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


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.

October 20, 1983 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1983-10-20

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


Thursday, October 20, 1983

Page 4

The Michigan Doily

INF: Modernization and arms

Editor's note, With the planned U.S.
deployment of Pershing II and cruise
missiles in Western Europe a scant two
months away, the debate over deployment
promises to grow even more intense.
Protestors in Europe are in the midst of
week-long demonstrations against the
move . the Strategic Arms Reduction
Talks (START) are continuing with little
progress in Geneva. And the argument also
rages in the United States, intensified by
the downing of Korean Airlines Flight 007
on September 1.



As December 1983 approaches,, and with it
NATO's scheduled deployment of Pershing II
(PII) and Ground-Launched Cruise Missiles
(GLCMs) in Western Europe, we should
,remenber that the objective is not to put new
missiles in Europe. It is to redress -
preferably through arms control, but, if
necessary, through deployment - the im-
balance caused by the Soviet buildup of Inter-
mediate range nuclear forces (INF) - in par-
ticular, the modern, triple-warhead SS-20
It is impossible to find a rationale or logic for
the massive SS-20 deployments. Since 1977 the
Soviets have more than doubled the number of
warheads on longer-range INF missiles.
During the same period, the United States
deployed no comparable missiles and even
unilaterally withdrew 1000 nuclear warheads
from Europe - with little publicity and with no
reciprocal response from the Soviets.
The SS-20 is a qualitative new and different
threat from the older SS-4 and SS-5 INF
missiles. The SS-20 is mobile, has a range of
5000 kilometers, has three warheads per
missile, and is far more accurate than the SS-4
and SS-5. Moreover, the SS-20 has the
capability to be reloaded and refired.
IN 1978, the Soviets had 600 warheads on
longer-range INF missiles based on land and
were beginning to add the SS-20. We had no
such missile. Since then, the Soviets have
strengthened their lead. By the end of 1972,
when Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev declared
"a balance now exists," the Soviets had over
800 warheads. We still had none.
In March 1982, Mr. Brezhnev pledged a
moratorium on SS-20 deployments. But by
Aufust, their 800 warheads had become more
than 1200-some freeze! We still had none. At
this time, the Soviet Degfense Minister Dmitri

By Casper W. Weinberger
Ustinov announced "approximate parity of
forces continues to exist." The Soviets now
have some 1300 warheads, and the buildup con-
tinues. Additionally, the Soviets have new
missile bases under construction. So far, it
seems the Soviet definition of parity is a box
score of 1300 to nothing, in their favor.
So the longer-range INF missile "balance"
claimed by the Soviets in Europe is actually a
gross imbalance. Why is that so disturbing?
Because, in an age when the United States no
longer has strategic superiority, such an im-
balance - if not redressed - could call into
question NATO's strategy of deterrence and
flexible response, as well as raise doubts about
the link between the American strategic
deterrent and the defense of Europe. The
Soviets might come to believe - however
mistakenly - that they could threaten to use
nuclear weapons based in the Soviet Union
against our European allies without risking
nuclear retaliation against the Soviet
WHAT CAN WE in NATO do about this 1300-
to-0 imbalance? There are two things: We can
readjust the equation by deploying our own
longer-range missiles; or we can convince the
Soviets to reduce their side of the equation.
Either course, or a combination of the two,
would redress the imbalance caused by the
Soviet buildup.
That was precisely the course set oy tne
NATO ministers in December 1979, when they
decided on their dual-track approach - NATO
would proceed to modernize its forces through
the development of 108 PIIs and 464 GLCMs,
and simultaneously offer U.S.-Soviet arms con-

trol negotiations on longer-range INF missiles.
The importance of this dual-track approach
becomes apparent when we look at the realities
of dealing with the Soviet Union. The Soviets
are not known for magnanimity and generosity
in negotiations. Since we are not going to get
something for nothing from the Soviets in arms
control talks, we must convince them that it is
in their interest to negotiate - and negotiate
seriously - on longer-range INF reductions.
THIS FACT was borne out in our effort to
persuade the Soviets to come to the negotiating
table. For many months after the NATO
"decision, the Soviet Union refused even to enter
negotiations, insisting that NATO first renoun-
ce its plans to modernize its deterrent forces.
Only when the Soviets finally realized that
NATO was resolute and that the two tracks of
the December 1979 decision were inseperable
did they agree to talk.
The INF negotiations began in Geneva in
November 1981. The United States proposed
eliminating INF missiles - zero on both sides
of the equation. The Soviets have so far been
unwilling to accept this solution. In March
1983, in an effort to move the negotiations for-
ward to a mutually acceptable outcome at the
earliest possible date, we introduced a proposal
for an interim agreement that would entail and
reduce levels of warheads on U.S. and Soviet
longer-range INF missile launchers.
The Soviet position, which has not changed
substantially since the beginning of the
negotiations, has been disappointing. Their
current proposal would leave the Soviets with
more SS-20s than when negotiations began,
deny NATO the right to modernize its means of
deterring this threat, allow them to have an
unlimited number of mobile SS-20s east of the
Urals, which still pose a threat to NATO
Europe as well as Asia, and almqst totally

eliminate from the European continent U.S.
dual-capable aircraft, which are indispensable
for NATO's conventional defenses. The result
would be to preserve the Soviet monopoly oyer
the United States in longer-range INF missiles
to erode seriously the linkage between the U.S.
strategic deterrent and the defense of NATO
Europe, and to further the Soviet long-term
aim of dividing the alliance.
At the same time, the Soviets have un
deraken a public campaign to do everything
possible to prevent deployments on our side
without reductions on their side.
Realistically, only when the Soviets become
convinced that our deployments will proceed in
the absence of an agreement eliminating
longer-range INF missiles on both sides will
they negotiate seriously toward an agreement.
We would be delighted if the Soviets came to
this conclusion before deployments begin in
December. If they do not, we will continue to
negotiate; and we have said, what goes in can
come out.
We are perfectly willing to reduce our
deployments in exchange for SS-20 reductions
to equal levels; that is the very essence of the
U.S. interim proposal as well as the zero-zero
proposal. Indeed, we far prefer a negotiated set-I
tlement. As president Ronald Reagan said with
regard to INF missiles, better none than some;
but if there must be some, better few than
many. But to induce the Soviets to reach an ac-
ceptable agreement, and to redress the im-
balance otherwise should they be willing to do
so, we must proceed on schedule with
Weinberger is U.S. secretary of defense..

ph II


The Euromissile Debate comes at a time
when U.S.-Soviet relations specifically and
world relations in general are at their most
precarious point since the end of World
War IL
For the remainder of the term, the Daily
will be presenting columns in this space
written by some of the principle actors in
'the debate, including today's by Mr. Wein-
berger. Collected by the Ploughshares
Fund, a San Francisco-based public foun-
dation, these essays cover a wide range of
opinion to give readers a more complete
grasp of the debate. Future columns will
include the Euromissile Debate logo.

&he AItban 7ai3at
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Vol. XCIV-No. 38

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board
MotOdig6ut discrimination

took a giant step toward eliminat-
ing discrimination in its operations by
agreeing to the largest-ever monetary
settlement of an employment
discrimination complaint earlier this
week. The $42 million out of court set-
tlement is impressive in its depth and
scope of coverage. Solid gains at GM
for women, blacks, and Hispanics will
be an excellent example for other
companies to follow - with or without
a lawsuit to push them along.
The agreement stipulates that GM
will set aside $15 million for en-
dowments and scholarships to as yet
unnamed universities and technical
schools to benefit GM employees and
their families; will provide $8.9 million
for job training for salaried positions;
and will establish hiring quotas for

both salaried and hourly positions.
GM promised 28 percent of newly
hour positions to women and 10 percent
to blacks and Hispanics. For salaried
jobs the nation's largest auto maker
will hire up to 25 percent women and 15
percent blacks and Hispanics.
The strength of the settlement,
though, is that it aims to tear down the
barriers that have kept women,
blacks, and Hispanics from jobs in the
past. By putting so much emphasis on
education and career development
programs GM will be removing the
wall of unequal opportunity that has
thwarted these groups in the past.
The plan does not mean GM will be
placing women and minorities in the
board room tomorrow, but it does give
them a much better shot at getting
there someday.

5aA (ZiIv





* .+






' 1




HIS EDITORIAL should never
have had to be written. The
behavior of Phi Delta Theta members at a
recent "serenade" was so insulting
that it is hard to believe it even hap-

house to sing songs to its members, a
Phi Delta Theta member kissed one of
the sorority members "betweenthe
legs," in front of everyone, according
to witnesses.
This behavior is childish, crude, of-
fensive, lewd, and vulgar. In fact,
almost any words with negative con-
notations describe it.

Language requirement misunderstood


a recent serenade, where
members visit a sorority

i + fs. F \
L l >v Kok
r r l 111

To the Daily:
I am writing in response to Mr.
Rickman's letter (October 5) to
the Daily, "Why require foreign
language?" I am glad to see that
Mr. Rickman is attempting to
evaluate his education, but it is
too bad that he neither under-
stands the value of a liberal arts
education, nor does he under-
stand college procedures.
First of all, the language
requirement is not an inflexible
one. There are three ways to
meet it: (1) four years in high
school of a foreign language with
a "C" average or better; (2)
testing out of the language; or (3)
the Bachelor of General Studies
A primary purpose of a liberal
arts education is to broaden one's
thinking. This in turn widens
one's horizons and makes ones
better able to understand and
analyze life. Not everyone who
enters this university has the
luxuirv of the foreknowledge~ Mr.

does not surprise me, English
being the language of England. A
foreign language forces one to
examine a different culture and
understand a different way of
I do agree with Mr. Rickman on
one point: the administration of
the college does often act in its in-
finite wisdom. This is visible in
its clearly articulated vision of
what a liberal arts education
means. .
We in the LSA Student Gover-
nment are concerned that Mr.
Rickman may not be alone in his
misperceptions. He claims to be
getting a well-rounded education.
Is he? Are we? We sincerely ap-
preciate Mr. Rickman taking
the time to voice his opinions. The
value of a liberal arts education
is rarely discussed. We believe it
to be an issue that must be talked
about. To get people thinking

about this issue, we have
organized a scholarship. We will
be awarding cash prizes for the
best essays we receive on the
value of a liberal arts education.
There will be two prizes awarded
in each of two divisions: fresh-
man/sophomore, and
junior/senior. Essays should be

handed in to the LSA Student
Government office, 4003
Michigan Union, by November
- Eric Berma4
October 7
Berman is a member of LSA
Student Government.

We encourage our readers to use this space
to discuss and respond to issues of their con-
cern. Whether these topics cover University,
Ann Arbor community, state, national, or in-
ternational issues in a straightforward of un-
conventional manner, we feel such a dialogue
is a crucial function of the Daily. Letters and
guest columns should be typed, triple-spaced,
and signed.


by Berke Breathed

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan