1g... 4-Saturday, October 1, 1977-The Michigan Daily I P tgttn rn tIQ Flagellating someone else Eighty-Eight Years of Editorial Freedom, By CHUCK ANESI 420 Maynard St., Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Vol. LXXXVIII, No. 21 News Phone: 764-0552 Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan The neutron bomb: Trying to justify nuClear warfare I HE ISSUE of the neutron bomb, concept of disarmament., T when it first arose, produced a In Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman's wor- sense of relief in many across the coun- ds, "The argument isn't whether this is try. The reason: President Carter better or worse than what we have, but brought it into the public forum right why we are recommitting ourselves to on the heels of his decision not to ap- a policy of nuclear holocaust." prove production of the B-i bomber. Perhaps President Carter is weav- Any bomb, it seemed, would be better ing a strategy of disarmament in tfian the B-1. For several euphoric which the neutron bomb is only a weeks early last summer, it appeared negotiable thread. Since it now seems that Carter had already begun to work certain to be produced, we hope this is for his inaugural address commit- the case. nm-nt: "Our ultimate goal - the elim- intion of all nuclear weapons from .5...":::... .......... this Earth." Then he asked for money for the neu- 'Since the atomic bomb was tron bomb, a nuclear weapon without dropped on Hiroshima, the use nmch blast potential - meaning it of nuclear weapons has been re-I doesn t destroy much property - but arded as a last resort. The neu- with extremely lethal radiation - g. , meaning it kills people as well as a tron bomb changes all this.' coiventional bomb. -Rep. Ted Weiss The Senate approved it in July. The House approved it Thursday. A joint +:-+ ::::::::::......:::: : :::::.: conference will iron out the differ- eices, then pass the appropriation to But such a bomb really has no place tle White House for signing. in the U.S. arsenal. The plausible ar- 4 It is a very tricky issue. Supporters gument for our giant warheads - vul-j ofthe bomb say it is purely a defensive nerable as the argument is - is that weapon. It would be stationed in front the bombs are so gruesome that the of European cities to guard against U.S. and the Soviet Union would never Sqviet invasion; if deployed, its pro- actually go to war with them. By theirI ponents say, it would kill only Soviet very size, they deter war. soldiers, leaving civilians unharmed. But the neutron bomb isn't that The bomb's opponents say these gruesome. In the event of land war, tlings: it would kill slowly and pain- commanders would prolably use 'it. fully; deployment of any nuclear And that is why it is so repugnant; it is weapon is likely to lead to more and a usable nuclear weapon, and a first greater nuclear warfare; production of step in that direction is a terribly reck- the neutron bomb is anathema to the less and dangerous one. ' S K Me IEIE osSEi D - r E 1t% t O A ' EAW iF I1 5 ID!' I T5 ?!4 ON~ P&RPS.S TO A 1 4lt E|TV. ' - A AN cwG iy lCW NeFMArA CA I Americans are in the mood for spite. We butted out of Vietnam in disgrace, and that memory still rankles. We've had to tolerate hijack- ing of our ships and planes, and gratuitous insults from fourth-rate dictators who dress in things that look like marching band uniforms. We're sick of all that, and we're ready to spite someone. That someone is Panama. According to a recent Associated Press poll, 50 per cent of those surveyed opposed Senate ratification of the proposed canal treaties. Only 29 per cent favored it, and 21 per cent expressed no opinion. Robert Byrd, Senate Majority Leader, tells us that "To bring the treaty up this fall would ensure its rejection," and that strong Senate opposition will persist as long as public opinion is clearly against the treaty. SO THE TREATY may face a tough fight ahead. And that's really a shame, because thinking personstonboth the left and right agree that ratification would serve the best interests of the United States and Panama. Liberals and conservatives reason in different ways to the same conclusion, of course, and as usual, the liberals' thought is foolish. For some reason, the Panamanians have more right to the canal than we do, they say. This is odd, because the Panamanians' grandfathers signed away the property on a perpetual lease - primarily in grati- tude for our assistance in creating their country out of territory previously controlled by Columbia. Nor can the Panamanians claim aboriginal rights (a faulty concept anyway) because, like us, they are a nation of immigrants. We built the canal. We paid for it. The Panamanians have less right to it than the Mexiebns have to Colorado. On the other hand, the conservative argument, based on pure ex- pediency, has much merit. The conservative first accepts that the only reasons for our continued presence in Panama are (1) to ensure the continued efficient operation of the canal for commercial and peacetime military purposes; and (2) to provide for the defense of the canal in the event of war. THE CONSERVATIVE next accepts that if these aims can be ser- ved better by shifting control of the canal to someone else, then that shift should be made. 