In the atlantic, and the soviet conquest between the soviet union and moscow. They are successful pushing into west germany, and seizing iceland. The narrative centers on the u. S. Nato as they try and get more resources in order to turn back the soviet tied. Eventually, nato was able to establish a bit of a stalemate, buying enough time for reenforcements to arrive in the United States. The broad scope of the book, allowed clancy and larry bond to examine what modern war would look like and prevents the nearexhaustive look for both sides and in its appeal to reagan, is a World War Three scenario n which united stat scenario in which United States wins but not engaging in a nuclear event. The book approaches its climax and becomes clear to the soviets they cannot win consequently, hard liners attempt to bring about the use of new weapons. This muteultimately leads to a , and take control of the government, ultimately ending the war. Clancy and bond construct the narrative this way intentionally, to demonstrate only the truly mad would advocate the use of Nuclear Weapons. Antinuclear sentiments are in the book throughout the leaders. Earlier in the book, the money was spent on holes with predict ability to kill the holes ten times over. The commander of so far i dont forces views the secretary general as crazy and mad, possessing the possibility of using Tactical Nuclear strikes. Its also notable u. S. Planners never once employ the weapons, even though they were there to mitigate the advantage in conventional forces. This is because the technical advantage they avoid serves the same forces allowing for nuclear forces. Its a mirror to reagans view of the only weapons, and reacted strongly to her oshimhiroshima, negashi. At one point shortly after the war, he read set your to u2 35, and said if you like your contract youre not going to read this people. Reagan did like the contract and opted not to read the people. He maintained criticism of the role of Nuclear Visions and policy. They shattered the public nomination in 1968 and compared to two westerners standing against a salon, aiming guns at their head. So some situation would limit policy options and forced a geopolitical standoff. Reagan did not not rate his views against the nuclear views of the presidency. In 1981, speaking with representatives to the vatican, he referred to them as the last epidemic of man kind. Talking to troops in 1983, he argued a nuclear war cannot be one and must never be fought and promised to extend one of the most extensive arms program in history. A made for tv movie about a small kansas town, about a month before this town served to strengthen his resolve to make sure there is never a nuclear war. As unwillingness to success, was the only way to be safe was to be vulnerable to it. The willingness to share the Technology Cal breakthroughs of the program with the soviets, and harks back to his organization, and speaks to the univers universal destain regardless of any country who had them at the time. He seems to directly contradict any notion he sought to neglect weapons. As reagan sought to modernize all legs of the trial, missiles, bombers, and submarine, and launched a five Point Program to relaunch the b 1 program, modernize existent force, and improve the launch missile by submarines and develop a most robust system, and produced an additional 17,000 warheads by 1987, a significant increase as a result of the carter plans. U. S. Nuclear forces were more lethal and technically advanced at any point in American History and focused on strong modernization with a strong contrast to focus on arms control and reduction in the second, credit aintingating a narrative. The shift in tone is a bit less stark when viewed to the contact of how to achieve peace. Reagan viewed military strength as essential to establishing peace, and identified establishing a sound, east west military balance as absolutely essential to peace, as well. We assumed office. Reagan and his National Security advisors perceived a stopgap between the soviet union and the United States. Nsd 32 takes the loss of the superiority, and the over whelming growth as givens, in indicated of a imbalance and strength. Reagan blamed a taunt for this disparity, and felt continuation of the policy would only weaken the u. S. And ensure soviet gains. In one 1978 radio dress, he said taunt is what a farmer has with his turkey before thanksgiving. The only way with the soviets peace in the soviets was achievable would be to demonstrate strength. Between the military capabilities of both states entering in organizations, embodied by slogans, build up to build down and peace through strength. So he wanted to make sure he was negotiation yet on equal terms before embarking on any significant reductions in arms. But ultimately, his strong antinuclear stance put him at odds with many leading voices in the Foreign Policy and in the pentagon. Reagan would lament in his memoirs a nuclear war is still doable, following the near breaking at reykjavik, argued against reagan continuing to pursue the Nuclear Weapons entirely, and commanded the force was inadequate, and bringing it to par would result in an investigation over tens of billions of dollars over a decade. The army chief of the staff, expressed doubts theyd be able to put up out of the manpower or the budget to bring the Defense Forces to where it would need to be. John pointdexter reversed the proposal to eliminate them and shortly after returning he wrote lamenting all missiles return to the u. S. , similar to that it faced in the 1950s, leaving only a chance of stopping a conventional assault rather than the strong deterrents that current arsenal represented. Former president richard nickon and his secretary of state, wrote an off bed for the national review, which proposed the deal would reopen the gap and the deturrance, due to the inability of the u. S. To provide conventional power to match that of the soviets. National security advisor to ford also expressed assertions it may lead to absolutely disaster. And not only the oppositions came from the right. In the same issue, the chairman of the house, les aspen, argued it would take another ten divisions in order to make the reykjavik framework feasible. As nato allies expressed genuine concern about what a nonnuclear United States could mean for their security. U. S. Information director charles wick wrote poinde dprxt wrote they were amazing and might be strategically decoupled from europe as a result. It proposes reykjavik brought assist criticism, and could not eliminate weapons because without them, there was little hope of regrounding the association. While at reykjavik, he pleaded with gorbachev to relent on sdi. He noted the most outspoken over the years, the socalled right wing, would react strongly towards Nuclear Weapons. He was direct in that thinking. Reagan noted critics were kicking his brains out for eliminating nuclear missiles, since gorbachev threw all of his followers i follow followers in in jail. He refused lament on the issue strategic defense. Despite the expected outcry, and the criticism from his right, reagan was willing to move forward and engage in a tough political battle to ratify the agreements because he viewed the strategic situation in europe differently than his critics did. He felt the fall of 1986, the conventional forces and its allies were more than a match of the counterparts, making the missiles an evil, as opposed to the force his critics maintained they were. The meeting in the white house arguing the narto together and the u. S. Had an enormous superiority. The combined population of the west, rather than that of the soviets, as opposed to the uncertain a lieu uncertain a liegences, and had capacities of both the United States and its allies was the work of his first term. The review of this National Security issues began by reviewing the record over five years as one of progress and accomplishment, and went on to argue the refurbishment and the strengthen of u. S. Appliancellit cites significant improvements in the better use of eemergent technologies, and dispute the movement of lower level in antiforces. The explicit objective should primarily focus on nonnuclear systems. Developing the nonnuclear systems needed to wean them from deterrent deterrents. The administration began construction of 34,000 combat ships, and expanded support for new infantry fighting vehicles resulting in the armys bradley fighting vehicle and the marines light armored vehicle, basically the technology were still using today. Additionally, the administration sought to extend aero capabilities, the black hawk support helicopter and the f 117 stealth fighter. Other investments in armorments and Communication Systems meant the u. S. Military in 1986 was a more lethal and precise force when reagan gained office. All the unified and specified commanders in chief is saying by every measure of common sense, conventional forces were more ready for combat than in 1980. This assessment by commanders and its National Security staff left reagan with the strong sense the u. S. Military was Strong Enough to forego offense of nuke lar weapons, a sense red storm rising reinforced before going to reykjavik. Clancys books also place a starring role, and red storm rises ing certainly no exception to this. The new technology i mentioned previously, plays a Critical Role in this narrative. South still a classified program at the time, the f1 appears in a title the frisbees of dream land, leading to serious logistics problems in the early skies of the war. And almost significantly responsible for making a stalemate in germany, and forces between the west. During a Critical Exchange in the early days of fighting, an armored re armored regiment, faces a dismounted infantry. The battle goes poorly, to say the least, as the effective integration of u. S. Tanks and war hogs cost the soviets nearly a third of their strength. The conversation between the soviet commanders makes it clear this is not an atypical battle, and an indication of this is that the better weapons of the us, allows them to approach at a ratio 101, enough to nullify the conventional forces. The forces are able to continue their forces thanks to the earlywarning control platform, which has a highly accurate view of the battlefield. You want to make sure that youre not wasting people in places they dont need to be. Friendly aircraft strike exactly when the soviets meant, and destroyed a full battalion. And technical ability to allow command elements of the soviet army to devastating effect. Chancy and bond incorporated this precise target of leadership in red form rising as it was an emergent doctrine at the time. And between awe and frustration about the capabilities and nato forces recognizing the advanced technologies is playing the decisive role in the conflict. Red storm rising came out at the absolutely perform time for reagan. It provided a real life narrative how policies may come out in the real world. On the surface, the use of this normal novel seems ludicrous. Why would you use a work of form to form your strategic envision. Many were perhaps less than secretly appalled by it. Mars Margaret Thatcher added the book to her reading list, however, the realism makes their manner perhaps a bit more feasible. Clancys research lent his looks a great deal of the authority and noted that in his meeting with clancy, asking the author how he achieved it. He said the characters were the hard part. While this is likely true, clancy did devote significant night to researching and fact finding. He want to the talk internal soviet politics with chenko, who deflected serving under the u. S. Secretary general. Clancy called his book breaking with moscow, and his influence on clancys work is evident, and discussed joint operations there, providing more authenticity to providing the novel. Trips to military installations allowed the authors to observe procedures, and m1 tank operations. Clancy road on a submarine, and being an officer, he would note it was riding in the m1 tank, basically described as a 72ton corvette. But all of this contributes to the realism used by soldiers and the way the novel depicts the weapons systems. While the research, trips and interviews contributed greatly, another was war gaming. The novel is rudiment in war gaming, and federally funded Research Development center tied to the navy. Larry bond was working on similar projects analyzing how the u. S. Would represent this invasion. He mentioned this to clancy, and proposed the two write a book, given the success of hunt for red october. The book transformed the central findings into a narrative everyone could express. The scenario describes intere intentionally brought the supply issue to the floor of the narrative. Red form rising is an indirect consumption of military simulations, however, the novel provided a more recommendgnizabd ultimate format for the president. The war games was not the only one to have significance on the book. Larry bond disliked the official navy war game, and it was classified, which made it very difficult to use. He designed a market through harpoon, and would advertise through dungeons and dragons and took the time to read a letter to bond, which starts their correspondents and friendship. It became a major method for validating red storm rising. They used the check title of the dance of the vampires, in which theyre able to air bomb a plane in iceland. The purpose is not to identify what will happen, but rather what could. Allowing for the games to serve as analytical tools for military and civilian planners. And peter perla, a long time war gamer, noted to as the Peyton Manning of war gaming, noted a greater impact rather than a simple discussion or memorandum on the plan. This is because individual decisions determine success or failure, forcing a lot more personal investment into the scenario. The results didnt last longer because of this emotional tie and this is something a novel can do, as well, because it is designed to cause emotional ties and have you invest more in the narrative. If forces the readtoer to emphasize and remember the policy or effectiveness of technology more than a newspaper article or quick conversation with a friend would. Throughout his career, reagan makes use of crowds with large populations as a sports caster on iowa radio stations, as a movie star through hollywood and through hout his career. Nsc member and speech writer matt lock, views the essential essence of his message regards of the medium. If the story was true or false, it didnt matter near as much as the message himself, so reagan viewed himself as more of a modern day aaesop. And for reagan, every story true or in the had a distinct purpose, because of the ability to form strong emotional connections. He would keep telling the story until he found a better one, which often exacerbated those around him with his repeativene repeativenerepeativ repetitiveness. Historian Walter Hickson argues reagan and the National Security exploited the popular ability, applying a much more sinister reality than suggest an erie resemblance to the successments and envision how his policies show in the real world to discuss his ideals with the american people. The overall impact of the books is debatable, but the head wins not. The case study shows the political ideals is not limited to official forums. Instead, policy comes from complex and difficult to define interactions between cult and you are individual experience, the public, and the policy ma r makerers themselvmake makers themselves, how one can operate to find success, and so thank you, and im happy to take questions. Well go around with the mic. I have been asked to remind you when you ask your questions to please stand up, thats so that facial Recognition Software will be better for tracking purposes later. Thank you. Thank you. That was interesting. How much did reagan do you think how much did reagan use these popular fiction narratives to tell stories to convince people and how much do you think that he got his views from reading popular fiction . I mean, it seems that reagan was an effective leader in so many ways but sometimes he comes across as intellectually shallow. Reagan is constantly using fiction to communicate with the american people. We see this very early in his administration, so a good example comes when he is awarding the medal of honor to whats the the name of who is escaping right now. But the medal of honor, where hes talking in his speech about a novel, the bridges at tokoria, which is a move thats stars reagans close personal friend and was the best man at the wedding between nancy reagan. He quotes the novel where hes talking about this commander looking flying off to go over the peninsula, and asking where do we get such men. You know, marveling at the ad t quality in people and service. So reagan talks about, we have our cities and towns and farms and highlighting this quality of american service. Throughout his presidency, hes using fiction to communicate these ideas and wothe works of james warner bella. He has the sense to prioritize fiction over nonfiction, in very strange ways. As far as how much influences him, i think he uses fiction as again, a kind of personal war game. Basically where you can imagine the near future. I equate to how hes working through the fog of war. So they talk about the fog of war and how you need to make out these in distinct shapes in the fog. Hes going to try and compare them to something he knows where is reagan is imagining what they could be, which is why hes different in how he yoviews the soviet unions. Because hes trying to imagine with the future could be, using more of a creative approach, he has a greater view in policy as a result. Is there any record how clancys books were received and interpreted back in the soviet union . Publicly, they were denounced. They werent very popular there. Theyre pretty consistently reviewed negatively, you can imagine its kind of reinforcing the superior capitalist nation denouncing the soviet union unfairly, so, in the public records, it had very neg