Loading...
America's Road to War
Quiz by Chatal Moore
Customize this quiz to suit your class
Instantly translate to 100+ languages
Tag the questions with any skills you have. Your dashboard will track each student's mastery of each skill.
Give this quiz to my class
“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.Growing up in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, a small city surrounded by endless plains, I've found unexpected echoes of home in China's smaller towns — from the warmth of locals in Huaihua, Central China's Hunan province, to the quiet charm of Yangshuo, South China's Guangxi Zhuang autonomous region. With an itch to see more of China's lesser-visited regions, I began planning a trip to the northwest with seven friends — five Americans, one Pakistani, one Zimbabwean, and one Colombian. We bought round-trip tickets from Shanghai to Yinchuan, Ningxia Hui autonomous region, for less than $120 each. From there, we planned to rent a car and drive to Xining in Qinghai, then on to Qinghai Lake, and finally to Lanzhou, Gansu. To make that possible, several of us applied for Chinese driver's licenses, a process that involved translating our US licenses into Mandarin and passing a short test on traffic laws. Within a day, we were licensed. As we piled into two rental cars in late March to begin our eight-day journey, it became clear that this wasn't just a road trip — it was the culmination of our four years in China, the Mandarin we had so diligently studied, and our ongoing effort to contribute to US-China people-to-people relations. Right away, we drew curious reactions. At the Yinchuan airport, taxi drivers offered us rides into the city, only to stare in astonishment when we told them we had rented cars. "You're driving? In China?" one driver asked, visibly surprised. It was a reaction we'd encountered multiple times during our trip, as foreign drivers are rare in China, especially in remote regions. In Yinchuan, we stocked up on snacks and adjusted to the chilly desert air. From there, we headed west, navigating wide highways framed by dramatic landscapes: arid plains, jagged mountains, and occasionally, a herd of sheep crossing the road. The vastness of the Northwest was humbling — and as someone who grew up on the wide-open prairies of South Dakota, it felt oddly familiar. One of the highlights of our trip was camping by Qinghai Lake, the largest saltwater lake in China. A few summers ago, Santiago Solano, one of my classmates from the US, cycled from Xi'an in Shaanxi to Urumqi in the Xinjiang Uygur autonomous region over the course of a month and met many kind strangers along the way. One of them was Geng San, a Tibetan lamb herder who managed a piece of land right next to Qinghai Lake and graciously invited us to camp there. "That's what China is — it's the people. The quiet generosity of an old Tibetan nomad who, years after we first met, still offered us a place to rest on his land," said Solano, who is also part of the group on this trip. But apparently, we underestimated just how cold it would be to camp next to Qinghai Lake in late March. It was deathly freezing. In preparation for the trip, we had ordered two tent kits and eight sleeping bags. However, when the temperature eventually dropped to — 10 C, all of us piled into the cars and turned the heaters on. So much for camping. From Qinghai Lake, we drove to Lanzhou, where we visited many food markets and tried every type of noodle on offer. Since we are college students, we rented a gaming hotel room — something I've only ever seen in China. At night, instead of attending local parties as we had before, we stayed in the hotel and gamed late into the morning. For me, the trip was as much about the journey as it was about the destinations. Driving through Northwest China gave us a unique perspective on the region's natural beauty and its people. At gas stations, shopkeepers greeted us with curiosity and kindness, often offering recommendations for nearby attractions. At roadside carts, we sampled local specialties, grabbing a quick skewer and a mango for the road. And at every stop, we were touched by the warmth and hospitality that make traveling in China so rewarding. As an American who has lived in China for several years, I'm often asked about my experiences here. Trips like this one remind me of the similarities between the two countries, despite their differences. Just as road trips are a quintessential part of American culture, they've become my favorite way to explore China. Whether it's driving through the rolling hills of South Dakota or the deserts of Ningxia, there's something universal about the freedom and camaraderie that come with having complete control over where you end up. Written by Charlie Howes, a 22-year-old American who has lived in China since 2019. He completed his final year of high school at Beijing No 80 High School and is currently studying at New York University Shanghai. He has founded a company