Is Beer Becoming More Concentrated Essay Example for Free

Is Beer Becoming More Concentrated Essay At first glance, the UK brewing industry might appear to be highly competitive, with many pubs in close proximity to one another and with many brands of beer and lager offered for sale. However, in reality most pubs are owned by the major brewers. Tied houses, as they are called, account for about 40 per cent of a brewer’s turnover, and sell only a limited range of the beers and lagers that are available. Consumer choice is clearly constrained. The oligopolistic nature of the brewing industry can be seen when we consider the market shares of the leading brewers (see table). In 1985 the three largest brewers held 47 per cent of the market. By 2001 this had grown to 73 per cent. What is also significant is that small independent brewers, which generally operate within a local or regional market, have seen a dramatic fall in their market share. With this huge growth in the market power of the major brewers have come large rises in the price of beer (even after taking inflation and tax increases into account). Prices in the UK have risen faster than anywhere else in Europe. Market shares of the largest brewers | |1985 | | |2005 | | |(%) | | |(%) | |Bass |22 | |Scottish-Courage |27 | |Allied Lyons (Carlsberg) |13 | |Coors (Carling, Worthington) |20 | |Grand Met (Watneys) |12 | |! nbev (Bass, Beck’s, Stella) |19 | |Whitbread |11 | |Carlsberg UK (Carlsberg, Tetley’s) |13 | |Scottish and Newcastle |10 | |Diageo (Guinness) |6 | |Courage |9 | |Anheuser-Busch (Budweiser) |2 | |Others |23 | |Others |13 | |Total |100 | |Total |100 | |3-firm concentration ratio |47 | |3-firm concentration ratio |66 | |5-firm concentration ratio |68 | |5-firm concentration ratio |85 | 1987, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the forerunner to the Competition Commission (see section 6. 6), investigated the brewing industry and in 1989 issued the ‘Beer Orders’, requiring the large brewers to sell many of their pubs. The objective was to increase competition as smaller brewers and other companies and individuals bought these pubs and then stocked a range of beers. However, the hopes were ill-founded. The pubs that were sold were the least profitable, and many have since closed. There is thus now less competition between pubs. Also, about 40 per cent of UK pubs are now owed by large pub chains. The Beer Orders also required that over 10 000 pubs owned by the big breweries should stock ‘guest beers’ from rival breweries. But the big breweries responded by selling most of these pubs. In pubs not owned by the big breweries, and where there is the threat of genuine competition, the big breweries often supply their beers at lower prices, thus making it impossible for the smaller breweries to compete. The brewers, finding a reduction in their scope for achieving economies of scale from vertical integration (owning both breweries and pubs), have sought to gain economies of scale from horizontal integration (having a larger share of total brewing). Mergers and takeovers in the brewing industry have been common. For example, in May 2000 Interbrew (the Belgian brewer and owners of the Stella Artois brand) acquired Whitbread, the UK’s third largest brewer, and a month later acquired Bass, the second largest. This gave Interbrew nearly one third of the market. The acquisitions were referred to the Competition Commission, which recommended a break up of the new giant: a recommendation accepted by the government. In response, at the end of 2001 Interbrew (now called !nbev) sold most of the Whitbread division, including brands such as Carling, Caffrey’s and Worthington, to the US brewer Coors. In the light of this splitting of Interbrew, and feeling that this proved that competition policy was effective, the government in 2002 decided to scrap the Beer Orders. This was greeted with dismay by small independent brewers, which were already reluctant to expand, faced with the power of such massive competitors in both production and retail, with heavily advertised brands gaining larger and larger shares of the market. Small independent brewers are understandably reluctant to expand, faced with the power of such massive competitors in both production and retail, with heavily advertised brands gaining larger and larger shares of the market. |Questions | |1. What are the barriers to entry in (a) brewing; (b) opening new pubs? | |2. Do small independent brewers have any market advantages?

Carlsberg International Strategy And Prospective Partners Commerce Essay

Carlsberg International Strategy And Prospective Partners Commerce Essay Beer is one of the worlds most consumed alcoholic drinks. Nelson (2005) stated that it is the most popular drink after water and tea. There are lots of brewing companies though emphasis will be made on Carlsberg in this instance. The Carlsberg Group is the worlds fourth largest brewery group. The Group is distinguished by a high degree of variety of brands, markets and cultures. Its activities are centred on markets where the Group has the strength and the right products to secure a leading position. Due to the variation of the markets, the contribution to growth, earnings and development within the Group differs, both at present and in the longer-term projections (Carlsberg, 2012). In countries where Carlsberg has no breweries, the Group sells its products through exports and licensing agreements. It aims to establish and develop strong market positions for their international premium brands through dynamic partnerships with licensing, export and duty-free partners around the world. The Carlsberg beer portfolio includes more than 500 brands. They differ significantly in volume, price, target audience and geographic penetration. (Carlsberg, 2012). Carlsberg International Strategy and Prospective Partners The company operates using an international strategy which implies that it takes the beer first produced for its domestic market and sells them internationally with only low local customization. This highlights that the beer it sells meets a worldwide need and at such do not face substantial competitors which implies that it is not confronted with pressures to cut down its cost structure. It tends to centralize the beer development functions such as research and development in its home country and establish manufacturing and marketing functions in each country it operates. Carlsberg chose an international strategy for the following reasons: To increase sales and profit growth by entering new markets and also selling in existing markets (Hill, 2009). This is achieved because it exports its products to destinations like South America where it has no breweries and in some cases through licensing agreements like it did with Charrington and Tetley in Britain by giving them right to brew and bottle Carlsberg beer and in return get a royalty fee. It also formed joint ventures with Scottish Newcastle and a brewery in Honk Kong which it now fully owns. The Group also formed mergers with Danish rival, Ruborg and Orkla of Norway which it later owned fully. From the case study, it is very obvious that they go into these markets at a slow but cautious pace by using the services of the partners and this is to avoid information costs and risk and some other uncertainties such as trade barriers associated with foreign involvement. It also gets to learn about the foreign market in cases where it formed joint ventures and mergers and la ter take full control of the company. Another reason is to protect Carlsbergs home market share because operating in foreign countries takes away business from its competitors by offering customers other choices and it lets the competitors know that they would face the same response if they attack the home market (Rugman Collinson, 2009). Furthermore, it is a tactics that Carlsberg could use to diversify themselves against the risk and uncertainties of the domestic business cycle (Rugman Collinson, 2009). This implies that by operating in other countries it can often reduce the negative consequences of economic swing such as recession in its home country. Despite Carlsberg seemingly predatory instinct for 100% control and ownership, prospective partners engage with Carlsberg because of the following reasons: They will benefit from its intangible properties (Hill, 2009), like in the case of licensing where the licensee has the right to Carlsbergs intellectual properties such as patents, processes and trademarks. This also applies to joint ventures as the partner gets to know about its processes as well. They would be able to offer their clients a wider range of products and services (Mcpheat, 2010). For