Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue


Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

March 27, 1985 - Image 4

Resource type:
The Michigan Daily, 1985-03-27

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.



Page 4

Wednesday, March 27, 1985

The Michigan Daily

Edted mdtsa n fa n
Edited and managed by students at The University of Michigan

Write your party chairman

Vol. XCV, No. 139

420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Editorials represent a majority opinion of the Daily's Editorial Board

Deja vu

RONALD Reagan's call for a sum-
mit meeting with Mikhail Gor-
bachev sounds remarkably familiar.
When Leonid Brezhnev died in
November of 1982, President Reagan
stated he was "looking forward" to
meeting the new Soviet leader in order
to improve relations between the
superpowers. But this new leader, Yuri
Andropov, died without ever having
met President Reagan.
Then, Reagan expressed interest in a
summit meeting with the new Soviet
leader, Konstantin Chernenko. Again,
however, Chernenko died, as Andropov
had, without ever meeting Reagan.
Reagan not only failed to meet these
leaders, but he also failed to attend.
each of their funerals.
The summit meetings were ,made
impossible, Reagan claimed, for a
couple of reasons. Firstly, the downed
Korean airliner strained the already
tense relationship between the U.S.
and the Soviet Union, eliminating the
chance for the first summit meeting.
Secondly, as both Andropov and.
Chernenko were ill during most of their
short terms, it was .impossible to
schedule a meeting with either of
them. In explanations for his choosing
not to attend any of the funerals,
Reagan and other administration of-
ficials explained that:
It was not the usual practice for
Presidents to attend such funerals.
eReagan was busy with other, more

pressing matters.
" Reagan wished for a face-to-face en-
counter with the new Soviet chief only
after substantial preparation.
" Reagan feared that people in the
United States would view his attendan-
ce at the funeral as politically
Last Friday, Reagan again called for
a summit meeting with the new Soviet
leader. Not surprisingly, Reagan had
failed the previous week to attend
Chernenko's funeral, using many of
the same explanations that he had used
when he avoided the last two Soviet
leaders' funerals. That failure
suggests to the world that the United
States is not fully committed to
negotiation as a means of solving
world conflict.
Since there is an unquestionable
need for improvement in the United
States-Soviet Union relations, it should
be hoped that Reagan is finally serious
about a meeting-with the Soviet leader.
In order to make such a meeting ef-
fective, both Reagan and Gorbachev
will have to be positive. Their con-
fidence is necessary before significant
gains-such as agreements to future
arms talks or to regularly scheduled
summit talks-can be made.
Reagan has been consistent in his
call for a summit meeting with Gor-
bachev, which suggests that on his
third chance, at least, he might ac-
tually stage one.

By George F. Mmdle
The SS-18 is a large missile carrying 10 dif-
ferent warheads (re-entry vehicles). (It has
been tested holding up to 14 re-entry vehicles.
This, however, is not a violation of the SALT
II Treaty which both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
claim to be following. The extra four RV's
were not actually warheads, but merely
decoys having the same mass and flight
characteristics of warheads.)
The large number of warheads carried by
the SS-18 makes it an attractive target for
enemy missiles. This is because the
Americans, by expending only the one or two
warheads necessary to destroy an SS-18 could
thereby eliminate 10 warheads-a 1:5 or 1:10
In order to be effective, therefore, the SS-18
would have to be launched early in a conflict
situation in order to prevent an enemy pre-
emptive strike. This is further reinforced by
the fact that the SS-18 is deployed in old SS-9
silos built during the 1960s. The SS-18 is not
survivable, and presents an irresistable
target in a conflict situation because of its
large destructive capacity.
The SS-18, then, would be useful only as a
first-strike weapon.
This is not to say that the SS-18 was inten-
ded to serve as a first-strike weapon. To dev-
"elop such a weapon would violate the Soviet
principle of the un-winnability of a nuclear
war, as well as the General Secretary's oft-
Mindle is a senior in LSA.

stated "no first use" policy. Through over-
sight, however, this first-strike weapon has
been developed and deployed to the tune of 308
missiles in silos stretching from Estonia to
The United States, however, has used the
"flimsy" excuse of the existence of the SS-18
to justify the development of the so-called MX
or "Peacekeeper" missile, capable of holding
up to 12 different warheads and "truly" a fir-
st-strike weapon. People in the Pentagon and
elsewhere have devised "hare-brained
schemes" in which 2,100 warheads from only
210 of the Soviet Union's 308 SS-18s could
destroy the American ICBM force. (This
ignores the stated Soviet "no first
use"policy.) Furthermore, they have used
this as a justification to create a "need" for
the MX as a "bargaining chip" at the Geneva
arms control talks. The fate of the so-called
"Peacekeeper" is still uncertain; there still
remains many votes in the U.S. House of
Representatives which must approve the fur-
ther development of the "Peacekeeper", and
many people are working towards the
elimination of this and many other
"destabilizing" A merican "first-strike
The Soviet Union's motives for the
deployment of the SS-18 supposedly cannot be
counted. Representatives of the Soviet Union
have declared again and again that the
U.S.S.R., as a "socialist" country, has no in-
terest in war and in a nuclear first-strike. The
motives of the "warmongers" in the Pen-
tagon, however, cannot be so well trusted.
aTheyarefused to make a "no first use"
declaration. They would deploy the MX and

develop "Star Wars" no matter what the
Soviet Union and so-called "Peoples
Democracies" did. (Or so the story goes.)
If this is true, then it is high time for the
leaders in the Kremlin to show up this
American charade for what it is-a weak a
tempt at justifying nuclear intimidation an
blackmail, and preparation for an all-out
nuclear war. As it claims to be a peaceloving
nation, the Soviet Union has no need for first-
strike weapons such as the SS-18. The Soviet
Union should 'offer to reduce or eliminate the
SS-18 in return for the elimination of the
"Peacekeeper" and "Star Wars" programs.
The world will then see if the United States
backs away from disarmament proposals
aimed at reducing its own first-strikq
capability. If the U.S.does this, then the
world will see once and for all, "whence the
threat to peace." And if the U.S. accepts?
(Naw, they couldn't be serious about that,
could they?)
As the Soviet Union claims to have no use
for first-strike weapons, it should have no
problem in offering to reduce the numbers of
its SS-18s as a "bargaining chip." Writing to
representatives is always an important tool
for influencing decisions, but in this case it is
more important than ever. Please call o4
write the General Secretary of the Com-
munist Party of the Soviet Union, Mikhail
Gorbachev, as soon as possible; if his line is
busy, try the Soviet Foreign Minister, Andrei
Gromyko. (While you are at it, write Rep.
Pursell and put in a plug for the Midget-
man-thought expensive, it would be a lot less
de-stabilizing than the MX).


..M WEt4 I V1 GERAR?
SElFW1R( , Y GOuy,
y~l SREOUM'A '?E






I I7



What is truth?


I 1-7

E ACH day a staggering number of
people die utterly senseless
deaths. Death squads in South
America slaughter innocents, Iraqi
troops poison Iranian soldiers with
mustard gas, and people are vic-
timized by terrorism nearly
everywhere, from Beirut to Belfast.
One particularly new ahd alar-
mingly horrible form of destruction is
coming via the suicide bombers of the
Middle East. Martyrs working for God
are sacrificing themselves in the hope
of being able to kill dozens of others, a
particularly vicious new form of
terrorism that is incredibly difficult to'
defend against.
Recently, two CBS journalists lost
their lives in an incident in Southern
Lebanon in which their car was ex-
ploded by an Israeli tank 600-800 yards
away, and the circumstances around
which this incident occured were ap-
parently quite fuzzy. CBS, which issued
an immediate condemnation of the in-
cident, argued that the Israelis had no
right to fire on the vehicle, which was
apparently far from the action.
Israel, in defense of the shooting,
claimed that the car was traveling
through a war zone and was a victim of
the battle.
Although the circumstances
surrounding the event will probably
remain unclear, Israel should not
receive undue criticism for their ac-
With the suicide bombings that have
plagued the Mideast, any moving
vehicle is a potential threat. Had
troops approached and then been killed
by a car full of explosives, the Israeli
commanders would have suffered

