2011, Chernobyl 25 years later: Many lessons learned - Mikhail Gorbachev (Bulletin of Atomic Scientists)

Gorbatchov, o mais injustiçado de todos os "comunistas soviéticos" dirigentes da finada URSS – o homem que, finalmente, conseguiu abrir uma brecha no regime tirânico do bolchevismo totalitário – escreveu um artigo sobre a catástrofe que "ajudou" a extinguir o regime ditatorial do seu país. Chernobyl revelou o caos que era, finalmente, a imensa aldeia Potemkim figurando como o poderoso Império soviético. Ele tentou reformar o sistema, torná-lo mais humano e racional – tarefas virtualmente impossíveis no sistema bolchevique – e acabou por fragmentar o regime soviético, levando-o à crise final e à implosão. A explosão da central nuclear no norte da Ucrânia representou uma estalido europeu e mundial, e ali começou a derrocada do comunismo. Gorbatchov até que tentou com a glasnost e a perestroika, mas foi derrotado pelos próprios comunistas do PCUS.

2011: Chernobyl 25 years later: Many lessons learned

By Mikhail Gorbachev

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, December 7, 2020

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in the March/April 2011 issue of the Bulletin. It is republished here as part of our special issue commemorating the 75^th year of Bulletin publication.

The catastrophic accident in 1986 at the Chernobyl nuclear power station in Ukraine was one of the worst man-made disasters of the twentieth century. Two and a half decades later, the nuclear accident offers many lessons for preventing, managing, and recovering from such a horrible event, as well as specific lessons for the further development of nuclear power.

I first heard of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor breakdown on the morning of April 26, when the Soviet Ministry of Medium Machine Building, responsible for nuclear reactors, reported it to the Kremlin. Though the seriousness of the incident remained unclear during our emergency Politburo meeting, a government commission headed by Boris Yevdokimovich Shcherbina, Deputy Chairman of the USSR Council of Ministers, was established and immediately dispatched to Chernobyl. This commission included scientists from the Soviet Academy of Sciences, nuclear reactor specialists, physicians, and radiologists. They met that evening with their counterparts from the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences.

Initial reports were cautious in tone, and only on the following day, April 27, did we learn that an explosion had taken place at the nuclear power station, at least two people had been killed, and radioactive material had been released downwind. International media, however, had already started to speak about a radioactive cloud. We received more concrete information on April 28 and started informing the Soviet public of the serious nature of the disaster, focusing on efforts to manage the very dangerous and worsening situation.

As efforts continued to contain the fire and radioactive releases, authorities began evacuating the local Soviet population. “The heart of the reactor—the hot radioactive core—is in suspension, as it were,” Soviet Academician Yevgeni Velikhov announced at the time. “It has been covered by a layer of sand, lead, boron, and clay, and this puts an additional load on the structure. Can it hold up or will it sink into the ground? No one has ever been in such a difficult position.”

Within about 10 days the reactor fire and major radioactive releases were contained, but by then nuclear fallout had spread over three regions of the Soviet Union—Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia—most of Europe, and beyond. Thanks to the bravery of thousands of emergency workers, the number of victims and the proliferation of serious consequences were limited. Much long-term damage, however, had been done. Some 50 workers died fighting the fire and reactor core meltdown, and another 4,000 or more deaths may eventually be shown to have resulted from radioactive releases. The radiation dosage at the power plant during the accident has been estimated at over 20,000 roentgens per hour, about 40 times the estimated lethal dosage, and the World Health Organization identified 237 workers with Acute Radiation Sickness.

Over 135,000 people were evacuated from the area, including the nearest town of Pripyat, immediately following the accident, and another 200,000 over the following months. The extent of the nuclear fallout was illustrated by the fact that, within only a few hours after the accident began on April 26, radiation alarms sounded at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden, over 700 miles from Chernobyl. Today we know that about 77,000 square miles of territory in Europe and the former Soviet Union has been contaminated with radioactive fallout, leaving long-term challenges for flora, fauna, water, the environment, and human health. Tens of billions of dollars have already been spent in trying to contain and remediate the disaster, with a new containment shell now being constructed over the 1986 sarcophagus and what’s left of the reactor.

We must continue to seriously examine the long-term public health and environmental consequences of the accident to better understand the relationship between radiation, both low- and high-level, and human life. The twenty-fifth anniversary of the Chernobyl accident is an important historic milestone to remind ourselves of this solemn duty. Furthermore, it is also the perfect time to address four key and related issues:

Prevention

First of all, it is vitally important to prevent any possibility of a repetition of the Chernobyl accident. This was a horrendous disaster because of the direct human cost, the large tracts of land poisoned, the scale of population displacement, the great loss of livelihoods, and the long-term trauma suffered by individuals yanked from their homeland and heritage. Victims of the tragedy were confronted by a crisis which they could scarcely understand and against which they had no defense. The material damage inflicted by Chernobyl, although enormous, pales in significance when compared to the ongoing human costs. The true scope of the tragedy still remains beyond comprehension and is a shocking reminder of the reality of the nuclear threat. It is also a striking symbol of modern technological risk.

Renewable energy

While the old Soviet nuclear reactor model, which was without a safety containment shell and helped cause the Chernobyl disaster, is no longer in production, we must still be extremely careful when constructing and operating nuclear power plants around the globe today. Chernobyl is a warning sign. In the worst of cases, a nuclear reactor accident may devastate huge territories where little if any human life can exist.

Access to affordable and safe energy is vital for economic development and poverty eradication. We cannot therefore simply reject nuclear energy today with many countries hugely dependent on this energy resource. But it is necessary to realize that nuclear power is not a panacea, as some observers allege, for energy sufficiency or climate change. Its cost-effectiveness is also exaggerated, as its real cost does not account for many hidden expenses. In the United States, for example, direct subsidies to nuclear energy amounted to $115 billion between 1947 and 1999, with an additional $145 billion in indirect subsidies. In contrast, subsidies to wind and solar energy combined over this same period totaled only $5.5 billion.

To end the vicious cycle of “poverty versus safe environment,” the world must quickly transition to efficient, safe, and renewable energy, which will bring enormous economic, social, and environmental benefits. As the global population continues to expand, and the demand for energy production grows, we must invest in alternative and more sustainable sources of energy—wind, solar, geothermal, hydro—and widespread conservation and energy efficiency initiatives as safer, more efficient, and more affordable avenues for meeting both energy demands and conserving our fragile planet.

Transparency

The closed nature and secrecy of the nuclear power industry, which had already experienced some 150 significant radiation leaks at nuclear power stations throughout the world before the Chernobyl fire, greatly contributed to the accident and response difficulties. We need full transparency and public oversight and regulation of the nuclear power industry today, along with complete emergency preparedness and response mechanisms.

Vulnerability to terrorism and violence

I also remain concerned over the dangers of terrorist attacks on power reactors and terrorist groups’ acquisition of fissile material. After the heavy damage wrought by terrorist groups in New York, Moscow, Madrid, Tokyo, Bali, and elsewhere over the past 15 years, we must very carefully consider the vulnerability of reactor fuel, spent fuel pools, dry storage casks, and related fissile materials and facilities to sabotage, attack, and theft. While the Chernobyl disaster was accidental, caused by faulty technology and human error, today’s disaster could very well be intentional.

We especially must pay attention to keeping weapons and materials of mass destruction—in this case, nuclear weapons-grade materials such as high-enriched uranium and plutonium—out of the hands of terrorists and rogue nations. US President Barack Obama’s historic initiative to secure and eliminate all bomb-grade nuclear material in four years is an important step forward in improving global security, but we must not forget that these fissile materials are often used in nuclear power and research reactors.

Let us all remember Chernobyl, not only for its negative impact on Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and Europe, but also as a beacon of hope for a safer and more sustainable future.

