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- his immediate replacement by Mikhail Gorbachev, the youngest and, hopefully, most progressive member of the Kremlin's outdated ruling clique.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." "