i do enjoy seeing the fabric of our country and how things, just how they work and how they're made. >> i love american history tv. presidency, american artifacts they're fantastic shows. >> that's probably something i would really enjoy. >> with american history tv it gist you that perspective. >> on a c-span fan. up next, west point history instructor captain benjamin griffin talks about the influence that tom clancy and president reagan had on each other. the new york military affairs symposium hosted this hour and 40 minute event. >> and now let me introduce ben griffin who graduated from the united states military academy

in 2006 and was commissioned as a military intelligence officer. he served as a squadron intelligence officer while deployed in iraq from 2007 to 2008 and as an assistant brigade intelligence officer while deployed in iraq in 2011. he is currently assigned to the united states military academy as a history instructor. his military awards and decorations include the bronze star with oak leaf cluster, the mere tore yous service medal . d he is abd from the university of texas at austin and working on a dissertation that examines the role of tom:cy novels in the national security policy of ronald reagan. his research interests include american foreign relations and the cold war, ben hallcy,

bachelor of science of u.s. history, a master of arts in international security from the university of arizona, a master of history from the university of texas. in addition he is a national security fellow at the clements center for national security. he resides in west point, new york with his wife beth and their two children. welcome, ben griffin. [ applause ] >> thank you very much for the kind introduction and the opportunity to speak here. i'm thrilled. thank you all for coming. i know it's friday in new york city so there are plenty of things that you can do. the fact that you chose to come here and listen to me means a lot to me personally. i am an active duty officer. everything i'm saying tonight is my own opinion. not reflective of the united states government. you mentioned the military tech

no porn. that's what tom clancy does. his books are largely about this military technology. we'll get into some of that tonight as well. the speech entitled "the good guys win" ronald reagan, tom clancy and national security. as air force one was traveling east in 1986, ronald reagan decided to move back and talk with, socialize with the staff. but rather than focus on preparation frs the upcoming sup summit, talking about things like missile numbers, he instead opted to talk with the staff about the newly released world war iii thriller released by tom clancy "red storm rising." he read the book immediately upon release and termed it research for the upcoming summit. many who heard that took it as a joke. how could the president be using this thriller, this work of

fiction as actual research for a very serious topic of arms control with the head of the united states enemy, the soviet union. but many of his jokes and stories contain a small bit of truth. it perfectly encapsulated how ronald reagan viewed american cold war strategy, and importantly why he believed the u.s. prevailed. it provides a realistic story that allowed him to visualize the near future. e used "red storm rising" as a personal war game pep and the conclusions he drew from it would impact the upcoming nowsch gagss, reading to a willingness to reduce nuclear weapons but not to give up the strategic defense initiative. that work of fiction was largely irrelevant to reagan. he understand that fictional narratives had power and he

would often link public action on spolcy to popular culture. in his 1981 address to the graduating cadets of west point, as he's giving the speech at graduation he talk to the wide spread lack of respect for the uniform that many in the country are exhibits towards the united states military. returning to the theme of his 1980 campaign in talking about the need -- talking about how the nation has shortchanged the military in the wake of vietnam by continuing to maintain low pay levels and a lingering resentment of those in uniform from the public. he argues that the military deserves better. and then enlists the his younger generation, marking with pride. he noted that this is in part due to recent policy changes, in particular a large pay raise that certainly makes the military happy.

we always like getting paid more. it's not the entire explanation as to why we're seeing more enlistments. instead reagan argued there's a new spirit in the land which more than changes the pair of benefits led to a rediscovery of how much there is to love in this land. the unequivocal language of what was his first major foreign policy speech demonstrated that the shaping of narratives were was critical. a memo from his secretary of defense shows how conscious the words were. he wrote that the speech needed to honor the feeling that the american people felt. it was a matter that the secretary of defense and reagan discussed before. a telling paragraph terms the ingratitude. it singled out hollywood for criticism, knowing that the film

is the anti-military senment. and the margins, there's a list of muryes with "coming home, apocalypse now. all very prominent and generally well-received and pretty good movies about the vietnam war but paint a less than positive image of the military. now this passage didn't make the final draft of the spooek speech. perhaps largely over concerns that reagan about his angering his friends in hollywood. he comes from that community. he doesn't want them working against him. its presence in draft form shows how closely they were link in reagan's mind. this is a theme he will touch on in his farewell address, his last major address. he will recall in the 1950s and

'60s people have patriotism. movies celebrated democratic vams and reinforced the idea that america was special. reagan lamented this was no longer true. he believed that well-grounded patriotism was no longer in style. the american spirit was back but they needed to reinstitutionalize it. this seems odd when you look at the '80s, things like rambo, rocky iv and top gun. those dominated the box office. but at the same time we saw some other popular but also critically acclaimed films like platoon and full metal jacket that indicated to reagan there was still a lot of work to do to cement this more positive narrative within american culture. the common show how to recognize the linkage between the cultural move and the implementation of policy.

in some instances he would use stories as shord hand to describe the policy that he would are want to enact. tom reed, a primary national security adviser to reagan recalls that during meetings as they're discussing this cold war strategy, reagan referenced gary cooper from "high noon." the president wanted the u.s. to be a sort of global mash shall caine, someone who is going to fight for a cause. but once the cause is won would walk away leaving the marshal star to collect dust as the sun sets dramatically in front of them. the book convinced reagan that the u.s. and soviet union enjoyed conventional parody. there was not a need for the nuclear forces because the u.s. could defeat the soviets in a straight-up tank battle or a regular fight between their armed forces without having to

escalate to weapons of mass destruction. reagan expressed this to british prime minister margaret thatcher. she's surprise and a little upset. she's very concerned about this conventional imbalance. so she's talking to reagan telling them that they can't possibly eliminate the weapons because without that europe would become destabilized and there would be nothing to check a soviet advance. right season dismissive of the prime minister's claims. instead he rems that he read "red storm rising" so she can better understand what the new strategic situation looks like. so tom clancy would really fill two roles for the reagan administration. it communicated his policy to a broader audience and also provided an imaginative space for the presidents and others to war game and test their strategic principles. clancy was an unlikely person to

serve as the unofficial spokesman for the reagan administration. when working on the novel he wrote a friend that the odds of becomes the next forsythe are astronomical, incredible. he assured his friend would would happy settle with a book jacket with his name on it. clancy would defy the odds. uponis death he would leave behind an estate valued at $82 million. he garage it waited from loyola college after majoring in english and minored in physics. his coauthor notes he was nearly blind without his particularly thick glasses. he opted to work with his wife at a small insurance agency no maryland. a lifelong republican, he voted for reagan four out of the five times he could. the one time he could not was in

the 1984 primary. he lated explained this vote asking for god's forgiveness remarking that nobody is perfect. he strongly supported the politics of reagan. in march of 81 he wrote his congressman to request a signed photo of the president. broom field guarded the request. the white house responded positively and in july of that year mailed a signed photograph inscribed to clancy and his wife. he maintained a long lasting deep interest in the military in general, in the navy particularly. the location of the insurance company in maryland proved ad van taye jous. he counted a number of naval officers among his clients. he used this to build knowledge. and one officer in particular, lieutenant commander gregory young earned clancy's thanks. clancy also built expertise

throw playing a tack call miniature game harpoon. he noted in a letter that afterdy guesting the game it would be easy to explain the concepts in his book to anyone. although clancy long harbored a desire to write novels he didn't begin work in earnest until 1982. he planned "hunt for october" as a middle book along with patriot games. and he actually started working on the draft to patriot games in 1982 after finishing a 500-page draft for hunt for red object. he planned three other novels. he could finish this over 500-page draft for hunt for red october and these other novel concepts within a nine-month period would speak to his future prolific output. from '86 to '89 he has a best seller every year on the "the new york times" best seller list at the end of the year. but his first book was a rather

