The Awakening - Movie :: essays research papers

Throughout the movie The Awakening, Robin Williams demonstrates his knowledge of the scientific method. The scientific method is a procedure of steps that is used to prove problems. In the movie it is used to show that patients suffering from an un-named disorder do have a slight opportunity to return to their normal state of being. The scientific method is a list of steps to prove something and make into a law or theory based on your final product and findings. It is composed of several steps, it starts with observations. Observations are where a person collects known data concerning what you are going to test on. Next they formulate a hypothesis based on their observations. After they have a hypothesis they perform several experiments to prove or disprove it. After this, they then form a theory and experiment based on their hypothesis. More observations and experiments follow this, until they finally come to a conclusion which is called a law. Throughout the movie The Awakening, Robin Williams uses the observation, hypotheses and experimenting steps in the scientific method. Observations included, noticing the lifeless behavior shown by the patients, their reflexes to moving objects, and the fact that they all had cases of encephalitis before. After he did all the research he formed several hypotheses and experimented to prove them. Robin Williams used strobe lights, talked to them, measured their brain patterns, and used games such as a Ouija board to prove some of his hypotheses. After he formed several hypotheses and experimented with them, he came across an article that explained how the use of a certain type of medicine which was used to treat a disease related to the one that he was investigating. He tried administrating the medicine to one of his patients, and observed the results. The patient demonstrated normal, human conditions and seemed to have no side effects. He then made a law that stated the medicine helped his patient, and gave it to all the patients in the ward. However, his observations were incorrect and the side effects were devastating. This is how Robin Williams demonstrated the steps of the scientific method

Sustainable Fresh Water Supply for Chennai City

Sustainable Fresh Water Supply for Chennai city, Tamil Nadu, India A Status Update Joseph Thomas, Chief Technology Officer, Villgro, Chennai, India 3H, IIT Madras Research Park, Kanagam Road, Taramani, Chennai, Tamil Nadu India 600113. Telephone +91 44 6663 0400, email:[email  protected] org, mobile +91 98840 49116 Key Words: Rain water harvesting, Sustainable water supply, Urban fresh water. Abstract Chennai city, one of the major metropolises of India, is situated at the northern coastal edge of the State of Tamil Nadu. The city is more well-known by its older name of Madras.Currently, Chennai is inhabited by more than 7 million people in an area of 176 sq km. Water supply for this population is maintained by tapping a combination of surface storage reservoirs and aquifers. The Chennai Municipal Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB), a statutory body established in 1978, is responsible for water supply and sewerage services in the Chennai Metropolitan Area. The main sources of public water supply in the city are the three reservoirs — Poondi, Redhills and Cholavaram — with an aggregate storage capacity of 175 million cubic metres (MCM).The other major resource is groundwater from the well-fields in the Araniar-Kortaliyar basin and the southern coastal aquifer, and also a large number of wells and tube-wells spread all across the city (Figure 1). Over-extraction of groundwater resulted in a rapid ingress of seawater, which extended from 3 km inshore in 1969 to 7 km in 1983 and 9 km in 1987[[i]]. Groundwater levels within the city also fell and brackish water began to appear, even in localities which earlier had good quality groundwater sources.The CMWSSB calculates water availability based on surface and aquifer contributions under its direct control. Since it perceived reservoirs and other surface supply as more significant for a long time, very little attention was paid to subsurface storage or ground water recharge. As an outcome of resea rch, done by several agencies the CMWSSB embarked on a campaign to create ground water recharge facilities in the city, and later throughout the State. This led to significant changes in ground water levels and to the quantum of water available to the population of a growing metropolis. pic]Figure 1. Introduction The Chennai Municipal Water Supply and Sewerage Board (CMWSSB) is solely responsible for providing drinking water and sewerage services to the residents of Chennai. One of India’s major metropolises, Chennai is situated at the northern coastal edge of the State of Tamil Nadu. The city is more well-known by its older name of Madras. Currently, Chennai is inhabited by more than 7 million people in an area of 176 sq km. The CMWSSB depends on surface reservoirs and ground water sources to maintain water supply to the residents.Supply is maintained through multiple means. Since Chennai is essentially low-lying and water supply is intermittent, most residents build undergr ound sumps that store the water. Subsequently, the water is pumped up to an overhead tank. In other cases, water tankers are dispatched by CMWSSB to various localities and the sumps are filled from the tankers. In other localities, CMWSSB has put in place above-ground water tanks and these are filled by the water tankers.In yet other places, residents collect water directly from the tanker, see Figure 2. [pic] Figure 2: Drinking water collection from tankers directly by residents. Despite the seemingly abundant sources of water, Chennai suffers continuously from water stress since the entire basin is dependent on rainfall. The annual rainfall in Chennai is 1200 mm [[ii]]. This quantum is, given the size of the Chennai basin, sufficient to meet the needs of the population. The problem is with the distribution of the rainfall.There are two rainy seasons in Chennai. The first is the Southwest monsoon, which has patchy rains and contributes about 25% of the total rain and falls between May and September. This does not do much for ground water recharge. However, the Northwest Monsoon (Oct to Dec) is usually characterized by a series of storms that brings the remaining 75% of total rain in extremely short bursts. During this time, Chennai is prone to flooding and, before 2003, a large part of this water would have been lost as run-off into the sea.CMWSSB traditionally focused its attention on increasing surface storage, transporting fresh water from long distances. Like the Telugu Ganga project – probably one of the longest canals built for water supply to the city that failed to ease the water problem. Another attempt was to divert water from Chembaramabakkam and Veeranam tanks whereby the water rights of the agrarian community were infringed. Drilling of borewells in the Cuddalore belt and installation of turbine pumps to tap 100mld whereby the groundwater which again supports the local agriculture community was depleted.None of these solutions were sustain able in the long run and yet CMWWSSB paid very little attention to ground water recharge that had that potential. In 1997, at the Shri AMM Murugappa Chettiar Research Centre (MCRC), Chennai, [[iii]] a study was conducted to understand the user experience. The study surveyed 10,000 households in 155 corporation wards of Chennai. The focus was on how residents get their water needs met and how the water is utilised. Raw data from this study was further analyzed by Dr. A Vaidyanathan and J. Saravanan [[iv]].These studies clearly established that the contribution of ground water could be as high as 80% in some cases. The next section will take up a quick summary of the research and the subsequent sections will deal with the steps taken by CMWSSB and other civil society organisations to get rain water harvesting introduced. The final section will describe the results of these efforts on the ground water table. The research and changes The survey conducted by MCRC was across 10,000 househ olds, representing a roughly 1 percent sample.Another 2500 surveys across, business, educational, institutional, governmental and industrial establishments were undertaken between September, 1995 and January, 1996. The analysis phase took up another year. The main recommendations of the study were to a) encourage public participation in water conservation and ground water recharge b) promote and propagate water saving/replacement technologies in the domestic sector c) use surface water to reduce ground water usage d) encourage ground water recharge by adoption of low-cost water harvesting ystems, cleaning of water-ways and renovation of existing recharge structures, such as temple tanks. In 1999 a National Water Harvesters’ Network was set up by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) water harvesters’ advisory committee in New Delhi. Members suggested that a regional network be initiated in Tamil Nadu to promote rainwater harvesting in Chennai [[v]]. Professor M. S. Swaminathan, provided office space for the network unit in Chennai and Prof. A. Vaidyanathan agreed to chair the group.The Tamil Nadu unit of the national water-harvesting network was launched in April 1999. The network was meant to: (i) provide an opportunity for individuals and institutions actively engaged in water harvesting, in Chennai, to share their knowledge and experience and promote free and open interaction among them; and (ii) to reach out to a wider public in the city and outside to propagate the role of urban rainwater harvesting in terms of technology, experience and its potential contribution in meeting urban water needs. It was Prof.Vaidyanathan who then asked for the raw data from the MCRC study and did his own assertion of the data and analysis. In the background paper that came out of the analysis [3] the following was stated: â€Å"The present paper is meant to give an overview of the present and future needs of the city, the limited and expensive scope for augmenting surface supplies, the need for a two-pronged strategy of conservation/recycling and Rain Water Harvesting (RWH) to increase ground water recharge. † This confirmed the results of the MCRC study.Both the MCRC study and the CSE study highlighted the dependence of people on multiple sources for their water consumption rather than just CMWSSB and the heavy dependence on groundwater by both. Thus the RWH campaign was backed up by strong research results of MCRC and CSE. These studies were necessary to convince the public and the policy makers. It should be mentioned here that the then Chairman and Managing Director of CMWSSB, Ms. Shanta Sheela Nair understood these results and backed the RWH movement fully. In a 2006 publication [[vi] ] Prof. Vaidyanathan and his colleague, J.Saravanan summarized the action of the government as follows: â€Å"In Chennai, the capital of Tamil Nadu, the growing dependence on groundwater since the 1970s is evident in the sinking of increa sing numbers of open wells and deep bore wells. This trend, a symptom of the increasing water scarcity in the city, led to a progressive decline in groundwater levels as well as seawater intrusion in coastal aquifers. Faced with this crisis, the State government passed the Chennai Groundwater Regulation Act in 1987, which sought mainly to curb the commercial groundwater exploitation within the city limits.In 2001, rainwater harvesting (RWH) became mandatory in multi-storeyed buildings. The unprecedented and severe droughts in the ensuing two years intensified the groundwater crisis to such a degree that, in August 2003, the government passed an ordinance making RWH mandatory for all buildings (existing and new) in the city and throughout the State. It further set a deadline of October 31, 2003 for this process to be completed. A vigorous publicity drive convinced the public that the government was serious about implementing the programme and providing technical advice and help in th e design and construction of RWH structures.This led to unprecedented activity across the towns and cities of the State, especially Chennai city, and the programme was seen as successful. In this endeavour, however, very few turned to the municipal corporation, private consultants or NGOs with the relevant expertise for assistance in designing and building their RWH structures. Most relied on plumbers or their own expertise. Independent experts pointed out several problems with the programme, noting that ) the time given for the implementation of this ordinance was too short; b) there were far too few professionals with the knowledge and experience needed to design appropriate systems for the widely varying conditions; c) the supply of trained and skilled labour to implement the works was also inadequate to cope with the scale and speed of the programme; d) the availability of quality materials for implementation was also inadequate; and e) there was hardly any systematic follow-up to check the quality of the works reported to be completed.There were widespread but unverified reports that, simply in order to meet the stipulations, grossly inadequate RWH structures had been put in place; the capacity as well as quality of design and implementation leaving much to be desired. This was an instance of decentralisation that, despite the presence of a â€Å"felt need†, occurred without adequate consultation. The legislation in regard of RWH was welcome but the actual programme was poorly implemented and monitored. Although the programme applied to all classes of housing, it ignored those living in informal settlements such as slums within the city limits.These areas could have benefited from RWH in public building and public spaces — an aspect that received very little attention. Moreover, no steps were taken under this programme to reclaim tanks and wetlands in the city that, in the past, not only functioned as recharge structures but were also used a s sources of domestic water by communities. † The Government has since 2009 been working towards cleaning up the waterways of Chennai. This effort has seen the government draw on municipal corporation, private consultants and NGOs with the relevant expertise to work on this massive effort.There is a project with an outlay of Rs 1,400 crore (approx US $300 million) to make the city flood-free[[vii]]. In March 2010 the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority held a Seminar on Waterways in Chennai. The proceedings [[viii] ] contain a list of 36 recommendations and some of them are re-produced here: 1. The sequence of actions to tackle the problem may be – (a) flood alleviation (b) prevention of pollution to the waterways (c) cleaning up of the waterways by removing encroachments & obstructions (d) restoration / improvements to the waterways and its continued maintenance. . Floods are opportunities to augment ground water recharge to be facilitated by construction of che ck dams, filter wells, and underground tunnels/storage reservoirs, if the soil conditions and slopes permit. 3. Flood plains should be developed along the waterways in the areas outside the towns and cities, adopting the retention model, as a solution against flood hazards; these flood plains could be developed as parks or green belts for recreation such as camp sites. 4. Eco-engineering should also be adopted as a solution to bring nature back and rejuvenate the rivers. 5.It is recommended that corporate sector participation, and general public participation, in planning and improvement of lakes and rivers should be encouraged. Cleaning up of rivers and conservation of water bodies should be thought of as a movement with the participation of all stakeholders including the general public. 6. Adequate public awareness about the hazards of pollution of water bodies and the remedial measures has to be created by organizing community education campaigns. Getting the citizens involved is important, ‘Saving Waterways’ should become a people’s movement. . Use of sewage for power generation and recycling of waste water should be encouraged. 8. Area development plans prepared at micro level, such as Detailed Development Plans, should contain plans for ground water recharge, at least in large premises such as schools and public places. Sustainability measures should form part of the Integrated River Restoration Plans. What is evident here is that the outcomes of studies take time to percolate down to the agencies mandated to make the changes required for sustainability. It also requires a good amount of political will.Much of the change of attitude of governmental institutions can also be traced backed to strong political thrust to implement the changes. Results Data on change in groundwater quantity and quality has to be presented here, mostly based on media stories. Some researchers feel that the effects of rain water harvesting and subsequent grou nd water recharge are so noticeable that quantifying is not a priority. The Table below (Figure 3) shows the number of rain water harvesting structures built by the Corporation of Chennai, as reported on its website. Rain Water Harvesting done by Corporation of Chennai Corporation owned buildings |1344 Structures | |Flyovers and Bridges |29 Structures | |Open low-lying areas |242 Structures | |Road Margins |945 Structures | |Corporation Streets |2698 Structures | |Corporation pond |1 No. | |Temple Tanks |16 Nos. | |Residential / Commercial / Institution Buildings |329959 Buildings | Figure 3[[ix]] An article published in a leading daily in Chennai, The Hindu, dated January, 31 2009 had many interesting points to make about the results of RWH and ground-water recharge. [x]] â€Å"The CMWSSB study of 759 RWH observatory wells shows that ever since the installation of RWH structures in about 500,000 of its consumer households was made mandatory in 2004, there has been a 50 per ce nt rise in the water level. According to the CMWSSB officials, over the last five years, the water level across the city has gone up by three to six metres. Similarly, the water quality in several areas has also showed improvement. The sustained normal rainfall since 2004 and the proper maintenance of RWH structures in most households have been the principal reasons. Following the drought period in 2003, when Chennai received only about 690 mm of rainfall as against its normal of 1,200 mm, the water table had receded and, on an average, was at 7-8 metres below ground. In many places it was at 10 m depth and, in some, it was at 10 m.Following a good monsoon (2,064 mm) in 2005 and rainwater harvesting, the ground water table saw an appreciable rise in several areas and the water table reached 1 m depth below ground. The total dissolved solids (TDS), which were earlier as high as 4,900 parts per million (ppm) in some areas, dropped to permissible levels of 500 ppm, greatly improving th e quality of water (see Figure 4). [pic] Figure 4[10] â€Å"Before the onset of every monsoon, Metrowater officials conduct a random check of the RWH structures for their maintenance and create awareness about the need to keep these in good shape. Harnessing of rainwater that gets collected in storm water drain network would help reduce the inundation on roads and large volumes of water draining into sea every year†¦..Unless rainwater runoff in both public and private spaces in the city is harnessed, Chennai may lose out on the precious resource and may end up with water problems during the summer months,† note rain-water harvesting experts. Conclusions This presentation has tried to show that it takes many years of persistent effort to address a problem in civil society. In Chennai, and indeed the whole of Tamil Nadu, the problem was one of water stress. Research showed that the available rainfall could help people cope but fresh water from the rain was being lost to th e sea. Based on this, a proposal was made that ground water recharge was a viable, low-cost solution. This proposal had to be championed. Prof. Vaidyanathan and the then Chairman of CMWSSB, Shanta Sheela Nair, did just that.They showed with great determination and several pilot studies that rain water harvesting would be viable and worthwhile. They managed to convince the government of this, and RWH became a statutory requirement for all buildings in the state. Monitoring the quantity and quality of the ground water has shown the significant changes this legislation has brought in. As a side-effect a greater understanding of the need to clean, preserve and secure all types of fresh water bodies has prevailed among the political circles, bureaucracy, NGOs and civil society. The people have also shown great resolve in implementing the solution since it directly affects their lives.The type of study conducted by MCRC and CSE can be a methodology to assess the water sources, consumption pattern, per capita availability and requirement particularly in developing countries. This way the water supply system can be better planned and implemented to be sustainable. References ———————– [i] http://www. rainwaterharvesting. org/Crisis/Urbanwater-scenario. htm [ii] Balakrishnan, T. , Technical Report Series District Groundwater Brochure, Chennai District, Tamil Nadu. Central Ground Water Board, South East Coastal Region, Chennai, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, November 2008. Published by Regional Director, CGWB, SECR, E-1, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai -600090, Tel:+9144 24912941/24914494, Fax +9144 24914334 Web: www. cgwb. gov. in email [email  protected] in iii] Thomas, Joseph, Sustainable Fresh Water Supply for Madras (now Chennai) City, India (Contract No. S$P/95/0042) Final report submitted to UNICEF, 73, Lodi Estate , New Delhi 110 003, Printed by Shri AMM Murugappa Chettiar Research Centre, Tharamani, Madras (now Chennai), Tamil Nadu, India 600 113, May 1997. [iv] A. Vaidyanathan & J. Saravanan, Chennai’s Water Supply Problems and Prospects (A background paper) National Water Harvestors Network –Tamil Nadu Unit, Centre for Science and Environment. (undated circa 2000) [v] http://www. manage. gov. in/managelib/extdig/Jul99Water. htm [vi] Vaidyanathan, A. with Saravanan, J. ‘The Urban Water Scene: A Case Study -Water Situation in Chennai City’ in A.Vaidyanathan, India’s Water Resources: Contemporary Issues on Irrigation. New Delhi, Oxford University Press, 209-247 (2006). [vii] http://www. business-standard. com/india/news/tn-govt-to-takers-1400-cr-flood-control-project/397769/ [viii] http://www. cmdachennai. gov. in/pdfs/SeminarOnWaterways/1. pdf [ix] http://www. chennaicorporation. gov. in/departments/storm-water-drain/introduction. htm [x] http://www. hindu. com/pp/2009/01/31/stories/2009013150010100. htm Acknowledgements The author gratefully acknowledges the Villgro Innovations Foundation for the time given to write this paper. The valuable inputs from J. Saravanan also gave the author the confidence to make some of the conclusions presented here.

Biography of Matthew Ridgway, Korean War General

Matthew Ridgway (March 3, 1895–July 26, 1993) was a US Army commander who led the United Nations troops in Korea in 1951. He later served as Chief of Staff of the US Army, where he advised against American intervention in Vietnam. Ridgway retired in 1955 and was later awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Ronald Reagan. Fast Facts: Matthew Ridgway Known For: Ridgway was a U.S. military officer who commanded United Nations troops during the Korean War.Born: March 3, 1895 in Fort Monroe, VirginiaParents: Thomas and Ruth RidgwayDied: July 26, 1993 in Fox Chapel, PennsylvaniaEducation: United States Military AcademySpouse(s): Julia Caroline  (m. 1917–1930), Margaret Wilson Dabney (m. 1930–1947), Mary Princess Anthony Long (m. 1947-1993)Children: Matthew Jr. Early Life Matthew Bunker Ridgway was born on March 3, 1895, at Fort Monroe, Virginia. The son of Colonel Thomas Ridgway and Ruth Bunker Ridgway, he was reared on Army posts across the United States and took pride in being an army brat. Graduating from English High School in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1912, he decided to follow in his fathers footsteps and applied for acceptance to West Point. Deficient in mathematics, he failed in his first attempt, but after extensive study of the subject he gained entry the following year. Ridgway was classmates with Mark Clark and two years behind Dwight D. Eisenhower and Omar Bradley.  Their class graduated early due to the U.S. entry into World War I. Later that year, Ridgway married Julia Caroline Blount, with whom he would have two daughters, Constance and Shirley. The couple would divorce in 1930. Early Career Commissioned a second lieutenant, Ridgway was quickly advanced to first lieutenant and then given the temporary rank of captain as the U.S. Army expanded due to the war. Sent to Eagle Pass, Texas, he briefly commanded an infantry company in the 3rd Infantry Regiment before being sent back to West Point in 1918 to teach Spanish and manage the athletic program. At the time, Ridgway was upset with the assignment as he believed combat service during the war would be critical to future advancement and that the soldier who had had no share in this last great victory of good over evil would be ruined. In the years after the war, Ridgway moved through routine peacetime assignments and was selected for the Infantry School in 1924. Rising Through the Ranks Completing the course of instruction, Ridgway was dispatched to Tientsin, China, to command a company of the 15th Infantry Regiment. In 1927, he was asked by Major General Frank Ross McCoy to take part in a mission to Nicaragua due to his skills in Spanish. Though Ridgway had hoped to qualify for the 1928 U.S. Olympic pentathlon team, he recognized that the assignment could greatly advance his career. Ridgway traveled south, where he aided in supervising free elections. Three years later, he was assigned as the military advisor to the Governor-General of the Philippines, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. His success in this post led to his appointment to the Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth. This was followed by two years at the Army War College. World War II After graduating in 1937, Ridgway saw service as the deputy chief of staff for the Second Army and later the assistant chief of staff of the Fourth Army. His performance in these roles caught the eye of General George Marshall, who had him transferred to the War Plans Division in September 1939. The following year, Ridgway received a promotion to lieutenant colonel. With the U.S. entry into World War II in December 1941, Ridgway was fast-tracked to higher command. Promoted to brigadier general in January 1942, he was made assistant division commander of the 82nd Infantry Division. Ridgway was later promoted and given command of the division after Bradley, now a major general, was sent to the 28th Infantry Division. Airborne Now a major general, Ridgway oversaw the 82nds transition into the U.S. Armys first airborne division and on August 15 was officially re-designated the 82nd Airborne Division. Ridgway pioneered airborne training techniques and was credited with turning the unit into a highly effective combat division. Though initially resented by his men for being a leg (non-airborne qualified), he ultimately gained his paratrooper wings. Ordered to North Africa, the 82nd Airborne began training for the invasion of Sicily. Ridgway led the division into battle in July 1943. Spearheaded by Colonel James M. Gavins 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, the 82nd sustained heavy losses largely due to problems outside of Ridgways control such as widespread issues with friendly fire. Major General Matthew B. Ridgway (center), Commanding General, 82nd Airborne Division, and staff, overlooking the battlefield near Ribera, Sicily, 25 July 1943. USMHI Italy In the wake of the Sicily operation, plans were made to have the 82nd Airborne play a role in the invasion of Italy. Subsequent operations led to the cancellation of two airborne assaults and instead Ridgways troops dropped into the Salerno beachhead as reinforcements. They helped hold the beachhead and then participated in offensive operations, including breaking through the Volturno Line. D-Day In November 1943, Ridgway and the 82nd departed the Mediterranean and were sent to Britain to prepare for D-Day. After several months of training, the 82nd was one of three Allied airborne divisions—along with the U.S. 101st Airborne and the British 6th Airborne—to land in Normandy on the night of June 6, 1944. Jumping with the division, Ridgway exerted direct control over his men and led the division as it attacked objectives to the west of Utah Beach. The division advanced toward Cherbourg in the weeks after landing. Market-Garden Following the campaign in Normandy, Ridgway was appointed to lead the new XVIII Airborne Corps which consisted of the 17th, 82nd, and 101st Airborne Divisions. He supervised the actions of the 82nd and 101st during their participation in Operation Market-Garden in September 1944. This saw American airborne forces capture key bridges in the Netherlands. Troops from XVIII Corps later played a key role in turning back the Germans during the Battle of the Bulge that December. In June 1945, he was promoted to lieutenant general and dispatched to the Pacific to serve under General Douglas MacArthur. Arriving as the war with Japan was ending, he briefly oversaw Allied forces on Luzon before returning west to command U.S. forces in the Mediterranean. In the years after World War II, Ridgway moved through several senior peacetime commands. Korean War Appointed Deputy Chief of Staff in 1949, Ridgway was in this position when the Korean War began in June 1950. Knowledgeable about operations in Korea, he was ordered there in December 1950 to replace the recently killed General Walton Walker as commander of the battered Eighth Army. After meeting with MacArthur, who was the supreme United Nations commander, Ridgway was given latitude to operate the Eighth Army as he saw fit. In Korea, Ridgway found the Eighth Army in full retreat in the face of a massive Chinese offensive. Lieutenant General Matthew B. Ridgway, circa. 1951. Public Domain An aggressive leader, Ridgway immediately began working to restore his mens fighting spirit. He rewarded officers who were aggressive and conducted offensive operations when able. In April 1951, after several major disagreements, President Harry S. Truman relieved MacArthur and replaced him with Ridgway, who oversaw U.N. forces and served as military governor of Japan. Over the next year, Ridgway slowly pushed back the North Koreans and Chinese with the goal of re-taking all of the Republic of Koreas territory. He also oversaw the restoration of Japans sovereignty and independence on April 28, 1952. Chief of Staff In May 1952, Ridgway left Korea to succeed Eisenhower as Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, for the newly formed North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). During his tenure, he made significant progress in improving the organizations military structure, though his frank manner sometimes led to political difficulties. For his success in Korea and Europe, Ridgway was appointed U.S. Army Chief of Staff on August 17, 1953. That year, Eisenhower, now president, asked Ridgway for an assessment of possible U.S. intervention in Vietnam. Strongly opposed to such an action, Ridgway prepared a report that showed that massive numbers of American troops would be needed to achieve victory. This clashed with Eisenhower, who wished to expand American involvement. The two men also fought over Eisenhowers plan to dramatically reduce the size of the U.S. Army, with Ridgway arguing that it was necessary to retain enough strength to counter the growing threat from the Soviet Union. Death After numerous battles with Eisenhower, Ridgway retired on June 30, 1955. He went on to serve on numerous private and corporate boards while continuing to advocate for a strong military and minimal involvement in Vietnam. Ridgway died on July 26, 1993, and was buried at Arlington National Cemetery. A dynamic leader, his former comrade Omar Bradley once remarked that Ridgways performance with the Eighth Army in Korea was the greatest feat of personal leadership in the history of the Army.