4 OPINION Thursday, October 20, 1983 Page 4 The Michigan Doily control 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. Euromissile Debate I 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 missile. 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 homeland. 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 deployments. Weinberger is U.S. secretary of defense.. ph II 6 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 ENERAL MOTORS Corporation 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. LaBan' 5aA (ZiIv 1/1 A I fw~. * .+ 6i THE rjIC#iHJMv)AJLy ,_^,.-. J1 _ ' 1 Gross LETTERS TO THE DAILY: -.J 3 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- pened. 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 During fraternity a recent serenade, where members visit a sorority i + fs. F \ GLAR/( i 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 Degree. 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 thinking. 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 BLOOM COUNTY 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 22.; - 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. Ramanmammansemesmansess.:::......:mme I4 by Berke Breathed