100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

April 08, 1982 - Image 4

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1982-04-08

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

.. .. m. ... ._..

. .

M

OPINION

"d

Page 4.

Thursday, April 8, 1982.

The Michigan Daily

w

_.. i

Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Nuclear freeze comes of age

Vol XCII, No. 149

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI\48109

Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board

Reviewing our hospital

Jerome Weisner, former president of
the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, has come out in favor of a
U.S./Soviet freeze on nuclear weapons.
Weisner served as an advisor to Presidents
IEisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson, and
also helped draft U.S. policy for the 1963
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.
Wesiner spokerecently to Opinion
Page staff writer Kent Redding about the
logistics, of "freezing' and the anti-
nuclear movement that has swept the
country.

9

THE UNIVERSITY got away with
it once before, but it may not be
quite so lucky this time around.
in 1979 the Comprehensive Health
Plinning Council of Southeastern
Michigan decided that the University's
Replacement Hospital Project was tog
large. The costs were unnecessarily
high given the health care that would
be provided in the area. But the
University bypassed CHPC-SEM's
proposal for paring down the costs of
the project and appealed to health care
offices in Lansing for construction ap-.
proval. The University won, CHPC-
SEM acquiesed, and plans for con-
struction of the hospital continued.
But now, three years later, it seems
as if CHPC-SEM may get a second
chance. Because the state's funds for
the replacement hospital are uncertain
at best, federal law says that financial
and construction plans must be
reviewed-by CHPC-SEM. Any time
the source of level of financing for the
_project changes in any significant
way," CHPC-SEM gets to take another
look at what's going on.
The additional look that CHPC-SEM
may get at the construction of the
project may be exactly what the
replacement hospital, and the Univer-
sity, needs. CHPC-SEM is a federal
watchdog commission that will, if
allowed, -make pertinent and impor-
,, T 1 . 1 T

tant criticisms of the University's
project.
To start, Terrence Carroll, head of
CHPC-SEM, says he believes the
replacement, hospital project is too
"grandiose." Given the project's
current price tag and potential for
even higher costs, this criticism seems
decidedly accurate. Carroll questions
whether the quality level of health care
to be provided by the hospital will be
merited by its rather extravagant cost.
This question should be first on the
minds of all the planners-and the
community-involved in the project.
And CHPC-SEM is the agency that is
best qualified to answer these
questions. It is unfortunate that Carroll
seems to have some preconceived
notions about the future of the project,
but nonetheless, his research into its
problems could be valuable. Yet CH-
PC-SEM's comments on the project
may never be recognized.
Because the University and its
sacred new hospital are so dear to the
hearts of the state legislators, the
University could probably get away
with bypassing CHPC-SEM's review.
If this happens, the replacement
hospital project will probably continue
as it had before, uncurbed and costly.
The University should . welcome a
chance to hear CHPC-SEM's commen-
ts, for they may help make the project
better for all of us.
Wv Federalism_

Daily Photo by JEFF SCHRIER
Jerome Weisner addresses University students on the nuclear freeze movement.

Daily: What do you think of the Soviet's
latest proposal to freeze nuclear weapons
deployment in Europe?
Weisner: My own view is that we should
have a moritorium, but it should be a com-
prehensive one. There may be a'way to put a
moratorium on European nuclear weapons
but I don't think that's going very far in trying
to bring the arms race toaa halt.
Daily: What about the nuclear freeze
movement in the United States? Do you think
it will become large enough and vocal enough
to cause a shift in U.S. policy, and halt the
production and deployment of nuclear
weapons?
Weisner: You can't be certain, but I hope
so.
Daily: How much influence do you think the
movement will have on the president?
Weisner: There are two things. It might
convince the president he needs to pay some
attention. It might also succeed in changing
the composition of Congress. The whole House
is up for elections as well as a third of the
Senate. If popular sentiment is strong enough,
it is conceivable that over the next few years
you could change the composition enough so
that the president would either pay attention
or have a good deal of opposition.
Daily: Suppose we freeze nuclear arms in
the United States,-what about the superiority
of Soviet conventional forces?
Weisner: Well, it isn't all that over-
whelming. I think that's a misconception. If
one looks at the numbers, the Soviets have a
slightly, larger number of troops and they
have some more tanks. But if you believe the
strategies that the military officers talk about
when they speak about conventional wars, the
offensive force has to have a two orthree to
one advantage 'numerically . .. and the
Russians surely don't have that. And even if
you were to freeze nuclear weapons, you
wouldn't take them out, so there would still be
nuclear weapons in Europe. There is also no
great evidence that the Russians are intent on
capturing Europe. That's a kind of myth that
can't be proven either.

Daily: How do we link or include a freeze in
the START negotiations?,
Weisner: I would hope you would follow a
freeze with reductions in weapons. which
brings it to lower levels than SALT II. It
wouldn't be any different than the previous
negotiations which were time-consuming and
painful.
Daily: Could the United States freeze
unilaterally, and how?
Weisner: I don't think there is such a thing
as fighting a, nuclear war without suffering
overwhelming catastrophe yourself. If the
United States were to try to destroy the
Soviet's missile and bomber forces, I think
they would have enough submarine forces
and enough of the missiles we'd attack would
survive so we would be fatally or almost
fatally damaged. And the same is true for the
Soviet Union.
Daily: Do you think the Soviet Union would
follow suit if we freeze nuclear weapons
unilaterally?
Weisner: I have no inside information, but I
would hope so. The point is that it wouldn't
matter. Suppose they didn't and added 36 per-
cent or 50 percent to their nuclear forces. It
wouldn't change, the. basic integrityKof the
deterrent. I don't see anything that can, And
therefore, I think we have much more
flexibility than the people who balance all
these numbers so arduously believe.
Daily: The concept of a nuclear freeze
seems to fly in the face of past U.S. ac-
cusations that the Soviets were the real
villains in the arms race. How can we expect
that to change?
Weisner: We started with the fear that the
Russians were going to have an over-
whelming bomber force to wipe us out. And
then we discovered in the late 1950s that it
wasn't true. Then we got frightened that they
were going to build hundreds of missiles, and
so we started to build a big missile force, only
to discover that the Russians hadn't built very
many. I think the Russians are also respon-
sible for an arms buildup, but,'we still hold

