PLAGIARISM... ILLUSTRATIONS I & II
What are nuclear weapons good for? Reflecting on the atomic bombing of Japan in World War II, Harry Truman gave this answer: “I regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubt that it should be used,” adding, “When I talked to Churchill he unhesitatingly told me that he favored the use of the atomic bomb if it might aid to end the war.” Nonetheless, since the bombing of Hiroshima 60 years ago on Saturday, the United States and other nuclear-armed nations have demonstrated considerable resistance to repeating Truman’s decision, despite the many crises and conflicts of the Cold War and beyond. Each president, however, continued to build, modernize or otherwise maintain weapons that would dwarf the explosive power of the devices that obliterated Hiroshima, and three days later, Nagasaki. But to what end? This anniversary should be a time of public reflection. In its Nuclear-Posture Review of December 2001, the administration of George W. Bush provided its answer. Calling nuclear weapons an adjunct to conventional forces, the Pentagon said that the arsenal functioned to assure allies, while it dissuades, deters and, if necessary, defeats adversaries. With the hindsight of decades, we now are able to test whether the Pentagon’s first three objectives make sense. Fortunately, since the Japanese bombings, there has been no additional test of the fourth. “Assurance” seeks to prevent America’s allies from going nuclear. The strategy: Military alliances backed by a U.S. atomic commitment. The premise: Any proliferation - even among allies - increases the risk of nuclear war. Despite two notable failures (Britain and France), Washington’s nuclear assurance claimed important achievements: Through the Cold War, Germany, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan - all nuclear candidates - abstained from developing weapons in no small measure because the American bomb underpinned the alliance. Though threats by North Korea and China recently tempted the latter three to reconsider their nonproliferation commitment, American pledges continue to provide them with reassurance. “Dissuasion” strives to intimidate adversaries from “pursuing threatening capabilities,” the review said. Here, too, the historic record is mixed. The strategy failed to prevent North Korea from going nuclear, and even after Iraq’s Osirak reactor was attacked by Israel in 1981, it did not stop Saddam Hussein from seeking to develop nuclear weapons through the 1980s. On the other hand, there has been a recent success, the agreement by Libya to abandon its own nuclear program. It recalls the decision Egypt made years ago to avoid Israeli pre-emptive nuclear action. Nuclear “deterrence,” which, the review says, involves reinforcing the United States’ ability to keep adversaries’ high-value targets in its sights, has had the greatest impact in preventing crises or tamping down conflicts between nuclear-armed states. Mutual nuclear fright tempered Soviet-American actions during the crises in Berlin, in Cuba and in the Middle East in 1973; the same holds true for the 1969 Chinese-Soviet border skirmishes and the 2001-2002 India-Pakistan confrontation after the Kashmir separatist attack on India’s Parliament. Today, North Korea believes that its own nuclear capacity deters the United States. The bomb, however, did not prevent non-nuclear-weapons states from taking on or resisting nuclear adversaries. North Korea invaded the South even though the United States used nuclear threats to prompt China to halt hostilities. North Vietnam and the Afghan mujahedeen not only stood up to their superpower foes, but beat them. Likewise, Hezbollah chased nuclear-armed Israel out of Lebanon. Elsewhere in the region, Egypt was unbowed in the lead-up to the 1967 war with Israel and, with Syria, remained so in the 1973 war. Then there was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, which irreverently stood up to Washington in 1991 and 2002. Finally, Moscow discovered how hollow nuclear weapons could be in keeping its empire and ultimately the Soviet Union itself intact. This history of the atomic age suggests that nuclear weapons never became a foolproof way to scare adversaries toward a permanent peace - as some had hoped - nor did they become the inevitable destroyer of nations that others feared. In the absence of disaster, nuclear nations have grown increasingly comfortable in the belief that they can “game” the bomb to enhance security. But this notion should be cold comfort in light of nuclear crises that came within a hairsbreadth of ending in nuclear catastrophe. Then there remains the ever-present possibility of accidental nuclear war because of failures of command and control or intelligence. Still, with the exception of nations that do not anchor their security in nuclear defense - for example, Ukraine, Belarus and South Africa, which gave up their bombs after changes in government - the weapons will probably populate arsenals around the world for another 60 years and beyond. That said, there remains at least one significant caveat: nuclear terrorism. Should terrorists have their nuclear day, people around the globe will declare “enough” and demand an end to the bombs that history bequeathed.
THE ORIGINAL
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/05/opinion/edramberg.php
ATOMIC WEAPONS: TO WHAT END?
By Bennett Ramberg
International Herald Tribune
SATURDAY, AUGUST 6, 2005LOS ANGELES: What are nuclear weapons good for? Reflecting on the atomic bombing of Japan in World War II, Harry Truman gave this answer: "I regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubt that it should be used," adding, "When I talked to Churchill he unhesitatingly told me that he favored the use of the atomic bomb if it might aid to end the war." Nonetheless, since the bombing of Hiroshima 60 years ago on Saturday, the United States and other nuclear-armed nations have demonstrated considerable resistance to repeating Truman's decision, despite the many crises and conflicts of the Cold War and beyond. Each president, however, continued to build, modernize or otherwise maintain weapons that would dwarf the explosive power of the devices that obliterated Hiroshima, and three days later, Nagasaki. But to what end? This anniversary should be a time of public reflection. In its Nuclear-Posture Review of December 2001, the administration of George W. Bush provided its answer. Calling nuclear weapons an adjunct to conventional forces, the Pentagon said that the arsenal functioned to assure allies, while it dissuades, deters and, if necessary, defeats adversaries. With the hindsight of decades, we now are able to test whether the Pentagon's first three objectives make sense. Fortunately, since the Japanese bombings, there has been no additional test of the fourth. "Assurance" seeks to prevent America's allies from going nuclear. The strategy: Military alliances backed by a U.S. atomic commitment. The premise: Any proliferation - even among allies - increases the risk of nuclear war. Despite two notable failures (Britain and France), Washington's nuclear assurance claimed important achievements: Through the Cold War, Germany, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan - all nuclear candidates - abstained from developing weapons in no small measure because the American bomb underpinned the alliance. Though threats by North Korea and China recently tempted the latter three to reconsider their nonproliferation commitment, American pledges continue to provide them with reassurance. "Dissuasion" strives to intimidate adversaries from "pursuing threatening capabilities," the review said. Here, too, the historic record is mixed. The strategy failed to prevent North Korea from going nuclear, and even after Iraq's Osirak reactor was attacked by Israel in 1981, it did not stop Saddam Hussein from seeking to develop nuclear weapons through the 1980s. On the other hand, there has been a recent success, the agreement by Libya to abandon its own nuclear program. It recalls the decision Egypt made years ago to avoid Israeli pre-emptive nuclear action. Nuclear "deterrence," which, the review says, involves reinforcing the United States' ability to keep adversaries' high-value targets in its sights, has had the greatest impact in preventing crises or tamping down conflicts between nuclear-armed states. Mutual nuclear fright tempered Soviet-American actions during the crises in Berlin, in Cuba and in the Middle East in 1973; the same holds true for the 1969 Chinese-Soviet border skirmishes and the 2001-2002 India-Pakistan confrontation after the Kashmir separatist attack on India's Parliament. Today, North Korea believes that its own nuclear capacity deters the United States. The bomb, however, did not prevent non-nuclear-weapons states from taking on or resisting nuclear adversaries. North Korea invaded the South even though the United States used nuclear threats to prompt China to halt hostilities. North Vietnam and the Afghan mujahedeen not only stood up to their superpower foes, but beat them. Likewise, Hezbollah chased nuclear-armed Israel out of Lebanon. Elsewhere in the region, Egypt was unbowed in the lead-up to the 1967 war with Israel and, with Syria, remained so in the 1973 war. Then there was Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which irreverently stood up to Washington in 1991 and 2002. Finally, Moscow discovered how hollow nuclear weapons could be in keeping its empire and ultimately the Soviet Union itself intact. This history of the atomic age suggests that nuclear weapons never became a foolproof way to scare adversaries toward a permanent peace - as some had hoped - nor did they become the inevitable destroyer of nations that others feared. In the absence of disaster, nuclear nations have grown increasingly comfortable in the belief that they can "game" the bomb to enhance security. But this notion should be cold comfort in light of nuclear crises that came within a hairsbreadth of ending in nuclear catastrophe. Then there remains the ever-present possibility of accidental nuclear war because of failures of command and control or intelligence. Still, with the exception of nations that do not anchor their security in nuclear defense - for example, Ukraine, Belarus and South Africa, which gave up their bombs after changes in government - the weapons will probably populate arsenals around the world for another 60 years and beyond. That said, there remains at least one significant caveat: nuclear terrorism. Should terrorists have their nuclear day, people around the globe will declare "enough" and demand an end to the bombs that history bequeathed. (Bennett Ramberg was a policy analyst at the State Department from 1989 to 1990.) LOS ANGELES What are nuclear weapons good for? Reflecting on the atomic bombing of Japan in World War II, Harry Truman gave this answer: "I regarded the bomb as a military weapon and never had any doubt that it should be used," adding, "When I talked to Churchill he unhesitatingly told me that he favored the use of the atomic bomb if it might aid to end the war." Nonetheless, since the bombing of Hiroshima 60 years ago on Saturday, the United States and other nuclear-armed nations have demonstrated considerable resistance to repeating Truman's decision, despite the many crises and conflicts of the Cold War and beyond. Each president, however, continued to build, modernize or otherwise maintain weapons that would dwarf the explosive power of the devices that obliterated Hiroshima, and three days later, Nagasaki. But to what end? This anniversary should be a time of public reflection. In its Nuclear-Posture Review of December 2001, the administration of George W. Bush provided its answer. Calling nuclear weapons an adjunct to conventional forces, the Pentagon said that the arsenal functioned to assure allies, while it dissuades, deters and, if necessary, defeats adversaries. With the hindsight of decades, we now are able to test whether the Pentagon's first three objectives make sense. Fortunately, since the Japanese bombings, there has been no additional test of the fourth. "Assurance" seeks to prevent America's allies from going nuclear. The strategy: Military alliances backed by a U.S. atomic commitment. The premise: Any proliferation - even among allies - increases the risk of nuclear war. Despite two notable failures (Britain and France), Washington's nuclear assurance claimed important achievements: Through the Cold War, Germany, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan - all nuclear candidates - abstained from developing weapons in no small measure because the American bomb underpinned the alliance. Though threats by North Korea and China recently tempted the latter three to reconsider their nonproliferation commitment, American pledges continue to provide them with reassurance. "Dissuasion" strives to intimidate adversaries from "pursuing threatening capabilities," the review said. Here, too, the historic record is mixed. The strategy failed to prevent North Korea from going nuclear, and even after Iraq's Osirak reactor was attacked by Israel in 1981, it did not stop Saddam Hussein from seeking to develop nuclear weapons through the 1980s. On the other hand, there has been a recent success, the agreement by Libya to abandon its own nuclear program. It recalls the decision Egypt made years ago to avoid Israeli pre-emptive nuclear action. Nuclear "deterrence," which, the review says, involves reinforcing the United States' ability to keep adversaries' high-value targets in its sights, has had the greatest impact in preventing crises or tamping down conflicts between nuclear-armed states. Mutual nuclear fright tempered Soviet-American actions during the crises in Berlin, in Cuba and in the Middle East in 1973; the same holds true for the 1969 Chinese-Soviet border skirmishes and the 2001-2002 India-Pakistan confrontation after the Kashmir separatist attack on India's Parliament. Today, North Korea believes that its own nuclear capacity deters the United States. The bomb, however, did not prevent non-nuclear-weapons states from taking on or resisting nuclear adversaries. North Korea invaded the South even though the United States used nuclear threats to prompt China to halt hostilities. North Vietnam and the Afghan mujahedeen not only stood up to their superpower foes, but beat them. Likewise, Hezbollah chased nuclear-armed Israel out of Lebanon. Elsewhere in the region, Egypt was unbowed in the lead-up to the 1967 war with Israel and, with Syria, remained so in the 1973 war. Then there was Saddam Hussein's Iraq, which irreverently stood up to Washington in 1991 and 2002. Finally, Moscow discovered how hollow nuclear weapons could be in keeping its empire and ultimately the Soviet Union itself intact. This history of the atomic age suggests that nuclear weapons never became a foolproof way to scare adversaries toward a permanent peace - as some had hoped - nor did they become the inevitable destroyer of nations that others feared. In the absence of disaster, nuclear nations have grown increasingly comfortable in the belief that they can "game" the bomb to enhance security. But this notion should be cold comfort in light of nuclear crises that came within a hairsbreadth of ending in nuclear catastrophe. Then there remains the ever-present possibility of accidental nuclear war because of failures of command and control or intelligence. Still, with the exception of nations that do not anchor their security in nuclear defense - for example, Ukraine, Belarus and South Africa, which gave up their bombs after changes in government - the weapons will probably populate arsenals around the world for another 60 years and beyond. That said, there remains at least one significant caveat: nuclear terrorism. Should terrorists have their nuclear day, people around the globe will declare "enough" and demand an end to the bombs that history bequeathed. (DAMMIT... the whole bit... except for varying paragraph indents, the whole thing has been plagiarised, en bloc)
Nikhil Joseph discovers that a distinct niche is emerging for stylish watches, creating that is unfolding trendy designs that are classy, chic…and expensive…
Good times don’t last forever but good watches do! Elegant and expensive watches traditionally considered accessories of the rich and the famous today top the wish list of up-with-the-times youth.
Apart from the annual demand of around 25 million watches there’s a distinct niche developing for stylish watches creating an altogether new opening for leading players who are unfolding designer ranges that are not just classy trendy as well.
“We saw a huge potential in the premium fashion segment. That’s why we’ve gone in for a tie up with Tommy Hilfiger. We’ll be operating in the price band of Rs 4,500 and Rs.10,000 and hope to clock around Rs.50 crore annually,” says Bijou Kurien, COO, Titan Industries.
Kurien adds that the prime buyers in this segment are going to be cool young people who, he feels, will be attracted by the carefully crafted Tommy Hilfiger collection. “It is not just chic but also matches up qualitatively with the best international brands.”
The watches in Freedom segment are for the sporty with an eye for luxury and minute technological detail. The American Classics line has straightforward designs matched with signature details. Then come the American Women and Tommy Girl watches for the young lady on the move.
Apart from Tommy Hilfiger there are plenty of choices for the young lady. Swiss giant Baume & Mercier has launched Linea Variations, a watch combined with a jewellery accessory with as many wristbands as there are hours or moods in a day.
Swatch recently came up with the Tissot Cocktail range available with a diverse choice of coloured dials such as lapis-lazuli, aquamarine, silver, black, and mother-of-pearl. The watches are protected by sapphire glass and water-resistant to a depth of 30 metres. Priced at Rs. 8225, the collection has been a huge hit with party-hopping girls.
What makes a watch tick amongst the Gen Y? “Though design comes first, a watch must also reflect attitude. The style, the strap and the size are all important. A watch must enhance the personality of the wearer,” says Akshay Saran a young Supreme Court advocate who saves money every year to buy himself a watch on his birthday.
“This year I bought an Esprit Chronograph for Rs. 5000. “ It is a technologically superior watch. The black dial with three sub-dials in a steel body define my approach to life,” says Saran who has a collection of Swatch, Casio and Fast Track. According to Kapil Kapoor, Managing Director, Timex, the segment between Rs.1000 and Rs 5000 is growing fast. The demand is for watches with multiple features. Young people are looking for a convergence of technology in their watches. That’s why there is a great preference for watches loaded with internet, watches that come with heart rate monitors, eco-friendly watches, 100-hour chronograph with lap, etc have already become popular features today.
Seeing the emergence of this niche market companies are coming up with products suited to a wide array of tastes and ages. The technology savvy consumers have brands such as EcoDrive from Citizen, Indigo series from Timex and Sports series from Nike. For the stylish there’s Raga, Regalia and Royale from Titan whereas brands, such as Swatch and Esprit have a strong presence as leading foreign brands.
Expensive international brands are being rolled out for the ultra rich who want to flaunt their wealth and go for designer labels like Omega, Rolex, Tag Heuer and Longines.
Indeed for some price isn’t a constraint and even in the high-end segment there’s a race to grab a piece of the pie. The importance of this sector is evident by the way the big players are spending money to promote their expensive brands. Companies like TAG Heuer and Longines reportedly pay a fortune to have celebrity brand ambassadors like Shah Rukh Khan and Aishwaryia Rai.
Christian Dior has signed stunning Yana Gupta as its brand ambassador and Tommy Hilfiger has Rahul Khanna as its publicity face.
Do these Brand Ambassadors help sell watches? Yes they do, says Pankaj Lakhani of Johnson Watch Company in Delhi. “Known faces like Shah Rukh and Aishwariya always add value to a brand.”
And that, he says, may be one of the contributing reasons for the rise in sales of high-end watches costing between Rs.3,000 and Rs.10,000. Brands like Titan, Esprit, Pierre Cardiene, Fossil and Citizen are doing brisk sales,” says Lakhani.
What is it that high-end buyers look for in a watch? Experts say it is a combo of design, price and of course the brand name. Which is why, perhaps, Titan comes up with five collections every year. The mantra of the company and the entire watch industry is simple—the potential buyer has plenty to choose from and nothing is left to chance.
» read more
Young people are increasingly looking for a convergence of technology in their watches like wristwear that comes loaded with internet and heart rate monitors, writes Avinash Kalla.
Good times don’t last forever but good watches do! Elegant and expensive watches traditionally considered accessories of the rich and the famous today top the wishlist of up-with-the-times youth. Apart from the annual demand of around 25 million watches there’s a distinct niche developing for stylish watches creating an altogether new opening for leading players who are unfolding designer ranges that are not just classy trendy as well.
“We saw a huge potential in the premium fashion segment. That’s why we’ve gone in for a tie up with Tommy Hilfiger. We’ll be operating in the price band of Rs 4,500 and Rs 10,000 and hope to clock around Rs 50 crore annually,” says Bijou Kurien, COO, Titan Industries. Kurien adds that the prime buyers in this segment are going to be cool young people who, he feels, will be attracted by the carefully crafted Tommy Hilfiger collection. “It is not just chic but also matches up qualitatively with the best international brands.”
The watches in Freedom segment are for the sporty with an eye for luxury and minute technological detail. The American Classics line has straightforward designs matched with signature details. Then come the American Women and Tommy Girl watches for the young lady on the move.
Apart from Tommy Hilfiger there are plenty of choices for the young lady. Swiss giant Baume & Mercier has launched Linea Variations, a watch combined with a jewellery accessory with as many wristbands as there are hours or moods in a day.
Swatch recently came up with the Tissot Cocktail range available with a diverse choice of coloured dials such as lapis-lazuli, aquamarine, silver, black, and mother-of-pearl. The watches are protected by sapphire glass and water-resistance to a depth of 30 metres. Priced at Rs. 8225, the collection has been a huge hit with party-hopping girls.
What makes a watch tick amongst the Gen Y? “Though design comes first, a watch must also reflect attitude. The style, the strap and the size are all important. A watch must enhance the personality of the wearer,” says Akshay Saran, a young Supreme Court advocate who saves money every year to buy himself a watch on his birthday.
“This year I bought an Esprit Chronograph for Rs. 5000. “It is a technologically superior watch. The black dial with three subdials in a steel body define my approach to life,” says Saran who has a collection of Swatch, Casio and Fast Track.
According to Kapil Kapoor, Managing Director, Timex, the segment between Rs.1,000 and Rs. 5,000 is growing the fastest. The demand is for watches with multiple features.
Young people are increasingly looking for a convergence of technology in their watches. That’s why there is a great preference for watches loaded with internet, watches that come with heart rate monitors, eco-friendly watches, etc. Seeing the emergence of this niche market, companies are coming up with products suited to a wide array of tastes and ages.
Technology savvy consumers have brands such as EcoDrive from Citizen, Indglo series from Timex and Sports series from Nike. For the stylish there’s Raga, Regalia and Royale from Titan whereas brands such as Swatch and Esprit have a strong presence as leading foreign brands.
Expensive international brands are being rolled out for the ultra rich who want to flaunt their wealth and go for designer labels like Omega, Rolex, Tag Heuer and Longines.
Ajay Dass, a young music instrument store owner in Delhi’s Connaught Place recently bought EcoDrive from Citizen. “It has a hassle free mechanism and I don’t have to change the battery every year. Apart from that I have a Titan watch that has a striking resemblance to Rolex which is the dream watch that I hope to buy some day,” says he.
But for some price isn’t a constraint and even in the high-end segment there’s a race on to grab a piece of the pie.
The importance of this sector is evident by the way the big players are spending money to promote their expensive brands. TAG Heuer and Longines are reported to have paid crores to make actors Shah Rukh Khan and Aishwarya Rai their brand ambassadors, respectively. Christian Dior has signed on stunning Yana Gupta as its brand ambassador and Tommy Hilfiger has Rahul Khanna as its publicity face. Do these brand ambassadors help sell watches? “Yes, they do,” says Pankaj Lakhani of Johnson Watch Company in Delhi. “Known faces like Shah Rukh and Aishwarya always add value to a brand.” And that, he says, may be one of the contributing reasons for the rise in sales of high-end watches costing between Rs 3,000 and Rs 10,000. Brands like Titan, Esprit, Pierre Cardiene, Fossil and Citizen are doing brisk sales,” says Lakhani.
What is it that high-end buyers look for in a watch? According to experts it is a combination of design, price and of course the brand name.” Which is why, perhaps, Titan comes up with five collections every year. The mantra of the company and the entire watch industry is simple: The potential buyer must have plenty to choose from and nothing should be left to chance.
posted by Pen Pricks at
14:23
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home