.. .. 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 missile§ 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.