I am a former Russian journalist and a documentary filmmaker who has also worked at NASA in the US.

"The Anatomy of Russian Defense Conversion" touches on many more subjects then just Russian Defense Industry. This is a very thorough, informative and important work that analyses the history of US and Russian Defense Industries, weapons exports and conversion, and possibilities of transformation from a militarized to a civilian economy in the new millenium.

The book also reflects on the current state of defense industries in the US and Russia, and "brain drain", or loss of intellectual capital in Russia and other countries after the Cold War.

I found reflections in Arkady Yarovsky's chapter "From the Culture of War to the Culture of Peace" very contemporary, especially in the light of recent events in the Middle East:

"Our time is unfortunately still characterized as "the culture of war." The culture of war is evident first and foremost in the hostilities between people and states, between nations and faiths, and in the inability to solve conflicts by peaceful means... Humanity has made it into the third millenium because the lust for power has been restrained by fear of nuclear war, but this restraint is not to be counted on permanently... The danger hidden in the separateness of people of different countries, unfortunately, remains a legacy for the next century... If humanity renounces the legacy of the culture of war, it can start down the road of cooperation, peaceful creation, and enlightenment. This is the only road leading to the culture of peace."

One can imagine that I, as a small child living in San Antonio, Texas, next to three Air Force bases and an Army base, living through the Cuban missile crisis, thought about the threat of the Russian military. I also met my parents' wonderful emigre' friends, and to this day have had warm relations with Russian people.

This book tells of the enormous cost to the Russian people of building and maintaining their war industry for so many years, a militarized economy where people got second best. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, defense industry just about shut down, but civilian industry has not grown great enough to support the population. There are horrendous unemployment, and terrible health and social problems. There is some danger that the path of least resistance for Russia, if we neglect the situation, could be to re-start weapons production, for export at first.

In my opinion, the United States also, to a lesser degree, has neglected the manufacture of quality consumer goods, importing them instead, and has let its physical economy deteriorate, despite much activity in the financial sector. We, too, have been insufficiently careful of the environment. This book provides some idea of what these trends could lead to, if carried to extremes.

Perhaps the involvement of United States companies in Russia, could lead to more of a recognition here, of the importance of the physical economy. Hopefully, both countries could also work to put industry on a healthy environmental footing as well.

There is awareness of the problem of Russian defense conversion, at high levels of our government. I hope this book helps educate people and sustain that interest.

The authors provide a coherent discussion of fully half of the security challenges facing us in the 21st century. They wisely avoid the debate swirling around the so-called Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA)-but deserve credit for their predecessor "offset strategy"-and simply note that the absence of "A List" threats gives us an opportunity to strengthen and maintain our traditional nuclear and conventional capabilities against the day when a Russia or China may rise in hostility against us. The book as a whole focuses on the "B List" threats, including Russia in chaos, a hostile China acting aggressively within its region, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and catastrophic terrorism. They note, correctly, that most of the spending and effort today is focused on responding to the crisis de jure, some but not enough resources are applied to preparing for the future, and virtually nothing is being done against the latest concept, that of "shaping" the environment through "forward engagement." Perhaps most importantly, they introduce the term "defense by other means" and comment on the obstacles, both within the Administration and on the Hill, to getting support and funding for non-military activities with profound security benefits.

Although others may focus on their discussion of Russia and NATO as the core of the book, what I found most helpful and worthwhile was the straight-forward and thoughtful discussion of the need for a new national strategy, a new paradigm, for dealing with potentially catastrophic terrorism. Their understanding of what defense resources can be applied, and of the impediments to success that exist today between state & local law enforcement, federal capabilities such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and defense as well as overseas diplomatic and intelligence capabilities, inspire them to propose several innovative approaches to this challenge. The legal and budgetary implications of their proposals are daunting but essential-their proposals for dealing with this one challenge would be helpful in restructuring the entire U.S. government to better integrate political-diplomatic-military-law enforcement operations with judicial and congressional oversight as well as truly all-source intelligence support.

Interesting side notes include 1) the early discovery in US-Russian military discussions that technology interoperability and future collaboration required the surmounting of many obstacles associated with decades of isolated (and often secret) development; 2) the absence of intelligence from the entire book-by this account, US defense leaders spend virtually all of their time in direct operational discussions with their most important counterparts, and there is very little day to day attention to strategic analysis, estimative intelligence, or coordination with diplomatic, economic, and law enforcement counterparts at home; 3) the difficulty of finding a carrier to send to Taiwan at a time when we had 12 carriers-only four appear to have been "real" for defense purposes; and 4) the notable absence of Australia from the discussion of security in Asia.

The concept of Preventive Defense is holistic (requiring the simultaneous uses of other aspects of national power including diplomacy and economic assistance) but places the Department of Defense in a central role as the provider of realigned resources, military-to-military contacts, and logistics support to actual implementation. Unfortunately the concept of Preventive Defense has been narrowly focused (its greatest success has been the dismantling of former Soviet nuclear weapons in the Commonwealth of Independent States), and neither the joint staff nor the services are willing to give up funds for weapons and manpower in order to make a strategy of Preventive Defense possible.

This resistance bodes ill for the other half of the 21st Century security challenge, what the author's call the "C List"-the Rwandas, Somalias, Haitis and Indonesias. They themselves are unwilling to acknowledge C List threats as being vital to U.S. security in the long-term (as AIDS is now recognized). I would, however, agree with them on one important point: the current budget for defense should be repurposed toward readiness, preparing for the future, and their concept of preventive defense, and it should not be frittered away on "C List" contingencies-new funds must be found to create and sustain America's Preventive Diplomacy and its Operations Other Than War (OOTW) capabilities. It will fall to someone else to integrate their concept of Preventive Defense with the emerging concepts of Preventive Diplomacy, International Tribunals, and a 21st Century Marshall Plan for the festering zones of conflict in Africa, Arabia, Asia, and the Americas--zone where ethnic fault lines, criminal gangs, border disputes, and shortages of water, food, energy, and medicine all come together to create a breeding ground for modern plagues that will surely come across our water's edge in the future. On balance, through, this book makes the top grade for serious bi-partisan dialogue, and they deserve a lot of credit for defining solutions for the first half of our security challenges in the 21st Century.

This is a quick read about how American Defense has to change from the Cold War strategy to deal with other types of threats. I just returned from Europe and heard from European friends about their feelings on the United States. We are highly respected and looked up to as "the" power. We need to deal with the rest of the world accordingly. The authors give us some ideas as to how to do this.

James Vickers' Cliffs Notes for Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" begins with a short biography of the Bard that focuses on what little the historical record tells us about the man. A Brief Synopsis of the Play is followed by a List of Characters that not only tells us who they are but their primary roles in the play. The Summary and Commentary section of the volume breaks down the play scene by scene, and the best way of using this or any other little yellow book with the black stripes is to read the commentary after you have read each scene of the play. This is especially important with Shakespeare because the dialogue is so important and Vickers does not work in as many choice lines as some of the other Cliffs Notes for Shakespeare plays. You cannot deal with Shakespeare if you do not know the key lines. The last section dealing with Character Analyses looks as Caesar, Antony, Octavius, Brutus and Cassius, referring back to the analysis already established regarding the individual scenes. What you will not get from this volume if you are teaching/reading "Julius Caesar" is how the play touches upon the political realities of Elizabethean England. But Vickers does an excellent job throughout of capturing how Shakespeare uses the play to manipulate the audience. Remember, the celebrated funeral oration by Marc Antony is being listened to on stage by a Roman mob that is being watched by an audience of Londoners in the theater. This is one of the better jobs at capturing how Shakespeare constructed a play.

Perry's text is the original, definitive expression of William James' philosophy, outside of the writings of James -- a founder father of the philosophical genre of pragmatism, contemporary American social thought and modern psychology -- himself. Despite the multitude of books written on and about James and his ideas since, no serious student of William James should be without or ignore this one. It is the Genesis-text, as it were, of Jamesean studies.

Perry organizes and effectively analyzes the whole array of James' diverse writings (including reprints of some tremendous and now otherwise difficult to find selections), enabling any reader to obtain a comprehensive and detailed understanding of James' philosophy. At the same time, Perry infects his analysis with a solid and enduring illustration of James's personality, without ever becoming either trite or merely philosophical biography.

Perry's own skills as a writer are evident in such passages as the following, which is a most memorable description of the breadth and depth of Jame's character: "[James] called himself empiricist, pluralist, pragmatist, individualist, but whenever he did so he began at once to hanker after the fleshpots of rationalism, monism, intellectualism, socialist. He liked body in his philosophizing, and he hated to leave out anything that had either flavor or nutritive value. He was much more afraid of thinness than he was of inconsistency."

In one or two places, the serious James scholar might have a difference of opinion with Perry's analysis, whether historical or philosophical, but all philosophy texts are susceptible to such criticism, and Perry's is less susceptible than most. Indeed, it will be by treating Perry's text as a sound starting place that the inexperienced or unfamiliar reader might become such an adept analyst and capable of interpreting James' life, character and thought so well.