some responsibility because we were
frightened and made some mistakes. Now we
must try to undo them.
Daily: Even if the Soviets were to agree to a
freeze,,how could we verify such an
agreement?
Weisner: At the present time, you could
probably do an adequate amount of
verification with reconnaisance systems. *In
fact, this is why it is so important to freeze
now. The next generation of systems that the
United States is pioneering, cruise missileĀ§
for example, are much less easily verifiableg
Daily: Do you think, as far as nuclear
weapons go, that there is a balance between
American and Soviet forces?
Weisner: It's hard to define a balance,
because things are so different.
I' think. there's as much of a
balance as you'll ever get. The Soviets have
bigger missiles, we have more warheads. If
you believe, as I do, that the only thing that
matters is retaliatory capability then we both
have vastly more than is necessary. A lot of
sophisticated analysts think this is a pretty
naive position:
Daily: Do you think most people simply
follow and agree with the government's ideas
and policies?
Weisner: I think most people weren't
frightened enough, and, more importantly,
they didn't think theme was anything possible
to do. In a curious way I think the president
and this administration that are so hawkish
have helped people like myself who are trying
to get public understanding. When ytu get a
statement as stupid as those made by General
Jones and the man who runs the civil defense
agency, people wonder if there aren't some
lunatics loose in this country. They said the
United States could engage in a full-scale
nuclear war and recover in a few years-that
it would be unpleasant, but not all that bad.
Dialogue, a weekly feature of the
Opinion Page, appears every Thursday..

T SEEMS AS IF President Reagan's
dubious New Federalism plan is
finally falling apart.
The president and the nation's
governors just can't agree on the ter-
ms of the proposed social \ program
swap. The White House and the
National Governors Association have
tried for months to iron out a solution
on giving welfare and food stamps
back to the states-in exchange for a
federal takeover of Medicaid-but
discussions have bogged down in
technicalities. Now, even the ad-,
ministration admits that nothing more
can be accomplished on New
Federalism this year.
SAnd the halt certainly is a timely
one.
The plan contains too many potential
hazards. It gives states tremendous
leeway in running social programs af-
ter the swap; it is unclear how much
help states would be required to extend
tathe poor,-or if they would be required
too even continue some social
programs. And the swap, n'o matter
how attractive the administration's
figures make it appear, would be a
losing one for states in the financial
long-run. It is also likely that once the
Federal government gains total con-

I

trol over Medicaid, restrictions
eligibility would be tightened, thus
ting out several needy recipients.

for
cut-

And these fears of inequitable
treatment, in some cases, have been
proven correct. Puerto Rico, for
example, inspired by New Federalism
logic, recently tried to change its food
stamp program into a direct cash
assistance one. Cash assistance would
allow Puerto Rican aid recipients to
spend their money on any com-
modities, not just food, which might
subvert the food stamp's original pur-
pose.
Puerto Rico's example illustrates
the dangers of handing social
programs back to the states. The
federal government needs to watch
over these programs in order td keep
them in line with their original pur-
pose.
The serious problens that New
Federalism would cause-with the
inequities inherent on both the state
and federal level-make one relieved
at the plan's current stalled status. ''o
keep aid programs fair and readily
available for the poor, New
Federalism's temporary halt deserves
to be expanded-into a permanent one.

Weasel

6.

By Robert Lence

HE~Y GUYS
LOO0K WHOs
COMING!
- 7
K-'
4 #

IV0 I CONT.
E1fENIFrPIP,
YOU = WDUl-VM'T GVF, AR(
GOT ANY TO YOU TERKORIM.
?EAlNUT5 CR NOW, IF You pogy
VORITOS MIND, XM LATE.
ON YR FM CLASS.
TODAY?

~AAAH!
A 'I
Pa/
..-'I,

S TO LP ,{
LAEPEOPLf-.
\ifio O{&'
SHARE.TAF-' --
r '/

(t
:1 \

A

N

a
1 = wr1 lOr

LETTERS TO THE DAILY:

f

..I

To th
Th
serve
Rath
and a

Vindicating Feiger's hard MSAwork
e Daily: Student Assembly President Job Jon made it quite clear in his ignoring MSA's work on minority
is letter is not intended to Feiger. To see Jon criticized in campaign what he thought about affairs, campus security, and
as a political endorsement. the Daily for doing exactly what the military on campus. Not only student input on review commit-
er, it is a commendation - he was endorsed for one year ago did the Daily endorse him, but tees.
a vindication - of Michigan pains me. University students over- For the first time in my four

4'%O

t

__ a_.

Covering Greek Week

whelmingly voted for him. He did
what he said he would if elected.
When is the last time that has
happened? Now the -'Daily
criticizes his work on the military
research issue.

years at the University the
student government accom-
plished something. Here we have
a group of students who did more
than orate in the Diag. They y
produced action.

To the Daily:
I am writing this letter on
L _,_ tP n'. ng 1 . .

week's positive interactions will
On+ ./T-rQrIm"+..T+ ..111

.e,"9 T X.

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan