“Public choice theory” in economics, in part, explains the way self-interest of those in government and other institutions motivates them to avoid solving problems in order to keep their jobs and perks. Now, a new series of studies by researchers at Harvard and other universities shows “that as the prevalence of a problem is reduced, humans are naturally inclined to redefine the problem itself.” Public choice economists have long understood that there is a tendency to endlessly move the goal posts in order to avoid “solving” a problem. For instance, according to government statistics, very little progress has been made in the “fight” against poverty in that the number of poor as a percentage of the population has changed little in the last four decades despite the fact that the amount spent on anti-poverty programs has grown far faster than the rate of inflation or population growth. The lack of “progress” is largely a result of endless redefinitions of what poverty is. The average U.S. “poor” family now has a large flat-screen color TV, air-conditioned living quarters and a dishwasher. Middle-class families did not have such luxuries 50 years ago. There are hundreds of thousands employed in the anti-poverty industry. If the problem of “poverty” were solved, there would be no need for most of these people; hence, the enormous incentive to redefine the problem. Public choice economists recognize that most people have some concern for others, but their main motive is self-interest. Why does the government spend roughly twice as much money per poor person on anti-poverty programs instead of just granting each poor person the amount of money the government says he or she needs to no longer be poor?

For example, the International Criminal Court (ICC) recently green-lighted an investigation into war crimes accusations leveled against U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The U.S. isn’t even a party to the ICC. The court has zero jurisdiction over America. “This is a truly breathtaking action by an unaccountable political institution masquerading as a legal body,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters. Faced with such brazen disregard for U.S. sovereignty, merely ignoring the ICC is insufficient. It is time for the U.S. to go the offensive. If the U.S. does not pay attention and fight back, the ICC will not be the last international organization that our foes weaponized to use against us. China’s behavior in this regard has become quite egregious. Beijing is pressing numerous international organizations to hire thousands of Chinese citizens. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) wants to riddle organizations with operatives loyal to the party. There is no end to the mischief that the CCP can accomplish by hijacking international organizations. Recently, it used its influence in the World Health Organization not only to hide China’s mismanagement of the response to the coronavirus, but to browbeat international officials into abetting the cover-up. China also tried to press its candidate as the head of World Intellectual Property Organization ? while being the world’s leader in stealing intellectual property. Shrewd and powerful offensives targeted on key international organizations now would both mark U.S. global leadership for a second century and tip the great power competition more in our favor.

Over the years, many observers have become disenchanted with the United Nations. Setting up international organizations to bring countries together for discussing and dealing with common concerns is an intuitively good idea. Unfortunately, like an unsupervised kindergarten class, the U.N. and many other international organizations have gotten off track. What leads them astray are two common misconceptions. The first is the wrong-headed notion that international organizations should supplant rather than serve sovereign states. Too many big thinkers and bureaucrats within these outfits, perhaps having watched too much “Star Trek,” start believing that their pet organization is the natural precursor to the World Federation. Undisciplined, unaccountable, and unconstrained international organizations threaten popular sovereignty. If states are accountable to international organizations, not their citizens, then basic human freedom is irreparably compromised. The other big “no-no” is thinking that all nations are equal. They are not. Many malicious regimes have, from the start, used the opportunity to engage in international organizations as an invitation to make mischief. Giving authoritarian regimes positions of power in an international organization is the equivalent of letting Pennywise the Clown manage Amber Alerts. Yet we regularly see the world’s worst human rights abusers get elected to the U.N. Human Rights Council. Some of those international organizations, having convinced themselves that the U.S. is the real threat, and have trained their sights on America.

By continuing to use the RD-180 engine without any viable domestic alternatives, America is essentially acquiescing control of its space program to Vladimir Putin. Given the growing tension between the two nations, this dependency cannot be allowed to continue. Fortunately, the Trump administration is moving forward with a plan to solve this crisis. The National Security Space Launch program, or NSSL, is an initiative established specifically to eliminate our nation’s dependence on Russia’s rockets. Under the program, the Air Force is scheduled to contract two domestic launch providers to create reliable alternatives to the RD-180. If the program continues on schedule, the United States will phase out the RD-180 rocket engine by 2022 and seamlessly integrate its domestic replacement. However, as is always the case in Washington, partisan politics threatens to take its toll on America’s national security interests. Some members of the House of Representatives have threatened to derail the NSSL program by saddling it with unnecessary modifications and new requirements that will delay the program. The Pentagon has stood fast in opposition to changes to the NSSL, knowing that any delays from Congress could be catastrophic for national security. The United States must end its reliance on RD-180 rockets and any other national security instruments manufactured by its adversary. Likewise, the United States must analyze other vulnerabilities within its armed forces and prevent Russia’s exploitation of them. Failure to view Russia as the United States’ greatest national security threat risks America’s pre-eminence on the world stage, or worse, its very survival.

