Page 4 Tuesday, March 19, 1985 The Michigan Daily
&iw 3IIIa n 121 UI
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan
The purpose of
Vol. XCV, No. 132
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board
N PERHAPS the most striking
example of the pot calling the kettle
black in the history of the federal
government, the Pentagon announced
last week that it would conduct an in-
vestigation to determine if defense
contractors make too much profit.
The irony of this announcement is
that while preventing wasteful expen-
diture is a noble cause which should be
a high priority of defense department
officials, the Pentagon has a long and
impressive history of wasteful prac-
Payment to defense contractors such
as General Dynamics or Rockwell
Corp. amounts to $107 billion a year,
the largest of all pentagon expen-
ditures. Of this amount, defense of-
ficials will concede, nobody but the
contractors themselves knows how
much actually surfaces as profit. With
Congress eager to cut defense expen-
diture in the coming year, Pentagon of-
ficials have apparently decided to find
out exactly where the money goes.
As yet, it is still unsure what effect
the Pentagon study will have on the
defense contracting industry. While
the Department of Defense uses scores
of companies to produce its arsenal,
over 40 percent of all military contrac-
ts go to 15 top contractors. This top 15
includes McDonnell Douglas,
Lockheed, and Boeing. These cor-
porations would be hit the hardest by a
cut in defense dollars and will likely be
under the closest scrutiny in the Pen-
tagon study. According to publicly
reported incomes, these companies
have also enjoyed a substantially
higher profit margin than industry on
As important as it is to keep tabs on
defense contractors, the Pentagon's
study should be taken with a grain of
salt. The real search for waste and
mismangagement should being within
the defense department.
The corporations which deal with the
military just happen to be profiting
As the renewed arms control
negotiations continue at Geneva between
the United States and the Soviet Union,
there has been much speculation from
U.S. foreign policy experts as to the
nature of the talks and what they are ex-
pected to accomplish. University Prof.
Raymond Tanter is one of those experts.
Tanter has worked as a senior staff
member in the Middle East office of the
National Security Council. From 1983-84,
the political science professor served as
personal representative of the Secretary of
Defense to the Vienna Troops Reduction
Talks and to the Conference on Disar-
mament in Europe.
Tanter is a member of the Univer-
sity's faculty teaching American foreign
policy and international security issues.
He spoke with Daily Staff Writer Adam
Martin about arms control, the current
negotiations, and nuclear weapons in
Daily: After a two-year hiatus, the U.S. and
the Soviet Union resumed talks last week. In
your opinion, what are the chances that the
two sides will reach an agreement.
Tanter: I think the chances of any
agreement in Geneva are very low. I do not
see any incentive for the Soviets to reduce
their (huge stockpiles of heavy intercontinen-
tal ballistic missiles (ICBMs), and that's
what the U.S. is most concerned about.
Secondly, the Soviets have said that they
would consider reducing some of their offen-
sive capability if the V.S. put the Strategic
Defense Initiative ("star wars") on the
bargaining table. President Reagan has said
that he is not going to put strategic defense on
ting an agreement. But I think its irrespon-
sible for anyone to think that there is a high
likelihood of an agreement.
D: So arms control is necessary?
T: It's not necessary just to achieve its
stated purpose. It achieves other things -
D: The last time the U.S. and the Soviet
Union conducted arms talks, the Soviets
walked out. What's to stop them from walking
T: They walked out, but didn't get the
benefit of walking out. So, therefore, there is
no incentive for (the Soviets) to walk out.
They walked out because the deployment of
(U.S. Pershing 2 and ground-launched cruise
missiles) began. They thought they could
block deployment by walking out; now they
see that deployment is going on, so they have
no incentive for walking out.
D: The issue that has garnered the most at-
tention of late has been the Strategic Defense
Initiative, more commonly known as "star
wars." What is your opinion of SDI.
T: I think SDI is research. The ad-
ministration was spending $1.6 billion for
strategic defense, the President wanted to
make it a national priority, so he increased it
to about $3 billion. I think 3 billion for
strategic defense is a small amount, given the
possibility of moving away from offensive
retaliatory threats as a strategy, to one of
defensive protection. So I think it's a good
idea and I also think deterrence will not last
- it cannot last.
destabilizing. But what the Geneva talks are
trying to do is educate the Soviets on the need
for both sides to have some strategic defense
That's why some feel a deal will evolve where
both sides will recognize the need for
strategic defense, and that will provide the
cover for graduated but large-scale reduc-
tions in offensive capabilities:
D: President 'Reagan has said he would
consider sharing the technology required to
develop a space defense. Is this viable in your
T: That is not the official government
position. I think it would be a mistake to share
technology, because technology is of dual use.
