Ku Klux Klans Effect on America Essay Example for Free

Ku Klux Klans Effect on America Essay The first Klan had first started around the year of 1860s. The first klan had lead up to the effects of the 1920s. The KKK had a tumultious start, and it had a major effect on America in the 1920s. The first klan began in Tennessee, by six Confederate Army Officers, in the winter of 1865. Ku klux Klan rose about four million and spread from the South into the Midwest region and Northern states and even into Canada. The name of the Ku Klux Klan is â€Å"derived from the Grrek word kyklos, meaning circle† (Wikimedia Foundation). ‘Klan was added for the purpose of alliteration† (â€Å"Ku Klux Klan†). The infamous burning-cross icon became a symbol of the KKK in the 1920’s, which was one of many tactics used for intimidation. Perhaps the most distinguishing characteristic of Klan members were the white robes they wore along with cone shaped hats that covered their faces. These costumes accomplished their goal of making them look more outlandish and terrifying, and for the intimidation of their victims (Smith). The Klan was pretty selective in accepting members, only WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) could become members. These members possessed the ideology of white supremacy to all other races and ethnic divisions, similar to the concept of Neo-Nazism, however they claim to have based their beliefs on Christian values and nativism. It is often thought that the KKK only hated African-Americans, but many other groups acquired hatred from the Klan, such as Jews, Catholics , homosexuals and various immigrant groups. Anti-Defamination League). Even though the stock started to gain their stocks and shares didnt stop the Great Depression from happening (Kelly). Many people wonder why any group of people would posses such a hatred Dubbs 3 for certain groups of people. While there is no legitimate justification, one factor contributing to their hate was the rapid economic progression in the North, and the stagnant economy of the South. This may have been what angered the white southerners so much that they put blame onto the black population, along with leftover racial disputes from the times of slavery (Trueman). People of today also wonder how society could permit such destruction of life, and also support it. Back then, the Klan had many sources of income including membership fees, funds acquired from various events and sales of Klan propaganda, as well as free will donations. â€Å"This income made the Klan’s many forms of media and strategy possible, such as mass mailings, pamphlets and public events and protests. They also did community service projects such as ‘adopt a highway’ programs to make themselves look good in the eyes of their communities† (Anti-Defamanation League). The members of the Ku Klux Klan did everything in their power to prevent the black community from exercising their newly acquired rights, which was often done during massive events. During a typical KKK event, they dressed in robes symbolizing their rank, then went on nighttime raids, during which they would whip and murder blacks and any of their supporters (â€Å"Ku Klux Klan†). These events, unfortunately, were extremely effective. This lack of a political presence is what allowed the Klan to exist for such a long period of time. KKK existed from the initial founding until around 1870, â€Å"when congress passed the KKK act which allowed authorities to end such activities by force and penalize anyone who affiliated with terrorist organizations† (â€Å"Ku Klux Klan†). At this time, blacks were the only targets of the KKK, for the most part.

Anger in The Victims :: Victims

Anger in The Victims    In The Victims, by Sharon Olds, the author reveals the dark side of a society where divorce is prevalent, some family members find it hard to cope with. In the first half of â€Å"The Victims†, it sounds like a young child is telling the experience regarding her parents’ divorce. The speaker expresses anger toward the father. â€Å"When mother divorced you, we were glad.† (Line 1) The â€Å"we† is probably several children and their mother. It appears they all experienced an unpleasant life with their father. The mother â€Å"took it and took it, in silence† (Lines 1 and 2) and the children were also told to endure the abuse. What was it that the mother had to take? From the reading it appears there was some type of abuse. The abuse could have been physical but was most likely verbal and then again it could have been total silence. The father could have been a workaholic and never spent any time with them. This type of neglect really hurts as there is no togetherness or closeness. The bitterness toward the father was cold, so much so, that when he was fired, â€Å"we grinned inside.† (Lines 4 and 5) The speaker wanted some relief to the years of hurt so laughing about what happened to their father was an emotional outpouring of how the speaker wanted to get back at him. When the father was fired, the speaker compares this incidence to â€Å"when Nixon’s helicopter lifted...the last time.† During Nixon’s presidency, there was the Watergate scandal. News of this event carried around the world and most people wanted him impeached but instead he resigned. The feeling was that of remorse yet the country knew he had to leave. The same feeling is depicted in this statement. The speaker expresses happiness to the fact that those things of material value to their father were taken away. She is concerned over whether they would take away his suits. To her this is the only symbol of her father’s identity that she remembers and if they took the suits away, it would be an end to the years of silence. Maybe the speaker felt like if the suits were taken away, then maybe her father would seek another type of job and not be so distant. The mother â€Å"taught us to take it, to hate you† (Line 15) until there were no thoughts of their father around them.

