The

Podium
Volume VII • Edition II

DECEMBER 2022
 All opinions and ideas expressed in The Podium are
the personal opinions and convictions of featured
student writers and are not necessarily the opinions
of The Podium staff, the Belmont Hill History
Department, or the Belmont Hill School.

Published by the Belmont Hill School

350 Prospect Street

Belmont, MA 02478

Printed by Belmont Printing Co.

Designed in Adobe InDesign

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 2

 Letter from the Staff
Dear Reader,

We are incredibly excited to share Volume VII - Edition

II with you. This edition of The Podium features several The Podium
outstanding student works on history, current events
November 2022 • Volume VII • Edition II
and school issues. In Edition II, we have brought back the
History on the Hill section and added a new historical
film review to complement our regular selection of Editor-in-Chief
opinion pieces, research papers, and miscellaneous
Sam Atalla ‘23
essays.

As always, our op-ed competition yielded fantastic Executive Editors

student works. The three winners were Luca Mezzanote
Andrew Asherman ‘23
‘23, Aaron Stanger ‘24, and Jake Kornmehl ‘24. We truly
appreciate all of the students who submitted their Max Glick ‘24
op-eds to The Podium. Also in Edition II are several
research papers nominated by the Belmont Hill History
Editors
Department. Included are Cooper Nelson’s Monaco
American History Prize-Winning The Plane That Almost Cole Sparks ‘24
Ate Seattle, and papers from Nate Voss ‘24 and Hayden
Okurowski ‘25.
Podium Staff

Along with student submissions, in this edition Ezra Lee Ezra Lee ‘25
teaches us about BH life in 1923 and Cole Sparks reviews Ernest Lai ‘25
the film Dunkirk. Edition II features miscellaneous essays
Adrian Tan ‘25
from exchange student Ben Anderson, who discusses
politics in South Africa and the United States, Editor- Max Wagner ‘23
In-Chief Sam Atalla, who shares his views on nuclear Wesley Zhu ‘25
disarmament, and Max Wagner, who talks about
primary elections. We would like to thank Mr. Harvey
for his leadership and dedication to The Podium. And Layout & Design
of course, thank you for taking the time to crack open Max Glick ‘24
this enlightening edition of The Podium.
Sam Atalla ‘23

The Podium
www.the-podium.org

December
@bh_podium 2022
3
 Content
History on the Hill 7
Belmont Hill Life in 1923 Ezra Lee ‘25 8

Opinion Pieces 10
Expansion of Interest Luca Mezzanote ‘23 11

The Doomed Fate of Bipartisanship in

Aaron Stanger ‘24 12
American Poilitics
Why Tech Companies Should Start Muzzling
Jake Kornmehl ‘24 14
Hate

Research Papers 16
The Plane That Almost Ate Seattle Cooper Nelson ‘23 17

The Institution Nate Voss ‘24 38

How China’s Over-Reliance on Coal Will Affect

Hayden Okurowski ‘25 45
Its Role in the 21st Century

Historical Film Review 53

Dunkirk Review Cole Sparks ‘24 54

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 4

 Data Analysis 56
Max Wagner ‘23
Inflation and Student Loan Forgiveness Ernest Lai ‘25 57
Wesley Zhu ‘25

Miscellaneous Essays 60
Political Polarization Ben Anderson 61

Necessary Strides for Nuclear Disarmament Sam Atalla ‘23 64

The Fading Utility of the Primary Election Max Wagner ‘23 66

Credits:
• Photography on front cover by Sam Atalla ‘23

December 2022
5
 Nominations
For Research Papers and Essays

Op-Eds

The Greatest Responsibility of The 21st Century Lev Tolkoff ‘24

The Practicality of a J-Term at Belmont Hill Kevin Weldon ‘24

Middle East & China

Internal Migrant Workers and China Adam Shaff ‘25

20th Century World History

Change Over Time In Zionist Land Aquisition
Scott Black ‘24
And Development In Palestine

Thank you to the History Department for their

assistance in identifying strong essays and papers.
Their dedication to The Podium is vital to the success
of the final publication.

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 6

HISTORY ON THE HILL

December 2022
7
 Belmont Hill Life in 1923
Ezra Lee ‘25
As Belmont Hill celebrates its centennial, the
centennial logo everywhere around campus,
many people are wondering just what life was
like for the Belmont Hill boy 100 years ago.
In this article of History On The Hill, you will
learn exactly what life was like for the Belmont
Hill student 100 years ago. From old songs,
the first letter from Belmont Hill’s headmaster,
and Roger F. Duncan’s book on Belmont Hill’s
history, this article will walk through life at
Belmont Hill 100
years ago.
The first and most
noticeable difference
between now and
100 years ago was
the size of the
school; both in terms
of physical size of
the campus and
the people that kept Belmont Hill running.
Made up of a faculty of just ten, it’s hard to
imagine how only ten people, regardless
how hard they worked (which was extremely
hard) could form such an amazing school
environment. Today, Belmont Hill has a faculty
seven times that size with 17 buildings on 37
acres. In 1923, Belmont Hill’s fundamental
statement went “Working together is its
fundamental idea - of men with God, of men
with prophets, leaders, and teachers, of men
with one another, of men’s intelligence with
the forces of nature. It teaches only such uses
of authority as are necessary to secure the
cooperation of several or many people to one
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
end; and the discipline it advocates is training
in development of cooperative goodwill.”
While there have definitely been changes to
Belmont Hill’s current mission statement, it
is clear that Belmont Hill’s core values as a
school have not significantly changed.
In 1924, Belmont Hill’s first edition of The
Sextant, the student yearbook, was published,
documenting what life was like for the Belmont
Hill student at the
time. Beginning with
a note from Belmont
Hill’s first headmaster,
R. Heber Howe, Jr.
saying
“Dear Boys: I
appreciate very
much being asked
to contribute to
the first publication
of the School. However, I feel that a school
paper belongs to the boys, and that they
should in all except rare occasions be the
only contributors. All I need to say to you is
that, thanks to the untiring efforts of all those
connected with the administration and the
hearty cooperation of the boys, we have made
a start this year on which we can build the
future with confidence. We must not forget
that a school’s work and its reputation is not
confined to any one year’s achievement. The
School’s future depends on the continuance of
the spirit of helpful cooperation among us all.
If we have established such a spirit as a school
tradition we have placed a vital and enduring
8
cornerstone in the School’s foundation.”
Following Belmont Hill’s headmasters note,
the six buildings that made up Belmont Hill,
the Shaler House, the Bolles House; a portable
school-house; an open-air structure familiarly
called “The Cage”; and a service cottage were
discussed. To finish up the yearbook, the
students put in the Belmont Hill song which
went as follows:
Belmont Hill School, best-of all School,
In our hearts you are forever first;
We will always treasure all days
Spent upon the Hill with you.
Dear Alma Mater, we’ll follow after
Your colors bright, and ever fight
For Red and Blue!
In the evening, see the gleaming
Of the cheery lights that beam upon the Hill,
While the wind blows round the windows,
But the Old Man can’t get in;
For if he bellows, our jolly fellows
Will sing a song to speed along
Old Mister Wind!
In the morning, at the dawning,
See the sunbeams dancing oh, so merrily!
On the chill air, on the Hill where
Stands the School that we adore.
So here’s to Belmont, to dear old Belmont
We’ll all be true to Red and Blue
Forevermore!
(Sung to the tune of the Italian melody,
Jovinetta)
9
In 1983, a writer by the name of Roger F.
Duncan wrote a book about the history of
Belmont Hill between the years 1923-1983 in
where he states in his introduction:
“A school has an organic life of its own, apart
from including the lives of all those who
touch it. Until the morning of September 26,
1923, Belmont Hill School was unborn, merely
a group of buildings, a collection of papers, a
bank account, and a conception in the minds
of its incorporators, Headmaster, faculty, and
prospective students. By recess time on that
morning, it was a school. The personality and
attitudes of Dr. Howe, the personality and
attitude of each teacher in each of the first
classes, the responses of each student, even
the way in which the secretary answered the
telephone, began to establish the character of
the newborn school.”
Today, the school has changed a great
deal, and for many people, the change is so
significant that the school now would be
unrecognizable to a student that graduated
from the class of 1927, however, enrooted in
the community, be it through dress code or
the school spirit, is an energy that students at
Belmont Hill 100 years ago carried.
December 2022
 OPINION PIECES

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 10

 Expansion of Interest
Luca Mezzanote ‘23
It must be acknowledged that Belmont Hill,
while preparing its students for the future
with a slew of rigorous academic programs,
fails to incorporate many special interests that
students may have. It is common that the
first experience one may have with courses
in fields such as finance or engineering come
in college. This lack of preparation can leave
students with very little idea of what they
want to study and eventually have a career in.
The addition of a J-term to the Belmont Hill
curriculum would allow students to pursue
potential interests while still at Belmont Hill
instead of solely being bound by the course
options.
While the current course
structure does have
some variety, specifically
in senior year with
courses like economics
leading the charge in the
list of courses not traditional to the curriculum
in any other years, there is a blaring lack
of opportunities to study areas of interest.
Having two weeks to intensely study a certain
subject has the obvious advantage of having
a chance to look into things that aren’t in
the curriculum but also it can serve as a test
period so in college no one ends up taking a
course out of curiosity and learning that they
hate the subject.
The advantages of a J-term in the realm of
college are quite apparent as it can be helpful
to understand what one is interested in when
11
making decisions on where to apply, and then
what course to choose once at school. The
potential downside of the J-term is missing
out on two weeks of classes; however, this
issue can easily be combated. By making
classes 45 minutes instead of 40 on short
block days and simply lengthening the day by
30 minutes, the roughly 33 hours lost are easily
replaced in a way that is not too intrusive on
sports.
This term would be especially beneficial to
the third formers who traditionally don’t have
the opportunity to customize their schedule.
It serves as a break in the
monotony and allows
kids to start formulating
their future early. While
not entirely necessary it
does no harm to know
what one wants to study
and have a career in
before applying to college.
The benefits of a J-term are numerous:
Expansion of interest, planning of the future,
and a break from the monotony of mandatory
courses. While the loss of class time must
be acknowledged, as previously mentioned,
it can be combated by lengthening the
academic day 30 minutes. How can increased
academic opportunities possibly be seen as
a negative? The J-term would enhance the
Belmont Hill experience and better set up its
students for the future.
December 2022
 The Doomed Fate of Bipartisanship
in American Politics
Aaron Stanger ‘24

In 2022, political party lines have never been
so clearly defined. While every Republican
seems to push for the same agenda on every
issue, every Democratic argues the exact
opposite. Of course, this wasn’t always the
case; over the last 200 years America’s political
landscape has changed dramatically.. But since
the early days of the country, party politics has
developed, changed, and grown into what it
is today: a gridlock of the federal government
and a populace starkly divided between two
sides. Looking into the next presidential and
congressional elections, bipartisanship will not
develop as a way to combat this stalemate.
In the electoral
college, presidential
elections are
regulated based on
individual states,
especially swing
states. But the vast
majority of states
have a clearly
defined status:
Massachusetts is
a Democrat state
while Texas is a
Republican state. Therefore, these states attract
a certain person, and thus, the majority grows
and grows until the state is overwhelmingly
one sided. For example, Massachusetts has
shifted from what was 50-50 split in the
1900s to a clearly defined democratic state
in 2022. And so, Massachusetts internal
legislation and policy reflects those of the left:
high taxes to support spending programs like
healthcare and immigration programs. This
legislation creates a self reinforcing cycle. In
turn, this polarization will result in an increase
in individual states power, as the only way to
achieve a party’s goals will be on a small scale,
state level.
Moreover, voters, due to technology and the
internet, have become more polarized than
ever. Social media pages are crafted to fit the
news algorithmically geared to keep them on
the app and more
sided. Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter,
etc, are all geared to
creating a “unique”
experience that
keeps you on the
app. In reality,
users are fed a
stream of one
sided information.
As they view more
of one side, the
app receives this feedback and offers more,
and more polarizing, viewpoints. By failing
to acknowledge other opinions, voters get
hooked and drawn to the extreme lefts and
rights. In this vastly growing technological

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 12

landscape, this trend will only persist, and voters themselves will be unable to find bipartisanship
among themselves.

However, in times of dire need, the bipartisanship in congress has stepped up to provide aid
(such as the pandemic relief). But, these displays of collaboration are merely temporary flukes
resulting from emergencies; they also do not target some of the real issues, like healthcare, gun
laws, and free speech, that truely split Republicans and Democrats. Yes, it looks great when our
nation comes together to support Ukraine or sanction other blatantly obvious human rights
abuses around the globe. When it comes to making real progress on breaking down the political
lines between Americans, true progress must be made to fix the root of the problem: that most
politicians have sold themselves to one firm set of beliefs. Even if America was divided on
every issue, the fact that the same people are divided on every problem leaves little room for
discussion, compromise, or even acknowledgement. The future of American political parties at
the voter, state, and congressional level, is a grim, self reinforcing cycle that will leave no room
for bipartisanship in the coming decades.

December 2022
13
 Why Tech Corporations Should Start
Muzzling Hate
Jake Kornmehl ‘24

Currently, tech companies are classified as puts the validity of Section 230 in question. The
platforms rather than publishers and, therefore, Gonzalez case alleges Google “recommended
are not legally responsible for the content ISIS videos to users” and “was critical to the
posted. However, many observers believe growth and activity of ISIS” and is thus legally
they should be held responsible for what is accountable. The Taamneh case seeks to
posted since hold Twitter,
placement could Facebook and
be interpreted as YouTube liable
an endorsement for a terrorist
for those ideas. attack in Turkey.
Therefore, these
companies U n fo r t u n a te l y,
should be held this idea of
accountable subjective
for what they moderation has
choose to allow created a grey
on their feeds. area allowing
large tech
Section 230 of the Communications Decency companies to outlaw even moderate political
Act outlines that tech companies may posts that disagree with the view of their
participate in “good samaritan moderation” platforms. The technology companies are
in order to conserve a safe environment on expected to balance freedom of speech with
their platforms without worrying about being the filtering of hateful content that could be
sued for inhibiting free speech. Although the emotionally damaging to viewers or incite
word “moderation” introduces subjectivity violent acts.
into the law, there is still no reason why large
tech companies should allow accounts with Republican politicians across America believe
a large followings to post racist, hateful, or that section 230 has allowed companies to
antisemetic content. The Supreme Court has “muzzle” conservative voices, while democrats
recently decided to take up the cases Gonzalez argue that the law allows the spread of false
v. Google and Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh which information. Although this dichotomy is

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 14

a consequence of large tech companies being able to “moderate” the information on their
platforms, it does not excuse Youtube, Twitter, and Facebook from maintaining a certain amount
of safety on their platforms.
With a record increase of young people on social media in 2023, it is vital that we create
an environment where the rising generation can learn about current events without being
exposed to or manipulated by hate speech. Hate groups have become more prominent and
widespread throughout the world in part due to the fact that these extremist groups can impose
their views on impressionable young people through the internet. A recent 2022 study from
the ADL that surveyed youths ages 13-17 found that 65% of marginalized groups experienced
harassment with LGBTQ+ respondents more likely at 66% vs. 38% for non-LGBTQ respondents.
Asia American harassment increased significantly from 21% in 2021 to 39% in 2022. Women
(14%) were harassed nearly three times as often as men (5%) and Jewish respondents attributed
harassment to their religion (37%) compared to non-Jews (14%). Harassment was most common
on Facebook (68%) followed by Instagram (26%) then Twitter (23%). Sadly, 47% of young people
in this survey experienced some form of harassment on these social media platforms.

In order to hinder the growth of organizations such as the KKK (Ku Klux Klan), NSM (National
Socialist Movement) and Q’Anon, these influential tech companies must be held responsible for
the content on their platforms. Without clear tangible guidelines in the law, large tech social-
media corporations will easily be able to find loopholes in order to maximize profits. Congress
would be less likely to regulate tech companies if they defined clear consequences for violation
of hate speech and harassment guidelines, regularly evaluated and publicly reported accurate
statistics on hate speech on their platform and quickly removed it, work with communities
targeted by harassment to modify algorithms, and provide data to academic researchers for
critical analysis with the goal of better understanding and therefore increasing the likelihood of
mitigating online hate.

Yes, freedom of speech is an integral part of the American identity. But, these tech companies
have the power to either allow the spread of extreme political views and terrorist ideology or
prevent it. With important issues such as global warming or the Ukraine crisis already plaguing
our lives, politicians should do everything in their power to promote a safer, more moderate
environment. With that in mind, politicians should indeed make sure that large tech corporations
are held accountable for what information they make available to the public.

December 2022
15
 RESEARCH PAPERS

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 16

 The Plane That Almost Ate Seattle:
The Motivations Behind America’s Failed Supersonic Transport Program
Monaco Prize-winner 2022 | AP United States History
Cooper Nelson ‘23
Introduction
On the crisp morning of October 14th, 1947,
a Boeing B-29 bomber took off from a dry
lakebed in the Mojave Desert in California.
The bomber’s payload was US Air Force
Captain Chuck Yeager and his Bell X-1 aircraft,
nicknamed “Glamorous Glennis” for Yeager’s
wife (Figure 1). The experimental X-1, with its
bullet-like contours, was designed to be the
first plane to transcend the speed of sound.
Little more than a blood-orange aluminum
can strapped to a rocket engine, the X-1 was
the evolution of numerous failed military
attempts to fly faster than sound. The risk of
failure was severe, and multiple pilots had
perished trying to do what Yeager would
attempt. At an altitude of 23,000 feet, the
B-29 dropped the X-1, which rapidly climbed,
before beginning a slow descent during which
history would be made.1
With a thunderous boom that startled
onlookers, the X-1 reached a top speed of
Mach 1.06, or around 700 miles per hour.2
In that moment, Yeager had become the
fastest man alive, and safe supersonic flight,
long thought impossible, was proven to be
attainable. With this achievement, the first era
of aviation came to a close, and the supersonic
age began. In this discovery, a new realm of
possibilities was unlocked, equivalent to the
steam engine or the first Mesolithic canoe.
17
As one sensationalist author described this
advancement,
“Supersonic speed is the newest,
fastest, most dramatic expression of
an innate craving of men– to move
quickly about the world.”3
Logically, people began to wonder how
soon this remarkable innovation could be
experienced by the common man.
The answer came in 1963, when John F.
Kennedy announced at the Air Force Academy
the US’s intention to develop and build a
commercial supersonic transport (SST).4
Because this undertaking was too expensive
for any aircraft manufacturer to finance alone,
the federal government promised to pay the
majority of the development and production
costs.5 After a design competition, Boeing’s
model 2707 was selected in 1964 to be built
into two prototypes.6 The budget was set at $1
billion, and development commenced soon
after. However, the program experienced
several cost overruns and delays, as well as
questions surrounding its environmental
impact. Political opposition grew, and in
March 1971, further funding for the program
failed to make its way through Congress, and
the supersonic transport never made it past
the design phase.
The effects of the cancellation on Boeing
December 2022
 were disastrous. Already in a difficult spot
due to massive borrowing to finance the
development of its 747, Boeing was forced to
lay off thousands of additional workers after
the SST was canceled. Boeing’s commercial
workforce decreased from around 80,000
in 1968 to as low as 20,000 in the months
following the Congressional votes.7 The
economic ruin and subsequent mass
workforce exodus imposed on Seattle gave
the SST the moniker “the plane that almost ate
Seattle.”8
Figure 1:103 Bell X-1 “Glamorous Glennis”
The SST program failed because politicians,
influenced by a national anti-SST movement
and clear public opinion, voted against
further funding due to the plane’s economic
and technological infeasibility, as well as its
environmental flaws. By the late 1960s, evidence
started to pile up against the continuation of
the program. Several reports and appraisals into
the program’s feasibility came back negative,
and dissent to the program’s continuation
arose in Congress. Technological issues such
as the sonic boom delayed the program and
ballooned its budget. Questions emerged
surrounding its economic viability, as airlines
were hesitant to get involved and politicians
feared the government would never recover
its investment. Responding to these issues, a
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
ubiquitous nationwide anti-SST movement
began to take shape, ignited by a small group
of scientists and economists. Gaining support
from the environmentalist movement, the
SST’s opponents grew in number and in
influence, spawning a widespread and far-
reaching media smear campaign. Ultimately,
the SST, created to compete with European
and Russian equivalents, failed because
its opponents were more vocal than its
supporters, and by attacking the project’s
imperfections, they were able to turn the tide
of public and political opinion against the
program.
Origins of the SST
The SST Program, first surmised by President
Kennedy in 1962, was initiated primarily
in response to the European Concorde
and the Russian TU-144. The Concorde, a
joint British-French endeavor, threatened
American dominance in commercial aviation
manufacturing. Furthermore, the project
was justified as a means through which the
economy as a whole and the ailing economic
industry could be enhanced.
The Concorde
In November 1962, the British and French
governments formally announced their
collaboration on the Concorde program, a
jointly funded and developed commercial
Supersonic Transport.9 The program was the
first of its kind and hoped to leverage the
research and manufacturing capabilities of
both countries. Built by the British Aircraft
Corporation (BAC) and French Sud Aviation
(later Aerospatiale), the Concorde was
designed to carry 100 passengers at up to
twice the speed of sound.10
18
The motivations behind the Concorde
program’s initiation were primarily political
rather than technological. An inquiry
report designed to assess the validity of the
Concorde program was delivered to the
British Parliament in 1965.11 Its author, an
industrialist named Lord Edwin Plowden,
defended the Concorde on the basis that it
would boost the UK’s economy in several
ways. These included defense, foreign policy,
and trade balances.12 He concluded that it
was necessary to fund the Concorde not
because an SST was required, but to support
the faltering European aircraft industry.13
After the end of World War 2 and the dawn of
the jet age, Europe had fallen critically behind
in the commercial aircraft industry. The British
had surpassed the jet threshold first, unveiling
the de Havilland Comet in 1952. However,
the plane proved a commercial failure after a
series of disastrous crashes caused by metal
fatigue exacerbated by poorly engineered
rectangular windows. Confidence in the
plane’s safety plummeted, and it was grounded
in 1954.14 In the years following, 80% of the
commercial aircraft market went to American
stalwarts such as the Boeing 707 and Douglas
DC-8, leaving the European manufacturers
to compete against superior aircraft.15 British
aircraft exports in 1955, standing at a value of
55 million pounds, were dwarfed by American
exports, totaling 260 million pounds the same
year.16
The Plowden report stressed that it was
necessary to support the air transport industry
with SST funding that would both benefit the
national economy and heal the weakened
industry. It would improve poor trade balance
19
statistics, increase employment and output
in the aviation industry, and position the UK
and France as world leaders in aerospace
technology. By building the Concorde,
Europe hoped to leapfrog American aviation
domination by entering the supersonic
market first, and, as French President Charles
De Gaulle put it, challenge “America’s
colonization of the skies.”17 Notably, very few
Concorde proponents argued that supersonic
travel was necessary; rather, it was a means
to accomplish other ends. This theme is
paralleled in the defense of the American SST,
drawing harsh criticism from the program’s
opponents.
The Concorde was perceived as a threat
to the US aviation industry because it was
intended to increase Europe’s share in the
world market. The predicted implications of a
successful, monopolistic Concorde program
on the United States were catastrophic. FAA
director Najeeb Halaby warned that it would
force the US to “relinquish world civil transport
leadership,” and cost as many as 50,000 jobs.18
In a report to President Kennedy, he even
warned that the inconceivable could come
to fruition: someday, the President could
by flying on a foreign aircraft.19 Additionally,
in 1962, the Soviet Union confirmed that it
was commencing development on its own
Supersonic Transport, the Tupolev TU-144,
labeled “Concordski” by derisive Americans.20
This announcement factored into rising
Cold War tensions between the US and the
Soviet Union and strengthened the case
for an American SST. The entrance of the
second world hegemon into the supersonic
race caused the issue to transcend mere
economics; America was now at war with its
December 2022
 diametric enemy for control of the industry.
Foreign competition became the primary
factor influencing the American SST decision.
The Project Horizon report, issued by the FAA
Task Force on National Aviation goals in 1961,
recommended that the US must “maintain
its position as the world’s leading developer
and builder of all categories of aircraft.” The
authors argued that maintaining industry
superiority would benefit national security,
economic growth, and even promote world
peace. It seemed to American politicians in
the tense Cold War climate that strengthening
the aviation industry was necessary. President
Kennedy himself was reported to have an
“obsessive desire not to have America
fall behind in any phase of aerospace
technology.”21
The obvious and most pressing way to
strengthen the industry came to be supersonic
flight. Since no American manufacturer was
financially capable of funding this project, it
seemed a natural choice for federal support
despite the technological shortcomings and
inherent risk associated with the plane’s
development. Avoiding European industry
domination (and even the thought of Russian
domination) proved reason enough for
government sponsorship of the program.
After the Tupolev announcement, fears of
Russian commercial aviation strength also
factored into the decision to accelerate the
SST program. The Soviet Union’s post-WW2
technological prowess astonished the world.
In 1949, they tested an atomic bomb years
earlier than thought possible, sending the
western world into a frenzy.23 In 1957, they
sent two satellites and a dog into space,
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
brandishing their aerospace achievements to
the west.24 These innovations scared the US,
as the thought of relinquishing superiority
in even one domain of the multifaceted
Cold War brought shivers to nationalist
American politicians. This fear is evident in
the congressional passing of the National
Defense Education Act in 1958, which was
signed in the wake of the Sputnik launches.
This law promoted and allocated funds
toward research and education in STEM fields,
and was intended to breed a new generation
of engineers and scientific thinkers that could
restore America’s extolled technological
leadership. Evidence of Russia’s technological
abilities led Halaby to state that “the Russians
have the capability for fielding a Mach 2
transport anytime they want to.”25
Furthermore, confidence in the success
of the Concorde program in America was
declining. The UK’s newly formed Labour
government planned a thorough appraisal
of the practicality and economic prospects
of the Concorde amid calls for its dissolution
in 1964.26 The Concorde was plagued with
design setbacks, hundreds of millions in
budget hikes, and political opposition that
placed doubts on its future.27 Additionally,
an American study by Department of
Defense economist Stephen Enke evaluated
the Concorde’s economic prospects. Enke
reported that the Concorde had little chance
of success due to its narrow market niche
resulting from its limited route potential
and high seat-mile costs.28 These factors
combined raised doubts about the successes
of the Concorde amongst Americans. Thus,
the unpalatable possibility that the Europeans
could fail while the aerospace savants in
20
the Soviet Union might succeed began to
pervade the politics behind the American
SST decision. While many American
economists found European domination of
the supersonic niche unfathomable, Russian
domination was unanimously agreed upon to
be unacceptable. Doubts about the Concorde
furthered arguments that an American SST
was needed solely to prevent the Russians
from monopolizing the commercial air
industry.
On June 4th, 1963, leading American Airline
Pan American, led by fervent SST supporter
Juan Trippe, announced its intention to
purchase six Concordes for its international
fleet.29 The very next day, President Kennedy
announced the inception of the American
SST program.30 The proximity of these events
suggests that the Concorde was the foremost
impetus for the American program (Figure
2). World Bank Chairman Eugene Black
summarized this motivation well, asserting:
“It’s too bad we have to build the
damn things. But the Concorde forced
us to. We certainly can’t sit here and
turn over the market to the British and
the French – from the standpoint of
prestige to our industry.”31
The threat of the Concorde and the Soviet
TU-144 proved to be the defining factor in
the American SST decision. While economic,
social, and technological arguments factored
into the initial SST debate, it was ultimately
the threat of foreign industry dominance that
compelled President Kennedy to fund the
American SST.
21
Economic Benefits
In addition to the menace of foreign
supersonics, the American project was also
justified as a nationally productive means of
economic intervention. In 1967, the Bureau
of Labor Statistics reported that the aviation
manufacturing industry contributed 3.7% of
the country’s non-agricultural workers and
3.8% of the GDP.32 In addition, aviation’s ties to
the tourism and travel industries, as well as its
prevalence in the raw materials market, mean
that stimuli within the aviation industry have
implications that reverberate throughout the
economy.33 Before the SST was devised, the
Kennedy administration identified the aviation
industry as a potential route to instill federal
dollars into the private sector to improve the
national economy.34 Since the SST would
have required thousands of workers, private
subsidies, and a substantial amount of
material resources, its existence would have
had far-reaching benefits spanning multiple
economic sectors.
The SST also would have energized an
aviation industry that was struggling in the
wake of waning peacetime military aircraft
investment. Prior to the SST, nearly all
commercial aircraft ventures were offshoots
of federally funded military research. Typically,
the defense department would fund research
into technology with military applications,
and then the manufacturers could use that
knowledge, including airframe prototypes,
to bring commercial products to market.
An example was the prominent Boeing 707,
which was built off the Dash-80 prototype
for the Air Force KC-135 tanker.35 However,
in peacetime after the Korean War, military
spending in general and specifically in
December 2022
 aviation diminished, aggravated by President
Eisenhower’s Policy of Boldness and military
budget cuts.36 Cold War military spending also
progressively favored missile development,
leaving aircraft manufactures without funding
for new initiatives. Aircraft corporations in the
late ’50s and early ’60s were strapped for cash,
and as one historian put it, cognizant of the
danger “that the impetus for technological
advance would be lost.”37 In response to this
threat, the SST could have revitalized the
afflicted aircraft manufacturing industry.
Figure 2104: “Congress” by Etta Hulme, appearing in the
Fort Worth Star Telegram in the early 1960s
The SST’s Demise
In the late 1960s, a growing movement
amongst American politicians rose against the
SST. It culminated in a March 1971 decision in
the Senate to cancel funding for the program,
after over a billion dollars and a decade of
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
work had already been poured in. However,
many of the motivations for the program’s
inception persisted. The Concorde and
Tupolev programs were nearing completion,
and the economic implications of a foreign-
dominated industry remained strong. The SST
was voted down despite its initial motivations
because of a nationally potent opposition
movement that objected to the SST’s
technological, economic, and environmental
flaws.
Technological Barriers
SST scientists established early on that for the
plane to be economically viable, the issue of
a sonic boom would have to be solved. Sonic
booms occur when an object is traveling
faster than the speed of sound. Supersonic
aircraft create a pressure shockwave that
manifests in a deafening boom that anyone
under the plane’s path can hear. In a report
commissioned by President Kennedy into the
SST’s feasibility, World Bank Chairman Eugene
Black confessed that
“unless solutions to [the sonic boom]
is found, the entire program could fail
to become commercially feasible.”38
Included in the FAA’s initial design constraints
of the aircraft were provisions requiring
that the aircraft maintain reasonable noise
levels around airports, and manage the
issue of the sonic boom.39 However, when
Boeing discovered that there was no simple
or cost-effective solution to these issues,
they successfully lobbied to have those
constraints removed in their 1965 contract.40
This constituted an admission that Boeing
would not address the issue, and in the design
process, it was clear that they ignored it. This
departure from Black’s warning represents
22
how design flaws, combined with failures to
acknowledge early red flags, precipitated the
demise of the program.
The magnitude of the disruptiveness of
sonic booms was not fully understood until
1965, when the FAA conducted tests over
Oklahoma City.41 The tests were conducted
using Air Force fighter jets, which produced
considerably weaker booms than a larger
plane would be expected to create. Pilots flew
the jets at regular intervals over the city, and
the FAA warned residents beforehand as to
when they could expect the booms to occur.
They found that while most people found
the booms acceptable, a growing fraction of
people (27%) found the booms intolerable.42
Additionally, there were thousands of formal
damage complaints filed by Oklahoma
City residents, most of whom claimed that
windows had been shattered by the disruptive
thunderclaps.43 Since the magnitude of a
sonic boom is directly proportional to the size
and speed of the moving object creating it, it
stands to reason that the SST’s sonic booms
would have been deafening.
The FAA, looking for evidence to corroborate
their view that the sonic boom would not be
an issue, used the Oklahoma data to reinforce
the idea that people would come to live with
sonic booms.44 They determined that there
was nothing in the data that precluded the
23
design and testing of a Supersonic Transport.
Because of these findings, little to no research
was done into creating a quieter and more
acceptable airplane. Those in charge of the
program felt that the sonic boom would
not prove to be an issue in the long run. In
a world where supersonic flights were seen
as the future, there was a pervading attitude
amongst scientists and technocrats that these
booms were unavoidable byproducts of
advancement and would come to be accepted.
When pressured on the sonic boom issue,
newly appointed SST program head General
Jewell Maxwell responded with, “I’ll bet you’ll
find that babies are sleeping through them
[sonic booms].”45 SST proponents advocated
that the booms did not need to be eradicated,
rather, they would have to be accepted. They
felt that it was a necessary price to pay for
progress; forward innovation inevitably had
its drawbacks. However, this outlook did not
account for the fact that a single supersonic
transcontinental flight would boom upwards
of 5 million people, and due to its forecasted
size and speed, would be excruciatingly
loud.46 By ignoring rather than addressing or
even acknowledging the issue, Boeing and
the FAA advanced a project with a known
vulnerability, setting the stage for the program
to fail.
Additionally, as the project progressed, it
became clear that the restraints placed on the
program to make the aircraft commercially
competitive made it technologically
infeasible. The 1963 Black and Osborne report
recommended that the US pursue an aircraft
superior to the Concorde in both speed and
size.47 The Concorde program was already
two to three years ahead in its development.
December 2022
 Black stated that
“a superior aircraft which is available
within two to three years of the first
‘Concorde’ deliveries would still be
able to capture the bulk of the world
market.”48
Purely out of economic necessity, the United
States was forced to pursue an aircraft that
was both faster and of higher capacity (Figure
3) to account for the timetable difference
between the SST and the Concorde. However,
the assessment made in the report assumed
that a superior aircraft would be developed
in a similar timeframe to the Concorde – the
Americans were behind by two years at the
onset of the program – and did not consider
the technological breakthroughs required to
build a plane capable of flying at Mach 2.7
(2000+ mph).
Figure 3105: The Boeing 2707 in the background, with
the Concorde and Tupolev TU-144 in the foreground
The myriad challenges resulting from the
necessity of exceeding the design parameters
for the Concorde resulted in delays, cost
overruns, and ultimately an incomplete
aircraft by the time the project was canceled.
Unlike the Concorde, titanium needed to be
used for the fuselage instead of aluminum, as
aluminum couldn’t stand up to the immense
heat generated at speed.49 Titanium was
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
a comparatively expensive material and
required new machinery and techniques to
work with. The SST’s General Electric engines,
which were the most powerful jet engines
ever constructed, needed to survive the rigors
of industry safety testing. The plane needed
to be able to withstand meteorological forces
resulting from high-altitude flying.50 Engine
emissions needed to be studied to identify
any adverse effects on the ozone layer,
through which the SST would be flying.51
The SST would need to have tolerable airport
noise levels and be able to operate without
any tailor-made airport infrastructure such as
gates or runways. Each of these constraints,
many of which were contradictory in nature,
resulted in an engineering mountain that
became costly and time-consuming to
overcome.
One development that proved particularly
damaging to the SST’s prospects was
Boeing’s proposed swing-wing design. To be
commercially viable, an SST would need to
be aerodynamically efficient both at runway
speeds and above Mach 2. Boeing, whose
bid was chosen to build the SST, elected for a
swing-wing mechanism to change the shape
of the wing for optimal aerodynamic efficiency
covering a wide range of speeds (Figure 4). It
was intended to allow the plane to take off and
land “like a conventional jet, yet still… cover
three miles in five seconds.”52 However, this
part of the design process proved especially
difficult to master. Due to the intricacy of the
swing mechanism, and the added weight of
the bulky machinery, the design was scrapped
late in the 1960s.53 This setback caused a year-
long delay and resulted in price increases and
stagnation in popular support for the aircraft.
In all, by the time the Concorde made its first
24
flight in 1969, Boeing was back at the drawing amended to a 90:10 ratio, putting nearly the
board after abandoning its design. Work had entire burden of financing this gargantuan
not even begun on a prototype, and America undertaking on the taxpayer.58 As the program
was insurmountably behind in the supersonic progressed, experiencing setback after setback,
race. The failure to produce a technically cost estimations ballooned to $4.5 Billion.59
viable design in a reasonable timeframe The magnitude of funding required was more
contributed to the uncertainty behind the than Congress could justify, and they rejected
program, leading to its demise. a further $134 million dollar appropriation in
1971, effectively killing the SST program.60
Economic Challenges
Perhaps even more challenging than the
technological obstacles were the economic
roadblocks to the SST’s completion, both for
an industry that wasn’t ready for the plane and
the government that had to foot an extremely
risky bill. First, the federal government’s costs
far exceeded initial estimations. In 1963,
Congress determined that a total of $1 billion
would be required to finance the development
and construction of the first two companies.54
Due to the manufacturers’ inability to
contribute, Congress originally agreed to a
75:25 financing ratio, in which the engine and
airframe manufacturers would be responsible
for a minority of their costs.55 However, it
soon became clear that this arrangement
was unsustainable for the manufacturers.
Understanding the technological cliff that had Figure 4106: Boeing 2707 swing wing design
to be climbed to ensure an eventual profit,
the manufacturers shied away from the cost- The $4.5 billion cost estimate was viewed as a
sharing agreement.56 As historian and aviation gamble that was unlikely to pay off. The hefty
researcher T.A. Heppenheimer put it, sum was originally justified through a royalty
“This was their way of declaring that program that would recoup the taxpayers’
the SST looked like a fine way to lose investment through a sales tax on the plane.61
money.”57 Beginning with the 101st sale, a royalty would
There was no evidence that the sonic be attached to the sale price of each aircraft
boom issue was solvable, and there were that would reimburse all or part of the initial
only educated guesses regarding the sales investment.62 However, it was estimated that
potential for this type of aircraft. Due to these these revenues would not materialize until
concerns, the congressional funding bill was at least 1980, due to repeated manufacturing

December 2022
25
 and development delays.63 Furthermore, the
success of the investment relied entirely on
the success of the aircraft. By 1970, it was
apparent that failure to address the sonic
boom issue would severely limit the SST’s
route potential due to worldwide bans on
overland supersonic flying, which cut sales
estimates by more than half.64 Despite these
restrictions, hundreds of aircraft would still
need to enter service for the principal sum
to be recovered. In addition, mammoth fuel
consumption and seat-mile costs further
clouded the profitability prospects of the SST.
The financial risk of investing in the SST was
real, and the potential for loss was immense.
In hindsight, the OPEC oil embargo of 1973
and subsequent fuel price gouging would
likely have
killed any American SST due to
exorbitant operating costs resulting from fuel
inefficiency.65 This is exactly what became
of the Concorde: in the wake of rising fuel
costs, not a single aircraft was every sold
internationally (the Concorde’s only operators,
British Air and Air France, were both partially
state-owned as well), indicative of a far smaller
market than initially speculated.66 Without
any sales, the rest of the $2 billion dollar
development cost had to be underwritten by
the British and French treasuries.67 A similar
fate would likely have befallen the Boeing SST
had it moved forward to production. Given
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
the magnitude of investment required and the
considerable uncertainty of the program, the
slim chances for success contributed to anti-
SST sentiment in Congress and the eventual
rejection of funding in 1971.
The financial impact of the SST program on the
commercial aviation industry also contributed
to the cancellation of funding due to high
prices and fears of monopolization. The SST
was initially slated to be sold at $30 million,
compared to $12 million for the Concorde and
under $10 million for the subsonic jets of the
era, such as the Boeing 707.68 These predictions
are notable not just for their inaccuracy (each
of the 14 Concordes that flew cost well over
$100 million just to
develop),
but also for the huge
financial burden that they
placed upon the airlines. During
the 1960s, some American airlines
were still paying for the transition to the jet
age a decade earlier. Prior to the proliferation
of jet travel, a DC-3 passenger liner cost
$125,000. With the advent of the jet age, a
spare jet engine would cost an airline twice
that sum.69 This transition required drastically
higher levels of capital from airlines, putting
them in a difficult position where they needed
more money than they had. By forcing the
supersonic jets on airlines, some feared that
they were rushing airlines into buying planes
that they couldn’t afford. The airlines would
have to stomach the debt and buy the jets
out of necessity, and any that couldn’t afford
them would be outcompeted as the industry
26
transitioned into the supersonic age. While
some airlines, namely Pan American, were
interested in purchasing SSTs, most did not
want to make the financial commitment until
the plane’s economics were proven, further
adding to the uncertainty surrounding the
program.
In addition, some worried that government
involvement in the production of the SST
would lead to monopolization amongst
manufacturers. While the FAA accepted bids
from multiple manufacturers in a design
competition initiated by Lyndon Johnson in
1966, only Boeing and General Electric (GE)
were contracted to develop the SST.70 This
left other participating manufacturers, such
as Lockheed, without the financial resources
to stay competitive. Considering no company
could fund SST development on its own,
any manufacturer not involved in the federal
program would soon become insolvent as
the supersonics took over the majority of
market demand. These fears were legitimate,
as evidenced by the merger of McDonnell
Aircraft Corporation and Douglas Aircraft
Company into McDonnell Douglas in 1967,
partially due to fears of Boeing and BAC/
Aerospatiale market domination.
The Anti-SST Movement
In response to the economic and
technological concerns, as well as political
antagonism and environmentalist worries, a
nationwide anti-SST campaign began to take
shape in the late 1960s. At the helm of this
movement in Congress was Senator William
Proxmire (Figure 5). A witty and charismatic
Democrat from Wisconsin, he was known
for allowing public opinion to influence his
27
actions and for staunchly opposing wasteful
government spending.71 Well-known for his
frugality, he legislated the same way he lived
his life: with efficient spending and thrift.
His principal argument against the SST was
that it constituted wasteful spending on an
extravagance without any tangible benefits. By
1971, barely half of the country had traveled on
a plane of any kind, and supersonics seemed
to most an unnecessary and far-reaching step
that would benefit very few.72
Beyond that, the predicted high price of
supersonic flight tickets meant that only the
wealthy would ever experience faster travel,
raising questions about who benefited from
the SST. Proxmire also decried the potential
4-billion-dollar investment for accomplishing
nothing aside from a two and a half hour
travel time between New York and Europe
for the top one percent.73 George Hilton, who
served as chairman of Lyndon Johnson’s
Great Society task force on transportation, felt
that the program existed so that the taxpayer
could “subsidize the travel habits of the high-
income classes.”74 Proxmire mirrored this idea
in a Senate floor speech by stating that the
only people who benefit from the program
were
“the high-powered international
businessmen, the impatient jet set
playboys and the like.”75
Proxmire’s populist views gained traction
amongst the voting public, the majority of
whom were not part of that sky faring minority.
Unsurprisingly, congressional constituent
mail during this period was majority anti-SST,
further shaping lawmakers’ views surrounding
the SST.76
December 2022
 When viewed in the context of President
Johnson’s Great Society reforms, which
pledged similarly sized sums towards poverty
alleviation, the SST was seen as a white
elephant.77 Senator Robert Kennedy, an ally
of Proxmire, summarized this point well in a
1968 speech during an appropriation vote:
“Three hours ago, the administration
was in favor of cutting $198 million
from the poverty program which
would have provided jobs. Now it is
supporting this kind of legislation…
We are faced with a $29 billion dollar
deficit. We are spending approximately
$30 billion a year in Vietnam. We have
internal problems in our own country
and they are not improving. We
should not build a supersonic plane
so that one percent of the population
can get to Paris in four hours while
so many of our people are in such
desperate need.”78
It was impossible to justify hundreds of millions
in spending on the shaky economics and
premise of the SST when similar sums were
being cut from poverty programs. The view
of the SST as a wasteful institution devoted
to the needs of the elite took hold, leading to
increased allegiance to Proxmire’s camp.
Additionally, technical reports on the SST’s
feasibility were publicized, and most did not
assess the program’s prospects favorably.
When President Nixon entered office, he
commenced a number of these reviews to
determine if he would continue the program.
One report, conducted by a task force that
Nixon put together, investigated the SST’s
cost, environmental hazards, and effects on
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
trade balance. The report’s conclusions were
overwhelmingly negative and determined
that the aircraft would not have nearly as
great of a positive impact on society as
previously thought. Nixon also commissioned
a member of his Science Advisory Committee,
Dr. Richard Garwin, to do an independent
feasibility study. This report recommended
that the President terminate the program and
withdraw all federal dollars. To the dismay of
several Senators, Nixon decided to move the
program forward despite these findings.79
Figure 4107: Senator William Proxmire (D-Wisconsin),
an ardent SST adversary
As congressional opposition to the SST grew, a
consortium of scientists and environmentalists
contributed to the program’s demise through
extensive lobbying and a widespread media
presence. Leading the charge was an unlikely
Harvard University physicist named Dr.
William A. Shurcliff. Alarmed by reports of
the effects of the sonic boom, he founded
the Citizens’ League Against the Sonic Boom
28
(CLASB) in 1967.80 The CLASB aimed to flip
Congress against the SST through lobbying
and to change public opinion by exposing the
program’s less favorable details. Prior to 1967,
nearly all SST information, including the critical
appraisals and reports, were kept hidden within
the administration and the FAA.81 Suspecting
that critical information was being suppressed,
Shurcliff investigated and published his SST
and Sonic Boom Handbook, which attempted
to expose technical information on the SST,
including the results of the sonic boom trials
(which were not nearly as complimentary
to the program as the FAA claimed them to
be).82 The handbook sold over 100,000 copies
to the public in the years leading up to 1971,
demonstrating the influence Shucrliff’s efforts
had on the American public.83
Shurcliff’s primary grievance was the
disruptiveness of the sonic boom. He claimed
in the New York Times in 1967 that a fleet of
SSTs flying over land would cause $1 million
in damages every day through sound-
related incidents, and that the government
was pursuing sound pollution in an era of
environmental awareness.84 He foresaw a
future in which hourly disruptive booms were
a regular and even accepted occurrence, and
his activism struck a chord with others in the
scientific community.85 His league grew to
over a thousand members by late 1967, and
about a quarter of them were members of the
scientific community. Shurcliff’s organization
was unsuccessful in fomenting legislative
change in the late 1960s but did succeed
in uniting a network of outspoken critics in
opposition to the SST. Using the media as a
tool, which was overwhelmingly supportive
of the anti-SST movement, Shurcliff, Proxmire,
29
and others slowly began to shift public opinion
against the continuation of the program.86
After President Nixon’s election, the
CLASB united with the strengthening
environmentalist faction in American politics,
resulting in an even more potent national
anti-SST movement. During the 1960s, the
environmental movement exploded in
prevalence, commonly thought to begin with
the 1962 release of Rachel Carson’s Silent
Spring, a novel that denounced pesticide
usage.87 A national bestseller, the novel
prompted widespread outcry and nationwide
recognition for the environmentalist cause.
The Sierra Club, a conservation group originally
founded in 1892 by John Muir, experienced
successes during the ’50s and ’60s, preventing
the construction of dams in the Grand Canyon
and lobbying for the passage of the Wilderness
Act, which protected public lands from
commercial development.88 By 1970, polling
organizations found that three-quarters of
Americans found air and water pollution
serious, up from one quarter five years earlier.89
Environmentalists then saw further successes
during the Nixon administration with the
celebration of the first Earth Day in 1970 and
the founding of the Environmental Protection
Agency.90 Environmentalist organizations and
politicians, through use of the media, were
able to influence public opinion to necessitate
legislative progress towards conservation.
During this time, the environmentalists not
only grew in numbers, reach, and capability,
but also became a large enough faction that
politicians pandered to their sympathies,
as evidenced by the Nixon Administration’s
actions. The environmentalists became
politically disadvantageous to ignore, and
December 2022
 their support became both sought-after and
even essential for American legislators.
The SST program became swept up in
the environmentalist movement due to
intensifying anxiety surrounding the sonic
boom and concerns about the aircraft’s impact
on the ozone layer. Due to the SST’s relatively
high flight ceiling of around 60,000 feet, an
atmospheric scientist named Conway Leovy
charged that the water vapor and nitrogen
expelled by a fleet of SSTs could weaken the
ozone layer over time, through a chemical
process called Wet Photolysis.91 His assertion
had some scientific merit and was welcomed
in Congress by the anti-SST wing.92 In addition
to the threat posed by a weakened ozone
layer, environmentalists objected to the
sonic boom’s adverse effects on people and
ecosystems. An offshoot of the Sierra Club
named Friends of the Earth joined with the
CLASB to advocate against the SST.93 Uniting
their efforts and resources, the groups furthered
their cause through sponsored newspaper ads
and editorials, as well as mass dissemination
of Shurcliff’s Handbook. The movement grew,
and by March 1970, a coalition was formed
that added the Sierra Club, the Wilderness
Society, the National Wildlife Federation, and
several other organizations spanning multiple
sectors and regions of American society.94
The Coalition, with its extensive power and
influence, united the national environmental
movement in opposition to the SST. Support
for the program became difficult to justify in
the face of national dissent.
The Coalition’s lobbying, based in its
environmentalist roots, became a defining
factor behind the cancellation of funding in
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
March 1971. The media became the Coalition’s
most effective tool in spreading their views.
Throughout 1970 and ’71, the public was
subjected to incessant newspaper editorials
that viciously attacked the program for its
many risks and deficiencies.95 An editorial
in the New York Times, published two days
before the ill-fated vote, summarized these
arguments plainly:
“There is no urgent human need
to be met by the SST. Commercial
airlines are in no financial position to
purchase these planes. Construction
of the planes is an extraordinarily
wasteful way to ease unemployment.
Congress wishes to appropriate these
large sums, there are many social
needs that deserve priority. The
cost of the SST in money, noise and
environmental risk excessively high.
Every argument points toward the
Senate voting once again to refuse
funds for this project.”96
In the face of an overwhelmingly pessimistic
public, legislative support for the SST withered
away in the months leading up to March 1971.
Since public opinion favored cancellation,
lawmakers risked their electability by
advocating for the program, and ultimately,
the appropriation failed to move through
Congress twice, in March and again in May
1971. Without any public funding, Boeing’s
leadership quickly terminated the program
amidst speculation about the company’s
future. Ultimately, the motivations that led
to the project’s termination had existed all
along. The difference between congressional
appropriation votes taken a decade apart was
the public voice. In 1961, the SST in the planning
30
stage was understood only by those at the
highest level of government and industry; by
1970, the entire country felt that they were
“entitled to challenge the technocrats.”97
In retrospect, the greatest weapon used
against the SST was public opinion. The project
certainly had its shortcomings, and they were
well known amongst the SST’s leaders from
the beginning. However, the SST was, from its
onset, a bureaucratic initiative, endorsed only
by Boeing and GE and a small group of select
operatives within the executive branch. These
actors made a very limited effort to appeal to
the people, because their validation was not
initially required for the program to take flight.
On the other hand, SST opponents such as
Shurcliff
“generated enough scare stories to
convince the public that the SST was
the worst thing to afflict the world
since the bubonic plague.”98
Their arguments struck a chord in the
vacuum left by the SST supporters’ relative
silence and the FAA’s lack of transparency. It
appeared that most Americans didn’t seem to
care about the national origin of the planes
that they may or may not be flying on in
the coming decades. In the end, the people,
inspired by the countercultural mood in the
air, challenged the establishment’s authority,
and in doing so, struck down the most
monumental undertaking in the history of the
commercial aviation industry.
Conclusion
The American SST program, initiated in
response to the threat of foreign supersonics,
failed due to its economic and technological
infeasibilities being promulgated nationally by
31
the anti-SST activists. The sonic boom issue
had no apparent solution, and the commercial
aviation industry was not prepared to adopt
the costly aircraft. As the Citizen’s League and
the Coalition spread disparaging information
on the SST through the media, public opinion
shifted against continuation. With a political
incentive to vote down the project, Congress
in 1971 elected not to provide further funding
for the program, terminating hopes of an
American SST once and for all.
In evaluating the failure of the American
Supersonic Transport Program, it is vital
to understand its purpose. Specifically, the
program was not designed for the purpose of
building a supersonic jet. There was never a
necessity for faster travel, nor in many cases
was there even a want for it. Historian David
Lawrence believed that introducing an SST to
the market was only the third most important
goal of the program, behind boosting the
economy by intervening in the private sector
and supporting the aircraft industry in the
presence of a foreign threat.99 The FAA’s Project
Horizon Report, which outlined the US’s
aviation goals for the 1960s, put building an SST
at goal #14, behind maintaining world aviation
leadership and supplementing foreign policy
initiatives.100 The SST was, at its core, nothing
more than an inefficient means to other ends.
It was a vehicle that some reasonably argued
December 2022
 furthered American political and economic
goals, but itself had little merit or need. SST
opponents such as Proxmire were quick to
point out how supporters never championed
the speed of the plane, further diluting the
aircraft’s justifications.
In pursuing its political goals, the government
sank a billion dollars into a program that
seemed “contrary to the perceived needs of
the public in general and the airline industry
in particular.”101 Its proponents ignored the
risks, brushed aside early warning signs
and unfavorable reports, and concealed
disparaging information from the public. At no
point in the program’s timeline, save perhaps
the very beginning, did its funding make sense.
As a French congressman stated about the
Concorde (a comparatively reasonable project),
“By all normal decision-making systems,
it should have been
cancelled
long ago.”102 The American
SST, which was designed defensively to
supersede the Concorde in capability (and
price), proved to be even less desirable.
The SST can be viewed in multiple ways.
When seen generously, it was a noble attempt
to protect American industry, but it was
blindsided by miscalculations regarding its
market niche, the sonic boom, and the threat
posed by the Concorde. It failed because
circumstances changed, and new information
was discovered in its decade-long lifespan.
When evaluated more pragmatically, the SST
was a gamble. It was a calculated bet on the
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
future of the industry; it was a necessary but
risky plot to further American corporate and
political interests. Catastrophic failure was
understood as a possibility, but the threat
against American manufacturing was grave.
When viewed critically, it was a project that
was doomed from the start. It was pursued
for political motivations, without the consent
of the people, when almost every sign and
technical appraisal pointed to its eventual
demise. It is an example of the dangerous
intersection between technology and politics,
where nonsensical initiatives are taken, and
market forces are ignored. It was a program
that Wall Street was too scared to fund,
pursued out of fear by public figures swept up
in Cold War nationalist fervor.
The SST came to symbolize both progress
a n d elitism, both interventionist
socialism and corrupt
corporatocracy.
It was marked both by initial
unity and national conflict, by engineering
triumphs and devastating setbacks. It was
a project that some argue should never
have taken place; the SST was a product of
political hubris and a government blinded
by international competition. After a decade,
a billion taxpayer dollars had been thrown
away, tens of thousands of aviation jobs had
been lost, and the imaginations of enthusiasts
and dreamers nationwide were shattered, all
over a foreign threat that failed to materialize.
32
 Endnotes
1
Smithsonian Institute, “Bell X-1 Glamorous Glennis,”
Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum, accessed
May 18, 2022, https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-ob-
jects/bell-x-1/nasm_A19510007000.
Supersonic Transport,” The American Journal of Eco-
nomics and Sociology 30, no. 4 (October 1971): 405,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3485505.
T. Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Concorde,”
10

2
Ibid Encyclopedia Britannica, last modified September 15,
3
A. Herron, Cobra in the Sky: The Supersonic Transport 2020, https://www.britannica.com/technology/Con-
(New York: Crowell-Collier Press, 1968), 13. corde.
4
Tom A. Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” in The Lawrence, “The Initial,” 407
11

Space Shuttle Decision, 1965-1972 (Washington: Smith- 12

Ibid
sonian Inst. Press, 2002), 307, accessed December 24, 13
Ibid
2021, https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221.pdf.
Lewis Johnman and Frances M.B. Lynch, “The Road to
14
5
Evert Clark, “U.S.- Backed Bonds for Jet Pro- Concorde: Franco-British Relations and the Supersonic
posed,” The New York Times (New York City), Project,” Contemporary European History 11, no. 2 (May
May 24, 1965, late City edition accessed Decem- 2002): 231, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20081830.
ber 27, 2021, https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/ 15
Herron, Cobra in the Sky, 107
timesmachine/1965/05/24/101549847.pdf?pdf_redi-
16
Johnman and Lynch, “The Road,” 234
rect=true&ip=0.
Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,”306 Mel Hor-
17
6
Clive Irving, Wide-body: The Triumph of the 747 (New
witch, “The Role of the Concorde Threat in the U.S. SST
York: William Morrow and Company, 1993), 186.
Program” (working paper, MIT Alfred P. Sloane School of
7
Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” 303
Management, Cambridge, MA, May 1982), 4
8
Russ Banham, Higher: 100 Years of Boeing (San Fran- 19
Ibid
cisco, CA: Chronicle Books, 2015), 197.
20
Robert J. Serling, Legend and Legacy (New York, N.Y.:
9
David S. Lawrence, “The Initial Decision to Build the

December 2022
33
 St. Martin’s, 1992), 267-268 41
Rosenbloom, “The Politics,” 407
21
United States Federal Aviation Agency, Report of the 42
Ibid
Task Force on National Aviation Goals (Project Hori- 43
Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” 309
zon), 10, accessed December 31, 2021, https://edan. 44
Ibid
si.edu/transcription/pdf_files/32931.pdf.
Don Dwiggins, The SST: Here It Comes, Ready or Not
45
22
Serling, Legend and Legacy, 268
(Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969), 75-76.
David M. Kennedy and Lizabeth Cohen, The American
23
46
Why the SST Took a Nosedive,” The Washington Post
Pageant, 17th ed. (Boston, MA: Cengage, 2020), 832
(Washington, DC), July 21, 1982, accessed December
24
Ibid, 868 13, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/
25
Paul Martin, “U.S. Air Chief Urges Supersonic Trans- lifestyle/1982/07/21/why-the-sst-took-a-nosedive/eb-
port,” Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA), Sep- 2f66ec-d672-49ef-beb1-d125dd90c721/.
tember 17, 1962, 20, https://www.proquest.com/ 47
Black and Osborne, Report on the Supersonic.
docview/168188025/FE7C7DDE75844D86PQ/4?ac- 48
Ibid
countid=35147.
R.L. Bisplinghoff, “The Supersonic Transport,” Scientific
49
26
Horwitch, “The Role,” 9
American 210, no. 6 (June 1964): 30, accessed February
27
Ibid 27, 2022, https://www.jstor.org/stable/24931523.
28
Ibid 50
George A. Steiner, “Costs, Needs and Prospects of
29
Lawrence, “The Initial,” 405 SST,” Challenge 12, no. 9 (June 1964) 28 https://www.
30
Ibid jstor.org/stable/40718853.
31
George Lardner, Jr, “Supersonic Scandal,” New Repub- Ibid
51

lic 158, no. 11 (March 16, 1968): 17, PDF. Serling, Legend and Legacy, 272-273
52

32
U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics, Richard Hallion, NASA’s Contributions to Aeronautics
Handbook of Labor Statistics 1967 : Bulletin of the Unit- (Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
ed States Bureau of Labor Statistics, by W. Willard Wirtz ministration, 2010), 592, accessed February 5, 2022,
and Arthur M. Ross, report no. 1555, 56, August 3, 1967, https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/482997main_ 53Contribu-
accessed May 21, 2022, https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/ tionsVolume2.pdf.
handbook-labor-statistics-4025/handbook-labor-sta- 54
Steiner, “Costs, Needs,” 29
tistics-1967-498301. 55
Ibid
33
Lawrence, “The Initial,” 406 56
Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” 307
34
Ibid 57
Ibid
35
Edward C. Wells, “The Boeing Jet Transport,” National 58
“U.S. Reappraising Program for Supersonic Airliner,”
Defense Transportation Journal 12, no. 2 (March/April
The New York Times (New York City), March 12, 1964,
1956): 38, accessed February 27, 2022, https://www.
late City edition, 28, accessed December 24, 2021,
jstor.org/stable/44098971.
https://www.nytimes.com/1964/03/12/archives/us-re-
36
Lawrence, “The Initial,” 403-404, appraising-program-for-supersonic-airliner.html.
Kennedy and Cohen, The American, 865-866. 59
Lardner, “Supersonic Scandal,”13
Joshua Rosenbloom, “The Politics of the American
37
60
Lawrence, “The Initial,” 403
SST Programme: Origin, Opposition and Termination,”
61
Lardner, “Supersonic Scandal,” 14
Social Studies of Science 11, no. 4 (November 1981):
405, https://www.jstor.org/stable/284775.
62
Ibid
38
Eugene R. Black and Stanley J. Osborne, Report on
63
Ibid
the Supersonic Transport Program, December 1963, 64
Rosenbloom, “The Politics,” 406
Naval War College Library, Newport, RI. 65
Serling, Legend and Legacy, 276
39
Lardner, “Supersonic Scandal,”15 66
Britannica, “Concorde.”
40
Ibid

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 34

67
Ibid 88
Sierra Club, “Historical Accomplishments,” Sierra Club,
68
Steiner, “Costs, Needs,” 29 accessed May 15, 2022, https://www.sierraclub.org/ac-
complishments#:~:text=1890s%20The%20Sierra%20
69
113 Cong. Rec. 5-12 (May 31, 1967). Accessed December
Club%20is,boundaries%20of%20Yosemite%20Nation-
30, 2021. https://www.congress.gov/bound-congres-
al%20Park.
sional-record/1967/05/31/senate-section?s=1&r=374.
89
Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” 311
70
Lardner, “Supersonic Scandal,” 13
90
Sierra Club, “Historical Accomplishments,” Sierra Club.
U.S. Congress, “William Proxmire: A Featured ,” Unit-
71

ed States Senate, accessed May 14, 2022, https://www.

91
Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” 314.
senate.gov/senators/FeaturedBios/Featured_Bio_Prox- 92
Ibid
mireWilliam.htm. 93
Rosenbloom, “The Politics,” 413.
72
Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” 317 94
Heppenheimer, “Aerospace Recession,” 313.
73
113 Cong. Rec. 5-12 (May 31, 1967) 95
Serling, Legend and Legacy, 276.
74
Lardner, “Supersonic Scandal,” 16 “The Cost of the SST,” The New York Times (New York
96

75
113 Cong. Rec. 5-12 (May 31, 1967). City), May 18, 1971, Editorials, 38, accessed December
76
Serling, Legend and Legacy, 276. 13, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/1971/05/18/ar-
chives/the-cost-of-the-sst.html.
77
Geoffrey Thomas, “The Supersonic Airliner That
Turned into a White Elephant,” Airline Ratings, last
97
“Why the SST Took,” Washington Post
modified March 16, 2022, accessed May 20, 2022, 98
Serling, Legend and Legacy, 275.
https://www.airlineratings.com/news/supersonic-air- 99
Lawrence, “The Initial,” 411.
liner-turned-white-elephant/.
United States Federal Aviation Agency, Report of the
100
78
Lardner, “Supersonic Scandal,” 16. Task Force, 57.
79
Rosenbloom, “The Politics,” 412. 101
Lawrence, “The Initial,” 411
Serling, Legend and Legacy, 276
E.W. Kenworthy, “Frenchman Finds SST’S Costs Soar,”
102
80
Rosenbloom, “The Politics,” 408 The New York Times (New York City), March 14, 1971,
81
Ibid 21, accessed December 29, 2021, https://www.nytimes.
82
Ibid, 409 com/1971/03/14/archives/frenchman-finds-ssts-costs-
soar-servan-schreiber-cables-views-to.html.
Joel Primack and Frank Von Hippel, Advice and Dis-
83

sent: Scientists in the Political Arena (New York City: Smithsonian Institute, “Bell X-1 Glamorous,” Smithso-
103

Basic Books, 1974), 16, PDF. nian National Air and Space Museum.

“League against the Sonic Boom Works to Stop

84
104
Etta Hulme, “Congress,” cartoon, Fort Worth Star-Tele-
Building of High-Speed Jets,” The New York Times gram (Fort Worth, TX), accessed May 14, 2022, https://
(New York City), June 18, 1967, 60, accessed May 15, libraries.uta.edu/ettahulme/image/20114989.
2022, https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesma- 105
Thomas, “The Supersonic,” Airline Ratings.
chine/1967/06/18/issue.html. 106
“Boeing 2707 Swing Wing: Clearance to Stabilizer,”
85
Ibid Airliners.net, accessed May 21, 2022, https://www.air-
86
Linda J. Greenhouse, “Protest Blossoms as Sonic liners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=774639.
Booms,” The Harvard Crimson (Cambridge, MA), Sep- U.S. Congress, “William Proxmire,” United States Sen-
107

tember 26, 1967, accessed May 18, 2022, https://www. ate.

thecrimson.com/article/1967/9/26/protest-blossoms-
as-sonic-booms-psix/.
87
PBS, “The Modern Environmental Movement,” Amer-
ican Experience, accessed May 15, 2022, https://
www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/
earth-days-modern-environmental-movement/.

December 2022
35
 Primary Sources Lawrence, David S. “The Initial Decision to Build the
Bisplinghoff, R.L. “The Supersonic Transport.” Scientif Supersonic Transport.” The American Jour-
ic American 210, no. 6 (June 1964): 25-35. Ac nal of Economics and Sociology 30, no. 4
cessed February 27, 2022. https://www.jstor. (October 1971): 403-12. https://www.jstor. org/
org/stable/24931523. stable/3485505.
Martin, Paul. “U.S. Air Chief Urges Supersonic Trans
Black, Eugene R., and Stanley J. Osborne. Report on port.” Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles, CA),
the Supersonic Transport Program. December September 17, 1962, 20. https://www.
1963. Naval War College Library, Newport, RI. proquest.com/docview/168188025/FE7C7D
Requested by President Kennedy, Delivered to DE75844D86PQ/4?accountid=35147.
President Johnson
The New York Times (New York City). “The Cost
Clark, Evert. “U.S.- Backed Bonds for Jet Proposed.” of the SST.” May 18, 1971, Editorials, 38. Ac
The New York Times (New York City), cessed December 13, 2021. https://
May 24, 1965, late City edition, 31. Accessed www.nytimes.com/1971/05/18/archives/the-
December 27, 2021. https:// cost-of-the-sst.html.
timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesma
chine/1965/05/24/101549847.pdf?pdf_ The New York Times (New York City). “League against
redirect=true&ip=0. the Sonic Boom Works to Stop Building of
High-Speed Jets.” June 18, 1967, 60. Accessed
113 Cong. Rec. 5-12 (May 31, 1967). Accessed Decem May 15, 2022. https://timesmachine.nytimes.
ber 30, 2021. https://www.con com/timesmachine/1967/06/18/issue.html.
gress.gov/bound-congressional-re
cord/1967/05/31/senate-section?s=1&r=374. The New York Times (New York City). “U.S. Reap
praising Program for Supersonic Airliner.”
Dwiggins, Don. The SST: Here It Comes, Ready or Not. March 12, 1964, late City edition, 28. Accessed
Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969. December 24, 2021. https://www.nytimes.
com/1964/03/12/archives/us-reapprais
Greenhouse, Linda J. “Protest Blossoms as Sonic ing-pro gram-for-supersonic-airliner.html.
Booms.” The Harvard Crimson (Cambridge,
MA), September 26, 1967. Accessed May 18, Steiner, George A. “Costs, Needs and Prospects of SST.”
2022. https://www.thecrimson.com/arti Challenge 12, no. 9 (June 1964): 28-30. https://
cle/1967/9/26/protest-blossoms-as-sonic- www.jstor.org/stable/40718853.
booms-psix/.
United States Federal Aviation Agency. Report of the
Herron, Edward A. Cobra in the Sky: The Supersonic Task Force on National Aviation Goals (Proj
Transport. New York: Crowell-Collier Press, ect Horizon). September 1961. Accessed De
1968. cember 31, 2021. https://edan.si.edu/transcrip
tion/pdf_files/32931.pdf. From the Smithsonian
Kenworthy, E.W. “Frenchman Finds SST’S Costs Soar.” National Air and Space Museum Archives
The New York Times (New York City), March
14, 1971, 21. Accessed December 29, 2021. U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics.
https://www.nytimes.com/1971/03/14/ar Handbook of Labor Statistics 1967 : Bulletin of
chives/frenchman-finds-ssts-costs-soar-ser the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. By
van-schreiber-cables-views-to.html. W. Willard Wirtz and Arthur M. Ross. Report
no. 1555. August 3, 1967. Accessed
Lardner, George, Jr. “Supersonic Scandal.” New Repub- May 21, 2022. https://fraser.stlouisfed.
lic 158, no. 11 (March 16, 1968): 13-17. PDF. org/title/handbook-labor-statistics-4025/
handbook-labor-statistics-1967-498301.

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 36

Wells, Edward C. “The Boeing Jet Transport.” Na- rience/features/earth-days-modern-environ
tional Defense Transportation Journal 12, mental-movement/.
no.2 (March/April 1956): 38-39. Accessed
February 27, 2022.https://www.jstor.org sta Primack, Joel, and Frank Von Hippel. Advice and Dis
ble/44098971. sent: Scientists in the Political Arena. New
York City: Basic Books, 1974. PDF.
Secondary Sources
Banham, Russ. Higher: 100 Years of Boeing. San Fran Rosenbloom, Joshua. “The Politics of the American
cisco, CA: Chronicle Books, 2015. SST Programme: Origin, Opposition and Ter
mination.” Social Studies of Science 11, no. 4
Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopaedia. “Concorde.” (November 1981): 401-23. https://www.jstor.
Encyclopedia Britannica. Last modified Sep org/stable/284775.
tember 15, 2020. https://www.britannica.com/
technology/Concorde. Serling, Robert J. Legend and Legacy. New York, N.Y.:
St. Martin’s, 1992.
Hallion, Richard. NASA’s Contributions to Aeronau
tics. Vol. 2. Washington, DC: National Aeronau Sierra Club. “Historical Accomplishments.” Sierra Club.
tics and Space Administration, 2010. Accessed May 15, 2022. https://www.sierra
Accessed February 5, 2022. https://www.nasa. club.org/accomplishments#:~:text=1890s%20
gov/pdf/482997main_ContributionsVolume2. The%20Sierra%20Club%20is,boundaries%20
pdf. of%20Yosemite%20National%20Park.

Heppenheimer, Tom A. “Aerospace Recession.” In The Smithsonian Institute. “Bell X-1 Glamorous Glen
Space Shuttle Decision, 1965-1972, 291-327. nis.”Smithsonian National Air and Space
Washington: Smithsonian Inst. Press, 2002. Ac Museum. Accessed May 18, 2022.https://
cessed December 24, 2021. https://history. airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/bell-x-1/
nasa.gov/SP-4221.pdf. nasm_A19510007000.

Horwitch, Mel. “The Role of the Concorde Threat in Thomas, Geoffrey. “The Supersonic Airliner That
the U.S. SST Program.” Working paper, MIT Alf Turned into a White Elephant.” Airline Ratings.
red P. Sloane School of Management, Cam Last modified March 16, 2022. Accessed May
bridge, MA, May 1982. 20, 2022. https://www.airlineratings.com/
news/supersonic-airliner-turned-white-ele
Irving, Clive. Wide-body: The Triumph of the 747. New phant/.
York: William Morrow and Company, 1993.
U.S. Congress. “William Proxmire: A Featured Biog
Johnman, Lewis, and Frances M.B. Lynch. “The Road raphy.” United States Senate. Accessed May 14,
to Concorde: Franco-British Relations and the 2022. https://www.senate.gov/senators/Feat
Supersonic Project.” Contemporary European uredBios/Featured_Bio_ProxmireWilliam.htm.
History 11, no. 2 (May 2002): 229-52. https://
www.jstor.org/stable/20081830. The Washington Post (Washington, DC). “Why the
SST Took a Nosedive.” July 21, 1982. Ac
Kennedy, David M., and Lizabeth Cohen. The Ameri cessed December 13, 2021. https://
can Pageant. 17th ed. Boston, MA: Cengage, www.washingtonpost.com/archive/life
2020. style/1982/07/21/why-the-sst-took-a-nose
dive/eb2f66ec- d672-49ef-beb1-
PBS. “The Modern Environmental Movement.” Amer d125dd90c721/.
ican Experience. Accessed May 15, 2022.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe

December 2022
37
 The Institution
20th Century World History

Nate Voss ‘24

In 1933, Hitler removed all constitutional national system, while these later camps
protections for individuals and minorities. In continued to rely on localities’ participation.
1934, his government allowed for imprisonment A national camp structure revolutionized
without trial or review from the courts. By 1935, the original system, creating a large-scale,
concentration camps had already cropped up efficient killing machine. At the same time,
in Germany.1 Three years later, in 1938, Hitler organization at the camp level facilitated
won Time’s suppression
Person of the of prisoners
Year award and improved
for economic conditions
reforms. The for camp
year after, he personnel
invaded Poland. which further
Hitler and the enabled large-
Nazis wanted scale, brutal
as complete executions.
control over W h i l e
Poland as he did concentration
Germany, and camps were
concentration part of a
camps proved nationalized
to be an important tool. Camps flourished system for the last decade of the Nazi regime,
across greater Germany, evolving from prison before that point they were all local institutions.4
camps to death machines.2 Horrendous, Most cropped up in 1933 as a response to the
indescriminate killings were not unique to mass arrests of so-called “political enemies,”
Nazi Germany, and brutality and violence of the party, or anyone who showed a sign of
were not novel ideas to Authoritarian regimes. resistance (estimates of their numbers range
Even genocide had happened in the past.3 So between 30,000 and 10,000 prisoners).5 At
what made the Nazis special? The structure their peak, there were around one hundred
of the concentration camp system in Nazi localized camps in Germany. Local officials
Germany enabled its scale and brutality. Early, established camps on an as-need basis in
locally-rooted concentartion camps provided ballrooms, unused industrial buildings, and, in
inspiration for Nazi officials who created a one documented case, the deck of a barge.6

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 38

These concentration camps were founded
and staffed locally, with guards hailing from a
combination of the SS, SA, and local police. At
this point, no national coalition was possible,
as the Nazi party was still in the process of
consolidation of power, and did not yet have
complete control over the government.7
After just one year, in 1934, concentration
camps started to lose support around the
nation. Many camps had already closed, and
even within the Nazi party, certain officials
supported the shutdown of the system and
the mass release of prisoners. These officials
believed that Germany’s system of courts
and prisons would be enough to control the
population.8
However, Himmler, recently appointed head
of the Gestapa in Prussia, Germany’s largest
state, saw promise in these camps to suppress
the population. By late 1933, most Prussian
concentration camps were staffed by SS
officers, although local directors still ran the
camps.9 These local camps would serve as
templates for later, nationalized camps, once
complete Nazi control was established in
Germany.10 In this way, local camps served as
the inspiration and template for later camps,
and without them, the concentration camp
system would have never existed.
In addition to providing inspiration for later
camps, early, localized camps, instilled terror
into the population, allowing for a faster
Nazi assention to power. After Adolf Hitler
was brought to power in 1933, he banned
the German Communist Party, and invoked
a German policy called “protective custody,”
which allowed arrest without trial (a law which
was originally meant to detain people for their
39
own protection), to authorize the internment
of all communists and political enemies
into concentration camps.11 The purpose
of these early camps was to “reeducate”
resisting civillians, which always involved
imprisonment and often involved torture. The
policy was successful at instilling terror into
the nation and preventing resistance to Nazi
rule.12
The final local facet of concentration camps
was that of complacency. Early purges of
political opponents, and the constant threat
of the concentration camp prevented many
from speaking up. In addition, the Nazis did
an excellent job of making examples of high-
profile dissidents, while not harming the
average civilian, as long as that average civilian
was a straight, non-Jewish, white, non-disabled
person.13 In one case, they tortured Cologne’s
leading Social Democrat (Social Democrats
were one of the Nazi party’s main rivals) by
forcing him to drink a mixture of castor oil and
urine.14 Hitler also ameliorated conditions for
many German citizens during the early years
of his tenure, making it easy for the ordinary
person to overlook the horrors taking place in
concentration camps.15 An additional factor
in the promotion of local complacency was
Nazi Germany’s laws. “Malicious gossip,” was
banned, which included talking negatively
about Nazis or Hitler. “Hateful speech” against
any Nazi leaders carried the death penalty.
Actions that went against state policy such as
sheltering Jews could also lead to execution.
So did writing, speaking, or distributing leaflets
advocating for the return of democracy, or
the alteration of the constitution in any way.16
These laws meant that one could be sent
to concentration camps without trial, using
December 2022
 Protective Custody laws, or one could be put
on trial, resulting in possible execution, for
any resistance to the Nazi regime. By making
the consequences clear and not harming the
average civilian, Nazi Germany prevented
any local resistance against concentration
camps. Overall, the early local concentration
camps served to inspire later camps, helped
Hitler rise to power, and kept average citizens
complacent all of which played an essential
role in facilitaing the violence that took place
in Nazi Germany.
While local camps played an important role
early in the Nazi era, by 1934, the majority had
closed, and it looked like the concentration
camp system would die off.17 It was Himmler
creating the national concentration camp
inspectorate (IKL) that allowed camps to
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
survive and thrive under Nazi rule.18 Himmler’s
IKL gave the camp system new life and
allowed for the massive scale and efficiency
of the developed system. In 1934, Himmler,
currently in control of the SS of Prussia,
granted the SS a monopoly over Protective
Custody arrests, allowing them full control
over imprisonment without trial. He also
staffed Prussian concentration camps entirely
with SS soldiers, creating a direct pipeline from
Protective Custody arrests to concentration
camps.19 Himmler also revamped the camps
themselves. He created an entirely new camp
at Dachau, a city in Prussia, which is often
regarded as the first true concentration camp.
Staffed by SS with an SS commandant, the
camp murdered four Jewish civilians within
a day. Dachau was also the first camp to use
work as a method of torture, rather than an
economic tool.20 At this point in 1934, camps
were neither national, nor did they single out
Jews as primary prisoners, although Jews
were targeted for torture and murder when
they were imprisoned at the camp.21
Between 1934 and 1936, Himmler tasked a
subordinate with dissolving and combining
camps to create a unified Prussian system,
with all new camps based off of the Dachau
system. Himmler created the IKL to oversee this
process, and to be the umbrella organization
centralizing the continued oversight and
management of the entire system.22 With the
centralization of the Prussian camp system,
Himmler also ordered the standardization of
conditions within all concentration camps
which included labor for the purpose of
torture. This standardization of conditions
created terrible violence throughout Prussia
camps. In addition to torturing the prisoners,
40
this forced labor was used to further expand
concentration camps and enrich the Prussian
SS.23 Crucially, in 1936, Hitler appointed
Himmler as the chief of German police, which
allowed Himmler to bring his Prussian model
of concentration camps to a national scale,
basing all further camps on Dachau. These
new camps were primed for the mass arrests
of so-called “asocials,” in Germany during
1937 and 1938, which were mostly Jews.
The arrests of asocials kicked off the routine
imprisonment and killing of Jews that lasted
through to the end of the war.24
The final expansion of the national camp
system was kicked off through the 1939
invasion of Poland. Once conquered, Hitler
desired the same overarching control over the
new territory as he had in mainland Germany.
To Himmler, the way to achieve this goal
was concentration camps.25 In Poland, he
continued with his policy of “Vernichtung
durch Arbeit,” or extermination through labor.
Using the same national standard conditions
that had been present since Dachau, the life
expectancy of a prisoner was somewhere
41
around six to eight weeks.26 In addition, the
labor crises of 1942 coincided with a famine,
leading to prisoners working more for less food,
as the national standards for concentration
camps were altered to accommodate for
the general population’s increased food
needs.27 Also, in the captured Polish territory,
Nazis began to build a new type of camp -
death camps. These camps served the sole
purpose of exterminating prisoners through
gas chambers. With the nationalization of
the camp system came nation-wide railroads
which were used to deliver loads of prisoners
to camps with gas chambers, where they
would be immediately killed, or forced into
labor if they looked fit enough.28 All in all, the
nationalization of the concentration camp
system rescued it out of its slow death, led
to enforced, terrible conditions, a tremendous
increase in scale, and the evolution of death
camps. These developments all increased the
extreme brutality of the Holocaust.
Local compliance and national standardization
of camps would do little, though, without the
effective control of prisoners. This is where the
December 2022
 camp-level organization of the concentration selfish nature, and could be even more brutal
camp system came in. The primary goals of than the guards themselves. Kapos would
camps were to kill prisoners and maintain carry out many of the beatings and killings in
order. Both of these tasks required the docility concentration camps. If a prisoner offended
of prisoners and the sanity of guards. To lower a Kapo, it was the equivalent of a death
the weight resting on each staff member, sentence.33 In this way, Kapos also served to
concentration camps were divided into keep prisoners docile by ruling with an iron
different departments, with different branches fist.34
within each department.29 This arrangement
left each staff member to do a small, seemingly Further measures to keep prisoners quiet
inconsequential job. For instance, the medical centered on the manipulation of their hope.
department of concentration camps were Enough hope of survival was provided to the
in charge of the Zyklon B gas that was used prisoners that they would not risk their lives
to exterminate prisoners. If a staff member to revolt, but not enough was given that they
were to simply pack Zyklon B cartridges, it might be unruly.35 Various methods were used
is easy to feel removed from the killing. The to manipulate hope. For instance, all death
rationalization is that it’s not your fault that camp gas chambers were fitted with shower
those canisters would be dropped into the gas heads, and towels were handed out upon
chambers. Camp leaders also utilized other entry. Eliezer Gruenbaum, a Jewish Kapo at
techniques to lessen the detrimental effects Birkenau, recounts hearing the hope that these
of camp life on guards’ mental health. For amenities provided. He explained that most
instance, once canisters were dropped into the going into the gas chambers knew what lay
gas chambers, motorcycles were often revved ahead, “But the sight of the undressing room
outside to mask the noises of the screams with its mirrors and the distribution of towels
coming from within the chambers.30 and soap kindled hope in them. This hope
caused them to undress without resisting, to
The same intent of maintaining the guards’ enter the gas chamber without resisting. Each
ability to cope with their jobs was seen with one thought: ‘Perhaps?’”36
the separation of womens’ camps and mens’
camps, No men were to guard women. This A similar type of hope was used to calm
led to the training of thousands of female down camps that were close to revolt. Guards
guards, who were deployed to camps across would tell the prisoners fake stories about how
the country and even held positions of Germany was losing the war, causing prisoners
responsibility.31 to hope that they might live until the end of
the war, which stopped them from revolting.37
Staff accountability was further reduced via the While hope was used to manipulate prisoners,
use of Kapos - prisoners that were given extra camp conditions were simultaneously kept bad
rations, clothing, or the promise of freedom in part to prevent an insurrection. Emaciated
in order to lead groups of prisoners.32 These prisoners would stand no chance against the
Kapos were often picked for their violent and guards, even in large numbers.38 Reducing

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 42

food also served to ferment prisoner-prisoner Nazi ideals of “reeducation.” By recognizing
violence. Starving prisoners would steal bread these developments as possible paths towards
from other prisoners, creating conflict that genocide rather than isolated incidents, we can
prevented prisoners from rising up against begin to take action, and maybe even prevent
their oppressors.39 Overall, the camp-level our worst hour of history from repeating itself.
organization of the concentration camp
system galvanized the effective elimination of
prisoners, by keeping guard accountability low
and creating a more docile prison through the
departmentalization of camps, manipulating
the hope of prisoners, and maintaining terrible
prison conditions.

The Holocaust is one of the worst things

to ever happen to humanity. The Nazi’s
concentration camps evolved systematically
to be an institution of violent ethnic cleansing,
the scale and brutality of which had never yet
been been seen in our world. However, it was
not bred by an inherent evilness of Germans,
nor by the cunning of a single malicious
leader. An entire nation was manipulated
to stay complacent during a genocide, by
supression of the general population, a
brutally efficient national structure, and the
careful manipulation of hope and conditions
within camps. By studying the structure of
concentration camps, we can isolate the first
steps that enable such violence, namely the
abolition of peoples’ rights, and the prohibition
of dissent.
Frighteningly, these enabling factors have
been developing throughout our modern
world. Recently, Russia passed a law that
bans negative speech against the military and
criminalizes “fake news,” a piece of legislature
eerily similar to the Nazis’ “malicious gossip”
law. China, too, has been suppressing
personal rights for years, and even has its own
concentration camps which promote the

December 2022
43
 Endnotes

1
Henry J. Gwiazda II. “The Nazi Racial War: 21
Ibid
Concentration Camps in the New Order.” The Polish 23
Ibid
Review 61, no. 3 (2016): 59-84. 24
Ibid
2
Ibid 25
Gwiazda, Nazi Racial War, 59-84
3
Theodore Abel. “The Sociology of Concentration 26
Ibid
Camps.” Social Forces 30, no. 2 (December 1951): 150- 27
Ibid
55. 28
Viktor E. Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston:
4
Birkbeck University of London. “Camp System.” The Beacon Press, 2006.
Nazi Concentration Camps. Accessed May 12, 2022. 29
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. “The
http://www.camps.bbk.ac.uk/themes/camp-system. Organizational Structure of Auschwitz Concentration
html. Camp.” Auschwitz.org. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://
5
Geoffrey P. Megargee, The United States Holocaust www.auschwitz.org/en/history/the-ss-garrison/the-
Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and organizational-structure-of-auschwitz-concentration-
Ghettos, 1933-1945: Early Camps, Youth Camps, camp/.
and Concentration Camps and Subcamps under 30
“The Gas Chambers.” Education Institute of
the SS-Business Administration Main Office (WVHA). Scotland. Last modified February 3, 2012. Accessed
Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009. May 23, 2022. https://www.eis.org.uk/Auschwitz/
6
Ibid Holocaustpart12.
7
Ibid 31
Wieviorka, Annette, and Jeanne Armstrong. “Women
8
Birkbeck University of London, Camp System and the post-war Nazi trials.” Clio, no. 39 (2014): 146-
9
Megargee, Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos 51. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.jstor.org/
10
Ibid stable/26238723?seq=1.
11
Ibid 32
Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning.
12
Gwiazda, Nazi Racial War, 59-84 33
Galia Glasner-Heled, and Dan Bar-On. “Displaced:
13
Richard J. Evans, “Coercion and Consent in Nazi The Memoir of Eliezer Gruenbaum, Kapo at Birkenau—
Germany.” The British Academy, 2007, 53-81. Accessed Translation and Commentary.” Shofar 27, no. 2 (Winter
May 23, 2022. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/ 2009): 1-23.
documents/2036/pba151p053.pdf. 34
Ibid
14
Ibid 35
Ibid
15
Ibid 36
Ibid
16
Ibid 37
Ibid
17
Megargee, Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos 38
Ibid
18
Birkbeck University of London, Camp System 39
Frankl, Man’s Search for Meaning
19
Megargee, Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos
20
Ibid

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 44

 Bibliography: and Concentration Camps and Subcamps under
Abel, Theodore. “The Sociology of Concentration the SS-Business Administration Main Office (WVHA).
Camps.” Social Forces 30, no. 2 (December 1951): 150- Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2009.
55.
Wieviorka, Annette, and Jeanne Armstrong. “Women
Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum. “The organizational and the post-war Nazi trials.” Clio, no. 39 (2014): 146-
structure of Auschwitz Concentration Camp.” 51. Accessed May 23, 2022. https://www.jstor.org/
Auschwitz-Birkenau. Accessed April 24, 2022. https:// stable/26238723?seq=1.
www.auschwitz.org/en/history/the-ss-garrison/the-
organizational-structure-of-auschwitz-concentration-
camp/.

Birkbeck University of London. “Camp System.” The Nazi

Concentration Camps. Accessed May 12, 2022. http://
www.camps.bbk.ac.uk/themes/camp-system.html.

Evans, Richard J. “Coercion and Consent in Nazi

Germany.” The British Academy, 2007, 53-81. Accessed
May 23, 2022. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/
documents/2036/pba151p053.pdf.

Frankl, Viktor E. Man’s Search for Meaning. Boston:

Beacon Press, 2006.

“The Gas Chambers.” Education Institute of Scotland.

Last modified February 3, 2012. Accessed May 23, 2022.
https://www.eis.org.uk/Auschwitz/Holocaustpart12.

Glasner-Heled, Galia, and Dan Bar-On. “Displaced: The

Memoir of Eliezer Gruenbaum, Kapo at Birkenau—
Translation and Commentary.” Shofar 27, no. 2 (Winter
2009): 1-23.

Gwiazda, Henry J. II. “The Nazi Racial War: Concentration

Camps in the New Order.” The Polish Review 61, no. 3
(2016): 59-84.

Megargee, Geoffrey P. The United States Holocaust

Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and
Ghettos, 1933-1945: Early Camps, Youth Camps,

December 2022
45
 How China’s Over-Reliance on
Coal Will Affect its Role in the 21st
Century
Middle East and China
Hayden Okurowski ‘25
According to Kenneth Lieberthal, Senior
director at the National Security Councils Asia
desk under Pres. Bill Clinton, “The Chinese
wouldn’t put it this way themselves, but in
their hearts, I think they believe that the 21st
century is China’s century.” This statement
conveys President Xi’s strategic vision for
China to surpass the
United States and
become the next
great superpower
of the 21st century.
Specifically, China
has the objectives
to become the
global leader in its
economy, military,
technology, and
foreign policy.
China has also
pledged to be a world leader in climate change
and renewable energy. On October 29, 2021,
two days before the start of COP26, Xi and
China confirmed their commitment to the
terms of the Paris Agreement by promising
to reach peak carbon emissions before 2030
and achieve net zero emissions before 2060.1
With China being the world leader in carbon
emissions, China’s dependence on coal as its
largest source of energy must be addressed
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
as part of a new energy policy if China is to
be successful in meeting its environmental
goals. In this regard, China’s challenge is how
to address its ongoing power shortages and
maintain economic growth while continuing
to meet its international obligations to lower
carbon emissions. How China addresses
this challenge
will need to be
solved at both
national and
provincial levels
if China wishes
to succeed in
making the 21st
century China’s
century.
China’s most
pressing energy
and environmental challenge is that despite
China’s pledge to reduce carbon emissions, its
current energy infrastructure is still dependent
on coal. China is dependent on coal primarily
due to its enormous economic growth and the
fact that coal is cheap and available in China.2
From 1990 to 2019, China’s coal consumption
nearly quadrupled from 527 metric tons of oil
equivalent (Mtoe) to 1,951 Mtoe. In 2019, coal
made up 57.7 percent of China’s energy use.
46
Since 2011, China has consumed more coal
than the rest of the world combined. China’s
industrial sector is by far the largest consumer
of coal.3 Internally, China’s continued
dependence on coal highlights the struggle
between China’s need to grow its economy
with cheap and readily available coal power
and the country’s broad desire to lower CO2
emissions. This has put China’s stated national
environmental objectives and policies in
direct conflict with its provincial energy
requirements.4 China has historically struggled
with environmental enforcement at the local
level when pressured; provincial governments
have prioritized economic development over
the environment.5 Economic development
in China is governed by the National
Development and Reform Commission
(NRDC), while the Energy policies are governed
by the National Energy Administration (NEA)
and Environmental policies are led by the
Ministry of Environmental Protection (MEP).
The lack of integration between these
three organizations and the policies they
create have been demonstrated since 2015.
In 2015, China passed the Environmental
Protection Law, which was the nation’s first
major environmental reform legislation of
the last two decades. The law put stricter
punishment and laws on polluters. As part
of the Environmental Protection Law, China
committed to a future Five-Year Plan that would
directly address cuts to carbon emissions and
showed a more dedicated commitment to
environmental protection.6 However, since
2015, China has remained vague in how they
will accomplish stated environmental goals
and actions have been often contradictory
to pledges made to protect the environment.
For example, China has pledged to raise its
47
power generation from solar and wind plants
to 11 percent of total power consumption and
cut coal production to below 56 percent of
total energy consumption.7, 8 Nonetheless, in
the post-pandemic economic surge, China’s
energy demands have increased. Supply could
not meet demand in the spring of 2021 and
11 provinces experienced significant power
outages.9 China’s increased demands for power
were met with demands for increased coal
consumption by the China Electricity Council.
On July 30, 2021, some within the Politburo
even argued the crisis in the provinces was
because many local governments were too
aggressive with their attempts to reduce
emissions and limit coal consumption.10 The
reality is that China’s economy and energy
sector currently remains dependent on coal.
China is still growing its coal industry and is
currently the world leader in building new coal
power plants. In 2020, China brought close to
50 gigawatts of coal fired power plants online,
which is over 3 times the total of the rest of
the world combined. As of 2021, a total of 247
gigawatts of coal power is now in planning
and development.11
Due to China’s massive continued increased
investment in the use of fossil fuels, many
internationally question the validity of China’s
claims to reach peak emissions by 2030.12
China’s national solution to this problem is
complex. In theory, the Chinese policy process
should be able to develop a strategic balance
between the economy, power production
and the environment because the CCP is
diffused throughout the local, provincial, and
national government. In reality, China’s energy,
economic, and environmental policies follow
a pattern of “fragmented authoritarianism”
December 2022
 as outlined by Lieberthal.13 Fragmented
authoritarianism maintains that despite the
centralized power of the CCP, delegation of
decision making and responsibility move
downward to local levels of government;
in addition, power also moves horizontally
between state ministries that often have
competing ideals and responsibilities. The
issue of fragmented authoritarianism has
plagued China’s interaction of environmental,
economic, and energy policies. More
specifically, China has historically struggled
with environmental enforcement at the local
level when pressured; provincial governments
have prioritized economic development
over the environment.14 Without reform, this
problem is likely to continue. The solution
may lie with Xi Jinping who leads with an
emphasis on centralized authoritarianism
and can increase the power of the central
authority over provincial independence. Xi
can accomplish this through a series of future
Five Year Plans with a long-term strategic
approach that focuses on unifying the balance
of China’s national needs for development,
energy, and the environment. The task of
making the switch to carbon neutral energy
sources will not be easy, but the place to
start is in Northwest China, where wind and
solar renewable energy are abundant. The
Northwest also has a longstanding tradition
of cooperation between provinces and
the electrical sector. With success in the
Northwest, Xi can bring a coordinated model
of economic, energy, and environmental
policies to the rest of China.15 In doing so, Xi can
make a national commitment to coordinate
coal retirement initiatives over time and not
disrupt the economy and the availability of
power.
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
China’s motivation to pursue an immediate
path to net-zero carbon emission extends
beyond purely environmental issues. To
mitigate the security risks of fossil fuels,
China must quickly transition to carbon
neutral resources. While China is the largest
consumer of energy, each year only a
fraction of its energy comes domestically.
Over 70% of its oil and 40% of its gas usage
are imported.16 Although China is self-reliant
with its production of coal, it over relies on
its number one environmental polluter. This
puts China into a vulnerable position due to
regional instability, political sanctions, and
foreign disputes, which could cause China to
drastically worsen an already ongoing energy
crisis. So, if China can transition to a cleaner
form of energy, they will become self-sufficient
while helping the environment. China’s switch
to renewable energy would also benefit its
global geopolitics. China would be able to
expand its military presence in regions for the
purpose of energy security and protection of
domestically produced renewable energy.17
And, with China being a large superpower
on the global stage, the country would have
the potential to influence smaller countries
to become energy efficient. China also must
use its environmental movement to create
“soft power” and mitigate political tensions
to improve its image and prove that China is
truthful in its goals to become carbon neutral.18
As China has been viewed as an antagonist
on the world stage in the past years, China
must prove its willingness to collaborate
with the rest of the world. China may do this
by completing the promises set out by the
2021 Paris Agreement, which will set China
as a world leader in environmental change.
By taking a leadership role and committing
48
to addressing the challenges, it will create
opportunities for China to build trust among
nations and grow its political influence.
Despite China’s pledge to reduce carbon
emissions, its most pressing energy and
environmental
challenge
is that their
current energy
infrastructure is
still dependent
on coal.
Internally,
C h i n a ’ s
continued
dependence
on coal
highlights the struggle between China’s need
to grow its economy with cheap and readily
available coal power and the country’s broad
desire to lower CO2 emissions. The lack
of integration between China’s economic
development, energy, and environmental
policies have been demonstrated since the
start of the 21st century. In 2015, China passed
the Environmental Protection Law, which
was the nation’s first major environmental
reform legislation of the last two decades.
However, since 2015, China has remained
vague in how they will accomplish stated
environmental goals and actions have been
often contradictory to pledges made to
protect the environment. This is highlighted
by the fact that as of 2021, a total of 247
gigawatts of coal power has been used in
planning and development. Due to China’s
massive continued increased investment in
the use of fossil fuels, many internationally
question the validity of China’s claims to
49
reach peak emissions by 2030. China’s
inability to reconcile economic development,
energy, and environmental policy is in part
due to “fragmented authoritarianism.” Without
reform, this problem is likely to continue. The
solution may lie with Xi Jinping, who must
now place new
emphasis on
increasing
the power
of central
authority over
provincial
independence.
This can only
be achieved
on a series of
future Five Year
Plans with a long-term strategic approach in
which Xi can focus on unifying the balance of
China’s national needs with the needs of the
provinces. China’s motivation to pursue an
immediate path to net-zero carbon emission
goes beyond purely environmental issues and
extends into security risks related to energy
independence. Furthermore, China must also
use its environmental movement to mitigate
political tensions and improve its image to the
international community by demonstrating it
is truthful in its goals to become carbon neutral.
By taking a leadership role and committing to
addressing their environmental challenges,
China creates an opportunity to build trust
among nations and grow its political influence
as a leader in the environmental movement.
Doing so would be an important step in
making the 21st century China’s century.
December 2022
 Endnotes
1
Chua, Amy. “China Ascendant.” In Day of Empire: How
Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--and Why
They Fall, 287. New York: Doubleday, 2008.
2
Jiang, Zemin. Research on Energy Issues in China.
Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press, 2010.
3
Center for Strategic and International Studies.
ChinaPower Project--How is China’s Energy Footprint
Changing? 2019. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://
chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/.
4
Standaert, Michael. “Despite Pledges to Cut Emissions,
China Goes on a Coal Spree.” Yale Environment 360,
March 24, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022.
5
Gallagher, Kelly Sims, and Fang Zhang. “China is
positioned to lead on climate change as the US
rolls back its policies.” The Conversation, September
12, 2019. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://
theconversation.com/china-is-positioned-to-
lead-on-climate-change-as-the-us-rolls-back-its-
policies-114897
6
Gallagher, Kelly Sims, and Xiaowei Xuan. “National
Circumstances.” In Titans of the Climate: Explaining
Policy Process in the United States and China.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 2019.
7
Xu, Muyu. “China to bring solar and wind power
generation to 11% of total electricity use in 2021.”
Reuters, April 18, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022.
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-
business/china-bring-solar-wind-power-generation-
11-total-electricity-use-2021-2021-04-19/.
8
Xu, Muyu A. “China to cut coal use share below 56% in
2021.” Reuters, April 22, 2021.
Accessed January 9, 2022. https://www.reuters.
com/world/china/china-cut-coal-use-share
below-56-2021-2021-04-22/.
9
Baiyu, Gao. “Will recent power shortages slow China’s
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
progress to carbon neutrality?” China Dialogue,
November 3, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://
chinadialogue.net/en/energy/will-recent-power-
shortages-slow-chinas-progress-to-carbon-neutrality/.
10
Cheng, Evelyn. “China has ‘no other choice’ but to
rely on coal power for now, official says.” Sustainable
Future, April 29, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/29/climate-china-has-
no-other-choice-but-to-rely-on-coal-power-for-now.
html.
11
Standaert, Michael. “Despite Pledges to Cut Emissions,
China Goes on a Coal Spree.” Yale Environment 360,
March 24, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022.
12
Yao, Aidan. “China: Path to ‘Net-Zero.’” Research
& Strategy Insights. Last modified March 18,
2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. file:///C:/Users/
Admin/Downloads/China%20-%20Path%20
to%20%E2%80%98Net-Zero%E2%80%99%20%20
20210318%20en.pdf.
13
The College of Staten Island’s Modern China Studies
Group. “China Rises Companion--Political Governance
and Fragmented Authoritarianism.” New York Times.
Accessed January 9, 2022. https://archive.nytimes.
com/www.nytimes.com/ref/college/coll-china-about.
html.
14
Gallagher, Kelly Sims, and Fang Zhang. “China is
positioned to lead on climate change as the US
rolls back its policies.” The Conversation, September
12, 2019. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://
theconversation.com/china-is-positioned-to-
lead-on-climate-change-as-the-us-rolls-back-its-
policies-114897
15
Road Map for Power Sector Transition and Coal
Generation Retirement in Northwest China. N.P.:
Regulatory Assistance Project, 2021.
50
16
Center for Strategic and International Studies. Hyperpowers Rise to Global Dominance--and
ChinaPower Project--How is China’s Energy Footprint Why They Fall, 287. New York: Doubleday, 2008.
Changing? 2019. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://
chinapower.csis.org/energy-footprint/. The College of Staten Island’s Modern China Studies
17
Yao, Aidan. “China: Path to ‘Net-Zero.’” Research Group. “China Rises Companion--Political
& Strategy Insights. Last modified March 18, Governance and Fragmented
2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. file:///C:/Users/ Authoritarianism.” New York Times. Accessed
Admin/Downloads/China%20-%20Path%20 January 9, 2022. https://archive.nytimes.com/
to%20%E2%80%98Net-Zero%E2%80%99%20%20 www.nytimes.com/ref/college/coll-china-
20210318%20en.pdf. about.html.
18
Yao, Aidan. “China: Path to ‘Net-Zero.’” Research
& Strategy Insights. Last modified March 18, Gallagher, Kelly Sims, and Xiaowei Xuan. “National
2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. file:///C:/Users/ Circumstances.” In Titans of the Climate:
Admin/Downloads/China%20-%20Path%20 Explaining Policy Process in the United States
to%20%E2%80%98Net-Zero%E2%80%99%20%20 and China. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2019.
20210318%20en.pdf.
Gallagher, Kelly Sims, and Fang Zhang. “China is
Bibliography: positioned to lead on climate change as the
Baiyu, Gao. “Will recent power shortages slow China’s US rolls back its policies.” The
progress to carbon neutrality?” China Dialogue, Conversation,September
November 3, 2021. Accessed January 9, 2022. 12, 2019. Accessed January 9, 2022. https://
https://chinadialogue.net/en/energy/will- theconversation.com/china-is-positioned-
recent-power-shortages-slow-chinas- to-lead-on-climate-change-as-the-
progress-to-carbon-neutrality/. us-rolls-back-its-policies-114897.

Center for Strategic and International Studies. Gallagher, Kelly Sims, Fang Zhang, Robbie Orvis,
ChinaPower Project--How is China’s Energy Jeffrey Rissman, and Qiang Liu. “Assessing the
Footprint Changing? 2019. Accessed January Policy Gaps for Achieving China’s Climate
9,2022.https://chinapower.csis.org/energy- Targets in the Paris Agreement.” Nature
footprint/. Communications 10, no. 1 (March 26, 2019).
https://doi.org/10.1038s41467-019-09159-0.
Cheng, Evelyn. “China has ‘no other choice’ but to
rely on coal power for now, official says.” Huang, Yanzhong. Toxic Politics: China’s Environmental
Sustainable Future, April 29, 2021. Health Crisis and Its Challenge to the Chinese
Accessed January 9, 2022. https://www. State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
cnbc.com/2021/04/29/climate-china-has-no- 2020.
other-choice-but-to-rely-on-coal-power-for-
now.html.

Chua, Amy. “China Ascendant.” In Day of Empire: How

December 2022
51
 Hubbard, Paul. “Fragmented authoritarianism and Weng, Wenjuan, Ronqin Zhao, and Xiaowei Chuai.
state ownership.” East Asia Forum, “China’s pathway to a low carbon economy.”
January 23, 2017. Accessed January Carbon Balance Management 14, no. 14 (2019).
9, 2022. https://www.eastasiaforum. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13021-019-0130-z.
org/2017/01/23/fragmented-authoritarianism-
and-state-ownership/. Xie, Haiyu. “China’s Oil Security in the Context of
Energy Revolution: Changes in Risks and the
Jiang, Zemin. Research on Energy Issues in China. Hedging Mechanism.” American Journal of
Amsterdam: Elsevier/Academic Press, 2010. Industrial Business Management 11
(September 18, 2021). https://www.scirp.org/
NDRC vows heavier punishment on profiteering on journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=112030.
coal to stabilize prices. October 29, 2021.
Accessed January 9, 2022. https://en.ndrc.gov. Xu, Muyu. “China to bring solar and wind power
cn/news/mediarusources/202110/ generation to 11% of total electricity use in
t20211029_1302407.html. 2021.” Reuters, April 18, 2021. Accessed
January 9, 2022. https://www.reuters.
Paybarah, Azi. “China Says It Won’t Build New Coal com/business/sustainable-business/
Plants Abroad. What Does That Mean?” New china-bring-solar-wind-power-generation-11-
York Times, September 22, 2021. Accessed total-electricity-use-2021-2021-04-19/.
January 9, 2022. https://www.
nytimes.com/2021/09/22/world/asia/china- Xu, Muyu A. “China to cut coal use share below 56%
coal.html. in 2021.” Reuters, April 22, 2021. Accessed
January 9, 2022. https://www.
Reale, Hannah. “The Long Arm of SASAC.” The Wire reuters.com/world/china/china-cut-coal-use-
China, February 7, 2021. Accessed January 9, share-below-56-2021-2021-04-22/.
2022. https://www.thewirechina.
com/2021/02/07/the-long-arm-of-sasac/. Yao, Aidan. “China: Path to ‘Net-Zero.’” Research &
Strategy Insights. Last modified
Road Map for Power Sector Transition and Coal March 18, 2021. Accessed January 9,
Generation Retirement in Northwest China. 2022. file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/
N.p.: Regulatory Assistance Project, 2021. China%20-%20Path%20to%20%E2%80%98Net-
Zero%E2%80%99%20%2020210318%20en.pdf.
Standaert, Michael. “Despite Pledges to Cut
Emissions, China Goes on a Coal Spree.” Yale
Environment 360, March 24, 2021.
Accessed January 9, 2022.

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 52

HISTORICAL FILM
REIVEW

December 2022
53
 Dunkirk Reivew
Cole Sparks ‘24

In May 1940, World War Two was underway as beach, is worried that the soldiers on the
Germany advanced in France. On the beaches beach are sitting ducks, and he makes it his
of Dunkirk (a port town in France), German goal to bring back as many soldiers as possible.
forces have trapped Allied troops, who wait The Royal Air Force Spitfires are locked in dog
for evacuation. Over four hundred thousand fights with German planes, trying to protect
allied troops are trapped, as the only way out their soldiers on the beach while also having
is by sea. As they wait to frequently refuel.
for ships to come for Tommy tries to evacuate
evacuation, the German the beach by helping an
forces are bombing the injured soldier, but the
allies. This dire situation boat he tries to get on
leads the British Navy to is bombed by German
try to get every single forces. Mr. Dawson, his
operational boat they son, and his friend are
have in an attempt to on a small boat in an
mass evacuate. It’s every effort to evacuate some
man for themselves, as British troops.
the British get first dibs
on the transport ships. As historical movies go,
This remarkable story Dunkirk is pretty good.
is experienced through It gets the main events
four different lenses in right so that there aren’t
Christopher Nolan’s 2017 any glaring holes in
film Dunkirk. the movie. Christopher
Nolan, the director,
The films follows the focuses heavily on
path of four differing members of the British the experience of the people living through
armed forces: a British Commander, a soldier Dunkirk, and this makes the movie hit closer
trapped on the beach, two British air force to home. To this effect, he showcases the
pilots, and a group of civilians who are part terror of being sitting ducks as if the viewer
of the evacuation effort. British Commander could imagine laying on a beach as planes and
Bolton, who is the top British officer on the artillery rained down death. He also shows

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 54

many shell-shocked and mentally broken
down soldiers, a harsh reality of war. Another
accuracy of Dunkirk was the focus on airplane
fuel. The Royal Air Force wasn’t able to work
to the best of its abilities because of the plane’s
range, as planes had to conserve fuel and
could only help for an hour before having to
refuel. According to survivor’s stories, most of
them never saw any RAF planes above them
because they were only there for a short
period of time before leaving again. Lastly, the
part about the British being evacuated first
and then the French was very accurate. The
policy was that because it was British ships
who were evacuating, they got off first. This
led to many fights between Allied forces, with
men desperate to be evacuated hopelessly
trying to board the ship.
Historical Accuracy Score: 4.5/5
55
As for inaccuracies in Dunkirk, they are few.
Most characters were made up, but based on
a real life counterpart. For example, Captain
William Tennant is who Commander Bolton
is inspired by. Tennant was instrumental in
the Dunkirk evacuation, planning of D-Day,
and fighting the Japanese Navy. There is also
no mention of African or Indian fighters, both
of whom were key in delaying the German
Attack. The Royal Indian Army Service Corps
was important on the beaches of Dunkirk,
but also in North Africa and the Middle East,
something that would’ve been good to
mention as they were major in World War
Two. Because of its quality historical accuracy
and its jam-packed action, Dunkirk is a must-
watch.
December 2022
 DATA ANALYSIS

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 56

 Student Loan Forgiveness
and Inflation
Max Wagner ‘23, Ernest Lai ‘25, Wesley Zhu ‘25
During his term, President Biden has faced
various problems, ranging from global
pandemics to human rights. Among those
was the continued battle against education
costs, which have been steadily rising over
the years. Inflation has also been an issue with
large effects on the nation. In the past year,
American inflation rates have skyrocketed
to 8.2% in 2022 (Statista). For this edition of
The Podium, we decided to ask Belmont
Hill about their stance on Biden’s student
loan forgiveness plan, which aids millions
of Americans who have been affected by
college borrowing following the pandemic
and on the high rates of inflation currently
being felt in the United States.
Earlier this year, President Biden announced
the creation of a program in which the federal
57
government will cancel up to $20,000 of
student loans debt per person. The proposal
has been mired in controversies so we asked
the Belmont Hill community about their views
on the plan. The first question evaluated the
school’s general stance towards the student
loan forgiveness bill, gauging how many
people supported the plan in the form of a
yes or no question. The result was split down
the middle, with about 45% of respondents
supporting the plan, and 45% opposing it.
The remaining 10% largely responded with
“unaware” or “unsure”. These results were
similar to the polling results of American
voters, where the results were virtually equal
for each side. In addition, when asked if they
saw rising educational expenses as a major
problem of society, a strong majority of 75%
of respondents voted “yes”, while a little over
December 2022
 20% voted “no”. The fact that nearly 75% of
respondents saw educational expenses as a
major problem, but only 45% supported Biden’s
student loan forgiveness bill, could suggest that
though educational costs are acknowledged
as an issue, people at Belmont Hill do not think
Biden’s plan handles it well. This theory could
be further confirmed as almost 15% of the BH
community was very dissatisfied with Biden’s
handling of the financial situation as a whole,
but less than 3% were very satisfied. However,
it is worth noting that when the entire chart is
taken into account, the collective percent of
people who voted “satisfied” or “very satisfied”
was roughly the same as those who voted
“dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied”, both around
30%; The majority (41%) of people stayed
neutral. Overall, this section of the poll helped
illustrate Belmont Hill’s overall views towards
Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.
The second section of our Fall 2022 Podium
Poll focused on President Biden, the American
economy, and inflation. Of responses, 76%
of survey participants had heard of President
Biden’s student loan relief plan, and of those,
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
49% of respondents supported the plan, while
45% opposed it. However, 74% of respondents
did believe that rising costs of education
and student loan amounts were a major
problem for society, while only 21% disagreed.
Unsurprisingly, of those who support Biden’s
plan, 92% believe the costs of education are
a major issue, while only 55% of those who
oppose it believe the same. 61% of respondents
believed that the plan will in fact drive up
inflation, most of whom oppose the plan. On
the other hand, 39% of those who support the
plan believe it will not drive up inflation, as
compared to 35% who believe it will. Of the
respondents, 41% said they were overall neutral
in terms of satisfaction with Biden’s handling
of the US financial system, while 42% said they
were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied, and 16%
said they were satisfied or very satisfied. 96%
of respondents stated that they have heard of
inflation and its rise in the US and the rest of
the world. On a scale of 1-5, respondents rated
inflation at an average of 4.17 in importance as
a problem for the US and the world at large.
No students rated it as an importance of under
3 out of 5, and 88% of respondents rated it at
58
least a 4 out of 5.
This survey has helped us to better understand
Belmont Hill’s views on two of the biggest
political issues facing America in 2022. Both
educational costs and inflation are a deep
economic burden for most Americans and
solutions to both are necessary. The federal
government’s approach on both of these
issues has been heavily scrutinized and we
wanted to hear from Belmont Hill students
and teachers. Both inflation and educational
expenses are big issues that likely will not go
away any time soon.

December 2022
59
 MISCELLANEOUS ESSAYS

The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 60

 Political Polarization
Ben Anderson
Ben Anderson is an exchange student from Bishops Diocesan College in Cape Town, South Africa
Looking at Boston, and indeed parts of America,
from an outsider’s perspective presents some
interesting observations. As a South African, I
can only watch on in slight envy as I admire
the modern infrastructure, the high levels of
employment, the safe streets, and the pristine
parks. It’s clear America leads the free world
in many of these areas and, judging by the
apparently high levels of national pride
amongst the American populace, it’s clear
they know this just as well as outsiders like
me do. But America also leads the world in
other areas, ones that they are perhaps less
proud of. Over the past 10 years America has
gone from being a beacon of democracy to
an example of what not to do with regards
to party politics and polarization. Never
fear though, my dear Bostonians, for just
as your country plunges into the depths of
polarization, South Africa (and indeed many
other nations in the free world that you lead)
are right behind you, for worse, or for very
much worse. I believe we need to learn from
the examples in this country, and my home
country, to find the solutions our democracies
need in order to deliver the great democratic
system effectively for everyone.
If we want to forge a way forward from
polarised politics, we need to pinpoint what
polarization actually looks like in democratic
societies nowadays. polarization itself is
merely a stark divide in opinions between two
political entities. It can occur on any number
61
of fault lines and in any number of discussions
and is essentially when politicians - and thus
the populations of people backing them -
become incredibly divided on a number of
topics to the point where their disagreement
becomes hostile and is a general hindrance
to the effective functioning of democracy and
government. This is almost always caused by
political parties creating divide along cultural,
religious, and racial lines. Sometimes, political
parties may actively try to cause this divide,
using violent rhetoric against one group to
attract support from another. In America,
we saw Trump do this originally by openly
attacking immigrants in order to stoke fears
around them and gain votes in states where
immigration was a hot button issue. More
recently we’ve seen certain republicans trying
to villainize ‘woke’ individuals and democrats
trying to paint ‘MAGA supporters’ in the same
negative light. Whether these portrayals are
accurate or not is based on your perspective,
but either way, the manner in which these
comments and attacks on opposing groups
are made has been incredibly divisive and
encourages this high level of polarization that
we see in modern day America. But political
parties do not always stoke divide intentionally,
sometimes their very nature becomes a
catalyst for polarization. I’ve seen this in South
Africa, where our leading party, the African
National Congress (or ANC), has become
incredibly associated with rural and township
voters despite not openly campaigning as a
December 2022
 ‘rural’ party. The Democratic Alliance (or DA);
however, gains a large majority of its votes from
a whiter and more urban demographic. Whilst
neither of these parties actively campaign for
these groups’ support (in fact the DA often tries
to shed its reputation of being a ‘white party’)
people of different backgrounds still end up
getting divided by their presence.
Across nations around the globe, political
polarization occurs and occurs for different
reasons, sometimes it is instigated actively
by campaigners, other times it is a mere by-
product of a country’s culture and history.
Whether it’s the North and South divide in the
UK, the rural and urban split in America and
France or the Racial divide in South Africa,
political polarization poses significant threats
to any democracy. The foremost harm that it
often causes is the lack of accountability that
political polarization encourages. If democrats
know they can keep getting elected by bringing
up the same old talking points around attacking
republicans (and republicans vice versa), then
it’s likely they’ll be less effective at delivering
real change and more effective at presenting
appealing talking points. In South Africa, the
ANC knows that if they keep appealing to
their rural base by talking about how they
freed the country from Apartheid they will
keep winning elections, thus, they have no
real incentive to actually deliver on policy.
This issue is essentially caused by the fact that
political polarization creates incredibly loyal
voters and therefore pretty lazy ruling parties.
If people are committed to voting for a certain
political party just because they’ve always
voted that way, or because they’re convinced
that the other guys are either communists or
fascists ready to burn the country down, then
whoever they elect doesn’t have to govern
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
even vaguely well, they just have to appear
better than the alternative. In America, this
looks like republicans and democrats not
delivering on promises and getting away with
it merely by calling the other side extreme or
violent. In South Africa, the DA gains votes
merely by saying they aren’t as corrupt as
the ANC and the ANC gains votes by saying
the DA is only a party for white people. It’s in
these situations of mass polarization and party
mudslinging, where elections essentially get
decided by the minimal amount of people who
are willing to change their mind (swing voters)
and democracy begins to fail. Governments
and representatives get elected not to serve
a country, but to serve a certain voter base.
Elections are meant to be a core pillar of
democracy; under an era of polarization
they’ve become a core reason countries lose
stability in the first place
Another issue with political polarization is how
it cultivates a parliamentary environment of
hostility as opposed to cooperation. As I have
said, polarization pushes politicians to appeal
to their loyal voter core above all else. What
this means is that extreme politics becomes
more favourable. Suddenly there becomes
no need for candidates to appeal to a diverse
base if their standard base is always loyal.
Candidates become elected purely because
they went heavy on a certain agenda which
they know will appeal to their voters. Trumpian
populism exhibited this in its extreme rhetoric,
far left politicians like AOC and Bernie Sanders
often show it in their policies and this could
also be seen in the ANC with the personality
cult, which was built around our former
president, Jacob Zuma, to appeal to voters
in his home province, KwaZulu-Natal. In
these cases it meant that politicians became
62
less compromising once elected because
they only needed to deliver for their specific
bases. In parliaments where divide is so stark
that members cannot reach across the aisle;
compromise becomes rare and key choices
cannot be made. It is tough to pass bipartisan
proposals when you think the other guys are
racists or traitors. Elected officials ought not be
spewing the current level of vitriol that they do
at their opposition because their duty is not to
win elections, it is to serve people (and not just
the ones who voted for them).
Modern day political polarization has hindered
western democracies and their political
processes. The fact that China’s one-party
system and Russia’s autocracy are appearing
as more effective leadership systems even
though they are literally abusive dictatorships
is concerning. Democracy at its best is the
best way to govern a country, but when we
allow it to fall into polarization then we lose
many of its strongest benefits: co-operation,
embracement of a variety of ideas and a
system which works for the many, not the few.
Above all the macroscale harms polarization
has on countries like the US and South Africa,
we need to remember the effect it has on the
ground. Politics like never before have begun
to divide families, workspaces, and friends.
People begin to form echo chambers around
themselves based on who they hang out with
because they consume media and rhetoric
which tells them that anyone with a different
political opinion is ‘problematic’ or ‘toxic’. The
most tangible harm that political polarization
inflicts is its ability to change our perception
of other people to the point where we cannot
bear interacting with them.
But surely, you might say, amidst all this
63
doom and gloom there must be some form
of solution? I believe there are many: we
could reform our election processes, limit
the influence of people who spread divisive
rhetoric on social media or start platforms
and movements aimed at dismantling these
polarising portrayals of the other side. But,
these solutions are complex to implement and
are not guaranteed to be effective. South Africa,
the UK and the US all have completely different
political systems and censorship laws, and yet
in all of them there is a high level of political
polarization. The issue does not lie in politics
or even in the politicians, the issue lies in the
ballot box. Change in democracy starts with
the voter, and it starts with the voter making
decisions not based on narrative or previous
opinions but based on the actual facts around a
candidate. America gets the chance to change
something every 2 years (my country only gets
that chance every 5), and the next opportunity
to do that for some of you is just around the
corner. I would encourage everyone with the
chance to vote in the upcoming midterms
(and indeed in any election you encounter in
the future) to get out and vote, and to vote
not for the person you always have, or for the
person who is the least bad according to Fox
News or CNN, but according to the real issues.
America has the incredible privilege of having
very public political campaigns. Whether
it’s watching a debate for an hour, reading
through a candidate’s website or checking
someone’s voting record: make an effort to
do more than just make your decisions based
on a talk show or what seems to be the most
popular thing. When we vote for politicians
who actually work for us, we hold those who
try to divide us accountable. This November
America’s most important choice is not red or
blue, it is efficiency or dysfunction.
December 2022

Necessary Strides
for Nuclear
Disarmament
Sam Atalla ‘23
It’s no surprise that nuclear disarmament
efforts have fallen short, but the United States
cannot expect other countries to strive for
peace if we cannot take a leadership role in
reducing - if not eliminating - global nuclear
weapons stockpiles.
At the height of the Cold War in 1986, the U.S.
and the U.S.S.R. had nearly 65,000 nuclear
weapons combined. Over the following
decades, both countries agreed to reduce
their arsenals to avert the possibility of an
apocalyptic altercation and to benefit their
strained economies. Now in 2022, the United
States and Russia each own around 5,000
nuclear weapons, comprising 90% of the
world’s overall reserves.
While disarmament treaties have solidified
some gains on paper, they have yet to do so in
practice. For example, the 1968 United Nations
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (“NPT”)
requires the P-5 (permanent five) nuclear-
armed states — U.S., Russia, U.K., France, and
China — to pursue nuclear disarmament
aimed at their total elimination. But the pace
has been slow. In addition, the bilateral 2011
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start)
between the US and Russia placed important
limits on nuclear missiles, launchers, and
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
warheads. However, the agreement has
been largely derailed by the Ukraine war.
Although the significant reduction of readily
available nuclear weapons is evidence that
disarmament is possible, these efforts are not
nearly enough.
The United States is currently planning on
spending $1.5 trillion over the coming decades
to replace and upgrade all of its nuclear
weapons, directly contradicting the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why is the U.S.
rebuilding its nuclear weapons and delivery
systems? There is no plausible reason for the
US to allocate this amount of funding toward
the large-scale development of more nuclear
weapons. Instead of squandering taxpayer
dollars, the US should take a global leadership
role and advocate for reducing nuclear
weapons with an eye toward abolition.
Nuclear deterrence, the principle that states
have the right to use nuclear weapons in self-
defense against aggressive attacks, should not
be a policy relied upon for national security.
Will mutually assured destruction save
humankind from destroying itself? Probably
not. Russia has already declared that it will
use nuclear weapons to defend itself or its
territory. In September 2022, Russian President,
Vladimir Putin, made it clear that “those who
try to blackmail us with nuclear weapons
should know that the weathervane can turn
and point towards them” and that he would
use “all available means to protect Russia and
our people.” In a recent conversation with
French President Emmanuel Macron, Vladimir
Putin also warned that U.S. nuclear attacks
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki prove that “you
don’t need to attack the major cities in order
to win.” Meanwhile, with tensions escalating,
64
U.S. President Joe Biden has said that the risk the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear
of nuclear “Armageddon” could spiral out of Weapons, which 91 countries have already
control if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons ratified, the U.S. can work to help ensure that
in Ukraine. no new nuclear weapons are built and that all
stockpiles are ultimately abolished.
Furthermore, the chances of miscalculation are
too high. While it may seem harmless for the US Instead of developing more nuclear weapons,
to maintain our current nuclear stockpiles, just the US should allocate funding towards
one mistake could nurturing and
cause a global preserving
catastrophe. humankind and
Several instances life on planet earth.
have already UN Secretary-
occurred over General Antonio
the last 60 years Guterres told
where nuclear delegates at the
war nearly Environmental
became a reality Summit in Egypt
due to careless (COP27), “We are
on a highway to
misinterpretations and avoidable blunders. climate hell with our foot on the accelerator.”
For example, in 1995, Russian President Boris Rather than producing more destructive
Yeltsin mistook a scientific probe investigating nuclear weapons, we can work to spread peace
the northern lights in Norway as an imminent between nations and address the damage we
attack against Russia and nearly launched a have already done to the environment.
nuclear counterattack.
Nuclear disarmament is no simple task
Can the U.S. help guide the world away from a and won’t magically happen overnight. But
cataclysmic nuclear abyss? Yes, and we should the process can be started by individuals
serve as a model by working with the other advocating at the local or national level by
eight nuclear-armed states to avoid escalating talking to their legislators. We can express our
the brewing nuclear arms race. China, for support for bills aimed at the prohibition of
example, currently owns approximately 350 nuclear weapons, a crucial task that should
nuclear weapons and plans to increase its be taken more seriously by all - especially by
stockpile to 1,000 by 2030. China is taking our so called leaders, who need to take more
these steps to develop its nuclear deterrence responsibility for addressing existential threats
capacity and catch up with the U.S. and Russia. to humankind and for protecting the collective
If the U.S. focused on further reducing its health, safety, and well-being of the people
nuclear weapons, however, China would be they represent.
less motivated to develop new weapons of
mass destruction at such rapid rates. By signing

December 2022
65
 The Fading Utility of the Primary
Election
Max Wagner ‘23
The history of elections in America is long,
convoluted, and at points somewhat illogical.
Before the creation of the primary, candidates
were simply chosen by parties, taking electoral
power from the people. The first presidential
primary election was implemented in
North Dakota in 1912, followed by the other
states, replacing the existing system of party
leadership simply choosing the representatives
from each party. This was indisputably a
positive change for our country, as it provided
more power to the people,
but was an imperfect change
due to the inherent problems
with the primary election
process. These problems
persist today. Despite its
noble intentions, the primary
system has been twisted
into a system of filtering out
political moderates, a group
that could otherwise have a
profound positive impact on
our nation.
These problems are no small factor in
today’s political climate. Even disregarding
the tendency for radical candidates to carry
primaries due to only one side of the political
spectrum voting, candidates are simply
discouraged from running because they don’t
believe they can prevail against better-known
members of their party. Thus, the primary
election has become not a system in place
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II
to guarantee voting rights to the people, but
rather an outdated tradition that weeds out
some of the candidates who we need most.
The problem with the primary election is
that, ultimately, it never leads to a candidate
who will be more universally well-liked to be
elected, if they otherwise wouldn’t be. For
instance, many candidates who could wholly
win the moderate vote, and even some votes
from across the aisle, you could still lose your
primary, as other candidates from your party,
who would certainly win
less of the electoral college,
could still defeat you by
being farther to the extreme.
So what then is the
alternative plan? I believe
that ranked-choice voting
could provide a solution
for the nation. It is low in
drawbacks, the only one
essentially being that people
don’t care to take the few
minutes it takes to understand the system. If
an open ballot including all candidates who
run was presented, instead of the winners of
each individual primary, people could rank
their votes, and the most nationally well-liked
candidate would win the presidency each
time, instead of the winner being decided by
the primary of whichever political party found
itself in a more powerful position that year.
66
 History | Current Events
The Podium • Volume VII • Edition II 68