Podcasts about Sherman

Halfway through calendar year 2023, the Pentagon's Office of the Chief Information Officer has accomplished quite a lot in a short amount of time, from early work implementing zero trust to first task order awards under the department's Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability contract, according to CIO John Sherman. And there's much more to come through the rest of the year, Sherman said during a keynote recently at DefenseTalks 2023. Listen in to Sherman's progress update for his office so far in 2023 and what he sees as the way ahead. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Tuesday and Thursday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify and Stitcher. And if you like what you hear, please let us know in the comments.

In this compelling episode of Emma Kenny True Crime Stories, we delve into the enigmatic case of Barry and Honey Sherman, a billionaire Canadian couple whose unexpected deaths in 2017 have been shrouded in mystery and controversy. Psychologist and crime expert Emma Kenny leads us through the fascinating yet disturbing narrative of the Shermans, a philanthropic couple who made significant contributions to Canadian society. From their remarkable rise in the pharmaceutical industry to their sudden, shocking demise, Emma explores every facet of this high-profile case. The episode thoroughly investigates the initial findings of the police, who quickly labeled the case a murder-suicide, and the subsequent private investigation funded by the Sherman family, which concluded that the couple was, in fact, murdered. Emma scrutinises the conflicting reports and theories, providing a comprehensive analysis of the case's complexities. Emma also delves into the couple's personal lives and their extensive network of relationships within the business, philanthropic, and political worlds. She discusses potential motives and suspects, adding layers of intrigue to this unsolved case.

Air Force Veteran & Driver, No. 28 Ford Mustang for RSS Racin Brent Sherman joins the Steve Cochran Show to talk about returning to the race track, the biggest challenges he may endure during the Chicago Street Race, and what's in store for the Chicago native's future after the race.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Steven St. John wakes up to a full studio on this Thursday edition of the show. Former Chiefs Gehrig Dieter and Anthony Sherman join Steven as celebrity co-hosts with Nate still on vacation. The guys dive into last nights game 3 of the NBA Finals, hear what they thought from the Nuggets win over the Heat. Then, Sherman and Dieter share a story about a former NFL LB known for suspensionsSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Writer, actor, recovering lawyer, and leadership consultant Pam Sherman joins us on the show this week in our continuing exploration of the balancing acts that leaders play. Pam introduces us to her proprietary EDGE methodology of building competency in leadership, business development, and communications within individuals and teams. Tune in to episode 93 to hear Pam's story, her 'rocket-booster moment,' and her thoughts on key leadership balancing acts.

Stacy Sherman joins me on my latest podcast episode. She's the host of her own podcast DoingCXRight. Known for her Heart & ScienceTM framework that produces profitable clients and brand loyalty--fueled by an empowered and valued workforce. Stacy Sherman's been walking the talk for 25 years as a strategist and practitioner at companies of all sizes and industries. Her Why: To Influence and cultivate deeper connections and authentic relationships so that people have more fulfilling experiences in business and life.

La Segunda Guerra Mundial provocó un increíble avance tecnológico: Nuevos submarinos, el radar, los aviones a reacción, las gafas de sol, la comida en conserva y finalmente la bomba atómica… Y los todo terreno! En este vídeo comparamos a los dos protagonistas: El Jeep Willys y el Kubelwagen… En este vídeo nos vamos a la guerra…literalmente. La Segunda Guerra Mundial tuvo muchas particularidades una de ellas que la velocidad con que se movían los ejércitos era muy importante. Hitler inventó la Blitzkrieg, más conocida por “Guerra Relámpago” que exigía tanques rápidos, pero también vehículos que pudiesen transportar con rapidez a la infantería. Y al mismo tiempo, aunque las comunicaciones habían progresado, las órdenes se daban en mano, con lo cual tener vehículos rápidos para llevar mando y órdenes de forma rápida y segura de un sitio a otro, por carreteras destrozadas o por campo a través, era una necesidad imperiosa. Y de esa necesidad nacen estos dos vehículos que hoy vamos a enfrentar. ¿Qué cualidades debían de reunir? Pues básicamente ser muy duros, con un mantenimiento escaso, sencillos de conducir y con capacidades para llevar tropas, soldados o armamento de forma rápida y por cualquier tipo de terreno… VW Kubelwagen (1940-1945) Atención: Diseño Porsche… solo con esto podría amedrentar a su rival. De este modelo se fabricaron más de 50.000 unidades. Es un coche que se “improviso” ante la necesidad del ejército alemán y es simplemente un Escarabajo preparado para el TT y para el uso militar. Con los ojos de hoy no podemos considerarlo como un verdadero TT porque no tenía tracción total. Sí, es cierto que hubo algunas unidades 4x4, incluso de la berlina, pero muy pocas. E incluso un anfibio, del que luego hablaremos. Pero el Kubelwagen era ni más ni menos que un Escarabajo para uso militar, más simple, más alto, con más recorrido de suspensión y poco más. ¿Era robusto el Kubelwagen? Sin duda. ¿Requería poco mantenimiento? Pues sí y no, porque el motor era refrigerado por aire, pero la mecánica de este modelo requería manos expertas y sus transmisiones en uso TT, al ser solo atrás, sufrían mucho (EXPLICAR). ¿Tenía movilidad por todo tipo de terrenos? Pues, taxativamente, no mucha. Y el motivo no era solo su carencia de tracción total, sino que el motor de cuatro cilindros bóxer tenía 985 cm3 y rendía 23 CV para un peso, según equipamiento, de este unos 800 y uno 1.100 kg… vamos, que no era un tiro. Y en campo o barro los caballos y sobre todo el par, son importantes. Jeep Willys (1941) A este coche se le considera el inventor del todo terreno y colaborador necesario para la victoria aliada en la segunda Guerra Mundial. Vamos al comienzo de la guerra cuando aún faltaba un año para el ataque a Pearl Harbor, pero el gobierno norteamericano ya era consciente de que tendría que intervenir. Y necesitaban un vehículo que ellos denominaban, “General Porpouse”. En ese momento, incluso había una flota de Ford T en la U.S. Army, O sea, como el que hemos descrito: Sencillo, robusto, con escaso mantenimiento y que pudiese conducir casi cualquiera. El pliego de condiciones exigía que pesase menos de 1000 kg y alcanzase los 80 km/h. El diseño ganador fue el presentado por la empresa American Bantam, pero pedían mucho dinero. El ejercito pidió a Ford y a Willys que desarrollasen el proyecto de American Bantam y al final fue Willys-Overland la que desarrollo el modelo. Lo que no dicen los libros de historia es que dijeron los chicos de Bantam cuando les robaron la idea. La denominación de General Porpouse, “Jipi” serían sus iniciales en inglés, es relevante porque muchos defienden que de ahí viene el nombre de Jeep. Aunque también hay que recordar que había un personaje de Popeye que se llamaba “Eugene the Jeep”, tal cual se llamó el coche. Quizás fueran ambas cosas. El Jeep contaba con un motor también de 4 cilindros, pero en línea, de refrigeración líquida y mayor cilindrada, más del doble, 2.199 cm3. Y era mucho más potente, porque tenía 54 CV para un peso de algo más de una tonelada. Un motor de tanta cilindrada, por comparación al VW, tenía dos ventajas: Ofrecía más par y podía tener una compresión muy baja, de solo 6,5 a 1, con lo que podía usar combustibles de muy baja calidad. Pero la gran aportación del Jeep fue la tracción total que suponía una ventaja verdaderamente definitiva y convertía a este coche en un auténtico TT. Y es que hasta que llegó el Jeep no existía el segmento que hoy conocemos como todo terreno. Sólo durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial se produjeron 600.000 Jeep que inundaron Europa, el norte de África y parte del Oriente. Es uno de los coches más copiados del mundo. Creo que está claro: Los norteamericanos, los aliados, ganaron la Guerra… y no voy a decir la estupidez de que ganaron gracias al Jeep, pero sí que el Jeep aportó su “granito de arena” a esta victoria. Porque, sí bien los tanques alemanes, los temidos Panzer en cuyo diseño también participó Porsche, y especialmente los V y los VI eran muy superiores a los Sherman americanos, en el apartado de transporte de tropas ligero, vamos, en el de los coches, el Jeep era muy superior al Kubelwagen. Así que en esta comparativa hay, algo que no sucede siempre, un claro ganador: El Jeep. Coche del día. Lo siento, me repito, pero no puede ser otro que “Caballo loco”. Así es como cariñosamente llamaba al Jeep Wrangler 4.0 que probé en los ’90 porque ese coche de 1,4 toneladas y casi 180 CV me permitió disfrutar como pocos coches, tanto en carreteras viradas, donde aún recuerdo el repaso que le di a un Golf GTi que no salía de su asombro, como en TT. El recorrido que hice sin capota, sin puertas, sin parabrisas, que se podía articular hacia delante y con gafas de esquiar de ventisca para que el polvo no se me metiera por los ojos, me dejó un recuerdo inolvidable…

We have a very special show tonight as Team Player Alumnus Michael Vitek (ep37) dreamt up the idea of interviewing Coach Kovo for an episode! So for the 1st time Coach Kovo will relinquish the controls to hand hosting duties over to Coach Vitek and fellow TPP alum Chris Fisher (ep27). Former Ridge Point Defensive Coordinator, Aldine HS Head Football Coach/Campus Athletic Coordinator, and current Daktronics Sports Marketing Specialist Coach Kovo (James Kowalewski) steps into the hot seat at Team Player Studios! - Being born abroad in Tokyo, Japan before spending his formative years in Sugar Land, TX. - The fortuitous break of briefly living right across the street from historic Mercer Stadium before settling in for a great 4 years as a Fort Bend Austin Bulldog. - Continuing his love of the game by becoming an Austin College Kangaroo in the North Texas town of Sherman. - Overcoming a disastrous 1st semester as a teacher at Clear Brook HS before finding new life at Fort Bend Clements HS. Inhabiting a t-shack next door to a future prominent coach led to the opportunity of a lifetime at Fort Bend Ridge Point, and then a childhood dream was realized becoming the Head Football Coach at legendary Aldine Senior High! - Finally Kovo is posed with the monumental task of picking his 5 most memorable episodes as host of the Team Player Podcast! Join the Team Player Revolution! The biggest help is to leave a 5-star rating. This is what moves us up the rankings so more people can hear the stories of coaches changing lives Follow on Twitter @coach_kovo Hit us up at teamplayerpodcast@gmail.com - we lift up our own inside Team Player Nation, all guest suggestions/feedback is welcome! Art for the Team Player Podcast was created by Kaiser St. Cyr Music for the Team Player Podcast is from the single One More/Good Enough by Avrion - available on all platforms

HT1551 - Photographing Surfaces I remember once talking with Oliver Gagliani when he brought up a very interesting observation I never heard before. He said the certain surfaces just don't photograph very well because of their texture, in particular, he proposed, cement. Shiny surfaces are more compatible with photographic technology. I still find that true, and found it true this week as I've been photographing a kind of granite known as Sherman granite.

Laura and Rick interview Mothboy Matt Schang about his podcast, his books, and all sorts of hilarious stuff. You can find Matt and the other Mothboys at: https://www.facebook.com/Mothboys https://www.instagram.com/mothboyspodcast/ You can find the book, The White Monsters of Sherman here: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0C1J35WYV?ref_=cm_sw_r_apin_dp_JFKX7YC0GHTS23M2V5CY   The Creeps are:      Laura Kram      Rick Belcher     Tonya Downing        Trina Close        Walter Whitaker   Find us on all the Socials or Buy our Merch with the following link: https://linktr.ee/spookscreepspod Email us Listener Stories, Questions, or just anything at: SpooksCreepsPod@gmail.com Original Theme Music by: Cory Allen Lewis Original Podcast Artwork by: Chris Stringer Creeps at the Movies artwork by Lessette Agosto Spooky Skeptics artwork by Todd Purse Creeps with Peeps artwork by Shawn Englemann Witchy Tips artwork by Lisa Russell Weird News artwork by Dylan Jacobson Sound effects and some episode intros and outros by: Epidemic Sound Editing by Tony Danzig Merch on: Redbubble: https://www.redbubble.com/people/SpooksCreepsPod/ BigCartel: spookscreepspod.bigcartel.com     #podcast #podcastersofinstagram #pod #podcastlife #podcasts #podcaster #podcasting #spookscreepspodcast #paranormal #haunted #cryptid #ghosts #monstermash #mashup #creepswithpeeps #spookyskeptics #creepwithcards #tarotcards #weirdnews #moviereviews #horrorreviews #interview #ufos #assorteddevilry #bigfoot #sasquatch #aliens #listenerstories #personalexperiences #creepsatthemovies #zodiac #willothewisp #fae #fairies #bigrickenergy

We start with dipping in LIVE to the House of Representatives ahead of the vote on the "Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023." Comments from Speaker Kevin McCarthy. In and out of live coverage from CBS News all hour. Great texts. McCarthy: "This will make Americans less dependent on China." Sadly, he couldn't/cannot say, "This will make Americans less dependent on America." (New: check out our Facebook page - new #DenverInDecay pix from 18th/Sherman this afternoon.)See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dr. Joe Sherman shares an abundance of experience and wisdom - from Bolivia to Seattle - his career has been filled with compassion and service. But it's also been filled with a great deal of life lessons during his tenure as a pediatrician, husband and father. We talk about the MOST important part of pediatrics, coaching and caring for oneself. With Joe, you'll find warmth, growth and encouragement. Joe Sherman, M.D. is a pediatrician, coach and consultant to physicians and healthcare organizations in the areas of provider well-being, leadership, and career discernment. His services include individual coaching, medical team support, physician retreats and workshops. He is a trained facilitator with the Center for Courage & Renewal and a Master Certified Physician Development Coach with the Physician Coaching Institute.  Dr. Sherman has been in pediatric practice for over 35 years concentrating on healthcare delivery to underserved and medically complex children in the District of Columbia, Tacoma, Seattle, Uganda, and Bolivia.  He has held numerous faculty positions and is currently Clinical Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Washington. Dr. Joe Sherman Physician's Anonymous - Join Dr. Amy & Dr. Joe on Wednesday mornings 7:45 PST! RESOURCES Dr. Amy's Provider Newsletter Provider Lounge Membership Dr. Amy Youtube FREE DOWNLOADS Provider Lounge Virtual Meeting Freebie Start Creating Boundaries Handout & Script Guide To Creating Cultures of Trust At Work Finding Calm to Prevent Overwhelm Don't Forget! Follow Dr. Amy on LinkedIn, Facebook, and Instagram For more information visit www.doctoramyllc.com 

We did an interview with Derrick Sherman form Sainthood Reps and his solo project Grist Mil.  Derrick shares his stories of his origins in music, to touring with Brand New.  We also discuss Sainthood Reps and his solo project Grist Mil.   Sainthood Reps Music YouTube ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Georges Jewelry Shop 515 Jewelry Studio   Playing Dead     (Sam's Band)  

Pain is unpleasant. (That's an understatement!) While pain itself is no fun, Tina & Leah keep you entertained and informed as you learn the basics in this episode. Understanding pain and knowing how to report it accurately can speed up the process of getting some relief.  So listen in, and as always, please share this podcast if you find it useful!Links we mentioned on this episode and other cool stuff:McGill Pain Questionnaire to help you describe your pain accurately About the McGill Pain Questionnaire and a short versionWong-Baker FACES Pain Rating ScaleHow taste, temperature, and pain sensations are linkedMedical Cannabis for Cancer-Related PainBooklet by ASCO: Managing Cancer-Related PainMore on Pain from ASCOSupport the showSupport the podcast here! Or, go to Buymeacoffee. Either way, we'll give you a shout-out! Find our podcast useful? We hope so! Please review & rate us! (every bit helps!)Share this podcast with someone you love! Here's a link: https://podfollow.com/the-cancer-pod Email us: thecancerpod@gmail.comWe are @TheCancerPod Instagram Twitter Facebook THANK YOU!

The guys are inundated with car conclusions from listeners, and they're glad people are discovering cars they love! Todd regretfully discusses his plan to sell his 300ZX. Then, they debate a two-into-one consolidation for Sherman in NM, who needs to transport 5 dogs annually to the vet. Social media questions ask what is the definition of a supercar, will Toyota step back from enthusiast cars after changing their leadership, and what is a group of MINIs called?  Please rate + review us on iTunes, and subscribe to our two YouTube channels. Write us with your Car Debates, Car Conclusions, and Topic Tuesdays at everydaydrivertv@gmail.com or everydaydriver.com. Don't forget to share the podcast with your car enthusiast friends!

In this week's episode, Kevin chats with COO of Dreamvesting Capital, Tanner Sherman. Join us as we dive into the thrilling world of real estate. From budgeting tips to smart investment strategies, we'll explore how to make the most of your resources and create a prosperous future for your family. Tune in now and embark on a transformative journey from a big family to big investments!"Nothing in life happens to you, everything happens because of you. You are in control of everything."-Tanner ShermanHere are 5 Key Takeaways from this episode:What attracted Tanner Sherman about Real EstateGoing to that next level of commitmentTanner's first experience in Real Estate How Tanner found an opportunity through networking Dreamvesting – What is it all about?Honorable Mentions & Useful Links:Jasper AIYou Are the Placebo: Making Your Mind MatterDie with Zero: Getting All You Can from Your Money and Your LifeConnect with Tanner Sherman:InstagramLinkedInWebsiteEmailPhone: 402-224-6339Ready to take the next steps in your Military Real Estate Investing journey? Watch our Masterclass and claim your EPIC reward for action. Tap here to register today!Are you looking for a loan for your next project? Look no further! Check out ADPI Financial Services for all of your residential and commercial lending needs!No Time...No Worries! Get all the info you need now by texting DEAL to 33777Ready to become a PASSIVE INVESTOR? Check out ADPI Capital™ and learn how you can get started passively investing in commercial real estate for only $500! Tap the link above or text ADPI to 33777Helpful ResourcesConnect with the ADPI: Facebook |  Instagram | YouTubeSupport the show

Like the iconic character Dorothy from the “Wizard of Oz,” Oren Sherman has long been a dreamer, creating art at the intersection of reality and imagination. It's led the renowned architect, designer, and artist to magnificent places – he's created multiple stamps for the U.S. Postal Service, and artwork for an impressive array of clients that have included the Olympics, Disney, PepsiCo, Steuben Glass, and Visa. Oren is a multifaceted talent – a gifted storyteller, successful entrepreneur, and branding wizard – who willingly shares his expertise with the next generation as a professor at his alma mater, the Rhode Island School of Design. In this funny, engaging, inspirational discussion with host Julie Wake, Oren takes listeners on a journey – he even makes a stop to the magical world of Oz – as he talks about the importance of failures, reinvention, and imagination.   Connect with Oren through his website and listen to his TedTalk that was mentioned in the episode!   Today's sponsors:  Cape Cod Foundation, Bank 5,  The Cooperative Bank of Cape Cod, John K. & Thirza K. Davenport Foundation, MassHire Cape & Islands Workforce Board, Rogers Gray, Cape Cod Melody Tent, and William Raveis Real Estate   Learn more about the Creative Exchange!  Learn more about the Arts Foundation of Cape Cod.  The Arts Foundation's mission is to support and strengthen a vibrant and diverse arts and cultural sector for everyone in the region. Get involved!

The one constant in life is change. But, do you have a strategy, a tribe and a culture that helps you navigate change? Or, are you just bouncing around with the change?  Russ Sherman is a personal trainer and coach who helps people learn how to navigate change by having a strong culture and solid strategies.  Follow Russ: https://instagram.com/thegoatrevolution/  Follow Us! EVOLVE Insta: https://www.instagram.com/official_evolve_podcast/     Steve Cutler Insta: https://www.instagram.com/stevecutler_/ W Myles Reilly Insta: https://www.instagram.com/wmyles.reilly/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/stevecutler_ Web: https://www.evolve-cast.com   The EVOLVE Podcast is produced by Steve Cutler, all rights reserved. The mission of the EVOLVE Podcast is to empower people to disrupt their lives to EVOLVE their body, mind, soul and tribe. Steve Cutler helps people and organizations Evolve to higher levels. As a coach and consultant Steve has helped hundreds of people and businesses improve processes and protocols that have led to skyrocketing performance. With over 20 years in health, fitness, tech and entrepreneurial ventures Steve brings a strong background in operations, marketing, sales, and financial performance. Currently Steve runs EVOLVE, a lifestyle clothing, coaching and consulting business. Steve is the host of the EVOLVE Podcast, a podcast that disrupts peoples lives leading them to greater growth and evolution. #evolve #evolvepodcast #stevecutler #disrupt

In dieser Podcast-Folge spricht Mark Sherman von Telstra Ventures über die Veränderungen, die in den letzten 20 Jahren in der Venture- und Startup-Industrie stattgefunden haben. Telstra Ventures investiert in Unternehmen mit einem Umsatz von 1 bis 10 Millionen US-Dollar und legt besonderen Fokus auf die frühzeitige Identifizierung vielversprechender Unternehmen und das Verständnis des Produkt-Markt-Fits. Sherman diskutiert auch den Einfluss von künstlicher Intelligenz auf die Branche und betont die Wichtigkeit, Trends aufmerksam zu verfolgen. Des Weiteren erläutert er, dass sowohl große Unternehmen als auch Startups von Technologie profitieren werden und dass es nach wie vor Möglichkeiten gibt, in die Branche einzusteigen. Sherman teilt außerdem Einblicke darüber, wie Telstra Ventures mit den Auswirkungen der aktuellen Marktbedingungen umgeht und wie Datenwissenschaft und die Schaffung eines Mehrwerts für Portfolio-Unternehmen eine wichtige Rolle spielen.Was du lernst:Veränderungen in der Venture-Industrie in den letzten 20 JahrenWie bleibt man im Venture-Geschäft 20 Jahre erfolgreich?Fokus auf Unternehmen mit einem Umsatz von 1 bis 10 Millionen US-DollarFrühzeitige Identifizierung vielversprechender Unternehmen und Verständnis des Produkt-Markt-FitsEinfluss von künstlicher Intelligenz auf die Venture-IndustrieChancen und Möglichkeiten, in die Branche einzusteigenALLES ZU UNICORN BAKERY:https://zez.am/unicornbakery(0:01:57) Wie die Venture Branche sich in den letzten 20 Jahren verändert hat.(0:02:42) Zukunft: Datengetriebenes Investieren(0:13:40) Bedeutung von künstlicher Intelligenz(0:22:40) Technologie als Chance für Unternehmen(0:31:40) Die Rolle von Personalentscheidungen bei der Förderung von Innovation(0:37:61) Kapitaleffizienz und aktuelle Trends in der Venture-Industrie(0:41:40) Value-Add als Investor: Wie Telstra Ventures Umsätze für das Portfolio generiert(0:48:27) Umgang mit Selbstzweifeln und VerletzlichkeitMark ShermanLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/markheyssherman/ Telstra Ventures: https://telstraventures.com/ WHATSAPP NEWSLETTER:1-2x wöchentlich bekommst du eine persönliche Sprachnotiz oder Inhalte von mir, die dich zu einem besseren Gründer machen, melde dich jetzt mit einem Klick an: https://bit.ly/ub-whatsapp-newsletter Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Rick & Kelly are exhausted & almost 3 GRAND poorer after a billfold goes missing in Riverhead, plus their AMAZING NIGHT OUT in NYC with Cousin Tara, Craig, Jeff Lewis, Shane, Rachel Uchitel, some random old lady and Sherman the dog... and a tribute to the Queen of Rock & Roll #RIP #TinaTurner #billfold #lostwallet #jefflewis #racheluchitle #sherman #queenofrockandroll #tinaturner

Proud Sponsor of The Small Business Origins Podcast In this episode, we learn all about Kevin Sherman, CEO of Tractor Beverage Company, as he discusses his experience working in the beverage industry, including creating the first sugar-free beverage for children at a previous company. Listen to his journey to becoming a board member and eventually CEO of Tractor Beverage Company, an organic non-GMO beverage company founded by three entrepreneurs, one of whom is a farmer with a talent for developing and designing beverages. The founders showed humility in recognizing their lack of experience in the industry and bringing on the speaker to help execute their vision. The company aims to provide healthier options for consumers, particularly in restaurants, universities, hospital systems, and corporate settings. They prioritize label transparency and avoiding preservatives but do not offer sugar-free options due to difficulties in making them taste good without harmful substitutes. Chapters: 00:06:00 Entrepreneur's Origin Story: Overcoming Adversity Through Business 00:12:55 Organic Non-GMO Beverages With No Preservatives And No Sugar-free Option 00:17:03 The Founders' Humility In Recruiting An Experienced Management Team For Their Beverage Company. 00:23:49 Importance Of A Strong Team For Company Success 00:26:35 The Virtue Of Justice In Entrepreneurship 00:33:25 Commitment And Fortitude In Entrepreneurship And Small Business Ownership 00:36:03 Support For Small Businesses And Entrepreneurs Tweetables: "We're the only ones doing completely organic non GMO. Complete label transparency. No preservatives in there." - Kevin Sherman "Look, the founders and I, and again, I go back to this because I think it's really important for everyone to hear on this, especially from an entrepreneurial standpoint, you can have the best idea in the world, but you've got to possess the humility to bring in the right people and the right team because you can have the best idea." - Kevin Sherman Links Mentioned: Tractor Beverage Company Website Tractor Beverage Company Twitter Tractor Beverage Company Instagram Tractor Beverage Company Facebook Kevin Sherman LinkedIn Beefy Marketing Website Small Business Origins Online John The Marketer's Links Sponsored Blog

For this episode of Live On Purpose Radio, Dr. Paul interviews Arlene J. Sherman, who has over two decades of experience as a hypnotherapist and recovery coach. The principles that allow people to regain their...

Erik Sherman (erikshermanbaseball.com) is a baseball historian and the New York Times best-selling author of King of Queens, Life Beyond Baseball with the '86 Mets. His most recent book, Daybreak at Chavez Ravine: Fernandomania and the Remaking of the Los Angeles Dodgers  (Univ. of Nebraska Press, 2023) relives and sheds new light on Dodger great Fernando Valenzuela's path from rural Mexico to Major League superstardom in the 1980s. Sherman discusses his book and Valenzuela's legacy in this episode.Episodes Referenced:Ep. 61 - Dodger Stadium Should Not Exist w/ Eric Nusbaum -->Join our Discord: https://discord.gg/tT8d3pVUsN-->You can support Hooks & Runs by purchasing books, including the book featured in this episode, through our store at Bookshop.org. Here's the link. https://bookshop.org/shop/hooksandrunsHooks & Runs - www.hooksandruns.comHooks & Runs on TikTok -  https://www.tiktok.com/@hooksandrunsHooks & Runs on Twitter - https://twitter.com/thehooksandrunsAndrew Eckhoff on Tik TokLink: https://www.tiktok.com/@hofffestRex von Pohl (Krazy Karl's Music Emporium) on Facebookhttps://www.facebook.com/people/Krazy-Karlz-Music-Emporium/100063801500293/ Music: "Warrior of Light" by ikolics (Premium Beat)    

Axios Raleigh reporter Lucille Sherman has broken some blockbuster stories that in many ways have defined the 2023 legislative session:  Auditor Beth Wood's car accident, Rep. Tricia Cotham's party switch, and the Medicaid expansion deal.   Lucille talks about her career as a journalist, her path to North Carolina, and her approach to covering North Carolina politics.   Skye and Brian also discuss Governor Cooper's State of Emergency speech, pair of House Republicans resign leadership positions, sports wagering moves in the Senate, medical marijuana scheduled for House committee, and John Locke Foundation's gubernatorial head-to-head poll.   The Do Politics Better podcast is sponsored by New Frame, the NC Travel Industry Association, the NC Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association, and the NC Pork Council. 

It was a tremendous honor & pleasure to interview Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer Prize winning author of The Making of the Atomic BombWe discuss* similarities between AI progress & Manhattan Project (developing a powerful, unprecedented, & potentially apocalyptic technology within an uncertain arms-race situation)* visiting starving former Soviet scientists during fall of Soviet Union* whether Oppenheimer was a spy, & consulting on the Nolan movie* living through WW2 as a child* odds of nuclear war in Ukraine, Taiwan, Pakistan, & North Korea* how the US pulled of such a massive secret wartime scientific & industrial projectWatch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here. Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.Timestamps(0:00:00) - Oppenheimer movie(0:06:22) - Was the bomb inevitable?(0:29:10) - Firebombing vs nuclear vs hydrogen bombs(0:49:44) - Stalin & the Soviet program(1:08:24) - Deterrence, disarmament, North Korea, Taiwan(1:33:12) - Oppenheimer as lab director(1:53:40) - AI progress vs Manhattan Project(1:59:50) - Living through WW2(2:16:45) - Secrecy(2:26:34) - Wisdom & warTranscript(0:00:00) - Oppenheimer movieDwarkesh Patel 0:00:51Today I have the great honor of interviewing Richard Rhodes, who is the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb, and most recently, the author of Energy, A Human History. I'm really excited about this one. Let's jump in at a current event, which is the fact that there's a new movie about Oppenheimer coming out, which I understand you've been consulted about. What did you think of the trailer? What are your impressions? Richard Rhodes 0:01:22They've really done a good job of things like the Trinity test device, which was the sphere covered with cables of various kinds. I had watched Peaky Blinders, where the actor who's playing Oppenheimer also appeared, and he looked so much like Oppenheimer to start with. Oppenheimer was about six feet tall, he was rail thin, not simply in terms of weight, but in terms of structure. Someone said he could sit in a children's high chair comfortably. But he never weighed more than about 140 pounds and that quality is there in the actor. So who knows? It all depends on how the director decided to tell the story. There are so many aspects of the story that you could never possibly squeeze them into one 2-hour movie. I think that we're waiting for the multi-part series that would really tell a lot more of the story, if not the whole story. But it looks exciting. We'll see. There have been some terrible depictions of Oppenheimer, there've been some terrible depictions of the bomb program. And maybe they'll get this one right. Dwarkesh Patel 0:02:42Yeah, hopefully. It is always great when you get an actor who resembles their role so well. For example, Bryan Cranston who played LBJ, and they have the same physical characteristics of the beady eyes, the big ears. Since we're talking about Oppenheimer, I had one question about him. I understand that there's evidence that's come out that he wasn't directly a communist spy. But is there any possibility that he was leaking information to the Soviets or in some way helping the Soviet program? He was a communist sympathizer, right? Richard Rhodes 0:03:15He had been during the 1930s. But less for the theory than for the practical business of helping Jews escape from Nazi Germany. One of the loves of his life, Jean Tatlock, was also busy working on extracting Jews from Europe during the 30. She was a member of the Communist Party and she, I think, encouraged him to come to meetings. But I don't think there's any possibility whatsoever that he shared information. In fact, he said he read Marx on a train trip between Berkeley and Washington one time and thought it was a bunch of hooey, just ridiculous. He was a very smart man, and he read the book with an eye to its logic, and he didn't think there was much there. He really didn't know anything about human beings and their struggles. He was born into considerable wealth. There were impressionist paintings all over his family apartments in New York City. His father had made a great deal of money cornering the markets on uniform linings for military uniforms during and before the First World War so there was a lot of wealth. I think his income during the war years and before was somewhere around $100,000 a month. And that's a lot of money in the 1930s. So he just lived in his head for most of his early years until he got to Berkeley and discovered that prime students of his were living on cans of god-awful cat food, because they couldn't afford anything else. And once he understood that there was great suffering in the world, he jumped in on it, as he always did when he became interested in something. So all of those things come together. His brother Frank was a member of the party, as was Frank's wife. I think the whole question of Oppenheimer lying to the security people during the Second World War about who approached him and who was trying to get him to sign on to some espionage was primarily an effort to cover up his brother's involvement. Not that his brothers gave away any secrets, I don't think they did. But if the army's security had really understood Frank Oppenheimer's involvement, he probably would have been shipped off to the Aleutians or some other distant place for the duration of the war. And Oppenheimer quite correctly wanted Frank around. He was someone he trusted.(0:06:22) - Was the bomb inevitable?Dwarkesh Patel 0:06:22Let's start talking about The Making of the Bomb. One question I have is — if World War II doesn't happen, is there any possibility that the bomb just never gets developed? Nobody bothers.Richard Rhodes 0:06:34That's really a good question and I've wondered over the years. But the more I look at the sequence of events, the more I think it would have been essentially inevitable, though perhaps not such an accelerated program. The bomb was pushed so hard during the Second World War because we thought the Germans had already started working on one. Nuclear fission had been discovered in Nazi Germany, in Berlin, in 1938, nine months before the beginning of the Second World War in Europe. Technological surveillance was not available during the war. The only way you could find out something was to send in a spy or have a mole or something human. And we didn't have that. So we didn't know where the Germans were, but we knew that the basic physics reaction that could lead to a bomb had been discovered there a year or more before anybody else in the West got started thinking about it. There was that most of all to push the urgency. In your hypothetical there would not have been that urgency. However, as soon as good physicists thought about the reaction that leads to nuclear fission — where a slow room temperature neutron, very little energy, bumps into the nucleus of a uranium-235 atom it would lead to a massive response. Isidore Rabi, one of the great physicists of this era, said it would have been like the moon struck the earth. The reaction was, as physicists say, fiercely exothermic. It puts out a lot more energy than you have to use to get it started. Once they did the numbers on that, and once they figured out how much uranium you would need to have in one place to make a bomb or to make fission get going, and once they were sure that there would be a chain reaction, meaning a couple of neutrons would come out of the reaction from one atom, and those two or three would go on and bump into other Uranium atoms, which would then fission them, and you'd get a geometric exponential. You'd get 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, and off of there. For most of our bombs today the initial fission, in 80 generations, leads to a city-busting explosion. And then they had to figure out how much material they would need, and that's something the Germans never really figured out, fortunately for the rest of us. They were still working on the idea that somehow a reactor would be what you would build. When Niels Bohr, the great Danish physicist, escaped from Denmark in 1943 and came to England and then United States, he brought with him a rough sketch that Werner Heisenberg, the leading scientist in the German program, had handed him in the course of trying to find out what Bohr knew about what America was doing. And he showed it to the guys at Los Alamos and Hans Bethe, one of the great Nobel laureate physicists in the group, said — “Are the Germans trying to throw a reactor down on us?” You can make a reactor blow up, we saw that at Chernobyl, but it's not a nuclear explosion on the scale that we're talking about with the bomb. So when a couple of these emigres Jewish physicists from Nazi Germany were whiling away their time in England after they escaped, because they were still technically enemy aliens and therefore could not be introduced to top secret discussions, one of them asked the other — “How much would we need of pure uranium-235, this rare isotope of uranium that chain reacts? How much would we need to make a bomb?” And they did the numbers and they came up with one pound, which was startling to them. Of course, it is more than that. It's about 125 pounds, but that's just a softball. That's not that much material. And then they did the numbers about what it would cost to build a factory to pull this one rare isotope of uranium out of the natural metal, which has several isotopes mixed together. And they figured it wouldn't cost more than it would cost to build a battleship, which is not that much money for a country at war. Certainly the British had plenty of battleships at that point in time. So they put all this together and they wrote a report which they handed through their superior physicists at Manchester University where they were based, who quickly realized how important this was. The United States lagged behind because we were not yet at war, but the British were. London was being bombed in the blitz. So they saw the urgency, first of all, of eating Germany to the punch, second of all of the possibility of building a bomb. In this report, these two scientists wrote that no physical structure came to their minds which could offer protection against a bomb of such ferocious explosive power. This report was from 1940 long before the Manhattan Project even got started. They said in this report, the only way we could think of to protect you against a bomb would be to have a bomb of similar destructive force that could be threatened for use if the other side attacked you. That's deterrence. That's a concept that was developed even before the war began in the United States. You put all those pieces together and you have a situation where you have to build a bomb because whoever builds the first bomb theoretically could prevent you from building more or prevent another country from building any and could dominate the world. And the notion of Adolf Hitler dominating the world, the Third Reich with nuclear weapons, was horrifying. Put all that together and the answer is every country that had the technological infrastructure to even remotely have the possibility of building everything you'd have to build to get the material for a bomb started work on thinking about it as soon as nuclear fusion was announced to the world. France, the Soviet Union, Great Britain, the United States, even Japan. So I think the bomb would have been developed but maybe not so quickly. Dwarkesh Patel 0:14:10In the book you talk that for some reason the Germans thought that the critical mass was something like 10 tons, they had done some miscalculation.Richard Rhodes 0:14:18A reactor. Dwarkesh Patel 0:14:19You also have some interesting stories in the book about how different countries found out the Americans were working on the bomb. For example, the Russians saw that all the top physicists, chemists, and metallurgists were no longer publishing. They had just gone offline and so they figured that something must be going on. I'm not sure if you're aware that while the subject of the Making of the Atomic Bomb in and of itself is incredibly fascinating, this book has become a cult classic in AI. Are you familiar with this? Richard Rhodes 0:14:52No. Dwarkesh Patel 0:14:53The people who are working on AI right now are huge fans of yours. They're the ones who initially recommended the book to me because the way they see the progress in the field reminded them of this book. Because you start off with these initial scientific hints. With deep learning, for example, here's something that can teach itself any function is similar to Szilárd noticing the nuclear chain reaction. In AI there's these scaling laws that say that if you make the model this much bigger, it gets much better at reasoning, at predicting text, and so on. And then you can extrapolate this curve. And you can see we get two more orders of magnitude, and we get to something that looks like human level intelligence. Anyway, a lot of the people who are working in AI have become huge fans of your book because of this reason. They see a lot of analogies in the next few years. They must be at page 400 in their minds of where the Manhattan Project was.Richard Rhodes 0:15:55We must later on talk about unintended consequences. I find the subject absolutely fascinating. I think my next book might be called Unintended Consequences. Dwarkesh Patel 0:16:10You mentioned that a big reason why many of the scientists wanted to work on the bomb, especially the Jewish emigres, was because they're worried about Hitler getting it first. As you mentioned at some point, 1943, 1944, it was becoming obvious that Hitler, the Nazis were not close to the bomb. And I believe that almost none of the scientists quit after they found out that the Nazis weren't close. So why didn't more of them say — “Oh, I guess we were wrong. The Nazis aren't going to get it. We don't need to be working on it.”?Richard Rhodes 0:16:45There was only one who did that, Joseph Rotblat. In May of 1945 when he heard that Germany had been defeated, he packed up and left. General Groves, the imperious Army Corps of Engineers General who ran the entire Manhattan Project, was really upset. He was afraid he'd spill the beans. So he threatened to have him arrested and put in jail. But Rotblat was quite determined not to stay any longer. He was not interested in building bombs to aggrandize the national power of the United States of America, which is perfectly understandable. But why was no one else? Let me tell it in terms of Victor Weisskopf. He was an Austrian theoretical physicist, who, like the others, escaped when the Nazis took over Germany and then Austria and ended up at Los Alamos. Weisskopf wrote later — “There we were in Los Alamos in the midst of the darkest part of our science.” They were working on a weapon of mass destruction, that's pretty dark. He said “Before it had almost seemed like a spiritual quest.” And it's really interesting how different physics was considered before and after the Second World War. Before the war, one of the physicists in America named Louis Alvarez told me when he got his PhD in physics at Berkeley in 1937 and went to cocktail parties, people would ask, “What's your degree in?” He would tell them “Chemistry.” I said, “Louis, why?” He said, “because I don't really have to explain what physics was.” That's how little known this kind of science was at that time. There were only about 1,000 physicists in the whole world in 1900. By the mid-30s, there were a lot more, of course. There'd been a lot of nuclear physics and other kinds of physics done by them. But it was still arcane. And they didn't feel as if they were doing anything mean or dirty or warlike at all. They were just doing pure science. Then nuclear fission came along. It was publicized worldwide. People who've been born since after the Second World War don't realize that it was not a secret at first. The news was published first in a German chemistry journal, Die Naturwissenschaften, and then in the British journal Nature and then in American journals. And there were headlines in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, and all over the world. People had been reading about and thinking about how to get energy out of the atomic nucleus for a long time. It was clear there was a lot there. All you had to do was get a piece of radium and see that it glowed in the dark. This chunk of material just sat there, you didn't plug it into a wall. And if you held it in your hand, it would burn you. So where did that energy come from? The physicists realized it all came from the nucleus of the atom, which is a very small part of the whole thing. The nucleus is 1/100,000th the diameter of the whole atom. Someone in England described it as about the size of a fly in a cathedral. All of the energy that's involved in chemical reactions, comes from the electron cloud that's around the nucleus. But  it was clear that the nucleus was the center of powerful forces. But the question was, how do you get them out? The only way that the nucleus had been studied up to 1938 was by bombarding it with protons, which have the same electric charge as the nucleus, positive charge, which means they were repelled by it. So you had to accelerate them to high speeds with various versions of the big machines that we've all become aware of since then. The cyclotron most obviously built in the 30s, but there were others as well. And even then, at best, you could chip a little piece off. You could change an atom one step up or one step down the periodic table. This was the classic transmutation of medieval alchemy sure but it wasn't much, you didn't get much out. So everyone came to think of the nucleus of the atom like a little rock that you really had to hammer hard to get anything to happen with it because it was so small and dense. That's why nuclear fission, with this slow neutron drifting and then the whole thing just goes bang, was so startling to everybody. So startling that when it happened, most of the physicists who would later work on the bomb and others as well, realized that they had missed the reaction that was something they could have staged on a lab bench with the equipment on the shelf. Didn't have to invent anything new. And Louis Alvarez again, this physicist at Berkeley, he said — “I was getting my hair cut. When I read the newspaper, I pulled off the robe and half with my hair cut, ran to my lab, pulled some equipment off the shelf, set it up and there it was.” So he said, “I discovered nuclear fission, but it was two days too late.” And that happened all over. People were just hitting themselves on the head and saying, well, Niels Bohr said, “What fools we've all been.” So this is a good example of how in science, if your model you're working with is wrong it doesn't lead you down the right path. There was only one physicist who really was thinking the right way about the uranium atom and that was Niels Bohr. He wondered, sometime during the 30s, why uranium was the last natural element in the periodic table? What is different about the others that would come later? He visualized the nucleus as a liquid drop. I always like to visualize it as a water-filled balloon. It's wobbly, it's not very stable. The protons in the nucleus are held together by something called the strong force, but they still have the repellent positive electric charge that's trying to push them apart when you get enough of them into a nucleus. It's almost a standoff between the strong force and all the electrical charge. So it is like a wobbly balloon of water. And then you see why a neutron just falling into the nucleus would make it wobble around even more and in one of its configurations, it might take a dumbbell shape. And then you'd have basically two charged atoms just barely connected, trying to push each other apart. And often enough, they went the whole way. When they did that, these two new elements, half the weight of uranium, way down the periodic table, would reconfigure themselves into two separate nuclei. And in doing so, they would release some energy. And that was the energy that came out of the reaction and there was a lot of energy. So Bohr thought about the model in the right way. The chemists who actually discovered nuclear fusion didn't know what they were gonna get. They were just bombarding a solution of uranium nitrate with neutrons thinking, well, maybe we can make a new element, maybe a first man-made element will come out of our work. So when they analyzed the solution after they bombarded it, they found elements halfway down the periodic table. They shouldn't have been there. And they were totally baffled. What is this doing here? Do we contaminate our solution? No. They had been working with a physicist named Lisa Meitner who was a theoretical physicist, an Austrian Jew. She had gotten out of Nazi Germany not long before. But they were still in correspondence with her. So they wrote her a letter. I held that letter in my hand when I visited Berlin and I was in tears. You don't hold history of that scale in your hands very often. And it said in German — “We found this strange reaction in our solution. What are these elements doing there that don't belong there?” And she went for a walk in a little village in Western Sweden with her nephew, Otto Frisch, who was also a nuclear physicist. And they thought about it for a while and they remembered Bohr's model, the wobbly water-filled balloon. And they suddenly saw what could happen. And that's where the news came from, the physics news as opposed to the chemistry news from the guys in Germany that was published in all the Western journals and all the newspapers. And everybody had been talking about, for years, what you could do if you had that kind of energy. A glass of this material would drive the Queen Mary back and forth from New York to London 20 times and so forth, your automobile could run for months. People were thinking about what would be possible if you had that much available energy. And of course, people had thought about reactors. Robert Oppenheimer was a professor at Berkeley and within a week of the news reaching Berkeley, one of his students told me that he had a drawing on the blackboard, a rather bad drawing of both a reactor and a bomb. So again, because the energy was so great, the physics was pretty obvious. Whether it would actually happen depended on some other things like could you make it chain react? But fundamentally, the idea was all there at the very beginning and everybody jumped on it. Dwarkesh Patel 0:27:54The book is actually the best history of World War II I've ever read. It's about the atomic bomb, but it's interspersed with the events that are happening in World War II, which motivate the creation of the bomb or the release of it, why it had to be dropped on Japan given the Japanese response. The first third is about the scientific roots of the physics and it's also the best book I've read about the history of science in the early 20th century and the organization of it. There's some really interesting stuff in there. For example, there was a passage where you talk about how there's a real master apprentice model in early science where if you wanted to learn to do this kind of experimentation, you will go to Amsterdam where the master of it is residing. It's much more individual focused. Richard Rhodes 0:28:58Yeah, the whole European model of graduate study, which is basically the wandering scholar. You could go wherever you wanted to and sign up with whoever was willing to have you sign up. (0:29:10) - Firebombing vs nuclear vs hydrogen bombsDwarkesh Patel 0:29:10But the question I wanted to ask regarding the history you made of World War II in general is — there's one way you can think about the atom bomb which is that it is completely different from any sort of weaponry that has been developed before it. Another way you can think of it is there's a spectrum where on one end you have the thermonuclear bomb, in the middle you have the atom bomb, and on this end you have the firebombing of cities like Hamburg and Dresden and Tokyo. Do you think of these as completely different categories or does it seem like an escalating gradient to you? Richard Rhodes 0:29:47I think until you get to the hydrogen bomb, it's really an escalating gradient. The hydrogen bomb can be made arbitrarily large. The biggest one ever tested was 56 megatons of TNT equivalent. The Soviet tested that. That had a fireball more than five miles in diameter, just the fireball. So that's really an order of magnitude change. But the other one's no and in fact, I think one of the real problems, this has not been much discussed and it should be, when American officials went to Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the war, one of them said later — “I got on a plane in Tokyo. We flew down the long green archipelago of the Japanese home island. When I left Tokyo, it was all gray broken roof tiles from the fire bombing and the other bombings. And then all this greenery. And then when we flew over Hiroshima, it was just gray broken roof tiles again.” So the scale of the bombing with one bomb, in the case of Hiroshima, was not that different from the scale of the fire bombings that had preceded it with tens of thousands of bombs. The difference was it was just one plane. In fact, the people in Hiroshima didn't even bother to go into their bomb shelters because one plane had always just been a weather plane. Coming over to check the weather before the bombers took off. So they didn't see any reason to hide or protect themselves, which was one of the reasons so many people were killed. The guys at Los Alamos had planned on the Japanese being in their bomb shelters. They did everything they could think of to make the bomb as much like ordinary bombing as they could. And for example, it was exploded high enough above ground, roughly 1,800 yards, so that the fireball that would form from this really very small nuclear weapon — by modern standards — 15 kilotons of TNT equivalent, wouldn't touch the ground and stir up dirt and irradiate it and cause massive radioactive fallout. It never did that. They weren't sure there would be any fallout. They thought the plutonium and the bomb over Nagasaki now would just kind of turn into a gas and blow away. That's not exactly what happened. But people don't seem to realize, and it's never been emphasized enough, these first bombs, like all nuclear weapons, were firebombs. Their job was to start mass fires, just exactly like all the six-pound incendiaries that had been destroying every major city in Japan by then. Every major city above 50,000 population had already been burned out. The only reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were around to be atomic bombed is because they'd been set aside from the target list, because General Groves wanted to know what the damage effects would be. The bomb that was tested in the desert didn't tell you anything. It killed a lot of rabbits, knocked down a lot of cactus, melted some sand, but you couldn't see its effect on buildings and on people. So the bomb was deliberately intended to be as much not like poison gas, for example, because we didn't want the reputation for being like people in the war in Europe during the First World War, where people were killing each other with horrible gasses. We just wanted people to think this was another bombing. So in that sense, it was. Of course, there was radioactivity. And of course, some people were killed by it. But they calculated that the people who would be killed by the irradiation, the neutron radiation from the original fireball, would be close enough to the epicenter of the explosion that they would be killed by the blast or the flash of light, which was 10,000 degrees. The world's worst sunburn. You've seen stories of people walking around with their skin hanging off their arms. I've had sunburns almost that bad, but not over my whole body, obviously, where the skin actually peeled blisters and peels off. That was a sunburn from a 10,000 degree artificial sun. Dwarkesh Patel 0:34:29So that's not the heat, that's just the light? Richard Rhodes 0:34:32Radiant light, radiant heat. 10,000 degrees. But the blast itself only extended out a certain distance, it was fire. And all the nuclear weapons that have ever been designed are basically firebombs. That's important because the military in the United States after the war was not able to figure out how to calculate the effects of this weapon in a reliable way that matched their previous experience. They would only calculate the blast effects of a nuclear weapon when they figured their targets. That's why we had what came to be called overkill. We wanted redundancy, of course, but 60 nuclear weapons on Moscow was way beyond what would be necessary to destroy even that big a city because they were only calculating the blast. But in fact, if you exploded a 300 kiloton nuclear warhead over the Pentagon at 3,000 feet, it would blast all the way out to the capital, which isn't all that far. But if you counted the fire, it would start a mass-fire and then it would reach all the way out to the Beltway and burn everything between the epicenter of the weapon and the Beltway. All organic matter would be totally burned out, leaving nothing but mineral matter, basically. Dwarkesh Patel 0:36:08I want to emphasize two things you said because they really hit me in reading the book and I'm not sure if the audience has fully integrated them. The first is, in the book, the military planners and Groves, they talk about needing to use the bomb sooner rather than later, because they were running out of cities in Japan where there are enough buildings left that it would be worth bombing in the first place, which is insane. An entire country is almost already destroyed from fire bombing alone. And the second thing about the category difference between thermonuclear and atomic bombs. Daniel Ellsberg, the nuclear planner who wrote the Doomsday machine, he talks about, people don't understand that the atom bomb that resulted in the pictures we see of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, that is simply the detonator of a modern nuclear bomb, which is an insane thing to think about. So for example, 10 and 15 kilotons is the Hiroshima Nagasaki and the Tsar Bomba, which was 50 megatons. So more than 1,000 times as much. And that wasn't even as big as they could make it. They kept the uranium tamper off, because they didn't want to destroy all of Siberia. So you could get more than 10,000 times as powerful. Richard Rhodes 0:37:31When Edward Teller, co-inventor of the hydrogen bomb and one of the dark forces in the story, was consulting with our military, just for his own sake, he sat down and calculated, how big could you make a hydrogen bomb? He came up with 1,000 megatons. And then he looked at the effects. 1,000 megatons would be a fireball 10 miles in diameter. And the atmosphere is only 10 miles deep. He figured that it would just be a waste of energy, because it would all blow out into space. Some of it would go laterally, of course, but most of it would just go out into space. So a bomb more than 100 megatons would just be totally a waste of time. Of course, a 100 megatons bomb is also a total waste, because there's no target on Earth big enough to justify that from a military point of view. Robert Oppenheimer, when he had his security clearance questioned and then lifted when he was being punished for having resisted the development of the hydrogen bomb, was asked by the interrogator at this security hearing — “Well, Dr. Oppenheimer, if you'd had a hydrogen bomb for Hiroshima, wouldn't you have used it?” And Oppenheimer said, “No.” The interrogator asked, “Why is that?” He said because the target was too small. I hope that scene is in the film, I'm sure it will be. So after the war, when our bomb planners and some of our scientists went into Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just about as soon as the surrender was signed, what they were interested in was the scale of destruction, of course. And those two cities didn't look that different from the other cities that had been firebombed with small incendiaries and ordinary high explosives. They went home to Washington, the policy makers, with the thought that — “Oh, these bombs are not so destructive after all.” They had been touted as city busters, basically, and they weren't. They didn't completely burn out cities. They were not certainly more destructive than the firebombing campaign, when everything of more than 50,000 population had already been destroyed. That, in turn, influenced the judgment about what we needed to do vis-a-vis the Soviet Union when the Soviets got the bomb in 1949. There was a general sense that, when you could fight a war with nuclear weapons, deterrence or not, you would need quite a few of them to do it right. And the Air Force, once it realized that it could aggrandize its own share of the federal budget by cornering the market and delivering nuclear weapons, very quickly decided that they would only look at the blast effect and not the fire effect. It's like tying one hand behind your back. Most of it was a fire effect. So that's where they came up with numbers like we need 60 of these to take out Moscow. And what the Air Force figured out by the late 1940s is that the more targets, the more bombs. The more bombs, the more planes. The more planes, the biggest share of the budget. So by the mid 1950s, the Air Force commanded 47% of the federal defense budget. And the other branches of services, which had not gone nuclear by then, woke up and said, we'd better find some use for these weapons in our branches of service. So the Army discovered that it needed nuclear weapons, tactical weapons for field use, fired out of cannons. There was even one that was fired out of a shoulder mounted rifle. There was a satchel charge that two men could carry, weighed about 150 pounds, that could be used to dig a ditch so that Soviet tanks couldn't cross into Germany. And of course the Navy by then had been working hard with General Rickover on building a nuclear submarine that could carry ballistic missiles underwater in total security. No way anybody could trace those submarines once they were quiet enough. And a nuclear reactor is very quiet. It just sits there with neutrons running around, making heat. So the other services jumped in and this famous triad, we must have these three different kinds of nuclear weapons, baloney. We would be perfectly safe if we only had our nuclear submarines. And only one or two of those. One nuclear submarine can take out all of Europe or all of the Soviet Union.Dwarkesh Patel 0:42:50Because it has multiple nukes on it? Richard Rhodes 0:42:53Because they have 16 intercontinental ballistic missiles with MIRV warheads, at least three per missile. Dwarkesh Patel 0:43:02Wow. I had a former guest, Richard Hanania, who has a book about foreign policy where he points out that our model of thinking about why countries do the things they do, especially in foreign affairs, is wrong because we think of them as individual rational actors, when in fact it's these competing factions within the government. And in fact, you see this especially in the case of Japan in World War II, there was a great book of Japan leading up to World War II, where they talk about how a branch of the Japanese military, I forget which, needed more oil to continue their campaign in Manchuria so they forced these other branches to escalate. But it's so interesting that the reason we have so many nukes is that the different branches are competing for funding. Richard Rhodes 0:43:50Douhet, the theorist of air power, had been in the trenches in the First World War. Somebody (John Masefield) called the trenches of the First World War, the long grave already dug, because millions of men were killed and the trenches never moved, a foot this way, a foot that way, all this horror. And Douhet came up with the idea that if you could fly over the battlefield to the homeland of the enemy and destroy his capacity to make war, then the people of that country, he theorized, would rise up in rebellion and throw out their leaders and sue for peace. And this became the dream of all the Air Forces of the world, but particularly ours. Until around 1943, it was called the US Army Air Force. The dream of every officer in the Air Force was to get out from under the Army, not just be something that delivers ground support or air support to the Army as it advances, but a power that could actually win wars. And the missing piece had always been the scale of the weaponry they carried. So when the bomb came along, you can see why Curtis LeMay, who ran the strategic air command during the prime years of that force, was pushing for bigger and bigger bombs. Because if a plane got shot down, but the one behind it had a hydrogen bomb, then it would be just almost as effective as the two planes together. So they wanted big bombs. And they went after Oppenheimer because he thought that was a terrible way to go, that there was really no military use for these huge weapons. Furthermore, the United States had more cities than Russia did, than the Soviet Union did. And we were making ourselves a better target by introducing a weapon that could destroy a whole state. I used to live in Connecticut and I saw a map that showed the air pollution that blew up from New York City to Boston. And I thought, well, now if that was fallout, we'd be dead up here in green, lovely Connecticut. That was the scale that it was going to be with these big new weapons. So on the one hand, you had some of the important leaders in the government thinking that these weapons were not the war-winning weapons that the Air Force wanted them and realized they could be. And on the other hand, you had the Air Force cornering the market on nuclear solutions to battles. All because some guy in a trench in World War I was sufficiently horrified and sufficiently theoretical about what was possible with air power. Remember, they were still flying biplanes. When H.G. Wells wrote his novel, The World Set Free in 1913, predicting an atomic war that would lead to world government, he had Air Forces delivering atomic bombs, but he forgot to update his planes. The guys in the back seat, the bombardiers, were sitting in a biplane, open cockpit. And when the pilots had dropped the bomb, they would reach down and pick up H.G. Wells' idea of an atomic bomb and throw it over the side. Which is kind of what was happening in Washington after the war. And it led us to a terribly misleading and unfortunate perspective on how many weapons we needed, which in turn fermented the arms race with the Soviets and just chased off. In the Soviet Union, they had a practical perspective on factories. Every factory was supposed to produce 120% of its target every year. That was considered good Soviet realism. And they did that with their nuclear war weapons. So by the height of the Cold War, they had 75,000 nuclear weapons, and nobody had heard yet of nuclear winter. So if both sides had set off this string of mass traps that we had in our arsenals, it would have been the end of the human world without question. Dwarkesh Patel 0:48:27It raises an interesting question, if the military planners thought that the conventional nuclear weapon was like the fire bombing, would it have been the case that if there wasn't a thermonuclear weapon, that there actually would have been a nuclear war by now because people wouldn't have been thinking of it as this hard red line? Richard Rhodes 0:48:47I don't think so because we're talking about one bomb versus 400, and one plane versus 400 planes and thousands of bombs. That scale was clear. Deterrence was the more important business. Everyone seemed to understand even the spies that the Soviets had connected up to were wholesaling information back to the Soviet Union. There's this comic moment when Truman is sitting with Joseph Stalin at Potsdam, and he tells Stalin, we have a powerful new weapon. And that's as much as he's ready to say about it. And Stalin licks at him and says, “Good, I hope you put it to good use with the Japanese.” Stalin knows exactly what he's talking about. He's seen the design of the fat man type Nagasaki plutonium bomb. He has held it in his hands because they had spies all over the place. (0:49:44) - Stalin & the Soviet programDwarkesh Patel 0:49:44How much longer would it have taken the Soviets to develop the bomb if they didn't have any spies? Richard Rhodes 0:49:49Probably not any longer. Dwarkesh Patel 0:49:51Really? Richard Rhodes 0:49:51When the Soviet Union collapsed in the winter of ‘92, I ran over there as quickly as I could get over there. In this limbo between forming a new kind of government and some of the countries pulling out and becoming independent and so forth, their nuclear scientists, the ones who'd worked on their bombs were free to talk. And I found that out through Yelena Bonner, Andrei Sakharov's widow, who was connected to people I knew. And she said, yeah, come on over. Her secretary, Sasha, who was a geologist about 35 years old became my guide around the country. We went to various apartments. They were retired guys from the bomb program and were living on, as far as I could tell, sac-and-potatoes and some salt. They had government pensions and the money was worth a salt, all of a sudden. I was buying photographs from them, partly because I needed the photographs and partly because 20 bucks was two months' income at that point. So it was easy for me and it helped them. They had first class physicists in the Soviet Union, they do in Russian today. They told me that by 1947, they had a design for a bomb that they said was half the weight and twice the yield of the Fat Man bomb. The Fat Man bomb was the plutonium implosion, right? And it weighed about 9,000 pounds. They had a much smaller and much more deliverable bomb with a yield of about 44 kilotons. Dwarkesh Patel 0:51:41Why was Soviet physics so good?Richard Rhodes 0:51:49The Russian mind? I don't know. They learned all their technology from the French in the 19th century, which is why there's so many French words in Russian. So they got good teachers, the French are superb technicians, they aren't so good at building things, but they're very good at designing things. There's something about Russia, I don't know if it's the language or the education. They do have good education, they did. But I remember asking them when they were working, I said — On the hydrogen bomb, you didn't have any computers yet. We only had really early primitive computers to do the complicated calculations of the hydrodynamics of that explosion. I said, “What did you do?” They said, “Oh, we just used nuclear. We just used theoretical physics.” Which is what we did at Los Alamos. We had guys come in who really knew their math and they would sit there and work it out by hand. And women with old Marchant calculators running numbers. So basically they were just good scientists and they had this new design. Kurchatov who ran the program took Lavrentiy Beria, who ran the NKVD who was put in charge of the program and said — “Look, we can build you a better bomb. You really wanna waste the time to make that much more uranium and plutonium?” And Beria said, “Comrade, I want the American bomb. Give me the American bomb or you and all your families will be camp dust.” I talked to one of the leading scientists in the group and he said, we valued our lives, we valued our families. So we gave them a copy of the plutonium implosion bomb. Dwarkesh Patel 0:53:37Now that you explain this, when the Soviet Union fell, why didn't North Korea, Iran or another country, send a few people to the fallen Soviet Union to recruit a few of the scientists to start their own program? Or buy off their stockpiles or something. Or did they?Richard Rhodes 0:53:59There was some effort by countries in the Middle East to get all the enriched uranium, which they wouldn't sell them. These were responsible scientists. They told me — we worked on the bomb because you had it and we didn't want there to be a monopoly on the part of any country in the world. So patriotically, even though Stalin was in charge of our country, he was a monster. We felt that it was our responsibility to work on these things, even Sakharov. There was a great rush at the end of the Second World War to get hold of German scientists. And about an equal number were grabbed by the Soviets. All of the leading German scientists, like Heisenberg and Hans and others, went west as fast as they could. They didn't want to be captured by the Soviets. But there were some who were. And they helped them work. People have the idea that Los Alamos was where the bomb happened. And it's true that at Los Alamos, we had the team that designed, developed, and built the first actual weapons. But the truth is, the important material for weapons is the uranium or plutonium. One of the scientists in the Manhattan Project told me years later, you can make a pretty high-level nuclear explosion just by taking two subcritical pieces of uranium, putting one on the floor and dropping the other by hand from a height of about six feet. If that's true, then all this business about secret designs and so forth is hogwash. What you really need for a weapon is the critical mass of highly enriched uranium, 90% of uranium-235. If you've got that, there are lots of different ways to make the bomb. We had two totally different ways that we used. The gun on the one hand for uranium, and then because plutonium was so reactive that if you fired up the barrel of a cannon at 3,000 feet per second, it would still melt down before the two pieces made it up. So for that reason, they had to invent an entirely new technology, which was an amazing piece of work. From the Soviet point of view, and I think this is something people don't know either, but it puts the Russian experience into a better context. All the way back in the 30s, since the beginning of the Soviet Union after the First World War, they had been sending over espionage agents connected up to Americans who were willing to work for them to collect industrial technology. They didn't have it when they began their country. It was very much an agricultural country. And in that regard, people still talk about all those damn spies stealing our secrets, we did the same thing with the British back in colonial days. We didn't know how to make a canal that wouldn't drain out through the soil. The British had a certain kind of clay that they would line their canals with, and there were canals all over England, even in the 18th century, that were impervious to the flow of water. And we brought a British engineer at great expense to teach us how to make the lining for the canals that opened up the Middle West and then the West. So they were doing the same thing. And one of those spies was a guy named Harry Gold, who was working all the time for them. He gave them some of the basic technology of Kodak filmmaking, for example. Harry Gold was the connection between David Greenglass and one of the American spies at Los Alamos and the Soviet Union. So it was not different. The model was — never give us something that someone dreamed of that hasn't been tested and you know works. So it would actually be blueprints for factories, not just a patent. And therefore when Beria after the war said, give us the bomb, he meant give me the American bomb because we know that works. I don't trust you guys. Who knows what you'll do. You're probably too stupid anyway. He was that kind of man. So for all of those reasons, they built the second bomb they tested was twice the yield and half the way to the first bomb. In other words, it was their new design. And so it was ours because the technology was something that we knew during the war, but it was too theoretical still to use. You just had to put the core and have a little air gap between the core and the explosives so that the blast wave would have a chance to accelerate through an open gap. And Alvarez couldn't tell me what it was but he said, you can get a lot more destructive force with a hammer if you hit something with it, rather than if you put the head on the hammer and push. And it took me several years before I figured out what he meant. I finally understood he was talking about what's called levitation.Dwarkesh Patel 0:59:41On the topic that the major difficulty in developing a bomb is either the refinement of uranium into U-235 or its transmutation into plutonium, I was actually talking to a physicist in preparation for this conversation. He explained the same thing that if you get two subcritical masses of uranium together, you wouldn't have the full bomb because it would start to tear itself apart without the tamper, but you would still have more than one megaton.Richard Rhodes 1:00:12It would be a few kilotons. Alvarez's model would be a few kilotons, but that's a lot. Dwarkesh Patel 1:00:20Yeah, sorry I meant kiloton. He claimed that one of the reasons why we talk so much about Los Alamos is that at the time the government didn't want other countries to know that if you refine uranium, you've got it. So they were like, oh, we did all this fancy physics work in Los Alamos that you're not gonna get to, so don't even worry about it. I don't know what you make of that theory. That basically it was sort of a way to convince people that Los Alamos was important. Richard Rhodes 1:00:49I think all the physics had been checked out by a lot of different countries by then. It was pretty clear to everybody what you needed to do to get to a bomb. That there was a fast fusion reaction, not a slow fusion reaction, like a reactor. They'd worked that out. So I don't think that's really the problem. But to this day, no one ever talks about the fact that the real problem isn't the design of the weapon. You could make one with wooden boxes if you wanted to. The problem is getting the material. And that's good because it's damned hard to make that stuff. And it's something you can protect. Dwarkesh Patel 1:01:30We also have gotten very lucky, if lucky is the word you want to use. I think you mentioned this in the book at some point, but the laws of physics could have been such that unrefined uranium ore was enough to build a nuclear weapon, right? In some sense, we got lucky that it takes a nation-state level actor to really refine and produce the raw substance. Richard Rhodes 1:01:56Yeah, I was thinking about that this morning on the way over. And all the uranium in the world would already have destroyed itself. Most people have never heard of the living reactors that developed on their own in a bed of uranium ore in Africa about two billion years ago, right? When there was more U-235 in a mass of uranium ore than there is today, because it decays like all radioactive elements. And the French discovered it when they were mining the ore and found this bed that had a totally different set of nuclear characteristics. They were like, what happened? But there were natural reactors in Gabon once upon a time. And they started up because some water, a moderator to make the neutrons slow down, washed its way down through a bed of much more highly enriched uranium ore than we still have today. Maybe 5-10% instead of 3.5 or 1.5, whatever it is now. And they ran for about 100,000 years and then shut themselves down because they had accumulated enough fusion products that the U-235 had been used up. Interestingly, this material never migrated out of the bed of ore. People today who are anti-nuclear say, well, what are we gonna do about the waste? Where are we gonna put all that waste? It's silly. Dwarkesh Patel 1:03:35Shove it in a hole. Richard Rhodes 1:03:36Yeah, basically. That's exactly what we're planning to do. Holes that are deep enough and in beds of material that will hold them long enough for everything to decay back to the original ore. It's not a big problem except politically because nobody wants it in their backyard.Dwarkesh Patel 1:03:53On the topic of the Soviets, one question I had while reading the book was — we negotiated with Stalin at Yalta and we surrendered a large part of Eastern Europe to him under his sphere of influence. And obviously we saw 50 years of immiseration there as a result. Given the fact that only we had the bomb, would it have been possible that we could have just knocked out the Soviet Union or at least prevented so much of the world from succumbing to communism in the aftermath of World War II? Is that a possibility? Richard Rhodes 1:04:30When we say we had the bomb, we had a few partly assembled handmade bombs. It took almost as long to assemble one as the battery life of the batteries that would drive the original charge that would set off the explosion. It was a big bluff. You know, when they closed Berlin in 1948 and we had to supply Berlin by air with coal and food for a whole winter, we moved some B-29s to England. The B-29 being the bomber that had carried the bombs. They were not outfitted for nuclear weapons. They didn't have the same kind of bomb-based structure. The weapons that were dropped in Japan had a single hook that held the entire bomb. So when the bay opened and the hook was released, the thing dropped. And that's very different from dropping whole rows of small bombs that you've seen in the photographs and the film footage. So it was a big bluff on our part. We took some time after the war inevitably to pull everything together. Here was a brand new technology. Here was a brand new weapon. Who was gonna be in charge of it? The military wanted control, Truman wasn't about to give the military control. He'd been an artillery officer in the First World War. He used to say — “No, damn artillery captain is gonna start World War III when I'm president.” I grew up in the same town he lived in so I know his accent. Independence, Missouri. Used to see him at his front steps taking pictures with tourists while he was still president. He used to step out on the porch and let the tourists take photographs. About a half a block from my Methodist church where I went to church. It was interesting. Interestingly, his wife was considered much more socially acceptable than he was. She was from an old family in independence, Missouri. And he was some farmer from way out in Grandview, Missouri, South of Kansas City. Values. Anyway, at the end of the war, there was a great rush from the Soviet side of what was already a zone. There was a Soviet zone, a French zone, British zone and an American zone. Germany was divided up into those zones to grab what's left of the uranium ore that the Germans had stockpiled. And there was evidence that there was a number of barrels of the stuff in a warehouse somewhere in the middle of all of this. And there's a very funny story about how the Russians ran in and grabbed off one site full of uranium ore, this yellow black stuff in what were basically wine barrels. And we at the same night, just before the wall came down between the zones, were running in from the other side, grabbing some other ore and then taking it back to our side. But there was also a good deal of requisitioning of German scientists. And the ones who had gotten away early came West, but there were others who didn't and ended up helping the Soviets. And they were told, look, you help us build the reactors and the uranium separation systems that we need. And we'll let you go home and back to your family, which they did. Early 50s by then, the German scientists who had helped the Russians went home. And I think our people stayed here and brought their families over, I don't know. (1:08:24) - Deterrence, disarmament, North Korea, TaiwanDwarkesh Patel 1:08:24Was there an opportunity after the end of World War II, before the Soviets developed the bomb, for the US to do something where either it somehow enforced a monopoly on having the bomb, or if that wasn't possible, make some sort of credible gesture that, we're eliminating this knowledge, you guys don't work on this, we're all just gonna step back from this. Richard Rhodes 1:08:50We tried both before the war. General Groves, who had the mistaken impression that there was a limited amount of high-grade uranium ore in the world, put together a company that tried to corner the market on all the available supply. For some reason, he didn't realize that a country the size of the Soviet Union is going to have some uranium ore somewhere. And of course it did, in Kazakhstan, rich uranium ore, enough for all the bombs they wanted to build. But he didn't know that, and I frankly don't know why he didn't know that, but I guess uranium's use before the Second World War was basically as a glazing agent for pottery, that famous yellow pottery and orange pottery that people owned in the 1930s, those colors came from uranium, and they're sufficiently radioactive, even to this day, that if you wave a Geiger counter over them, you get some clicks. In fact, there have been places where they've gone in with masks and suits on, grabbed the Mexican pottery and taken it out in a lead-lined case. People have been so worried about it but that was the only use for uranium, to make a particular kind of glass. So once it became clear that there was another use for uranium, a much more important one, Groves tried to corner the world market, and he thought he had. So that was one effort to limit what the Soviet Union could do. Another was to negotiate some kind of agreement between the parties. That was something that really never got off the ground, because the German Secretary of State was an old Southern politician and he didn't trust the Soviets. He went to the first meeting, in Geneva in ‘45 after the war was over, and strutted around and said, well, I got the bomb in my pocket, so let's sit down and talk here. And the Soviet basically said, screw you. We don't care. We're not worried about your bomb. Go home. So that didn't work. Then there was the effort to get the United Nations to start to develop some program of international control. And the program was proposed originally by a committee put together by our State Department that included Robert Oppenheimer, rightly so, because the other members of the committee were industrialists, engineers, government officials, people with various kinds of expertise around the very complicated problems of technology and the science and, of course, the politics, the diplomacy. In a couple of weeks, Oppenheimer taught them the basics of the nuclear physics involved and what he knew about bomb design, which was everything, actually, since he'd run Los Alamos. He was a scientist during the war. And they came up with a plan. People have scoffed ever since at what came to be called the Acheson-Lilienthal plan named after the State Department people. But it's the only plan I think anyone has ever devised that makes real sense as to how you could have international control without a world government. Every country would be open to inspection by any agency that was set up. And the inspections would not be at the convenience of the country. But whenever the inspectors felt they needed to inspect. So what Oppenheimer called an open world. And if you had that, and then if each country then developed its own nuclear industries, nuclear power, medical uses, whatever, then if one country tried clandestinely to begin to build bombs, you would know about it at the time of the next inspection. And then you could try diplomacy. If that didn't work, you could try conventional war. If that wasn't sufficient, then you could start building your bombs too. And at the end of this sequence, which would be long enough, assuming that there were no bombs existing in the world, and the ore was stored in a warehouse somewhere, six months maybe, maybe a year, it would be time for everyone to scale up to deterrence with weapons rather than deterrence without weapons, with only the knowledge. That to me is the answer to the whole thing. And it might have worked. But there were two big problems. One, no country is going to allow a monopoly on a nuclear weapon, at least no major power. So the Russians were not willing to sign on from the beginning. They just couldn't. How could they? We would not have. Two, Sherman assigned a kind of a loudmouth, a wise old Wall Street guy to present this program to the United Nations. And he sat down with Oppenheimer after he and his people had studied and said, where's your army? Somebody starts working on a bomb over there. You've got to go in and take that out, don't you? He said, what would happen if one country started building a bomb? Oppenheimer said, well, that would be an act of war. Meaning then the other countries could begin to escalate as they needed to to protect themselves against one power, trying to overwhelm the rest. Well, Bernard Baruch was the name of the man. He didn't get it. So when he presented his revised version of the Acheson–Lilienthal Plan, which was called the Baruch Plan to the United Nations, he included his army. And he insisted that the United States would not give up its nuclear monopoly until everyone else had signed on. So of course, who's going to sign on to that deal? Dwarkesh Patel 1:15:24I feel he has a point in the sense that — World War II took five years or more. If we find that the Soviets are starting to develop a bomb, it's not like within the six months or a year or whatever, it would take them to start refining the ore. And to the point we found out that they've been refining ore to when we start a war and engage in it, and doing all the diplomacy. By that point, they might already have the bomb. And so we're behind because we dismantled our weapons. We are only starting to develop our weapons once we've exhausted these other avenues. Richard Rhodes 1:16:00Not to develop. Presumably we would have developed. And everybody would have developed anyway. Another way to think of this is as delayed delivery times. Takes about 30 minutes to get an ICBM from Central Missouri to Moscow. That's the time window for doing anything other than starting a nuclear war. So take the warhead off those missiles and move it down the road 10 miles. So then it takes three hours. You've got to put the warhead back on the missiles. If the other side is willing to do this too. And you both can watch and see. We require openness. A word Bohr introduced to this whole thing. In order to make this happen, you can't have secrets. And of course, as time passed on, we developed elaborate surveillance from space, surveillance from planes, and so forth. It would not have worked in 1946 for sure. The surveillance wasn't there. But that system is in place today. The International Atomic Energy Agency has detected systems in air, in space, underwater. They can detect 50 pounds of dynamite exploded in England from Australia with the systems that we have in place. It's technical rather than human resources. But it's there. So it's theoretically possible today to get started on such a program. Except, of course, now, in like 1950, the world is awash in nuclear weapons. Despite the reductions that have occurred since the end of the Cold War, there's still 30,000-40,000 nuclear weapons in the world. Way too many. Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:01Yeah. That's really interesting. What percentage of warheads do you think are accounted for by this organization? If there's 30,000 warheads, what percentage are accounted for? Richard Rhodes 1:18:12All.Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:12Oh. Really?  North Korea doesn't have secrets? Richard Rhodes 1:18:13They're allowed to inspect anywhere without having to ask the government for permission. Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:18But presumably not North Korea or something, right? Richard Rhodes 1:18:21North Korea is an exception. But we keep pretty good track of North Korea needless to say. Dwarkesh Patel 1:18:27Are you surprised with how successful non-proliferation has been? The number of countries with nuclear weapons has not gone up for decades. Given the fact, as you were talking about earlier, it's simply a matter of refining or transmuting uranium. Is it surprising that there aren't more countries that have it?Richard Rhodes 1:18:42That's really an interesting part. Again, a part of the story that most people have never really heard. In the 50s, before the development and signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was 1968 and it took effect in 1970, a lot of countries that you would never have imagined were working on nuclear weapons. Sweden, Norway, Japan, South Korea. They had the technology. They just didn't have the materials. It was kind of dicey about what you should do. But I interviewed some of the Swedish scientists who worked on their bomb and they said, well, we were just talking about making some tactical