example in licensing where Carlsberg gives them rights to its intellectual properties, the partners tend to take advantage of more market opportunities (newly identified demand) as they will not only sell their own products but also that of Carlsberg, which means that their customers have variety of products to choose from. They might also have an opportunity to get endorsed into Carlsbergs advertisements (Mcpheat, 2010). That is Carlsberg might support their products in its advertisement in cases where it forms a merger or joint venture with partners. They share fixed costs and financial risks with Carlsberg which implies that they can succeed in dealing with failure to meet a certain standard or lack of resources (such as land, labour or capital). An example of an instance where this occurs is in joint ventures. Cooperating with Carlsberg creates room for pooling ideas and generates more creative solutions to problems (National Association of Conservation Districts, 1994). This is applicable when partners form joint ventures and mergers with Carlsberg. Thus, customers will be happier as their problems would be solved at a faster thereby improving customer service experience (Mcpheat, 2010). Potential acquisitions targets and strategic responses to acquisition bids According to the case study, Carlsberg has a global share by volume of 7.5% making it the fourth largest brewing corporation after AB Inbev and its market capitalization was over 80 billion Danish Kroner (Dkk). Its sales in 2009 were 59.4 billion (Dkk) on which it achieved 15.8% operating profit margin. This makes it a potential future acquisition target for other brewing groups such as AB Inbev for the following reasons: The larger brewing group would want to increase their companys portion of sales within the market in order to increase pricing power (Campbell et al., 2003). If a company doesnt have much pricing power then an increase in their prices would lessen the demand for their products (Investopedia US, 2012). Carlsberg has knowledge and marketing expertise about the local markets in which it owns breweries and so other brewing groups would want to acquire it as entry mode to these markets. Besides it would be a quicker way for them to make their presence known in these markets. Carlsberg is a valuable brand and as such is a target for other bigger groups as they would want gain its intellectual property such as patents, trademarks, production processes, databases that are difficult to re-create, and research development laboratories with a history of successful product development (Bragg, 2012). Its being the fourth largest brewing corporation in the world makes it is a major competitor in the brewing industry and in order to reduce competition a brewing group such as AB Inbev may want to purchase it. Furthermore, it is difficult to get costumers to change brands because customers are fiercely loyal to local brands and the only way of tapping into these markets is by purchasing the brewery (Rugman Collinson, 2009). For example in countries where Carlsberg markets its products that the larger groups havent entered yet, they could tap into these markets by purchasing the brewery since the customers are familiar to Carlsbergs products. The larger brewing group will want to gain preferential access to Carlsbergs sales and distribution channels. By acquiring it, they can use it to distribute its own products. Some of examples of sales channels they would benefit from are telemarketing or a well-trained-in house sales staff (Bragg, 2012). However, there are some barriers that a brewing group such as AB Inbev might face if they sought to acquire Carlsberg this could be: Clash of culture between both groups in terms of high management turnover which may possibly be as a result of Carlsbergs employees not liking the acquiring groups way of doing things and may decide to leave the company. This can materially harm the performance of the brewery because management talent and expertise will be lost and as such Carlsberg might reject an attempt to be bought (Hill, 2009). Integrating with other companies is difficult as a result of differences in management philosophy and company culture. This tends to slow down the integration of operations. National culture differences could even worsen these problems (Hill, 2009). For example language barriers between Carlsberg (owned by a Danish speaking company) and AB Inbev (a Dutch speaking company) may make Carlsberg decide to reject a bid. Also, Carlsberg is a big company as well and might reject an attempt to be bought because it doesnt want to lose its identity. They could go as far as responding to any acquisition bids by purchasing other breweries as a form of defence. Due to its having good market shares purchasing other breweries will make its shares bigger that it cannot be bought within the brewery industry without anti-trust (this refers to specific laws protecting trade and commerce from unfair business practices (Merriam-Webster, 2012)) thereby making it difficult for companies like AB Inbev to acquire it (Bragg, 2012). Global brand portfolio management and consolidation A global strategy that sustains 500 brands cannot possibly be right because this strategy focuses on increasing profitability and profit growth by reaping the costs reductions that come from economies of scale and learning effects in other to have a low-cost strategy on a global scale. This implies that this type of strategy suits where there are strong pressures for cost reductions and demand for local responsiveness are low. Carlsberg has 500 brands and they customize their product a bit to meet local conditions and this customization involves shorter production runs and the duplication of functions, which tends to raise costs. They wont reap the benefits of economies of scale as there wont be reduction in the unit cost achieved by producing different product in large quantities. Also, they wont be able to save costs that come from learning by doing in terms of producing the same brand over and over again i.e. their labour productivity may not increase over time as it is not easy f or individuals to learn most efficient of performing tasks when a large volume of different products is involved. Hence, production cost will increase due to a decline in labour productivity and management efficiency, which might decrease the firms profitability (Hill, 2009). Carlsberg should rationalise its facilities and focus on far fewer brands because it would be much easier to control and manage fewer brands and also implementing a global strategy would be easier compared to when it has 500 brands. By doing this they would be able to benefit from a bit from economies of scale and learning effects. Furthermore, the cost of advertising so many brands is relatively expensive. The customization of the brands would even make it more expensive if they have different advertisements for different brands in different countries. So they might want to consider focusing on fewer brands because the fewer the brands the lesser the price of advertising. Individual Reflection and Self-Analysis Expectations: I had always wanted to learn more about the world of business and management and as such my expectations for this module prior to beginning was to gain knowledge about business and management in an international context as the key to a successful business is how well the business is managed. This expectation has been met because I have gained the preliminary knowledge on how firms or organisations carry out their operations internationally for example the strategies on how firms enter a foreign market. It has also given me an introductory knowledge on how to identify a good business opportunity, have good plan of action to run and also manage a firm successfully. Challenges: I had some challenges during the module and this was because I studied Electrical/Electronic Engineering in my first degree and knew almost nothing about business. Having to do case studies wasnt something I had done in my previous degree and so I struggled with how to critically analyse and answer the questions that usually follow suit. I wouldnt say I have completely overcome this challenge as there are still some cases where Im still not able to comprehend a case but I know reading ahead of the lectures and paying attention during lectures has helped me to a certain extent. Preparation for Masters: I feel prepared to begin a Masters level programme and this module helped me prepare for it. This is because, I have learnt the basics of international business and management and also how to do extensive researches and structure a report, and my referencing skills have improved as well.

