4 OPINION Page 4 Tuesday, March 19, 1985 The Michigan Daily a &iw 3IIIa n 121 UI Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan The purpose of arms talks 4 Vol. XCV, No. 132 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board DoD heal thyself 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- tices itself. 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 the average. 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 from it. 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 general. 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 the table. 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 - side effects. 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 out again? 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 view? 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 Geneva? 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 Dialogue 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 Villanova. 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 students. 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 second. 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 acclaim. <:; : 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 farce. 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. Letters Daily coverage offorum inaccurate I.- 7 / / ''I MR. JEFFE96OtJ % WERE '(0 EVER ACCUSED OF M OR E5 RAPE, KIDNAPPIN~G- TOi1JR AND O iLATiOM ? . YJ 'Vt ii 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 questions. 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 Arbor." 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. BLOOM COUNTY# 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 Republican candidates. - Drew Parker March 15 Aq CAqggv- YOU MqK/fK VlzclNO. FOR MV~ X/E'C6- WHOCH/5 MR (KCO4'TF5r, 601IV7 MILD ? W IN.A5~t' DT 5T 11 s ~ v wU 3 COWSCI6NTKN./5 hW.CE.R5 4AEY Parker isi Michigan dergraduates. 7t, mo- it Alr OKA'Y! Lers 1i0/1 Coordinator of Gay Un- 4 J