EUA e Russia desmantelaram o tratado de armas intermediarias: 1987-2019

The National Security Archive: The INF Treaty, 1987-2019

by Diane N. Labrosse

From: The National Security Archive <nsarchiv@gwu.edu>

The INF Treaty, 1987-2019

Historic Reagan-Gorbachev arms control agreement expired August 2, 2019.

Declassified documents show major advances on verification, missed opportunities for conventional and strategic arms cuts

View the posting

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 679

Washington D.C., August 2, 2019 – The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty negotiated by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987 not only eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons but also broke new ground in arms control verification, according to declassified documents on INF negotiations published today by the National Security Archive.

Marking the expiration date today of the INF Treaty following the U.S. withdrawal announcement last October, the e-book publication includes key documents from both Soviet and American sources tracing the entire year of INF negotiations in 1987, and highlights the remarkable proposals on the table at the time (mostly from the Soviet side) for even more intrusive inspections and even more dramatic cuts in both strategic and conventional weapons.

The Archive first published these documents in 2007 on the 20th anniversary of the Washington summit between Reagan and Gorbachev, and since then has published the complete transcripts of all the Reagan-Gorbachev conversations in The Last Superpower Summits (CEU Press, 2016).

Check out the posting at the National Security Archive

THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE is an independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. The Archive collects and publishes declassified documents acquired through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). A tax-exempt public charity, the Archive receives no U.S. government funding; its budget is supported by publication royalties and donations from foundations and individuals.

Gorbachev escreve sobre seu amigo George Bush (pai) - Time magazine

Um companheiro para terminar a Guerra Fria se foi; seu parceiro soviético lamenta o novo clima de Guerra Fria:

George H.W. Bush and I Ended a War Together. But Peace Is Now in Jeopardy

Mikhail Gorbachev

Time magazine, December 8, 2019

On the day when I learned of the passing of George Bush, I recalled my meetings with him that marked turning points in our personal relationship and in the relations between our countries.

Our first serious conversation took place in December 1987, when I was on an official visit in Washington. George was then Vice President and running for President.

The visit culminated in the signing of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty; after, I would depart from an Air Force base. According to the protocol, or perhaps according to his own wish, the Vice President was to accompany me there. George suggested that he go in my car, which was unusual—certainly not according to protocol.

Later, on many occasions, we recalled that “conversation in the car.” It went far beyond the usual exchange of pleasantries. We agreed that relations between our countries were reaching a new level and that new opportunities were opening up, which must be used to the maximum extent possible. The Vice President assured me that, should he be elected, he would continue what we had started with President Reagan. And importantly, we said that, in relations with third countries, we would not undermine each other’s interests.

However, after Bush was elected President, there were reports in the U.S. mediathat the new Administration would not be ready to get down to serious work with us right from the start, that it was taking a pause for reflection. Why would the Administration wait? We were receiving all kinds of signals, but it was clear that the hard-liners were increasingly active.

Our relations suffered a loss of momentum. We knew that some members of the Administration were pushing Bush to continue to play the waiting game. So the message that came in September 1989 was important: the President was ready to meet at a halfway point, even before the exchange of -official visits.

What happened during the Malta summit that December can be described without exaggeration as a historic breakthrough. Against the backdrop of turbulent changes in Central and Eastern Europe and the accelerating process of German unification, including the demolition of the Berlin Wall, Bush said, “I would tread cautiously.” He added, “I will not be jumping on the wall, because there is too much at stake.”

When the two delegations met, Bush outlined a program of cooperation between our countries in various areas, including disarmament, which was generally constructive. I responded by stating: “The new U.S. President must know that the Soviet Union will not under any circumstances initiate a war … Moreover, the USSR is prepared to no longer consider the U.S. as an enemy and announce this openly.” This was not an off-the-cuff remark, but instead a position approved by the Soviet leadership. Our conversation with the U.S. President continued in that spirit.

The Malta summit drew a final line under the Cold War. This became clear when the events in Central and Eastern Europe and the process of German unification acquired an even greater speed. Working together, we succeeded in keeping them on a peaceful track.

A few months later came another test: Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, and his regime’s attempt to annex that country. This crisis proved that the Cold War was a thing of the past. The Soviet Union and the United States took a principled stand. The aggression was reversed, but there was no U.S. occupation of Iraq, no “regime change.”

All of this was taking place even as events in my country, as it transitioned to democracy and market economics, took a dramatic turn. My step-by-step approach to reform was being attacked from various sides—not just by those who wanted to stop the democratic process and turn back the clock but also by separatists seeking to dismember the country and supported by hotheads in Russia.

In these circumstances, it was very important for me to get a clear idea of the intentions of the United States. I put the question bluntly when I met with the President in London in July 1991, during the G-7 meeting, to which the President of the USSR was invited for the first time.

“I believe,” Bush replied, “that your success is in line with the profound interests of the United States. It is in our interest to see you work out the problems of relations with the republics. The demise of the Soviet Union would not be in our interests.” Though at the G-7 meeting our Western partners failed to take concrete steps to support the transformations in the Soviet Union, I took the remarks of George Bush seriously.

During his visit to the Soviet Union a little more than two weeks later, we had a serious and far-reaching discussion. We not only signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty but held an unprecedented discussion of a future international security system, to be created by common efforts.

That prospect, however, was scuttled by the attempted coup d’état in the USSR in August 1991. The coup, organized by reactionary forces, failed, but it weakened my position as the USSR President. We were not able to preserve the Union.

I vividly remember our talk on the phone on Dec. 25, a few hours before I announced that I was stepping down from the presidency of the Soviet Union. We reviewed the results of our cooperation. Our main accomplishment was our agreement to destroy thousands of nuclear weapons, both strategic and tactical. Together, we helped to end conflicts in various parts of the world. We laid the groundwork for a partnership between our countries.

Those historic results are now in jeopardy. The world is on the brink of a new confrontation and a new arms race.

George and I, having left government, often discussed the alarming trends that threaten world peace. We sometimes differed in our assessment of the events but we agreed on one thing: the end of the Cold War was not a victory of one side over another. It was the result of joint efforts. Today, only joint efforts can avert a new confrontation and the threat of a devastating war, thus restoring the prospect of a new world order—more secure, more just and more humane.

Gorbachev, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, was the only President of the Soviet Union.

Gorbachev: o apaziguador (sobre os mísseis nucleares de Russia e EUA) - The Washington Post

 

 

 

 

 

Opinions

Mikhail Gorbachev: My plea to the presidents of Russia and the United States

President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev at a signing ceremony for the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty in the White House on Dec. 8, 1987. (Barry Thumma/AP)

By Mikhail Gorbachev  

The Washington Post, October 11 at 11:00 AM

 

Mikhail Gorbachev was leader of the Soviet Union from 1985 to 1991.
 

This December will mark the 30th anniversary of the signing of the treaty between the Soviet Union and United States on the elimination of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles. This was the start of the process of radically cutting back nuclear arsenals, which was continued with the 1991 and 2010 strategic arms reduction treaties and the agreements reducing tactical nuclear weapons.

The scale of the process launched in 1987 is evidenced by the fact that, as Russia and the United States reported to the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2015, 80 percent of the nuclear weapons accumulated during the Cold War have been decommissioned and destroyed. Another important fact is that, despite the recent serious deterioration in bilateral relations, both sides have been complying with the strategic weapons agreements.
The Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, however, is now in jeopardy. It has proved to be the most vulnerable link in the system of limiting and reducing weapons of mass destruction. There have been calls on both sides for scrapping the agreement.

So what is happening, what is the problem, and what needs to be done?
Both sides have raised issues of compliance, accusing the other of violating or circumventing the treaty’s key provisions. From the sidelines, lacking fuller information, it is difficult to evaluate those accusations. But one thing is clear: The problem has a political as well as a technical aspect. It is up to the political leaders to take action.
Therefore I am making an appeal to the presidents of Russia and the United States.
Relations between the two nations are in a severe crisis. A way out must be sought, and there is one well-tested means available for accomplishing this: a dialogue based on mutual respect.
It will not be easy to cut through the logjam of issues on both sides. But neither was our dialogue easy three decades ago. It had its critics and detractors, who tried to derail it.
In the final analysis, it was the political will of the two nations’ leaders that proved decisive. And that is what’s needed now. This is what our two countries’ citizens and people everywhere expect from the presidents of Russia and the United States.
I call upon Russia and the United States to prepare and hold a full-scale summit on the entire range of issues. It is far from normal that the presidents of major nuclear powers meet merely “on the margins” of international gatherings. I hope that the process of preparing a proper summit is in the works even now.
I believe that the summit meeting should focus on the problems of reducing nuclear weapons and strengthening strategic stability. For should the system of nuclear arms control collapse, as may well happen if the INF Treaty is scrapped, the consequences, both direct and indirect, will be disastrous.
The closer that nuclear weapons are deployed to borders, the more dangerous they are: There is less time for a decision and greater risk of catastrophic error. And what will happen to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if the nuclear arms race begins anew? I am afraid it will be ruined.
If, however, the INF Treaty is saved, it will send a powerful signal to the world that the two biggest nuclear powers are aware of their responsibility and take their obligations seriously. Everyone will breathe a sigh of relief, and relations between Russia and the United States will finally get off the ground again.
I am confident that preparing a joint presidential statement on the two nations’ commitment to the INF Treaty is a realistic goal. Simultaneously, the technical issues could be resolved; for this purpose, the joint control commission under the INF Treaty could resume its work. I am convinced that, with an impetus from the two presidents, the generals and diplomats would be able to reach agreement.
We are living in a troubled world. It is particularly disturbing that relations between the major nuclear powers, Russia and the United States, have become a serious source of tensions and a hostage to domestic politics. It is time to return to sanity. I am sure that even inveterate opponents of normalizing U.S.-Russian relations will not dare object to the two presidents. These critics have no arguments on their side, for the very fact that the INF Treaty has been in effect for 30 years proves that it serves the security interests of our two countries and of the world.
In any undertaking, it is important to take the first step. In 1987, the first step in the difficult but vitally important process of ridding the world of nuclear weapons was the INF Treaty. Today, we face a dual challenge of preventing the collapse of the system of nuclear agreements and reversing the downward spiral in U.S.-Russian relations. It is time to take the first step.

Across the whale in a month (3): Churchill's Cold War speech at Fulton, Missouri

Numa segunda-feira em que 99,99% dos museus americanos permanecem fechados, tivemos uma sorte danada ao poder visitar o memorial Churchill, localizado na pequena cidade de Fulton, no coração do Missouri, onde o famoso líder britânico da Segunda Guerra Mundial pronunciou o mais famoso discurso da Guerra Fria, na verdade, inaugurando, antecipadamente, a própria guerra fria.

Depois de sair de Saint Louis um pouco tarde, seguimos pela estrada que segue em direção a Kansas City. Exatamente no meio do caminho, e no meio do caminho entre a estrada principal e a capital do Missouri, uma sonolenta cidade de apenas 50 mil habitantes que responde pelo nome de Jefferson City (em homenagem ao terceiro presidente americano), fica esta pequena cidade que abriga o Westminster College (mesmo nome, talvez, do distrito eleitoral de Churchil, na Grã-Bretanha), que formulou o convite com o apoio do presidente Harry Truman, um caipira do Missouri (existe uma presidential library Harry Truman em Independence, pouco antes de Kansas City). 

Sempre tive curiosidade em saber por que, diabos, Churchill teria ido falar sobre tema tão importante quanto a dominação soviética na Europa centra e oriental numa cidadezinha sem qualquer importância no plano mundial como essa aldeia perdida na caipirolândia americana. Pois bem, soube agora como isso foi acontecer, um discurso memorável que colocou no mapa do mundo, e da História (com H maiúsculo) esta pequena cidade dotada de um belo museu dedicado ao maior inglês do século 20, um detestável imperialista, um indefectível colonialista, mas um grande líder militar, um estrategista razoável e um grande mestre das palavras. Ele ganhou os ingleses basicamente pela palavra e pelos escritos, pelas frases geniais, cheias de espírito. 

Relato abaixo como isso foi possível, que soube pelo guia do museu, ou doutorando em História dos EUA pelo Westminster College, e pela informação disponível na internet.

Tenho o prazer de apresentar, portanto, o

National Churchill Museum

no subsolo (ou térreo) desta bela igreja inglesa do século 17 (na verdade, do século 11, mas destruída por um incêndio, e reconstruída depois, em 1677), trazida pedra por pedra de Londres, para figurar nesse memorial construído especialmente para servir como uma espécie de panteão especial para Churchill e toda a sua história de vida, desde a juventude, até seu aparecimento inédito em Fulton. 

Na verdade, a história cobre até o final da Guerra Fria, e um pedaço do muro de Berlim figura no pátio da igreja, onde falou Gorbachev, em 1992 (ver foto abaixo).

Transcrevo uma informação sobre o local, retirada da atual "mãe dos burros", a Wikipedia.

The National Churchill Museum, (formerly the Winston Churchill Memorial and Library) located on the Westminster College campus in Fulton, Missouri, United States, commemorates the life and times of Sir Winston Churchill. In 1946, Winston Churchill delivered his famous "Sinews of Peace" address in the Westminster Historic Gymnasium. His speech, due to one particularly famous phrase ("an ‘Iron Curtain’ has descended across the continent"), has come to be known as the "Iron Curtain" speech. One of Churchill's most famous speeches of all time, "Sinews of Peace" heralded the beginning of the Cold War.

The National Churchill Museum comprises three distinct but related elements: the Church of St Mary Aldermanbury, the museum, and the "Breakthrough" sculpture.

Aí estou eu, refletido no vidro da porta da entrada, para uma visita memorável, que me lembrou em algumas passagens as "catacumbas" do gabinete de guerra de Churchill em Londres, que visitamos um ano e meio atrás, quando fui dar uma palestra sobre o Brasil no King's College.

Continuo com a informação: 

Beneath the church is the Churchill museum, renovated in 2006. Through interactive new exhibits, the museum tells Churchill's story, discussing his personal and political life and his legacy. Additionally, the Clementine-Spencer Churchill Reading Room houses an extensive research collection about Churchill and his era.

Outside the church stands the "Breakthrough" sculpture, formed from eight sections of the Berlin Wall. Churchill's granddaughter, artist Edwina Sandys, designed the sculpture in order to commemorate both the "Sinews of Peace" speech and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

In 1946, Winston Churchill travelled to Westminster College in order to deliver his famous "Sinews of Peace" address as a part of the Green Lecture series. An extraordinary confluence of circumstances conspired to bring Winston Churchill to Westminster. At the time, the College had a unique connection to U.S. President Harry S. Truman's administration—Major General Harry Vaughan, a graduate of Westminster College. College president Franc McCluer asked Vaughan to see what President Truman could do to induce Churchill to come to Westminster. President Truman thought the idea of bringing Churchill to Missouri (Truman's native state) was a wonderful idea. On the bottom of Churchill's invitation from Westminster College Truman wrote: "This is a wonderful school in my home state. Hope you can do it. I will introduce you."

So it was that two world leaders, Winston Churchill and President Harry Truman, descended onto the little campus of Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri.