tremendous guilt and criticism for not
taking the proper precautions, and
many more people would have died.
Israel is accustomed to all varieties of
terrorism and goes to great lengths in
order to insure its own soldiers' safety.
Had the United States possessed the
same attitude there might right now be
many more Marines alive in Lebanon.
Additionally, in the middle of a war
zone, there is no K guarantee for
anybody's safety. Special demar-
cations separating what is or is not
"attackable" frequently fade to
nothing when armies are exchanging
fire with each other.
It is certainly a tragedy that the two
reporters lost their lives in the incident
and their deaths stand as an unfor-
tunate reminder of the continued tur-
moil in the Middle East.
Unfortunately, terrorism has
become a sad truth in today's world.
When negotiation does not exist, the
only effective way to deal with it has
been through aggression.
Assuming fault and blaming Israel is
unjust. Israel is plagued by terrorism
and cannot afford to scrutinize every
vehicle from afar during wartime. If
someone need be blamed, then it might
be better to point fingers at the suicide
terrorists who have killed countless
more people and have caused the
situation in the Middle East to decay
much further than it did following the
initial invasion of Lebanon. Every sen-
seless death is moving the Middle East
further- from peaceful resolution
rather than bringing the region closer
to it. And this is the saddest truth of the



I;A -q



To the Daily:
I was incensed by Kevin
Michaels' article, "MSA:
Skewed Priorities" (Daily, Mar-
ch 20). What disturbed me the
most was Michaels' statement
that MSA should make "campus
issues and problems, such as
rape" its priority. Those issues
already are MSA's top priority !
As Clair of the MSA's Women's
Issues Committee, I have been in-
timately involved with the work
being done this year to both
prevent campus sexual assaults
and provide services for assault
victims. Michaels was sup-
posedly a member of my commit-
tee. His presence, however, at
committee meetings was a rare
occurence. Moreover, he has yet
to complete tasks he volunteered
to do last September. Women's
safety is a high priority of the
current Assembly; there is
reason to doubt it is high on
Michaels' list.
These observations suggest


issues are MSA


Michaels lamented that there is
not a campus escort service, yet I
would wager that Michaels does
not know how much progress the
Women's Issue Committee has
made towards implementing A
such a service.
But, this is not the main point.
While an escort service would
Daily ignored
To the Daily:
I am writing to express my
dissatisfaction with your
coverage of the "Feel the Velvet"
billboard incident (Daily, March
9). The painting of the phrase
"Objects Never - Women
Forever" was not a random act
of vandalism, but a deliberate at-
tempt to confront and reject the
advertisement's blatant sexism.
It is true that the Daily did not
directly state that the act was in-
significant or random. However,

obviously promote safe passage,
it alone cannot Abate sexual.
assault on campus. This is not
something Michaels comprehen-
ds. Instead, he is acting oppor-
tunistically, raping the benefits
of a hot campus issue for his own
political gain. As chair of a com-
mittee dedicated to making the

University safer for women,
will not remain mum whe
remarks like Michaels's ar
made. What Michaels needs
what he argued in his arti
student government sho
avoid: education.
-Anne Ry

objectification in billboare

you did not discuss its important
implications for the issue of
sexism, either. The story brings
up something which affects all
women. Day-to-day sexual
harrassment occurs on all levels,
including omnipresent visual ad-
vertising which promotes the
sexual objectification of women.
For the most part, a woman is
expected to either not notice it or
internalize the message that she
is a sex object. The person or
people who painted that billboard

were breaking the tacit ru
whic s ths t everyone shou
your coverage of the inciden
nothing more than a law be
broken, you implied that tl
sexual objectification of wom<
is natural. As a woman, I objq
to that view. As a student, I o
ject to my student newspap
perpetuating it.
- Catherine Fisch
by Berke Breathe

I I1

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan