Those of us who are old-timers in the movement will remember how the Premier Libertarian magazine in fact started as a little newsletter just duplicated which although always having an impressive content in format to begin with was rather amateur. I think this in fact sums up Robert Paul's strength that from whereas other libertarian organizations have tended to throw a lot of money into glossy formats and so on and then only survived a few years. Robert and his colleagues at Reason have built up a really enduring organization which is to my mind perhaps you know the core of the libertarian movement. Moreover they've done so without being excessively factional, without being devious and in fact being really nice guys. On top of that Robert is to my mind at least perhaps although other people lay claim to this title but in my eyes he really is Mr Libertarian who combines the virtues of rationality, tolerance and commitment to principle. I hope I'm not embarrassing him too much by this encomium but I think he deserves it. Robert has written on a wide range of subjects of late he's been interested in defense issues. Issues I certainly think need a lot more analysis, a lot more rational analysis than they've received from many parts of the libertarian movement and it's a great pleasure to introduce him today and to introduce him on the subject of defense. Thank you. Thank you very much Chris. Can everyone at the back here properly? Fine. National defense and the whole subject of foreign policy generally of which national defense is a part is probably the most difficult and divisive issue that libertarians today face. It's difficult and divisive for several reasons. For one thing I suppose most of us were something else before being libertarians either liberals in the American sense of that term or conservatives and have tended I think many of us to carry along with us into being libertarians many ideas from our former ideological stance without really rethinking them or thinking them through as to how seriously they agree with our overall libertarian principles. And in addition defense concerns very difficult and emotional subjects ones that many of us have strong feelings about that may precede our having become libertarians. So it's a difficult subject to think rationally and clearly about. It's also difficult because it's so complex and there's so much information needed to actually understand what's going on in the realm both of defense technology and in understanding which capabilities exist in which countries what information is really propaganda what is really fact. I think there's one final reason that this is a difficult subject for libertarians and that is because to the extent that we believe that there should be government functions at all and I think most libertarians do but not all of course do. We don't we have very little thought about an actual theory of given that governments exist what should they do and if there's any proper function for a government it's certainly national defense is one of those functions. But it makes us uncomfortable to be putting out positive statements about what governments should do as opposed to negative statements about things that governments shouldn't do. So again I think there's a there's a reason there why we haven't paid as much attention to proper principles of national defense as we otherwise might have and have gone into issues like deregulation or selling off state-owned industries. This whole set of problems really bothered us at the Reason Foundation and about three years ago we decided to do a major project trying to come up with a proper formulation of principles for national defense and foreign policy. We put together a team of nine people from different fields people with defense technology backgrounds people with economics history government backgrounds all of whom share basic libertarian values. The result after some two years of work was this book Defending a Free Society which has 11 chapters written by the nine people in which I didn't write any of but I served as the overall project director and general editor. And what I will be saying this morning is a summary of some of the major principles and ideas that we came up with in this book. Let me say as further preference what this talk is not about and what the book is not about. I'm not going to be addressing what might exist in some ideal world of libertarian countries dealing with other libertarian countries. That's a nice thing to speculate about and it's something that someday maybe some of us or our children will live to see. What I am going to be talking about is today's world as it exists with a lot of dangerous situations hostile powers and so forth and large nation states as the given reality. And the project for this book and for this talk is to talk about what can we as libertarians contribute to the debate on defense policy in the world as it exists to move things in the direction of a more libertarian world. In other words just as we do just as Madsen Peary said the other morning about making steps for domestic government policy that move in the direction of freedom and in the principles of liberty. Similarly we as libertarians ought to be able to apply our principles to make recommendations in defense and foreign policy that move existing free societies in the direction of further freedom in the area of defense and foreign policy. That's the kind of project not how would defense be handled in an ideal libertarian world. That's what I'm going to be talking about this morning. Now there are three basic areas that I want to cover just briefly. The first is the overall moral framework, the principles of moral philosophy that lie at the core of defense and foreign policy. Second is applying those principles to the very difficult issues of nuclear strategy. And the third point is to apply those principles to military alliances. All topics deserving of many hours in their own right. Let's plunge in and start first of all with talking about the moral framework that we should be looking at to to figure out what to say about defense questions. Now because I said we're starting with the world of of governments as they exist today so therefore we are going to be talking about in a free if as a free society what should government's role in national defense be. Our definition is that it should be to protect the rights and freedoms of the people who've hired it within a framework of law. Now that is a very limited definition and it is not at all the kind of charges that our existing governments in in the United States or Western Europe give to themselves. The purpose of defense then can only be to defend against real threats to the lives property and freedoms of the people of a country whose whose government we're talking about. Cannot be grandiose collectivist kind of ideas that say lead the free world, protect vital interests and make the world safe these kinds of things that that have led to to grandiose crusades and gigantic levels of taxation in the past. Secondly there's a question of jurisdiction where where does this defense take place? Given that other governments exist around the world and if we believe in the rule of law I think we we need to to acknowledge the reality of other governments and other legal systems existing I think it's it is consistent to say that that the jurisdiction of national defense is properly to defend the territory of the very of whatever society we're talking about and not to be trying to right wrongs that exist within other countries. On the other hand that principle alone doesn't say doesn't restrict defense operations outside strictly the borders of a given country assuming that country is a free society that we're talking about. There are large areas that are beyond the jurisdiction of any government the high seas outer space being specifics that I have in mind and we know I know of no principle that says that it violates anyone's rights or jurisdiction to have defensive operations taking place on the seas defensive operations taking place in outer space and and as we will see in in further discussion such things can play a vital role in serious realistic national defense. Now a third point is what kind of means can be used if we're if we're talking about a free society what kind of means can be used in the name of national defense. Does is anything is it in anything goes situation as long as the the goal is to defend the lives and freedom of the people within the free society. I don't think so. The means obviously libertarians are people who believe that the principle of means justifying of ends justifying the means is wrong. Obviously the means must be consistent with the ends if we're talking about defending freedom it's completely illegitimate to violate freedom in order to do that and that means that for example such commonly accepted things as as conscription of drafting people against their will to provide a means of defense we cannot agree with as libertarians. Ultimately the same argument applies to drafting or conscripting people's money. You cannot be consistent in principle to defend freedom by taking away other people's freedom. On the other hand let me let me make the point that it is possible to separate the issue of what kind of forces and functions what kind of actions in preparing for war or in preparing to defend a society it is legitimate for government to take. In other words the operational aspects of military strategy force structure and so forth that's a separate question a separable question from the issue of how does defense get paid for and so within the scope of the reason foundations project and within the scope of this book and my talk this morning I am not going to be trying to solve the very naughty problem of voluntary financing of defense that's a subject that we are planning further research on at the reason foundation we did not find any well worked out theories we found a few sketchy ideas on voluntary financing of defense and so we did not feel comfortable putting out to the world for general public consumption half baked ideas on voluntary financing we identified it as a problem and said this is something that needs further work in the meantime we go on to look at the questions of how to properly versus improperly use military force in the defense of freedom that's a very important qualification finally then we come to the question of when to use military force when is it justified to act in the name of national defense and how do we decide that this really has two parts one is is when is it justified to get into a situation of actually using force and once you do what are the principles that govern how you use that force now those two questions constitute a branch of moral philosophy branch of political philosophy that historically has gone by the name of just war theory some people have an instinctive negative reaction against the term because they don't like to really think that about war injustice in the same breath but that's that that's a traditional name for this branch of political philosophy so I think we might as well use it now in our book in our project we looked at seven possible alternative theories of of just war of what are the moral principles involved for using military defensive force ranging all the way from principal pacifism on one end to the idea that once you're attacked then anything goes it's life or death and and there are no governing restraining moral principles and evaluating the the rationality the consistency of all those positions we came out at some at one of the intermediate positions as being the most justified and we call that a just war defense principle basically it says that the limitation on using force in self-defense is is the following that all defensive force must be targeted against aggressive force now that sounds like a very simple principle but as soon as you start talking about applying that to real-world situations you immediately come up against some tough moral dilemmas what if the aggressive force that's launched against you is made up entirely of conscripts people who are there against their will is it still justified to shoot back are those aggressive forces in the sense that we that we mean what if the aggressor uses human shields and even so far as to go as literally to to strap human beings on the front of of his tanks and and roll those tanks against you with the idea that that will prevent you as a moral person from shooting back what if the aggressor by design places his his rocket launchers his gun emplacements in the midst of civilian villages with the idea that you as a moral person will therefore not shoot back because you by doing so you would you would inevitably be wiping out innocent civilians what about those questions well if you think those problems through my conclusion the conclusion that we reached on our project team was that you have to cope with those moral dilemmas and that the only coherent consistent way of coping with them other than going back to a principled pacifism which says that you really basically cannot defend yourself and that you you have no right to retaliate the only coherent answer to those questions is that you must be able to shoot back in those tough situations of conscripts human shields or innocent bystanders but you have a moral obligation to do so in the least destructive way the way that minimizes all possible harm to innocent bystanders to human shields the moral responsibility for harm that occurs to to the conscripts to human shields to innocent bystanders rests on the shoulders of the aggressor who has put those innocent people in that position by his own actions it is not it does not rest on your shoulders as someone who is simply trying to defend himself against that tough situation but obviously as moral people as morally responsible people if a gun emplacement is in the midst of a village we don't want to shoot back with something that by definition wipes out the whole village we want to shoot back with something that does the best job possible of hitting the gun in placement with as little harm to the surrounding innocence as possible so that's the kind of general principle that we've come up with and think about it let's go back one more time to to the alternative to that if you are not willing to to respond with defensive force when the aggressor uses those those very vicious and evil techniques of of relying on your sense of morality to avoid killing the innocent people that he puts in your way then you have left yourself completely open to being wiped out by the most ruthless of aggressors because if the if the aggressor knows that that's your moral position then all he has to do in order to guarantee winning is to be as as ruthless and evil as possible to use only conscripts to always use human shields to always place his aggressive force in the midst of of civilian concentrations knowing that thereby you can do nothing so I think you know once you once you realize this moral dilemma you really are faced with either being strictly a pacifist or being willing to respond in accordance with the guidelines that I've just laid down now the implications of these moral principles are very far reaching these can be applied directly to both nuclear and conventional arms strategy tactics and and types of weapon systems that people would procure the general principles before going into details are because of these moral dilemmas about potentially wiping out many civilians obviously you'll prefer shields to swords you'd prefer to be able to ward off blows as much as possible rather than having to retaliate in situations where you might kill many innocent bystanders so that certainly says that you would want to have things like anti ballistic missile systems and civil defense and other protective measures rather than relying strictly and solely on retaliation but secondly the other implication that I draw is that it is morally acceptable to retaliate and that therefore you also besides defensive shield types of systems and procedures obviously you also need retaliatory forces but retaliatory forces that can be used in a discriminating way they're therefore they should be as accurate as possible and with the amount of destructive power that's proportionate to the task at hand and not any more than that and that poses some very definite constraints on what kinds of weapon systems you purchase and how you use them in if you ever have to use them now if you contrast these general ideas with the principles that have governed nuclear strategy in in the last 30 years the general principle has been called mutual assured destruction which is the idea of that the only real defense should be massive retaliation of a sort that is so horrible because it's premised on destroying the the enemy's society with massive nuclear attacks it's that kind of philosophy is exactly the opposite of what I have just laid out as being in accordance with libertarian principles the mutual assured destruction philosophy stresses large city busting nuclear types of weapons as opposed to highly accurate small-scale discriminate types of weapons so we have very much of opposing philosophies here contending for for the allegiance of libertarians let me also as a footnote note that this problem the moral dilemma of of hitting innocent bystanders in retaliation against an enemy aggressive missile silo or whatever is really not a problem that arises only in in nuclear strategy any sort of response to aggression whether it's a tank crew firing against an enemy tank or against enemy soldiers whether it's even a rifleman aiming a rifle has the same moral dilemma built in there's always the possibility and in some cases probability of innocence bystanders of civilians being in the vicinity and possibly being hit by accident and so you can't escape this dilemma by by trying to uninvent nuclear weapons and saying this only arises because of the nuclear age this is a problem that's inherent in any kind of armed conflict it's not strictly a matter of of nuclear policy all right let me let me now move from the moral philosophy into trying to apply these ideas a little bit more in detail to the nuclear strategy question what is fascinating to to be aware of here and and much of the nuclear debate today acts as if many of these facts weren't true is that there's been a tremendous technological revolution in nuclear armaments over the last 30 years back in the 1950s the only kind of of nuclear strategy was city busting the nuclear weapons that existed then were huge multi-megaton bombs that were carried on bombers that were dropped by gravity with very large inaccuracy and if you hit something within a mile you were you were doing good through the development of ICBMs and today with with even more precise missiles and guidance systems it is now possible to hit targets over long distances even intercontinental distances within a few hundred feet and with cruise missiles and the kind of guidance of active guidance systems that they now have it's possible literally within within tens of feet to hit targets now that makes possible things that just were not even conceivable 10 or 20 years ago you can you can measure some of of the change that's gone on by by looking at the size of nuclear arsenals the US nuclear arsenal measured in terms of the megatonnage millions of tons of explosive power of of the total set of bombs that exist in 1980 was only one quarter as much megatonnage as in 1960 few people are aware of that but that's because of this progressive miniaturization of nuclear warheads because of more accurate guidance systems and more precise means of delivery this this process is continuing the technology is not at all static every it's it's sort of like in computers the miniaturization of computing power the same sort of thing although not quite as dramatic has been going on and still is going on in nuclear weapons since 1967 the United States government has phased out two nuclear warheads or weapons for every new one that's been added so there's been a very large change going on over these years the ironic thing about this is that a number of libertarians at least in the United States favor the idea that's very popular of a nuclear freeze which would have a treaty negotiated between the United States and the Soviet Union that would call a halt to all development of nuclear weapons it would say whatever you have today stop and maintain that as your nuclear arsenal well the US nuclear arsenal and the Soviet nuclear arsenal still contain hundreds of of very very large inaccurate nuclear weapons multi-megaton type city busters that are still there in the arsenal the nuclear freeze would guarantee that those those awful weapons that cannot be used in the discriminatory manner those would have to remain in the nuclear arsenal so I think libertarians really need to question that idea as much as as on first glance it may sound like a move toward toward peace of some sort it would in fact call a halt to this tremendous technological evolution that's been going on and that is continuing and which is moving us in the direction of making possible a much more principled set of doctrines and tactics for the use of nuclear weapons now I said a few minutes ago that according to the moral principles that I laid out we should prefer shields to swords that ideally a weapons a defensive system would consist of a combination of defenses and precision retaliatory forces now what kind of what would that consist of in fact what could that consist of and what's technologically possible you've all heard a great deal about Star Wars and in the year and a half since president Reagan announced a at least a rhetorical commitment to building nuclear defenses in the United States the idea has been given a lot of play and a lot of attack last week's economist has this lead editorial or or leader as I guess you call them in this country about space weapons and and makes the what are now the conventional arguments three different arguments saying why this is a bad idea well I happen to think that that all three of those arguments are wrong and I will I will tell you briefly why the most probably the most persuasive argument against nuclear defenses is the idea that unless a defensive shield of some of a set of anti ballistic missile weapons unless it's practically perfect it's not worth doing well there's two things wrong with that first of all many of the people who make that argument argue that there is no likely technological way to get 90 or 95 percent perfection let's say 90 or 90 percent 90 or 95 percent interception of all the attacking warheads or missiles now in the first place what what that idea ignores that that is based on the common sense idea that it's very expensive to get 98 or 99 percent reliability or or quality in any sort of system and that this is a very complex technological problem which it is and that it's so it's it's could only possibly be done at a huge cost more than anyone would want to afford what this ignores is that all the proposals that are being seriously talked about call for doing the job in several layers not having one system that has to be 90 or 95 percent effective but having several different systems in sequence in in layers if you will let's let's think about the mathematics for a minute let's assume that we can build three different types of ABM technologies one to intercept missiles in their launch phase one to intercept them in the coasting ballistic phase and the third to intercept the new warheads on re-entry okay that those are the kinds of things that are being seriously talked about let's assume further that we don't ask for 95 or 99 percent interception capability on any of those but we only ask for 90 capability on each of the three layers suppose a massive attack from the soviet union were launched say against the united states of 5000 5000 missiles attack if the first layer is 90 effective and hits 90 percent of the boosters in their boost phase that lets 10 percent through or 500 now you have 500 coasting through space and the second layer which is 90 percent effective again hits 90 percent of those 500 that leaves 10 percent or 50 to re-enter the atmosphere and the the attacking now 50 is still a lot the third layer by again by assumption is 90 percent effective hits 90 percent of those 50 which leaves 10 percent or five okay five nuclear warheads landing on any country even this country is larger the united states is still a lot of destruction but it's not 5000 and five nuclear warheads produce a certain amount of blast and fallout and the areas that they hit as ground zero will certainly be destroyed but the amount of fallout and collateral damage from five nuclear warheads is something that can easily be protected against with fallout shelters and other relatively modest forms of civil defense far less extensive civil defense than is in place in present in sweden and switzerland and several other countries so the idea of a coordinated effort of of civil defense and several layer defensive technology uh is an eminently feasible one and reduces what would be a massive destruction of a country to a serious problem but not at all the the end of civilization or the or the wipeout of a country and so by proper understanding of the of the technology and of how to put the thing together i think you can see that something can be less than 100 perfect and still be very valuable to do still provide very valuable amount of defense now another another objection that's raised that's raised in the economist editorial and raised in in the united states is that maybe it's doable but it's far too costly and and it would be a waste of money uh because it would cost 200 billion 300 billion 500 billion dollars now i'm not going to dispute that sort of of ballpark of the numbers because i think to do a a full-fledged three-layer system over a period of 10 or 15 years probably would cost in the range of 250 to 500 billion dollars to protect a country the size of the united states but what you have to ask uh in the same way that walter williams asked yesterday about uh the nurses salaries you have to ask compared to what all right say let's say 300 billion dollars over over a 10-year period compared to what right now the u.s. defense budget is is close to uh it's between 200 and 300 billion a year over the next five years and it's not providing any real defense it's providing a huge amount of potential retaliation it's providing all sorts of tanks for europe and so forth but it's not providing one ounce of protection for the united states against a nuclear attack so to spend what would amount to maybe 10 percent or 15 percent of that budget per year to build a real capability to defend against an all-out destruction seems to me to be an eminently reasonable proposition and not at all a kind of expense that bankrupts the country and you also have to look at would you keep everything else the same or would you make other changes reduce other things in order to have in order to make affordable the kind of expenditure needed for this sort of system and i think clearly you could and should a third a third kind of argument uh and this is a little more sophisticated one is that building defenses against a nuclear attack is too dangerous a thing to do it's provocative it's destabilizing it would provoke the soviet union now i think if you carry that kind of logic to its ultimate conclusion it would say that anything that you do to defend yourself is dangerous and would provoke the soviet union so why not give up now rather than rather than bothering going through the motions of spending the money and building systems but the specifics of that argument are that an effective capability to defend against nuclear attack would amount to imposing disarmament on the soviet union and therefore the soviets seeing that coming would launch a preemptive attack before you got it built now the same people who make that argument are the people who have been arguing over the last 10 years that no new offensive nuclear weapons systems should be built such as the mx missile the trident submarine the b1 bomber because the united states already possesses so much retaliatory power on its submarine force that the soviets would never attack and even if they launched a first strike they could be retaliated against with the submarine launch missiles and therefore uh it would be suicidal for them to launch an attack and so on and so forth so the same people on the one hand are saying that that the united states is so safe with its existing weapons that the soviets would never launch a nuclear attack and now they're saying that with those same weapons in place the soviets would launch a nuclear attack if the united states started to build a shield and I think that is not really credible to maintain both things things simultaneously the other point to keep in mind about this is that what those critics are arguing is that the possession of a of the upper hand let's say that that a defensive shield if the US had a defensive shield and the soviets didn't this would give the united states government the ability to launch a first strike without necessarily being wiped out in return uh that was the case all through the 1950s and till about the end of the 1960s the united states government had what was considered clear cut nuclear superiority for two decades and did not use it and and uh this did not provoke world war three and so I think to argue that to go go back in a sense to a situation where the united states government had nuclear superiority over the soviet union would not necessarily I mean you cannot assume that the fact of nuclear superiority on one side would lead to to war because for 20 years when that situation existed it did not lead to war in fact it preserved peace so that the argument doesn't strictly follow from from the premises that are that are laid to it okay I think that's enough except possibly for people's questions about defensive systems I said that a proper nuclear strategy would involve a mix of a defensive shield and proper kinds of retaliatory systems and what would those retaliatory systems be unlike unlike some of my libertarian friends who advocate strong defenses I argue for the abolition of land-based ICBMs and we we do so in the book uh on the grounds that along several grounds uh among them being that uh they there is not a real military need for them uh now this this point can be argued by by defense technologists and I'll be glad to take questions on it if people have questions but that uh when you look at the pros and the cons there is really not sufficient need to justify the expenditure of of fixed in place large-scale ICBM systems like the mx missile that the kind of targets that they are called for to be used against which are mainly heavily hardened soviet missile silos really do not make that much sense as as prime targets now that that may strike that may sound strange uh the arguments for that is twofold one assuming that the united states does not plan a first strike against the soviet unions against the soviet union then if a if a system is truly retaliatory then most of the silos that the soviet union has now assuming that they actually contain ICBMs those ICBMs would have been launched in a first strike at the time that a retaliatory decision is made and so empty silos would be there rather than full silos and so to configure a very large percentage of your retaliatory force against empty silos doesn't really make a lot of sense if it really is a retaliatory force now the counter argument to that is made well the soviets have developed and tested and and we have watched from space with with reconnaissance satellites exercises to reload those silos with new missiles and so those those still should be good targets that's what's really in question is whether those silos would be reloaded whether there would be good targets there now several of the people that I respect greatly in the in the nuclear field argue that it's very unlikely that there would be missiles in those silos waiting for a retaliatory strike and they argue in fact that what is known about soviet missiles from reconnaissance satellites and other means of intelligence in