Churchill arrived on the Westminster College campus on March 5, 1946 and delivered his address. Churchill's "Sinews of Peace" delineated the complications and tensions of that moment in world history—less than a year after World War II and at the dawn of the Cold War. Churchill had been watching the Soviet Union with increasing concern. Churchill feared another war. "A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory," he said; adding, "whatever conclusion may be drawn from these facts…this is certainly not the liberated Europe we fought to build up. Nor is it one which contains the essentials of permanent peace."

Churchill noted the tensions mounting between Eastern and Western Europe. "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic," he said, "an ‘iron curtain’ has descended across the continent." Churchill then predicted what he called the formation of the "Soviet sphere.

Agora uma descrição do museu, em si: 

Winston S. Churchill: A Life of Leadership gallery

Renovated in 2006, in honor of the 60th anniversary of the "Sinews of Peace," the Churchill museum strives to bring Churchill to life for new generations born years after Churchill's death. The objective of the museum is to tell the story of Churchill's life, giving due proportion both to his successes and his failures, and to let visitors make their own determinations about the man and his place in history.

This narrative is presented in the form of a "walkthrough" experience, organized chronologically. The exhibition begins with Churchill's birth and proceeds through the major events of his life, alongside an examination of the critical events of the 20th century. The exhibit relates the story of Churchill's entire life—not only his experiences in World War II—examining his pursuits as a politician, soldier, journalist, family man, and painter.

Some of the highlights of this exhibition include the "Admiralty, Army & Arsenal: 1914-1919" room. This portion of the exhibit is housed within a recreation of a World War I trench—complete with barbed wire, sandbags, and spent ammunition—that gives visitors a sense of a British soldier's experience on the Western Front. A periscope mounted on the trench wall gives visitors a glimpse of a real World War I battlescape from period footage. An accompanying ambient audio track plays the sound of soldiers’ conversations interspersed with distant gunfire and shell bursts. The World War I room also examines Churchill's role in the disasters of the Dardanelles and Gallipoliand his contributions to the technology of warfare.

Another highlight of the exhibition is "The Gathering Storm: 1929-1939" room which discusses Churchill's suspicion of Hitler and the Nazi movement. In this room, five video monitors play excerpts from Nazi propaganda films interspersed with images of the impending war, demonstrating how Nazi rhetoric differed from policy. Against this backdrop, the exhibit examines Churchill's view of the Nazis and his disgust for Britain's pre-war appeasement politics.

Yet another room, "Churchill's Finest Hour: World War II, 1939-1945", portrays World War II and Churchill's pivotal role in that conflict. Here, a sound and light show replicates an air-raid on London during the "Blitz". Simulated rubble surrounds the room and the room reverberates with the sounds of bombs detonating and air raid sirens sounding. Flashes of anti-aircraft fire and the prodding beams of searchlights illuminate the exhibit. Segments of war-time broadcasts add to the atmosphere. After the conclusion of the Blitzdemonstration, a short film, narrated by Walter Cronkite, examines Churchill's role as prime minister during the war. Around the walls of his room, more interactive displays describe the war-time skills of code breaking and plane spotting.

Other museum highlights include "The Sinews of Peace" room and the "Winston's Wit & Wisdom" room. "The Sinews of Peace" tells the story of how and why Churchill came to visit Westminster College. Featured in this exhibit are the lectern and chair used by Churchill during his speech and the ceremonial robes he wore. In "Winston's Wit & Wisdom" visitors sit in a simulated British club while listening to an audio presentation of Churchill stories. Visitors to this room may also search through a database of Churchill's most famous quotations and quips on a host of topics.

Foi, até agora, o ponto alto de nossa travessia pelos Estados Unidos.

Carmen Lícia fez várias fotos do museu, e minhas, fora e dentro do museu. Posto aqui uma delas.

Amanhã, ou melhor, hoje, terça-feira, dia 17, tem mais: vamos visitar o Memorial da Primeira Guerra Mundial em Kansas City, onde tem uma exposição especial sobre os dez anos que precederam a guerra.

A viagem continua.

Paulo Roberto de Almeida