unusual one. the naval institute prez was the publisher of the hard cover. and hunt was the first original work of fiction that the press ever released. it's located on the naval academy. and prior to hunt the best known book from them was the blue jackets manual, a guide given to all recruits. clancy came to their attention by hand delivering a letter to the editor. and this was the first time clancy ever received compensation for anything that he had written. after writing this letter huh approached them with the draft of his manuscript. in order to offset the cost of pun lishing the book, the publishers chose to sell paper book rights. so putnam books paid $35,000 for

the rights. decent but not great for a first-time author. in july of 84, hunt for red october hits the book stores in washington, d.c. and new york signaling a career change. the book good generally favorable but not exceptional reviews. a review states that clancy rewards the reader with a thriller that's great fun. the longs times praised clancy's talent for making this approachable but lamenting the cardboard figures. reviews like this were common place. and hunt's sales did exceed publisher expect tags as the first run of 16,000 books sold out by november. the book did particularly well in washington, d.c. making the local best seller list there but it still seemed on track to maybe have a niche audience and certainly wasn't on the path to international or national superstardom.

this is going to change once reagan intervenes. the president once told a close adviser that he viewed books as friends. and receive a copy of hunt for red october from her as a christmas president in 1984. he reads a third of it on christmas day and finishes the rest of it very soon of that. his identification from the novel causes him to depart from his con seept that books were secret and personal treasures. it's strange that he would opt to talk to much about "hunt for red october." he would appraise the book as unput downable and the perfect yarn. his september endorsement endorsed the sales. the president's endorsement read to features about clancy in "time" magazine and gushed over the high level officials in washington that read and

endorsed the book. the article added a sense of real-life intrigue when the soviet union was borrowing several copies of the book. eventually there was enough buzz around to book to earn clancy an invitation to appear on "good morning america." he prepared to beat the man who defined his trajectory. so on march 13th of '85, clancy prepared to met the president. led into the oval office. he describes stepping over the threshold as an equivalent of dorothy stepping from the wrecked house into munchkin land. it was more than he expected. he goes on to note that the president could charm the fangs off of a cobra with a personality that envelopes you like a cloud. reagan asked about clancy's next book and inquired object who was

going to win. clancy responded the good guys. much to the approval of the president. all this took place in about five minutes. as reagan had to then go out to lunch with henry kissinger where the two would discuss the death of a soviet leader. he recalls if reagan could not charm gore ba chof, then ronnie could drive him into the pavement. reagan in the east garden and clancy in the roosevelt room. there clancy discussed the book with secretary of the labor who said his on reading the level was to ask, who the hell cleared this. a white house reporter recalls that lunch turned into a lively discussion between clancy and the navy secretary over the naval warfare and strategy. clancy would later note that the discussion covered sdi.

and the prospect of the use of nuclear weapons over which he and past and future security adviser disagreed about. the general advocated that you could win a nuclear war, something that clancy didn't buy into. other attendees were senator hatfield from oregon who asked clancy to sign his book, despite being in clancy's words a rather dovish fellow. as well as director of u.s. information agency and long-time friend of reagan charles wick. he would later use a letter as an excuse to get more funding out of the program. the audience of the lunch and the seriousness in which the participants call it is indicative of the growing regard of clancy. his only other visit to the white house came one week later,

a ser many any marking the arrival of the president of origin tina. he mingled with his fellow guests including arnold schwarzenegger and the clancies left the white house to prepare for dinner in the evening. following dinner clancy and his wife spoke briefly with nancy reagan who took her charmlessness from her husband and robert mcfarland who took his opportunity to express love for the hunt for red october but also told clancy he was nothing like jeffrey pelt in the book. clancy briefly mention that he floated an idea which he liked but clancy did not further elaborate on this. the president and the first lady danced, clancy and his wife made their exits. the night before they approached schwarzenegger in storing in an adaptation of hunt for red october. so clancy was clearly a hit in

official washington. newspaper articles, for people who read and enjoyed hunt for red october. at the state dinner, the photographer said everyone in the white house had read the book. secretary of defense was among the last in the administration to read it but quickly became its biggest public supporter. the editor of the times approached him in taking part in a series that would have prominent world leaders talk about a book they felt deserved more attention. kay lies passed him a copy of the hunt and included a note that she had it on good authority that the big boss across the river loved it. wineburger read the book. explaining that it offered many lessons for those who want to keep the pieces. he submitted this review to "the wall street journal" and would later go on to review clancy's

patriot games for the people saying it give considerable insights to the minds of terrorists and how the upholders ensure the freedom of all. they would make use of the reviews as blushes on the back. probably a fair impression to lend at this point. it's remarkable that you have a sitting secretary of defense taking time out to review works of fiction as opposed to going things like working on budgets or handling the many issues that kwom with running an organization as large as the department of defense. so a reason for the novel's immediate appeal to reagan is that his progress tag nis jack ryan has a resemiabblance to cor in rain. despite working for the cia, he apologizes for every deception,

such as when he's forced to wear a naval uniform. stating he does not like to pretend what he is not. it helps establish him as a character who puts what's right over what's necessary. ryan does not second accolades for his work. instead of successfully competing his mission, he declines an opportunity to go to the white house for official praise from the president. instead boards a plane to head home with a gift for his daughter in hand. so ryan asleep on the eastbound concord is the clancy equivalent of marshal caine and amy walking away from town with a discarded marshal star in the test. it also increased reagan's affection to the novel. he was capable of earning convictions through the gors of sheer rhetoric. during ryan's first encounter by the president he was blinded by a personal charm.

the sentiments serve as a predictor of the same force that clancy experienced upon walking into the white house and meeting reagan for the first time. even the soviets respect the president in hunt for october. the soviet ambassador serve as the president's primary foil and uses the president as abbas tard who is easy to estimate. he's a strange man, fully open, full of giel who is friendly but also ready to seize the advantage. the description echos future statements about reagan. in short, clancy president is a negotiator. this is an image he would confirm in his white house visit. for reagan the familiarity of the story and a positive portrayal of himself made the book he would view as a friend, one of those secret personal

treasures. however they did not necessarily explain why reagan chose to support the book so publicly. hunt's portrayal of the exceptional competence and honor of those who serve the country, in the clear moral distinction between the u.s. and soviet union drove. this. he captured two of the important policy decisions of the book. given the potential to reach such a broad audience. hunt for october afforded the unique opportunity for the administration to build upon the favorable trends of popular culture that they used to feed further efforts. in niz commencement address at west point he was talking about the wide spread lack of respect of the uniform and the u.s. mill tear and returned to those themes from his campaign. but just a few years later in his second term, months after meeting with clancy in may of 1985, he gives an address at the commencement of the united

states naval academy. which i'm loathed to acknowledge but someone have to by the subject of my dissertation. the president noted that the new spirit he previously described was still in the land. and that we had gotten to where there was a new appreciation for our men and women in mail tear service. the immediate post vietnam era. americans had faith in the military to make decisions in a morally difficult environment. this is because not only was the military meeting recruiting goal. he believed that the men and women into the army better embodied the values. the increase in quality was essential. the navy now possessed the most sophisticated equipment in the fleet. nowary powerful weapons used rare skill to use and the stronger moral compass to employ. linking the quality of personnel with the idea of equipment on the it canning edge of technology reflected the core of

how the reagan administration began. it was not the only organization for which reagan restored public moral. they investigated the central intelligence agency and uncovered significant abuses of the law by these agencies that led to a significant undermining of public opinion. the habitual excesses of the institutions and their less their stellar accomplishment left many americans in doubt. and just like the military, the intelligence community was suffering from negative portrayals. books like the born identity polarized the intelligence community. it's worth noting that wineburger viewed a third fiction book and that book was the borne supremacy.

however unlike the glowing praise he heaps on tom clancy in hunt for red october and patriot games, he is completely negative towards the borne spremcy talk about how it's a shame for them to decide all of the common themes of disgracing the military. and portraying the government doing things it's not supposed to do. it's ashame that he has to go down that path to sell a couple of books. but apparently the people like it so he understands how why it's written. but it's a negative review in large part because of the negative portrayal of the services. so reagan also sought to reverse this trend. he spoke outside the cia head kwaur erss in june of 1982 days 0 such abuses were past and he had the full confidence of the agency to perform its pucks lawfully, constitutionally. he told the cia employees that

it was their intellect and integrity and their wit and intuition. he expressed similar sentiments during closed door remarks. expressed his own gratitude for their service. clancy's characters fit perfectly into this new narrative self sacrifice that reagan is attempting to establish. the americans in hunt for october share above average intel yes. jack ryan sees his service in the marine corps cut short by a helicopter crash. after four years as a stockbroker, ryan became bored with making money. ryan was also a successful historian with push lished books on national history.

clancy's hero is also a strong family man enjoying a strong marriage to an intelligent surgeon, an adoring young daughter and a toddler. quality life that reagan would point to for american to follow. his rir chew goes without question and he rarely confesses his cia affiliation to anyone. rather than to risk deception. he also harbored remarkably few career and seeks to reck recognition for his work. he's taller than average but a bit out of shape. been knighted by the queen of england and rooip is at ease speaking to british lords and senior advisers. only the president is able to overwhelm him. jack ryan is an amag ga mags of

all of the traits that someone serving their country should embo embody. his integrity would be enough by itself to draw reagan's fondness. things like high noon and marshal kaib. all of these things really enfluns the way reagan is viewing the world. but ryan is not the only character to show these traits. the u.s. naval officers are equal. clancy describes josh ya painter, the commander of the u.s. kennedy as a gifted tactician and a man of integrity. so again you're seeing the blending of both, you know, remarkable professional competence with high moral charact character. admiral james greer is able to remain in the navy past his retirement age. clancy compares his intellect to the father of the nuclear

submarine fleet but notes that greer was a far easier man to work for. the commander successfully finds october as one of the youngest submarine commanders. equally important to the portrayal of clancy and the officers is the portrayal of ronald jones. the only enlisted service member to receive attention in the book. he reflects the high quality recruit that reagan referred to and that wineburger identifies in his memoirs. jones dropped out of the california institute of technology due to a prank gone wrong and joined the navy. he has an iq of 198, listens to classical music in his spare time. extremely competent on on his equipment, jones is capable of making important decisions and plays a decisive role.

clancy drives home his points about the squault enlisted in the american military by having them marvell on jones's competence. every time he talk to a soviet they're shocked that an american enlisted soldier can make decisions, knows his equipment and understands the technical specifications. the highlight the situation of the american system of trusting our privates and sergeants with the soviets only trusting the officers. the fbi also receives positive attention in hunt for red october as they expose a mole on the staff of senator donlaldson. part of the apparatus that's in place to supervise. notes that think thaef on on to the chief of staff for some time. they negotiate with donaldson promising not to prosecute his aid if the senator agrees to

resign later on. they're able to turn an important soviet asset but also strike a blow against the unfair and perhaps overzealous monitoring and oversight that's established in the bake of the church committee. the characters in hunt are unapologetically vi chews of service. they're better suited for a fable than a thriller with potentials of realism. and the similar policic design does not escape the notice of book reviewers. jack ryan is too good to be true. another viewer notes that the only serve virtue that's not described about ryan is how good he is in bed. americans in the book with uniformly intelligent capable and disciplined. he gives the book a positive review calling the book great fun. the los angeles times noted that the work never quite sticks. however reagan's love of the book rested on the simplicity of

design. historian christina kline notes -- simplified the cold war into themes that were acceptable narrative of reagan's policy that was ready made for consumption. this is similar to the role that reagan experienced with james mitchner in the 1980s. mit mitchner served as the paraphraser for the cold war policy. he filed stories from the korean war, talking about the virtue and heroism of the service, trying to bolster support for a war as it starts to decline in america. clancy fills the same role as paraphraser for reagan in the 1980s. the novelist also happened reagan envision the present and near future state of the

military, reassuring his initiatives continued to move the u.s. closer to eliminating the dangerous gap between it and the soviet union. clancy's next novel "red storm rising" would help convince the president that if this gap existed at all, it was in the favor of the united states. so "red storm rising" is about a notional third war begun by the soviets, of course, because the u.s. would never start world war iii. as clancy promised during his visit to the oval office, the good guys win. that by itself is not why the book appeals so much to reagan. the appeal to "red storm rising" comes from the fact that its four major plot lines matched reagan's vision of what it would look like, both in the conduct and the results. the plot follows the war in central europe, the convoy operation in north atlantic and the cove yet conquest of iceland and the political deliberations in moscow. the soviets are tremendously successful, pushing into west germany and seizing iceland in a

surprise amphibious assault. the narrative focuses on trying to get more resources to europe. eventually, nato is able to establish a bit of a stalemate in west germany, buying enough time for re-enforcements to arrive from the united states. the broad scope of the book and the use of multiple protagonist allowed clancy and his co-author an idea of what war would look like. "red storm rising" is a world war iii scenario in which the united states wins but without engaging in a nuclear exchange with the soviet union. nuclear weapons are not entirely absent. as the book approaches its climax and it becomes clear to the soviets, hard liners attempt to bring about the use of nuclear weapons. this ultimately leads to a coup as the moderates in the country refuse and take control of the government, ultimately ending the war. clancy and bond construct the

narrative this way intentionally, in order to demonstrate only the truly mad would advocate nuclear weapons. earlier in the book, a member of the poll will you please bureau said the money was spent on holes that could kill the west ten times over. he views the secretary general as crazy and mad for the possibility of using tactical nuclear strikes. even though the weapons in europe were ostensibly there to mitigate the advantage in conventional forces. this is because the technical advantage that they enjoyed serves the same purpose. allowing for a nonnuclear balancing of forces. the abhor resistance of nuclear weapons is a mirror to reagan's own view of the weapons. reagan reacted strongly to the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki. he supported the immediate abbo

ligs of the weapons. at one point, he planned to read the anti-nuclear poem set your clock to u 235 at a public rally until the r warner brothers intervened and said if you like your contract you're not going to read this poem. reagan did like his contract so he opted not to read the poem. as he became more politically active, he maintained his criticism of neuroleer policy. the schad lshd doe campaign in 1968, he compared nuclear destruction to two werners in a saloon pointing their guns at them forever. it would force accommodations to a toxic geopolitical standoff. reagan did not moderate this after assuming the presidency. speaking with representatives of the vatican, he referred to the weapons as the last epidemic of mankind.

talking to the u.s. troops in camp liberty in 1983, he argued that nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. and then promised to continue to pursue one of the most extensive arms control programs in history. he made a tv movie about the effect on nuclear war on a small kansas town. he strengthened his dissolve to see there was never nuclear war. he was unwilling to accept the only way to be safe from attack was to be vulnerable to it led him to make a strategic defense initiative a scepter piece of his security policy. sharing the technological break throughs of the soviets harkens back to the internationalization of atomic energy and speaks to his universal disdain of nuclear weapons. so not fit for either the u.s. or the soviet union or any of the countries that had them at the time. for many, reagan's defense policy seems to directly contradict any notion that he sought to eliminate nuclear weapons. strategics fors see a

significant increase in funding. theed a menstruation lost a five-point program to design a new peacekeeper, to relaunch the b-1 program, to modernize existing bomber force and prove the trinet mistle launched by submarines and a more robust commands and control system. he also endorsed a program to produce 17,000 nuclear warheads by 1987, a significant increase over the plans of the carter administration. the result of this program was by 1985, u.s. nuclear forces were more lethal and technically advanced than any point in american history. it's a strong contrast to the focus on arms control and arms reduction in his second. creating a tantalizing narrative of reagan's sudden reversal that tends to dominate the issue. however, the shift in tone is a bitless stark when viewed through the context of reagan's vision of how to achieve peace. reagan viewed military strength as essential to establishing peace.

and identified establishing a sound east-west military balance has absolutely essential to peace as well. when he asouped office, they perceived a stark gap between the capabilities of the united states and the soviet union which enabled the soviets to pursue aggressive policies. the overwhelming growth of soviet conventional forces capabilities as givins, indicative of a critical imbalance in strength. reagan blamed a taunt for the emergence of this disparity and felt continuation of the policy would only weaken the u.s. and ensure soviet gains. in one 1978 radio address, he says the taunt is what a farmer has with his turkey before thanksgiving. the only way with peace was achievable would be to demonstrate an equal resolve in strength. this necessitated parity of capabilities before entering a serious negotiation. this is embodied by reagan's slogans, build up to build down. and peace through strength. we wanted to make sure there was

any significant reductions in arms. reagan would lament that many in the pentagon still claimed a nuclear war was winnable. following the near break through at v the chiefs were unanimous in their view that the plan was inadequate and bringing it up to bar would require an investment of tens of billions of dollars over a peer of at least a decade. the army chief of staff expressed recognition on the part of allies to take part. again, doubts that they would be able to put up either the manpower or the budget to bring defense forces to where they need to be. john poindexter had reversed his earlier support for the reagan proposal to eliminate them

shortly after returning. he wrote to reagan that it was similar to the situation faced in the 1950s, leaving only a chance of stopping a conventional assault, ratheren than the strong deter resistance that the current arsenal represented. former president richard nixon and henry kissinger wrote an op-ed for the national review arguing the deal would reopen the gap in deterrence. due to the inability of the u.s. to provide zpisht conventional power to match that of the soviets. the national security adviser to president ford also expressed his deep rez ver sags saying it might lead to absolute disaster. and not all opposition came from the right. on the same issue, the chairman of the house arms service exit tee who would later be the secretary of defense under bill clinton argued it would take another ten divisions to make the plan feasible. opposition beyond the united states as nato allies expressed

general concern about what a nonnuclear united states could mean for their security. the u.s. information director immediately following the conference, noting that european stations were amazed at the sweeping nature of the proposals and that europe feared the united states might be strategically decoupled from europe as a result. it brought swift and universal criticism. reagan anticipated this criticism, though. he pleaded with gorbachev to relent on sdi. he noted that the most outspoken criticism of the soviet union over the years, so-called white ring and esteemed journalist would act strongly against the frame work as the response shows, he was correct in that thinking. reagan noted his critics were kicking his brains out. a problem that gorbachev did not have since he threw all his critics in jail. gorbachev knew if reagan believed that, his recent

articles about him and refused to relent on the issue of strategic defense. reagan's appeal fell on deaf ears. it does demonstrate how well he grasped the proposals. despite the outcry and criticism from his right, reagan was willing to move toward and engage in a tough political battle to ratify the agreements because he viewed the strategic situation differently than his critics did. he felt by the fall of 1986, the conventional forces of the u.s. and its allies were more than a match for the soviet counterparts making them a destabilizing force as opposed to the stabilizing force his critics maintained they were. reagan said as much to nixon in a 1987 meeting in the white house, arguing the u.s. and nato together had an enormous superiority over the soviet union. it came from the fact that both the combined gross domestic product and the combined population of the west were greater than the soviets and the u.s. could count on its ally, as opposed to the uncertain allegiances of the warsaw pact.

reagan had competence in the conventional capacities of both the united states and its allies was the work of his first term. by december 1985, a review began by lauding the administration's record over the previous five years as one of progress and accomplishment. it went on to argue that the refurbishment of the u.s. alliances prevented soviets aggression despite moscow's sabre rattling and truculence. the document also shows improvements in the air defenses. critically, the document also engage the with a question of how to maintain u.s. ability to deter attacks, despite the movements towards lower level of nuclear forces. in this area, the nsc determined the explicit objective to be to rely on an increasing contribution to primary nuclear systems. developing the nonnuclear systems needed to win the u.s. from nuclear deterrence was the first term of reagan's

presidency. it began 34 new combat ships, acquired new abrams tanks and expanded supports for fighting vehicles, resulting in the bradley fighting vehicle and the marines armed vehicle. s bically all the technology we're still using today. additionally, they sought for air capabilities, the blackhawk support helicopter and the f-117 stealth fighter. other investments meant the u.s. military in 1986 was a more lethal and precise force than when reagan assumed the office. all the unified and specified commanders in chief say that by every measure of common sense, conventional forces were more ready for combat than they were in 1980. assessment by major military commanders left reagan with a strong sense that the u.s. military was now strong enough to forego nuclear weapons. "red storm rising" enforced immediately before going to rake vich.

>> the technology plays a major part in the narrative. it established near complete control of the skies in the war. despite the significance difference in the size. a reinforced company of the dismounted infantry. the battle goes poorly for the soviets to say the least in the book. the integration of the tanks and war hogs cost the soviets a third of their strength. it makes it clear this is not an atypical battle. the implication is the better

weapons of the u.s. and its allies allowed them to destroy soviet unions at a ratio that approached 10 to 1. the allied forces are also able to synchronize their activities in a superior way thanks to the early warning control system platform. the result of this advantage, nato makes essential use of its forces. which is sensual when you're outnumbered. friendly aircraft strike exactly when the soviet mass and one aircraft attacks a full battlefield of russian artill y artillery. clancy and bond incorporate this precise target into "red storm rising" intentionally. throughout the book, soviet leaders go between awe and frustration about the capability of nato forces, recognizing the

advanced technology is playing a desies siesive role in the conflict. "red storm rising" came out at a perfect time. the novel effectively served as a personal war game for the president. on the surface, the use of this novel seems ludicrous. why would you use a work of fiction to inform your strategic vision? indeed, many close to reagan expressed shock and were secretly appalled by it. margaret thatcher, for example, had great difficulty responding to reagan's recommendation that she add the book to her reading list. however, the realism of the novels makes their use in this manner perhaps a bit more feasible. clancy's research into technical specifications lent his books a great deal of authority. reagan noted that accuracy in his initial white house 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 time to researching and fact checking technical details. as part of the details for "red storm rising" he travelled to vienna, virginia, to talk politics with a man who defected to the u.s. while serving as u.n. secretary general. he calls the book pure dynamite for the way it describes the soviet system. he also went to norfolk to discuss joint operations with nato personnel there, providing more authenticity to the way they interacted in the novel. clancy received a ride on a submarine, though i must emphasize here being ?ñá0 army officer, clancy would later note his favorite thing was riding in the m-1 tank which he described as a 72 ton corvette. but all of this contributes to the realism of the language used by soldiers and the way the novel depicts the weapon systems. while the interviews and visits

