and conventional military doctrine. They claim, “Observing, considering, and resolving problems from the point of view of technology is typical American thinking. Its advantages and disadvantages are both very apparent, just like the characters of Americans.” They add, “military threats are already often no longer the major factors affecting national security…these traditional factors are increasingly becoming more intertwined with grabbing resources, contending for markets, controlling capital, trade sanctions, and other economic factors, to the extent that they are even becoming secondary to these factors. They comprise a new pattern which threatens the political, economic and military security of a nation or nations… The two authors define the new form of warfare as, “encompassing the political, economic, diplomatic, cultural, and psychological spheres, in addition to the land, sea, air, space, and electronics spheres.”

They suggest China could use hacking into websites, targeting financial institutions, terrorism, using the media, and conducting urban warfare among the methods proposed. Recent revelations that Chinese entities pay millions in ad revenues to the New York Times and other mainstream USA media to voice China-positive views is one example. Similarly, maneuvering a Chinese national to head the US’ largest public pension fund, CalPERS, which poured billions into risky China stocks, or persuading the New York Stock Exchange to list dozens of China companies without requiring adherence to US accounting transparency increase US financial vulnerability are others.

This all suggests the form that a war between China and the US could take. It can be termed asymmetrical warfare or unrestricted war, where nothing that disrupts the enemy is off limits. Qiao has that, “the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden.” There are no Geneva Conventions.

The two Beijing authors add this irregular warfare could include assaults on the political security, economic security, cultural security, and information security of the nation. The dependence of the US economy on China supply chains for everything from basic antibiotics to militarily-vital rare earth minerals is but one domain of vulnerability.

On its side, China is vulnerable to trade sanctions, financial disruption, bioterror attacks and oil embargoes to name a few. Some have suggested the recent locust plague and African Swine Fever devastation to China’s core food supplies, was not merely an act of nature. If not, then we are likely deep into an undeclared form of US-China unrestricted warfare. Could it be that the recent extreme floods along the China Yangtze River that threaten the giant Three Gorges Dam and have flooded Wuhan and other major China cities and devastated millions of acres of key cropland was not entirely seasonal? [the author hinted on the HAARP weather modifications]

A full unrestricted war of China and the USA would be more than a tragedy. It could be the end of civilization as we know it. Is this what characters such as Bill Gates and his superiors are trying to bring about? Do they plan to introduce their draconian dystopian “Reset” on the ashes of such a conflict?

*

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

 

[zhxy]

 

[samsara]

View attachment 664061

The Great Britain and its continuation, the United States, they are all but the great tools of the immense powerful shadow rulers. The tool (the hitman nation) may have changed, the time has changed, the front-end politicians come and go but the paramount masterminds behind the curtain, the "BRAINS" behind all the strategic actions, belong to the same network, unelected, remain the same, that's why the most substantial actions IN ESSENCE repeat time and again, such as keeps no rival, building a gang to crush the prospective rivals, and so on.

The "Transatlantic Shadowy Network" (or, whatsoever label used for these old, very powerful oligarchies), with its primary center in "The City of London" (which does not belong to London or even the Great Britain! In fact, the area was not dependent on another power and it had the sovereignty to govern, TAX, and judge itself. Oddly enough, if the monarch wants to enter the City of London, she first must ask the Lord Mayor for permission) is the "BRAINS" for any curious mind to dig and learn!

To learn about the unholy premises, "The City of London" (also known as The Crown), one can read this short article serving as a brief introduction.

And for more thorough knowledge upon this "Transatlantic Shadowy Network", one can read the book "Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time" authored by Carroll Quigley. But the great challenge for the most people is this scholar's epitome consists of 1,300 pages!!!

Therefore one is suggested to read the simplified version (thus it carries 101 in its title) by Joe Plummer: Tragedy And Hope 101.

One can read freely the book's full texts online at the Joe Plummer's website above. There one can read the Introduction authored by G. Edward Griffin, himself a famous author, among others his reference book: The Creature from Jekyll Island : A Second Look at the Federal Reserve. I recommend one to read this short intro at Plummer's website above.

But if one insists on looking for the Carroll Quigley's Tragedy and Hope, then just search around for the free PDF, the archive.org is a good place to look for.

The true and great designers and masterminds are covered by above info. What we read in every day's news are the actions of their great puppets, captains and colonels, incl. the great staging by the Red and Blue camps in States, as well as the present prime puppet, the great orange plus other henchmen in the rest of the Five-Eyes Alliance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
INTRO

As the 20th century comes to a close it becomes evident that Professor Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy And Hope, A History Of The World In Our Time, was one of the MOST IMPORTANT HISTORICAL and predictive works to appear in our century. The book is
also among the century’s most misunderstood and under-appreciated historical works, thanks largely to the “one track” manner in which the book was reviewed.

FIRST PUBLISHED in 1964, its scope is enormous, with 1348 pages providing important insights into the forces that have SHAPED our civilization. Quigley divided these forces into SIX ASPECTS: military, political, economic, social, religious, and intellectual.

These six aspects then “fall into the THREE major areas of: the Patterns of Power; Rewards; and Outlooks.”

Note that Professor Quigley placed “MILITARY” force at the head of the list. He was a hard-nosed realist when it came to the role of power in society; to the ultimate basis of power upon armed force; and of the dependence, reach and effectiveness of armed force upon weaponry:

“… the nature, organization and control of weapons is the most significant of the numerous factors that determines what happens in political life.” (p. 1200)

Quigley was a highly creative mind in understanding how these forces influenced the evolution of civilizations; which he taught to his students at Georgetown University, at Harvard and at Princeton; and wrote a textbook for college students throughout the U.S.

TRAGEDY AND HOPE is also presented from the vantage point of one who was close to the official halls of American power, as a lecturer on diverse subjects at the U.S. Naval Weapons Laboratory; the State Department’s Foreign Service Institute; the Naval College; and the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. He was a consultant to the Congressional Select Committee which created NASA; and to the Navy’s Project Seabed whose task in 1964 was to project what U.S. Naval weapons systems would be like 12 years out. In addition are his memberships in scholarly bodies such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science; the American Anthropological Association; the American Economic Association, to name just a few. Any one of these accomplishments could be considered as a milestone, lifetime achievement.

Read further this intro here (pdf)