Vietnam war domino theory essay
US involvement in Vietnam increased markedly in the first years of the Cold War, as Washington sought to contain the growth of communism in south east Asia. Der Vietnamkrieg (englisch Vietnam War, vietnamesisch Chiến tranh Việt Nam; seltener auch Chiến tranh Mỹ „Amerikanischer Krieg“) wurde von etwa 19in und um Vietnam geführt. The U.S. followed containment when it first entered the Korean War to defend South Korea from a communist invasion by North Korea. Initially, this directed the action of the US to only push back North Korea across the 38th Parallel and restore South Korea's sovereignty, thereby allowing North Korea's survival as a state. The Domino Theory supports VanDeMark's interpretation as it was the idea that if one nation fell to communism others would soon follow. VanDeMark states that the US got deeper and deeper involved to prevent Vietnam and any other countries to falling to communism. The concept of an ‘essay’ is derived from the French ‘essayer’: ‘to try’ (as I’m sure you know). As conceived by Michel de Montaigne, its purpose is to test out one’s ideas and theories against others; to lay out new arguments in the hope of provoking thought and development.
You can download that version 2.
Below is a summary of the main ideas. It describes a some fundamental aspects of the world that make it complex and inherently hard to predict p.
For example, very few in Parliament, Whitehall, or the media have any training in statistics. Courses such as Politics, Philosophy and Economics and economics in general do not train political leaders well. They encourage superficial bluffing, misplaced confidence e. Ministers are selected from MPs but MPs are not selected for their ability to devise policy, prioritise, manage complex organisations, or admit and fix errors.
In the absence of effective training, many default to gimmicks and attempts to manipulate the media. In Government, there is constant panic but little urgency. A few footnotes deal with specific issues concerning Westminster. The essay describes why these failings are increasingly dangerous.
It sketches some of the most important scientific, technological, economic, and military trends that can both enhance and harm the world e. See Section 7 for a discussion of various geopolitical trends particularly p.
The essay also describes some ways to limit these problems by improving education and training and creating new institutions. Instead of trying to solve problems centrally and manage complex projects, Whitehall ought to reconsider what goals it incentivises centrally while decentralising decisions about methods. Other fields have developed empirical design rules and quantitative models such as aircraft engineering.
Whitehall needs to devise rules that encourage evidence-based policy where feasible and decentralised decision-making as a default mode. It also needs new methods to regulate, monitor, and when necessary intervene in complex systems : e. This requires the development of artificial immune systems i. See mainly Section 6, p. Universities need new inter-disciplinary courses.
For example, in March Stanford announced new undergraduate degrees such as Computer Science and English. Instead of bluffing through essays on competing views of macroeconomics, future leaders should be rigorously trained to understand and apply probabilistic reasoning to problems — and know when the situation is so uncertain there is no useful help from the sciences.
New courses could embed students with leaders managing complex projects. Schools need to change their curricula to provide the building blocks for such courses.
This should be an addition to — not a replacement for — traditional subjects and disciplines. Part of Section 6 p. Both are fundamentally unfit to have the degree of power that they do and even if they were not unfit they still should not control all they do. For example, more money needs to be spent on our research universities and the basic science budget.
There must be a determination to be a world-leader in basic science — not just a focus on applications.
The decision in this parliament by BIS to divert funding from pure maths to statistics, on the spurious grounds that the latter is more important for applications, was a mistake. The broken PhD pipeline needs repair. There should be far greater effort to make the environment around research Universities friendly to start-up businesses.
Oxbridge power structures are much more interested in appeasing political forces than they are in raising standards, and they deliberately suppress the views of their own leading academics in order to avoid political controversy.
The essay also suggests a fundamental principle for the reorientation of British policy. Such a change could make us better educated, more prosperous, safer, and better able to lead the world in various fields.
It would be a big improvement on the depressing spectacle of watching politicians thrash around with no priorities and fundamentally little idea about what to do other than try to stay a step ahead of the media with badly implemented gimmicks and avoid blame for our institutionalised dysfunction, while tweaking usually ineffectually the bureaucracy and trashing the opposition.
Energy policy wastes large amounts that could be spent on basic research instead. There remains a lot of low hanging fruit in Whitehall savings. Negotiation of contracts is appalling — e. The main difficulty arises from the lack of suitable people in positions of power and the need for overturning existing power bases, which is always politically tricky.
The most likely way it will happen is, as usual, by the exploitation of crises. There were various responses. One came from Professor Steve Jones, a geneticist, who later apologised. He based his article not on my actual essay but on false media reports. I also warned that the media routinely confuses such debates by getting these things wrong. Professor Jones graciously apologised for his mistake in assuming the accuracy of media reports and suggested that I add the text that appears at the bottom of my article.
Blog by Dr.
James Thompson here. For the first time since it appeared I am going through it and collecting errors pointed out to me. I will keep a tally below and update it some time…. In Section 2 I shift between energy and power without correcting the units, which means some of them are wrong.
Like Like. And deserves more thinking. Businesses, academics etc conduct their affairs in a relatively benign press context. And if you had been a former advisor to a PLC this blog would not have attracted the attention it did.
But the news cycle necessary as it is what holds politicians to account prevents sensible decision making. And to fail. Nobel Prize Winners, august though they be, are equally capable of erroneous analysis.
In the world of economics, half of them fundamentally disagree with the other half. In short, you must do more to convince me. Perhaps some sections merit a place on Wikipedia.
But how is that vital to an interdisciplinary education? Is your suggestion that solar power is the way to go? Or are you just trying to sound clever? I am further concerned by your unrefined attacks on PPE as a degree subject. Moreover, the economics undergraduate courses at the university are the most intensive, in-depth and critical of any institution in the country. In fact, visiting students from Stanford University were regularly astonished by their comparative ignorance in the subject.
You may be aware of the story behind PPE: it was introduced in Oxford in the s to replace Classics, because skills in economics and maths were becoming increasingly desired in the civil service.
This is not to defend certain PPEists in politics, whom you seem to have little time for, but some more substance to your suggestions here would be very helpful.
However, I will to make two points here. In secondary education, it is the most interdisciplinary subjects that are considered to be the least rigourous. General Studies, Business Studies, Media Studies are but three examples of interdisciplinary subjects that are less rigourous than, for example, Mathematics, History or Physics. Next, you should appreciate that many of the breakthroughs mankind does have are when intellectuals have spent their lives specialising in one field of study and then been able to transfer their skills to another.
You recognise Hume and Darwin as two, I believe, if I remember correctly. What makes science progress forward are lives dedicated to study and the fine-tuning of ideas, not throwing often ill-fitting concepts from one side of the academic spectrum to the other.
Plato, in the Republic, instructs that the Philosopher-King must be versed in all things. Knowledge, he believes, is the key to good governance. Democracy would struggle, in part, because all people cannot be educated in all things: in the modern world this is all too true.
There is simply too much knowledge out there. The politics of tomorrow will not succeed because of academic super-intellectuals, able to masterfully store and process information from all comers.
The politics of tomorrow will instead succeed by building strong relationships of trust and confidence between specialists. I am training for the Bar, and over the past month have asked two Crown Court judges and three barristers in different cities for their opinion of the criminal legal aid cuts. Every time I have had the same answer: the s were excessive, the criminal bar was too expensive, but the cuts have been made in the wrong way, damaging the wrong people, and I just wish the government listened to our advice on how to do it.
See e. A country without both generalists and specialists will struggle to negotiate contemporary complex problems. Both sorts of thinkers will find niches in late capitalist economies.
There are currently about 30, degrees on UCAS which are single-subject or joint-honours with no real attempt at connection of disciplines. There are generously about 30 which could be called fully interdisciplinary. So currently about 0. We can very safely expand this number at least 10 times without any risk to a decline in national standards and with the benefit that we may produce some excellent, high-powered undergraduates, educated in a range of fields and perhaps better equipped to address some of the problems above.
Interesting comment, thanks. Yes we need both. I say that in Intro of my essay. Royal Society study. I agree on need for new degrees. Best, D. However, it is intended, as I made clear, mainly as something useful for yr olds to show them some of the big questions and some of the connections between fields. And that PPE-ers are not taught other things relevant if one is trying to train senior decision-makers.