An Analysis of Globalization: Constructivism, Commercial Liberalism and Marxism Essay

Globalization is perhaps the most defining characteristic of the 21st century. The American push for free market ideals, facilitated by the advent of the Internet and other communication technologies, has led to the increased interaction and interrelatedness of people. Therefore, globalization also raises interesting implications for the field of international relations. How can this monumental event be analyzed? Globalization and its consequences can be interpreted and dissected through three major schools of thought: constructivism, commercial liberalism, and Marxism. A modified Marxist view can explain the starting causes of globalization but not modern day causes, international liberalism can explain the resulting global â€Å"macropeace†, and constructivism can explain counter-reactive â€Å"microwars† prevalent in the international system. To begin, Marxism is based on a critique of capitalism and normative commitment to communism. Marxism has various strains, but Marxism-Leninism and neo-Marxism deliver the most cogent analysis of globalization. Robert Gilpin, in his article â€Å"The Political Economy of International Relations† identifies four components of Marxism-Leninism; Marx conceived three of the points, and the final is Lenin’s own modification. First is the law of disproportionality which attacks the idea of supply and demand. Since capitalists can produce goods easier than consumers can purchase them, free market economies will always over-produce certain goods. Next is the law of capital concentration. Since competition forces capitalists to produce efficiently or face extinction, capital eventually accumulates in the hands of a select few. This disparity will ultimately fuel the anger of the proletariat and lead to social revolution. Third is the law of falling profit rate. Marx predicted a complex chain reaction, where labor-saving devices would fuel under-consumption, overproduction, and mass unemployment. However, when the social revolution did not occur in the post-World War I era, Lenin revamped Marx’s communist ideology with his fourth law, the law of uneven development. Lenin asserts that the revolution failed to occur, because capitalists had used imperialism as a metaphorical release valve. Developed nations had managed to dump their goods and capital in colonies and simultaneously acquire cheap raw materials. This outlet and source of inputs relieved the pressure on capitalism, allowing it to continue for the time being. The second variation of Marxism pertinent to globalization is neo-Marxism, specifically Wallerstein’s piece, â€Å"Core and Periphery. † Core states occupy power positions in the international system and can perpetuate a system where they remain in power over the periphery. Core states have two defining characteristics: â€Å"strong state machinery, coupled with a national culture†¦Ã¢â‚¬  The periphery states are characteristically weak, and could even exist as merely a colony. They lack unity through a national cultural and have very weak state mechanisms: either a corrupt and bloated bureaucracy or a virtually non-existent one. Wallerstein alleges that the current international system is one of core states exploiting periphery states. In the article, â€Å"Globalization and the Trade in Human Body Parts,† Harrison attributes the causes of globalization to a massive crisis of both â€Å"capital accumulation and of state legitimacy† in the 1970s. According to him, capitalist states of the West faced an inability to produce the correct quantity and distribution of goods, consistent with Marxism. Furthermore, the push for efficiency led to advent of labor-saving devices and the accumulation of capital in the hands of the few. All of these occurrences caused the high unemployment and inflation characteristic of the mid-1970s. As goods and capital piled up with high levels of joblessness, â€Å"compromises that had underpinned the post-welfare state gave way once more to conflict between labor and capital. † This conflict embodies the final death rattle of capitalism before a revolution topples it. However, globalization utilized the Leninist â€Å"release valve† and stabilized the developed countries’ free market system. According to Harrison, cheap inputs and vast new markets for consumption allowed Western nations to resolve its crises of capitalism and legitimacy. He defines globalization as â€Å"the establishment of world-wide exchanges in labour, trade, technology, and capital between nations possessing different economic, military, and political powers. † Since globalization has an inherent pro-liberal, capitalist bias, it creates unfair exchanges. Harrison argues that the market for human body parts follows this pattern and mimics other unequal exchanges between developed and developing countries. In this particular market, the organ donors tend to originate from developing nations like India, Argentina, and China. The recipients tend to live in developed nations, with the most transplants performed in the US with Europe closely behind. Harrison defines this flow of organs and transplants as exploitation. All in all, the causes of globalization rest in capitalism’s desperate bid for viability. However, Harrison’s proposed causes for the start of globalization do not completely make sense. His explanation through the Marxist paradigm correctly pinpoints economic incentive as the overarching objective for globalization. Developed nations, full of goods and capital, perpetually search for outlets for their goods and for natural resource sources. This assumption fundamentally underlies the theory of the free market. However, Harrison looks to the 1970s, to the start of visible globalization, and links a crisis of capital accumulation to the economic turbulence of the 1970s. But, from the perspective presented in Kirshner’s article â€Å"Keynes, Legacies and Inquiries,† the problems instead stem from supply-shocks, creating cost-push inflation and recession. A supply shock results in inadequate levels of aggregate supply to meet aggregate demand. The OPEC oil embargo of the mid-1970s, starting in 1973, delivered this effect and caused the intense stagflation of the time. Therefore, macroeconomics is partially in conflict with the Marxist view of globalization. Developed nations did not face â€Å"a crisis of capital accumulation;† instead, they faced a crisis of productive capabilities. Due to the lack of crude oil, producers could not create enough goods to meet the demand. Therefore it makes more sense that developed nations pushed for a global economy to secure cheap natural resources, rather than look for more sources of demand. The idea of capital accumulation crisis must be abandoned, along with the ominous predictions of violent revolution. After such considerations, a theory of macroeconomic Marxism succinctly locates the starting origins of globalization. However, this explanation delivers an increasingly poor explanation for modern day globalization and its progression past initial causes. The economies of developing nations have gone through a tertiarization process, defined as the transition of an economy into predominantly service-oriented jobs. This change has led to decreased manufacturing and decreased American exports. Marxism offered a convincing argument in the 1970s and early 1980s, when America had a large trade surplus and a minor trade deficit. However, America’s trade deficit has ballooned to astronomical proportions as the shift away from manufacturing has become more pronounced. Therefore, the idea of developed nations, or core states, exploiting and preying upon developing nations, or periphery states, for markets no longer makes sense. What can explain globalization in the 1990s through the modern day? With the rise of East Asian NICs, as Steven Haggard’s article names them, and developing nations like India and China, wealthy nations have grown increasingly dependent on their cheap goods. As these poorer manufacturing-based powers rise, they hold much more power on the world stage. Huntington supports this assertion in his article, â€Å"The Clash of Civilizations,† stating that â€Å"non-Western civilizations no longer remain the objects of history†¦but join the West as the movers and shapers of history. † This non-Western empowerment deeply contradicts all strains of Marxism, which contain some rich-poor exploitative element. Neo-Marxism and Harrison’s fundamental argument places globalization in the context of wealthy nations using capitalism and unequal exchanges to take advantage of poorer nations. However, core states of economic power no longer completely dictate the rules of the game, and use periphery states as dumping grounds for goods. Instead, the opposite has occurred; rising periphery states have begun to rapidly manufacture goods and export them to the core. This inversion of Marxism explains the continued push of globalization, now fueled by the flow of goods from developing to developed nations. This interaction can even be exploitative in the opposite direction. For example, America has accumulated an enormous trade deficit with China. This burgeoning trade deficit is very advantageous to China, strengthening the value of its currency. However, Kishner describes the deleterious effects of this occurrence in his article, stating that it â€Å"forces the burden of international adjustments on deficit countries†¦Ã¢â‚¬  The disproportion also weakens the dollar and erodes confidence in its ability to store value. Gilpin also alludes to the positive and negative effects of a trade surplus in â€Å"Politics of Transnational Economic Relations,† mentioning how America tolerated the 1. 