The World and Everything in It — March 2, 2020


MARY REICHARD, HOST: Well, it’s great to have a preroll from Kenya!

Good morning to you!

It’s Legal Docket today, and the big question is this: When is “land” not land for purposes of putting a pipeline across the Appalachian Trail?

AUDIO: When you walk on the trail, when you bike on the trail, when you backpack on the trail, you’re backpacking and biking and walking on land, aren’t you?

NICK EICHER, HOST: Also, an expanded Monday Moneybeat—we will talk about the stock market swoon and explain all the panic selling.

Plus the WORLD Radio History Book: this week marks the 50th anniversary of a multinational weapons agreement.

AUDIO: This treaty is not the work of any one country, but is in fact, the product of all nations which shared our concerns over the dangers of nuclear proliferation.

REICHARD: It’s Monday, March 2nd. This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: And I’m Nick Eicher. Good morning!

REICHARD: Now the news. Here’s Jill Nelson.


JILL NELSON, NEWS ANCHOR: Coronavirus continues to spread » Cases of the new coronavirus are spreading in the United States. Health officials in Washington state announced the first known death from the disease on Saturday. The man was in his 50s and had underlying health conditions. But he had no history of travel or contact with anyone known to have COVID-19.

Dr. Jeff Duchin is the public health officer for Seattle and King County.

DUCHIN: Novocoronavirus infection, as has been recognized, is spreading globally and we are having increasing cases in the United States and we expect to see increasing cases locally.

More than 50 people at a nursing facility near Seattle have coronavirus symptoms and two people connected to the center have tested positive for the virus. After health officials announced the suspected outbreak, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee declared a state of emergency.

At least 60 countries have now reported cases of COVID-19. More than 88,000 people around the world have contracted the new virus and at least 3,000 have died.

U.S. signs peace deal with the Taliban » Celebrations over the U.S.-Taliban peace deal signed Saturday didn’t last long. 

GHANI: [Speaking Farsi]

On Sunday, Afghan President Ashraf Ghani said he would not free thousands of Taliban prisoners—a key component of the agreement. It calls for the Afghan government to release up to 5,000 prisoners before power-sharing talks between rival factions. Those are set to begin March 10th.

Ghani said freeing the prisoners cannot be a prerequisite for talks.

Despite the apparent roadblock, U.S. officials say they will move ahead with plans to withdraw troops from the country over the next 14 months.

President Trump said that should not be seen as a license for terror attacks.

TRUMP: If bad things happen, we’ll go back. Let the people know, we’ll go back and we’ll go back so fast and we’ll go back with a force like nobody’s ever seen. And I don’t think that will be necessary. I hope it’s not necessary.

The president also said he would meet personally with Taliban leaders in the near future, although he did not specify a timeline for those talks. U.S. involvement in Afghanistan has lasted for 18 years, making it the longest conflict in U.S. history. 

Biden dominates South Carolina, winnows Dem. field » Former Vice President Joe Biden has turned his attention to Super Tuesday after a dominant win in South Carolina on Saturday. 

BIDEN: Well, I think it’s a big boost. I think it starts the real comeback. And I think it, you know, we picked up a lot of delegates, practically speaking. And we now have amassed more popular vote than anyone running for the nomination. But we have a long, long way to go. This is a marathon.

Biden, speaking there on Fox News Sunday.

Biden won every South Carolina county and amassed almost 50 percent of the vote in a crowded field. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders came in a distant second and now holds a narrow lead in overall delegate count. 

Biden’s big win convinced billionaire activist Tom Steyer to end his campaign on Saturday. And on Sunday, former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg ended his campaign. Buttigieg won the Iowa caucuses last month, but finished a disappointing fourth in South Carolina.

Fourteen states hold primaries tomorrow, when former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg will be on the ballot for the first time.

Trump nominates Rep. John Ratcliffe as DNI » President Trump has again announced plans to nominate Texas Congressman John Ratcliffe as director of national intelligence.

That post has been vacant since Dan Coats stepped down last August. At the time Trump said he would nominate Ratcliffe, but the lawmaker withdrew five days later amid accusations of inflating his resume. 

In a Friday tweet announcing the move, the president called Ratcliffe an “outstanding man of great talent.” 

Ratcliffe is a former prosecutor and serves on the House Intelligence Committee. He has a reputation for being a staunch defender of President Trump on Capitol Hill—especially during the Russia probe: 

RATCLIFFE: But at the end of the day this was about quid pro quo and whether or not the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld, and on that most important issue, neither this witness nor any other witness has provided any evidence that there was a quid pro quo. 

The director of national intelligence oversees the government’s 16 intelligence agencies and is the principal adviser to the president on intelligence matters. 

Appeals court sides with White House in testimony dispute » A federal appeals court has handed the White House a major victory in a dispute with the House of Representatives. WORLD Radio’s Sarah Schweinsberg has details: 

SCHWEINSBERG: A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed a lawsuit trying to force former White House counsel Don McGahn to testify before a House committee in the Russia probe. 

The House Judiciary Committee brought the suit after the White House invoked executive privilege to block McGahn from testifying. 

The two-to-one decision reverses a lower court’s order. And if it stands, it’s a big win for presidential powers—setting a precedent for future presidents who want to prohibit subordinates from cooperating with investigations. 

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler said he will seek to have the case re-heard before the full D.C. Court of Appeals. 

Reporting for WORLD Radio, I’m Sarah Schweinsberg.

NELSON: I’m Jill Nelson. Straight ahead: a pipeline fight at the Appalachian Trail.

Plus, a coronavirus crisis on Wall Street.

This is The World and Everything in It.


NICK EICHER: It’s Monday morning and time to get back to work for The World and Everything in It. Today is the 2nd of March, 2020. 

Good morning to you, I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard.

EICHER: Welcome back from your DC trip!

REICHARD: Yes, great, great trip, but glad to be home and back to my regular routine.

Maybe you know my practice is to wait for the Supreme Court to release transcripts and tape of the oral arguments online Friday, and then write up my Legal Docket reports over the weekend. Sometimes I can get a little ahead but not this week.

Of course, Nick, you know that quite well, as my editor. 

But I bring that up to say, going to Washington was an opportunity to view oral arguments in person, right in the Supreme Court.

It was an interesting view, but my usual practice, frankly, is more efficient: fewer distractions!

EICHER: More efficient in your own office than right there at the court. What kind of distractions would you say?

REICHARD: Oh, good distractions, the visuals. The building itself is beautiful. I think for me, to watch the justices and see their individual mannerisms unfold held my interest as much as did the arguments.

EICHER: What was most striking to you?

REICHARD: So, Justice Clarence Thomas, for example. I noticed how he likes to lean back in his chair, and he often covers his eyes with his hands. Justice Samuel Alito also leans back a lot and he often looks up at the ceiling when he’s thinking.

Justice Neil Gorsuch rests his chin on his hand and looks down at paperwork on his desk for long stretches. Like the sort of judge you’d cast in a movie, sort of chiseled from Supreme Court marble. 

And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I mean this with the utmost respect. Brilliant legal mind. She’s an intellectual giant, but a tiny person. The enormous chairs the justices sit in, her’s just seems to swallow her up. Except for when she stood up, I never actually saw her face, just her hair. And I did notice the difficulty she had standing up from her chair. I saw a hand reaching out from behind the bench to steady her as she came off the dais.

Bottom line, I felt compassion toward them, nine image-bearers just doing the work they were meant to do.

EICHER: Glad you did that, and I’ll add: the purpose of the trip was to connect with your other legal eagle, Jenny Rough, a fellow lawyer, and your partner in a project we’re all really looking forward to: a stand-alone Legal Docket podcast that we’ll release in the summer. 

You two spent the week working on that project: Starting in July, we’ll do 10 big episodes, taking a deep dive into what we think are the 10 biggest, most significant cases of the term. 

No pressure, Mary, but this is going to be great!

REICHARD: Gulp. A little nervous, if I’m being honest, you know this, Nick. It’s a big project and Jenny and I could use some prayers. We’ve been blessed to receive some positive attention in the legal-journalism community for our work, and we want to bring glory to God in everything we do including this new program.

Now, let me say, too, that before we tackle today’s argument, the justices handed down seven opinions last week, and I’ll have a summary of those for you tomorrow.

Today, I want to tell you about the court battle last week that really brought out the crowds. No empty seats in the courtroom. 

It puts preservation of wilderness up against the building of infrastructure. 

Here’s some background.

Think about the Appalachian Trail. It’s a 2,200 mile trail that traverses 14 states, from all the way down in Georgia to all the way up in Maine. More than a million people hike parts of the Appalachian Trail every year. 

It’s beautiful and so many people treasure that natural world and want it preserved.

EICHER: But think also about the millions more people who live on the Eastern Seaboard and need power to fuel their daily lives.

Delivering that energy requires infrastructure. Now, some natural gas pipelines already exist that cross the Appalachian Trail. Almost all of them are on private or state land. 

The dispute before the Supreme Court is over a proposed pipeline that will go under the part of the Appalachian Trail that is in the George Washington National Forest. The federal government, specifically, the U.S. Forest Service, administers that forest as well as another 150.

REICHARD: The Forest Service granted the license to do this work two years ago. But environmental groups sued to stop it. They argue the Forest Service lacked authority to approve the pipeline. That’s the ambit of the National Park Service, they say, not the National Forest Service.

Two lawyers argued in favor of allowing the pipeline: one for the pipeline builder and one for the government. I’ll start with the lawyer for the federal government, Assistant to the Solicitor General Anthony Yang. His argument is that the trail is not land within the meaning of relevant law. Yang thinks about it this way: the park service administers the trail, the forest service administers the land beneath it.

I noticed furrowed brows of justices trying to make legal sense of that concept. Lots of back-and-forth ensued, so I’ve edited to help you follow the flow of the argument. First you’ll hear Justice Elena Kagan, who questions government lawyer Yang:

KAGAN: I don’t know really quite how to say it except that nobody makes this distinction in real life. When you walk on the trail, when you bike on the trail, when you backpack on the trail, you’re backpacking and biking and walking on land, aren’t you?

YANG: You’re certainly sometimes walking on land. You’re also walking on things like bridges. You’re also walking on—for instance, trails include waterways.

KAGAN: As a matter of plain English—I mean, both of your briefs are strange to read because you can’t ever just say what you mean…

Yang explained that land administration is a big area of the law, with several overlapping statutes. So you can’t just look at one or two in isolation. 

But Justice Sonia Sotomayor had a practical question.

SOTOMAYOR: Why is it that two agencies can’t have simultaneous 
administration, and even possibly management 
responsibilities?

Yang replied that can happen sometimes: for example, such as when the government withdraws land from public use and sets it aside for military use. But that’s not the case here.

Now I’ll bring in the other lawyer in favor of the pipeline, a Supreme Court regular, Paul Clement. He’s representing the pipeline builder. Clement argues the relevant text—and the consequences of a wrong decision—weigh in his client’s favor. 

The law, Clement says, distinguishes between the trail and the land it traverses. Remember we’re talking 22-hundred miles and a quarter million acres: it’s common for trees to fall and for rangers to have to reroute the trail. The status of the land shouldn’t change each time that happens. That tree is the Forest Service’s problem. But when it lands on the trail, it’s the Park Service’s problem. That’s the design. It changes nothing about the Forest Service’s responsibility to oversee the land overall.

And if the court hands victory to the environmental groups? Clement says that’ll create barriers to pipeline development.

Justice Alito got down to word meanings:

ALITO: When the statute says that park system consists of “lands administered by the Park Service,” does it mean administered in full, administered exclusively by the Park Service, or administered in any sense by the Park Service?

CLEMENT: I think if it has to mean one of those things, it probably means administered in full… . I don’t really think it’s as metaphysical as you think. I mean, the philosophers at the Park Service and the Forest Service haven’t had any problem with this for 50 years. They have dealt with the reality that the trail is, in an administrative sense, under the Park Service, but on a day-to-day basis, the lands stay where they are.

On the other side of these two was Michael Kellogg, arguing on behalf of the environmental groups. He took on a question Justice Breyer had asked earlier, about how far underground the pipeline would be. 

600 feet, Clement had answered, entering and exiting on private land. Justice Breyer seemed to take that as not a problem. But Kellogg took aim at that presumption using a law concerning the National Trails System:

KELLOGG: I want to go directly to the question of whether there’s an easy out in this case by saying it’s 600 feet under the ground, so it doesn’t count. I’ll call the court’s attention to 1248(a), which specifically says that rights of ways are to be granted by the secretary of the interior in this case for anything, “rights-of-ways upon, over, under, across, or along any components of the Appalachian Trail.”

So “under” counts… . Obviously the pipeline is going to go under those lands, but it’s the one who administers the surface of the lands.

The secretary of the interior is over the Park Service according to another law, so Kellogg’s argument is it’s the Park Service, not the Forest Service, that has say so over pipelines whether over, under, any which way along the Appalachian Trail. 

Several justices worried about creating a barrier to building infrastructure, and worried about the consequences of handing victory to the environmentalist groups: 80 percent of the Appalachian Trail runs through federal land. The remaining 20 percent is on state and private land. That’s a huge chunk of property to block from infrastructure.

The justices have no disagreement among the appellate courts to resolve, no circuit splits, as they’re known. They have no prior decisions to guide what they do now. 

But no doubt they took this case because of its importance to the country.

If I had to guess, based on questions alone, it seems to me the five conservative justices and maybe Justice Breyer are reluctant to stop development. So I predict a win here for the pipeline developers and the federal government.

And that’s this week’s Legal Docket.


NICK EICHER: When maintenance workers at a Richmond, Virginia, apartment complex found out what was hiding inside the ceiling of one apartment unit, they immediately called for help! They wisely decided to let professionals remove it. 

What they found was an 8-foot-long beehive. 

They called in beekeepers to evict tens-of-thousands of bees from the apartment. 

The owner of the wildlife control company, Rich Perry, said the hive was big enough to support 100,000 to 150,000 bees!

He said the Italian bees probably got in through holes in the siding and found a home between rafters and sheet rock.

The hive produced about 80 to 100 pounds of honey!

The company has a “no kill” policy with bees. But they were unable to find the queen, so sadly, the hive could not be saved.

It’s The World and Everything in It.


MARY REICHARD: Coming up next: The Monday Moneybeat.

NICK EICHER: Maybe we call it the Monday Money-taking-a-beating.

You started hearing about the market plunge in just about every news report you heard or read last week: The Nasdaq off 10-1/2 percent on the week. The Standard & Poor’s 500, down 11-1/2. The Dow Jones Industrial Average almost 12-1/2 percent. That’s just in one week, and it’s almost certainly because of the coronavirus scare.

Instead of rattling off number upon number, record-setting event after record-breaking event, we got in touch with David Bahnsen. He’s a cool-headed and wise financial adviser and analyst with offices in New York and southern California. Today, he joins us from California.

Good morning, David.

DAVID BAHNSEN, GUEST: Good morning. It’s good to be with you.

EICHER: Let me begin with defining terms: When we talk about a “correction” in the stock market, we’re talking about a big index falling 10 percent from its high point. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, the Nasdaq, the Standard & Poor’s 500. The big ones. It’s rare that corrections happen quickly. We’re talking 20 to 40 to 100 trading days for a correction to materialize, this decline of 10 percent. 

That’s the definition and the context.

So in light of that, it’s notable that last week’s market correction happened in a lightning-fast six days. That’s record speed. We saw more than $3 trillion in market value wiped out.

David, I read The Wall Street Journal every day, I noticed one big article quoting you calling this a bloodbath. Let me ask you: To what extent has the market been overvalued and due for a correction and how much of this is a “non-financial, exogenous force,” meaning outside the traditional bounds of economics, purely a public-health issue?

BAHNSEN: Yeah, great question, Nick. Those aren’t two totally binary or separate items. I think that because there were certain parts of the market that were already frothy in their valuation, you get a compounding effect. This is a real story and the coronavirus thing has turned into a panic-level event and yet it certainly is made worse when things were starting at a frothy position. 

One thing I would say, by the way, you did point out and you’re correct that it was $3 trillion with a T of market cap that was evaporated in these four days from the S&P 500. But it’s $11 trillion of market cap that has evaporated from global stock markets. 

So one has to sort of ask if the coronavirus epidemic and situation that is really so far reasonably muted in its actual impact, it’s trading off of its potential impact. If those really bad potential things all come to fruition, which by the way I don’t think they will and obviously we all pray they won’t. But even if this thing really gets into some of the bad territory some are worried about, is $11 trillion enough to have covered it? In other words, what is it people think can happen that is worth more than $11 trillion of value? 

It would stand to reason that we’re now in a position where we’ve overshot on the downside and markets may not find that footing immediately. They may very well find it. But in correction territory like this, you’re at risk of a very violent snapback as well.

EICHER: It’s striking how globalized our economy is. I think we all know it. But we don’t really perceive it, until something like this coronavirus crops up. 

Can you explain, David, how at-risk we are, because we can’t wall ourselves off from the global economy?

BAHNSEN: Well, that’s right. We’re not. And the global economy can’t wall itself off from the U.S. either, so these things come together. Now, generally speaking, global conditions do not put the U.S. into a recession. The U.S. put the globe into a recession. But my point is systemically U.S. is more leader than follower here. 

So, the question is will supply chain disruptions become so severe that they do that. I think it’s very unlikely, but I’d absolutely think it’s possible. But I don’t think that that is at all related to what’s happening to the market right now. There isn’t some ability out there to kind of price what could go wrong from a health epidemic and then price how that wrongness needs to be handicapped into market prices. This is just pure, indiscriminate freefall panic selling. 

And when you defined it for listeners earlier what a correction is, you’re right. It was a sort of technical vernacular around a 10 percent drop. All of the major market indices have exceeded that in just a matter of days. But as far as the stock market’s correction goes, it’s really important to separate fundamentals from what is driving markets now and there’s no question that what’s driving markets now is indiscriminate panic.

EICHER: I noted the debate about the markets hoping for the Fed to ride to the rescue with interest-rate cuts. Just last week, I played a soundbite of the president of the Atlanta Fed bank saying he’s not hearing about an extended negative impact, that we’re looking at just a short-time hit, then back to normal. In other words, there’s no reason for the Fed to move off its current position on interest rates. 

Then Friday, Fed Chairman Jay Powell signaled he’s ready to cut interest rates if needed. Do you think the Fed should do something, or would that be attacking the wrong problem?

BAHNSEN: Yeah. It’s a difficult question to answer and I don’t want to be overly nuanced or complicate things, but I have to answer your question in the context of the role they’re playing, not the role I want them to play. But in the role I want them to play, my answer would be no. However, that’s not the world we’re in. That’s not the game we’re playing. 

So, to the degree I’m talking about the rules of the game that they have set—not that you and I have set—I do think they’re going to have to cut because they have said that they believe in what’s called the wealth effect. That it’s their job to ensure as much economic stability as possible. And so therefore I have to tell you that I think in their paradigm, there’s no question that over 4,000 points of Dow drop in four or five days meets the criteria of them taking emergency measures. The Fed Funds Futures market is pricing in a 100 percent chance that they will cut rates at the next meeting.

EICHER: Appreciate your time, but before we go: Do you think the underlying economic conditions are such that, should this thing pass, the economy will go back on a tear—or do you think we’re at the end of the big economic expansion?

BAHNSEN: I don’t know the answer to that because let’s say this whole coronavirus thing had never happened at all, it was a question before then as well. 

A lot of really good things have been done over the last few years. So, that kindling is still there. But when you have an economic shock, sometimes it’s difficult to re-light the wood, so to speak.   

But if we look to SARS, if we look to Ebola, if we look to Zika, you had a 10 to 13 percent drop in all those cases, too. Now, they didn’t happen in 4 days, so this feels more violent. But it is entirely possible that through the forces of human ingenuity and science and medial and technology and all the good things that we’re in a better position in a few weeks and have a more rational way to evaluate the economy. But it’s really hard to do right now.

EICHER: David Bahnsen is a financial adviser and analyst based in California. David, thanks for your wisdom. Great to talk with you and thanks for your time this morning.

BAHNSEN: It’s always a pleasure to be with you. Take care.


NICK EICHER: Today is Monday, March 2nd. Good morning! This is The World and Everything in It from listener-supported WORLD Radio. I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard.

This is our first program of the month of March, and this is the month we have two live events on the calendar: March 19th in Greenville, South Carolina, followed March 21st by a Saturday matinee event in Atlanta, Georgia. 

The World and Everything in It Live. I hope you can join us if you live near those areas. We have such a good time at these events so if you can, we’d love to spend some time with you. Shake your hand, take some pictures, get to know you. Connect.

EICHER: It’s a free event, made possible by our sponsor Samaritan Ministries … so no charge, but you do need to sign up to reserve your seat. Go to wng.org/live for all the particulars and an online sign up. The address is wng.org/live. Looking forward to seeing you in Greenville and Atlanta.

REICHARD: Well, next up, the WORLD Radio History Book. Today, the beginning of an international treaty to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Plus, nearly 90 years ago a ground-breaking American film about a monstrous ape.

EICHER: But first, two hundred years ago this week, a political compromise that maintains equal power in the U.S. Senate between Northern and Southern states. Here’s Paul Butler.

PAUL BUTLER: In 1817, the U.S. territory of Missouri applied for statehood. At the time, the union had 22 states. The U.S. House of Representatives had an anti-slavery majority, but the Senate was equally divided. Missouri favored slavery, so its admittance would change the balance of power. Free states feared it would also guarantee the spread of slavery west into the Louisiana territory. 

So in 1819, a New York representative introduced an anti-slavery amendment—launching a lengthy and heated debate over the government’s right to restrict the practice. The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed the amendment, but the Missouri statehood legislation failed in the Senate due to deadlock. 

Months later, the territory reapplied. This time, U.S. Speaker of the House Henry Clay proposed the creation of two states, Missouri and Maine: the former a slave state, and the later a free one—thus maintaining the Senate’s balance of power. Clay further suggested a line should be drawn through the Louisiana Territory along the 36th degree parallel—dividing it into a free north and slave south. 

After much political wrangling, the legislation passed in two parts and Missouri and Maine entered the union—an agreement known as the Missouri Compromise. Thomas Jefferson believed the legislation would further divide the nation, and lead to the destruction of the union. Historian Dick Morris reads Jefferson’s words:

MORRIS: This momentous question is like a fire bell in the night, it awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union…A geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated.

Thomas Jefferson was right. The Missouri Compromise led to armed conflict—first with its westward neighbors and eventually in war between the North and South. 

MOVIE CLIP: RKO OPENING SOUND AND KONG THEME

Next, March 2nd, 1933. A groundbreaking monster film opens at New York’s Radio City Music Hall.

CLIP: There the beast, and here the beauty. She has lived through an experience no other woman has dreamed of…

The film features starlet Fay Wray and leading men Bruce Cabot and Robert Armstrong—though the most memorable cast member is a 30 foot monster: King Kong.

CLIP: Don’t be alarmed ladies and gentlemen…

Using stop-motion animation, miniatures, full-sized hands and an animatronic face, the filmmakers bring the giant gorilla to life. The film pioneers many of the special effects techniques that become standard tools of the trade. Director Peter Jackson:

PETER JACKSON: You know this was pioneer times when there were so few people who understood what films were, let alone understood anything to do with visual effects.

MOVIE CLIP: Get an ambulance. Kong has escaped! 

Initially released during the Great Depression, King Kong was still a great financial success—setting an all-time attendance record and grossing more than 2 million dollars nationwide. 

CLIP: Well Denham, the airplanes got ‘em. Ah, no. It wasn’t the airplanes. It was beauty killed beast… 

And finally, March 5th, 1970, 50 years ago this week. The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty, or NPT goes into effect. 

PRES. JOHNSON: This is a very reassuring and hopeful moment in the relations among nations…

President Lyndon B Johnson from a White House signing ceremony. The United States is one of 43 original nations to ratify and sign the treaty. The governments promise to cooperate in minimizing the spread of nuclear technology. 

U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk.

DEAN RUSK: This treaty is not the work of any one country, but is in fact, the product of all nations which shared our concerns over the dangers of nuclear proliferation.

The agreement builds on the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty between the United States and Russia, and the 1967 Outer Space Treaty—prohibiting nuclear weapons in space. The Non-Proliferation Treaty raises hopes that the arms race can be slowed, if not reversed. 

British Ambassador Patrick Dean.

PATRICK DEAN: Today we are here to add another stone to the edifice which one day we all pray will ensure lasting peace to mankind through complete and general disarmament. 

But two nuclear powers did not sign-on: France and China. A handful of countries on the threshold of nuclear weapons also chose not to join, including Brazil, India, Israel, and Pakistan. 

So while the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty showed that international governments could work together, in the end, the treaty did not lead to world peace as the signers hoped. 

That’s this week’s WORLD Radio History Book, I’m Paul Butler.


NICK EICHER: Tomorrow: U.S. health officials say a coronavirus outbreak here is going to happen. We’ll find out whether we’re ready.

And our Classic Book of the Month.

That and more tomorrow. 

I’m Nick Eicher.

MARY REICHARD: And I’m Mary Reichard.

The World and Everything in It comes to you from WORLD Radio.

WORLD’s mission is biblically objective journalism that informs, educates, and inspires.

Scripture reminds us: Do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.

So let’s remember: Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

Go now in grace and peace.


WORLD Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of WORLD Radio programming is the audio record.

Like this story?

To hear a lot more like it, subscribe to The World and Everything in It via iTunes, Overcast, Stitcher, or Pocket Casts.

iTunes

Free

Overcast

Free

Stitcher

Free

Pocket Casts

(Requires a fee)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.