With the foreseeable increase in traffic frequency to and from orbit, the safe operation of current and future space vehicles at designated spaceports has become a serious concern. Due to their high explosive energy potential, operating those launch vehicles presents a real risk to: (1) the spaceport infrastructure and personnel, (2) the communities surrounding the spaceport and (3) the flying aircrafts whose routes could be relatively close to spaceport launch and reentry routes. Several computer models aimed at modeling the effects of the different hazards generated by the breakup of such vehicles (e.g., fragmentation of debris, release of toxic gases, propagation of blast waves, etc.) have been developed, and are used to assist in Go-No Go launch decisions. They can simulate a total failure scenario of the vehicle and, estimate a number of casualties to be expected as a result of such failure. However, as all of these models - which can be very elaborate and complex - consider only one specific explosion hazard in their simulations, the decision of whether or not a launch should occur is currently based on the evaluation of several estimates of an expected number of casualties. As such, current practices ignore the complex, nonlinear interactions between the different hazards as well as the interdependencies between the estimates. In this study, we developed a new framework which makes use of information fusion theory, hazards' dispersion modeling and, geographical statistical analysis and visualization capabilities of geographical information systems to assess the risk generated by the operation of space launch vehicles. A new risk metric, which effectively addresses the lack of a common risk metric with current methods, is also proposed. A case study, based on a proposed spaceport in the state of Oklahoma showed that the estimates we generate through our framework consistently outperform estimates provided by any individual hazard, or by the independent combination of those hazards. Furthermore, the study revealed that using anything else than fusion could provide seriously misleading results, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The Vietnam War brought many changes to society in that it soon became one of the most controversial wars in United States history. There was a tremendous loss of life as well as a rift in the nation with the rise of anti-war protest. Those drafted for the war primarily came from low-income and ethnic minority communities. While all who served deserve to be recognized, there is one group that has gone largely unrepresented in the history of the war. Mexican American serviceman served and died in large numbers when compared to their population. In addition, they also received high honors for their valor in the battlefield. Yet, the history of the war has been largely focused on the experience of the Anglo and Black soldier. This is due in part to the existing black-white paradigm of race that has existed in United States society, which places all other ethnic minority groups in the margins of major historical events. Biased Selective Service Boards contributed to the already existing race and class discrimination that existed among the elite class in society. This study utilizes interviews, oral histories, autobiographies and anthologies as its main source of information of Mexican American Vietnam War servicemen. Due to the lack of historical material in this area, most information on participation and casualty rates are estimates conducted by professors such as Ralph Guzman, from the University of Santa Cruz. Guzman took the number of Spanish surnamed casualties in the southwestern states to calculate an approximate number of total casualties. The major aim is to highlight the contribution of the Mexican American serviceman in Vietnam and to emphasize the patriotism that existed in the Mexican American community as much as it did in the Black and Anglo communities. By providing information in the area of American identity, race relations, the draft and volunteerism as well as the sacrifice of Mexican American lives at the time of the Vietnam War, this study hopes to initiate the inclusion of Mexican Americans in the general history of the war. Keywords: Mexican American, Chicano/a, Selective Service , draft boards, whiteness, New Standards Men, Project 100,000, Lyndon Johnson, League of United Latin-American Citizens (LULAC), Medal of Honor, sacrifice, patriotism.

No description available.

No description available.

No / The threat of biological weapons has never attracted as much public attention as in the past five years. Current concerns largely relate to the threat of weapons acquisition and use by rogue states or by terrorists. But the threat has deeper roots--it has been evident for fifty years that biological agents could be used to cause mass casualties and large-scale economic damage. Yet there has been little historical analysis of such weapons over the past half-century. Deadly Cultures sets out to fill this gap by analyzing the historical developments since 1945 and addressing three central issues: Why have states continued or begun programs for acquiring biological weapons? Why have states terminated biological weapons programs? How have states demonstrated that they have truly terminated their biological weapons programs? We now live in a world in which the basic knowledge needed to develop biological weapons is more widely available than ever before. Deadly Cultures provides the lessons from history that we urgently need in order to strengthen the long-standing prohibition of biological weapons.

The creation of the All-Volunteer Force (AVF) in 1973 allowed U.S. presidents to deploy American military power in times and places of their own choosing with fewer concerns that the electorate would turn against their leadership. A reaction to the trauma of the Vietnam War, the AVF did away with conscription and instead relied on volunteers to serve and fight in U.S. military operations. The AVF's ranks were mostly filled with those willing to deploy and fight for their country, without the U.S. having to rely on conscription. When U.S. presidents had to use the AVF to fight in conflicts, they could expect to enjoy a higher degree of public support than those presidents who led the U.S. military during the Korean and Vietnam wars. Drawing from casualty, financial, and public opinion statistics from 1949 through 2016, this thesis argues that with the adoption of the AVF in 1973 U.S. presidents have been better able to deploy the AVF in combat with less resistance from the American people. It examines the circumstances behind the creation of the AVF, looking second, at the deployment of the AVF from the Gulf War to the Global War on Terror to determine if U.S. presidents enjoyed popular support and were encouraged to rely on military force as the primary option in foreign policy. Finally, the study compares casualties, financial costs, and public support for conflicts relying on conscripted forces to those depending on the AVF to examine if U.S. presidents were better able to involve the U.S. in military conflicts of questionable interest with fewer worries about organized anti-war movements. The conclusions of my research revealed that my hypothesis was wrong in that the creation of the AVF did not mean the U.S. presidency enjoyed a higher degree of support during conflicts. With the exception of the Gulf War, presidential approval when using the AVF was less than 50% in every conflict by the time military operations ended. The majority of conflicts disclosed that public approval and disapproval was based on casualties, regardless if service members were draftees or volunteers, as well as financial costs. For Korea and Vietnam, high casualties and financial costs resulted in approval levels dropping quickly while Afghanistan and Iraq took longer because casualties and spending did not escalate as quickly. As a result, I discovered that public approval and disapproval levels influenced political change. In the case of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, it forewarned changes in political leadership while conflicts such as Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo were kept short and inexpensive to prevent political opposition from organizing against the presidency. / Master of Arts / This thesis explores presidential use of military power from 1949 through 2016, examining the impact of the All-Volunteer Force (AVF). The research looks at whether the AVF is associated with U.S. presidents having more public support when using military power in various parts of the world. Prior to the AVF, conscription helped meet the personnel needs of the U.S. military; however, this system became problematic when it was used to fight conflicts that became unpopular with the American public. Not only were the loyalty and performance of the conscripts often questionable, the public also frequently placed pressure on presidents to curb U.S. military operations overseas. This thesis examines the emergence of the AVF, how presidents have deployed it, and the differences in American public support, casualties, and financial costs between the use of the conscript force and the AVF under U.S. presidents in major military conflicts from 1949 through 2016. The findings revealed very little difference in presidential use of military power whether employing the conscript force or the AVF. An examination of the nation’s major conflicts since 1949 suggests that public support was based on U.S. lives lost and monies spent, with higher levels of these categories associated with lower presidential approval and higher disapproval ratings. In conclusion, although the AVF was created to end the need for the draft to support national defense, the American public remained concerned about how U.S. presidents used the military overseas especially when engaged in distant open-ended conflicts.

Thesis supervisor: Barbara A. Biesecker. Includes bibliographic references (p. 198-204).

Thesis (M.A.)--University of North Texas, Dec., 2008. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Normatively, protecting civilians from the conduct of hostilities is grounded in the Geneva Conventions and the UN Security Council protection of civilian agenda, both of which celebrate their 70 and 20 year anniversaries in 2019. Previous research focusses heavily on protection of civilians through peacekeeping whereas this research focuses on ‘non-armed’ approaches to enhancing civilian protection in conflict. Prior research and experience reveals a high level of missingness and variation in the level of available data on civilian harm in conflict. Where civilian harm is considered in the peace and conflict literature, it is predominantly from a securitized lens of understanding insurgent recruitment strategies and more recent counter-insurgent strategies aimed at winning ‘hearts and minds’. Through a structured focused comparison of four case studies the correlation between the level of quality, timely and consistent data on civilian harm and affect on the conduct of hostilities will be reviewed and potential confounders identified. Following this the hypothesized causal mechanism will be process traced through the pathway case of Afghanistan. The findings and analysis from both methods identify support for the theory and it’s refinement with important nuances in the factors conducive to quality, timely and consistent data collection on civilian harm in armed conflict.

This dissertation offers a new understanding about wartime decision making in the face of likely, but unintended, harm to foreign civilians. It empirically identifies conditions under which leaders in democratic nations are more or less likely to choose to attack a target when confronted with a dilemma between pursuing national security objectives and avoiding civilian casualties. An innovative targeting decision model was constructed that described both the theorized structure of the decisions inputs and the process by which these inputs are assembled into a choice. The model went beyond the normal target benefit and civilian casualty cost considerations of proportionality to also include the contextual input of prospect frame. Decision makers were expected to address the same benefit and cost differently depending on whether they were winning or losing the conflict. This was because the prospect frame would influence their risk attitudes, as predicted by prospect theory. This model was then tested via two decision-making experiments that used military officers and defense civilians as participants. Additionally, a statistical analysis of data collected from an extended period of the second Intifada was done to seek evidence that the model also applied in actual wartime decision making. All three tests supported portions of the targeting decision model. Higher target benefit and lower civilian casualty estimates increased support for the planned attack. Prospect frame influenced decisions in the cases where both target value and the civilian casualty estimates were high and the resulting dilemma was very difficult. In these situations, those told that their forces were losing the conflict were less sensitive to humanitarian harm and more likely to support the attack than when they were told their side was winning. Furthermore, the Intifada data analysis of attacks approved by Israeli officials against Palestinians found this same effect of prospect frame held generally across all six years of observations.