It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Over the last 60 years, more than 30 Nobel Prize winners have been affiliated with the RAND Corporation at some point in their careers.[1]
Notable RAND participants
Donald Rumsfeld — Chairman of Board from 1981–1986; 1995-1996 and Secretary of Defense for the United States from 1975 to 1977 and 2001 to 2006.
Condoleezza Rice — former trustee 1991–1997 and current Secretary of State for the United States (as of May 2006), former intern
Henry Kissinger— US Secretary of State (1973-1977); National Security Advisor (1969-1975); Nobel Peace Prize Winner (1973)
Herman Kahn — theorist on nuclear war and one of the founders of scenario planning
David S. C. Chu — Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, 2001–present
Harold L. Brode — physicist, leading nuclear weapons effects expert
Samuel Cohen — inventor of the neutron bomb in 1958
nonprofit global policy think tank first formed to offer research and analysis to the United States armed forces.
TAIPEI - A new RAND study suggests U.S. air power in the Pacific would be inadequate to thwart a Chinese attack on Taiwan in 2020. The study, entitled "Air Combat Past, Present and Future," by John Stillion and Scott Perdue, says China's anti-access arms and strategy could deny the U.S. the "ability to operate efficiently from nearby bases or seas."
According to the study, U.S. aircraft carriers and air bases would be threatened by Chinese development of anti-ship ballistic missiles, the fielding of diesel and nuclear submarines equipped with torpedoes and SS-N-22 and SS-N-27 anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), fighters and bombers carrying ASCMs and HARMs, and new ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.
Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Doesn't RAND mean research and development? Anyway, I am curious.
Originally posted by fromtheheart66
Wonder if war does boost the economy?
Originally posted by detachedindividual
In WW2, women and children in Britain went to work, there was a massive drive to keep industry running, and everyone did their bit.
Exactly how this scenario would play out in modern times to boost the economy is something I cannot really grasp yet. But surely just the psychological impact on the nation would assist it? It would make people more willing to make sacrifices and to follow their leader.
Originally posted by SugarCube
Originally posted by detachedindividual
In WW2, women and children in Britain went to work, there was a massive drive to keep industry running, and everyone did their bit.
Exactly how this scenario would play out in modern times to boost the economy is something I cannot really grasp yet. But surely just the psychological impact on the nation would assist it? It would make people more willing to make sacrifices and to follow their leader.
Churlishly reverting to profanity, "We'd be f*cked"
In a "world" event the West would suffer greatly from the detachment from "civilisation". Even in the 1930's vast numbers of the population people still knew how to "survive" without having to rely on *everything" being bought from a supermarket. This was especially true in rural areas. People didn't rely on gadgets because< quite simply, they weren't invented back then - Households had a radio at most, certainly in Britain.
The population of the West has become soft - an electric cut can cause chaos in a matter of a couple of hours. Fuel shortages cause major chaos.
Originally posted by hotbakedtater
Doesn't RAND mean research and development? Anyway, I am curious. Did RAND have this or a similar urgeurge in the months leading up to 9/11, 2001?
And how does Infowars know this, anyway? I would think this would be highly classified.