'Regarding the first aim, there might be some dispute. The abilities of Panamanian engineers and administrators are not exactly legendary. But under the treaty provisions, we'll retain primary ad- ministrative responsibility until 1990, and a subordinate, consultative role after that. This should give enough time to train the Pana- manians. In the mood for spite, Americans are ready to lean on someone else after' leaning on themselves for a decade. The place: the Panama Canal. Regarding defense: under the treaty, we'll keep primary defense responsibility until 2000, and contingent intervention rights after- wards. That's fine. But consider it further. There are three ways to at- tack the canal - from the air, sea, or land. Air and sea attacks would come from certain powerful nations, probably as part of a general world conflict. And in that case, we wouldn't need the Panama bases for canal defense anyway. Guerrilla attacks would be far more likely,; and repulsing these without Panama's support wouldibe impossible. Panama, in fact, would probably be the attacker. SO IT'S NOT a zero-sum game, and the conservative, in the clear light of reason, sees that the treaty will be mutually beneficial. If the American people were aware of these arguments, they, might think the same thing. But they are not aware. Who is at fault? The news media, of course. Instead of telling the American people,' that the treaty is desirable on purely expedient grounds - the only; criterion of interest to most Americans - they've gone in for self--_ flagellating, hair-shirt drivel about how we owe the Panamanians the;' canal. We should give it to them in the spirit of penance, they say. But Americans are in the mood for spite. They've had enough of self-flagellation, and now they want to flagellate someone else. And the more the media enjoins them to penance, the whiter their knuckles become as they clench the whip. So the media can make the treaty or break it. If the ratification., fails, we will have only the media to blame - and we can look forward to another little war or a disgraceful butt-out. How good are you at carrying a 70-pound pack through jungle? Letters to The Daily star wars To The Daily: Your recent spot in the "To- day" section concerning the Star Wars halftime show to be pre- sented this Saturday by the Michigan Marching Band was surprisingly unfair. I, too, am tired of the Star Wars'parapher- nalia which have been popping up all over campus, but what of all those loyal U of Mers who have trekked back to the theater four, five, six times? The band has chosen a show theme and ac- companying music for their Sat- urday show which will surely ap- peal to most of their stadium au- dience. Furthermore, since the band itself had not gone over the entire show by Tuesday, how could a member of your staff have been informed enough to make a remark like "get your free earmuffs"? Our band works incredible hours to put on an en- tertaining halftime show each home Saturday, and I, for one, am willing to see and listen to the show before digging out my ear- muffs! Trish Refo September 29 japanese To The Daily: It is a little difficult to know the point of the article about Japa- nese foreign students by Chris Goodall which ran in the Daily last week. A number of factual errors can be cleared up easily, but the implications of what he writes are bothersome. Let me deal with facts first. Mr. Goodall does not know many Japanese students very well, or he would not think that few women go overseas to study or that Japanese universities are . modeled on American universi- ties. And from where comes his notion that in Japan "all busi- ness is done face-to-face with peo- ple you know, preferably, for sev- eral years"? Surely that cozy pattern is more characteristic of American firms, where execu- tives often stay in the same job for some time, rather than being rotated every two or three years as in Japan. These matters are not major, but the claim that Japanese fore- ign students have flooded uni- versities around the world is cen- tral to his argument. ". . . in the best academic institutions across Europe, Asia and America there will often be more Japanese than any other foreign nationality. As only the shortsighted will have missed, the University of Michi- gan is no exception to the general rule." Such points are quite easi- ly checked. A telephone call to the International Center is enough to find out that for 1977, among the eleven nations repre- sented by at least 50 foreign students at the University, Japan ranked seventh, behind Canada, India, Iran, Taiwan, South Korea and Nigeria. SUCH UP-TO-DATE statistics were not available about num- bers of foreign students world wide, but the latest edition (1975) of the UNESCO yearbook re- veals that in 1973 there were about 5,000 Japanese students in the United States, a number ex- ceeded by, for example, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Thailand. Many countries, including Hong Kong, Egypt, Italy and even the United Kingdom (which has only about one-sixth the number of university students as Japan) had more of their students study- ing abroad. Finally, since some of Mr. Goodall's impressions were gained in England, where he went to school, let me note that in 1972 there were fully 229 Japa- nese students in the United King- dom, a number exceeded by such lands as Uganda and Cyprus. The author's difficulty at this univer- sity may be too great a reliance on eyesight, and confounding our 99 Japanese students with our 407 Chinese or Korean students. I have provided rather a bar- rage of facts, but find it more in- teresting to ask what image Mr. Goodall is trying to convey to us. He says reality is more mundane than a "gigantic plan to subvert Western culture," but then does imply quite clearly that Japa- nese students are sent out by the government or giant business' firms to learn how to manipulate' western governments and com-F panies and to line up business{ contacts (for use 20 years hen ce?), and he warns us to guard our daddies' business secrets.'" Good heavens! In fact, few = students are sent over here by firms or governmentali ministries, but mainly to give them a little international ex- perience and improve their Eng-'' lish. A much greater number are'; ordinary students, here for the same motives or to receive train- ing not available in Japan. When one thinks about it calmly, what else could they be doing? And what else sshould they be doing? As Mr. Goodall does point out quite correctly, Japan is an, insular country and can use anyM international exposure it can get, especially by the young. It would be to everyone's advantage too if., more people around the world could get to know some Japanese. Sensible people will applaud an. increase in Japanese foreign stu-. dents, at Michigan or elsewhere, and would be delighted to see a doubling or tripling of their num-t' ber. John Campbell Assistant Professor off; Political Science September 27 k k ....J t t 4.. weather r orecasterb. Inle -.T I.- __A aRTVL+ In TT L+fi C1 T