Suggested Discussion Outline

[johnkarls]

.

The following outline is respectfully suggested –


**********************
A. Comments About Specific Chapters of “The Art of Diplomacy” – 60 minutes

Our tradition is to devote the first portion of each monthly meeting to going through the focus book, chapter by chapter, to invite important comments that are specific to a particular chapter. After all, each participant (except, perhaps, “first timers”) have taken the time to read the focus book and her/his opportunity to opine on anything in the focus book should NOT be denied.

HOWEVER, our total meeting time of 120 minutes should prove a SEVERE constraint, so please be sure your comments really are important.

AND FOR EACH CHAPTER, PLEASE CONSIDER THE SELECTION OF THE CORRECT OBJECTIVE BEARING IN MIND THE COMMENTS IN SEC. C(1) BELOW.

Forward by Henry A. Kissinger

Preface by James A. Baker III

Part I: The United States and National Security

Chapter 1 – Henry Kissinger: Master Diplomat

Chapter 2 – German Reunification: James Baker Adds Two Plus Four

Chapter 3 – Iran: Negotiating with a Radical Theocracy

Part II: The United States as Mediator

Chapter 4 – The Middle East: Camp David to the Abraham Accords and the Gaza War

Chapter 5 – Good Friday: George Mitchell and the Repair of a Divided Ireland

Chapter 6 – The Holocaust: Belated and Imperfect Justice

Chapter 7 – Unsung Heroes: Chester Crocker ad Bernie Aronson

Part III: The United States at War

Chapter 8: The Balkan Wars: The Marriage of Force and Diplomacy

Chapter 9: Afghanistan: From Victory to Failure

Chapter 10: Iraq: A Tale of Two Wars

Part IV: The United States in Multilateral Negotiations

Chapter 11: International Trade: Negotiating at Home and Abroad

Chapter 12: Climate Change: The Supreme Test of Diplomacy

Conclusion: Lessons on the Art of Diplomacy


**********************
B. Further Discussion – 30 minutes

The Suggested Answers to the following questions of this month’s First Short Quiz entitled “Three Israeli-Palestinian “Two State” Disasters – Could “The Fourth Time Be The Charm”???” were “What Do You Think??? Let’s Discuss!!!”

[Please see the Suggested Answers at viewtopic.php?f=818&t=2544&sid=26a04574 ... a522499adc.]

Q&A-5
Q&A-6
Q&A-7
Q&A-11
Q&A-12
Q&A-15
Q&A-19
Q&A-20
Q&A-35
Q&A-36
Q&A-41
Q&A-42
Q&A-53

The Suggested Answers to the following questions of this month’s Second Short Quiz entitled “The Netanyahu Peace Plan (Use The U.S. Blueprint To Occupy/De-Program Nazi Germany & Imperial Japan)” were “What Do You Think??? Let’s Discuss!!!”

[Please see the Suggested Answers at viewtopic.php?f=818&t=2547&sid=26a04574 ... a522499adc.]

Q&A-7
Q&A-8
Q&A-9
Q&A-10


**********************
C. Possible Public-Policy Campaigns Directed At Decision Makers – 30 minutes

************
From Yours Truly – Please see below.

************
Additional Campaigns???

If anyone has any additional proposals, please post them in this “Discussion Outline” section of our website - hopefully, 24 hours in advance so that participants can give them proper consideration.

THOUGH, OF COURSE, CAMPAIGNS THAT ARE CONCEIVED SPONTANEOUSLY DURING A MEETING ARE NOT PROHIBITED.

************
From Yours Truly Re

*****
(1) The Right Objective In General.

Please forgive an important digression to illustrate --

I had the same Professor for both Statistics and for Linear Programming (which is optimizing an objective subject to “X” number of variables and “Y” number of constraints – as contrasted with Dynamic Programming in which the variables/constraints are NOT linear).

For Linear Programming, the first lecture was always the same (and previous students were always eager to ascertain the reaction ex post facto of newbies).

At the beginning of World War II, my Professor (unfortunately I’ve forgotten his name but May He RIP) was drafted.

But he was already academia’s most renowned expert in statistics and linear/dynamic programming.

And the U.S. War Department (it did not become the Defense Department until 9/18/1947) was smart enough to recognize that it needed a “think tank” to devise military strategy and appointed my Professor to lead the group.

He then told us students that one of the first things his new “think tank” did was to take a look at the North Atlantic and ascertained that (A) the number of German U-Boats sunk was directly proportional to the number of Navy combatant vessels in a convoy’s protective screen, and (B) the number of merchant vessels sunk was directly proportional to the number of U-Boats in the “wolf pack.”

Putting two and two together (or, more accurately, multiplying two times two), his “think tank” reached the conclusion that the “kill ratio” of U-Boats sunk to merchant vessels sunk could be enhanced by a factor of 4 if the size of the convoys was doubled.

The War Department immediately employed this strategy “to the hilt” and it was so effective that the German U-Boats abandoned the North Atlantic and concentrated on harassing shipping from Britain up the coast of Nazi-occupied Norway and through the Artic Circle to Murmansk Russia which shipping was designed to keep the USSR In the war.

Then, each semester, my Professor would stop for a few seconds for that thought to sink in.

Then, he would clear his throat and pronounce – “This was one of the great FAILURES of the war”!!!

Again he would stop for a few seconds for that thought to sink in.

Then he would explain –

• His “think tank” had selected THE WRONG OBJECTIVE!!!

• The correct objective was to get war material to Britain!!!

• Sinking U-Boats and keeping merchant vessels afloat was ONLY RELEVANT insofar as it affected getting war material to Britain!!!

• After the war when he had time to re-focus on this, he re-ran the data with the correct objective and ascertained that LESS THAN HALF THE WAR MATERIAL HAD BEEN GOTTEN TO BRITAIN than if the correct objective had been employed!!!

• The lesser problem was that just like a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, the speed of a convoy is the speed of its slowest ship!!!

• But the major problem was that the War Department had “employed to the hilt” the recommendation – so much so that THERE WAS ONLY ONE CONVOY!!! So for six months, American ports worked overtime while British ports were idle, and then when the LARGE SLOW convoy reached Britain, British ports worked overtime for six months while American ports were idle!!!


*****
(2) Climate Change and Thorium Fission in Particular.

As remarked in Section A above, the issue of whether our diplomats have selected the CORRECT OBJECTIVE for their negotiations should be considered.

HOWEVER, this issue should be considered “in spades” vis-à-vis Stu Eizenstat’s last chapter (i.e., Chapter 12: Climate Change: The Supreme Test of Diplomacy).

Each time we have focused on Climate Change (or Global Warming as it used to be called) –

• We have always noted that China is the world’s largest carbon polluter.

• The Paris Climate Accord of 2016 (and its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol of 1992) exempted both China and India from taking any action until the distant future!!!

• Therefore, the U.S. willingness to trash its own economy by forsaking coal and oil & gas would have only a negligible impact on Global Warming.

• Accordingly, at each of our meetings on Global Warming (aka Climate Change), we have always asked for a show of hands by anyone favoring invading China et al. militarily to force them, when the distant future finally arrives, to trash their economies.

• Nobody has ever raised a hand.

• Instead, we have always promoted with our campaigns to national/world decision makers nuclear fission in general and thorium fission in particular – both of which produce no carbon emissions and, re at least thorium, is much safer than wind/solar/etc. AND BOTH OF WHICH ARE CHEAPER THAN THE “BENCH MARK” PRICE OF COAL AND OIL & GAS SO THAT CHINA ET EL. WILL CONVERT TO CLEAN THORIUM-BASED ECONOMIES IN THEIR OWN SELF INTEREST.

• Re the safety of thorium, the earth is the world’s largest thorium reactor which is why (A) the center of the earth is 7,000 degrees which is hotter than the surface of the sun, and (B) why any rupture in the earth’s thin crust causes molten lava to spew forth.

• Indeed, thorium fission was proved feasible in the 1960’s when the U.S. National Nuclear-Research Laboratory at Oak Ridge TN conducted a successful 18-month continuous demonstration project comprising a thorium-fueled nuclear reactor, but President Nixon caused the nation to turn away from thorium (and toward uranium and plutonium) because thorium is incapable of exploding or being utilized to produce nuclear weapons.

• All of the many other advantages of thorium fission (such as virtually all of India’s “sand” beaches comprising thorium) are catalogued in our many campaigns to national/world leaders.

POSSIBLE PUBLIC-POLICY CAMPAIGN

Importuning Presidential (and Vice Presidential) Debate Moderators to raise the issue.

NB: We did this vis-à-vis the Democrat-Candidate Debates in the 2020 cycle after proper notice to each of the candidates – please see viewtopic.php?f=23&t=1781&sid=59a878409 ... 478e017163.

Additional NB: I believe that our Thorium-Fission Working Group is either still in existence (or was revived for the 2024 election cycle) to pursue this – but I will research whether this is true in time for our Aug 21 meeting.

[HLS Classmate]

.

The Suggested Discussion Outline concludes with John Karls saying –

“Additional NB: I believe that our Thorium-Fission Working Group is either still in existence (or was revived for the 2024 election cycle) to pursue this – but I will research whether this is true in time for our Aug 21 meeting.”

To save John the trouble, I would refer everyone to the first three of eleven postings in our website’s Sec. 8 which is entitled “Working Groups Currently Underway.”

The titles of those first three postings (please see viewforum.php?f=619&sid=375697cee6306d6 ... c287a6e42e) are –

“Minutes of the Thorium-Fission Working Group Meeting on the So-Called Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” by me (HLS Classmate) 8/2/2022 – 896 views

“Thorium-Fission Working Group Review of the So-Called Inflation Reduction Act of 2022” by John Karls 8/2/2022 – 568 views

“Revival of Our Thorium-Fission Working Group” by John Karls 7/23/2022 – 456 views

*****
Yes, the members of the Thorium-Fission Working Group have continued to discuss various campaigns that could be undertaken and would welcome any input from the participants of the 8/21/2024 regular monthly meeting.