Would still be meetings at the convention with the leading Party Officials and, you know, the candidate would meet with people and so it was a democratic process in the sense that candidate would meet with people. It was a democratic process in the sense there was consultation, deliberation and so forth, though ultimately the candidates decision. I think as its moved away from the convention beginning 1976, its been a process focused much more on the president ial candidate and the people around the president ial candidate. They still consult with party leaders, talk to capitol hill, talk to governors, solicit input. But ultimately the circle of people in the room when the decision is made tends to be the president ial candidate and a few people close to them. Im going to get our questioners ready, a few more questions and then turn to the audience again. Weve referred to, in terms of the convention, that we might have a different kind of year especially on the republican side. Weve ma
Deterrence and Nuclear Balance. According to the u. S. Perspective, Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Balance are distinct. We can tell the difference between the two ideas, two actions. Deterrence is to maintain the status quo. The definitions work very well for isolated big conflict, if a conflict is isolated and big, then we can, you know, indeed tell the difference between deterrence and compelence. But, you know, if big conflicts, you know, come from escalation, that is always the case, you know, big conflict come from, you know, small conflicts, small conflicts, you know, may escalate to big conflict. So, in that case it may not be easy to tell the difference between deterrence and compelence. The reason is that it is very difficult to figure out who changed the status quo first. Then, you know, if you want an example, you know, you launch a conventional aggression and then you use your Nuclear Weapons to deter the conventional responses from your enemy. So in this case there are tw