Embedded Files
Born July 17 1951 ( [HL005J][GDrive] )
Married to : Ruth Louise Seligson (in 1974)
Children include Alexander Joseph Epstein ( Youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/user/ImproveThePlanet / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Epstein_(American_writer) )
Associations
Associations
Andrew Walter Marshall (born 1921) ( Long-time boss in the Office of Net Assessment )
Thomas Paul Rona (born 1923) (peer on the Future Security Environment Working Group )
Dr. Dov Solomon Zakheim (born 1948) (peer on the Future Security Environment Working Group )
Eliot Asher Cohen (born 1956) ( peer on the Future Security Environment Working Group )
James Rodney Schlesinger (born 1929) ( Founder of Office of Net Assessment - Long-time associate of David Epstein, see 2008 photo )
Born July 17, 1951
Born July 17, 1951
"David F Epstein" : Address is Chevy Chase, - Middle initial "F" ... so we suspect this is correct. Phone number blocked.
1974 (July 13) - Engagement
1974 (July 13) - Engagement
https://www.newspapers.com/image/520974655/?terms=Ruth%20Seligson%20epstein&match=1
1974-07-13-the-capital-times-madison-wisconsin-pg-12.jpg
1974-07-13-the-capital-times-madison-wisconsin-pg-12-clip-seligson-epstein.jpg
Wow it made the NY TImes - https://www.nytimes.com/1974/08/26/archives/d-f-epstein-weds-ruth-seligson.html
1974 - Wedding
1974 - Wedding
https://www.newspapers.com/image/406388369/?terms=Ruth%20Seligson%20epstein&match=1
1974-08-26-wisconsin-state-journal-sec-3-pg-4.jpg
1974-08-26-wisconsin-state-journal-sec-3-pg-4-clip-seligson-epstein.jpg
Ruth Louise Seligson
Late 1970s(est) - David Epstein left Chicago's New School for Social Research and became an analyst in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment.
Late 1970s(est) - David Epstein left Chicago's New School for Social Research and became an analyst in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment.
Written by Stefan Alan Halper (born 1944) and Jonathan Clark .
School URL : https://www.newschool.edu/nssr/
Book - America Alone: The Neo-Conservatives and the Global Order - Available at [ https://books.google.com/books?id=HUt9DT1XyZUC&dq=%22new+school+for+social+research%22+%2B+%22david+epstein%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s ]
2004-america-alone-the-neoconservatives-and-the-global-order-halper-clarke-google-play
2004-america-alone-the-neoconservatives-and-the-global-order-halper-clarke-google-play-pg-68 / 67/ 69
Dozens of those who followed or were influenced by Strauss in the 1960s and 1970s joined the federal government to initiate a new conservative political outlook. Nathan Tarcov left the University of Chicago to join the State Department Policy Planning Staff. David Epstein left Chicago's New School for Social Research and became an analust in the Pentagon's Office of Net Assessment.
1983 - ONA analyst David Epstein completed a two-volume assessment of the US-Soviet investment balance
1983 - ONA analyst David Epstein completed a two-volume assessment of the US-Soviet investment balance
In 1983 ONA analyst David Epstein completed a two-volume assessment of the US-Soviet investment balance. Epstein’s assessment built on the efforts of Major Lance Lord and retired Navy captain William Manthorpe who had inherited the military investment portfolio from Major Robert Gough in the late 1970s. The assessment broadly accepted CIA estimates of the direct costs of Soviet weapon systems that had been generated with the Agency’s building-block approach. But Soviet production rates were hard to square with estimates of the USSR’s military burden. In 1986 the CIA and the DIA estimated that over the years 1974–1985, the USSR had procured three times as many ICBMs and SLBMs as had the United States, nine times as many surface-to-air missiles, three times as many tanks, and ten times as many artillery pieces. Even though US systems were generally more costly than their Soviet counterparts, the USSR’s dramatically higher production rates suggested that the burden imposed on the Soviet economy should be higher than the CIA’s estimate of less than 14 percent, which had been revised upward from its earlier estimates of roughly 6–7 percent.
1984 : Book - "The Political Theory of The Federalist"
1984 : Book - "The Political Theory of The Federalist"
https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/author/E/D/au5456117.html
David F. Epstein is Deputy Director of Net Assessment, the Department of Defense.
Purchased on Google Play - ( https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=wC4GSi8LERIC&pg=GBS.PR4 )
1984-the-political-theory-of-the-federalist-google-play-david-epstein-img-cover / -ack.jpg
Affiliation: University of Chicago
Hometown: Chevy Chase, MD
Written "To Ruth"
1984 (March) - Consultant for RAND research - "Comparisons and implications of Alternative Views of the Soviet Economy"
1984 (March) - Consultant for RAND research - "Comparisons and implications of Alternative Views of the Soviet Economy"
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2009/R3075.pdf
1988 (October report) - Future Security Environment Working Group
1988 (October report) - Future Security Environment Working Group
The Future Security Environment Working Group includes:
1987 (August) - (CIA archives) - Soviet Economy assessment (David Epstein on distribution)
1987 (August) - (CIA archives) - Soviet Economy assessment (David Epstein on distribution)
https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90T00114R000800310001-6.pdf
CIA-RDP90T00114R000800310001-6-ocr.pdf
1987 (Nov 30) - CSPAN recording - Federal Union: Division of Power - David Epstein a panelist
1987 (Nov 30) - CSPAN recording - Federal Union: Division of Power - David Epstein a panelist
This panel, hosted by the American Enterprise Institute, discussed the institute’s findings of the research project into the Constitution that was commenced in honor of the bicentennial anniversary of the writing of the Constitution.
1992
1992
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/conf_proceedings/2008/CF108.pdf
1992
1992
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/notes/2007/N3474.pdf
1997 (April) Report - Prepared by ONI
1997 (April) Report - Prepared by ONI
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/FOID/Reading%20Room/Other/15-F-0070_DOC_07_FINAL_ODNA_Final_Report_Scenarios_for_an_Ambitious_Russian_Foreign_Policy_1996-2006.pdf
1999 - Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
1999 - Project for the New American Century (PNAC)
http://zaprasza.net/a_y.php?article_id=17246
PNAC
The list of contributors to the PNAC document Rebuilding America's Defenses compiled in 2000, which called for a "new Pearl Harbor": Roger Barnett, U.S. Naval War College, Alvin Bernstein, National Defense University, Stephen Cambone, National Defense University, Eliot Cohen, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Devon Gaffney Cross, Donors' Forum for International Affairs, Thomas Donnelly, Project for the New American Century, David Epstein, Office of Secretary of Defense, Net Assessment, David Fautua, Lt. Col., U.S. Army, Dan Goure, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Donald Kagan, Yale University, Fred Kagan, U. S. Military Academy at West Point, Robert Kagan, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Robert Killebrew, Col., USA (Ret.), William Kristol, The Weekly Standard, Mark Lagon, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, James Lasswell, GAMA Corporation, I. Lewis Libby, Dechert Price & Rhoads, Robert Martinage, Center for Strategic and Budgetary, Assessment, Phil Meilinger, U.S. Naval War College, Mackubin Owens, U.S. Naval War College, Steve Rosen, Harvard University, Gary Schmitt, Project for the New American Century, Abram Shulsky, The RAND Corporation, Michael Vickers, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment, Barry Watts, Northrop Grumman Corporation, Paul Wolfowitz, Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, and Dov Zakheim, System Planning Corporation, includes a relatively high proportion of Jewish names. There are many more individuals associated with PNAC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was a neoconservative[1][2][3] think tank based in Washington, D.C. that focused on United States foreign policy. It was established as a non-profit educational organization in 1997, and founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan.[4][5] PNAC's stated goal was "to promote American global leadership."[6] The organization stated that "American leadership is good both for America and for the world," and sought to build support for "a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity."[7]
Of the twenty-five people who signed PNAC's founding statement of principles, ten went on to serve in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush, including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz.[8][9][10][11] Observers such as Irwin Stelzer and Dave Grondin have suggested that the PNAC played a key role in shaping the foreign policy of the Bush Administration, particularly in building support for the Iraq War.[12][13][14][15] Academics such as Inderjeet Parmar, Phillip Hammond, and Donald E. Abelson have said PNAC's influence on the George W. Bush administration has been exaggerated.[16][17][18]
The Project for the New American Century ceased to function in 2006;[19] it was replaced by a new think-tank named the Foreign Policy Initiative, co-founded by Kristol and Kagan in 2009. The Foreign Policy Initiative was dissolved in 2017.
2007 (April 27) - Libby letters
2007 (April 27) - Libby letters
http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/pdf/libbyletters-e-h.pdf
The Honorable Reggie B. Walton [...]:
I am writing to report information about the character of Mr. Scooter Libby that I believe is relevant to your consideration of an appropriate sentence. Much of my knowledge of Scooter was acquired when he was Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy (1989-1993). I have been a career civil servant in the Defense Department for 26 years, 20 of them as Deputy Director of Net Assessment, a small office that serves the Secretary of Defense as an internal think tank for long range strategic issues. Scooter's years of devotion to public service speak for themselves. The quality and intensity of that service are what I observed and can testify to. At the Pentagon I had regular contact with Scooter due to our common focus on the Soviet Union, which was then in a period of enormous uncertainty and unpheaval. Scooter greatly impressed me by his determination to fully understand for himself, and convey to his superiors, the complexity and details of the issues. He did not stand on ceremony or rank. His focus was relentlessly substantive, and he pored over analytical reports in a way that I do not believe is common in busy, high level political appointees. He educated himself about technical military issues previously unfamiliar to him. He was forthright about what he knew, and eager to learn from the knowledge of others. I believe his performance exemplified the very highest standards of government service. Before and after his service in the Defense Department, Scooter was an attorney in private practice, and in both periods I know that he sacrificed many otherwise billable hours by serving the Department without pay. My office conducts an annual summer study, assembling several small groups of academics, military officers, and other experts to study issues of strategic importance. Scooter several times traveled to these events to work with the groups to sharpen their findings and their briefings for Defense Department officials. I encountered Scooter at several other activities where his participation was entirely pro bono. He served in 1988 on a panel to plan a reorganization of the office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, and in 1999 on a privately organized study group on the emergence of China. I served on the latter panel as part of my job; for Scooter it was unpaid public service. I first met Scooter years before his Pentagon service at a Sunday morning pickup softball game. The weekly softball game is not a bad laboratory in showing human virtues and vices, and Scooter was always a man of exemplary sportsmanship and honesty, a modest, sympathetic manner, and simple human kindness, manifested most memorably to me in his warmly welcoming my then-young son into an adult game. Scooter's outstanding talents and high level of energy made it easy to see why his contributions to any enterprise would be so highly valued. That so many of these contributions were dedicated to the national security of our country is, to me, cause for gratitude and inspiration, and something I hope will be weighed properly in his favor.
2008
2008
2010 (Feb 27) - Father Saul T Epstein passes
2010 (Feb 27) - Father Saul T Epstein passes
2010-03-13-lincoln-journal-star-website-epstein-saul-t-obituaries.pdf
"Saul T. Epstein, Theoretical physicist, 85, died of cancer on February 27 in Madison, Wisconsin. Mr. Epstein was born in Southampton, New York and grew up in East Hampton. He received his PhD from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and was a professor of physics at the University of Nebraska then at the University of Wisconsin.
He is survived by Joanne Weinstein of Madison, Wisconsin; Peter Epstein of Madison, Wisconsin; David Epstein of Chevy Chase, Maryland; and seven grandchildren."
2011
2011
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a548578.pdf
RAND - 2011 - China and India, 2025: A Comparative Assessment
2020 (June) - US Senate Committee on Finance letter, from Chuck Grassley to James Baker
2020 (June) - US Senate Committee on Finance letter, from Chuck Grassley to James Baker
Mentioned by Chuck Grassley in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFr3Ent-byM
2020-06-18-us-senate-grassley-to-james-baker.pdf : See [HG008F][GDrive]
June 18, 2020, to Mr. James Baker Director Office of Net Assessment, Department of Defense
Dear Mr. Baker: I write today about your February 5, 2020, response to my January 22, 2020, letter regarding Stefan Halper’s work for the Office of Net Assessment (ONA).1 Since the beginning of my investigation, I have repeatedly requested all records related to Professor Halper’s work for ONA, including travel records, pursuant to the contracts that he had with your office. However, despite these repeated requests, ONA has continually failed to furnish all requested records. It appears that either ONA has refused to comply with my requests, or that ONA simply does not maintain full records of Halper’s work.
Moreover, your February 5, 2020, response appears to show that you have not performed the legally required annual “Net Assessments”—the purpose for which ONA exists. Further, your response failed to fully answer Questions 2, 3, 4(c), 4(d), 4(e), 6(a), 8, and 13 of my letter. Your response also couched unclassified work product relating to the costs to the taxpayer associated with your decisions to contract with entities for research work in a classified document. Accordingly, I formally request that you declassify, to the fullest extent possible under Executive Order 13526, the classified work product that you provided to me. Declassification is appropriate at this time because, among other factors, the taxpayers paid for those research projects and the public interest in knowing how much was spent, for what purpose it was spent, and the identity of the contract recipient far outweighs any perceived national security interest. In addition, some projects mentioned within the document have already been made public, classification cannot be used to prevent embarrassment to an agency, and classification cannot be used to hide government inefficiency from public and congressional review.
It is also perplexing that ONA continues to assert that Halper fulfilled the obligations set forth in his contracts. It has been reported by The Washington Times that many of the individuals in which Halper cited as sources in his research papers have outright denied having contributed to his work.2 This begs the question as to how ONA can continue to assert that Halper’s deliverables were of “high quality” and “conformed to the requirements set forth in the contract” when citations in his work appear to give contribution to individuals who had no involvement in the work. In your February 5, 2020, response to me, you noted that ONA checks the validity of citations and supporting documentation on each project. Clearly, that did not happen with Halper’s work product.
On a related topic with your work at ONA, and related to my ongoing oversight work on the now-debunked Russian collusion narrative, according to an April 29, 2020, press release by Judicial Watch you exchanged many emails and phone calls with The Washington Post reporter, David Ignatius.3 As you are aware, he first reported on the call between Lieutenant General Michael Flynn and the Russian Ambassador to the U.S., Sergey Kislyak, in The Washington Post.4 Based on a court filing by Sidney Powell, one of Flynn’s attorneys, it has been alleged that you were the source of the leak of the transcripts of Flynn’s calls with Kislyak.5
Included in these 143 pages of email communications are several heavily redacted communications between you and Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work and Deputy Director of ONA, David Epstein, which would presumably be about Ignatius given the subject matter of the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request. 6 Given the overlap in time between the majority of the emails and the leak of the call, your apparent close relationship with Mr. Ignatius, and your communications with Mr. Work and Mr. Epstein, please provide all 143 pages of email communications in unredacted form and all email communications among and between you, Mr. Work, Mr. Epstein, and Mr. Ignatius from July 1, 2016, to March 1, 2017, no later than July 2, 2020.
In furtherance of my continued oversight into ONA contract practices, and my investigation into mishandling of the Russia investigation, please answer the following no later than July 2, 2020: [...]
2015 Book - "The Last Warrior : Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense Strategy
2015 Book - "The Last Warrior : Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defense Strategy
Purchased book : https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=QoJzAwAAQBAJ&pg=GBS.PA289.w.1.0.205.0.2
About life of Andrew Walter Marshall (born 1921)
2015-the-last-warrior-andrew-marshall-modern-defense-andrew-krepinevich-and-barry-watts
2015-the-last-warrior-andrew-marshall-modern-defense-andrew-krepinevich-and-barry-watts-img-dinner-1
Ref 1 to David Epstein
Possibly the most consequential ONA assessments during the 1970s did not focus directly on military forces. Recall that when Marshall moved to the Pentagon, Schlesinger asked him to continue pushing the CIA to reconsider its estimate of the burden Soviet military programs was imposing on the USSR’s economy. In 1974 Marshall hired an Air Force economist, Major Lee Badgett, to develop more inclusive dollar-cost estimates of Soviet military spending. By September 1975 Marshall and Badgett had reached a preliminary conclusion that rather than the Agency’s burden estimate of 6 to 7 percent of Soviet GNP, Soviet military activities likely consumed 10 to 20 percent of the USSR’s economic output. 81 Over the next decade, as Bob Gough, William Manthorpe, Lance Lord, and David Epstein wrote a series military investment balances for Marshall, the list of indirect costs that Soviet military programs were imposing on the USSR’s economy grew. They eventually included expenditures for civil defense, industrial mobilization preparations and dual-use investments as well as the costs of maintaining the Soviet empire.
The direct and indirect costs of the USSR’s military efforts constituted the numerator of the burden ratio. It addressed the question: How much are the Soviets spending on their military? The denominator problem, as it came to be known, addressed the question: How large is the Soviet economy? The denominator question was first brought to Marshall’s attention in 1979 by the Soviet émigré economist Igor Birman. From 1970 to 1983, the CIA estimated the Soviet GNP to be between 50 and 60 percent of US GNP. 82 In hindsight, the Soviet economy during the 1970s and 1980s was probably never greater than 25 percent of that of the United States. As the Soviet economy was roughly half the size estimated by the CIA, and the total cost of its defense expenditures larger than the Agency’s estimates of the USSR’s direct military expenditures, this suggested that the USSR’s military might be consuming as much as 30 to 40 percent of the country’s economic output. Furthermore, as became obvious in the 1980s, the Soviet economy, burdened by military spending and the inherent inefficiencies of the USSR’s centralized economic planning, was encountering increasingly severe structural problems.
Ref 2 to David Epstein
Particularly for those outside ONA, the varied and complex relations between its external research program and its formal balances were often opaque. But as Marshall and Schlesinger recognized at the outset, the research program was a necessary, vital component of Marshall’s development and maturation of net assessment. Without it, ONA’s assessments would have been confined to official government data. But as Marshall found time and again, the data available from official sources could be nonexistent, incomplete, or simply wrong.
The debate between the CIA and ONA over the burden that Soviet military programs imposed on the USSR’s economy is perhaps the most consequential example of official intelligence estimates simply getting it wrong and, hence, the need for independent research outside the government. During the 1970s most of ONA’s efforts to estimate the ratio of Soviet military spending to the USSR’s GNP focused on getting the numerator—how much the Soviets were spending on their military forces—right. Again, Marshall’s view was that the CIA’s estimates of Soviet defense spending concentrated on the visible elements of the USSR’s military forces: ICBMs, naval combatants, shipyards and naval bases, fighter and bomber bases and the aircraft on them, surface-to-air missile batteries, tanks, armored fighting vehicles, military design bureaus, manufacturing plants, and so forth. With the advent of satellite photographic reconnaissance in 1960, the US intelligence community was able to build up relatively accurate estimates of the Soviet military’s equipment holdings. Rightly suspicious of official Soviet figures for defense expenditures, the CIA adopted a building-block approach to estimating the USSR’s military spending, based on the concept that prices × quantities = spending. 61
Identifying prices presented the greatest challenge because the USSR spent rubles, not dollars, on its military programs. Establishing a valid ruble–dollar exchange ratio proved difficult, as ruble prices in the Soviet Union were not set by market forces as were dollar prices in the United States. 62 In contrast, getting the quantities of military goods to be priced was simpler because over time the CIA was increasingly able to estimate the numbers of units in the USSR’s order of battle, tables of organization and equipment for Soviet units, manpower levels, and production rates for weapons and equipment. 63 In 1967 the CIA’s Office of Strategic Research (OSR) was responsible for estimating Soviet defense expenditures. A different Agency staff element, the Office of Economic Research (OER), was tasked with estimating Soviet GNP. 64 Because of this division of labor there was ambiguity about which of the two offices was responsible for estimates of the USSR’s military burden. This ambiguity seems to have persisted even after OSR and OER were absorbed into the CIA’s Office of Soviet Affairs (SOVA) in 1981.
