Any Missile Defense. Missile defense is likely a filter for other countries with lower level capability. Your homemade hamas rockets being defeated by iron dome. It is not for the type of weapons that the United States and russia are likely to have. So in that sense, its not destabilizing. Youre absolutely right that if it could prevent what we call limited offensive capability, or effective offensive effective capability, then it is very destabilizing. Russia and the United States would no longer have a deterrent. It would simply be in the realm of simple conventional weaponry. Thats in a world of insecurity as it was in the past. So that, i think, is not likely to happen. But its going to filter out the irans, north koreas, things that are real threats to the United States and potentially similar threat. To russia, though it is not likely at the moment. And because they are not as present internationally. I would also say that in terms of unilateral reductions, were faced now because
Mark hello. I am mark barton. Manus also bringing up, we have a closeup of what a 40 million watch looks like. Plus interviews with the ceos behind the brands. Mark treasuries rally as janet yellen proves she is predictable on patients. The exit from easing may be more gradual than markets anticipated. Yellen because we removed of word patient does not mean we will be impatient. Anna the dollar saw its biggest drop in six years as she stressed to there would not be a tightening until inflation returned to targets. These things might take longer than markets anticipated. She warned of the impact of the strong dollar. Yellen inflation has dropped below the longerterm objective. Declining import prices have also restrained inflation. In light of the appreciation of the dollar will likely continue to do so. Anna other currency swings on the backs of the news. Lets get over to manus at the touchscreen. Manus if you want to rep it up, my that woman packs a punch manus my that woman packs a p
We have managed to do it, not without difficult at times, but it has been a challenge, but i am largely met that challenge. We have produced a series of papers that are available at the project website. If anybody is interested, i took can tell you more. We have papers in the works, and all will have presentations here in washington. One of them is on afghanistan post 2014. One is on intervention and conflict a solution best conflict resolution. One is on intervention and conflict resolution. That is going to be a very difficult one to write, we will see. There is also one forthcoming on the arctic. So we are happy to have this to share with you, and without further ado, i will turn it over to to introduce our speakers today. Thanks. Thank you. First, i would like to welcome our colleague Timofei Bordachev who is here from moscow. He is the director for the center for comprehensive european and National Studies at a school of economics in moscow, a National Research university. At the
Close to the militant industrial complex, it seems that this new doctrine will before related in aggressive terms. Nuclear tactical strikes are not just a method of last resort but they will actually be used in a very aggressive and forward moving fashion as well as a certain level of threat is perceived. Do you see this approach you are proposing here will actually make its entry into this new doctrine . Is this based on your ideas, on your theoretical developments that you yourselves have worked on or does this reflect a more technical approach among Russian Military circles that is kind of above or below the current hysteria that surrounds the question . One of the interesting things about this project and doing the research was going back into the different strategies that existed on the soviet side in the cold war. They dont follow in a nice clear statement. This doctrine is not a significant change from the historic position on Nuclear Weapons. They were always just weapons. Usab
Individuals without a warrant and it led to the enactment of title iii, the Supreme Court ruled that for an intelligence surveillance, it had to be individualized. Third point, smith is different from this case from a lot of reasons. It is not just the government is acquiring certain types of information. Its not that the government is acquiring information about millions of individuals and not just one, but it is also that it acquiring information definitely and not made clear a few years after smith that when the government scales up a surveillance operation, the constitutional balance is different and needs to be addressed differently. Judge, you were exactly right. That the court is to assess the expectations of privacy of this program and not just what the Supreme Court decided. A quick related point. The minimization procedures would be constitutionally superfluous. If smith governed this case, they could collect the records without any of those protections in place and they coul