contributed greatly, another important contributor was actual war gaming. the novel was rooted on n a war game conducted by the center for naval analysis, federally funded research center tied to the navy. larry bond was working on similar projects. he mentioned this to clancy who then proposed the two write a book about it. something that bond was more than happy to do after the success of "hunt for red october." it transformed these war games into aairetive everyone could digest. although the book far exceeds the war game in scope, the scenario described brought the supply issue and the navy to the war narrative. it's therefore a form of indirect consumption of war simulations. however, it provided a more recognizable and digestible format for the president. the war game was not the only one to have influence on the book. larry bond disliked the initial navy war game because it was

classified, which made it very difficult to use. the rules were very accurate. he invented his own. designed a game called harpoon he would market through dungeons and dragons. clancy bought a copy of this and took the time to write a letter to bond which starts their correspondence and friendship. it bham a major method for validating scenarios used in "red storm rising." they fookt check the dance of the vampires in which soviet bombers are able to hea havavil damage an aircraft carrier. the purpose of war gaming is not to identify what will happen, but rather what could. allowing for the games to serve as important analytical tools for military and civilian planners. a long-time cna war gamer who is considered the peyton manning of war gaming says war games can have an emotional impact more than a simple discussion or

memorandum on the plan. individual decisions determine success or failure, forcing a lot more personal investment into the scenario. the resulting lessons then last longer because of the emotional tie. it's something a novel can do as well, because it's designed to cause emotional ties with this protagonist. and have you invest nor fully in the narrative. if well done, it forces the reader to emphasize with what's going on and remember the effectiveness of technology more than a newspaper article or a quick conversation with a friend would. so throughout his career, reagan makes use ofairetives to communicate with large populations. he did this as a sportscaster, calling chicago cubs games for w.h.o. des moines, as a movie star in hollywood, and throughout his political career. nsc member and speech writer highlights how reagan sought to communicate what he viewed as the essential essence of his message, regardless of the medi medium. if the story was true or false,

it didn't matter nearly as much as the message itself. he was aed mo earn-day aesop telling parables and fables. similarly in his biography, it was argued every story, whether true or not, had a distinct purpose. he recognized the power of narrative to forge strong, emotional connections. once reagan found the right story, he would keep telling it until he found a better one, which often exasperated those around him with his repettiveness. reagan found such a story in the works of tom clancy. and the books resonated with him in a real enough way to allow him to cast aside his normal reluctance to talk about books. reagan exploited clancy's popular fiction to promote a cult of national security. however, this implies a much more sinister motivation than reality suggests. reagan bore an eerily

resemblance to his internal assessments and also recognize them as a way to discuss these ideals with the american people. the overall impact of the books is debatable. the case study of reagan and clancy show the development and communication political ideals is not just limited to official forms. instead, policy comes from complex and difficult to define interactions between culture, individual experience, the public, and the policymakers themselves. reagan's view of clancy provides one example how a politician can operate within his environments to provide policy success. thank you and i'll take questions. >> i'm going to remind you hen you ask a question, please stand up. that's so facial recognition software will be better for purposes later, thank you.

>> how much do you think reagan used these popular fictionai narratives to tell stories to convince people. and how much do you think he got his views from reading popular fiction? it seems like reagan was an effective leader in so many ways but some ways he comes across as intellectual shallow. so it always confused me. >> reagan is constantly using fiction to connect with the american people. we see this early in his administration. he's awarding the medal of honor to -- the name is escaping me right now. but he's awarding a medal of honor and he's talking in his speech about mitchner's novel, which is also a movie that stars william holden who was the best

man at reagan's wedding with nancy reagan. but he quotes the part of the novel where he's talking about the end this carrier commander is looking at the fighters going off over the korean peninsula and asking hichlmself, where do get such moneen? we get them where we always got them, in our cities, our towns, our farms. again, highlighting this quality of american service. so throughout his presidency, he's really using fiction to communicate these ideas. the west point address, he references the works of james warner bella who he calls the american kipling. he prioritizes fiction over nonfiction in strange ways. i think he uses fiction as a personal war game. a space where he can imagine the near future. it equates to how he's working through the fog of war. he constantly talks about the fog of war and you need to make

up these amorphous shapes in the fog. a more standard thinker, he's probably going to try to compare them to what he knows. whereas, reagan is going to imagine what they could be. so because he's trying to imagine what the future could be and is more kind of creative approach, he has very different policy as a result. >> is there any record of how clancy's books were received and interpreted back in the soviet union? >> publicly, they weren't announced. they weren't very popular there. they're pretty consistently viewed negatively as you would imagine, n they have very negative reviews of the clancy novels. i haven't seen anything that indicates anything more official

internally. there's a gift of "hunt for red october" at a human rights convention in vienna. and the guy kind of laughs and says now i'm going to be on the list, thanks a lot for giving this to me. but beyond that, there's not much i've been able to find, unfortunately. >> thank you very much. a person with a conservative reputation, one of reagan's biographers was a teacher of mine at city university graduate school. sorry, i can't think of his name. but when he told me, one of the things that most impressed him about reagan was his mutually assured destruction -- you know, the nuclear contest. why -- you know, i read the newspapers and stuff, somehow this seems inconsistent with reagan's reputation. how did the media cover this? and why was that sort of missed by so many of us? >> so a lot of it goes to the rhetoric he's employing. you see in his first term that

he's using very harsh rhetoric towards the soviet union, something that the soviet ambassador is going to call an uncompromising ideological offensive. but in order to negotiate from the soviets, you have to be on even terms with them. and he felt that under the carter presidency and under the ford presidency, the u.s. had fallen behind, both in conventional, but also in nuclear forces. so he's inheriting a force that he thinks the bombers aren't effective, the subs aren't effective and the missiles aren't going to be effective. and so in order to effectively reduce arms, you have to build up the soviet's respect and fear, so they're going to want to be as equally motivated in order to rice this. so you do see a shift in tone in the second administration. not necessarily because he has a change in heart, but because he thinks the u.s. has achieved what it's going to achieve. >> while this was going on, i was a student in germany and

what i remember very clearly was there was tremendous resistance during the administration while the spd was in power to the stationing of the missiles. where does that fit into this, clancy's fission and everything. how was that a part of these novels? is there anything that he had to say about that that influenced reagan? >> there's very little mention of protest of the u.s. policies in the novels. the global zero movement isn't acknowledged there. he says their goal is skmig he supports, the global zero. but it's something he's not ready for yet, he doesn't see we have the parity to convince the soviets to rid of theirs first or at the same time. while it's a major influence, it doesn't really replicate much within clancy's novels.