The United Kingdom Essays -- England Economy Politics History Essays

The United Kingdom   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   London is the capital of the United Kingdom. It ranks as one of the world?s most historic cities, tracing its roots back nearly 2000 years. London has long been a great world port and trading center. The port of London consists of two huge docks and 43 miles of wharves along the Thames River. London also has a remarkable transportation system. Expressways, and underground and surface railways carry more than one million commuters between the outlying areas and central London each workday. More than 350,000 commuters travel by subway, about 400,000 take surface trains and more than 100,000 go by bus. About 100,000 people drive their cars to work. The London subway system (the ?tube?), is the largest subway system in the world. It includes over 100 miles of underground rail lines. London?s famous double decker busses are an excellent source of transportation within the central section of the city.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The United Kingdom has an area of 244,111 square km and a population of 57,591,677. It?s population density is 241 people per square kilometer. 89% of the United Kingdom?s population is urban. The United Kingdom has a large portion of flat rolling relief, making it ideal for the 11% of the population that is involved in farming. The UK has about 240,000 farms, which average about 175 acres in size. 25% of the UK?s land is arable and the chief agricultural products are wheat, barley, potatoes, sugar beets, livestock and dairy products. The United Kingdom?s currency is the British pound, which is equivalent to 2.45 Canadian dollars.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The United Kingdom is a member of the European Community. All members of this community are engaged in forming a single market for their economic resources. Forming one market, without artificial barriers to trade and investment, the member nations are able to increase their economic efficiency and raise their citizens? standards of living. The members of the community are Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom. In 1993, the member nations of the European Community formed the European Union. The union consists of three components. One is the European Community. The others are a common Foreign and security policy and Justice and Home Affairs (this involves cooperation on such issues as crime and imm... ...on, more than the combined shares of France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands. ?All that we expect as a major company is here in the UK.?- Michael Morgan, President and CEO, Starpak inc. When analyzing the various aspects of the United Kingdom, it becomes evident that the UK has many significant advantages over other countries and holds the traits necessary for future expansion. A politically stable and extremely well organized system of government, great relationships and trading arrangements with other nations, tax breaks awarded to new companies and an abundance of skilled workers, are all among the UK?s benefits. The UK is also self-sufficient energy-wise and has a remarkable transportation system. Investing in the UK may be one of the smartest things you have ever done. It is one of the most sound and secure investments available. The best combination of benefits that offer pro-business conditions, work-force cost efficiency and flexibility, minimum risk, and maximum botto m line return are readily available in the UK. ?Britain draws more foreign investment in new factories, research centers and other business operations than any other country in Europe.? The New York Times

False Memory Syndrome Essay -- Psychology Disorders Essays

False Memory Syndrome How accurate and reliable is memory? "Studies on memory have shown that we often construct our memories after the fact, that we are susceptible to suggestions from others that will help us fill in the gaps in our memories" (Carroll 6). Prior to reading and discussing the issue of False Memory Syndrome, I hadn’t thought much about the topic. Maybe a person who had experienced this would be more educated. I did however find it very interesting to research and my beliefs or feelings about it now exist and will be shared at a later time. The purpose of this paper is to describe what False Memory Syndrome is and summarize some of the facts that have been gathered through previous research and my own research. The definition of False Memory Syndrome, according to the Random House Compact Unabridged Dictionary, is a "psychological condition in which a person believes that he or she remembers events that have not actually occurred" (Freyd 3). Dr. John F. Kihlstrom, a professor of psychology at Yale University also suggests that FMS is a condition in which a person’s identity and interpersonal relationships are centered around memory of traumatic experience which is objectively false, but in which the person strongly believes. This false memory has been so deeply ingrained that is often interferes with the individuals personality and lifestyle. The disorder will sometimes be destructive because the individual will avoid any type of confrontation that might challenge the memory. This often distracts the person from coping with everyday life challenges (Freyd 2). When a couple was accused by their own daughter for abuse that had never happened, the couple, Pamela and Peter Freyd, formed the False ... ... Works Cited Pendergrast, Mark. Victims of Memory: Sex Abuse Accusations and Shattered Lives. Hinesburg: Upper Access, Inc. Ofshe, Richard and Ethan Watters. Making Monsters: False Memories, Psychotherapy, and Sexual Hysteria. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1994. Carroll, Robert Todd. "Memory." The Skeptics Dictionary. 1998. http://dcn.davis.ca.us/~btcarrol/skeptic/memory.html (01 Dec 2000). Hochman, John, M.D. "Recovered Memory Therapy and False Memory Syndrome." Altedena: Skeptics Society, 1994. http://www.skeptic.com/02.3.hochman- fms.html (20 Nov 2000). Freyd, Pamela, Ph.D. "Frequently Asked Questions." Philadelphia: False Memory Syndrome Foundation. Sept. 1995. http://www.fmsfonline.com/fmsffaq.html. (20 Nov 2000). Freberg, Laura. Stand!. Boulder: Coursewise Publishing Inc., 1999.

Henrik Isbens A Dolls House Essay -- A Dolls House Essays

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  A doll house by Henrik Ibsen is a modern drama whose characters fail to understand who they really are. The theme of self-discovery can be viewed throughout the entire play. Nora’s character plays an important role in self-discovery. She is a dynamic character who proves at the end of the play that she accept and discovers who the true Nora is.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The play begins with a direct emphasis on Nora and her husband (Torvald) relationship. One can easily assume that their relationship is based on material things and status. It appears that money is the one thing which is keeping their marriage what is considered to be happy. Throughout the first act Torvald immediately begins referring to his wife with childlike names. In the first opening lines he refers to Nora as â€Å"my squirrel.† Throughout the play, Torvald continues to uses nick names such as â€Å"little song bird†, â€Å"skylark†, â€Å"odd little one† and many more belittling names. The usage of the above nicknames shows that Torvald feels superior to Nora. He wants to keep her small and under him. For this reason, he continues to refer to Nora in this manner throughout the play. Torvald and Nora’s relationship can be viewed at first as a happy and pleasant one. At the same time one may view their relationship as that of the ordinary. Torvald does not see Nora as an equal. He fails to realize that she is a woman and not a child. He continues to speak to her in a childish manner because he views her for her appearance and not for who she really is. It is clearly presented that Torvald takes his position as being superior because he feels that Nora is dependent on him. He believes she is narrow minded and ignorant because she is a woman.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the first act it is also indicated that money plays an important role throughout the play. Nora proves to be an insensitive and self-centered woman when she is visited by her old friend Mrs. Linde. Her first ignorant questions were whether Mrs. Linde husband left her any money or children. Mrs. Linde states that she was left penniless and that she has struggled. Nora being the self-centered person that she is begins bragging of her good fortune and forgets to acknowledge Mrs. Linde struggles. The above scene provides a vivid understanding of the type o... ...actions he becomes enraged. He worries about the effect this will have on his reputation and not on the consequences his wife may have to face. Through the unraveling of this secret is that Nora is finally able to understand who she is. Nora realizes that Torvald never loved her for who she was but for the things she did. Torvald loved her because she allowed him to play and control her as if she were real a doll. Nora begins to also understand that the love Torvald shared for her was the same to that of her father. Everything was based on what they felt was entertaining and not on loving Nora for who she is. The end of Act III brings Nora to a complete self- discovery. Nora has come to understand herself and the ones around her life.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In conclusion, A Doll House is a modern drama which is derived on self- discovery and understanding. Nora had to take a stand and do something on her own in order to realize that she is capable of being independent. Through her actions she was able to discovery that there is more to her life than being a passive and untrue person. Nora was finally able to come to terms and let out her true self.

Conflict Assessment of an Ongoing Sibling Rivalry Using the Wilmot-Hocker Conflict Essay

It’s very common for siblings to fight and it’s not uncommon for sibling to throw a punch or two, but what happens when the fighting becomes hate and aggression towards each other. This form of tension between brothers and sisters is called sibling rivalry. Sibling rivalry is a type of competition or animosity among brothers and sisters, blood-related or not. This type of competition or animosity can cause a rift in the sibling’s relationship with one another, which can result in a multitude of fight (sometimes physical) and many verbal altercations as well. Sibling rivalry can also cause various problems within a household, including favoritism, divorce, and a house that is emotionally divided. Stress within the parent’s lives and children’s lives can create more conflict and increase sibling rivalry. Eighty two percent of people in Western countries have at least one sibling, and siblings generally spend more time together during childhood than they do with parents. The sibling bond is often complicated and is influenced by factors such as parental treatment, birth order, personality, and people experiences outside the family. Sibling rivalry is not unique to Western culture and can involve aggression towards one another. Often, sibling rivalry starts before the second child is born and continues as the children mature and compete for everything from toys to attention. Each child in a family competes to define who they are as an individual and wants to show the world that they are separate from their siblings. Children may often feel they are getting unequal amounts of their parents’ attention, discipline, and responsiveness. Children tend to fight more in families where there is no understanding or boundary set that shows that fighting is not an acceptable way to resolve conflicts, and no alternative ways of handling such conflicting situations. In this conflict assessment we will assess the sibling rivalry of a brother and sister who have had an ongoing issue of animosity towards each other for over fifteen years. Using Wilmot-Hocker’s conflict assessment guide, we will be able to understand  each aspect of the conflict and possibly come to a common ground in which they (the siblings) will be able to get along in a more long-term manner. Through this conflict assessment the siblings will be able to explore the possible solutions to assist in resolving this issue in a sensible manner. The two subjects that will be assessed today are DeMarcus (33 years old) and Danett (25 years old). They are blood related siblings and share the same parents. They’ve been living in consistent animosity of each other for over fifteen years and they continue to fight (physically) and argue. Their parents are tired of this frequent quarrel between them, and the parents feel like the conflict is driving a wedge into their household. The two siblings, now that they are adults, can see the toll their quarrel has caused, within their relationships with others (personal and intimate) outside of their family and also within the frame of their intermediate family. Nature of the Conflict From prior questions asked to the subjects, there are a various number of triggering events that have cause this particular conflict. Numerous acts of belittlement, hatred, physical violence, neglect, bullying, abuse, and threats over the years have escalated this conflict out of control. DeMarcus states that the conflict began when Danett was born and he expressed his dyer need, want and concern for a younger brother. DeMarcus states that Danett has always been an over achiever that has always captured the attention, no matter if the attention was good or bad, of their parents. Danett’s personal concerns and issues became more alarming when she expressed her feelings on why her issue or animosity towards her brother was so strong: â€Å"When I was younger, I lived in the shadow of my older brother. Any activity that my brother was in, I wanted to participate in as well. I was basically the tag-a-long little sister, until I turned the age of ten, then things began to change a bit. One day DeMarcus and his best friend where playing a game and I was in another room. When my brother finished the game with his friend he left to go use the bathroom, leaving his friend unattended. His friend, at that time, got up and came into the room that I was in and began to fondle me. My brother came back to the room to see his friend was gone and decided to search around the house for him. When  DeMarcus came into the room I was screaming, â€Å"Stop! Stop it!† But instead of DeMarcus trying to get his so-called best friend off of me, he sat and watched as I fought to get away from his teenage friend.† â€Å"Later that night when our mother picked us up, I whispered to her that I needed to talk to her about something important and my mother told her that we would discuss it when they got home in private. As soon as we arrived home, I began to tell her mother what happened and immediately she called DeMarcus into the room to question him about the events that took place. DeMarcus stood in my mother’s face and called me a liar and said that it never happened. I was crushed and didn’t know if my mother believed me and I felt abandoned in a sense.† Danett continued to express her concerns of hurt, worthlessness, embarrassment and betrayal, and that her relationship with her brother became a downward spiral of abuse and deceit. When asking DeMarcus about the events that took place, he claimed that he had no recollection of this ever happening, but quickly interject with the comment, â€Å"If she was a boy then that wouldn’t have happened to her!† Danett explains that this is always DeMarcus’ negative attitude towards her, and that these comments always are the heated beginning of a fist fight between them. Argument is â€Å"reason giving† (Benoit 1992; Rowland and Barge 1991) one makes claims and backs them up (Keough 1992). DeMarcus, in order to maintain innocence from accusation, begins to belittle Danett in order to get his innocence across to whoever is listening. The arguer tries to get others to â€Å"recognize the rightness† of his or her beliefs or actions (Benoit 1983, 550). Interpersonal argumentation, then, has a place in our everyday conflicts and negotiations (Trapp 1981, 1989). Orientation to the Conflict The attitudes expressed in the conflict are ones of deceit, regret, close mindedness, unhappiness and a loss of self-esteem. In many ethnic household certain issues are swept under the rug and never discussed causing suppressed feelings and hidden issues. Danett explains: â€Å"I would try to discuss the issues I had with my mother. I felt that since she was once a young girl, like me, she would understand where I was coming from with my  concerns. My mother was very good at trying to make my problems go away through the acts of prayer and faith. My mother tried to make me a firm believer in the motto: Let go and let God. Which in translation means: Let your burdens go and let the Lord handle them; no need to stress. My family was very good about trying not to stress over things and trying to sweep problems under the rug or resolve an issue in a timely and quiet manner. Even though the issue was never discussed again, the emotional and mental scars were there and I felt like I could never trust my brother again and I could never come to anyone in my family with any of my problems. My biggest fear was that the acts of faith I was taking through my cultural and religious beliefs were going to make the situation worse and my fear came true.† A person is supposed to say what he or she means to resolve disagreements through the use of power (as in competition) or by working things out together (collaboration) (Wilson 1992). The problem is that when we are angry, we may exaggerate an offense, seek revenge, and then lead ourselves and others into unproductive and wasteful conflict (Planalp 1999). DeMarcus expressed: â€Å"Danett has always been an over achiever (in sports and academics) and has always captivated the attention of the family. I admit, I always wanted a brother and I say that every day because I don’t understand what others see in her that draws them to her. She makes me feel worthless to others in the family and I treat her how I feel. Thus is why I belittle her and allow things to happen to her because I feel she deserves the treatment I give her.† DeMarcus, aside for the feelings he bestowed above, made it clear that he wanted to make this situation better with his sister. â€Å"I love my sister, don’t get me wrong! At the time, I could understand why I wasn’t treated more like her. I felt unwanted and when I failed in certain areas, she would succeed. This is one of the main problems I have with her. Her ongoing success was acquired during birth and when I was unable to succeed, I started to resent her. When my plans of â€Å"trying to bring her down† didn’t work, I think that when I became more physical and wanted her to be in physical pain as well as emotional.