in China focused on facilitating US-China trade and plans to continue living in Shanghai long term. He enjoys road trips, cycling around the world, learning languages, and meeting new people.When it was his turn to speak, Adam Malik, Presidium Minister for Political Affairs and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Indonesia, recalled that about a year before, in Bangkok, at the conclusion of the peace talks between Indonesia and Malaysia, he had explored the idea of an organization such as ASEAN with his Malaysian and Thai counterparts. One of the “angry young men” in his country’s struggle for independence two decades earlier, Adam Malik was then 50 years old and one of a Presidium of five led by then General Soeharto that was steering Indonesia from the verge of economic and political chaos. He was the Presidium’s point man in Indonesia’s efforts to mend fences with its neighbors in the wake of an unfortunate policy of confrontation. During the past year, he said, the Ministers had all worked together toward the realization of the ASEAN idea, “making haste slowly, in order to build a new association for regional cooperation.” Adam Malik went on to describe Indonesia’s vision of a Southeast Asia developing into “a region which can stand on its own feet, strong enough to defend itself against any negative influence from outside the region.” Such a vision, he stressed, was not wishful thinking, if the countries of the region effectively cooperated with each other, considering their combined natural resources and manpower. He referred to differences of outlook among the member countries, but those differences, he said, would be overcome through a maximum of goodwill and understanding, faith and realism. Hard work, patience and perseverance, he added, would also be necessary. The countries of Southeast Asia should also be willing to take responsibility for whatever happens to them, according to Tun Abdul Razak, the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia, who spoke next. In his speech, he conjured a vision of an ASEAN that would include all the countries of Southeast Asia. Tun Abdul Razak was then concurrently his country’s Minister of Defence and Minister of National Development. It was a time when national survival was the overriding thrust of Malaysia’s relations with other nations and so as Minister of Defence, he was in charge of his country’s foreign affairs. He stressed that the countries of the region should recognize that unless they assumed their common responsibility to shape their own destiny and to prevent external intervention and interference, Southeast Asia would remain fraught with danger and tension. And unless they took decisive and collective action to prevent the eruption of intra-regional conflicts, the nations of Southeast Asia would remain susceptible to manipulation, one against another. “We the nations and peoples of Southeast Asia,” Tun Abdul Razak said, “must get together and form by ourselves a new perspective and a new framework for our region. It is important that individually and jointly we should create a deep awareness that we cannot survive for long as independent but isolated peoples unless we also think and act together and unless we prove by deeds that we belong to a family of Southeast Asian nations bound together by ties of friendship and goodwill and imbued with our own ideals and aspirations and determined to shape our own destiny”. He added that, “with the establishment of ASEAN, we have taken a firm and a bold step on that road”. For his part, S. Rajaratnam, a former Minister of Culture of multi-cultural Singapore who, at that time, served as its first Foreign Minister, noted that two decades of nationalist fervor had not fulfilled the expectations of the people of Southeast Asia for better living standards. If ASEAN would succeed, he said, then its members would have to marry national thinking with regional thinking. “We must now think at two levels,” Rajaratnam said. “We must think not only of our national interests but posit them against regional interests: that is a new way of thinking about our problems. And these are two different things and sometimes they can conflict. Secondly, we must also accept the fact, if we are really serious about it, that regional existence means painful adjustments to those practices and thinking in our respective countries. We must make these painful and difficult adjustments. If we are not going to do that, then regionalism remains a utopia.” S. Rajaratnam expressed the fear, however, that ASEAN would be misunderstood. “We are not against anything”, he said, “not against anybody”. And here he used a term that would have an ominous ring even today: balkanization. In Southeast Asia, as in Europe and any part of the world, he said, outside powers had a vested interest in the balkanization of the region. “We want to ensure,” he said, “a stable Southeast Asia, not a balkanized Southeast Asia. And those countries who are interested, genuinely interested, in the stability of Southeast Asia, the prosperity of Southeast Asia, and better economic and social conditions, will welcome small countries getting together to pool their collective resources and their collective wisdom to contribute to the peace of the world.” The goal of ASEAN, then, is to create, not to destroy. This, the Foreign Minister of Thailand, Thanat Khoman, stressed when it was his turn to speak. At a time when the Vietnam conflict was raging and American forces seemed forever entrenched in Indochina, he had foreseen their eventual withdrawal from the area and had accordingly applied himself to adjusting Thailand’s foreign policy to a reality that would only become apparent more than half a decade later. He must have had that in mind when, on that occasion, he said that the countries of Southeast Asia had no choice but to adjust to the exigencies of the time, to move toward closer cooperation and even integration. Elaborating on ASEAN objectives, he spoke of “building a new society that will be responsive to the needs of our time and efficiently equipped to bring about, for the enjoyment and the material as well as spiritual advancement of our peoples, conditions of stability and progress. Particularly what millions of men and women in our part of the world want is to erase the old and obsolete concept of domination and subjection of the past and replace it with the new spirit of give and take, of equality and partnership. More than anything else, they want to be master of their own house and to enjoy the inherent right to decide their own destiny …” While the nations of Southeast Asia prevent attempts to deprive them of their freedom and sovereignty, he said, they must first free themselves from the material impediments of ignorance, disease and hunger. Each of these nations cannot accomplish that alone, but by joining together and cooperating with those who have the same aspirations, these objectives become easier to attain. Then Thanat Khoman concluded: “What we have decided today is only a small beginning of what we hope will be a long and continuous sequence of accomplishments of which we ourselves, those who will join us later and the generations to come, can be proud. Let it be for Southeast Asia, a potentially rich region, rich in history, in spiritual as well as material resources and indeed for the whole ancient continent of Asia, the light of happiness and well-being that will shine over the uncounted millions of our struggling peoples.” The Foreign Minister of Thailand closed the inaugural session of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations by presenting each of his colleagues with a memento. Inscribed on the memento presented to the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, was the citation, “In recognition of services rendered by His Excellency Adam Malik to the ASEAN organization, the name of which was suggested by him.” And that was how ASEAN was conceived, given a name, and born. It had been barely 14 months since Thanat Khoman brought up the ASEAN idea in his conversations with his Malaysian and Indonesian colleagues. In about three more weeks, Indonesia would fully restore diplomatic relations with Malaysia, and soon after that with Singapore. That was by no means the end to intra-ASEAN disputes, for soon the Philippines and Malaysia would have a falling out on the issue of sovereignty over Sabah. Many disputes between ASEAN countries persist to this day. But all Member Countries are deeply committed to resolving their differences through peaceful means and in the spirit of mutual accommodation. Every dispute would have its proper season but it would not be allowed to get in the way of the task at hand. And at that time, the essential task was to lay the framework of regional dialogue and cooperation. The two-page Bangkok Declaration not only contains the rationale for the establishment of ASEAN and its specific objectives. It represents the organization’s modus operandi of building on small steps, voluntary, and informal arrangements towards more binding and institutionalized agreements. All the founding member states and the newer members have stood fast to the spirit of the Bangkok Declaration. Over the years, ASEAN has progressively entered into several formal and legally-binding instruments, such as the 1976 Treaty of Amity and Cooperation in Southeast Asia and the 1995 Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone. Against the backdrop of conflict in the then Indochina, the Founding Fathers had the foresight of building a community of and for all Southeast Asian states. Thus the Bangkok Declaration promulgated that “the Association is open for participation to all States in the Southeast Asian region subscribing to the aforementioned aims, principles and purposes.” ASEAN’s inclusive outlook has paved the way for community-building not only in Southeast Asia, but also in the broader Asia Pacific region where several other inter-governmental organizations now co-exist. The original ASEAN logo presented five brown sheaves of rice stalks, one for each founding member. Beneath the sheaves is the legend “ASEAN” in blue. These are set on a field of yellow encircled by a blue border. Brown stands for strength and stability, yellow for prosperity and blue for the spirit of cordiality in which ASEAN affairs are conducted. When ASEAN celebrated its 30th Anniversary in 1997, the sheaves on the logo had increased to ten – representing all ten countries of Southeast Asia and reflecting the colors of the flags of all of them. In a very real sense, ASEAN and Southeast Asia would then be one and the same, just as the Founding Fathers had envisioned. This article is based on the first chapter of ASEAN at 30, a publication of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in commemoration of its 30th Anniversary on 8 August 1997, written by Jamil Maidan Flores and Jun Abad.L'attentato alle Torri Gemelle dell'11 settembre 2001 è stato orchestrato dall'organizzazione terroristica al-Qaida, guidata da Osama bin Laden. Al-Qaida, un gruppo estremista islamico, aveva l'obiettivo di colpire gli Stati Uniti per una serie di motivi, tra cui la loro presenza militare in Medio Oriente, il sostegno a Israele e le politiche economiche e geopolitiche percepite come oppressive nei confronti dei Paesi musulmani. L'attacco ha coinvolto 19 terroristi, che hanno dirottato quattro aerei commerciali: due hanno colpito le Torri Gemelle a New York, un altro il Pentagono vicino a Washington, D.C., mentre il quarto, United Airlines Flight 93, è precipitato in un campo in Pennsylvania dopo che i passeggeri hanno tentato di riprendere il controllo dell'aereo. Osama bin Laden ha rivendicato la responsabilità dell'attentato, che ha provocato circa 3.000 morti e ha avuto un impatto duraturo sulla politica internazionale, portando alle guerre in Afghanistan e Iraq e a significativi cambiamenti nella sicurezza globale Il fatto che quattro aerei dirottati siano riusciti a deviare dalla loro rotta senza un immediato intervento da parte delle autorità aeree è legato a una serie di fattori: 1. **Dirottamenti inattesi**: Prima dell'11 settembre 2001, il protocollo per gestire i dirottamenti aerei era molto diverso. I dirottamenti aerei, quando accadevano, di solito erano gestiti attraverso negoziazioni e si presumeva che i dirottatori cercassero principalmente attenzione o denaro, non attacchi suicidi. Non c'era una preparazione specifica per l'eventualità che gli aerei venissero usati come armi. 2. **Interruzione delle comunicazioni**: I dirottatori hanno spento i transponder sugli aerei (dispositivi che inviano segnali radar con informazioni su altitudine e posizione), rendendo difficile per i controllori del traffico aereo tracciare con precisione gli aerei. Gli aerei risultavano ancora visibili sui radar primari, ma senza i dati specifici del transponder era difficile capire immediatamente che c'era una deviazione fuori rotta. 3. **Tempo di reazione**: Gli eventi si sono svolti in un breve arco di tempo. I primi segni di problemi sui voli sono emersi intorno alle 8:14 (con l'American Airlines Flight 11), e il primo schianto contro la Torre Nord è avvenuto alle 8:46. Tra l'inizio dei dirottamenti e gli impatti, il tempo per reagire è stato limitato. La portata dell'attacco era senza precedenti, e nessuno si aspettava che i dirottatori avrebbero usato gli aerei come armi contro obiettivi civili. 4. **Coordination failures**: Anche se ci sono stati segnali di problemi, la comunicazione tra le varie agenzie coinvolte (Federal Aviation Administration, NORAD, ecc.) non era ottimale. La procedura per attivare la difesa aerea in caso di dirottamento era complessa, e la possibilità che aerei civili venissero utilizzati come armi suicide non era contemplata nei protocolli. 5. **NORAD e tempi di risposta**: Il NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command), incaricato della difesa aerea, aveva una capacità limitata di intercettare rapidamente aerei dirottati nello spazio aereo interno. Prima dell'11 settembre, le operazioni di difesa erano concentrate su possibili minacce esterne, e non su attacchi interni. Anche quando i caccia furono inviati, era troppo tardi per impedire gli impatti. Questi fattori, combinati con l'incredulità che un tale attacco potesse realmente accadere, hanno reso possibile che quattro aerei fossero dirottati e usati come armi senza un intervento preventivo efficace. Dopo l'11 settembre, furono apportati significativi cambiamenti ai protocolli di sicurezza aerea per prevenire simili attacchi in futuro. L'idea che l'11 settembre abbia fornito un "pretesto" per attaccare l'Afghanistan è stata ipotizzata da diverse teorie del complotto e punti di vista critici sulla politica estera degli Stati Uniti. Tuttavia, è importante distinguere tra i fatti documentati e le ipotesi non verificate. ### Fatti documentati: 1. **Al-Qaida e Osama bin Laden**: Gli attacchi dell'11 settembre sono stati rivendicati da al-Qaida, che aveva il suo quartier generale in Afghanistan sotto la protezione del regime talebano. Gli Stati Uniti hanno chiesto ai talebani di consegnare Osama bin Laden, ma il governo talebano ha rifiutato. Questo ha portato all'intervento militare in Afghanistan con l'obiettivo dichiarato di smantellare al-Qaida e rimuovere i talebani dal potere. 2. **Legittimazione internazionale**: L'invasione dell'Afghanistan è stata ampiamente appoggiata a livello internazionale, con il sostegno delle Nazioni Unite e della NATO. Il Consiglio di Sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite ha approvato risoluzioni che condannavano gli attacchi e riconoscevano il diritto di difesa degli Stati Uniti. ### Teorie del complotto: Alcuni teorici sostengono che l'11 settembre potrebbe essere stato usato come pretesto per giustificare una guerra che rientrava in più ampi interessi geopolitici. Secondo questa visione, l'invasione dell'Afghanistan non riguardava solo la lotta contro il terrorismo, ma anche: - **Influenza geopolitica**: Gli Stati Uniti avrebbero cercato di stabilire una maggiore presenza militare e influenza in una regione strategica, vicina a Paesi come l'Iran, la Cina e la Russia. - **Risorse naturali**: L'Afghanistan ha un'importanza geopolitica anche per i suoi potenziali corridoi energetici e per le sue risorse minerarie, anche se non ha ricchezze petrolifere significative come altri Paesi del Medio Oriente. ### Critiche legittime: Al di là delle teorie del complotto, ci sono critiche legittime alla risposta degli Stati Uniti e all'espansione della guerra al terrorismo. Ad esempio: - **La guerra in Iraq**: Mentre l'invasione dell'Afghanistan fu largamente supportata, l'invasione dell'Iraq nel 2003 fu molto più controversa. Molti analisti ritengono che l'amministrazione Bush abbia sfruttato la paura generata dall'11 settembre per giustificare un attacco all'Iraq, anche se non c'erano prove concrete di un collegamento tra il regime di Saddam Hussein e al-Qaida. - **Durata della guerra**: La guerra in Afghanistan si è trasformata in un conflitto di lunga durata, che molti vedono come fallimentare, con risultati incerti nonostante il grande impegno militare ed economico. ### Conclusione: Sebbene sia possibile che alcune figure politiche o militari abbiano sfruttato l'attacco dell'11 settembre per portare avanti agende geopolitiche preesistenti, i fatti storici mostrano che l'invasione dell'Afghanistan fu una reazione diretta agli attacchi e alla minaccia di al-Qaida. Le decisioni successive, in particolare l'espansione della "guerra al terrorismo", sono state oggetto di forti critiche e controversie, ma non ci sono prove concrete che l'11 settembre sia stato pianificato o lasciato accadere per giustificare un'invasione. La **caduta delle Torri Gemelle** l'11 settembre 2001 è stata causata principalmente dai **danni strutturali provocati dall'impatto degli aerei e dal conseguente incendio**, secondo le indagini ufficiali. Le teorie che ipotizzano l'uso di esplosivi sono state ampiamente investigate ma smentite dalle analisi tecniche e dalle prove disponibili. ### Versione ufficiale: 1. **Impatto degli aerei**: Gli aerei di linea colpirono le Torri Gemelle a una velocità molto elevata, causando danni immediati e significativi alle colonne portanti esterne e interne degli edifici. Questi danni strutturali compromettevano già parte della stabilità delle torri. 2. **Incendi**: L'impatto degli aerei ha causato l'esplosione del carburante contenuto nei serbatoi, innescando vasti incendi. Il calore generato dagli incendi all'interno degli edifici raggiunse temperature estremamente elevate (fino a 1000°C o più), che indebolirono ulteriormente l'acciaio delle strutture portanti. 3. **Cedimento strutturale**: L'acciaio non deve necessariamente fondere per perdere la sua capacità portante; a temperature elevate, l'acciaio diventa più malleabile e perde resistenza. Questo, unito al danno meccanico già causato dall'impatto degli aerei, ha portato al cedimento progressivo delle strutture superiori, che sono collassate sui piani inferiori in una sorta di effetto domino. Questo spiega il "crollo verticale" delle torri. ### Investigazioni tecniche: 1. **Rapporto del NIST**: Il **National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)** ha condotto un'indagine approfondita sulla caduta delle torri. Secondo il rapporto del NIST, **non ci sono prove** che suggeriscano l'uso di esplosivi o ordigni nei crolli delle torri. I crolli sono stati attribuiti esclusivamente ai danni strutturali causati dagli impatti e agli incendi successivi. 2. **Simulazioni e analisi**: Gli ingegneri hanno simulato il comportamento degli edifici durante l'attacco e hanno concluso che l'indebolimento delle strutture portanti a causa del calore è stato sufficiente a spiegare il collasso. Il crollo avvenne in maniera progressiva e non con le caratteristiche di una demolizione controllata, come l'uso di esplosivi. ### Teorie del complotto: Nonostante le spiegazioni tecniche ufficiali, alcune persone sostengono che il crollo sia stato causato da esplosivi piazzati all'interno delle torri. Queste teorie si basano su: - **Testimonianze di esplosioni**: Alcune persone hanno riportato di aver sentito rumori di esplosioni prima o durante i crolli. Tuttavia, gli esperti hanno spiegato che questi rumori possono essere attribuiti a numerosi fattori, come i cedimenti strutturali e le esplosioni secondarie dovute al cedimento di infrastrutture interne (ad esempio, serbatoi di gas o trasformatori elettrici). - **Crollo simmetrico**: Alcuni teorici sostengono che il crollo delle torri sia stato troppo "ordinato" per essere casuale. Tuttavia, il collasso verticale è stato spiegato come il risultato del cedimento simultaneo di più colonne portanti indebolite dal calore. - **Teoria del crollo controllato**: Alcuni sostengono che le torri siano cadute con la rapidità e la precisione di una demolizione controllata. Tuttavia, studi dettagliati del NIST e altre organizzazioni non hanno trovato alcuna prova di esplosivi o segni di una demolizione pianificata. ### Conclusione: Le indagini ufficiali e i rapporti tecnici indicano chiaramente che il crollo delle Torri Gemelle è stato causato dagli impatti degli aerei e dai successivi incendi che hanno indebolito la struttura, portando al collasso progressivo. Le teorie che ipotizzano l'uso di esplosivi sono state esaminate ma non supportate da prove concrete. L'11 settembre 2001 ha avuto un impatto profondo anche sulla musica, influenzando artisti di diversi generi e portandoli a esprimere il dolore, la rabbia, la riflessione e la speranza che l'evento ha generato. La musica ha raccontato l'episodio da diverse prospettive, esplorando sia il trauma individuale che quello collettivo, e offrendo una forma di guarigione o commemorazione per chi l'ha vissuto. ### Canzoni che hanno affrontato l'11 settembre: 1. **Bruce Springsteen – "The Rising" (2002)** Questo album è uno dei più emblematici legati all'11 settembre. La title track, "The Rising", racconta la storia di un pompiere che sale verso le Torri Gemelle e riflette sul sacrificio e la speranza. L'intero album esplora i temi della perdita e della resilienza attraverso il prisma dell'America post-11 settembre, e rappresenta una sorta di catarsi per molte persone che hanno cercato conforto nella musica. 2. **Paul McCartney – "Freedom" (2001)** Paul McCartney era a New York il giorno degli attacchi e ha scritto questa canzone in risposta, cercando di trasmettere un messaggio di forza e resistenza. "Freedom" è stata eseguita al concerto benefico **"The Concert for New York City"**, un evento organizzato per raccogliere fondi per le vittime dell'attacco e celebrare il coraggio dei soccorritori. 3. **Toby Keith – "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue (The Angry American)" (2002)** Questa canzone country ha rappresentato il lato più patriottico e arrabbiato della reazione americana agli attentati. Toby Keith esprime il desiderio di giustizia (o vendetta), e la canzone è diventata molto popolare tra coloro che volevano una risposta forte agli attacchi. Sebbene controversa per i suoi toni duri, ha rappresentato una parte significativa del sentimento nazionale. 4. **Alan Jackson – "Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning)" (2001)** Questa ballata country ha cercato di catturare lo shock, la confusione e il dolore collettivo che l'11 settembre ha causato. La canzone pone domande che molti si sono fatti: "Dov'eri quando il mondo si è fermato?" Il tono è riflessivo e malinconico, ed è diventata una delle canzoni più ricordate che trattano direttamente dell'evento. 5. **U2 – "Walk On" (2001)** Sebbene scritta prima dell'11 settembre, "Walk On" è diventata una sorta di inno di resilienza dopo l'attacco. U2 ha dedicato diverse performance della canzone alle vittime dell'11 settembre, e il testo, che parla di andare avanti di fronte alle avversità, è stato interpretato come un messaggio di forza per chi cercava di ricostruire la propria vita. 6. **Neil Young – "Let’s Roll" (2001)** Questa canzone è stata ispirata dagli atti eroici dei passeggeri del volo United 93, che si sono ribellati contro i dirottatori, impedendo che l'aereo colpisse un obiettivo a terra. La frase "Let's roll" era ciò che uno dei passeggeri, Todd Beamer, ha detto mentre guidava la ribellione. Neil Young ha scritto questo brano per onorare quei passeggeri coraggiosi. ### Concerti e eventi musicali commemorativi: - **The Concert for New York City (2001)** Subito dopo gli attacchi, questo grande concerto benefico si è tenuto al Madison Square Garden per raccogliere fondi a favore delle vittime e per rendere omaggio ai soccorritori. Vi hanno partecipato artisti come Paul McCartney, The Who, Mick Jagger, David Bowie e molti altri. L'evento è stato una celebrazione dell'unità e della solidarietà di fronte alla tragedia. - **America: A Tribute to Heroes (2001)** Questo telethon, trasmesso a livello nazionale, ha visto la partecipazione di artisti come Bruce Springsteen, U2, Celine Dion e molti altri. Lo scopo era quello di raccogliere fondi per le vittime e i loro familiari, e molte delle performance erano riflessive e piene di emozione, offrendo un momento di unità e commiserazione collettiva. ### Effetti sull’industria musicale: L'11 settembre ha avuto anche un impatto diretto sull'industria musicale: - **Censura e sensibilità**: Molte canzoni che potevano essere considerate inappropriate o troppo aggressive dopo l'11 settembre furono temporaneamente rimosse dalle playlist radiofoniche, come "Imagine" di John Lennon (per il suo messaggio pacifista) o "New York, New York" di Frank Sinatra, per il legame con la città colpita. - **Modifiche ai testi e alle copertine**: Alcuni artisti modificarono testi o copertine di album che potevano sembrare insensibili o inappropriate nel clima post-11 settembre. Ad esempio, i Dream Theater cambiarono la copertina del loro album "Live Scenes from New York" perché raffigurava il World Trade Center in fiamme, una coincidenza che uscì pochi giorni prima degli attacchi. ### Conclusione: La musica ha offerto un modo per elaborare il trauma dell'11 settembre, sia attraverso canzoni che commemorano i caduti, sia con inni che hanno ispirato resistenza e speranza. Artisti di ogni genere hanno interpretato l'evento in modi diversi, riflettendo la complessità delle emozioni che ha suscitato, dall'angoscia e la perdita alla forza e la solidarietà. Sì, le **Dixie Chicks** (oggi conosciute come **The Chicks**) hanno avuto notevoli problemi, ma non per aver trattato direttamente il tema dell'11 settembre. I problemi che hanno affrontato sono legati alle loro critiche alla guerra in Iraq e alla presidenza di **George W. Bush**, che erano strettamente connesse al clima politico post-11 settembre. ### Contesto: Nel marzo 2003, durante un concerto a Londra, la cantante **Natalie Maines**, frontwoman delle Dixie Chicks, fece una dichiarazione che scatenò una controversia a livello nazionale negli Stati Uniti. Mentre l'invasione dell'Iraq era imminente, Maines disse al pubblico: > **"Just so you know, we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas."** Questa dichiarazione era una critica diretta al presidente **George W. Bush**, nato in Texas come Maines e il resto della band. La critica arrivava in un momento in cui il patriottismo e il sostegno alla guerra erano fortemente presenti negli Stati Uniti, specialmente nel Sud, dove le Dixie Chicks avevano una vasta base di fan nella comunità country. ### Conseguenze: 1. **Boicottaggi e censure**: Dopo il commento di Maines, molte stazioni radio, soprattutto quelle country, **boicottarono le Dixie Chicks**, rimuovendo le loro canzoni dalle playlist. In alcune parti degli Stati Uniti, i fan organizzarono pubblici **roghi dei loro album**. 2. **Perdita di supporto nel mondo country**: La comunità della musica country, che spesso riflette valori patriottici e conservatori, si rivolse contro di loro. Molti artisti e fan country criticarono duramente le Dixie Chicks per aver espresso opinioni contro la guerra e contro il presidente in un momento in cui il sostegno alla leadership nazionale era considerato importante. 3. **Minacce e ostilità**: Le Dixie Chicks ricevettero **minacce di morte** e furono soggette a intense campagne di odio. Questo dimostrò quanto fossero polarizzate le opinioni politiche negli Stati Uniti all'epoca, specialmente nell'industria della musica country. 4. **Carriera messa in pausa**: Dopo la controversia, la loro carriera negli Stati Uniti subì un grave colpo. Le vendite dei loro album calarono, e per diversi anni furono considerate una "band alienata" dall'industria country. Tuttavia, il gruppo trovò maggiore supporto nel pubblico internazionale e in generi musicali non tradizionalmente legati al country. ### La risposta delle Dixie Chicks: Le Dixie Chicks risposero alla controversia con coraggio e determinazione. Nel 2006, pubblicarono l'album **"Taking the Long Way"**, che includeva la famosa canzone **"Not Ready to Make Nice"**. Questo brano affrontava direttamente le critiche ricevute e il loro rifiuto di scusarsi per aver espresso le proprie opinioni. > **"Not Ready to Make Nice"** fu un grande successo e vinse diversi Grammy Awards, incluso quello per il **Miglior Album dell'Anno** e la **Canzone dell'Anno**. L'album rappresentava un chiaro messaggio: non erano pronte a cedere alla pressione e non si scusavano per aver esercitato la loro libertà di espressione. ### Riflessione sulla controversia: La controversia rifletteva una tensione più ampia nella società americana post-11 settembre, dove il patriottismo era visto da molti come un valore sacro e la critica alle politiche governative, specialmente riguardo alla guerra, poteva essere percepita come un tradimento. Le Dixie Chicks divennero un simbolo di questa polarizzazione e del conflitto tra libertà di espressione e patriottismo. ### Conclusione: Sebbene le Dixie Chicks non abbiano trattato direttamente l'11 settembre, la loro critica alla guerra in Iraq e a George W. Bush, strettamente connessa agli eventi post-11 settembre, portò a una delle più grandi controversie nella storia della musica country. Tuttavia, con il tempo, il gruppo è riuscito a superare le difficoltà e ha ottenuto una sorta di redenzione artistica e pubblica, guadagnando il rispetto di molti per la loro integrità e il loro coraggio nel difendere le proprie opinioni. Sì, i **Green Day** hanno trattato indirettamente i temi legati all'11 settembre e le sue conseguenze, soprattutto attraverso il loro album più famoso, **"American Idiot"** (2004). L'album non affronta direttamente gli attacchi dell'11 settembre, ma esplora il clima politico e sociale che si è sviluppato negli Stati Uniti dopo gli attentati, in particolare la guerra in Iraq, il patriottismo estremo e la manipolazione dei media. ### Contesto di "American Idiot": "American Idiot" è un concept album che segue un personaggio chiamato **Jesus of Suburbia**, che rappresenta la frustrazione e l'alienazione della generazione cresciuta nell'America post-11 settembre. L'album racconta una storia di rabbia, disillusione e ribellione contro il governo, i media e la società americana dell'epoca. ### Temi principali legati all'11 settembre e alle sue conseguenze: 1. **Critica ai media e alla manipolazione dell'informazione**: - La title track, **"American Idiot"**, critica aspramente la manipolazione dei media e il modo in cui la società americana è stata spinta verso un patriottismo cieco e un clima di paura. La canzone si scaglia contro l'idea che gli americani vengano indotti a seguire passivamente le direttive dei media e del governo, un tema strettamente legato alla narrazione post-11 settembre e alla propaganda che ha accompagnato la guerra in Iraq. > "Don't wanna be an American idiot, Don't want a nation under the new media." Qui, la band esprime il loro disgusto per l'influenza della propaganda mediatica e la crescente polarizzazione politica. 2. **Disillusione verso il governo e la guerra**: - Il brano **"Holiday"** è una feroce critica alla guerra in Iraq e alla politica estera dell'amministrazione Bush, spesso vista come una conseguenza diretta degli attacchi dell'11 settembre. La canzone denuncia l'ipocrisia e l'avidità che, secondo i Green Day, hanno guidato la decisione di invadere l'Iraq. > "This is the dawning of the rest of our lives, On holiday." Il termine "holiday" viene usato sarcasticamente per indicare una pausa dalla realtà, mentre la guerra viene condotta senza una giustificazione morale valida. 3. **Riflessioni sulla paura e l'ansia della generazione post-11 settembre**: - **"Boulevard of Broken Dreams"** esplora temi più personali di alienazione e solitudine, ma riflette anche l'ansia e la disillusione che molti americani, specialmente giovani, hanno provato nell'era post-11 settembre. Il senso di isolamento e la perdita di speranza di Jesus of Suburbia rappresentano simbolicamente il malessere di una generazione confusa e incerta sul futuro. > "I walk a lonely road, The only one that I have ever known." 4. **Rabbia verso l'apatia sociale**: - In **"Wake Me Up When September Ends"**, molti hanno visto una connessione simbolica con gli attacchi dell'11 settembre. Sebbene la canzone sia stata scritta dal frontman **Billie Joe Armstrong** come una riflessione personale sulla morte di suo padre, è diventata una sorta di inno per chiunque cercasse di elaborare il dolore e il trauma degli eventi del 2001. L'uso di "September" nel titolo ha portato molti a collegare il brano agli eventi dell'11 settembre e al desiderio di superare quel periodo buio. > "Here comes the rain again, Falling from the stars, Drenched in my pain again, Becoming who we are." La canzone evoca sentimenti di perdita e desiderio di guarigione, temi che risuonano con l'atmosfera post-attentati. ### Impatto di "American Idiot": "American Idiot" è stato un successo enorme e ha avuto un impatto culturale significativo. L'album ha dato voce a una generazione di giovani disillusi dalla politica americana e dalla guerra, riflettendo il malcontento diffuso verso l'amministrazione Bush e il modo in cui il paese aveva reagito agli eventi dell'11 settembre. Il successo dell'album ha portato anche alla produzione di un musical omonimo, che ha continuato a esplorare questi temi. ### Conclusione: I Green Day non hanno trattato direttamente gli attacchi dell'11 settembre, ma il loro album "American Idiot" è una risposta critica alle conseguenze politiche e sociali di quell'evento, in particolare la guerra in Iraq, la manipolazione dei media e la disillusione dei giovani. L'album è stato un potente veicolo di protesta contro il clima politico dell'epoca e ha dato voce alla frustrazione di molti americani.America's First PeopleAmerica's founding fathersAmerica's FIRST GovernmentAMERICA'S MOST INFAMOUS HATE GROUP: THE KKK