have a link to this event soon. american history tv on cspan 3 continues on thursday night with a look at abraham lincoln. we start with a lecture during his presidency. columnist george will, also speaks on lincoln's effect on america today. thursday night, hillary clinton becomes the first woman to accept a major woman nominati nomination. with cspan you have many convenience options to watch her entire speech. watch it live on cspan or listen to it on the cspan radio app.

watch it live or on demand or on your smart phones or tablets. hillary clinton's historic acceptance speech on thursday night on cspan radio app and cspan.org. up next, captain benjamin griffin talks about president reagan and the soviet union moves to the diplomatic forefront. the is an hour and 40 minutes event. now, let me introduce ben griffin who graduated in the academy of 2006 and commissioner of intelligence officer. he served while deployed in iraq

in 2007 and 2008 and as an assistant in brigade in 2011. he's currently assigned to the united states academy as a industry instructor. his military award and declarations, he's currently abd for the university of texas of austin and working on the dissertation and national security policy of ronald reagan. his research includes grand strategi strategies, american foreign relations and the cold war. ben holds a bachelor of science from the united states military academy. a master of art from the university of arizona. a master of history from the university of texas.

in addition, he's a national security fellow from the security. he resigns in new york with his wife and their two children. welcome ben griffin. [ applause ] >> thank you very much for the kind introduction and the opportunity to speak here. i am thrilled to be here. thank you all for coming and i know it is friday in new york city and there is plenty of things to do. especially you come here and listen to me, it means a lot to me. everything i am saying is my own opinion and it is not reflective, not necessarily reflective of the government or the academy. i mention the military, that's a lot of what tom blanchey does. we'll get into that as well. >> so the speech, the good guys,

the transformation of national security. and so as air force 1 was traveling east, october of '86. ronald reagan decided to take a break and moving back to talk with and socialize with his staffs. rather than focusing on preparations for the upcoming summits and talking about things like missile in numbers or nuclear yields, he talked to his staffs but the new release by t tom. he termed it research for the upcomi upcoming summit. many who heard that took it as a joke. how can the president be using it and again, thriller and his work is actually research and a serious topic with arms control.

but, like many oreagan's joke contains the moment of truth. how reagan viewed american cold war strategies and why he believe the u.s. prevailed. it is kind of a personal war game. and the procedure would impact the upcoming negotiations with gorbecheck. that was largely irrelevant to reagan he would link public attitudes on policies to popular cultures. we'll start with this one.

but, as he's guynn his speech, at graduation, he talks to the black respects for the black uniforms. he's returning to the team for his 1980 campaign in talking about the need or talking about how the nation shortchanged in the wake of vietnam and continuing to maintain low pay levels and just lingering resentments of those in uniforms in public. marked with pride that the decided rising quality ies of those coming into the military. it is a large pay raise and certainly makes the military happy and we like to get paid a little bit more. it is no t the entire explanation why we are seeing more in lestmeenlistments and h people are joining.

more changes the benefits and led to a rediscovery of how much there is to love this land. tl unequivocal language -- his secretary defense shows how conscious the choice of language. wineburg -- it was a matter that the secretary defense that reagan had discussed before. >> the paragraph in gratitude and lack of respect of a national disgrace. it singles out hollywood fo for -- coming home and dear hunter and apocalypse now and

prominent and well received and pretty good movies about the vietnam war. to be gentle of the image of the military. a apocalypse is not paid on the virtue of american service. this did not make the speech. largely reagan had alienating or angering his friends in hollywood. however, it is present. even in draft form shows how closely linked policy coultures on in reagan's mind. in the 1950s and '60s, people can get a sense of patriotism from popular cultures and enforcing the idea that america was special. >> reagan admitted this was no longer true.

patriotism were no longer in style. they have to do a lot of work to reinstitutioni reinstituti reinstitutionalize it. >> things like rambo or rocky 4 or top gun which is a two-hour recruiting for the navy. >> it was dominating in the box office. lake platoon and navy 6 and navy 7. there were still a lot of work to do in order to submit this american culture. in some instance, he would use stories that he would want to enact. tom reid serving as an arthur

and security that advise reagan, as they were discussing this strategy, gary cooper, he's one of the policies would do the right thing. >> the president wanted the u.s. to be a global marshal cane. someone that's going to fight for a virtous cause. this is demonstrated by red storm rising. the book convinced reagan that the u.s. and the soviet union enjoyed parody. the u.s. could defeat the soviets in a straight up tank battle or a regular fight between their arm forces. reagan expressed this connection explicitly to thatcher. thatcher were surprised and

upset at reagan's eagerness to get rid of weapons. she's talking to reagan and they cannot possibly destabilize these. reagan is dismissive of his friends and the prime minister's claims. he recommends she go ahead and read "red storm riding" so she can better understand. and also providing in the space for the president and other administration to war games and testing their principles. clancy, when working on the novel, -- ahe assured his frien

that he will settle with a book jacket with his name on it. something a lot of us would settle for including myself. clancy would define those long odds and proving the exception for his writers. he would leave approximately $82 million. >> he graduated in baltimore after majoring in english amin r minoring in physics. he was nearly blind without his thick glasses. a lifelong republican, he voted for ray began four out of the five times that he could. one time in the 1980 primaries, where he casted a vote for george w. bush. nobody is perfect. and march of '81, he wrote his

congressman, william broomfield. broomfield forward a request along with the note identifying clancy and as faithful republicans. the white house responded positively and in july of that year -- clancy also maintained a long lasting and deep interest of the military engeneral in ge the navy. approved adventagious. one officer in particular, gregory young, riding much of the system of technical details that clancy is also famous for. >> harpoon which was designed by the officers. it is a bond in a letter that after digesting the game, it would be easier to explain the concept in his book to anyone.

>> although clancy desired to write novels, he did not begin to work until 1982. he planned for october as the middle book and a trilology along with games and cardinals. he actually started to work on the drafts game in '82 after having finished the 500 drafts. these other concepts within a nine months period which speaks to his future out puts. he had the best seller every year and on the new york times special for the end of the year. >> his first book was a rather unusual ones. it was the publisher of the heart cover. it is located on the campus of the united states naval economy.

prior to hunt, the best known book was the "blue jacket man l manuel." clancy came to their attention by hand delivering his letter to editor. this was the first time that clancy received compensation for anything he had written. after writing this letter, he approached him with the draft of his manuscript unsolited. >> so the division of putnam of $35,000 to write. decent duh nbut not great for t first time author. >> a career change for