5 billion trade surplus that Japan enjoyed in the 1970s. America has tried to use rhetoric and diplomacy to resolve this issue but does not dare to use any stronger tools due to its dependency on China as a trading partner. In this example, China gains economic power at the expense of the American dollar. Developing countries sometimes occupy the throne of power on key issues; this reversal deeply contradicts Marxism. Finally, commercial liberalism can be used to understand the effects of globalization. According to commercial liberalist Richard Rosecrance’s article â€Å"The Rise of the Trading State,† trade, capitalism, and free markets are forces of peace. Commercial liberalists believe in the use of trade to forge communication and connections with other nations. Eventually, a net of economic interdependence will form, which discourages war. War in this environment destroys trade opportunities, and therefore, increases the political consequence of declaring war. These strains of thinkers in turn consider imperialist interests to be in utter conflict with trading interests. A country either chooses to embrace free markets and trade or impose heavy mercantilist restrictions. According to this theory, peace occurs when a country trades autonomy and the quest of national power for more extensive access to resources of the world. Markets further facilitate peace by allowing the spread of culture and understanding. This trading and cultural exchange eventually leads to a peaceful world of trading states, rather than various imperialist nations competing for hegemony. In â€Å"Jihad vs. McWorld,† Barber identifies two occurrences closely linked to globalization that ironically oppose and engender each other simultaneously. First is the argument of a global â€Å"macropeace,† facilitated by global trade. Barber makes the argument that no nation is truly independent, connected by everything from the environment to pandemics. Barber further postulates that â€Å"positive economic forces that have globalism as their conscious object† act to bind nations together. These forces have also deeply eroded national sovereignty as multinational corporations and international banking systems lack any national identity and do not reflect any particular nationhood. These global economic devices do not exist under the jurisdiction of any individual nation, which according to Barber, has renewed efforts for international peace through an international economy. Concurrently, this system has also turned â€Å"religion, culture, and ethnic identity† into â€Å"marginal elements of a working identity. † This erosion of differences facilitates a peace throughout the world, with the pursuit of wealth undermining any war like tendencies. Furthermore, Barber talks about the mingling of culture as well as trade, describing this concept as â€Å"a product of pop culture driven by expansionist commerce. † The idea of globalization also refers to the cultural imperialism of the West. More youth around the world idoloize American pop culture figures, like Michael Jackson or Lady Gaga. Foreign children drink Coco-Cola and salivate over Harley-Davidson motorcycles and Cadillac cars. American culture has permeated the entire world from pop icons to the golden arches of McDonalds; this fact is undeniable. This intermingling of culture again facilitates cooperation and understanding between nations, decreasing the chance of war. Barber’s argument is a convincing argument of commercial liberalism. The essence of this paradigm’s argument is the idea of commerce breeding interdependence. This fact could not be clearer now, during the most devastating economic collapse in over eighty years. As Eurozone nations flounder, the American stock markets dip and rise, based on news of their actions. This certainly smacks of a deep, systemic structure in which consequences for one nation affect many other nations as well. In such a system, a broad scale war would be most disadvantageous, as damage to one nations’ economy would impact the whole. Furthermore, cultural exchanges between nations certainly seem to have brought people closer, as the world becomes an increasingly smaller place. This two-pronged event has created a world where all-out war between states is now politically unattractive and economically unfathomable. Barber’s analysis explains both the market independence and the increased level of cultural mixing in the world; it also explains why wars between two nations have grown rare in the post-Cold War era. Nevertheless, a significant counterargument can be made through to this idea. Many argue that although much of the conflict is not between states, war does still exist. The whole world has not entered Barber’s â€Å"future in shimmery pastels, a busy portrait†¦with fast music, fast computers, and fast food†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Even more would argue that much of the world abhors the cultural influence of the US, citing it as immoral or hedonistic. Huntington mentions a return-to-roots sensation among non-Western states, with states starting to turn in and focus on their own regional identities. With many nations like Saudi Arabia and Iran still practicing religious law passionately and pockets of ethnic warfare still existing in Africa, it sometimes seems counterintuitive to talk of a global peace. However, the identification of a counter-reaction to the globalization can explain all these seeming contradictions. Barber identifies this point through the use of constructivism. Constructivism makes the argument that knowledge of the event does matter in truly understanding an international occurrence. In Henry Nau’s article, â€Å"Why We Fight over Foreign Policy,† he strongly focuses on the political, economic, social identity of a state or states when defining constructivism, emphasizing â€Å"the ideas, norms, and values†¦that shape their discourse and identity. † Constructivists believe that ideas and ideology drive nations to act in certain ways, often creating positive relationships with similar countries and harboring hostility toward those different. Constructivism does have one major disadvantage: it cannot make a policy prescription for a problem. However, it does often prove poignant in analysis of current events and in prediction of future events. This perspective is immensely effective in understanding Barber’s argument and refuting the aforementioned criticism. His argument is bipartite; after identifying the macropeace, he identifies a phenomenon that he nicknames â€Å"jihad,† referring to any violence motivated by â€Å"dogmatic and violent particularism. † This form of conflict relates to the construction of one’s identity, whether by ethnicity, language, religion, etc. According to Barber, violence stems from people of differing identities resisting the homogenizing influence of globalization. It can be seen as a reactionary event to the growing uniformity of the world to Western cultural norms and ideas, facilitated by the unification of national markets. This return-to-roots search for identity eventually takes a violent form against those who have differing identities. This causes the various â€Å"microwars,† defined as most regional conflicts between two groups, rather than states. Barber cites examples of many people, fighting identity-based war on the pretext of self-determination, including Jews, Kurds, Arabs, and Ossetians. These conflicts are the essence of constructivism, isolating identity-based differences as a major source of international conflict. However, Barber’s constructivist theory is not without detractors. Samuel Huntington, author of the â€Å"Clash of Civilizations,† has a different idea of the world. He describes vast swaths of land as individual civilizations and describes conflict on two levels: the micro-level where small groups in different civilizations struggle and the macro-level where states from different civilizations for hegemony. He does not define terrorism as a reaction to American globalization and the erosion of Islamic identity, but instead as conflict between Islamic and Western civilizations. Barber contrastingly defines conflict as intracivilizational, rather than transcivilizational, between people â€Å"without countries inhabiting nations that they just cannot call their own. † Huntington also predicts that future conflict will grow bloodier, due to increasing awareness of civilizational divides and these conflicts â€Å"will occur along the cultural fault lines separating civilizations. † In opposition, Barber portends a future in which the macropeace will ultimately win out; although, â€Å"jihad† will continue to be seen spontaneously. Despite the intuitive nature of Huntington’s theory and predictions, it is simply too reductionist and parsimonious to adequately explain the complex world of international relations. He omits whole continents in his argument and completely assumes homogeneity within civilizations. These criticisms are eloquently expressed in Katzenstein’s article â€Å"A World of Plural and Pluralistic Civilizations. † He voices the same fundamental disagreement as Barber, that civilizations are not internally uniform. He describes them, not as simply larger nations, but as â€Å"loosely coupled† and â€Å"internally differentiated. † This idea of differentiation supports Barber’s assertions, agreeing with the idea of major clashes occurring within civilizations, rather than between civilizations. Katzenstein also references that this fact has been proven with both qualitative and statistical means. In this regard, Huntington seems rather flippant, disregarding empiricism for an intuitive, simple theory. Despite a smooth and logical premise, Huntington’s opinions about the world can be quickly refuted. Huntington’s predictions about the future also seem less accurate than Barber’s, because Huntington neglects an important facet of the world. Huntington does not mention economic interdependence at all in his piece, despite its overwhelming influence in every facet of life. Utilizing Rosecrane’s theory of trading states, economic self-interest will cause the macropeace to win out, consistent with Barber. Globalization is unavoidable. Its methods and consequences are ubiquitous, from the food one eats to the job prospects one faces. It has had both negative and positive effects on the world, facilitating both economic prosperity and global terrorism. The initial causes of globalization can be analyzed with a modified Marxist viewpoint. However, as the phenomenon has progressed, Marxism no longer provides a convincing argument. The intricate economic web connecting the nations of the world through globalization can be understood through commercial liberalism. The contrasting sectarian violence also resulting from globalization can be understood through constructivism. As globalization changes and as America’s role on the world stage grows, these analyses will mostly likely grow and develop as well.

Biography of Hans Bethe

German-American physicist Hans Albrecht Bethe (pronounced BAY-tah) was born on July 2, 1906. He made key contributions to the field of nuclear physics and helped to develop the hydrogen bomb and the  atomic bomb used in World War II. He died on March 6, 2005. Early Years Hans Bethe was born on July 2, 1906 in Strasbourg, Alsace-Lorraine. He was the only child of Anna and Albrecht Bethe, the latter of whom worked as a physiologist at the University of Strasbourg. As a child, Hans Bethe showed an early aptitude for mathematics and often read his fathers calculus and trigonometry books. The family moved to Frankfurt when Albrecht Bethe took a new position at the Institute of Physiology at the  University of Frankfurt am Main. Hans Bethe attended secondary school at Goethe-Gymnasium  in  Frankfurt until he contracted tuberculosis in 1916. He took some time off school to recover before graduating in 1924. Bethe went on to study at the University of Frankfurt for two years before transferring to the University of Munich  so that he could study theoretical physics under German physicist Arnold Sommerfeld. Bethe earned his PhD in 1928. He worked as an assistant professor at the University of Tubingen and later worked as a lecturer at the University of Manchester after immigrating to England in 1933. Bethe moved to the United States in 1935 and took a job as a professor at Cornell University. Marriage and Family Hans Bethe married Rose Ewald, the daughter of German physicist Paul Ewald, in 1939. They had two children, Henry and Monica, and eventually, three grandchildren. Scientific Contributions From 1942 to 1945, Hans Bethe served as the director of the theoretical division at Los Alamos where he worked on the Manhattan Project, a team effort to assemble the worlds first atomic bomb. His work was instrumental in calculating the bombs explosive yield. In 1947 Bethe contributed to the development of quantum electrodynamics by being the first scientist to explain the Lamb-shift in the hydrogen spectrum.  At the beginning of the Korean War, Bethe worked on another war-related project and helped to develop a hydrogen bomb. In 1967, Bethe was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics for his revolutionary work in stellar nucleosynthesis. This work offered insight into the ways in which stars produce energy. Bethe also developed a theory related to inelastic collisions, which helped nuclear physicists understand the stopping power of matter for fast charged particles. Some of his other contributions include work on solid-state theory and a theory of the order and disorder in alloys. Late in life, when Bethe was in his mid-90s, he continued to contribute to research in astrophysics by publishing papers on supernovae, neutron stars,  black holes. Death Hans Bethe retired in 1976 but studied astrophysics and served as the John Wendell Anderson Emeritus Professor of Physics Emeritus at  Cornell University  until his death. He died of congestive heart failure on March 6, 2005 at his home in Ithaca, New York. He was 98 years old. Impact and Legacy Hans Bethe was the  head theoretician on the Manhattan Project  and was a key contributor to the atomic bombs that killed more than 100,000 people and wounded even more when they were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during  World War II. Bethe also helped to develop the hydrogen bomb, despite the fact that he was opposed to the development of this type of weapon. For more than 50 years, Bethe strongly advised caution in using the power of the atom. He supported  nuclear nonproliferation treaties and frequently spoke out against missile defense systems. Bethe also advocated for the use of national laboratories to develop technologies that would lower the risk of nuclear war rather than weapons that could win a nuclear war. Hans Bethes legacy lives on today. Many of the discoveries that he made in nuclear physics and astrophysics during his 70 year career have stood the test of time, and scientists are still using and building upon his work to make progress in theoretical physics and  quantum mechanics. Famous Quotes Hans Bethe was a key contributor to the atomic bomb used in World War II as well as the hydrogen bomb. He also spent a significant portion of his life advocating for nuclear disarmament. So, it is really no surprise that he was often asked about his contributions and the potential for nuclear war in the future. Here are some of his most famous quotes on the topic: When I started participating in thermonuclear work in the summer of 1950, I was hoping to prove that thermonuclear weapons could not be made. If this could have been proved convincingly, this would of course have applied to both the Russians and ourselves and would have given greater security to both sides than we can now ever achieve. It was possible to entertain such a hope until the spring of 1951, when it suddenly became clear that it was no longer tenable.If we fight a war and win it with H-bombs, what history will remember is not the ideals we were fighting for but the methods we used to accomplish them. These methods will be compared to the warfare of Genghis Khan who ruthlessly killed every last inhabitant of Persia.Today the arms race is a long-range problem. The Second World War was a short-range problem, and in the short range I think it was essential to make the atomic bomb. However, not much thought was given to the time after the bomb. At first, the work was too absorbi ng, and we wanted to get the job done. But I think that once it was made it had its own impulse - its own motion that could not be stopped.Today we are rightly in an era of disarmament and dismantlement of nuclear weapons. But in some countries nuclear weapons development still continues. Whether and when the various Nations of the World can agree to stop this is uncertain. But individual scientists can still influence this process by withholding their skills.  Accordingly, I call on all scientists in all countries to cease and desist from work creating, developing, improving and manufacturing further nuclear weapons - and, for that matter, other weapons of potential mass destruction such as chemical and biological weapons.   Hans Bethe Fast Facts Full Name:  Hans Albrecht Bethe  Occupation: PhysicistBorn: July 2, 1906 in  Strasbourg, Germany (now Strasbourg, France)Died: March 6, 2005 in Ithaca, New York, USAEducation: Goethe University Frankfurt,  Ludwig Maximilian University of MunichKey Accomplishment: Received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1967 for his work in  stellar nucleosynthesis. Served as head theoretician on the Manhattan Project.  Spouses Name: Rose EwaldChildrens Names: Henry Bethe,  Monica Bethe Bibliography Broad, William J. â€Å"HANS BETHE CONFRONTS THE LEGACY OF HIS BOMB.†Ã‚  The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 June 1984, www.nytimes.com/1984/06/12/science/hans-bethe-confronts-the-legacy-of-his-bomb.html?pagewantedall.Broad, William J. â€Å"Hans Bethe, Prober of Sunlight and Atomic Energy, Dies at 98.†Ã‚  The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Mar. 2005, www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/science/hans-bethe-prober-of-sunlight-and-atomic-energy-dies-at-98.html.Gibbs, W. Wayt. â€Å"Hans Albrecht Bethe, 1906-2005.†Ã‚  Scientific American, 1 May 2005, www.scientificamerican.com/article/hans-albrecht-bethe-1906-2005/.â€Å"Hans Bethe.†Ã‚  Atomic Heritage Foundation, 2 July 1906, www.atomicheritage.org/profile/hans-bethe.â€Å"Hans Bethe - Biographical.†Ã‚  Nobelprize.org, www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1967/bethe-bio.html.Irion, Robert. â€Å"A Towering Physicists Legacy Faces a Threatening Future.†Ã‚  Science, American Asso ciation for the Advancement of Science, 7 July 2006, science.sciencemag.org/content/313/5783/39.full?rss1.