William James is undoubtedly a great thinker. And he undoubtedly loves life, and loves mankind. This much is clear in his work - his sense of humor, insight, and approach to his topic are all evidence of this. James, however, cannot rightly be called a philosopher. While his ideas are insightful, and the abundance of them proves him a great thinker, his method of presentation and discussion falls short of the demanding science of western philosophy. James does not create a foundation of simple ideas and build upon them; he simply introduces a broad idea, and then does not even support it, but assumes that it is self evident.

Despite his flaws as a philosopher however, his work is a pleasure to read and, knowing its flaws, one can enjoy this book for what it is - a series of ideas and thoughts that do form a rather elegant approach to life, if not a true philosophy.

Depending on who you ask, american philosophy is an oxymoron. But the pragmatic schools of James, Pierce, and Dewey are truly a challenging and significant to philosophy as a whole.

James has a very peculiar way of viewing experience, for a philosopher, and a sort of colossal respect for truth that rivals Kant's. This book approaches in a very systematic way the problems that we have dealing with truth and its inherent elusiveness. Both Empiricist and Rationalist philosophical attitudes run aground when dealing with reality; certain aspects of both are better at dealing with particular facets of experince. That is, some of the "work" better than other in certain situations. (As James notes, Hegel or Kant have done little to advance any scientific knowledge-- but a wholly empirical philosophy can give offer us no end to strive towards that we will find humanly compelling) James makes the middle road between the two, and offers the philosphically radical suggestion that the closest to any "Truth" as a big T we are going to get is going to be through our examination of how particular notions of truth produce for us better explanations of experience. In fact (as James later elaborates) the best philosophy we can find is one that will be able to unstiffen the mind an be able to deal with various different truths. Plural.

If you can't see from this outlook, James's notion of philosophy is profoundly democratic. His philosophy is one of the best attempts I've ever encountered to form some sort of coherent system that accomodates mutually exclusive forms of truth. And such a system, also, is American Democracy.

The reviewers below fall into an error on this account by saying James apologizes for scoundrels. He does not; in fact, he was thoroughly anti-imperialist and in case we havn't noticed Nazism and Stalinism are systems built on Monistic systems of Truth. Look it up. Read the book, it's a classic, maybe the classic, of American Philosophy. A fitting testament to james' enduring genius

In a certain view the history of western philosophy can be viewed as the search for truth(s) and systems of thought and action derivable from those truths. This pursuit for "First Principles" has brought us to the trenches of WW1 and the giant socio-economic experiements of Stalinist Russia, Maoist China and the Khmer Rouge's Cambodia. As Keynes pointed out philsophical writings have more power than we know. The failure to establish these systems led, in the late 19th century, to the emergence of more contingent and nihlistic systems, e.g. Wittgenstein. Or the inter-war French philsophical conclusions that everything is absurd. James would reply well it exists so it can't be absurd and your failure to deal with that shows a lack of faith and courage. (the book to read is Barzun's 'From Dawn to Decadence - not just highly recommended but Six Stars on the failures of Western culture to rise to the challenges of the 20th century).

Now with all that background as setup, and picking up what some of the other reviewers have to say, James offers an entirely different approach not based on absolutes but rather on the process of building truth. He's an excellent writer though his depth of thought is often disguised by the simplicity and 'downhominess' of his expression. What he constructs, in language reminiscant of Hemingway or Hogan on Golf, is a systematic view on achieving "Truth" based on what we can know, the relationships built up from earlier conclusions and testing those. It seems that his late 19th century American slang disguises some of this all too well. If one substitutes implications and consequences for his use of phrases like 'how does it pay out' the material moves forward in time and interpretation.

What James appears to have acheived, to me, is the first serious consideration of a constructed and dynamic philsophical system that evolves based on both external facts and it's own workings yet also carries the burdens and benefits of insisting on strong rules for construction and truth testing. He applies this system to many of the major and daily conundrums we face in our lives while also tackling many of the major paradoxes, at least implicitly, of modern philosphy.

To close the loop if James subtle and nuanced philsophy had been more widely understood we might not have avoided the disasters of various absolutist systems. But we would be in a better position to deal with the post catasrophe consequences and achieve a more balanced, courageous and forward-looking approach to things. In fact one could argue that what James does is put a systematic approach in place, based on methods and processes, and an admission that this is a pluralistic not monlithic universe where Truth is contingent. If you like he has adapted the scientific method, or engineering analysis, to philosophy and done so in such a way that a lot of groundwork is laid for the rest of us.