Embark on a nostalgic journey through the realms of both music and television as we delve into the impactful career of Jeffrey C. Sherman. From co-directing "The Boys: The Sherman Brothers' Story" to his significant contributions to the hit show "Boy Meets World," Sherman's artistic prowess knows no bounds. Join us as we uncover the stories behind the songs, the struggles, and the triumphs that have shaped Sherman's path, leaving an indelible mark on both the world of music and television. My guest, Jeffrey C. Sherman, and I discuss: The Boys: The Sherman Brothers' Story - Discover the captivating documentary film by Jeffrey C. Sherman, delving into the lives of his legendary father and uncle, Richard M. and Robert B. Sherman. (Available to watch on Disney+) Unveiling Jeff's Garage Band with Shaun Cassidy and Jamie Lee Curtis - Get insights into the musical journey of Jeffrey C. Sherman as he recounts his experiences with this notable garage band and his 4 amazing solo albums Inspiring "Spoonful of Sugar" - Uncover the intriguing story of Jeff's inspiration behind the timeless song "Spoonful of Sugar," which gained viral popularity during the pandemic. Enchanted Musical Playhouse - Explore Jeff's collaboration with the Disney Channel, where he seamlessly melded fairy tales and music by The Sherman Brothers. Notably, Jeff worked closely with Donny Osmond on this enchanting show. Witnessing the Creative Friction - Gain firsthand insights into Jeff's unique perspective of working directly with the Sherman Brothers. Experience the real-life friction that fueled the creation of thousands of iconic songs. The Chitty Chitty Bang Bang London Stage Debut and a Memorable Encounter - Learn about Jeff's meeting with his cousin Gregory, which took place during the debut of the Chitty Chitty Bang Bang play in London. This encounter later led to their co-direction of The Boys: The Sherman Brothers' Story. Al Sherman's Impact - Delve into the life of Al Sherman, Richard and Robert's father, as he takes center stage in the documentary. Discover his captivating story, including having a song covered by Cyndi Lauper. The Origin of the Sherman Brothers - Journey back to the beginnings of the iconic Sherman Brothers as a dynamic writing team. Uncover the key moments and inspirations that shaped their legendary partnership. Jeffrey C. Sherman's Encounter with Walt Disney - Immerse yourself in Jeff Sherman's cherished memories of spending time with Walt Disney and receiving a personal tour of the enchanting Mary Poppins movie sets. Jeffrey C. Sherman's Impactful Writing for Boy Meets World - Explore Jeff Sherman's influential contributions as a writer for Boy Meets World. Discover the importance of addressing serious topics such as child abuse and school vandalism on the show. Producing "Taller on TV" - Experience the laughter-inducing one-hour comedy special, "Taller on TV," starring Jeff's hilarious wife, Wendy Liebman. Discover how John Landis played a pivotal role in bringing this iconic comedy special to life. You're going to love my conversation with Jeffrey C. Sherman IMDB Twitter Instagram Jeffrey C. Sherman on SPOTIFY Wendy Liebman, Taller on TV SPONSORS: AIRDOCTOR: Head over to https://airdoctorpro.com and use promo code CLASSIC, and depending on the model, you'll receive UP TO 39% off or UP TO $300 off! FACTOR MEALS - Head over here and use code classic50 to get 50% off your first box. Follow Jeff Dwoskin (host): Jeff Dwoskin on Twitter The Jeff Dwoskin Show podcast on Twitter Podcast website Podcast on Instagram Join my mailing list Buy me a coffee (support the show) Subscribe to my Youtube channel (watch Crossing the Streams!) Yes, the show used to be called Live from Detroit: The Jeff Dwoskin Show

Mandie Rudd-Sherman is a 33 year old woman living with cystic fibrosis. She has been married for 9 years, has one 7 year-old-son and is expecting a baby girl via gestational surrogacy this summer. She loves exercise, podcasts, reading and skiing with her boys. Mandie is a respiratory therapist, public speaker and advocate. She educates on her life story living with CF and provides awareness for chronic illness on social media platforms. On a personal note, Mandie and I have been friends for almost 12 years now, and I'm so excited to share her light with everyone today! Her story of resilience and determination has inspired me over and over, and I'm also so grateful she's willing to open up and share and educate us today about her journey with gestational surrogacy. Time Stamps: [00:52] - Mandie Rudd-Sherman's family will welcome a wonderful gift in June. [02:54] - What is cystic fibrosis? [09:13] - Mandie shares her pregnancy journey and becoming a parent. What decisions did she need to make? [16:55] - Why did Mandie choose to have another baby via gestational surrogacy? [22:02] - Mandie recalls the miracles that came together during this new pregnancy journey. [28:44] - This new medication is improving how Mandie manages cystic fibrosis. [33:53] - Mandie says she learned about communication during this pregnancy journey via gestational surrogacy. [39:04] - Mandie and her family are prepping for the baby on the way. [41:44] - What is Mandie's advice for families considering gestational surrogacy?  [47:11] - “A smile can change somebody's day.” Supporting Resources: Mandie's Instagram Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Meet Sherman Gillums…a native of Buffalo, New York, serves as the Director of the Office of Disability Integration and Coordination for the Department of Homeland Security's Federal Emergency Management Agency in Washington DC.Sherman has testified before Congress as an expert witness and appeared on national networks, such as CNN, Fox News, and C-SPAN, as one of the most influential voices on military and veteran issues. His expert commentary has regularly appeared in the Hill, Military Times, and other national publications. He was recognized by HillVets as among the 100 most influential voices on Capitol Hill in 2016, the same year his alma mater, University of San Diego, inducted him into its hall of honor. He was also personally recognized by The White House for noteworthy “service to our nation” and the Secretary of Veteran Affairs for “exceptional leadership.”He joined the U.S. Marine Corps at age 17 and served for 12 years, medically retiring at the rank of Chief Warrant Officer 2. He holds a graduate degree from the University of San Diego School of Business and completed his executive education at Harvard Business School. He will complete his doctoral studies at the University of Dayton in 2024.Sherman and his wife Tammie, herself a U.S. Army veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom, have two sons, four daughters, including one who is presently a Midshipman at the U.S. Naval Academy, and a granddaughter.  Top tip for a successful life?Learn your purpose = What you're good at + What you like to do + What society needs + What you can get paid to do.Best piece of advice you ever received?There are “paper” leaders, and there are “people” leaders. Don't chase paper. Chase purpose.Professional achievement you're most proud of:When I left the Marine Corps after 12 years of service, knowing I had helped create, shape, and influence a new generation of Marines to continue the fight after I was honorably discharged. What advice would you give someone now who is just starting their career?What you think is your curse may be your calling in disguise.Biggest regret from a professional perspective?Waiting too long to see the value of authenticity in leadership.What's next for you? Currently working on doctoral degree and looking forward to a new career in educationCauses you care about?Elizabeth Dole Foundation: https://www.elizabethdolefoundation.org/American Red Cross: https://www.redcross.org/Connect with Sherman on social media: Twitter https://twitter.com/SGillumsLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/sherman-gillums-jr/Instagram: www.instagram.com/victory_podcast/ LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/company/thevictorypodcastThe Victory Podcast Youtube Playlist: https://bit.ly/3VxXMsgLink to Youtube: https://youtu.be/eIOtS8bLbioLink to Podcast MP3: 

Prolific Baseball Author, Erik Sherman and Willow Seasonings & Blends, David Slade Erik Sherman returns for another triumphant appearance to discuss his latest book, Daybreak at Chavez Ravine: Fernandomania and the Remaking of the Los Angeles Dodgers.  Erik is a prolific baseball book author and his latest work is exceptional.  The book "retells Valenzuela's arrival and permanent influence on Dodgers history, while bringing redemption to the organization's controversial beginnings in LA. Through new interviews with players, coaches, broadcasters, and media, Erik Sherman reveals a new side of this intensely private man and brings fresh insight into the ways he transformed the Dodgers and started a phenomenon that radically altered the country's cultural and sporting landscape."  Eric is being honored in 2023 with his induction into the New York State Baseball Hall of Fame.  For more information on Eric, go to https://www.erikshermanbaseball.com/ David Slade is a US Navy Veteran and the creator of Willow Seasonings & Blends, a small business from the metropolitan area of Denver, Colorado.  "They strive to find the perfect balance of the ingredients that make up their products, as they do not want any single ingredient to dominate and want every ingredient working and dancing in unison to achieve a flavor experience that their customers will never forget.  Their products are made with all-natural ingredients.  Giving their customers the best product possible and never sacrificing quality in order to save money is how they do things."  David takes us on his journey from home-based rubs and sauces maker to starting a business in a very competitive market.  For more information, go to https://willowseasonings.com/ We conclude the show with the song, Baseball Always Brings You Home by the musician, Dave Dresser, and the poet, Shel Krakofsky. We recommend you go to Baseball BBQ, https://baseballbbq.com for special grilling tools and accessories, Mantis BBQ, https://mantisbbq.com/ to purchase their outstanding sauces with a portion of the proceeds being donated to the Kidney Project, and for exceptional sauces, Elda's Kitchen https://eldaskitchen.com/ If you would like to contact the show, we would love to hear from you.   Call the show:  (516) 855-8214 Email:  baseballandbbq@gmail.comTwitter:  @baseballandbbqInstagram:  baseballandbarbecueYouTube:  baseball and bbqWebsite:  https//baseballandbbq.weebly.com Facebook:  baseball and bbq

On this episode of the podcast we have Shawn Sherman – Shawn is the founder of Square One where he works to optimize performance via neuro integration of proprioception, vision and balance and on this episode of the podcast he takes us down the rabbit holes of how he does just that – how we need to interview the nervous system, question our philosophies and how to address the actual issues with the body – Shawn was one of my favorite guest I've had on in a long time and I hope his message resonates with you as much as it did with me – thank you for listening – keep chopping wood This Episode Brought To You By Our Sponsors The Maca Team - If You Are Interested In Trying Maca Our Check Out ⁠⁠⁠⁠Their Shop Here --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/austin-jochum/support

Bio: Andrea Sherman, PhD, is a gerontologist, educator, trainer and End of Life Doula. She is a graduate of the New York Zen Center Foundations in Buddhist Contemplative Care Program, teaches meditation at Westchester Meditation Center, and studies Vajrayana Buddhism with Phakchok Rinpoche. As an educator her focus is on palliative and end of life care, caregiving, creativity and aging, and lifecycle transitions. She is the co-author of Transitional Keys: Rituals to Improve Quality of Life for Older Adults and has created rituals that span the lifecycle from birth to dying. She has also created rituals to support caregivers through the stages of caregiving. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode of Bigfoot Crossroads Mothboy Matt of the Mothboys podcast joins me to talk about giant white monsters of Sherman, New York, and an encounter with something totally unexplained that changed his life forever.This show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5637756/advertisement

“I've now realized not everything you post is going to be like you knocked it out of the park, but it doesn't matter,” shares Jenn Sherman, Peloton's OG fitness instructor. When Jenn was last on Dear FoundHer, Lindsay issued several Instagram challenges to help her grow her following and boost engagement. After applying Lindsay's tips and conquering her imposter syndrome, Jenn has seen improvements in every metric for her Instagram account. Although she still struggles a bit with consistency, she is now building content creation time into her work schedule each week.Today's top takeaways:Instagram can't be a chore. It has to be fun.It doesn't matter if you knock it out of the park every time.Your relationship with any social media platform will ebb and flow. But the more you do it, the more you practice, the more it will stay top of mind and the better you will get at it.Quotes:• “I've now realized not everything you post is going to be like you knocked it out of the park, but it doesn't matter.” (6:57-7:02 | Jenn)• “This is no longer an experiment because it's something that I'm planning on continuing with and I'm psyched to do. But in this project let's say, the Bright Line content, well that was the shining star.” (9:21-9:32 | Jenn)Connect with Jenn Sherman:Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/pelotonjennBook a call with Lindsay: https://www.honeybook.com/widget/spolan_marketing_communications_199255/cf_id/639a079aa737b5002f3b7f82Grab Lindsay's Instagram Challenge and Reels Cheat Sheet: https://view.flodesk.com/pages/64124c446ed2f85879bdb914Rate this podcast: http://www.ratethispodcast.com/dearfoundherPlease don't forget to rate, comment, and subscribe to Dear FoundHer on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts!You can now work with Lindsay 1:1 to build and monetize your community through the same method she used to grow and scale her business. Fill out the form here and set up a FREE 30-minute consultation.Make sure you sign up for Lindsay's newsletter and have all of the takeaways from every podcast episode sent straight to your inbox. PLUS, you'll get a tip every week to help you grow and scale your own business.Don't forget to follow Lindsay on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lindsaypinchukUse code FoundHer for 50% off your first month with both HiveCast and FiresidePodcast production and show notes provided by HiveCast.fm Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Probiotics, prebiotics, postbiotics, Oh My! The “bugs” in our guts have more to do with cancer than you may think. They interact intimately with your immune system and can influence cancer treatment effectiveness. Join Tina & Leah as they discuss the bugs we love, probiotics!Probiotics- What they are, and what they are notThe. Federal Trade Commission challenges Dannon's claims regarding Activia yogurtBacteria found inside pancreatic cancer are able to metabolize chemo (gemcitabine)Taking an antibiotic with gemcitabine improved outcomes in pancreatic cancer (2023)Probiotics may hamper or improve response to checkpoint inhibitors A probiotic improved cognition in breast cancer patients receiving chemoFecal Microbial Transplant (FMT) was better than probiotics for gut restorationFMT may enhance the effectiveness of immunotherapies (human—> mouse study)Fusobacteria spp. and colorectal cancer associationThe bug running the show in the movie Men in Black (1997)A Bug's Life - The animated movie (1998)Support the showSupport the podcast here! Or, go to Buymeacoffee. Either way, we'll give you a shout-out! Find our podcast useful? We hope so! Please review & rate us! (every bit helps!)Share this podcast with someone you love! Here's a link: https://podfollow.com/the-cancer-pod Email us: thecancerpod@gmail.comWe are @TheCancerPod Instagram Twitter Facebook THANK YOU!