If escalated to the point of no return, a nuclear conflict would absolutely devastate the United States. Within the first few hours alone, the study estimates 34 million people would perish. Since Russia has become increasingly volatile as of late, America must rethink its strategy. On Sept. 17, 2019, Russia joined with China to conduct large-scale military exercises. This is a move experts believe is meant to convey the nation’s growing military influence as well as an anti-Western, anti-American sentiment. The question is: What can the United States do about it? First, America must not underestimate the threat. Russia maintains the largest nuclear stockpile in the world and is no longer the fragmented entity it was following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained that Russia has closely studied American military strategy and is in the process of developing the technology and tactics to counteract our nation’s inherent military advantages. Russia is advancing in the capability to target and destroy U.S. satellites in space ? and it’s unlikely they’ll stop there. Russia is seeking every opportunity to capitalize on America’s military weaknesses. It stands to reason, then, that the United States should be looking to plug each hole before it can be exploited. One huge strategic deficiency is our reliance on Russia for an essential national security tool: Rockets. Currently, the United States is wholly dependent on Russian rocket engines to transport cargo and conduct critical national security-related missions to and from space. Russia’s RD-180 rocket engine remains the U.S. Air Force’s pre-eminent propulsion system - a reality that leaves our country extremely vulnerable.

Americans largely consider our homeland safe from the threat of foreign attack. But this secure feeling is a relatively recent development. Everyone over 30 has lived a portion of their life a victim of the Cold War with the Soviet Union. I grew up with frequent “duck and cover” drills in school where we dived under our desks in practice for a potential atomic bomb attack. Russia deployed the first intercontinental ballistic missile, the R-7, in 1959. The subsequent nuclear arms race inflicted constant stress on the people of the Western world and those behind the Iron Curtain. My 24-year Air Force career focused on deterring the USSR from annihilating my country. The United States and its allies ultimately won that four-decade world war when they outspent and outlasted the Soviets with vast numbers of nuclear warheads and missiles. The hammer and sickle flag over the Soviet Union was retired permanently on Christmas Day, 1991. Since then, Russia has been relegated to nuisance-nation status throughout most of the world. The average American today doesn’t lose much sleep over Russia. Many believe that America’s Cold War adversary wouldn’t dare challenge them. And even if they did, Americans assume their military would be able to protect them. However, a new study from Princeton University reveals just how tragically misguided that assessment is. Tensions between the two nations are increasing as both are squaring off yet again over nuclear proliferation. According to Princeton, Russia remains a dire threat to America. Over the past two years, the study concludes, a nuclear war between the United States and Russia has become “dramatically” more plausible.

But there was no guarantee that the novel weapons, especially the untested plutonium bomb, would work. A dud bomb or an unimpressive detonation at sea might have only emboldened the Japanese to continue the war. There were likely only three bombs ready in August. It was not clear when more would be available. So real worries arose that the Japanese might be unimpressed, ignore the warning and ride out the future attacks in hopes there were few additional bombs left. In the cruel logic of existential war, demonstrating rather than using a new weapon can convey to autocratic belligerents hesitancy seen as weakness to be manipulated rather than as magnanimity to be reciprocated. By August 1945, six years after the start of World War II in Europe, some 70 million had died, including some 10 million killed by the Japanese military. Millions more starved throughout Asia and China due to the destruction and famine unleashed by Japan ? a brutal military empowered by millions of skilled civilian industrial workers. To Americans and most of the world 75 years ago, each day in early August 1945 that the Japanese war machine continued its work meant that thousands of Asian civilians and Allied soldiers would die. In the terrible arithmetic of World War II, the idea that such a nightmare might end in a day or two was seen as saving millions of lives rather than gratuitously incinerating tens of thousands. It was in that bleak context that Harry Truman dropped the two bombs ? opting for a terrible choice among even worse alternatives.

The fighting in Japan would have made the prior three-month blood bath at Okinawa, which formally ended just six weeks before Hiroshima, seem like child’s play. The disaster at Okinawa cost the United States 50,000 casualties and 32 ships ― the worst battle losses the American Navy suffered in the war. More than 250,000 Okinawans and Japanese soldiers were killed as well. Just the street fighting to recapture Manila in the Philippines in early 1945 cost a quarter-million Filipino, Allied and Japanese lives. Three, the United States could have held off on using the bomb, postponed the invasion and simply kept firebombing Japan with its huge fleet of B-29 bombers. The planes soon would have been reinforced with thousands more American and British bombers freed from the end of World War II in Europe. The napalming of Tokyo had already taken some 100,000 lives. With huge new Allied bomber fleets of 5,000 or more planes based on nearby Okinawa, the Japanese death toll would have soared to near a million. Four, the United States might have played rope-a-dope, stood down and let the Soviet Red Army overrun China, Korea and Japan itself ― in the same fashion that the Russians months earlier had absorbed eastern Germany, the Balkans and Eastern Europe. But the Soviet occupation of North Korea alone only led to more war in 1950. Had the Soviets grabbed more Japanese-occupied territory, more communist totalitarianism and conflict likely would have ensued, with no chance of a free and democratic postwar Japan. Five, Truman could have dropped a demonstration bomb or two in Tokyo Bay to warn the Japanese government of their country’s certain destruction if it continued the war.

This month marks the 75th anniversary of the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan, at Hiroshima on Aug. 6, and Nagasaki on Aug. 9. Each year, Americans argue about our supposed moral shortcomings for being the only nation to have used an atomic weapon in war. Given the current cultural revolution that topples statues, renames institutions, cancels out the supposedly politically incorrect and wages war on America’s past, we will hear numerous attacks on the decision of Democratic President Harry Truman to use the two terrible weapons. But what were the alternatives that Truman faced had he not dropped the bombs that precipitated Japan’s agreement to surrender less than a week after the bombing of Nagasaki and formally on Sept. 2? One, Truman could have allowed Japan’s wounded military government to stop the killing and stay in power. But the Japanese had already killed more than 10 million Chinese civilians since 1931, and perhaps another 4 million to 5 million Pacific Islanders, Southeast Asians and members of the Allied Forces since 1940. A mere armistice rather than unconditional surrender would have meant the Pacific War had been fought in vain. Japan’s fascist government likely would have regrouped in a few years to try it again on more favorable terms. Two, Truman could have postponed the use of the new bombs and invaded Japan over the ensuing year. The planned assault was scheduled to begin on the island of Kyushu in November 1945, and in early 1946 would have expanded to the main island of Honshu. Yet, Japan had millions of soldiers at home with fortifications, planes and artillery, waiting for the assault.

China may be confusing Mr. Trump’s desire for reelection with what they may believe is his willingness to appease Chinese aggression. In recent weeks, both Mr. Pompeo and National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien have strongly criticized China’s actions. There is little reason to believe that they do not speak for the president. Mr. Trump obviously desires a further and better trade deal with China. But that desire has been greatly overstated. In former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s book, he wrote that Mr. Trump pleaded with Mr. Xi to purchase of U.S. farm products. Mr. Bolton’s account has been called entirely false by Special Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who was a party to that conversation. Whatever Mr. Xi wishes to believe about Mr. Trump’s desire for reelection and all the publicity about Mr. Bolton’s book, both have to be placed in context with Mr. Trump’s actions in pulling America out of two treaties with Russia, the Intermediate-Range Ballistic Missile treaty and the treaty on Open Skies. Both demonstrate Mr. Trump’s willingness to walk away from bad deals. Red China’s red lines should be ignored by Mr. Trump because any other course of action would amount to appeasement of Chinese aggression. China's purchase of U.S. farm products is not worth trading for our support of Hong Kong, Taiwan, India and the Chinese Uighurs. The president should cancel Hong Kong’s special trade status, which was predicated on its newly-cancelled autonomy. Every major economy in the world has been severely damaged by the COVID-19 pandemic, China’s more than most. Because of China’s accelerating aggression and its economic weakness, there is no better time to keep the heat on China.