>> this issue you raise about him mistaking hollywood themes with reality, supposedly he alleged that he had filmed the liberation of auschwitz and told that he had footage of the liberation of auschwitz. when he raised the question of "high noon" it's amusing that carl foreman was attacked and blacklisted, the author of the screenplay, and john wayne refused to take the role in the movie because he realized that "high noon" was an attack on the mccarthy period. it's sort of interesting how reagan confuses this kind of hollywood with politics. i have a different remembrance of that early period of reagan. i remember reagan '81, '82, '83, people were feeling that we were moving to an unrestricted first strike capability, that have

there were representatives of the reagan administration who openly talked about the fact that we could win a nuclear war, regardless of what you would say about his personal feelings and that this was something that really scared people and led to the largest demonstration against nuclear weapons in american history in this city at that period of time. so i was wondering, you know, in a general sense, how do you look at popular culture in general? you know, in terms of shaping public opinion. looking back at our culture. is norman maylor writing "naked in the dead" where he wants to be a novelist of the war? it's certainly a different image of war than clancy is. and i wonder how you see that shaping popular consciousness in general, these kind of waves that we have in our society. because reagan's -- you know, most of us, i would say have dubious feelings about reagan. and i wonder if alzheimer's was setting in when he would make these kind of silly comments. the great communicator was not

at auschwitz and did not film it. >> yeah. and things like joking about the bombing beginning in a half-hour in front of a mike contributed to this image. it was portrayed as something zrus and raising fears of starting world war iii firsthand. as far as the question looking at how to deal with pop culture, i think it touches on historical memory in a lot of sense, too. the way we talk about and look particularly at conflict in the war, so you mentioned norman maylor and world war ii and the way the narratives change over time. you can look at the memories of the vietnam war. it was a battleground in this time period. so you have movies like "rambo first blood" which are kind of raising the narrative that the service members that people fighting in vietnam were portrayed by the politicians. they weren't allowed to win the war. but at the same time, you had movies like "platoon" and "full

metal jacket" which was a different view of what the conflict was. public memory is a battlefield as far as how it remembers conflict and what did we take from that, right? so if we're talking the "apocalypse now" version of the vietnam war, we're not likely to do things to intervene. if we get something like the "rambo" movies, we're more likely to do things aggressively. it's speaking to kind of the willingness of the public to accept these things and discussing how they're talking about it. certainly shaping it. it's difficult to trace at some times, though. you're right. >> i want to extend your idea about clancy showing the u.s. nil tear technology in the best light. he's also showing soviet military technology in the best light. in "hunt for red october" he takes the caterpillar drive that's able to move silently through the ocean. sonar can't detect it.

again you have jones again you talked about, this great sonar operator. then in "red storm rising" they pull off these brilliant actions where they sneak into iceland and take it over through a ruse, and then are able to knock out an american err craft carrier. and i think again is this -- you know, the soviets are -- he's giving us the soviets are a ten-foot tall story when, of course, now we know that their military was -- and they knew their military was much less capable, which is why they planned on nuking us at the beginning of any invasion of western europe. and i just wonder again, obviously reagan didn't know that at the time. it's not just conventional parity. we had an overwhelmingly conventional superiority and would have won any conventional conflict between us and the soviets. >> i think that's a really good point. technology is portrayed very

positively. you mentioned the caterpillar drive and success of soviet bombers. in clancy's third book, the soviets are ahead of united states in strategic defense. they're more capable than we are there. and that serves a purpose for clancy, but also for reagan. this fear that the soviets are going to keep passing us. they're going to be ahead of us and we need the best weapon, we need the best systems in order to take care of this manpower. if we fall behind, it's incredibly dangerous. we talk about hunt for red october" they could sit off the coast of new york and we would never know. it drives the sense that we need to keep pouring money into these programs. you get to the late 1980s, some of the national defense operations and hearings in congress, one of the senators is asking the navy's chief of submarine warfare, hey, clancy wrote this article that is critical of british sub

mariners, what do you think of this article? the admiral knew what it was immediately and said thank you, senator, for allowing me to address this issue. but what follows is this really delicate dance. he doesn't want to insult our allies and their quality of their sub mariners. but he also doesn't want to piss off clancy. he prefaces everything with i love tom clancy. but i differ from him here. but clancy is great for the navy. it goes to the sense that they know these books are good for driving up funding, the fetishization of technology is helping to drive interest in these new systems, funding them and employing them ultimately. >> how, how you doing? i enjoyed your rapid fire delivery. it's really nice. there's a film in popular culture that reagan did actually endorse in the '80s.

it was a low-budget movie called "if all the guys in the world" and it was made in the early '80s and it's about a cia operation that releases all these patriotic schizophrenics and lunatics at a mental hospital and puts them on the frontlines. and being on the frontlines, the shock of being on the frontlines makes them become well. and he personally endorsed this film as a progressive mental health issue. he totally endorsed it. are you aware of this film? >> i haven't heard of it. i have to look it up now. >> it's really rarely seen. it's supposed to be really quite good. thank you very much. >> it's quite interesting. >> thank you.

sir, excellent talk, captain. it showed a lot of investigation. i was in camp kakoosh in 2006 a little before you got there and i was working on boomerang and warlock duke, putting them on to humvees and m-raps. not putting them on to abrams, m-1s. now i see you're understanding my question. also, the heroes that i like are have been, hoffman, okay? my question to you is clancy and reagan had a specific view and that went into the training of the military. i would say that when you went in 2 007, you weren't trained very well for the war you got.

they did not have a small war on a -- or a regular warfare concept. and that caused our -- i think that caused -- that reagan/clancy viewpoint caused our country to be unprepared for 2005 when we needed not m-1s, not lavs. we needed m-raps. we needed m-4s, not m-16s. we needed those types of weapons for regular warfare. what do you say about that? >> you're right. a lot of what reagan and clancy are doing is laying the ground work for the modern force. it's designed in part to respond to what the expectation of fighting world war iii with the

russians would be. so following that, there was little desire, i think, to really study some of the lessons from vietnam. we weren't necessarily prepared to do this. i think that's a fair criticism. >> okay. i have one question. i'm drawing a blank now. i swear to god. oh, yes. i remember now. you talked about president reagan not revealing or reticent about other books that he read. but did historians find out what other books he read? and if so, what were some of the books he read other than tom clancy. >> so this has been a project of mine to try to put together, and something that's been rather difficult to hunt down.

so we know that clancy likes wernstern earns, unsurprisingly. he also likes science fiction quite a bit. so one of the books he most fondly remembers reading when he was a young man is the john carter series. so he likes those books. a book called "that printer of udels" which is a terrible book. it's a book he credits with recon fig rating his religious spirits. i haven't been able to prove this yet, but i'm confident he read "starland troopers" and it actually contributes to reagan's speech that introduces sdi. it's likely that he read "the third world war" by sir john hackett, kind of a precursor to clancy in a lot of ways. very similar to "red storm risi rising" a world war ii scenario. it's a best seller, but doesn't have the lasting success as clancy's work. he was also known to like

thrillers. air force one being taken over and that kind of stuff. in general, werner, science fibs, and thrillers are what he would go for. >> thank you. can you clarify your dependent and independent voluntaariables? i worked at the joint staff, tom secret clearance. you seem to imply that the independent variable was clancy's work influenced reagan and decided the outcome. i would kind of feel that it was more like talking about the danger of nuclear war and that the real independent variables were the pope and gorbachev's belief that it was time to end the cold war.

>> i'm not sure i would term them independent and dependent variables. the pope is playing a role, clancy's past is playing a role. the nuclear zero movement is playing a role. also of these things combining to a very chaotic environment. and so it would be wrong to say that "red storm rising" is why reagan does reykjavik. >> the question of simplistic narrative that he put out, it's obviously not genius, but it's necessary. and if you want to look at somebody who's copied it to the nth degree, that's putin. he's copied reagan's methodology and it's working if for their global view. he's done an excellent job of convincing his people that he

should be where he is. and what they're doing is what's correct. so you can mock reagan in his clancy cowboy narrative, but he's actually been copied. we have nothing comparable to what putin is doing, and we have nothing comparable to what reagan is doing. it's obviously a far more complex thing he was doing, other than going with a clancy model. you need that kind of current within the public's mind in order to do what you need to do, which is ultimately outspend them. >> i didn't mean to mock. i think it's showing a level of savvy of reagan to recognize the importance of pop culture and media portrayals. you're right. it's showing a political acumen >> hi. my name is garth.

i heard you talk about power of narrative and also i want to comment, as a graduate of nyu in journalism grad studies, i had the opportunity to interview 500 cops and federal people also. and one term i know is very a pra po is that fact is stranger than fiction. crime stories are more logical than real life. and how would -- what am i trying to say? going on another tangent in a contra positive, did ronald reagan ever go view things like a lawyer in the viewpoint of the european side or the russian side, tinker tale soldier spy?

>> so yes. i think reagan was actually a fan of la carr. as he's researching his speech, his speech writers reach out to la carr. reagan is read and aware of his stuff. he doesn't like it as much because lacare has a bit more depressing narrative. the spy who came in from the cold is not a happy story. "tanker, taylor, soldier spy" is not a happy story. >> the reality is the movies don't -- the movies don't -- at least the police department would say the cia stories are more complex than the movies can ever portray. the best movie "saving private

ryan" can never, ever depict what real war is all about, but it gives some semblance to what reality is. >> that's the challenge of any creator is to try to get as much of reality, or as much truth in the work as they can. it's always going to be from a certain perspective, too. so you have people go through and talk about war movies. go through a war and they'll view it very different ways. it's going to be hard to get a fully accurate one. but for reagan's purposes, he tends to like happy stories. if a story was morally gray, or it end ed poorly, he wasn't goig to talk about it as much as a story that ends well. >> hi. thanks, very interesting comment on culture and military. i'm interested specifically in the area of defense technology as you were talking about.

the whole focus on harpoon, the war games, that kind of thing. and at the time, which is interesting as well, because it was the start of the internet and the internet's use and that kind of thing. or it would come a couple of years later. my question is, did he foresee the transition from war games to actually what we're doing currently beyond the aircraft system and the drone, or were we moving towards that at the time? and also -- i know you come from the army side and so on. but the air force, when they're training folks who are, you know, on aircraft systems operators, do they transition from a car game to technological use of the drone system, which is, in fact, reality fact not being stranger than fiction. >> the development of drones was begun in this time period.

i'm not sure they envisioned it being quite the scale as it is now. as for the question at the air force, i don't know in all honesty. >> you see the goal was to outspend them. the national security adviser a couple of years ago was caught on video saying we baited the russians into afghanistan. and later on he denied that. he said he misspoke. but that indicates that may have been a strategic plan to get russia into afghanistan to basically atrit their forces and use their forces and economic power there anticipate waste it. to what extent was reagan's strategy -- i see it as an economic plan not to outspend them, but basically to either

beans or bullets is what you're going to produce. and basically to wreak havoc with the russian economy. and i think that that's what he was trying to do. i'm just curious if you've come up with any information that supports that theory. >> they're pretty explicit about that in nsd 32. talking about the need to make the soviets realize the cost of their operations wasc/sq high. so reagan enters in kind of with the -- you see an early strategy talking about how much do the soviets spend of their gdp on the military budget. the estimates were 10%, 15%. reagan didn't buy into that. he felt everything the soviet did, when they built roads, it was to support tanks. nsd 32 is very much about to convince the soviets the cost of the game is too high. beans versus bullets, as you say. the idea is to make them pull back as a result. so i think that's a fair characterization, yes.

>> switching the topic back to clancy for a minute. i heard a story after hunt came out, he was visited by somebody in naval intelligence who wanted to know how he got his information. is there any truth to that? >> so prior to the book being released, the navy forces sent it out to a couple of readers in the navy, involved in submarine, asked them to see if there was any classified information. one reader came back and said it's fine, there's no problem. another one said you can't possibly publish this. it's giving everything away. so clancy goes to -- he was a commander in the navy. he sits there and is talking with them and going through exactly where he's finding everything an open source. things like janes defense guide to the point where he's satisfied with it. the secretary's response was who the hell cleared this? but i think he was told it wasn't classified. throughout his career, nancy

denied having access to classified material. >> i have read "red october" and "red storm rising" and they were very good. i di didn't read a number of hi books for several years and i picked one up which was about an attack submarine. and the missions that it went on. and it was god awful. i mean, it was obvious somebody had sat down with harpoon and just played ten scenarios one after the other. none of the american equipment ever fails. none of the soviet equipment ever works right. they also manage to get away. i was just wondering, i find most of his late stuff unreadable. i don't know how much of that he actually wrote. or whether he just did a trump where he stuck his name on it. >> it depends on which series you're talking about. you have the core jack ryan series which is still being written obviously with someone

else. but really through the mid 2000s, clancy is certainly the primary author on that. probably when he starts to get into the jack ryan junior books. there are a series of spinoffs. you have tom clancy's op centers, power plays, net center. and all of these books are basically that. they're franchises. it has his name stuck on the cover and somebody else writes it. it's a way for the other author to get more sales and clancy is able to make money off of licensing his name. >> captain, i have one question. when everyone attends a talk about ronald reagan, there is always a lot of laughter about ronald reagan and a desire to criticize him and make him a fool. in fact, the great central achievement of his administration in foreign policy was to lay the foundation for the destruction of the soviet union and of communism in europe. and i for one in all of history

can't think of another leader who has done so much at the cost why are people unwilling to accept that central truth and laugh uproarously at all his minor nonsense. is that they are maybe detached from reality? so there's a -- >> it's hotly debated as far as the store og fi at the end of the cold war. but you hit on one of the common attacks on ronald reagan, that he's not in charge of his administration. he's just an act kor. he's not someone to be taken seriously. >> a bad actor. >> he doesn't have a very stellar career in a lot of cases. his possible breakout role was "king's row." that was towards the tail end of his career, certainly.

so he's just an actor. he's not known as a heavyweight. so after he's elected you have the crisis over the university of california regents which is deemed as an anti-intellectual move. even though reagan had very little to do with that firing but it paints him as not serious and anti-intellectual. that's going to follow him throughout his career. and his leadership style, too, is one that's typically of one where he seems disengaged at times. and people will come to him and will present very different policy options and both could leave thinking he agreed with theirs. the inability to give people bad news. trying to avoid crisis and avoid internal drama and conflict tended to create someone who was disengaged and not serious as well. that narrative persisted from the earliest days of his political career. >> thank you for the

presentation. you mentioned john hackett's book on the third world war. there were other world war iii fiction genres going on at the time. harry coyle and team yankee started. maybe you would go back and mention some of the other books going on at this time. and you did a nice job of cre t crediting larry bond. he's still around, unlike clancy, and the role the harpoon game played. i was wondering if you had any contact with lar i are doing your research. >> larry was fantastic. i can't -- he's a wonderful guy. i had the privilege of going out to northern virginia, interviewing him and his current co-author and another guy who's credited of working on harpoon over a couple of days. i also got to play chris in harpoon. unsurprisingly, he destroyed me. i don't even think i sank one of his ships and all of mine were gone within two terms. -- turns. he's a wonderful guy and i'm grateful for everything he's given me on this project.