† The noted interest to resolve this  issue between the siblings is very evident. They (the siblings) keep maintaining the fact that they not only want to resolve this issue, but they want to better their relationship with one another. Interest and Goals The role of each person has in the interaction with others is a form of identity goals, and how one wants to resolve the conflict is process goals. I believe that when you open the lines of communication with your colleagues or relatives, everyone is able to approach the problem respectively, than the parties involved will receive a positive outcome that will allow the parties to further their relationship. The main interest and goals of these two siblings, is to come to an understanding of one another’s feelings in order to function as a family and to decrease the rift between them. Both of the parties want to accomplish the same goal, in order to alleviate the consistent arguing. Danett and DeMarcus, though they are both adult and live in separate locations of the United States, believe that the alleviation of this conflict between them will bring them closer together and allow their parents a form of relief from the added stress this conflict has caused. Power According to (Kritek 1994;90) People using dominance (power or control) for their own needs do so out of fear or insecurity. The ability to control one’s environment, including the behavior of others is power. The siblings are exhibiting a balance of power between each other. Danett’s power over DeMarcus comes from her achievements and her existence on this earth, while DeMarcus’ power comes from his insults, his nonchalant attitude towards his family, and his inability to act like an older brother and allow others to take advantage of his sister mentally and sexually, when she was younger. Styles Hearing both sides of the situation and understanding the tactics used in each altercation of conflict, the styles exhibited in this conflict are varied. There are threats, which is a commonly used competitive tactic. We rush to use threats because we believe they are effective (Johnson and Ford  1996; Rubin, Pruitt, and Kim 1994). DeMarcus would threaten Danett and in return a fight would escalate, inflicting both a negative cast of physical and mental pain within one another. This act is also a form of verbal aggressiveness; which is a broader category of communication than threats. Rather than just telling someone what might happen to them, when you use verbal aggression you â€Å"attack the self concepts† of other people (Infante and Wigley 1986). These aggressive tactics overlap and become known as bullying. Bullying is â€Å"ongoing, persistent badgering, harassment and psychological terrorizing†¦ that demoralizes, dehumanizes and isolates those targeted† (Tracy, Lutgen-Sandvik, and Alberts 2004, 3; Lutgen-Sandvik, Tracy, and Alberts 2005). After the massive verbal assaults between the siblings, violence would soon occur between them. Violence is when conflict interactions move beyond threats and verbal aggressiveness, often involving a multitude of physical pain and or danger. These styles are very collective and evolve into one another. Assessment Given all the facts of the conflict, I feel that a third-party intervention should be available for mediation. Meditation is an act of resolving conflict positively between parties using a mediator or third party help. Mediation is defined as a process in which a third-party helps (mediator) to assist in resolving a dispute between two or more parties. A mediator’s role is to facilitate and assist with the communication efforts of the parties involved and to further their focus on tackling real issues and to help generate a positive or neutral outcome. Mediation in this situation will hopefully bring about a positive change with the attitudes of the siblings. Being able to voice opinions, emotions/ feelings to one another will bridge the gap of the sibling’s ongoing rift. Coming to a solution is the main focus of a mediator. The mediator is to create a positive yet productive discussion that will allow the parties to express their concerns amongst each other without criticizing either party’s opinion. Sometimes mediation is used to improve relationship amongst parties that have to consistently work with each other or be around each other. There are many ways to stop the growth of sibling rivalry. Many times it starts at birth with the parents. As a parent, being able to express equal amounts of affection to your children is needed to eliminate this future dilemma. Also being able to listen to a child’s issues and assist them in any form of conflict, weather in school or at home, will make their conflict resolution skills better. DeMarcus and Danett understand that this issue will not disappear after a few sessions with a mediator and are fully dedicated to resolve this problem. The conflict, which has been occurring for several years, has not only called for assistance from a mediator, but also a psychiatrist will be needed to assess the permanent mental damage it has caused throughout their lives. The parents should also be involved in these assessments to decrease the stress and tension amongst the entire family. The parents might be able to give further insight into why this bickering has been an ongoing process amongst the two siblings. Personal Intervention Being able to see and address an ongoing issue is a major step within the lives of these siblings. The fact that they understand that this issue has gone too far and has taken a major toll on their lives as individuals, is a break though that should be applauded. Forgiveness and reconciliation are just the first steps needed to carry the torch in this intervention. Forgiveness allows us to restore ourselves and through forgiveness DeMarcus and Danett can begin to bridge the gap that has been a gaping hole in their lives. Reconciliation will follow as they continue to progress in the resolution of their conflict. Reconciliation will restore them to one another as a result of time; the human desire to transcend injury; the courage to place violation, betrayal, deception, or some other wound in the larger context of additional experience; and perhaps the mysterious effect of what some may call â€Å"grace† will assist in the accomplishing of their goal to become civil towards one another. Attempted Solutions The parities have generated a wide variety of possible solutions. Further research methods and deep considerable thought into this form of conflict may be needed to further understand the deep rooted nature of this relationship between these two siblings. It is very important to develop and  explore as many options as possible when coming to a reasonable solution to a conflict of this magnitude. An approach to apology and reconciliation has been attempted many times but still the two siblings are back to square one in their conflict. Being able to make authentic apologizes through forgiveness is important in this particular conflict. Through apology, reconciliation can be accomplished in order for each party within this conflict to further a relationship with one another. Through mediation and other acts of mental therapy, these issues can be resolved, but it will take time, full cooperation, and commitment of the parties involved. References Benoit, P.J. 1983. Characteristics of arguing from a naive social actor’s perspective. In Argument in transition: Proceedings of the third summer conference on argumentation, edited by D. Zarefsky, M. O. Sillars, and J.Rhodes, 544-559. Annandale, VA: Speech Communication Association. Benoit, P.J. 1992. Introduction, special issue: Interpersonal argumentation. Argumentation and Advocacy 29: 39-40. Infante, D.A., and C. J. Wigley III. 1986. Verbal aggressiveness: An interpersonal model and measure. Communication Monographs 53: 61-69. Johnson, C., and Ford. 1996. Dependence power, legitimacy, and tactical choice. Social Psychology Quarterly 59, no. 2: 126-141. Keough, C.M. 1992. Bargaining arguments and argumentative bargainers. In Communication and negotiation, edited by L.L. Putnam and M.E. Roloff, 109-127. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Kritek, P. B. 1994. Negotiating at an uneven table: A practical approach to working with difference and diversity. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.  Lutgen-Sandvik, P., S. Tracy, and J. Alberts. 2005. Burned by bullying in the American workplace: A first time study of U.S. prevalence and delineation of bullying â€Å"degree.† Presented at the Western States Communication Convention, February, San Francisco, California. Planalp, S. 1999. Communicating emotion: Social, moral and cultural process. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rowland, R.C., and J.K. Barge. 1991. On interactional argument. Argumentation and Advocacy 28: 24-34. Rubin, J.Z.,  D.G. Pruitt, and S.H. Kim. 1994. Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate and settlement. 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tracy, S.J., P. Lutgen-Sandvik, and J.K. Alberts. 2004. Is it really bad? Exploring the emotional pain of the workplace bullying through narratives, drawings and metaphors. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Communication Association, Chicago, Illinois (November). Trapp, R. 1981. Special report on argumentation: Introduction. Western Journal of Speech Communication 45: 111-117. Trapp, R. 1989. Interpersonal argumentation: Conflict and reason-giving. Communication Reports 2: 105-109. Wilson, S. R. 1992. Face and framework in negotiation. In Communication and negotiation, edited by L.L. Putnam and M.E. Roloff, 176-205. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Atomic Threat: New Weapon of the 1940s

What follows will be a brief summary and review of three books concerning the advent of the atomic bomb, its use on Japan, the politics and diplomacy involved   and the effects that Truman and his cabinet suspected that the bomb would have on future wars and future politics.   Three authors, Gar Alperoitz, Herbert Feis and J. Samuel Walker present similar information about the development and use of the atomic bomb and the concerns that those few politicians with intimate knowledge of the bomb suspected its existence would have on future global politics. The authors speak from different perspectives and yet at points provide strikingly similar details about the events surrounding the development of the bomb.   While all three authors focus on the development and use of the bomb, each approaches the subject from a slightly different perspective.   Alperovitz focuses on diplomacy with Stalin, Walker focuses on the situation in Japan and Feis pays more attention to those involved with the development of the bomb, both politicians and scientists.   We will begin our considerations of these different approaches with Alperovitz's focus on the effects the bomb had on diplomacy and move on from there. Alperovitz book consists of a long 60 page introduction, eight chapters and four appendices describing the relations between the United States and the Soviet Union prior to and after the advent of the bomb.   He begins with Truman's concerns about the Russians when he took over from FDR. As he prepared for his first meeting with a USSR representative Truman declared that â€Å"if the Russians did not care to cooperate, ‘they could go to hell.'† A few hours later, the President expressed the same view to Soviet Foreign Minister V. M. Molotov in rather undiplomatic terms. Truman desired to continue FDR's policy of cooperation with the Russians, but his attitude when he spoke the above words were not the result of a moment's flash of temper. Problems were developing over the USSR's dealings with Poland.   Alperovitz's primary argument that the bomb had a very significant influence on American views of diplomacy with the USSR long before the bomb. The bomb was inextricably bound with Truman's strategy at Potsdam in July 1945 and â€Å"was regarded as a ‘master card' of diplomacy.† (Alperovitz, p. 1)   Alperovitz states that â€Å"†¦a major reason the bomb was used was ‘to make Russia more manageable†¦.† (Alperovitz, p. 1).   Touched upon the impact of nuclear weapons on the beginning of the Cold War. â€Å"In August 1945, Eisenhower felt that ‘before the atom bomb was used, I would have said yes, I was sure we could keep peace with Russia. Now, I don't know†¦People are frightened and disturbed all over. Everyone feels insecure again.† (Alperovitz, p. 2)   Truman and some members of his cabinet believed that Russia was attempting to dominate Eastern Europe so concerns over Poland had been chosen as a symbolic issue to force a showdown with Stalin because of Truman's concern that Stalin was had plans for all of Eastern and Central Europe.   (Alperovitz, p. 70)  Ã‚   Secretary Forrestal stated, â€Å"This difficulty over Poland could not be treated as an isolated incident.† (Alperovitz, p. 70) â€Å"Forrestal argued: ‘We had better have a showdown with them now rather than later.'† (Alperovitz, p. 70) On the surface, this showdown strategy seemed to have been a complete reversal of FDR's policy only a few weeks earlier. There were three major obstacles to Truman's firm, showdown approach. First, FDR appeared to have had a strong belief that cooperation with Russia was possible. Second was the concern that American-Soviet cooperation might be destroyed and that a separate peace accord between Germany and the USSR might be signed, a concern that was eliminated when the German government collapsed. The third concern was that a showdown with Russia might result in the loss of Soviet help in the war against Japan. While Truman's approach was one of an immediate showdown with Stalin, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill took a different approach. â€Å"He believed it might be possible to obtain additional concessions from the Russians if he could maintain the extended troop positions†¦Ã¢â‚¬  rather than withdrawing Anglo-American troops as General Eisenhower had proposed. (Alperovitz, p. 90) Churchill was prepared to use any argument at his disposal to persuade Truman to his point. Churchill cabled Truman, â€Å"‘The Russian occupational zone has the smallest proportion of people and grows by far the largest proportion of food†¦Before we move from the tactical positions we have at present achieved,' the Russians should be forced to agree that ‘the feeding of the German population must be treated as a whole and that the available supplies must be divided pro rata between the occupational zones.'† (Alperovitz, p. 91) When Truman took up the issue with his Joint Chiefs of Staff for advice, they were unwilling to use troop positions for political purposes. Even though Truman recognized that the Russians were in a strong position, he followed the showdown on Poland with a firm approach to the problem of cooperation in Central Europe. (Alperovitz, p. 93) Truman's joint action with Churchill stressed his willingness to present a united Anglo-American stand against Russia. Like General Eisenhower, various military authorities believed that this approach to the troop issue would yield negative results. By mid-May 1945, Truman's plan for cooperative control of Central Europe was faced with a direct challenge. On April 24 1945, one day after President Truman had a showdown with Molotov, Secretary of War Stimson wrote President Truman stating, â€Å"(The atomic bomb) has such a bearing on our present foreign relations and such an important effect upon all my thinking in this field that I think you should know about it without further delay.† (Alperovitz, pp. 103-04) Up to this point, President was apparently unaware of the bomb. Stimson had casually mentioned to Truman about an â€Å"immense project†¦(that) was under way–a project looking to the development of a new explosive of almost unbelievable destructive power,† Stimson had felt no compelling reason or need to fully discuss the matter with President Truman up to that time until after the showdown with Molotov. (Alperovitz, p. 104) Secretary Stimson discussed the atomic bomb with the President for three quarters of an hour and it was â€Å"assumed–not decided–that the bomb would be used.† Truman was made aware that Japan had been the target of the weapon development program and that a special Air Force group was about to leave for its overseas base. Although Stimson expressed confidence that the bomb would shorten the war, the use of the bomb against Japan was not main subject of discussion. The diplomatic implications of the atomic bomb dominated private discussion between Stimson and Truman during the last week of April and the first week of May, 1945. President Truman eventually came to agree that the atomic bomb would have decisive implications for diplomacy with Russia. By shortly after April 25, 1945, British representatives knew that a committee would be set up â€Å"to consider the whole ranged of political issues which will arise in connection with the atomic bomb.† (Alperovitz, p. 110) News of the atomic bomb first came to the average American and to most senior government officials from the newspapers. The weapon's power was disclosed in a way that produced great emotion and optimism about its usefulness as an instrument of high policy. (Alperovitz, p. 237) On August 16, 1945, after the bomb was used and the war ended, Truman told the press, that â€Å"Japan would not be divided into occupation zones, and declared †¦that as far as Japan was concerned, ‘in the event of any difference of opinion (among the Allied powers) the policies of the United States will govern.† (Alperovitz, p. 240) The atomic bomb had strengthened the American hand in diplomacy. In the â€Å"whirlwind days† â€Å"immediately after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, American diplomacy changed†¦swiftly.† Secretary Byrnes underscored the breadth and scope of the departures from typical diplomacy by saying, â€Å"Those†¦days†¦were full of action.† The sheer volume of work caused the Secretary of State to ask that the London foreign ministers' meeting set for September 1 be postponed until September 10.† (Alperovitz, p. 243). Truman declared: â€Å"The atomic bomb is too dangerous to be loose in a lawless world†¦We must constitute ourselves trustees of this new force†¦The best interests of the United States require the utmost cooperation by all concerned in keeping secret now and for all time in the future all scientific and technical information†¦.† (Alperovitz, p. 243) One week later, Truman directed that no information on the nuclear development project be released without the specific approval of the President. (Alperovitz, p. 243) Alperovitz clearly points out that the atomic bomb and the temporary American monopoly in possessing the bomb was viewed as a â€Å"great advantage to American diplomacy. In (Secretary Byrnes') view, the ‘primary task was to establish a â€Å"lasting structure of peace†Ã¢â‚¬ ¦A stable Europe, essential to world peace and American security alike, was the number-one goal. Byrnes believed that the nuclear monopoly could be maintained for at least seven years†¦within that period, with the support of the revolutionary weapon, his diplomacy could easily achieve its idealistic objectives. Thus, the weapon seemed a crucial factor in forcing agreement to an American plan for permanent peace–a plan which, ipso facto, would prevent another world war.† (Alperovitz, p. 245) Alperovitz goes on to add that Byrnes vision â€Å"obviated the danger of an arms race.† (Alperovitz, p. 245) History has shown that Byrnes was clearly wrong. Not only did the atomic bomb fail to eliminate the arms race, but it seems to have added to the race tremendously, but with all that was at stake, the bomb made going to war a much more risky proposition than it had been in the past. J. Samuel Walker's book â€Å"Prompt and Utter Destruction† focused on another aspect of the new weapon. Walker notes in his preface that, â€Å"The question of why President Truman used atomic bombs against Japan has intrigued me since I was an undergraduate history major. Indeed, it was the first issue in which the competing arguments of different scholars caught my interest†¦.† (Walker, p. ix) This statement in his preface sets up the direction for his book. Walker states, â€Å"In fact†¦Truman never faced a categorical choice between the bomb and an invasion that would cost hundreds of thousands of American lives†¦the prevailing perception (about the president's alternatives) vastly oversimplifies the situation in the summer of 1945†¦.† (Walker, p. 5) Walker points out 1) that there were other available options for a â€Å"reasonably short time† end to the war without resorting to the bomb, 2) Truman and his key advisers believed that Japan was so weak that the war could end even before an invasion began and 3) American military planners believed that even in a worst case scenario, American casualties would be far fewer than the hundreds of thousands Truman and his advisers claimed after the war. So, â€Å"Was the use of the bomb necessary at all† and if so, 2) â€Å"What exactly did it accomplish?† Walker begins by taking a look at the President. Truman won greater affection and esteem from the American people after his presidency and after he died than he had while president. He was honest, often indiscreet and blunt and needlessly offensive and â€Å"his decisiveness could lead to superficial or impulsive judgments.† (p. 7) The world was embroiled in a global war that made his arrival into the Oval Office a period of extraordinarily difficult problems and, even though he had been vice president, he came to the White House without adequate preparation. Indeed, he began his turn at the helm basically â€Å"in the dark about many of his predecessor's policies and commitments†¦.† (Walker, p. 9) The one fundamental military strategy from Roosevelt that seemed clear to Truman was his predecessor's desire â€Å"to achieve complete victory at the lowest cost in American lives.† (Walker, p. 9) After October 1941, President Roosevelt authorized a major effort to explore the feasibility of an atomic bomb. The Manhattan project began with the purpose of addressing the â€Å"bewildering variety† of scientific and engineering uncertainties connected with nuclear energy and the bomb. Once scientists had proven that a nuclear chain reaction was possible, the Manhattan Project focused on designing a bomb and producing the fuel to make it work. All of this was kept secret from Vice President Truman, so when he suddenly became President, he knew virtually nothing about the Manhattan Project or the bomb even though he had learned of â€Å"a massive and highly secret effort to build a new weapon† while he was chairman of the Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program in the Senate. However, while serving as a senator he did not receive any details. Secretary Stimson confirmed and elaborated information about the bomb to the President in a meeting on April 25, 1945, but Secretary Stimson warned, â€Å"the existence of such a weapon would create profound problems because the United States would not be able to maintain a monopoly on the technology. Further, the issue of sharing information about the atomic bomb would become ‘a primary question of our foreign relations.† (Walker, p. 13) When Truman took office, he was outraged by the Soviet conduct in Poland, but he did not want to ruin the relatively good relations between the United States and the Soviet Union. Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945, less than a month after Truman became president, but the war in Japan raged on. Americans were still upset about the attack on Pearl Harbor and had also become outraged when the U.S. government learned about how the Japanese mistreated American prisoners and released that information to the public and the Japanese were equally as disdainful of Americans thanks to the â€Å"warped stereotypes† Japanese leaders painted of Americans during the war. So, the Americans fought a â€Å"war without mercy in Japan. (Walker, p. 23) Even though the Japanese people were losing confidence in their leaders and public morale was deteriorating, the fact that Japan was on the verge of defeat did not mean that the country was on the verge of surrender. By the end of June 1945, both American and Japanese leaders, including Japan's emperor, as well as the Japanese people realized that the war would end in Japan's defeat.   On June 17, 1945, President Truman wrote in his diary that deciding between invading Japan and relying solely on bombing and blockade to end the war was his â€Å"hardest decision to date.† ( Walker, p. 35) Advisers in the Truman administration realized that â€Å"‘there was a large submerged class in Japan' that did not favor the war but would ‘fight tenaciously' for their homeland.† In a meeting on June 18, 1945, Secretary Stimson hinted that he â€Å"thought the war might end by some other means, though at this time he did not specify what the alternatives were.† (Walker, p. 37) Meanwhile, although there were some proponents who were in favor of moderating the stance for Japan's unconditional surrender, the prevailing attitude in the United States as a whole was for the unconditional surrender of Japan. By July 13, 1945, it was clear that America's demand for an unconditional surrender was the main obstacle to a settlement. So, despite the mutual desires of the American people and the Japanese people for peace and the leaders of both countries faced the same obstacle–unconditional surrender. President Truman faced choices as to how to overcome this dilemma. There were three choices, including invasions with the potentially high costs. A fourth alternative also existed, the atomic bomb. Truman and his advisers proceeded with their planning as if the bomb didn't exist because the bomb had not been tested successfully, but those in the administration who knew about the bomb hoped that a successful test would lead to their goal of ending the war at a lower cost than the alternatives. Final preparations for the atomic test, named â€Å"Trinity† proceeded amid strain, excitement, uncertainty and ominous weather forecasts, but at 8:00 AM on July 16, 1945, Secretary Stimson receive news of the successful test of the bomb. President Truman was delighted when he heard the news. Secretary Byrnes was committed to the belief that the bomb would be an instrument to advance American diplomacy, particularly in light of growing differences with the Soviet Union. On the diplomatic front, Truman took his cue from Secretary Byrnes and agreed that the bomb would serve as a valuable tool for diplomacy. Ultimately, it appears that Truman used the bomb â€Å"because he had no compelling reason to avoid using it.† (Walker, p. 95) American leaders had assumed that the bomb would be used when available and there were no military, diplomatic, political, or moral considerations contrary to that assumption. Diplomatically, it placed America in a stronger position with the Soviets and it was politically popular as a means in ending the war quickly as opposed to the dire prospects of victory without the bomb. Herbert Feis opens his work by considering how the war could be ended. In May 1945 the war in Europe was over and Japan fought alone. Japanese life and production was being â€Å"smashed and burned†. The question was, â€Å"How could (the war) be ended surely and quickly?† (Feis, p. 3) â€Å"The obvious and perhaps most certain was was to beat down the Japanese until they could no longer fight on–by enlarging the assaults on Japan and Japanese armed forces wherever they could be reached†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Feis, p. 3) Another means was by inducement and a third, the most secret, was by shock. Each of these approaches could end the war or two or three of them could do so in combination. The end of the European war made American, British and Russian troops available for use in the Pacific. As for the war in the General Marshall felt â€Å"that the hope that air power alone would be able to drive Japan out of the war was unjustified; and that the task would be the more difficult there since the Japanese were scattered through mountainous country.† (Feis, p. 9) The U.S. had planned an invasion of Kyushu, but there were concerns that America could not go further and force its way upon Tokyo. (Feis, p. 11) The Joint Chiefs adopted strategic plans for the war in the Pacific on May 25, 1945. Those plans were approved by President Truman on June 18th, but those plans included the desire to have Russian forces enter the final assault with U.S. forces. General MacArthur emphatically stated to a visitor from the War Department that â€Å"no attempt ought to be made to invade Japan proper unless and until the Russian army had been previously committed to action in Manchuria; that he though this was essential, and should be brought about without†¦delay†¦.† President Truman's tone was stern. He felt that Japanese aggression against China, the Japanese assault upon America and the Japanese cruelties during the was warranted severity and he reaffirmed his intention to carry on the war â€Å"until the Japanese military and naval forces lay down their arms in unconditional surrender.† (Feis, p. 16) On the morning of May 28, 1945, President Truman was urged to try to induce the Japanese to surrender by dispelling the worst fears of the consequences. Secretary Stimson and General Marshall concluded that â€Å"the question of what to say to the Japanese and when to say it, should be governed by whether and when the United States had the atomic bomb.† (Feis, p. 19) Others in the cabinet did not believe that Japan would heed any warnings of surrender until the Japanese were more thoroughly beaten down. (Feis, p. 19) Although the prime incentive for making the bomb was the effort to defeat Germany (Feis, p. 28), the dimensions of creating the bomb became apparent and its creators were compelled to face the fact that the war against Germany might be over before the bomb was ready for use. The number of issues surrounding the creation of the bomb included what type of bomb to make. During the creation of the bomb, those in the Roosevelt administration who knew about it believed that knowledge needed to make the new weapon could be confined long enough as to allow the United States and Britain to secure an advantage that would keep the Soviet Union from being too pushy.   When Roosevelt died, Secretary Stimson lingered after the first Cabinet meeting to tell the new President briefly about the immense undertaking regarding the bomb of which the former vice president now president had no knowledge. As Truman learned more about the weapon with time, Truman began to recognize the enormous significance of the new weapon. The President accepted Secretary Stimson's belief that â€Å"†¦our leadership in the war and the development of this weapon has placed a certain moral responsibility upon us which we cannot shirk without very serious responsibility for any disaster to civilization which it would further.† (Feis, p. 38) When plans to use the bomb were considered, one consideration was to demonstrate the bomb's power before using it, but there were concerns against its use. The possibility that a country could assure its security by increasing its nuclear armaments (as was later the practice) was viewed to be invalid. It was felt that â€Å"the safety of all nations henceforth could be achieved only if they agreed to subject their activities in atomic energy to international control. However, the chance of bringing about such an agreement would be greatly lessened by the sudden and unannounced use of the weapon against Japan. Both the diplomatic and military value of the bomb spanned a wide range of concerns. Using the bomb against Japan faced a range of concerns as evidenced by the following statement: â€Å"†¦they range from the proposal of a purely technical demonstration to that of military application best designed to induce surrender. Those who advocate a purely technical demonstration of atomic weapons, and have feared that if they would wish to outlaw the use of atomic weapons, and have feared that if we use the weapons now our position in future negotiations will be prejudiced. Others emphasize the opportunity of saving American lives by immediate military use†¦.† (Feis, p. 54) Before using the new weapon, Americans were determined to continue their assault on Japan and officials in Washington were striving to compose a statement which would tell the Japanese how we intended to treat them once they surrendered.(Feis, p. 63) Feis considers issues not discussed by the other authors. He wonders, â€Å"Whether, if the United States had pledged itself as soon as the war was over to destroy the other bombs it had and dismantle the factories in which they were made other countries would have been willing to join with it in a trustworthy system of control of atomic energy, must remain forever a provocation to the speculative historian.: (Feis, p. 190) I could be biased by this, but I certainly enjoyed each of these books, however I must admit to a great interest in many aspects of World War II, including matters surrounding the atomic bomb.   These books covered an aspect of the war that took concerns of future wars to a new and frightening level and often placed the reader right in the thick of issues and diplomacy connected with the atomic bomb and other issues of the war.   All three books discuss the global atmosphere at the time of a world in turmoil at the end of World War II and the bomb's contribution that bringing that turmoil to an end, but at the same time, each of the books focus on aspects of the politics surrounding the bomb. All reveal the mutual suspicion and mistrust between Russia and her two strongest allies in the War, the U.S. and Britain.   They reveal how this mistrust played a role in the development, use and politics surrounding the bomb.   Each book portrays different details surrounding the development and use of the bomb.   Although or perhaps despite their different perspectives, all three books are interesting and had some surprizingly similar aspects.   Each author tells his story from a different perspective, each author outlines some aspects of their story with common events and from common perspectives. Alperovitz seems to focus a lot on Truman's concern regarding Stalin's desires for Poland and other areas of Eastern Europe.   Walker focused a great deal on events in the Pacific and Feis tended to concentrate much more of his focus on the development of the bomb.   Combined, these three books present an interesting and a more comprehensive look at how the bomb developed, its initial influence on diplomacy and how politicians felt that the existence of the bomb would impact future events in Europe. Each author tells an interesting and provacotive story with behind the scenes details from a different perspective and each author lays out interesting and compelling facts surrounding the concerns, suspicions and global politics between Russia and ther wartime allies, the United States and Great Britain.   I found each of them to be interesting and compelling reading. References Alperoitz, Gar (1965).   Atomic diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam; the use of the atomic bomb and the American confrontation with Soviet power .   New York, NY:   Simon and Schuster. Feis, Herbert (1966).   The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II.   Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. Walker,   J. Samuel   (1997).   Prompt and utter destruction : Truman and the use of atomic bombs against Japan.   Chapel Hill, NC:   University of North Carolina Press.