Strategic defense technology can be used for
offense. The President's intention was good,
but once he was informed of the implications,
the President backed down.
D: President Reagan also said recently that
the U.S. has no intention of trading away SDI
in Geneva. Will this bring about a negative
Soviet reaction at the bargaining table?
T: SDI is not on the negotiating table as a
bargaining chip as far as the U.S. is concer-
ned. SDI will be discussed.I think this means
that Soviets will be less likely to trade away
their heavy offensive capability if they U.S. is
not going to put strategic defense on the table.
D: What type of "discussion" will occur in
T: The U.S. doesn't have a proposal on the
space side. The U.S. will come into Geneva
with proposals for strategic and inter-
mediate-range offensive reductions, but no
'The U.S. conducts arms control talks because of
the possibility of getting an agreement. But I think
it is irresponsible for anyone to think that there is a
high likelihood of an agreement.'
-Prof. Raymond Tanter
Full court pressure
IN SPITE of losing in the second
round of the NCAA tournament, the
men's basketball team has just com-
pleted its winningest season since 1977.
Although the team provided the
University with many memorable
moments during the season, the season
will forever be colored by the looks of
disappointment on the faces of fresh-
man Gary Grant and sophomore An-
toine Joubert during the closing secon-
ds of the season-ending loss to
Grant and Joubert are barely 20
years old, and they are already being
subject to the pressures of performing
under national scrutiny. It was easy to
forget in the heady days of their being
ranked second in the nation that the
network telecasts, the Sports
Illustrated feature story, and the rest
of the hoopla was directed at a group of
College sports, basketball in par-
ticular, has become such a media
event that it can easily thrust a fresh-
man into the national limelight. Before
he was even 20, Indiana's Steve Alford
already had a reputation as one of the
best guards in the country. His failure
to live up to that reputation this season
is likely a symptom of the extreme
pressure he faced.
In the last few years, the NCAA
tournament has grown into one of the
largest sporting events of the year.
Perhaps as a result of the increased
availability of cable television, regular
season games are enjoying increased
popularity as well.
Such growth, although it fills the cof-
fers of the athletic department and ad-
vertises the University to the entire
country, runs counter to the ideal of the
student athlete. There are very few 20-
year-olds anywhere who would be
capable of adjusting to the demands of
becoming a national celebrity while at
the same time settling into the routine
of a college education. Simply because
some few are capable of meeting such
demands is no excuse for expecting
others to do so as well.
Reforms of some sort are needed,
but in the past efforts to improve the
situation have been extreme.
Faced with similar pressures on its
football team in the late '30s, the
University of Chicago cancelled its
program. In 1983, distressed by the
rape charges brought against its star
player Quitin Dailey, the University of
San Francisco cancelled its basketball
program. Each school had a tradition
of strong teams.
A more appropriate response to the
pressures of collegiate athletics would
be to work to de-emphasize them. The
first, vital step must be for University
officials to acknowledge that a
problem does exist. Only then can they
begin to look at different means - such
as shortening the season or refusing to
accept tournament bids - to return
basketball to a game played by people
who are students first and athletes
In spite of their disappointing final
loss, the men's basketball team should
be congratulated. Their outstanding
season has been a mixed blessing,
however, and has brought them inten-
se pressure in addition to their national
D: In the past, you have held a skeptical
view of arms control. Why?
T: I think arms control is not about arms
control. Arms control is about the Soviet at-
tempt to break up NATO. It's about the U.S.
attempt to achieve deterrence and stability.
People look at arms control as if the main
purpose is to get an agreement. They should
look at national security policy, of which ar-
ms control may be an element, as being orien-
ted toward achieving stable deterrence. Arms
control is important because it's a way of
reassuring a domestic public that your
working on the nuclear problem, which is a
problem that needs to be worked on. I am not
opposed to arms control negotiations; I think
they serve a useful purpose in reassuring the
public andsecondly in providing a political
base for strategic force modernization that
can contribute to stable deterrence.
D: You make it seem as if arms control is a
T: No, I don't think it's a farce. I think the
public needs to be reassured, and the country
needs to be defended. The U.S. conducts arms
control talks because of the possibility of get-
Martin's conversation with Prof.
Raymond Tanter will continue tomorrow.
D: Why can't deterrence last?
T: I don't believe assured destruction.
(reliance on offensive retaliation for
deterrence) will last because the land-based
missiles on each side are increasingly
vulnerable to the attacks from the other side.
Assured destruction- could last if it hadn't
been for the fact that Soviet throw-weight (a
measure of the destructive force "thrown" at
the opponent) combined with Soviet build-up
of missiles placed U.S. land-based missiles at
risk. Given the chance of arms control to
bring about reductions, I don't think assured
destruction will last. Assured destruction
assumes that populations are vulnerable, but
missiles are survivable. The basic assum-
ptions of assured destruction have been in-
validated by the Soviet counterforce (ability
to hit the adversary's missiles with missiles)
build-up, which places at risk U.S. missiles,
rather than just U.S. population centers.
D: In the event that deterrence doesn't last,
how will star wars contribute to stability?
T: Stability has to do with the situation
where both sides don't feel a need to use their
weapons or lose them. If you can protect your
missiles, you make them more survivable,
and therefore there is less of a need to use
your missiles, for fear that if you didn't use
them, they would be lost to a first strike from
the other side. SDI then makes a contribution
to stability, and it also reinforces deterrence.
D: If the U.S. unilaterally develops a space-
defense, would it not scare the Soviets into
striking first, before the U.S. becomes in-
vulnerable and impenetrable?
T: I think that if the U.S. were to move ahead
unilaterally on a strategic defense, the Soviet
Union might feel constrained to strike first.
So in this sense, strategic defense would be
proposal on space. The Soviet Union will
come with a proposal on space, but nothing on
strategic and intermediate offense. That's my
guess, but I think a "seminar" on defense will
occur, as Robert McFarlane has said.
D: Will the future then be plagued by in-
terminable stalls and stalemates?
T: The negotiations will last a long time.
And I am not at all optimistic that they will
achieve any results. The main result, as far
as I am concerned has nothing to do with an
agreement. The main purpose for the Soviets
is to divide Europe from America, and to un-
dercut support for strategic force moder-
nixation programs in ,the Congress. The
Soviets will offer some trade - Soviet SS-20s
(the Soviet intermediate range missile with
three warheads of which 378 are deployed) for
say an anti-satellite (ASAT) test ban, and that
will divide Europe from America because
Europeans will say two things: 1) it'll hurt the
ground-launched cruise missile deployment
schedule in Belgium and Holland, and
therefore the Pershing 2 schedule in Ger-
many. Secondly, it will give rise to a
resurgence of the peace movement which will
try to attack the idea of close relations bet-
ween NATO countries and the U.S.
And on the strategic force modernization,
the Soviet Union's intent is to undercut sup-
port for the MX missiles and for other US
strategic force modernization programs. The
U.S. purpose is to do just the opposite: to
couple the U.S. with Europe, and to provide
more support for strategic force moder-
nization. I think the U.S. is winning because
deployment (of the Pershing 2 and cruise
missiles) is going on, and Europe is in fact
closely coupled with the U.S. and secondly,
funding for the MX missile is on track.
Daily coverage offorum inaccurate
MR. JEFFE96OtJ % WERE '(0
EVER ACCUSED OF M OR E5
RAPE, KIDNAPPIN~G- TOi1JR
AND O iLATiOM ?
To the Daily:
I was amazed at the inac-
curacies in your "Candidates
Miss Election Forum" which was
in Thursday's paper. The article,
which covered our forum for the
Ann Arbor City Council can-
didates, misrepresented what
happened at the forum as well as
my responses to your reporter's
First of all, two of the five
Democratic candidates, Lowell
Peterson and James Burchell,
did attend and speak at the
forum. Apparently your reporter
left before the forum began.
Secondly, my responses on a
couple of issues were misquoted.
The purpose of the forum was to
give the groups an opportunity to
ask questions of the candidates
and give them an opportunity to
speak about their positions on all
of the issues involved in local
politics. The purpose was not to
"educate both ourselves and the
candidates on gay rights in Ann
Tt wi ao c c4t+at * thatT dnni't
mentioned above) have demon-
strated that they take the gay
population's presence seriously.
Nor do I believe that the limited
membership of the Michigan Gay
Undergraduates in any way
represents the voting force of the
thousands of lesbians and gay
men in the .University com-
munity alone, let alone those in
the whole city of Ann Arbor.
The Republican candidates,
who have neither attended the
forums nor responded to
questionairres sent to them by
the Lesbian/Gay Political
Caucus of Washtenaw County,
have apparently not taken our
requests very seriously. I would
speculate, however, that this lack
of responsiveness is not due to the
size of our groups, but rather to
by Berke Breathed
homophobia on the part of the
- Drew Parker
YOU MqK/fK VlzclNO.
FOR MV~ X/E'C6- WHOCH/5
MR (KCO4'TF5r, 601IV7
MILD ? W IN.A5~t'
s ~ v wU
7t, mo- it Alr