fact is very little that the soviets have for decades very actively practiced all sorts of techniques of concealment and deception and that is very unlikely it's that it is very likely in fact that us reconnaissance satellites have observed and photographed silo reloading exercises because they want us to think that more missiles are going to be in those silos and that in fact the rest of their missiles are probably not in silos they're probably in all sorts of other locations that are not visible to reconnaissance satellites such as barns tent caves and all sorts of other sites that that cannot be seen by reconnaissance satellites it's very implausible think that just because we being being honest and honorable people put all of our missiles in known locations where they can be targeted in advance it's not really credible to think that the soviet union operates the same way given all of its history and all that we know about it so the argument is that instead of that the best way to to intercept a soviet icbm is not to try to hit a hole in the ground where it might or might not be but to hit it once it's been launched and that the that the same investment that might go into hitting holes in the ground really ought to go into intercepting missiles that are on their way to hit you so what kind of retaliatory systems does that leave we argue in the book for a strong reliance on on cruise missiles on on mobile small missiles that are not vulnerable to being wiped out because they're sitting on the ground in a known location and for smaller submarine launched missiles with the idea that here you have forces that are largely invulnerable because they can move around can't be targeted in advance but at the same time use the modern advanced guidance systems and small warheads so they can be used in a morally precise way strictly against military targets and there are there are vast numbers of military targets in the soviet union other than concrete holes in the ground that could and should be targeted some of which are targeted now more of which could be targeted finally my time is running short let me just say a few words about the third subject that i want to talk about and that is military alliances i think most of you who are who are europeans or from from other countries know that american libertarians have have been strongly critical of the present nato alliance and i think for good reasons there there's nothing in principle that we can come up with wrong with the idea of mutual defensive alliances particularly for small countries that are close to a hostile neighbor so that if we were thinking about defense policy for for small european country or let's say for any european countries that are that are close together they're not protected by large oceans that have a large hostile neighbor nearby a mutual defense alliance in that context among free societies in europe makes a great deal of sense it doesn't make sense to to allow free society to be picked off one by one because they could be prevented present a strong front together and it's that kind of logic that's extended to the united states as a partner of europe saying that that same situation basically holds and that it is in the interest of the united states as a free society to maintain the present structure of the nato alliance now that present structure in fact is amounts to a form of welfare we call it defense welfare but that is what it amounts to it is for the first time this year official u.s. government sources have identified the amount of the u.s defense budget that exists essentially because of the nato commitment because of the troops on the ground in europe because of the troops that are committed to be brought into to europe uh in in case of a soviet invasion and because of other forces that are that are there and that basically would not be needed if it were not for the u.s. commitment to nato and that amounts to well over a hundred billion dollars out of that two hundred plus billion dollar u.s. defense budget and ladies and gentlemen that it is dawning on american taxpayers not just libertarians that that is a huge amount of money and that that money if it continues indefinitely going to defend europe uh is not available to defend the united states the realization is also dawning that it that there are are negative aspects as well as positive aspects to this idea of the united states gaining something real by spending almost half of its entire defense budget on defending its neighbors in europe one of those most important points is that this idea of the nuclear umbrella that the ultimate defense of europe by americans is the threat to launch a nuclear strike from the united states against the soviet union if the so-called conventional forces on the ground in europe don't hold uh a soviet invasion well you can get military opinions on both sides but an awful lot of people don't think that the the relatively modest number and extent of ground forces in europe could hold against the soviet invasion and so that the only thing that is the real deterrent is the u.s threat of of world war three now what that says in fact if you look at it from an americans perspective is that the american citizens and american taxpayers are being asked to risk their own cities their own country uh to defend their neighbors whom we like and wish to continue being friends with but that's that's a lot to ask it really is uh and in terms of the principles that we talked about about what the proper role of a free society's government is and and how much can be can be asked of people to do i think you really have to say that uh if we're thinking of of moving european governments in the direction of being free societies as we're trying to do in the united states that that free societies ought to be defending themselves and not permanently dependent on someone else for a large share in fact for the for the ultimate uh deterrent that they rely on and what that means is that if if it turns out and i think it does that nuclear weapons are still the the ultimate deterrent of the soviet attack or intimidation of western europe that means that western europe needs to have its own nuclear weapons under its own control uh and not have that tied in to the united states government making the key decision or having a finger on the trigger and it means that something that europeans as well as americans have to face up to and start arguing for uh or figure out some way of doing it without nuclear weapons my own technical and political judgment is that i don't see a feasible way to do that at the moment there's a lot of of neat high tech gizmos coming out but uh i don't see that any of them yet is more cost effective than than properly structured nuclear forces and so i think there's a big choice that uh is going to have to be faced by europeans in general and including european libertarians same goes for japan japan like western europe is an economic superpower but it's but it's a military pygmy and that kind of situation cannot continue indefinitely world war two is long over free societies like those speaking in broad terms of western europe and japan historically do not make war on one another the empirical evidence is overwhelming that wars between pairs of free societies virtually never happen uh since we've had free societies develop in the last 200 years uh wars do occur between pairs of unfree societies between free societies versus unfree societies wars virtually never occur between free societies and so that we as as residents of relatively free societies have the least to fear from other free societies having nuclear weapons so we should not sit and quake in our boots about nuclear arms for west germany or nuclear arms for japan we should encourage realistic self-defense with the most modern technology that's available for all free societies the nightmare vision of the soviets is not per se that that the us would pull out of europe but that the u.s uh that that europe in particularly germany would get its own nuclear weapons and that the soviet union would face not just one nuclear superpower but two or three or four nuclear superpowers uh i think it is it should be our job as libertarians who are responsibly concerned about national defense to help make that nightmare for the soviet union come true thank you thanks very much robert we've got about six or seven minutes for questions so if you could keep them brief uh david david butler could you possibly do the honors with passing the microphone around thanks dean armed first um bob there was one of your arguments i thought i saw a weak point i'd like to bring it up not just as a criticism but to offer a way you can strengthen it good and that was on the question of whether setting up a star wars type of defense or an effective nuclear umbrella would cause the soviet union to therefore strike first before it was fully developed and your argument was that well the united states went through a period in the fifties and sixties where it could have done that it didn't so therefore the soviets really wouldn't be afraid of this i think this in itself is a weak argument because in the first place we shouldn't underestimate soviet paranoia i know it's a mistake to underestimate american paranoia or british paranoia or anyone else's paranoia uh so that's always a factor um secondly the united states has never said it wouldn't strike first which shows no indication that it's going to make any such claim now and therefore it's not totally paranoia in the third place the united states did use nuclear weapons first in world war two 1950s and 1960s united states and soviet union were not actively involved in a war direct confrontation anywhere and whereas when it wasn't a direct confrontation with japan they didn't hesitate to use it so the soviets still might have with some justification uh go through that thought process now i think there's a better argument to use and i'm really um dismayed that it hasn't been used more because i got this from all places a guy who works at the pentagon on the star wars uh technology and when someone brought up this objection to him he said oh but don't you understand that we give them the secret in other words everyone everyone will be given the capability of having a nuclear umbrella so that nuclear weapons will become absolutely obsolete and this is very important because even apart from the fear of american aggression what why should the soviets dismantle their nuclear weaponry if they're afraid that uh pakistan or iran or or france or china is going to lob one on them good i think i think what i agree with largely with what dean said i think i would i would not feel comfortable right at the outset giving the entire technology to the soviets i think what we're in fact are likely to see the soviet unions are well is well along in developing this sort of thing also they may well not have as sophisticated a computer capability and some of the other things uh they're they are further ahead in terms of living and working in space at the moment uh but i i basically agree that it's going to have to come to that that everyone is going to have to have the technology uh to do this and that the world will be far safer when they do so thank you for the point and i think i think your other points were well taken about about the argument the weakness of those other arguments okay good let me let me make comment on the first question first there's an ambiguity about us read nuclear retaliatory policy uh on the one hand there's been a lot published that says that uh the decision to push the button to launch nuclear missiles would only be made after uh nuclear weapons had actually landed you know hit the ground and exploded in the united states uh that seems to be from from what you can glean from unclassified sources that that is the declared policy in the event of a nuclear attack on the united states however however and this is very important however under the the policy of of of the nuclear protection for europe and this is what dean was referring to it is also declared policy that if the use if if an invasion of europe of western europe by the soviet union was not being held back sufficiently by whatever was deployed on the ground in europe then the united states does reserve the right unilaterally to launch a nuclear attack on the soviet union without a single missile having to launch against the united states first so that that constitutes a retaliatory in the sense of europe first strike in the sense of from the united states to the soviet union so there's this kind of dual policy that's in effect and that i worry a lot about because that is the most likely way that the united states could get itself involved in a nuclear war is is by getting into that kind of situation of having to go to the defense of europe by using nuclear weapons first now your second point was about what military intelligence in peacetime we have a whole chapter in the book incidentally there are there are copies of the book for sale in the back of the room we have what i think is is one of the one of the most interesting and innovative chapters in the book it does cover military intelligence in in one minute it's very hard to to try to summarize that we do argue that some sort of military intelligence capability intelligence in the sense of gathering information about the potential capabilities and intentions intentions of enemies that have declared that they're your enemies like soviet union is obviously needed and justified what exactly are the limits on that is a tough question to decide we try to do so in the chapter we definitely argue against covert action types of of capabilities like like the cia has historically carried out trying to prop up dictators and so forth that's not intelligence anyway in the classical sense true military intelligence i think is an integral an essential part of any kind of serious credible defensive effort you have to know what you're up against and try to psych it out in advance and so know that you can buy order design and order and buy weapons that are adequate to the task so but read the read the chapter again about the you you're arguing about taking out any kind of weapons that could be used for a first strike a couple points on that is it is it wise to assure a ruthless enemy that that you would never do that um i mean i'm not talking about threatening to do it but silence is not a threat and nobody would argue against against people possessing guns because the mere possession of a gun is a threat um secondly and and and i i mean so much of of war and the avoidance of war is governed by fear i mean wars happen when one one country uh thinks that it's not in danger and thinks that and appears to be be weaker and and doesn't doesn't realize it um the second thing is along the same lines um well of the retaliatory situation you were just talking about i mean would we really want if the soviet union all of a sudden launched a massive nuclear campaign against half of the world i mean would it really be in our interest not to in some sense retaliate and that would be in as you said in the sense of first strike i mean i don't think it's inherently unreasonable to think that in a situation where the destruction of most of the world is involved that we that we wouldn't want to do that and wouldn't want to do that as as libertarians who are interested in in freedom those are those are good and thoughtful points leaders the on the first i i spoke a little bit in precisely in in talking about weapons which are inherently first strike weapons because as you as you point out by analogy just with that we even with a handgun uh a weapon itself doesn't have any intentions uh the intention is in in whoever possesses it and and how the possessor decides to use it and so strictly speaking it is not true that that i mean i suppose you can you can you could think of of doomsday bombs or or huge dirty nuclear weapons that would only make sense uh well even there they they they would be wrong to use probably under any circumstances but they could they could be thrown back in retaliation or used in a first strike so it's not really the characteristics of the weapon as such but it's rather the the policy under which they'd be used i don't i don't think the the first strike potential of a weapon like the mx is really an argument against having it okay i think if the decision for other reasons and i cited some other reasons and i didn't go into all of them if the decision were made not to build or to cancel something like the mx which is characterized by propagandists especially soviet propagandists as an evil first strike weapon i think you could then you could score some important propaganda points to the world by saying look we don't have weapons that that people characterizes first strike weapons we only have weapons that are that designed more precisely to use against military targets you could score some propaganda points by that but that's not the reason to do it now your other point about if half of the world were were about to be wiped out by the soviet by a soviet nuclear attacks should the united states do something about it i i hadn't i hadn't really thought about that particular scenario before i think there could certainly be a case for for doing so just simply on the grounds of it of it being like a like a raging epidemic that was about to be out of control and that any reasonable person would under under a kind of a lifeboat ethics would have to take some action in that situation i think you'd want to to look at in actually trying to design and plan an order of military forces look at whether there was any reasonable likelihood of that scenario before deciding you needed to gear up to do it on the other hand it may be that you would have the capability anyway justified for other reasons so that it would be available to use in fact i think you probably would simply to be able to retaliate against that kind of attack on yourself you might well have that capability available then it would just be a decision of is now a justified time to use it i think it probably would but i'm willing to listen to arguments thanks well thank you very much


The wave that gives that natural look is T-O-N-I, Tony. Tony. Tony Home Permanent, the wave that gives that natural look brings you crime photographer. Good evening everyone, this is Bill Cullen greeting you for Tony Home Permanent inviting you to listen to another adventure of Casey, crime photographer, ace cameraman who covers the crime news of a great city. Written by Alonzo Dean Cole, our adventure for tonight, The Wolverine, the Blue Note Cafe, shortly before one o'clock in the afternoon. Well I was wondering when you two would show up. Hi, Ethelbert Huyker. Hello, Ethelbert. Just coming in from an assignment? Yeah, not a pretty one either. Say what kind of assignment were you on? Read about it in the noon edition, pal. I was just looking over the noon edition. Casey, were you covering the murder of them three gangsters? Bobo Gusick and his two pounds? Yeah, it's been our job. The paper said the cops learned their bodies could be found in that beach house through an anonymous phone call. That's right. You read my story, all right? What wasn't in your story, Miss Williams? The real lowdown, huh? Strictly off the record, Ethelbert. Joe Schuster is being very severely questioned about the triple murder. I've heard a rumor that Schuster was gunning for Bobo Gusick. How about clues at the scene of the crime? All these were found except, well, it was a funny little thing. Most peculiar. What? A crude drawing was found clutching Bobo Gusick's hand. An amateurish pen and ink sketch of, well, it looked like a cross between a weasel and a bear. There ain't no such animal. I've never heard of such a combination. Well, if the sketch is a lead, it's a very obscure one. Yeah. Oh, excuse me. Bruno, cafe, Ethelbert speaking. Let's go to a table and get some food under our belt, Sanny, shall we? Oh, come on. Just a minute. Don't go away, Casey. It's for you. Ah, who is it? Your city desk. Mr. Burke. Oh, wouldn't you? Oh, nuts. Let's see what he wants. Hello, Burke. Well, listen, we're just going to have something to eat. Can't we even... Huh? Huh? Yeah. Well, OK, we'll be right over. What is it, Casey? Sanny Burke's just received a screwball letter to the editor that might turn into hot copy. The guy who wrote it says that he killed Bobo and his two pals, and he promises to knock off another couple of gangsters today. Have you looked into your mirror lately and wondered what to do about your hair? Well, let me suggest an answer. A lovely Tony home permanent. Your hair will be soft and natural looking from the very first day. You'll have just the right amount of curl and your wave will last for months. You know, a Tony wave is guaranteed to last just as long as the most expensive beauty shop wave and guaranteed to look more natural or your money back. No wonder each month another two million women have beautiful Tony waves. A Tony cost just $1 with plastic curlers $2.  A Tony home permanent. The wave that gives that natural look. T-O-N-I Tony. Listen to this letter, Casey. You too, William. Yeah, we're listening, Burke. Now go ahead, read it. City editor, Morning Express, blah, blah, blah, blah. Dear sir, several hours before you receive this, the police will have discovered the dead bodies of a racketeer known as Bobo Gussick and two of his lieutenants. I killed them for a multiple reason. One, a civilized society will be better off without them. Two, men of their type habitually carry large sums of money. And three, I find it amusing to pit my wits against both the underworld and the police. In this last, I resemble the sagacious animal whom I have selected as my identifying trademark, the wolverine. Another sketch of it will be found today. Well, that means that... Yeah, the guy promises this is not the murder. Now, here's the finish. You gentlemen of the press are invited to join with the police and their criminal quarries in what will prove to be a hopeless battle with the wolverine. The wolverine? That's the signature. Hmm. I think he's the killer, but he's a nut too. The evidence of this letter, he's an educated guy. But what kind of an animal is a wolverine? Well, I've read they're the toughest, meanest, most intelligent animals in existence. I'll have research, dig up complete dope on them so we can give this letter a good dressing up when we run it on page one. Gotta show it to the cops before you run it? Why should I? The writer of this letter may be pulling a fast one, just a gag. Wait a second. Silly desk, work speaking. Yes? Who is this, speedy? Pussy. A wolverine. Where's that? Island Road? Half a mile north of the old brick church in a clump of maple trees. What? Look, who is this? Who? Huh? He's hung up. You got that address, Casey? Yeah. He's got the wolverine, says he's kept his promise. This may still be a gag, Burke, but Ann and I are starting for Island Road in that clump of maple trees right now. Find anything yet, Annie? Not a thing. The shape of those big maples is so dense, Casey. It's almost like night in here.  You found something? Plenty. I'm here. I'm going to stumble over this guy's body. Body? With the holes in his chest. Apparently the wolverine isn't just a gag. Casey, look. What? Over there. I see it. It's another dead guy. Yeah. He was mostly hidden behind that tree trunk. Uh-huh. Annie, we knew this guy. I can't look at his face. It's Ed Mason. The numbers operator? Yeah. A racketeer like Bobo. The other stiff used to be his cheap muscle man, Herb Frankel. Well, come on, Annie. I'll get my camera from the car and shoot pictures of this where you find a phone called Burke in the cops. Casey. What? Something's moving over there, coming this way. Yes, I hear it. I can see now. It's a man. Yeah. Maybe he's the wolverine. It's not coming from newspaper stiffs. Who's that there? Hello, Casey. I thought I recognized your car. Parked out there. Foster. Afternoon, Miss Williams. Oh, it's only you, Foster. And who did you think I was, the wolverine? What do you know about the wolverine? I work for a newspaper, too, you know. Not a high-circulation bourgeois paper, like your Morning Express, but our exclusive little daily standard bearer gets letters to the editor. And since we meet in this place, I assume we were brought here by the same reason. You got a letter? Followed by a phone call from the ambitious gentleman who calls himself the wolverine. Burke isn't gonna run this story as an exclusive, Annie. You two find anything among these trees? Well, if we told you no, you'd look around for yourself, so look there. Thanks, old Jeff. These gentlemen seem to be deceased. That's putting it mildly. This wolverine is assuming the proportions of an interesting character. By the way, do you know what a wolverine really is? Yes. Really? You surprise me. Why? Journalists employed by the standard bearer are required to have a general knowledge of almost everything. They're all college graduates, you know. But your Morning Express... Yeah, oh, we've got to know his news values. You recognize either of these dead guys, Foster? No, can't say I do. Really? You surprise me. Do you know who they are? Mm-hmm. And you can read all about them in the Morning Express. Okay, Annie, start looking for a phone. Give Burke our story. Oh, by the way, Foster, why didn't your classy standard bearers send a photographer with you? Because we of the standard bearer have multiple talents, Casey. I have a camera in my car, and after taking suitable photographs, I shall make some effective and exclusive pencil sketches of this gruesome sea. These bodies are exactly as Anne and I found them, Logan. I didn't let Foster disturb it. I made no attempt to disturb evidence, Captain. I didn't say you made an attempt. Your implication was clear enough. Save it! There's a piece of paper clutched in the hand of this dead guy. Well, look, it's the same bum sketch of a cock-eyed-looking animal we found on Bobo Gusser. I wouldn't say it's a bum sketch, Captain. It's the most effective, impressionistic drawing of a wolverine. Impressionistic, eh? Oh, yes, Foster knows, among his other talents, he can draw pictures. Do you recognize these dead men, Captain? Yeah, this one's Ed Mason, the stiff over there, with his bodyguard, her preco... Oh, nuts. What's the matter, Casey? Nothing, nothing at all. Nothing at all. Hmm. Now I shall return to my paper with a full story. Good day, Miss Williams and the gentlemen. Good day. Long, Foster. Yeah, so long. What a guy that, huh? The pain in the neck and so is his lousy paper. Hey, this wolverine gave his sheet the same break yours got? Yes, it did. Well, anyway, the wolverine makes good on his promises. Hmm. Crooks like Bobo Gusser can Ed Mason and the Red Hots who have been killed with him are cagey guys, Logan. In order to get two of them in these woods and three in that beach house, this wolverine must be somebody they knew and trusted. Yeah. Logan, have you ever turned Joe Schuster loose yet? No, but I'll have to now. Anyway, I was pretty well convinced he was clean on the Gusser killing before the wolverine claimed the credit. Well, have him freed right away, will you? So I can pay him a friendly visit at his tavern hangout tonight. So you could... Yes, Joe Schuster was a pal of Ed Mason's. He should know about guys who could have trapped Mason. And Schuster may talk to me as he wouldn't talk to any cop. Yeah, Joe Schuster's back in his private office, Casey, and he ain't very good humor and a kind of the cops trying to hand him a bum rap for that Gusset bump-off. I don't know whether he'll see you or not. Well, tell him I'm not here on newspaper business, Leo. Say I want to give him a straight talk on the Gusset bump-off, Ed Mason's bump-off, and the wolverine. Hey, you got any insight dope on that mug that caused us off the wolverine? My paper carried a story about him. Yeah, yeah, just Joe paper and a standard bearer. The guy Forster from the standard bearer was here a while ago to see Joe. What, yes? Yeah, Joe talked to him, because Forster had been a pal at Mason's before he got bumped off. Forster was a pal at Mason's? Well, none a pal, exactly, but he and Mason knew each other pretty well. Did Forster know her Frankle too? Yeah, sure. Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, Manny. Yeah? Come here and keep Casey company while I go and see the Bostoners. Yeah, OK. I'll give Joe your message, Casey. Yeah, thanks, Leo. Hey, I'm drinking with Tom Collins, Casey. Will I have the barkeep fix you one? Oh, no, thanks, Manny. No, no. Leo says Joe Schuster isn't in very good humor, today. Well, can you blame him? Can you blame him? You know what, him cops wasn't very nice to Joe. Yeah, just had a tough break. Yeah, but he'll stop burning after he gets a few laughs from Doc Avon. Doc Avon, who's he? The little Docs with him now. He's one of them comical guys who don't mean to be funny. You ever meet him? No. Well, you got it. He's a college professor. He's a college professor? Yeah, he teaches at Psy's Psychological Stuff. He's making a study of us guys in Iraq. We're making a study of him. Manny, I understand Foster. The standard bearer knew Ed Mason and Herb Prankle pretty well. Yeah, yeah, Foster's another one of them snooty educated guys who's good for laughs. Hey, Leo's coming back. What's the scene in a minute, Casey? Yes, well, Leo, thank you.  Hey, Casey! Here's your story. He's come on himself to tell you the whole story. Pick around. I gotta make a phone call. It'll only take a minute. Okay, I'll wait. You go out and talk to the guy's doc. I'll see you later. Well, I'd like to ask you one more question, Mr. Schuster. Why don't you step back in here? Okay, but make it snappy. Oh, I shall. And a boss is a sap for that doc, Avon. Then why not, Leo?  Not to me. I don't go for them their high brows. Very much, Mr. Schuster. Your answer's been most helpful now. I can't trouble you anymore. So the boss gave you the right answer, huh, doc? Yes, Manny. He helped me immensely in my studies. Yeah, shake hands with Casey here. Hey, Casey, this is our pal, Doc Avon. Pleasure, Mr. Casey.  Well, in a way, I'm a press photographer. Dear, dear, how interesting. Hey, this guy has screamed, Casey. I beg your pardon. No offense, doc. Hey, how about joining me in a nice cold Tom Collins? Manny, I have told you many times that my stomach cannot tolerate the lemon juice that is a composite part of your favorite drink. And I've warned you that citric acid may be bad for your constitution. Well, it ain't never hurt me yet. I will have, and always have, once daily, is a small glass of dry sherry. I'll go get it for you. Hey, get this guy talking.  I'll be back in a minute. And, uh, what paper are you with, Mr. Casey? Morning Express, doc. Oh, it carried the story about that, uh, that Wolverine today. Yeah, in the final edition. Distressing affair. I was acquainted with the, uh, the men he killed. You were? I was in solid with all the guys, Casey. It's kind of you to say that, Leo. I'm conducting certain psychological studies among people in, uh, well, various walks of life, Mr. Casey. Yes, sir, I've been told. And, uh, the boss should have finished that phone call by now. Well, I'll go see what's keeping us. Yeah, I wish you would, Leo. Well, have you succeeded in finding out what makes these gang guys tick, doc? Well, I've arrived at some interesting conclusion, Mr. Casey. Manny, come here. Look, look, in Joe's office. Hey, the boss! Got a knife in his throat. He was lying like that when I opened up this door. Mr. Casey, there's paper on the floor beside Mr. Schuster's body. Let me see that paper, doc. Here, it's a pen and ink sketch of a Wolverine. Oh, Mr. Cohn, I thought you was Casey. I got a swell riddle poem, especially for him. Can't you tell me? Oh, sure. Listen. All right. You have to guess what animal I'm writing about. I ain't a weasel and I ain't a bear, but I mean murder, so beware. That's good. And if you read the Morning Express, what I am, you should guess. Oh, that's a Wolverine. Picture one was found in a dead man's hand. I read all about it in the noon edition. Gee, you got it fast.  How about doing a riddle poem, especially for me, all right? Oh, let me think. All right. I got it. Go ahead. Everyone thinks she has a natural curl, but the actual fact is she's a... A Tony girl? Yes, people simply can't tell which is the girl with the natural curl and which is the girl with the Tony. That's because gentle Tony waves actually look and feel like naturally curly hair. Over and over again, Tony users write of the same experience. People ask if their hair is naturally curly. Even on the very first day, there's no frizziness, no harsh effect. Tony waves look natural from the first moment and they're so shiny, soft and silky. They're so easy to set and style.  Remember, Tony is the only permanent that gives you this twin guarantee.  No wonder more than two million women each month choose Tony home permanent. More than two million? That's a lot of women. Yes, each month another two million women have lovely, long-lasting Tony waves. How about you? Casey, you've heard Dr. Avon, Manny, Leo, the bartender all the customers that were in this joint here. Give me their versions of the discovery of the killing. Out of their stories, stack up at what you saw. 100 percent, pal. I know that Joe Schuster was alive only a few minutes before we found him dead because I saw him and I talked to him. Not more than 30 or 40 seconds later, I heard Doc Avon talking to him as he left Schuster's office. When Leo went to the door to call Schuster, he was never out of my sight for a minute. Are you sure of that? I'm positive. I saw Leo open the door. He didn't go inside, he just stood there and yelled at us to come and look so the Wolverine had to come in the back door. So the Wolverine remains a big unknown. What are the medical examiner, I have to say? Well, a knife went through Schuster's neck in such a way he couldn't make a sound. The Wolverine either made a lucky thrust or he knew anatomy. Logan, I watched Foster drawing pictures today. He's a pretty good artist. An artist with no anatomy. Foster? Yeah, the standard bearer. Another thing. Tonight I've learned that Foster was well acquainted with Ed Mason and Herb Frankel. And yet this afternoon when he saw their dead bodies, he denied that he knew either one of them. You think that... Lastly, Foster was in this office with Joe Schuster just a little while before I got here. So he knew about the back door. I think you'd better talk to Mr. Foster. My dear Casey, I pretended that I didn't recognize the bodies of Mason and Frankel this afternoon. Simply to, well, pull your leg. It amused me to play on your conceited belief that you possessed knowledge I didn't have. Oh, yeah? You know, Foster, the Wolverine's letter reads a great deal like you talk. It only means that he, like myself, is a man of culture. You admit it. Are you so naive to believe I am the Wolverine, Captain Logan?  I'll not only do that, I'll prove an alibi for the time of the Bobo-Gusick murders and of the Mason killings. My dear Captain.  Don't believe everything you hear, Annie. They only seem to blow up. Oh, he established alibis for all of those three killings. And Logan turned him loose. Logan turned him loose with the notion that given a good long rope, Foster may hang himself. Those alibis of yours aren't all to get the tight by any means. And I'm going to try to loosen them still more. How? Well, first we're paying a visit to Doc Avon. Doc Avon? Oh, because he was the last man to see Schuster along? No, because he's a psychologist. I want to get his professional opinion of Foster and of the Wolverine.  I've talked to the gentleman only a few times, Mr. Casey.   Well, yes. I'd say the young man is egocentric, perhaps with more than a touch of megalomania. You mean, uh... Dr. Avon means that Foster likes himself, Casey, that he's obsessed with his own importance. Oh, thanks, Annie. Oh, well, that's the way we've had him pegged. What we know of the Wolverine, wouldn't you say that he was the same kind of a guy, Doc? Oh, dear, no. Oh, I think his letter is quite expressive of his personality.  I wrote that brief analysis in my diary last night. I habitually make note of my thoughts, and of course the Wolverine was very much on my mind. Oh, naturally, since you've just come from a police inquiry over his latest victim... Well, I, uh... I could deliver a lecture this morning, so you won't think me rude if I beg to be... Oh, no, of course not. Oh, we'll be on our way. Oh, no, you don't have to rush. I always have a glass of milk before I go to the classroom. Won't you join me? No, thanks. A glass of milk sounds kind of good to me. Fine. I'll get it from the refrigerator. As you see, when I move this screen, I have a little kitchenette in this one-room apartment. Yeah. Doc, I heard you say last night... Uh, yes. Uh, you knew Gussick and Mason as well as you knew Schuster, huh? Well, I've become acquainted with many of the, uh, criminal fraternity in the course of my studies. I find the most curious people... Here's your milk, Mr. Casey. Thanks, much of it. Sure, you won't join us, Miss Williams? No, thanks. The, uh... Wolverine must have, uh... ...lifted quite a roll from Schuster's pocket last night, huh? The police informed me that a search had revealed that his wallet was missing. Yeah. Well, thanks. We'll be running along now. Thanks for the milk and everything. Oh, you're quite welcome. Now, what time will you be back here after your lecture, just in case we want to get in touch with you? In about two hours. Well, we may see you then. Yeah, so long. Oh, uh, goodbye, Dr. Avon. Goodbye. Annie, hurry. Down these stairs. I want to buy an electric iron. An electric iron? The nearest hardware store. And when the professor's gone, we're bringing it back here. What? I got a hunch Doc Avon is the Wolverine. Casey, by your own testimony, Schuster was alive when Dr. Avon left his office. I'm advising my testimony, Annie. I merely heard Avon talking and concluded he was speaking to a live guy who takes only a few seconds to drive a knife into a guy's throat and grab his wallet. But because it was done so quickly and so cleverly, even I was giving Avon an alibi until I saw those lemons in his kitchenette. Lemons? Yes, last night. He said he was allergic to lemons. Now Casey, have you gone crazy? Lemons. Electric irons. Avon habitually makes notes of all his thoughts, Annie. I think you'll see the connection when we get back to his room. I found Avon's diary, Annie. Oh, let me see it. Here's the page he wrote last night after Schuster was killed. I merely tells of the murder. His bewildered reaction to it. And his analysis of the Wolverine, which he told us he put down. All perfectly innocent on the surface. Let's run this hot iron over the page. Maybe we'll read between the lines. More writing appears. Casey, he used invisible ink. He used plain lemon juice, Anne, which is completely absorbed by paper until heat is applied and makes it take on color. I learned the lemon juice trick as a kid. And Avon's only reason for having lemons in his place had to be for secret writing. And the secret writing says my plan to destroy Schuster was as perfect in execution as it was in conception. I thrust the knife exactly right, and he slid to the floor without a sound. My alibi was firmly established, and nobody remotely suspected that I am... The Wolverine! Avon! Be quiet, both of you. If you are... We see the 45 in your hand, Doc. They came home sooner than we expected. Mr. Casey, the Wolverine is acutely sensitive to danger, so I returned without making my lecture. Now the would-be trappers are trapped. You can't afford to spring any traps in your own home, Doc. On the contrary. You entered my home without my permission. You have no more right to be here than have common thieves.  Oh, Casey. Like the Wolverine, Miss Williams, when I trap the trappers, they are really trapped. What was that? Something struck him, Casey, and knocked him down. Well, there was a camera that hit him. Ah!  A foster! Yes, yes. I've been watching this interesting scene from the fire escape outside that open window. Ah! When things seemed to be getting hot, I thought I'd better do something, and my camera was all I had to do it with. Oh, boy. Well, I'll get you a new camera. There's a grand job you did in that camera. Knock the doc cold. Well, how did you happen to be on the phone? I had my own little suspicions of Dr. Avon and decided to keep an eye on him. I was doing just that. Oh, thank Heaven. Yes, and thank you, Foster. Well, not mention it, my dear Casey. I guess a guy can be wrong about a guy once in a while. For soft water shampooing, use Tony Cream Shampoo. Even in the hardest water, Tony Cream Shampoo. Yes, even in the hardest water, Tony Cream Shampoo gives soft water shampooing that rinses away dandruff instantly, leaves hair so soft, so smooth, so shining clean.  Get the handy tube or jar. Tony Cream Shampoo. It's for you. That doc Avon had written all about his killings in that diary. Yes, I've already lemon juice. Now his habit of writing down his thoughts will put an end to his thoughts in the chair. Just the same, you didn't do so good on this one, Casey. Until almost the very last, your big suspect was a guy who finally saved your life. Yeah, I'm sure all wrong about Foster, wasn't I? You know, that fella has the makings of a first-class newspaper man. Like you? Casey won't go that far. Oh, only because great newspaper men are never snooty, my dear Miss William. Huh? Come on, Annie, should we be off? Well, see you in the comics, Casey. Oh, hey, that reminds me. I want to tell our friends that the first issue of the Crime Photographer comic book is now on all the newsstands. Crime Photographer, starring Stott Scotsworth as Casey, is produced and directed by John Deets, written by Alonso Dean Cole and is based on the fictional character of Flash Gun, Casey, created by George Harmon Cox. Original music by Archie Blyer and the program features Miss Jan Meiners-Anne and John Gibson as Ethelbert. Herman Chittison as the Blue Note pianist. This is Bill Cullen asking you to listen again next week at this same time to another exciting adventure of Crime Photographer. And also inviting you to listen to this is Nora Drake, Radio's thrilling serial romance heard every afternoon Monday through Friday over most of these stations. Consult your local paper for the exact time. Both of these programs brought to you each week by Tony Home Permanent, the wave that gives that natural look and the new Tony Cream Shampoo for soft water shampooing even in the hardest water. Next Saturday, be sure to tune in the Gillette broadcast of the annual running of the Kentucky Derby from 6.15 to 6.45 Eastern Daylight Time over most of these stations. Hallmark Playhouse starring Linda Darnell and mother follows immediately. This is CBS, the Columbia Broadcasting System.


What's up everyone? I am a one-man crew today, so Yeah, I'm gonna be adjusting as I go along here, but I'm in the new office They just moved to this new office here, which was featured in the interview that I Did for a KAPC. I think it was a few weeks ago, but I have posted on the vlog So yeah, I am just waiting right now. I Have my typical standard readings that you would have at any doctor's appointment like my weight blood pressure temperature totally normal stuff so Now we wait. Yes Why am I so nervous? KBC is a little TV thing.  It was cool. It was very cool. Okay, so what's new when you were? What's So I'm dig someone that's good Fantastic.  He's actually positive by coincidence. Okay Yeah, so let's just play a little mind game. Okay, which I think you already know the outcome of this mind game if This wonderful person were negative. Yeah, what would that be like? What would it be like? for you um, I don't know this It would be the same Good answer. Why would it be the same? Because I'm undetectable then go and what does that mean that means in terms of dating somebody else who's negative That means that I can't give them the virus That means yeah, we have no evidence that you're capable of transmitting HIV So you can just breathe easy and yeah, that's not an issue. Yeah, it was completely coincidence these Also, it's HIV Where'd you meet each other? No, he had been he actually been reaching out to me for over a year on Facebook, and I kind of just blew him off and Then within the span of a week we ran into each other three times in West Hollywood, and we've never ran into each other before then And I was fine like okay, let's let's hang out But yeah, that's like two months now. Great Good good good. Yeah, it's way left in going good You're gonna compete anytime soon probably mid-year is when I'm gonna gear up to compete in the meantime I'm like doing fitness modeling it That good stuff Good good good and works going okay. Yeah Great our pilot for our reality show is coming out this month on food network Which reality show I think it's called on dynasty It's about the owner and then a couple like smaller characters and like myself included cool So if we get to picked up for a season, I'm gonna talk to the producers and be like, you know I'd love to work in the HIV story line, too. I think that'd be really interesting Yeah, I think it'd be fantastic is that story needs to be told? Yeah Let's see here. So there you are working amongst the public and Have you had a flu vaccine? No, I was gonna ask you for that. Yep done cool. So flu I'm gonna tell the world is Really bad virus that I think is under appreciated but we can do a lot to help prevent it And what we can do is give a vaccine It's not 100% guaranteed that you're not gonna get the flu, but it's the best prevention that we have You cannot get the flu from the flu vaccine I know a lot of people are afraid of getting a flu vaccine because they're gonna get sick that actually can't happen Well, you can't get the flu from the flu vaccine You can get a little achy just because it's kind of stimulating your immune system But in a good way. Yeah, it's a good stimulation that helps keep you healthy So there you go.  Are you having sex? Yeah? With this new guy. Yeah, okay. We're good started the big target. Oh, when did you start the first of?  You haven't noticed any difference between Jim Boyer. I have it and Victoria. Yeah, I mean the only differences are The big car is a little smaller and you can take it with or without food. It has fewer drug interactions Go ahead and open up Really a pretty phenomenal And it's also pretty phenomenal to think about how much progress has been made in terms of treating HIV is there still Because last time I talked about interactions and you mentioned Museum and really high Does that have the same Interaction yes, okay. Yeah, so if you're taking high-dose magnesium You want to separate that out in time if you're taking magnesium and calcium that's in a multivitamin you don't have to worry about it It's only a really high level so you can get really high levels in certain acids Or if you're taking particular That takes EMA, which is making me just make sure you separate it out. Okay. Excellent. I think you're doing fantastic It sounds like you think you're doing fantastic Check a couple things we'll get some labs out of you. We'll give you a flu vaccine your guitar view was costing nothing Correct. Excellent I want us to clean the wax out of that here. Yeah, okay.  You think of whatever it else it was and you wanted to ask. Yeah, just ask Thank you. So she'll come in get blood give you a flu vaccine and clean the junk out of that here Okay, awesome. Check one quick thing Oh, your medication is coming from Premier, so they just deliver it to you, right? Yeah. Yeah Okay, yeah That's it folks. That's all it is.  There was no parking But on the top like level or two levels It's all Audi parking for some reason for Audi cars like from the dealership or something like that And there was one spot open I pulled in and as I was getting out of my car this girl and an Audi was like Hey, you can't park here. It's just for Audi cars And I'm like I'm like there are no parking spots in the structure and I have to go to my doctor's visit It I've been waiting six months to go to this visit and I can't just reschedule it and I'm already late Like I'll be back in 30 minutes. She's like you can't park here and I was like I have to I'll be back in 30 minutes I promise so I just left my car up there. She's like if you get a ticket. It's not on me And I was like, okay, that's fine But I just feel really bad because I hate putting people in weird situations like that and I don't know if I run into her after I have to thank her after this Maybe give her a tip or something. I don't know. I was I was desperate really otherwise. I wouldn't do anything like that Oh Give my good side sharing my HIV doctors visit So is it like yeah, oh no, it's not like I was like So you get the whole back there Just put that in Oh yeah, I want to see no Yesterday Yeah, you should sit there for about five minutes or so until you feel not busy He's a good patient Oh my god, look at his veins Yeah Everyone's gonna make fun of me because I'm taking my shirt off I always seem to find some excuse to say I'm not a patient So that was it. You saw the full doctors visit nothing hidden nothing secret nothing scary So all I'm gonna do now is peeing a cup and then I'm done and then we'll go check and see if my car Hopefully doesn't have a ticket or isn't towed Okay, but I'm not gonna let you watch okay and done I'm a little bit here. I'm like intense cuz I don't know if my car is gonna be there What if there's gonna be a ticket or what's going on? So let's hope for the best Look at this sign just in case any proof six seven or eight Even if there's Audi cars there. Hey guys, so I was up this morning editing on my laptop and Realized that I don't have any footage From after I was on the stairs yesterday trying to figure out what happened in my car because I was not recording total noob mistake so to Tell you what happened. I went up there got to my car. Everything was cool. There was no ticket That lady wasn't around so I didn't bother with that either But what I wanted to say is that the whole appointment went really well And it was really smooth. It was really easy What you saw is what what what it was there's nothing hidden and nothing secret or anything weird like that And it's not scary. It's totally normal like any other Doctors visit I go once every six months. So that's twice a year and that's that's it I get my medicine we check up see how I'm doing and it's really really as you saw uneventful the biggest piece of advice that I would want to give you guys for those of you who are Either diagnosed or know someone diagnosed or you're just you know learning about HIV and you're afraid of If you still have that like fear and stigma attached to it is The best thing you can do for yourself in that situation is just to go about living your life live your best life That's it and then everything else will fall into place. It's just a matter of changing up your routine a little bit Okay, why do Duke?   I mean come on right now Can you wait? I mean that I hope that's what you get from these videos of my doctor's visits Is a sense of relief that? Stop is a sense of relief that it's not that big of a deal life goes on You can be healthy and happy and fit and not Have to like it's not all doing glue anymore guys. It really isn't so anyway I hope you enjoyed this second video of my doctor's visit I hope there were some tidbits in there. Maybe that were helpful or educational if you haven't seen my first one go ahead and check that I'll put I'll put a card up and There's some there's some useful information on there about different drugs and then also Supplement interactions possibilities there stuff like that so check that out if you haven't watched it If you like this video, please like it if you're new here Go ahead and hit subscribe so you can stay tuned and be notified of any future videos that I'd be posting probably about once a week And I would love to hear your comments below what you think give me your feedback What's your experience and yeah, I will see you soon. All right. Peace


Did you know that if you're 21 years old and have the same cancer and same mutational profile and same stage as a 60-year-old or 17-year-old, you do worse in this country today? Why is that? That's terrifying. In fact, young adults and adolescents do worse today compared to the other population than they did in 1975. Find out about why and what are some of the things we can do most importantly with Dr. Paul Kent, a fibrolemeller specialist, which is a very rare disease that's found in the liver and not liver cancer. We talk about rare diseases in general and most importantly how we're underserving this population. Check it out on this episode of Target Cancer Podcast.