OPINION
Page 4 Tuesday, March 12, 1985 The Michigan Daily
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
SDI offers effective defense
Vol. XCV, No. 126
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, Mt 48109
Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board
Out with the old
0 0 0
MOSCOW'S announcement of
Soviet leader Konstantin Cher-
nenko's death certainly came as no
surprise to Westerners who have been
reading about his imminent demise for
months. Another development packed
far more significance - his immediate
replacement by Mikhail Gorbachev,
the youngest and, hopefully, most
progressive member of the Kremlin's
outdated ruling clique.
Chernenko represented the last of
the reactionary bureacrats who came
to power upon ousting the reformist
Nikita Khrushchev in 1963. Chernenko
himself stands as merely a symbol; a
footnote to history whose only
significant accomplishment was
paving the way for his younger,
healthier successor.
Gorbachev, 54, has been widely
regarded as the Kremlin's heir ap-
parent for more than a year. During
this period, he has accumulated power
while acquiring an image in the West
unheard of for any previous Soviet
politician.
The new leader represents a new
generation of Soviet rulers. His recent
trip to England and numerous
diplomatic contacts with Western
visitors to the Soviet Union have
revealed an articulate, highly-polished
diplomat, who compensates for his
lack of foreign policy experience with
his charm.
Specifically, Gorbachev is,
viewed as more open to reforming a
Soviet system that is stagnating inter-
nally. An expert on economic affairs,
he arrives just in time to help rescue
the Soviet economy from the perils of
over-centralization.
Western experts forecasted a
gradual downturn in the Soviet Gross
National Product during the 1980's,
and the socialist economy has been
beset by a chronic shortage of workers,
stemming from population
depletement in World War II. In ad-
dition, the inherent lack of incentive
for workers in the Soviet system has
led to massive inefficiency. Although
Gorbachev has not indicated the extent of
his reformist tendencies, he will,
hopefully, continue the efforts . of the
late Yuri Andropov, his mentor, who
attempted to improve socialist ef-
ficiency.
In his speeches, Gorbachev em-
phasized, the importance of restoring
detente, signaling, to some Western
analysts, that he may favor reducing
military expenditures.
Americans must not regard this
fresh face on the international scene as
a diplomatic messiah, however. While
liberal by Soviet standards, Gorbachev
remains a dedicated Communist. In
England, he reacted defensively when
questioned about human rights abuses
in the Soviet Union, and ardently main-
tained the standard Soviet positions on
most issues.
Despite these reservations, Gor-
bachev seems a wise choice to succeed
Chernenko. Ailing and incapacitated
leaders do not bode well for a country's
prestige, nor for its policies. Young
and vigorous leaders do - even in the
Soviet Union.
By Robert V. Oswald
President Reagan has proposed a Strategic
Defense Initiative (SDI) to make nuclear
weapons "impotent and obsolete". Suc'h a
perfect defensive system would be a great
boon for mankind, but it seems unlikely to be
achievable for several decades, it at all.
However, according to Zbignew Brzezinski
former National Security advisor, Robert
Jastrow a leading physicist, and Max Kam-
Pelman, head of the U.S. negotiating team in
Geneva, a 90%1'effective ballistic missile
defense (BDM) could be deployed by the
early 1990's.
SDI is a feapfbility reaserach study only. No
specific plan has been chosen and, no
decision has been made if any system will be
deployed. It seems that now is a reasonable
time to analyze if any form of strategic defen-
se, especially an imperfect one, would be
beneficial.
A BMD could enhance deterrence. By
providing defense for the vulnerable U.S. land
based intercontinental ballistic missile (IC-
BM) force, it increases stability. The Soviets
would not be able to launch a first strike
which would destroy all the U.S.'s ICBM's.
This would remove the necessity to launch on
warning and reduce the pressure to make a
quick decision to retaliate and, remove U.S.
ICBM's from a use-them-or-loose-them
situation.
A BMD would introduce doubt into Soviet
calculations. They would not know which
missiles nor how many missiles would strike
their targets. Since the Soviets would be less
sure of the effects of a first strike, they would
be less likely to launch one.
A BMD alsq provides indirect arms control.
Oswald, an, LSA junior, is a student in
Prof. Tanter's American Foreign Policy
Class.
It disarms the Soviets by well over one-half
and de-MIRV's Soviet SS-18's and -19's.
(MIRVing is the placing of multiple, indepen-
dent warheads in a single warhead). De-
MIRVing is achieved by shooting down the
missile in the boost phase before the
warheads separate. These reductions are,
beyond even the hope of any foreseeable arms
control agreement and, can be achieved
unilaterally.
There are three major criticisms of a BMD
system. It would: violate the Anti-Ballistic
Missile (ABM) treaty, signed in 1972; in-
crease the arms race in offensive systems
and, create an arms race in defensive
systems; and reduce the prospects for im-
proved relations with the Soviets.
Repudiation of the ABM treaty should not
be taken lightly. According to some experts it
has formed the centerpiece of arms control.
However, the ABM treaty should not be kept
if there is greater stability with a BMD than
with the ABM treaty. The offensive systems
have changed since 1972. Soviet missiles have
added a counterforce capability enabling
them to destroy not only cities but to destroy
U.S. ICBM's in their silos, thereby making a
first strike more likely. This changes the
equation. The gains of deplying a BMD would
outweight the political costs.
Deployment \of a BMD by the U.S.
unilaterally would most assuredly cause the
U.S.S.R. to increase procurement of offensive
nuclear systems. However, it seems likely,
that much of that growth would be in systems
other than land based ICBM's, such as cruise
missiles, ballistic missile submarines, and
bombers for which a BMD provides little
protection. This need not evoke a similar
growth in U.S. forces -because the U.S.
already leads in these categories. A defensive
arms race would be welcomed by many.
Every advance and increase in this area
strengthens deterence and stability by in-
creasing doubt of a successful first strike.
In the short run, relations probably would
worsen. In the long run, however, it seems
likely that they would improve. Once the
Soviets also deployed a BMD, both sides
would feel more secure since deterrence
would be based upon mutual assured sur-
vival, not upon mutual assured destruction.
In this climate negotiations and agreements
would be easier to reach than in an era of
distrust and reliance on strict verifiability.
In the short run, while the U.S. is in sole
possession of a BMD, stability would not
decrease for two reasons. One, the Soviets
would still be able to inflict unacceptable
losses on the U.S. through the use of bombers
and cruise missiles. Secondly, and more im-
portantly, the U.S. lacks the capability to
launch an effective first strike.
According to Paul Nitze, Reagan's arms
control advisor, there are also two
requirements that must be met in order for a
BMD system to be practical. The first is that
the system must be defendable. Currently,
satellites, which will be required for an effec-
tive BMD, in high orbits are not threatened,
but that may well change. The seconN
requirement is that the cost of adding extra
defense be the same as or lower than adding
extra offense.
In any case, it will be some time before a
decision about deployment must be made.
More immediate is the question of research.
Given the radar installation in Central Asia,
in violation of the ABM treaty, and the fact
that since 1972 the U.S.S.R. has spent more on
defensive forces than on offensive forces, it
should be clear that the Soviets are trying t
develop a BMD system. A Soviety BMD
coupled with their counter-force weaponry, in
the absence of a U.S. BMD system, would
place America at a severe risk. For this
reason research must continue.
Wasserman
Th1S IS NtCAQAj&iA,- OtNE OF OUR LOTTLE N'WON'T CN&E M'iS GOVRNME~NT I' OLt RM'LA fL±LE:T "MOIF HE B ~ UT E JUS VrR-P 1 8.I .W
usk& ToR TooT suE SNS "UNCi"... USS
TwtE souktA-
Letterss
Anti-semitismi prevelant at University
Loving t
DR. HELEN Caldicott is a singular
but powerful voice: a canon of
committment. While many of the most
brilliant minds in the world today are
engaged in the pursuit of nuclear
knowledge for weapons systems
development, Caldicott has abandoned
a lucrative medical practice to
dedicate her brilliance and impeccable
professional and political credintials to
the anti-nuclear movement.
Sure, Dr. Caldicott's impassioned
pleas, as heard by a crowd at
Rackham last night, rest largely on an
appeal to the emotions and a powerful
tug o'the heartstrings. She knows all
the technical terms and vocabulary of
nuke-speak, she understands the facts.
But she is talking about the realities of
nuclear holocaust, the threat to the
precious stuff of human life being
gambled with in the name of national
security.
"If you love this planet . . ." asks
Caldicott, how much longer will
citizens of the world sit back and shrug
and assume an impotency in stopping
the arms race?
"If you love this planet . ",
Caldicott contends the crime against
humanity that the arms race is about
must be recognized and responsibly
addressed. She wants to know how
much longer we can tempt
devestation.
Caldicott has been instrumental in
..ru-,t Dinc ian Mr. CninR _na n n-
urgency and responsibility she em-
bodies. Her energy and sense of per-
sonal responsibility for halting
escalation of the arms race is
educational and inspirational - a
directive and not an alarmist's angst
and panic.
Caldicott's books, speeches, films
and televisions commercials (con-
sidered too controversial to be aired)
are the stuff of testimony to what any
one person who "loves this planet" can
do.
Caldicott's efforts echo the sen-
timents of Albert Einstein who said
"There is no scientific antidote (to the
bomb), only education ... Disarm the
mind." Caldicott's role as a respon-
sible activist is the result of her own
examination of the subject of nuclear
weapons and war, and an attempt to
share the facts and her own wisdom.
As the most precious resources of
human creativity, intelligence and
technology continue to be directed
towards the potential of nuclear
destruction, Caldicott calls for a
redirection of minds and energies.
While Caldicott is specifically con-
cerned with instilling a sense of
strength in woment to act in opposition
to the arms race, her message is
universally applicable.
Particularly in the University com-
munity, Caldicott's message should
echn in the minds and hearts nf istden-
To the Daily:
As a human being, I am
outraged by the anti-semitism at
the University of Michigan. This
campus has traditionally been
one of our country's most liberal
and tolerant colleges. Not only
have University students debated
and confronted ethical and moral
questions, but they have also
been encouraged to do so. From
the Marxist group's leaflets, to
the Diag preachers, to Consider
magazine, to the classrooms
themselves, we at the University
of Michigan are exposed to a
forum of diverse opinions which
stimulate our imagination and
motivate our participation.
With such freedom for alter-
native opinion, it is surprising
that some students still maintain
prejudices. One would suppose
that the range of beliefs would
force such students to realize the
ignorance of prejudice. Further,
it seems that our extremely
diverse student body would erase
such prejudices by exposing
students to such a variety of
races, nationalities, and religions
that it would be impossible to
maintain views of group in-
feriority or specific stereotypes.
Unfortunately, it appears that
prejudice still festers here.
My personal experience with
the anti-semitism of University
students focuses on fraternity in-
tramural hockey. I am a member
of Zeta Beta Tau, a
predominately Jewish fraternity,
and participate on the frater-
nity's hockey team. Two years
ago, in one of our games, a
frustrated opposing team and
their fans shouted their slurs at
myself, my teammates, and our
supporters. This year, during an
evening game on March 7, we en-
countered a similiar situation.
After being slashed across my
knee with a hockey stick, I hit the
simply in passing utter insulting
remarks. It follows that other
minorities at the University must
confront such prejudice, too; It is
unfortunate and surprising that
this narrow-mindedness endures
and attacks me and others who
are "different" simply for our
beliefs, on a campus that so
strongly embraces the freedoms
of expression and of learning. In-
deed, it is hypocritiacal and
tragic.
After the hockey game, I was
approached by my opponent who
wished to apologize for the
"cheapshot". To him I say: I ac-
cept the bruise on my knee as a
consequence of the physical
aspect of hockey and therefor
hold no grudge. However, I wil
neither forgive nor forget your
vicious remark, for to do so wouk
be to accept your prejudice an
that I refuse to do.
-Jay B. Kno
March!
A modest proposal. Vaporize the U. S.
To the Daily:
I have a modest proposal.
There seems to be h lot of noise
lately about cutting federal
budgets and a need to increase
our defenses against the
spreading communist menace.
Recently though, the Pentagon
has discovered something which
might save taxpayers billions of
dollars and simultaneously
bolster our defenses. The Pen-
tagon's research corroborates
what some leading scientists
proposed a few years ago: it is
likely that a modest nuclear war
will plunge the earth intowa
nuclear winter in which plum-
meting temperatures and
prolonged darkness would likely
result in extinction of many
higher forms of life. While the
Department of Defense saw no
BLOOM COUNTY
practical consequences of this
theory on their program for
development of new defense
systems, I can see a bright future
for applications of the theory.
My proposal centers around
deployment of nuclear warheads
in all towns in the U.S. with
populations over 20,000
inhabitants. Our strategy will in
effect be similar to the current
policy: if the Russians get out of
hand we will threaten to explode
our arsenal of nuclear weapons
right where they sit. This
strategy has many advantages
over our current arrangement.
First we would have the satisfac-
tion of knowing that all our
warheads can be used to their
fullest capabilities. None could be
lost to Russian ABM systems.
This system would be a far more
effective deterrent. If we were
forced to use these weapons we
would have the peace of mind
knowing that most U.S. citizens
would be instantly vaporized thus
feeling no pain. The Russians, o
the other hand, would die a
terrible death. I for one would
rather be vaporized than die of
radiation sickness, freeze to
death, or starve. Knowing the
consequences of our new system,
the Russians would not dare get
out of hand. And just think of all
the money we could save. No
more costly delivery systems. No
more Star Wars development.
Then we could put our money to
good use, like research an
development of new gas a
chemical warfare methods.
- John Stegga
March 1
by Berke Breathed
MLIMtKoW VotCANO.
FW IW 5C/elfC- WHICH15
FAIR CO#MT5r, GOING TO
M/Go ? WIN
WeT BET
K T IT
K1:wu
56T a~r /r
WON'T OiveiK
Af0w1$ Ai9
M GEA f /N\L
eara t 1." "