37-year-old insurance agent. the book got favorable but not exceptional reviews. >> clancy awards the readers quite sfaatisfactory. something that's going to be a common frame. reviews like this were common pla place. it was about 10,000 books. >> the book were well in washington dc. >> but, it still seems on tactic track to have a huge audience. this is going to change once reagan interviews. the president once told his close advisor, nancy reynolds, he received the book as a

christmas president in 1984. he reads a third of it on christmas day and finished it soon after that. >> and, his identification with novel constant depart from his conceit. that book were secret and personal treasures. reagan barely talks about books that he red. it is strange that he talks too much about "hunt for october." >> by march they passed 75,000 hard copies. the sense of real life entry when the soviet embassy were buying several copies of the book hinting it is destined for

moscow. with these, a rising star in the publishing war. he plans to meet the man in the define trajectory. >> on march 13, '85, he plans to meet the president. he describes stepping over the threshold as kwequivalent as dorothy stepping into -- he goes onto open -- reagan asked about clancy's next book. upon hearing it was about world war 3 and inquiring who's about to win. clancy responded, the good guys. much of the approval of the president. all of this took place in about five minutes. reagan had to go out to lunch

with henry hissenger. >> a near call that if reagan cannot charm gorbachev, as he calls them. clancy discussed the book with john lament. robert married at the time a reporter working for the wall street journal quickly turning into a discussion between clancy and the navy secretary. >> clancy would note the discussion covered sdi which she voiced her support for. >> and which he and passing future advisor disagreed about. >> stother attendees were senao

hapsfeld in oregon. >> as well as director of u.s. information agency and long time friend of reagan's, charles wick. he would use a letter supporting in the program as he's trying to get more funding and knowing reagan's love for the author. he was already establishing himself. clancy's visit came one week later. he returned in the arrival of argenti argentina. his guest including --

>> clancy did mention in the letter that he floated the idea on national security add vievis which he liked but he was not elaborate it. clancy made their exits. the night before hearing - hearing -- clearly, he would be a different captain. clancy was clearly a hit in official washington. >> officials read and enjoy hunt for october. the photographer, insisted that

everyone in the white house had read the book. it quickly became his biggest supporter behind reagan itself. in august of 1995, the editor approached lamburg. they talked about the book that they felt deserve much attention. on top of the book, she put a note of good authorities. loved it. >> wineburg read the book and much like reagan recognizing of the shaping and cultural american opinion. he glowingly reviewed the book and explaining of many lessons for those who want to keep the peace. >> later going onto review clancy's novel. and now quietly and upholders or national peace and upholder. the book would make use of

wineburg's view. so it is fairly remarkable that you have a sitting secretary defense taking time out to review works of fiction as oppose to doing things that's not working on budgets or handling many issues that come with running an organization that's large as the department of defense. >> there is a very strong resemblance to marshal cane. >> like cane, he also serves as a moral center for the novel. despite working for the cia, he apologizes for every deceptions such as when he's forced to wear enable uniforms. it is not like pretending to be what he's not. >> helps establish him as a character putting what's right over what's necessary. finally, in true marshal cane

actions. ryan does not seek more acclelate of his work. so ryan asleep on an east concourse. hunt's unnamed president, clancy clearly based his character on reagan. >> clancy's version was a coliegiant. >> the president could turn on and off like a spotlight. >> it is served as a predictor that clancy experienced walk ng the white house and meeting reagan for the first time. even the soviets respect the

president, hunts for october. >> and views the president as a bastard who was easy to under estimate and describing the president as a strange man and very open, who was friendly and always ready to siege the advantage. particularly, gorbachev -- this matches clancy's image of reagan. for r for reagan the familiar of the story and for hunts of october, made the book viewed as a friend. he one of those close treasures. however, they did not explain why reagan chose to support the book so publicly and raise the profile of its author.

clancy effectively captured two of the most important objectives o f reagan's administration of the book. >> given reaching such a broad audience and the administration building on popular trends and cultures. reagan, those close to you using the american nationality pass postures. the address that i mentioned earlier at west point, he was talking about the lack of respect of the uniforms and military and returning from his campaign >> just a few years later in a second term, months after meeting clancy in may of 1985, he gives the address at the naval academy. the president noted that -- and

that we had gotten to where there is a new appreciation for our men and women of military service of the post vietnam era. this is not because not only the military mee military meeting its goals but bringing high quality reserves. the character of those in service was superior. the navy possessing the most sophisticated and new weapons required more skills to use. reflecking t the military was not the only organization where reagan is

restoring or building moral. >> the national agency and encouraging significant abuses o f the law by these agencies of under minding of public opinions. the lessons of record of accomplishments left many americans in doubt. and just like the military, the intelligence community were suffering from portrayals. movies like all presidents with r men a men and books like "bourne identity." it is worth note that wineburg viewed a third book, "the born of pramacy." he's incredibly negative towards the born of primacy.

it would never in a million years think of braeeaking law a it is a shame for him to go down that path and apparently people lik like it and understand it why it is written. >> so reagan thought to reverse this trend. he spoke outside of cia head quarters of june of 1982, such abuses were past. they had the full confidence to perform and functions in a way that's lawful and keeping with the traditions with our way of life. >> language that he uses with military service members, he told the cia members of their integrity and the state of freedom rested for millions. >> the members of the cia were heroes of the twilight

struggles. expresses his own and country's gratitude clancy's characters fit perfectly into this new narrative of competent self-sacrifice that reagan established with his first term public statements. the americans in "hunt for red october" share both above-average intelligence and above-average virtue. jack ryan, the protagonist, sees his service in the marine corp. cut short by a helicopter crash. however, after four years as a stockbroker, betting his own money and winning big, ryan became bored with making money and began his career at the cia. ryan was also a successful historian with published and respected books on british naval history. in addition to incredible professional success, clancy's hero is also a strong family man, enjoying a strong marriage to an excellent surgeon, an adoring young daughter and a toddler, jack ryan, jr. in short, the perfect image of family life and domestic tranquilly that reagan would

have been wanting to point to for americans to follow. ryan's virtue goes without question, and he rarely confesses his cia affiliation to anyone, despite being a spy, be it a u.s. admiral or a soviet sub commander, rather than to risk deception. he also harbors remarkably few career ambitions and has no ambitions to celebrity and seeks no recognition for his work. only his physical appearance is unremarkable. though at 6'1", he is taller than average, though a bit out of shape due to the miserable english weather. he's been knighted by the queen of england for his rogue exploits, and ryan is at ease speaking his mind to british lords, u.s. admirals and senior policy makers. only the president is able to overwhelm him. so, in short, jack ryan is an impossible amalgamation of all the ideal traits that reagan believes someone serving his country should embody. ryan's extreme integrity would likely be enough by itself to draw reagan's interest, as the president consistently showed a fondness for heroes that resembled those 1950s westerns. again, so the louis l'amour

novels, you know, things like "high noon" and "marshal kane". so all these things are really influencing the way reagan was viewing the world and, again, the architect of what a hero is supposed to be to him. but ryan is not the only character to show these traits. the u.s. naval officers of "hunt" are ryan's equal in their status as paragons. clancy describes admiral joshua painter, the commander of the aircraft carrier uss kennedy, as a gifted tactician and a man of puritanical integrity. so, again, you are seeing the blending of both, you know, remarkable professional competence with high moral character. cia director admiral james greer, who may have been modeled after real-life nsa director admiral inman, is able to remain in the navy passed his retirement age through group confidence. clancy compares greer's intellect to the legendary admiral hyman rickover, regardless the father of the nuclear submarine fleet, but notes that greer was a far easier man to work for. commander bart mancuso, skipper of the submarine that successfully finds october is one of the youngest submarine commanders in the u.s. navy and shows the intelligence to both

trust his instincts and listen to subordinates. but equally important to the portrayal of clancy and the officers is the portrayal of sonar man second-class ronald jones, the only enlisted service member to really receive attention in the book. he reflects exactly the high-quality recruit that reagan referred to in his commencement addresses at west point in the naval academy in that weinberger identifies in his memoires. jones dropped out of the california institute of technology due to a prank gone wrong and joined the navy to rehabilitate his name and foster a return to the school. he has an iq of 158 and listens to classical music in his spare time, occasionally accidentally turning the sonar into a giant speaker on the ocean floor. extremely confident on his equipment, jones is also capable of making important decisions and plays the decisive role in identifying and locating the red october. clancy drives home his points about the quality of enlisted in the american military by having the soviets continually marvel over jones' competence. every time he talks to a soviet, they are shocked that an american enlisted soldier can

make decisions, that knows his equipment and understands the type of specifications. again, it is supposed to highlight the difference between the american system of trusting our privates and our sergeants with the soviet system of 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 donaldson, who conveniently chairs the senate select committee on intelligence. so part of this apparatus that's in place to supervise the intelligence committee in the wake of the church committee. clancy depicts the counter-intelligent efforts of the fbi as exceptional and notes that they had been onto the senator's chief-of-staff for some time. the directors of the fbi and cia negotiate with donaldson, promising not to prosecute his aide and embarrass the senator politically if the senator agrees to resign later on. and, so, thus, they strike a double blow. they are able to turn an important soviet asset, but also strike a blow against the unfair and perhaps overzealous monitoring and oversight of this establishment in the wake of the church committee.

the characters in "hunt" are unapologetically idealized archetypes of virtue and service. and, largely, they are better suited for a fable than a thriller with potentials of realism. and this simplistic design does not escape the notice of book reviewers. "the wall street journal" reviewer notes that jack ryan is simply too good to be true and that virtually everyone in the book is a caricature. another reviewer notes that the the only, sort of, virtue that is not described about ryan is how good he is in bed. americans in the book are uniformly intelligent, imaginative, capable and disciplined. however, he still gives the book a positive review, calling the work great fun. "the los angeles times" took a more ambivalent review knowing that, despite the cardboard characters, the work never quite sinks. so can't escape the navy puns in their view, i guess. however, reagan's love of the book rested exactly on this simplicity of design. historian christina klein notes that -- i'm sorry. i skipped a line. so clancy's work simplified the cold war into themes that were easily digestible and made a more acceptable narrative of reagan's

policy that was readymade for consumption by large numbers of americans in their households. this is similar to the role that reagan experienced with james michener during the 1950s. historian christine klein talks about michener serving as the paraphraser for the government's early cold war policy. you know, michener introduces america to the b-52 bomber. he follows stories from the korean war, talking about the virtue and heroism in the service, trying to bolster support for a war as it's starting to decline in america. so clancy fills the same role as paraphraser in the 1980s for ronald reagan. he causes millions of americans to bring reagan's cold war fable into their homes, much to the benefit of the administration. the novel and its successes also helped reagan envision the present and the near future state of the military, reassuring that his initiatives continued to move the u.s. closer to eliminating the dangerous capability 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, then actually it was in the favor of the united

states. so "red storm rising" is about a third war begun by the soviets, of course, because the u.s. would never start world war 3. after a terror attack cripples the soviet energy industry, they're forced to attack, in other words, break nato. 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 a major war with the soviets would look like, both in the conduct and the results. the plot follows the war in central europe, the convoy operations in north atlantic and the soviet conquest of iceland and the political liberations in moscow. in the early days of the war, the soviets are tremendously successful, pushing into west germany and seizing iceland in a surprise amphibious assault. the narrative then centers on the u.s. and nato as they try and get more resources to europe in order to turn back to the soviet tide. eventually nato was able to establish a bit of a stalemate in west germany, buying enough

time for reinforcements to arrive from the united states. the broad scope of the book and the use of multiple protagonists allow clancy and his coauthor larry bond to examine what modern warfare would look like and present the rears that near exhaustive look of strengths and weaknesses of both sides. and, crucially, for its appeal to reagan, "red storm rising" is a world war 3 scenario in which the united states wins but without engaging in a nuclear exchange with the soviet union. nuclear weapons are not entirely absent from "red storm rising". as the book approaches its climax and it becomes clear to the soviets that they cannot win conventionally, they attempt to bring about the use of nuclear weapons. this ultimately leads to a coup as the moderates in the country and the military leadership refuse and take control of the government, ultimately ending the war. clancy and bond constructed the narrative this way intentionally in order to demonstrate that only the truly mad would advocate the use of nuclear weapons. anti-nuclear sentiments are nearly throughout the book between both american and soviet leaders. early in the book, mikeal

surkatoff laments that the money was spent on unproductive holes with the ability to kill the west ten times over. even when the war is desperate, the commander of soviet forces views the secretary general as crazy and mad possessing the possibility of using tactical nuclear strikes. it's also notable that u.s. planners never once discuss employing nuclear weapons, even though the weapons in europe were there to mitigate the damage and conventional forces. this is because the technical advantage that they enjoyed serves the same purpose, allowing for a nonnuclear balancing of forces. the abhorrence of nuclear weapons present in "red storm rising" is a mirror to reagan's own view of the weapons. reagan reacted strongly to the bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki at the end of world war ii. he had a sense that the weapons would bring about the apocalypse and led him to support the immediate abolition of nuclear weapons and also the internationalization of atomic energy. at one point shortly after the war, he planned to read norman corwin's anti-nuclear poem, "set your clock to u235" at a public rally until warner brothers studios intervened and said

that, if you like your contract, you are not going to read this poem. and, so, reagan did like his contract, and so he opted not to read the poem. but as he became more politically active, he maintained his criticism of the role of nuclear weapons in policy. as he conducted a shadow campaign for the republican nomination in 1968, he compared nuclear destruction to two westerners standing in a saloon aiming their guns to each other's heads permanently. so, again, we are seeing the western metaphor makes its reappearance here. such situation would actually limit policy options and force accommodations to what reagan viewed as a toxic geopolitical stand-off. reagan did not moderate his views against nuclear weapons after assuming the presidency. in december of 1981, speaking with representatives from the vatican, he referred to the weapons as the last epidemic of mankind. talking to u.s. troops in camp liberty in 1983, he argued that a 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. his view of the "day after", a

made-for-tv movie about the effect of nuclear war on a small kansas town about a month before this speech served to strengthen his resolve to see that there is never a nuclear war. reagan's dismissal of the concept of mutually assured destruction and his unwillingness to accept that the only way to be safe from attack was to be vulnerable to it led him to make the strategic defense initiative, a centerpiece of a security policy. the willingness to share the technological breakthroughs of the program with the soviets harkens back to his earlier desire for the internationalization of atomic energy and speaks to his universal disdain for nuclear weapons, regardless of who is possessing them, so not fit for either the u.s. or the soviet union or any other countries who had them at the time. for many, reagan's defense policy during his first term seems to directly contradict any notion that he sought to eliminate nuclear weapons. strategic forces received a significant increase in funding as reagan sought to modernize all three legs of the u.s. nuclear triad, ballistic missiles, bombers and submarines. the administration lost a five-point program to design a new peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile, to relaunch the b-1 program, to modernize

existing bomber force, improve the missile launched by submarines and develop a more robust commanding control system. reagan also endorsed the program to produce an initial 17,000 nuclear warheads by 1987, a significant increase over the plans of the carter administration. the result of this program was that by 1985 u.s. nuclear forces were more lethal and technically advanced than at any point in american history. the focus on strategic modernization in reagan's first term presents 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 historiography of the issue. however, the shift in tone is a bit less stark when viewed through the context of reagan's vision over how to achieve peace. reagan viewed military strength as essential to establishing peace and ended up by establishing a sound, east/west military balance as absolutely essential to peace as well. when he assumed office, reagan and his national security advisors perceived a stark gap between the capabilities of the united states and the soviet union, which enabled the soviets

to pursue aggressive policies. nstd 32 takes a loss of u.s. strategic superiority and the overwhelming growth of soviet conventional forces capabilities as givens, 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 continued soviet gains. in one 1978 radio address, he stated the taunt is what a farmer has with his turkey before thanksgiving. the only way with the soviets -- peace with the soviets was achievable would be to demonstrate an equal resolve and strength. this necessitated the creation of parody between the military capabilities of both states before entering into serious negotiations. this is embodied by reagan's slogans, you know, build up to build down and peace through strength. so he wanted to make sure he was negotiating on equal terms with the soviets before embarking on any significant reductions in arms. but, ultimately, his strong anti-nuclear stance put him at odds with many of the leading voices in the foreign policy and in the pentagon. reagan would lament in his memoires that many of the

pentagon still claimed a nuclear war is winnable, as we saw with general scowcroft at the lunch with tom clancy. following the near breakthrough at reykjavik, the joint chiefs almost immediately approached reagan arguing against continuing to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons entirely. the chiefs were unanimous in their view that the existing commission to turn forces was inadequate and bringing it up to par would require an investment of tens of billions of dollars over a period of at least a decade. the army chief of staff expressed significant reservations about the willingness of nato allies to take part they said an all-conventional deterrent would require. again doubts that they would be able to put up either the manpower or the budget to bring the defense forces to where they need to be. john poindexter, then reagan's national security advisor, had reversed his earlier support for the reagan proposal to eliminate them and shortly after returning he wrote to reagan that eliminating all missiles returned the u.s. situation similar to that faced in the 1950s, leaving only a chance of stopping a conventional assault, rather than the strong deterrent that the current arsenal represented.

others from the right lined up to attack reagan's stance as well. former president richard nixon and his secretary of state, henry kissinger, wrote for the "national review", which argued the proposed deal would reopen the gap and deterrence to conventional attack, due to the inability of the u.s. to provide sufficient conventional power to match that of the soviets. brent scowcroft, the national security advisor to present ford, also expressed his deep reservations about the proposed deal asserting it might lead to absolute disaster. and not all the opposition came from the right. in the same issue, the national review chairman of the house armed services committee, les aspen, who would later be the secretary of defense under bill clinton, argued it would take at least another ten divisions in order to make the reykjavik framework feasible. opposition extended beyond the united states as nato allies expressed genuine concern about what a nonnuclear united states could mean for their security. u.s. information director charles wick wrote poindexter 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. the sweeping proposals at reykjavik brought swift and uniform criticism. the united states could not afford to eliminate its nuclear weapons because without them there was little hope of repelling a soviet ground invasion. reagan anticipated this criticism, though. while at reykjavik he pleaded with gorbachev to relent on sdi. he noted that, you know, the most outspoken criticism of the soviet union over the years, the so-called right wing, an esteemed journalist, would react strongly against the ten-year framework until it made new changes. so as the response shows, he was correct in that thinking. reagan noted his critics were kicking his brains out for considering eliminating ballistic missiles, a problem that gorbachev did not have since gorbachev just threw all his critics in jail. gorbachev noted that, if reagan believed that, he should check recent articles about him in pravda and refused to relent on the issue of strategic defense. the reagan's appeal fell on deaf ears. it does demonstrate how well he grasped the likely response to his sweeping proposals. despite the expected outcry and the criticism from his right,

reagan was willing to move forward and engage in a tough political battle to ratify the agreements because he viewed the strategic situation in europe differently than his critics did. he felt that by the fall of 1986 the conventional forces of the u.s. and its allies were more than a match for their soviet counterparts, making the ballistic missiles a necessary evil, a destabilizing force, as opposed to the stabilizing force that his critics maintained that they were. reagan says as much to nixon in a 1987 meeting in the white house, arguing that the u.s. and nato together had enormous superiority over the soviet union. for reagan, the superiority came from the fact that both the combined gross domestic product and the combined population of the west were greater than that of the soviets and that the u.s. could count on its allies, as opposed to the uncertain allegiances of the warsaw pact. reaching the point where reagan had sufficient competence and the conventional capacities of both the u.s. and its allies was the work of his first term. december 1985 review of national security issues 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 u.s. deterrent capability and the strength in the u.s. alliances prevented soviet's aggression, despite moscow's frequent savor rattling and truculence. the document also cites significant improvements in nato's conventional defenses, highlighting the better use of emerging technologies as crucial to that effort. critically, the document also engaged with a question of how to maintain u.s. ability to deter attacks despite the movements toward lower level of nuclear forces. in this area, the nsd determined the explicit objective of the united states should be to rely on an increasing contribution from primarily nonnuclear systems. developing the nonnuclear systems needed to ween the u.s. from nuclear deterrence was the major initiative of the first term of reagan's presidency. the administration began construction of 34 new combat ships, acquired nearly 4,000 new and state of the art tanks and expanded support for new infantry fighting vehicles, resulting in the army's bradley fighting vehicle and the marines vehicle. basically, all the technology

we're still using today. additionally, the administration sought to extend aero capabilities. during his first term, the apachee attack helicopter, the blackhawk support helicopter and the f-117 stealth fighter entered the service. other investments in new armorments and communications systems meant that the u.s. military in 1986 was a more lethal and precise force than when reagan assumed office. the nsd review cited the east member of the joint chiefs of staff and all the unified and specified commanders in chief as saying that, by every measure of common sense, conventional forces were more ready for combat than they were in 1980. this assessment by major military commanders and his national security staff left reagan with a strong sense that the u.s. military was now strong enough to forego offensive nuclear weapons, a sense that "red storm rising" reinforced immediately before going to reykjavik. because clancy's books always placed technology in a starring role. "red storm rising" is certainly no exception to this. the new technology that i mentioned previously plays a critical role in this narrative. though still a classified program at the time, the f-117

stealth fighter appears as the f-19 alpha in a chapter titled "the frisbees of dreamland". the fighters wreak havoc on soviet supply lines and radar sites throughout the novel leading to serious logistics problems and establishing near complete u.s. control of the skies in the early days of the war. the abrams tank is almost entirely responsible for establishing a stalemate in germany, despite the significant difference in the size available forces between the soviets in the west. during a critical exchange in the early days of fighting, a soviet armored regiment faces a depleted tank company of the united states in a reinforced company of dismounted infantry. the battle goes poorly for the soviets, to say the least in the book, as the effective integration of u.s. tanks and war hogs cost the soviets nearly a third of their strength. the conversation between the soviet commanders makes it clear this is not an atypical battle. the implications of this is that the better weapons of the u.s. and its allies allowed them to destroy soviet units at a ration of 10-1, enough to nullify the feared soviet advantage and conventional forces. the allied forces are also able to synchronize their activites

in a superior way to the soviets thanks to the early warning control system platform, which provide a highly accurate view of the battlefield. nato makes sufficient use of its forces, which is essential when you are outnumbered. you want to make sure you are not wasting people in places they don't need to be. friendly air crafts strike exactly when the soviets mass, and in one instance alone, just four aircrafts destroy a whole battalion of soviet artillary. the superior battlefield picture and technical ability to identify locations also allows nato to target command elements of the soviet army to devastating effect. clancy and bond incorporated this precise target in the "red storm rising" intentionally as it was an emerging doctrine of the u.s. military at the time. throughout the book, soviet leaders went between awe and frustration recognizing that the advanced technology is playing the decisive role in the conflict. "red storm rising" came out at the absolute perfect time for reagan. it provided a realistic narrative that the president could use to envision how his policies might play out in the real world. but the novel effectively served

as a personal war game for the president. on the surface, the use of this novel in that capacity seems ludicrous. again, why would you use a work of fiction to inform your strategy vision? indeed, many close to reagan expressed shock and were secretly and perhaps less than secretly appalled by it. margaret thatcher, for example, had great difficultly responding to reagan's suggestion he add the book to her reading list. however, the realism of the novels makes their use perhaps a bit more feasible. clancy's research 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. clancy demured in the answer saying the characters were the hard part. while this is likely true, clancy did devote time researching and fact-checking technical details. as part of the research clancy and bond traveled to vienna, virginia, to talk soviet politics with with a man who defected to the u.s. while

serving as the u.n. undersecretary again. breaking with moscow pure dynomite. the others also went to norfolk to discuss joint operations with nato personnel providing more authenticity. trips to military installations allowed the authors to observe the operation of n1 tanks and clancy received a ride on a submarine. being an army officer, clancy would later note his favorite thing was riding in the m1 tank, which he basically describes 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 weapons systems. "red storm rising", another important contributor was actual war gaming. conducted by the center for naval analysis, federally funded research and development tied to the navy. larry bond working on similar

projects europe into the soviet invasion. he mentioned this to clancy, who then proposed that the two write a book about it, something that bond was more than happy to succeed to. the book transformed to the central finding that everyone could digest. although, the book ultimately far exceeds the war game in scope, the scenario describes supply issue and the naval war to the fore of the narrative. reagan's use of "red storm rising" is, therefore, a form of indirect consumption of actual military simulations. however, the narrative of the novel provided more recognizable and digestible format for the president. the cna war game was not the only one to have influence on the book. the official navy war game because it was classified, which made it very difficult to use and the rules weren't very accurate. so he invented his own designing a game called harpoon through dungeon's and dragon's creaton. clancy bought a copy of this as

he was researching "hunt for red october" and took a time letter to bond and their friendship. harpoon did more than introduce the authors, though. "red storm rising". most prominently clancy and bond used it to fact check "dance of the vampires" in which soviet bombers are able to heavily damage an aircraft in iceland. the purpose of the war gaming is not to identify what will happen, but rather what could, allowing the games to serve as certain analytical tools for military and civilian planners. cna war gamers peers refer to the peyton manning of war gaming greater emotional impact, simple dispute or a memorandum on the plan. now, this is because. forcing a lot more personal investment into the scenario. the result is lessons that last longer because of this emotional tie. this is something that a novel can do as well because it is

designed to cause emotional ties protagonist and how do you invest more fully in the narrative. so if well done it forces the reader to empathize what's going on and remember the effectiveness of technology more than a newspaper article or a quick conversation with a friend would. throughout his career, reagan makes use of narratives to communication with large populations. he did this as a sports caster, calls chicago games for who des moines and throughout his political car tone -- political career. jack mattlock communicate what he viewed as the essential essence of his he is imagine, regardless of the medium. so if the story was true or false didn't matter nearly as much as the message itself. so reagan modern say asop telling parables and. similarly he argues that for

reagan every story whether true or gnat had a very distinct purpose because he recognized the power of narrative to forge these strong and emotional connections. once weighen found the right story, he would keep telling it until he found a better one. something that secretary shuts notes in his memoires. reagan found such a story in the works of tom clancy and the works cast aside his normal reluctance to talk about books and actively promote the novels. reagan and the national security league exploited to promote a cult of national security. however, this implies a much more sinister motivation than reality suggests. bore an erie resemblance and let them how his policies play out in the real world discuss these ideals with the american people. the overall impact of the books is debatable, the case study of

reagan clancy shows ideals is not just limited to official forums. instead, policy comes from complex and difficult to define interactions between culture, individual experience, the public and the policymakers themselves. reagan's one example of how talented politician can operate within his environments to find policy success. and so, thank you, and i am going to take questions. i have -- bob will go around with the mike. >> i have been asked to remind you when you ask your questions to please stand up. that's so that the facial recognition software will be better for tracking purposes later. thank you. >> thank you. that was interesting. how much did reagan -- do you think, how long did reagan use these -- use these popular fiction narratives to tell stories to convince people and

how much do you think that he got it, his views from reading popular fiction? i mean, it's -- it seems that reagan was an effective leader in so many ways. he comes across as intellectually shallow. >> so reagan is constantly using fiction. so a good example comes from when he is awarded the medal of honor to -- it's -- the name of who actually escapes he mow. he wants to do it. he's talking in his speech about mitch inner's novel, the british at tokoreed, which is also a movie that stars william holden, who is a close personal friend. but he quotes the part of the novel where he is talking about at the end this carrier commander is looking at the fighters flying off and asking him where do we get such men,

marveling at the quality of people in service. and so reagan answers this question. our cities and our towns and our farms. so throughout his presidency, he's really using fiction to communicate these ideas. sidney on the west point addresses the works of james warner bella, who he calls the american kipling, so he has fiction over nonfiction in strange ways. as far as how much it influences him, i think he uses fiction as again a kind of personal war game, a place where he could imagine the near future. i equate to how he's working through auspices fog of war. how you need to be able to make these indistaint shapes in the fog. a more standard thinker he is. where as reagan is imaging what they could be, which leads to why he's different and how he views the state of the soviet union in the '80s than most of

the criminologists are. and more creative approach, he has policy as a result. >> is there any record of how clancy's books were received and interpreted back in the soviet union? >> publically they were denounced. they were reviewed negatively for as you would imagine kind of reinforcing the superior contractist station, so in the public, you know, records they had very negative reviews of the tom clancy novels. i haven't seen anything that indicates a more official, how they were used internally. again, all i have seen is the article talking about the soviet embassy buying them. as a copy to sort of present them as a human rights convention in vienna and he -- the guy kind of laughs now i'm going to be on a list. thanks a lot for giving this to me. but beyond that, there's not really much i could find unfortunately.

>> thank you very much. a conservative -- a person with a conservative reputation, one of reagan's biographers was a teacher of mine and 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 contests, why, you know, i read on newspapers and stuff, somehow this seemed 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 writer he is employing. so again you see in his first term that he is using very harsh rhetoric to the soviet union, something that the ambassador is going to call an uncompromising. in order to negotiate with the soviets, you have to be on even

terms with them, and he felt under the carter presidency the u.s. had fallen behind, most in conventional but also in nuclear forces. he's inheriting a force that the bombers are ineffective and so in order to effectively reduce arms you have to do build so they are going to want to be as equally motivated in order to reduce 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 is going to achieve. >> yeah. while this was going on, i was a student in germany, and what i remember very clearly was that there was tremendous resistance during the hoe ma schmidt administration while the spd was in power to the stationing of the pershing missiles.

where did all that fit into this, you know, clancy's vision and everything? i mean how was that a part of these novels? do you -- is there anything that he had to say about that that influenced reagan? >> there is -- there is very little mention of protests of u.s. policy in the novels. so the global zero movement really isn't talked about much there. it is something reagan acknowledges in 1983 and comments that their goal is something that he supports ultimately going to the global zero, but it is something he is not ready for yet convince the soviet to give up theirs first or at the same time as that. while it is obviously a major influence what's going on in the real world, it is. >> you know, this issue that you raise about him mistaking hollywood themes with reality, you know, supposedly he alleged that he had filmed the liberation of auschwitz and told that he had footage.

and when you raise the question of high noon, it is amazing that karl foreman was attacked and blacklisted, the author of the screen play, and john wayne refused to take the role in the movie because he realized that high noon was an attack on the mccarthy period and he made real bravo as an attack on high noon later. so it is interesting how reagan confuses this kind of hollywood with politics. and i have a different remembrance of that early period of reagan. i remember riggen, '81, '82, '83. people were feeling we were moving to a unrestricted first right administration who openly talked about the fact that we would win a nuclear war regard less what you say about his personal feelings and this is something that really scared people and led to the largest

demonstration in this city at this period of time. so i was wondering 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, you know, is norman mailer writing naked in the dead where he wants to be novelist in the war. next in the dead certainly is a different image of war than clancy is, and i'm wondering how you see that shaping popular consciousness in general, these kind of waives we have in our society. because reagan most of us i would say have dubious feelings about reagan and, you know, wonder if alzheimer's was setting in when he would make these silly comments because the great communicator was not at always fits and did not form it and stupifies. >> and things like joking about the bombing beginning in a half hour also contributed to this image.

the media at the time was portraying this as strange rouse and there was a lot of fears that firsthand fairly publically. as far as a question looking at how to deal with pop culture, i think it touches on historical memory in a lot of sense, too. so the way we talk about and look at conflict in the war. so you mentioned normal mailer and world war ii and sticking with the 1980s vietnam war. so you have movies like ram boo first blood and ram boo first blood part two are raising this narrative that somehow the service members that people are fighting in vietnam were betrayed by the politicians. but then we have platoon and full metal jacket. and so this was -- public memory is a battlefield as far as how remember conflict and then what -- what do we take from that, right? so if we are taking the

apocolypse now we're not going to do things to intervene. if we get into something where the ramboo movies, we are more likely to do things aggressively and how we're discussing how we're talking about it. so it is certainly shaping it. it is difficult to trace it sometimes, though, you're right. >> i want to kind of extend your idea about clancy showing the u.s. military technology in the best light to say that he's also showing soviet military technology in the best right. in hunt for red october he gives them a caterpillar drive that essentially makes it and through the ocean, sonar can't, you know, detect it. you have jones again we talked about who is like this great sonar operator and then in "red storm rising" early on in the book they pull off these brilliant actions where they sneak into iceland and take it

over, but through rouse and then they are able to knock out an american aircraft carrier and stick a aircraft carrier. and i think again it's the soviets are giving us the soviets are ten foot tall story when of course now we know their military was -- and they knew their military was much less capability, which is why they planned on nuking us at the invasion of western europe. and i wonder again obviously reagan didn't know it at the time. it's not conventional parody. we had overwhelming and would have won any regional conflict between us and the soviets. >> i think that's a really good point. you mention the caterpillar drove as well as success as the soviet kremlin. the soviets are ahead of the united states in strategy defense, they are more capable than we are there. and that serves a purpose for

clancy, but also for reagan, right? this fear that the soviets are going to keep passing us, that they are going to be ahead of us and we need the best weapons and systems to take care of this manpower and if we fall behind it becomes incredibly dangerous. there is lines particularly it stands out in the movie talking about hunt for red october they could sit off the coast. keep pouring money into these programs. it's something that the military appreciates very much. you get to the -- you know, late 1980s about hearings in congress. one of the senators is asking the navy's chief of submarine war fair what do you think about this article. and the admiral, a, knew what it was immediately and was like thank you senator for allowing me to address this issue. but what follows is this really delicate dance because he doesn't want to insult our allies and their quality of sub

mariners but he doesn't want to miss off clancy. no one loves tom clancy more than i do. but tom clancy is great for the navy. he's great for us and the senator is agreeing. he's fantastic for us. so it goes to the sense they know these books are good for their programs, driving the funding, the fetization of technology in the books is helping drive interest in funding and employing them ultimately. >> hi. how are you doing? how are you? >> goo. >> i enjoyed your rapid fired delivery. it was really nice. but there is a film that reagan did actually endorse in the '80s. it was a low-budget movie called if all the guys in the world dot dot dot. 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 front lines and the shock of being on the front lines forces them into lucidity and they become well. and he endorsed it. he personally endorsed this program as a mental health issue and he totally endorsed it. are you aware of this film? >> no. i haven't heard of that? >> it's really rarely seen. weaver supposed to be really quite good. thank you very much. >> that's real interesting. okay. >> king of hearts. >> thank you. sir, excellent talk, captain. >> thank you. >> it showed a lot of investigation. i was in camp cakoosh in 2006, and province a little before you

got there and i was working on boomerang and war lock, duke, putting them on to hum v's and m wraps, not putting them into abrams, m 1. now i see you are understanding my question. not putting them on to lavs. also, the heroes that i like are van, hoffman, okay? my question -- my question to you is, clancy and reagan had a specific view, and that went into the training of the military. i'd say that went you went in 2007 you weren't trained very well for the war you got. they didn't have a small war or a irregular war fair concept, and that caused or i think that

reagan clancy viewpoint caused the -- caused our country to be unprepared for 2005 when we needed not m 1s, not lavs. we needed mwraps. we needed m 4s, not m 16s. we needed those types of weapons for irregular war fair. and what do you say about that? >> yes. a lot of what reagan and clancy are laying using these systems developed in the '80s. black how longs and apaches for the marines and the submarines that came out there. and it is designed in part to respond to what the expectation of fighting world war 3 of the russians would be. so following that there was little desire to study vietnam. so we weren't necessarily prepared to do this. i think that's a fair criticism.

>> okay. i have one question. it's -- i'm drawing a blank now. i swear to god. right. 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 that he read other than tom clancy? >> so this has been a project of mine to put together and something that has been difficult to hunt down. so we know that clancy likes western, unsurprisingly given what his interests are. he also likes science fiction quite a bit. so one of the books he most fondly remembers reading is the john carter series.

so he likes those books. that printer of hue dells, which is a terrible book, but it's a book that he credits with kind of reinvigorating his spirit. i haven't been able to prove this yet, but i'm confident he read and high line actually contributes to reagan speech and introducing sdi. it's likely that reagan read the third world war, which is kind of the precursor to clancy. in a lot of ways it's similar to world war 3 scenario, written with a degree of realism. but his best seller but doesn't have the lasting success that clancy's work does. he's also known to like thrillers when he was reading in the white house. i forgot the air force one being taken over and that kind of stuff. so in general western, science fiction and thrillers were what he would go for. >> he was consistent? >> oh, yes, absolutely.

>> thank you. can you clarify your dependent and independent variables? i was a foreign aerial officer during this period, top secret clearance, worked at the joint staff. you seem to imply that the independent variable was clancy's work influenced reagan and somehow decided the recky vic outcome. i would kind of feel it was helen had cot talking about the danger of nuclear war and that the real independent variables were the pope and belief that it was time to end the cold war. so can you clarify independent and dependent variables? thank you. >> i'm not sure i would phrase them as independent and dependent variables. i'm not rying to put forward a formula for it.

he is playing a role. the nuclear zero movement the playing a role. so it is all these things combining. it would be wrong to say that "red storm rising" is why reagan because his recky vic. and, so, it would be one of many variables as opposed to having one of two there. >> yeah. the question of simplistic narrative that he put out, i mean, it's obviously not genius, but it's necessary. and if you want to look at somebody who has copied it, that's pew ten. pew ten has copied reagan's methodology and it's working 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 correct. so you can mock reagan in his clancy cowboy narrative, but he's actually -- he's been copied.

we have nothing comparable to what putin is doing and we have nothing comparable to what reagan is doing. so i don't see anything wrong. obviously it's a far more complex thing that he was doing, other than just, you know, going with the 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, out spend them. >> i agree with that. obviously, i didn't mean to mock this. i think it's showing a level of say veto show an importance of. you're right. it's showing a political acumen and skill. >> hi. my name is garth. i heard you talk about the power of narrative, and also i want to comment. i have interviewed -- as a

graduate in nui grad studies i have had the opportunity to federal people also and one term i notice is very an pro pro about writing and such the cops agree about is that crime story -- fact is stranger than fiction. crime stories are more logical in real life. and how would -- what am i trying to say? how -- going -- going on another tangent that in a contra positive by the series -- did ronald reagan ever go view things like a lawyer on the viewpoint of the european side or russian side like lacar series, soldier spy and all that? >> so, yes. i think reagan was actually a fan of lacar. so he talked about his speech to the cia at langley. as he's reaching this speech, lacar and asked for his input on a couple of points looking at

some of the ken full by points there. he doesn't like it as much because lacar ray tends forwards a bit more realism, a bit more depressioning narrative. the spy who came in from the cold is not a happy story. isn't a happy story, right, even though the main character escaped me now. smiley, yeah. >> i want to mention also, spy stories, the reality is the movies don't -- the police department would say the cia stories are more complex -- are more complex than movies could ever portray. the best movie, saving private ryan could never depict what real war is about, but it gives some semiambulance to what real war is. >> that is the challenge, to try and get as much of reality or as

much of the truth in their work as they can. and it's always going to be from certain perspective, too. and so it is challenging. it is going to be hard to get a fully accurate one. but for reagan's purposes he the ended to like happy stories and so if a story was kind of morally gray or if a story ended poorly it wasn't one he was range to read and talk about much as ones he thought ended well. and that is what you could define a reagan story you would use and talk about versus one he wouldn't use as much. >> yeah. hi. thanks. very interesting comment on culture and military. i'm interested specifically in the area of the fantization of technology. and i know the whole focus in the harpoon, the war games, that kind of thing, and at the time, which is interesting as well because it was the start of internet's use and that kind of thing or would come a couple of years later.

and my question is did he foresee the transition from war games to actually what we're doing currently beyond modern aircraft systems operators and the drone, or was that kind of engineering -- were we moving towards that at the time? and also i know you come from the army side and so on, but are the air force when they're training folks who are, you know, on air craft systems operators, do they transition from a war game to in fact, you know, a technological use of the drone system which is in fact reality. fact not being stranger than fiction. >> the use of drones was begun in this time period. as to the question of the air force, i don't know in all honesty. so -- >> thank you.

with one questionnaire ended his question saying that the goal was to out spend them. national security adviser bershinski a couple of years ago was caught on video saying he baited the russians into afghanistan and later on he denied that. he said he had misspoke. but that indicates that that may have been a strategic plan to get russia into afghanistan to basically amid their forces and use their forces and economic power there and waste it. to what extent was reagan's strategy? the way i see it was it was an economic plan, not to out spend them, but basically to either beans or bullets is what you are going to produce and basically to wreck havoc with the russian economy. and i'm just curious if you come up with any information that supports that theory. >> they are pretty explicit

about that. make the soviets realize the cost of their operations is too high. so reagan enters in with -- you see he's talking about how much the soviets spends on their military budget and so the official estimates were around 10%, 15% everything the soviets did when they build a road. when they built a hospital it was for top ranking generals. so you get to nsd 32 trying to convince the soviets that the cost of the game is too high and so they are going to have to make these choices, beans versus bullets as you say so the idea is to make them pull back, so i think that is a fair characterization, yes. >> switching the topic back to clancy for a minute, i had heard a story that after hunt came out, he was visited by somebody of the naval intelligence who wanted to know how he got his information. is that there any truth to that? >> so prior to the being being

repleased, that were, you know, in the navy that were involved in submarines, asking them to see if there was any classified material because it has a high level of detail. one of the readers comes back and says it's fun. the other one says you can't possibly publish this. it's giving everything away. and clancy goes to the commander in the navy and going through exactly where he's finding everything in open source. to the point where he's satisfied with it. again, secretary lange's response was who the held cleared this, but i think he was told that it wasn't classified. throughout his career, clancy denied. so i'm not aware of investigation after the fact, but there was a fairly vigorous fact checking before publication. >> yeah. i have one question. i happen to -- i have read red october and "red storm rising". they were very good. and i didn't read a number of his books for several years.

and i picked one up, which was about an attack submarine and that it went on, and it was god awful. it was obvious somebody had sat down with harpoon and played ten scenarios one after the other. none of the american equipment ever fails. none of the soviet equipment ever works right. they always managed to get away. and i was just wondering i find most of his new stuff unreadable and i wonder if he wrote or he did a trump where he stuck his name on it. >> it depends which series you are talking about. you have to core jack ryan series still being written with somebody else. mark is the current writer of that series. but really through the mid 2000s. i'm not sure probably when he starts jack ryan jr. books. there is a series of spin offs. so you have on center, tom

clancy's power plays. tom clancy's net center and all these books are basically that, they're franchises. so it has his name on the cover and somebody else writing it. it's a way for that other author to get more sales licenses 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 the 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 all cannot think of another leader who has done so much at the cost of so little bloodshed. his achievements were extraordinary. now, why is it do you think that people are unwilling to accept

that central truth and rather to laugh uproarously at all of his minor nonsense? is it that they are maybe detached from reality. >> so there is a -- obviously it's hotly debated as far as the end of the cold war, but i think you touched on one of the common attacked on reagan and this attack dates back to his first run for governor when he was being characterized as much an actor. >> he was a bad actor. >> yeah, he doesn't have a very stellar career in a lot of cases. his possibly break-out role was kings row. that was towards the tail end of his career, sir. but so he's just an actor, someone that is not known as a heavy weight. so then after he is elected you have the crisis over university of california against who fire which is deemed as an anteintellectual move.

but it does very early in his career paint him as nonserious and anteintellectual and something that is going to follow him throughout. and his leadership style, too, is one that's. he seems disengaged a lot of times and people will come to people and two people will present with very different policy operations and both could leave thinking he green lit there. the inability to give bad news, the inability -- to try to avoid crisis and try to avoid internal drama and conflict the ended to create a picture of someone not serous. i think he was a very serious, involved leader particularly on issues of the cold war. but that presents in his early. >> thank you for the presentation. very briefly you mentioned on the third world war which ends very differently. there are other world war 3 that were going on at the time. harry coil started. maybe you'd go back and mention

some of the other books. and you did a larry bond. larry is still around, unlike clancy and the role that the harpoon game played. i was wondering if you had any contact with larry. >> larry was fantastic. he was a wonderful guy. i had the privilege of going out to northern virginia and interviewing him and chris karl son and another guy who is credited on working on harpoon. chris karl son in harpoon. unsurprisingly he destroyed me. i don't think i even sank one of his ships and all of mine were gone with two turns. but, no, larry was great. he gave me a lot of material. he's a wonderful guy and i'm very grateful for everything he gave me on this project. >> sometimes novels turn out to be -- they don't seem to be that important and then they turn out to be very and the by hg wells

and right about the same time he came out with the world set free. the one here was about the use of zeppelins i think by the germans against new york city and nobody -- basically nobody paid attention to it. but luckically as far as the world set three, leo between the wars and he luckily for us he had decided to talk to write to einstein and einstein wrote to roosevelt about the use of atomic bomb. so sometimes these things turn out to be very important. >> i completely agree. i think the importance of pop culture is fairly understated in the history. i think it is also somewhat. >> one question asked about the reagan defense build up. was it didn't increase the chance of nuclear war by threatening the soviet union, especially that irresponsible

stupid remark reagan made about the soviet union being able to to be destroyed in five minutes. >> so 30 minutes still doesn't help things. and you're right tensions hit their peak in probably 1983 and so what you end up is during nato exercises able archer there is a possibility of nuclear war there because tensions are so high and you have a soviet officer, the system is showing the nato was just launched nuclear systems, right. refuses to report this up higher. but given the heightened tensions at times it is possible and that does go down to, again, what the soviet ambassador calls it the because remember he has called him an evil empire. when he is at west minister talking about relegates them to the dust bin of history, so this is aggressive language. you saw some of the old hard

liners in and heightens 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. >> there is a very interesting book called youth and propaganda. 1745 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 i find -- what i kind amusing in this is that we know

from declassified information about war games that were waged, you know, between -- with allied commanders, nato warsaw pact the exchange of nuclear weapons was off the charts. the tactical nuclear weapons would be to the point where in three or four days hundreds of them would be fired by both sides. so what we are seeing in those kind of books, hacket, i met hack kit before he died, a great officer, captured at arnum, et cetera, so someone -- but here is writing a book about conventionally stopping the soviets and i think there was sort of a fantasy about this that we frankly still live with because we still have nuclear weapons in the world. we still are numb to this and i wonder what you think about this because the reality is when the war games occurred in classified settings they would just shoot those goddamn things off and

humanity. that is not necessarily reflected in sort of tech know porn books like clancy does which basically are feel-good things that sort of america wins. they -- the bad guys lose and it is a bunch of bullshit. >> hacket's book does have a nuclear exchange and it is a limited one. trade there. so there is an element of imagination in these books, perhaps unescapedly. but the portrait they took away were u.s. systems were so much better we wouldn't need to use nuclear weapons and obviously we never fought a war so you're not sure until you see. war games it is all simulation. but you are correct. in these war games they do go nuclear very quickly. though, we can look somewhat at the performance of the technology in the gulf war, you know, when they beat the soviet

technology pretty handedly and so perhaps if it goes well, so it is possible. the problem is just hard to know for sure when they or the other. and you're right. we still have nuclear weapons. it's come up multiple times in presidential debates. i don't think anyone has advocated for a zero solution right now. >> this is my last question. going back to the power of narrative and what the gentleman before said about a book leading to albert einstein talking to the president, i think roosevelt about the atomic boom and the previous book he mentioned, what does the hower of narrative have to do with star wars initiative? what led to the idea of star wars initiative, that it was ronald reagan's presidency and why was it not em premted if it could have made a big difference? >> so the first question on

implementation is it's -- it never really got to where it was technically feasible. in fact, it was a very expensive systems. support for sdi really started dying down later into the '80s. it had niche support. so reagan was a true believerer in it. weinburg was probably a true believer in it. but people like paul nitsa viewed it as a chip. as far as its origins go with reagan, it was something he had expressed interest in his early days as governor. he toured facilities and talked to scientists about it. it is hard to pinpoint where he gets the idea because a lot of people claim to have given him the idea for it. he certainly is the drives force for it in his administration and there is a role that science fiction plays in this as well. so when he talks about the first time, part of his speech is written by a collection of science fiction writers from california. so high lines involved in this larry coray is involved in this. and so again we're seeing a

blending of fiction and policy even with that when you're debuting this new program to the world. and the fact that kennedy decides to use star wars to label it speaks to tie it to a certain type of culture saying it is a fantasy. it can't possibility happen. star wars is awesome and everyone loves star wars so you probably shouldn't label things with popular. >> 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 you come and nato and when i did it at the pentagon, somehow the chicken hawks, the conservatives got the idea they won the cold war. so we still have nuclear weapons. the russians are still out there with nuclear weapons.

we had a chance to disarm. so what was the question that we should have learned from the reagan period? was it that the clancy idea was correct, or was it that gorbachov, the pope, solidarity were the ones that really pushed it and the chicken hawks held back believes that they were somehow the winners? >> that's a tough question. there is a lot of parts to that one. and, so, i think, yeah, the problem with the end of the cold war is it denies these easy narratives. so people say that reagan wins the cold war because we spent the soviets.