>> sometimes novels turn out not that -- they don't seem to be that important and then they turn out to be very prescient. and two of them, 110 years ago, one was "the war in the air" by h.g. wells and right about the same time he came out with "the world set free." "the war in the air" was the use of seb lynns by the germans against new york city. basically nobody paid attention to it. but luckily, as far as the world set free, leo zolar read it between wars and luckily for us he decided to write to einstein. and einstein wrote to roosevelt about the possibility of the use of atomic bomb. so sometimes these things turn out to be pretty important. >> yeah, i completely agree. i think that the importance of pop culture is fairly understated in the study of history. it's really fun for me to study, but i think it's somewhat

valuable. >> you asked about the reagan defense build-up. did it increase the chance of a nuclear war by threatening the soviet union? especially that irresponsible stupid remark reagan made about the soviet union being destroyed in five minutes? >> yeah. the comment about the bombing beginning in 30 minutes, and you're right. the tensions hit their peak in 1983. what you end up is during nato exercises, there's a possibility of nuclear war there because tensions are so high. and you have a soviet officer system showing that nato just launched nuclear missiles, right? and he ultimately decides that the system is broken, it's not reporting accurately. and refuses to put no, sirs up higher. but if he had sent the report up, it's possible. it goes to what the ambassador calls the uncompromising

ideological defenses of reagan. at westminster, he talks about relegating them to the dust bin of history. this is aggressive language. so he's certainly worried about it. some of the old hard liners are in charge. yes, it does heighten tensions and the possibility of war in the early 1980s. >> i read quite a bit about the breaking of german and japanese codes in world war ii, but i never came across information if the soviet military code was broken during world war ii. >> i don't know. >> talk to me after. >> there's a very interesting book called "youth heroism and war propaganda" 1645 to 1820. i suggest perhaps you look at it because what it talks about is

the creation of stereotypes that lend to national cohesion in that period. and the relevance of that to reagan. now, what i find amusing in this is that we know from declassified information about war games that were waged, you know, between allied commanders, nato warsaw pact, the exchange of nuclear weapons was off the charts. the tactical nuclear weapons would be expanded to the point where in three or four days hundreds of them would be fired by both sides. so what we're seeing in these kind of books -- i met hackett before he died, a great officer, captured at arnham, et cetera. but here he's writing a book about conventionally stopping the soviets. and i think there was sort of a fantasy about that, that we frankly still live with. we still have nuclear weapons in

the world. we still are numb to this. and i wonder what you think about that. because the reality is that when the war games occurred in classified settings, they would just shoot those damn things off and destroy humanity. those god damn things off and destroy humanity. that's not necessarily reflected in sort of techno porn books like clancy does, which are basically feel good things that sort of america wins. the bad guys lose, and it's a bunch of bull shit. >> it's worth noting that hackett's book does have a nuclear exchange. it's a limited one. there is an element of imagination in these books, perhaps an escape. although i think the culture is that u.s. systems were so much better than soviet ones that we wouldn't need to use nuclear weapons. obviously, we never fought a war. especially with "war games."

it is all simulation. they do go nuclear very quickly. though we can look somewhat at the performance of the technology in the gulf war when they beat the soviet technology pretty handily, so it is possible. we still have nuclear weapons and that can go anywhere in the near future. it's come up multiple times in presidential debates now. i don't think anyone is advocating for a zero solution right now. >> this is my last question. going back to the power of narrative and what the gentleman said before about a book leading to albert einstein talking to the president, i think roosevelt, on the atomic bomb.

what does that have to do with the star wars initiative? why was it not implemented in it could have made a big difference? >> the first question on implementation, it never really got to where it was technically feasible or possible to deploy it effectively. it was a very expensive system. it had initial support for a lot of different reasons, so reagan was a true believer in it. wi they viewed it as a chip. something they would be able to trade for concessions. it was something reagan expressed interest in in his first days as president. he certainly is the driving force for it in his administration. there's a role that science

fiction plays in this as well. when he talks about it for the first time, part of his speech is written by a collection of science fiction writers from california. larry correia is involved in this. again, we're seeing a blending of fiction and policy even with that, when you're debuting this new program to the world. he decides to use "star wars" to label it speaks to trying to tie it to certain type of culture. >> last question. >> my concern again is with the -- who won the cold war. the chicken hawks won. i mean, the idea of nuclear war, you light the board with a match after the first few games, chapters play out. when i played the game in europe

with fnato and when i did it at the pentagon, somehow the chicken hawks, the conservatives, got the idea they won the cold war. we still had nuclear weapons. the russians are still out there with nuclear weapons. we had a chance to disarm. what was the lesson that we should have learned from the reagan period? was it that the clancy idea was correct or was it that gorbachev, the pope, solidarity were the ones that really pushed it and the chicken hawks held back, believing they were somehow the winners? >> that's a tough question. there's a lot of parts to that one. so i think the problem with the end of the cold war is it defies these easy narratives. people say reagan wins the cold war because we sent the soviets

to their grave. people say solidarity and pope john-paul. it was a blessing it ended peacefully. in a reality, i think it is a mixture of all these things. so clearly you can't ignore the contributions of people on the ground in europe. the rise of catholicism in poland, the organization of solidarity and the political resistance pl resistance, plays a role in breaking soviet power. that happens in part because of the environment gorbachev instills. part of that is the economic pressure. part of that is tied to the pressure the u.s. put on them. because the soviets can't afford to resist when the u.s. goes into.

-- -- granada. it's sad that we try and break it down to one of these people had to have done it all themselves. that credits a large group of people in bringing about a stunningly peaceful end and a peaceful demise to an empire. [ applause ] >> thank you very much. i was very happy on tto be with guys. american history tv in primetime continues thursday with the people and events that shaped the civil war and reconstruction. at 8:00 p.m. eastern, a look at sherman's march through the carolinas. at 9:00 p.m., lectures in history features the story of civil war veterans. at 9:55, examining john brown

and the election of 1860. then lectures in slavery, women, and the civil war. all here on c-span 3. thursday, the atlantic council hosts a discussion on russia under president vladimir putin. that's live at noon eastern here on c-span 3. the need for horses on the farm began to decline radically in the 1930s. it was not until the 1930s that they figured out how to make a rubber tire big enough to fit on a tractor. starting in the 1930s, the 1940s, you had an almost complete replacement of horses as the work animals on farms. i do believe in one of my books on horses i read that in the

decade after world war ii we had something like a horse holocaust, that the horses were no longer needed, and we didn't get rid of them in a very pretty way. >> the professor discusses his book "the rise and fall of the american growth," which looks at americans standard of living in 1870 and 1950. >> what interests people is the impact of superstorm sandy on the east coast back in 2012, that wiped out the 20th century for many people. the elevators no longer worked in new york. the electricity stopped. you couldn't charge your cell phones. you couldn't pump gas into your car because it required electricity to pump the gas, so

the power of electricity in the internal combustion engine to make modern life possible is something that people take for granted. next, university of washington history professor margaret o'mara talks about her book, "pivotal tuesdays." she begins with the election of 1912 and then explores the 1932, 1968, and 1992 elections. she argues that all occurred during periods of economic and cultural change. the national archives hosted this hour-long talk. >> today's speaker is margaret o' mara, associate professor of history at the university of washington. she held teaching and research positions at stanford university and at the university of pennsylvania. prior to her academic career she worked in the clinton white house and served as a

contributing researcher at the brookings institution. after today's lecture, ms. o' o'mara will be upstairs in front of the store to sign copies of her book. "the washington post" described "pivotal tuesdays" as a captivating read. o'mara draws a vivid portrait of modern politics, one that takes readers on a tour of the recent past and puts our own modern-day battles into terrific contest. just a delicious book written by an aauthoritative historian and a brilliant narrator. would you please welcome margaret o'mara to the national archives? [ applause ] >> thank you so much, tom. and thank all of you for coming out today and to the national archives. i have been to the archives as a researcher. i hbe