In 1983 ONA analyst David Epstein completed a two-volume assessment of the US-Soviet investment balance. Epstein’s assessment built on the efforts of Major Lance Lord and retired Navy captain William Manthorpe who had inherited the military investment portfolio from Major Robert Gough in the late 1970s. The assessment broadly accepted CIA estimates of the direct costs of Soviet weapon systems that had been generated with the Agency’s building-block approach. But Soviet production rates were hard to square with estimates of the USSR’s military burden. In 1986 the CIA and the DIA estimated that over the years 1974–1985, the USSR had procured three times as many ICBMs and SLBMs as had the United States, nine times as many surface-to-air missiles, three times as many tanks, and ten times as many artillery pieces. 65 Even though US systems were generally more costly than their Soviet counterparts, the USSR’s dramatically higher production rates suggested that the burden imposed on the Soviet economy should be higher than the CIA’s estimate of less than 14 percent, which had been revised upward from its earlier estimates of roughly 6–7 percent. 66
There were also at least two sources of “indirect” military costs. One consisted of costs incurred outside the country’s defense budget where the Soviet military acquired resources or influenced their allocation to satisfy wartime requirements. Here Marshall cited as examples the fact that Aeroflot passenger aircraft and the USSR’s merchant marine fleet incorporated additional features—at additional cost—to enable them to transport men and equipment in time of war. Marshall also pointed to the costs incurred by the Soviets in providing economic and military aid to its satellites and clients—in effect, the costs of sustaining the Soviet Union’s external empire. 67
There was yet another tranche of expenditures beyond the direct costs of Soviet military programs. In the spring of 2001 Marshall met in Paris with Colonel Vitaly V. Shlykov, who had been in one of the major planning sections of the Soviet General Staff. Shlykov revealed that the Soviet military leaders had accumulated and incurred the cost of maintaining “gigantic war reserve stocks” intended to help match their estimates of US production if the country mobilized fully as it had done in World War II.
Ref 3 to David Epstein
Perhaps the most obvious accomplishment to point to is Marshall’s work on estimating the burden that Soviet military programs imposed on the USSR’s economy during the 1970s and 1980s. This was one of the first issues Schlesinger asked Marshall to pursue. Schlesinger told Marshall to push the CIA to reconsider its estimate that only 6 to 7 percent of the USSR’s economic output was going to military programs. If the CIA’s economists were correct and Soviet central planners were “miracle workers,” then time was on the Soviet Union’s side in their long-term competition with the United States. If Schlesinger and Marshall were right, then the situation over the long-term was more favorable to the United States, with important implications for the development of strategy.
Right to the end of the Cold War the economists at the CIA resisted Marshall’s arguments on the need for a fundamental rethinking of their burden estimates. To be sure, there was the May 1976 “bombshell” when, virtually overnight the agency abruptly doubled its estimate of the USSR’s military burden to 11 to 13 percent. 23 But as late as 1987, both the CIA and the DIA insisted that the burden had risen to only 15 to 17 percent of the USSR’s GNP in the early 1980s. 24
Marshall never gave up on this issue, never stopped questioning the official estimates. In 1975, Marshall estimated the USSR’s military burden to be roughly double the CIA’s estimate. 25 By 1988 he and David Epstein thought it was in the vicinity of 32 to 34 percent of Soviet GNP when indirect military costs and spending on the USSR’s external empire were included. 26 These estimates proved closer to the truth than the intelligence community’s by at least a factor of two. In the end, Marshall’s small office, aided by its ability to fund outside research on Soviet military spending and the size of the USSR’s economy, produced more accurate estimates of the USSR’s military burden for senior Pentagon leaders than did the US intelligence agencies.
ONA’s long-term research on the USSR’s military burden had other consequences. In the mid-1970s the Office of Net Assessment’s military investment assessments persuaded Rumsfeld that the Soviet military was outspending the Defense Department, that the trends were adverse, and that the US defense budget needed to be increased. 27 Later, under Ronald Reagan, Marshall’s work on the USSR’s defense burden inspired Weinberger’s decision in the mid-1980s to embrace competitive strategies as a way of imposing disproportionate costs on the Soviets.
Ref 4 to David Epstein - Mentioning of The Future Security Environment working group
5 . Marshall and Wolf, The Future Security Environment, 26. The working group included Eliot Cohen, David Epstein, Fritz Ermarth, Lawrence Gershwin, James Roche, [Thomas Paul Rona (born 1923)], Stephen Rosen, Dennis Ross, Notra Trulock, and Dov Zakheim.
Father - Saul T Epstein
Father - Saul T Epstein
I dont even know what this means - "The Variational Method 111 -- Steady State I Time Dependent Perturbation Theory"
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/85239125.pdf
Note - Worked with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_O._Hirschfelder (who was also with Manhattan Project)
Ruth
Ruth
https://www.stradley.com/professionals/e/epstein-ruth-s
Overview
Ruth Epstein has more than 30 years of corporate, securities and financial services experience, including five years with the Securities and Exchange Commission in the Division of Enforcement and the Office of General Counsel. Ruth concentrates on complex issues faced by participants in the investment management and variable insurance products industries and counsels financial services clients on a broad range of regulatory, governance, product development and enforcement issues. She assists clients in responding and adapting to expanded regulation of their industry by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the National Futures Association (NFA).
Ruth is a frequent author and lecturer on topics affecting her clients. In recent years, she has co-authored four “friend of the Court briefs” in matters of critical importance to the industry, including two in the U.S. Supreme Court – Jones v. Harris Associates LP (standard for review of advisory fees) and Janus Capital Group, Inc., et al. v. First Derivative Traders (responsibility for statements in mutual fund prospectuses).
As co-chair of the American Bar Association’s Sub-Committee on Securities Activities of Insurance Companies, Ruth took an active role in the debate surrounding a number of important regulatory initiatives affecting funds and variable products, including the SEC’s summary prospectus and XBRL proposals. She is actively involved with clients and industry groups in dialogue with the CFTC regarding the CFTC’s regulation of funds and advisers, in connection with related rulemaking proposals and issuance of interpretative guidance
Ruth S. Epstein
Recognized by Best Lawyers® since 2009.
2000 K Street, NW, Suite 700 Washington, District of Columbia 20006
https://openjurist.org/722/f2d/1063/lionel-corporation-committee-of-equity-security-holders-v-lionel-corporation
Father in-law - David Seligson
Father in-law - David Seligson
Father-in-law
https://www.legacy.com/obituaries/nhregister/obituary.aspx?n=david-seligson&pid=149078072&fhid=4186
SELIGSON, DR. DAVID David Seligson, founder and former Chairman of the Department of Laboratory Medicine at Yale Medical School, died on March 3 at his home in Branford, Connecticut. Dr. Seligson was born in Philadelphia in 1916 to Philip and Channah Schloss Seligson. He graduated from University of Maryland and received a D. Sc from Johns Hopkins University and and an MD from the University of Utah. In 1953, he served as Captain in the U.S. Army, Chief of the Hepatic and Metabolic Disease Laboratory at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. He worked as Director of the Division of Biochemistry at Graduate Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania before joining Yale's Department of Internal Medicine in 1958. He was also Director of Clinical Laboratories at Yale New Haven Hosptial between 1958 and 1988. Since 1988, he has been Professor Emeritus at Yale Medical School. Dr. Seligson was a pioneer in the development of modern medical laboratory equipment and methods, vastly increasing their capacity accuracy, and automation. With his wife Harriet Tutelman Seligson (d.1986), he invented the Seligson Pipette, a semi-automatic pipette that was precise, easy to use, and self-cleaning. He was President of the American Association of Clinical Chemists in 1961-1962, and winner of that society's Ames Award in 1971, for outstanding contributions to Clinical Chemistry. He was Trustee and Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters at Quinnipiac University. He was also an accomplished sailor with over a hundred trophies won in races around eastern Long Island Sound. Dr. Seligson is survived by his brother, Sidney Seligson of Phoenix; his three children, Judith T. Seligson of Alexandria, VA, Ruth S. Epstein of Chevy Chase, MD, and Daniel A. Seligson of Palo Alto, CA and eight grandchildren. Funeral Services SUNDAY morning (TODAY), March 6, 2011, at 10;30 at the Joseph Slifka Center for Jewish Life at Yale, 80 Wall St., New Haven with Interment Services to follow at the Grove Street Cemetery. Funeral arrangements in care of the Robert E. Shure Funeral Home, New Haven
Brother in-law ?
Dan Seligson studied physics at MIT (SB) and UC Berkeley (PhD) before starting a 30-year career in Silicon Valley.
Dan Seligson studied physics at MIT (SB) and UC Berkeley (PhD) before starting a 30-year career in Silicon Valley.
He worked at Intel and held executive positions at, has been advisor to, and founded or co-founded several tech and biotech startups. He has 8 US Patents and others pending in fields as diverse as analog circuit design and immunology-based diagnostics. He's been writing for the drawer and a few friends all along. Here he is in a recent interview with the publisher.
Family research notes
Family research notes
NOTE - David Frederick Epstein (born 1954) is different person. That David Epstein is a relative of Klaus Epstein (https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1967/06/28/129288472.html?auth=login-email&pageNumber=45 ) and Fritz T Epstein ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_T._Epstein )
Fritz T Epstein - https://www.jstor.org/stable/4545879?seq=1
Page updated
Report abuse