6EThe Daily Tar HeelMonday, August 24, 1981
Neiitroia IbfDinrilb raises spectre off unclear war
Jim Hummel. Editor
0tSZ3f
4
SUSAN MAUNEY. Managing Editor
MARK MURRELL, Associate Editor
JONATHAN RICH, Associate Editor
EDWINA RALSTON, Unhmity Editor
JOHN ROYSTER. City Editor
CHARLES HERNDON, State and National Editor
BETH BURRELL. News Editor
Clifton Barnes, Spo Editor
Tom Moore. Am Editor
KEITH KING. Features Editor
SCOTT SHARPE. Photography Editor
ANN PETERS. Weekender Editor
Chuck James, Ombudsman
lathj
OJar slni
89th year of editorial freedom
Life on the Hill
Once again life in Chapel Hill is back in full swing after thousands of
people returned this past week to the community that they consider home
away from home.
By the time you read this, classes will be underway and no longer will
freshmen have their eyes glued a the campus map, now only occasionally
bumping into a tree or bush. Two weeks from now they will be pronoun
cing Dey Hall "die" instead of "day" and wondering why they were so
nervous about coming to The Southern Part of Heaven.
The beginning of an academic year signals a fresh start for any univer
sity community, and by next spring thousands of people who have come
to know and love UNC will have.grown and matured in many ways.
The enthusiasm of the class of 1985 seems to indicate once again that
this year's freshmen are proud to be here and ready to contribute their tal
ents to the university, as well as take advantage of the many resources that
a large research institution has to offer.
During orientation much is said about the tradition of this University
and making the most of the opportunities that are available. On the oppo
site page three elected officials reiterate the belief that now is the time to
seize those opportunities because
the future of the state and nation
will depend on college students
across the nation.
For many of us who are seniors
this realization is becoming clearer
as the days pass. Just as the stand
ard inquiry last week among fresh
men was apt to deal with proce
dures about campus life or classes,
so the basic question for people
coming back for their last year at
UNC last week was, "Can you be
lieve this is it?"
But this is nothing new and fac
ulty and administrators have seen
classes come and go. It is surpris
ing how little certain things change
around here from year to year: student government, good service, deseg
regation disputes, water shortages, town-gown relations: the news runs in
cycles.
But UNC continues to grow, as construction on campus indicates, and
the thing that keeps this place going is the vitality of people who feel for
tunate to be here," and realize" their few years in Chapel Hill will become
more special as they grow older.
Many people say a person's college years are the best of his life, and as
the saying goes, "Why work when you can stay in Chapel Hill?" But
ideally the years here should not signal the end of the best times, but only
the beginning, as students take a little part of UNC with them wherever
they go.
The next eight months are going to go by more quickly than anyone
would think possible, but come April the people who make up this year's
student body, faculty and administration will be able to look back and
appreciate the bad as well as the good.
We at The Daily Tar Heel hope to be a part of that college experience.
This year marks the paper's 89th year of editorial freedom, and TheDTH
will attempt to mirror events on campus as well as speak out on issues af
fecting the community and nation. It is a year we look forward to.
1 I
r
1
I
J
"a "i ' t i ' i 1 '."jjj ' (inn flll niili,M.iM)MMfrfitf,rf''Tirr"'T
By MARK MURRELL
NEW YORK "There is a monkey in
the White House," a WNEW Sunday
afternoon disc jockey snarled to the au
dience, many of whom were engrossed in
the Sunday New York Times in Central
Park.
She immediately slapped the.Beatle's
"Revolution" on the turntable, and when
it was over sneered, "You can count me
out Jack."
She was reacting, just like many others,
to the Times article headed: "Reagan
reported to order, building of neutron
bombs for stockpiling in U.S. Allied
fear is seen."
The Times might well have added,
"Domestic fear and outrage are seen,"
because everywhere I went that Sunday,
people were shaking their heads, crumbl
ing up the front page in disgust, and look
ing for a nearby garbage can to heave
such news into.
The Reagan Administration had
"counted everybody in," almost two
weeks before. It began to dawn on park
sunbathers that balmy afternoon that in
some remote spot neutron warheads
already were being assembled. Many
began to see Reagan's decision as a move
that would escalate a worldwide nuclear
arms race, or make it easier for conven
tional warfare to degenerate into a
nuclear confrontation.
At issue is the assembly of neutron
bombs, or what the administration terms
"enhanced radiation weapons."
The weapon is designed to produce tar
more radiation without as much of a
heat blast so that it can kill as many
people as a hydrogen bomb ten times its
size without as much damage to surroun
ding buildings. The basic idea is more
death, less destruction.
For many liberals who have ceased to
be naive, and have grudgingly accepted
Reagan's predilection for a military
shoot-em-up-world, it is the administra
tion's cold reasoning that is most disturb
ing. What clinched it for many was Defense
Secretary Caspar Weinberger's explana
tion. "There's been a lot of nonsense that it
only kills people and doesn't destroy
buildings or property," he told television
interviewers. "Of course it destroys pro
perty and of course it kills people, because
unfortunately that's what war weapons
are for."
For some odd reason those are not
words of comfort.
It is important to realize the ad
ministration's main point and you
have to stop and do some serious thinking
to let this one sink in that we are only
going to stockpile these weapons in the
interests of peace. If we can reach that
end, it may well be worth the $500 million
to $1 billion it will cost to assemble the
system. ;:;..
The warheads' danger is that it may
bridge the gap between nuclear and con
ventional wars. Opponents argue that its
narrow focus which could devastate
troops on the battlefield might be an all
to irresistable convenience for leaders if
there were a confrontation with the
Soviets. Use of the neutron warheads
might cause the Soviets to retaliate with
their own conventional nuclear weapons.
The fact that Reagan has chosen to
assemble the neutron weapons as one of
his first defense priorities, perhaps
sounds the death knell for conventional
warfare, although the administration
plans to spend a mind-boggling $1.5
trillion over the next five years on the
largest peacetime military buildup in U.S.
history. An assignment of nuclear priori
ty over that of conventional weapons is
frightening because it will more than like
ly encourage the Soviets to retaliate by
redeveloping their own neutron weapons
program, which they tested and aban
doned years ago.
-
The administration has been sly in
claiming that the weapons will not be sent
.,,ltlt kMlt, iwiiiiimriii irnr-LJirt fi""Milit.wi'i m'i w mytf'rtim, iiiifc.- r JYi j$mitmnm ,r &
tuft! -'
TVS.
to Europe but will stay at home, when in
actuality if a conflict occurs they could be
in Europe in a matter of hours.
A weapons buildup is something that
seems inevitable with the current ad
ministration, so if nuclear disarmament is
beyond hope, the American people could
at least expect a little more sound reason
ing from their government.
The announcement's timing seems to
stand in contrast to the disarmament
talks that Reagan has promised to hold
with Moscow. It is also chilling that the
words came on the 36th anniversary of
the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Weinberger and Reagan both say they
aire committed to world peace so com
mitted in fact that they are now seeking
an accord to keep the Middle East free of
nuclear weapons while America continues
to arm warheads with tridium. And it
looks as if Washington will continue its
"Do as I say and not as I do" policy.
Now the administration is deciding who is
and is not responsible enough to handle
weapons that are safe in the hands of no
one.
If the United States is drawn into a
nuclear confrontation, the country will be
able to respond with horrible force using
the neutron weapon. It is a threat, they
say, for the sake of peace.
"I think it would make it much harder
to launch a conventional war and thereby
perserve the peace," Weinberger . said.
"The more ways that we can be correctly
perceived as being able to inflict unaccep
table damage to any attacker anywhere in
the world, the more likely we are to main
tain the peace."
For all its apparent truth, that kind of
reasoning is chilling, especially when one
realizes that the United States is only one
among many nations that feel that way.
The super powers will strive continual
ly to have the upper hand militarily
Reagan's recent move simply advocates
that type of paranoia, 'ensuring that the
situation will become more tense in the
future and that there is no end in sight
unless it is THE END.
Mark Murrell, a senior journalism and
English major from Jacksonville, is
associate editor for The Daily Tar Heel.
Vo tins- Act me e de d to curb di c rim imat io u
By BEVERL Y SHEPARD
The "Olden Days." That's what my grandmother
calls them. These were the days when "colored" folks
never questioned going to the rear of the bus or the back
door of a restaurant. And,. when makin' a livin' meant
sunrise to sunset picking cotton in a plantation-size field
for 50 cents a day.
Oftentimes, I've shaken my head and widened my eyes
in amazement. Then with a sigh of relief, I'd say I'm sure
glad things have changed.
Just last week when the subject came up again, my
' grandmother said she didn't think people "would ever"1
allow things to be that way again.
But when Strom Thurmond, R-S.C, and other con
servatives speak against the extension of the Voting
Rights Act, they are encouraging the country to take a
step backward.. Anyone who believes the necessity of
such an act has become obsolete is leaving the path open
for the return of the olden days.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides voting
privileges for minorities by suspending the use of
discriminatory devices like the literacy test and the poll
tax. That act, however, will expire next year if not ex
tended. Once expired, the federal government would rely on
the good faith of state and local governments to imple
ment fair voting practices.
The section causing all the controversy is Section 5,
which applies to nine states and portions of 13 others, in
cluding North Carolina. It requires these states to receive
prior approval from the U.S. Justice Department or the
District Federal Court in Washington before making
changes in their voting procedures.
Thurmond feels that the act unfairly penalizes the
South. He inteprets the extension as a means to hold the
mistakes of yesterday over the heads of Southern
legislators today.
But judging from its. past, the South is not ready to
receive a free hand at the polls. Even the 15th Amend
ment, which guarantees voting privileges for everyone,
did not stop the literacy tests and poll taxes from ex
isting. Had that been the case, the Voting Rights Acts
would never have become a necessity in the first place.--
,,;rThurmonW argues against trie extension by saying that"
blacks have already acquired their rights and discrimina
tion at the polls no longer exists. His saying so is like see
ing America as one of the world's richest nations while
closing your eyes to the people who still live in rat
infested ghettos.
It is amazing how some unknowledgeable white .and
some misled blacks have determined that getting a few
blacks out of cotton fields and into air-conditioned of
fices means racism is dead. The question is not whether
racism exists, but in what forms it is found. Rather than
the name-calling and the fatback and watermelon insults
of the past, racism in a more subtle form, has appeared
at the polls.
Recently, the Virginia state government outlined its
senate boundaries in such a way that split Norfolk's 37
percent black population and resulted in two white-majority
districts. The action diluted black voting strength
as well as decreased the chances of equal representation
in the state.
The best way to decrease the occurrence of situations
like this one is to extend Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act. -
Vice President George Bush told civil rights leaders
during an annual conference of the National Urban
League held this summer that the United States had a
"commitment to the principle of equal rights and oppor
tunity for all Americans and that commitment means the
protection of the right to vote."
The Reagan administration, therefore, needs to
transform hot air into direct action. President Ronald
Reagan's sugges.tjon.that. Section 5 be.extended Jo. cover
all 5Q,$tates.is not :the solution, eiOierjTadoi so .would be
to overwhelm the justice department with clearance xs
quests and create more problems than would be solved.
Action should be taken, however, where past history
has shown the necessity for it. The South has made its
own hard bed and until it can present a clean record dur
ing the next few years, the South should be made to lie in
it.
Voting discrimination is no stone-age occurrence and
its recurrence is by no means a distant and remote
possibility.
For my grandmother, the years haven't erased the
memories of the "Olden Days." It's important that the .
discrimination she experienced then remain past
memories rather then become future realities.
Beverly Shepard, a 'senior journalism major from
Jacksonville, is an editorial writer for The Daily Tar
Heel.
Arinmg Emildimp a costly aimd fflffenimded strategy
FlNlSrj
- ARMS
By JONATHAN RICH
The United States is now undergoing the lar
gest peacetime military buildup in the country's
history. Coming to office on a platform of sup
posed American weakness and imminent world
domination by the Soviet Union, Ronald Reagan
has initiated a massive spending program de
signed to reassert American might and superi
ority across the globe. The cost will be more than
triple that of the five-year buildup for the Viet
nam War between 1965 and 1970, even after ad
justing for inflation. ,
Unlike the administration's controversial tax
and budget cuts, Reagan's defense program has
swept through both the House and the Senate
with nearly universal support. Congress's recent
approval of a $222 billion military budget for
fiscal 1982 has paved the way for the administra
tion's five-year $1.5 trillion military program.5 -
Before the nation embarks on such a spending
extravaganza, several of Reagan's basic premises
must be challenged. Have the Soviets really at
tained military superiority? Is the United States
capable of such expenditures without disrupting
the delicate process of rebuilding the economy?
Finally, will intensive militarization enhance
American influence and standing in the world
community, or will it result in increased tension
and antagonism from enemies and allies alike? "
Much of Reagan's defense plan is based on
the popular perception that after years of neglect
during the post-Vietnam era, U.S. military
capabilities have fallen far behind those of the
Soviet Union. Administration officials point to
the fact that during the past decade Soviet mili
tary spending consistently surpassed this coun
try's expenditures, while their imposing forces
clearly exceed those needed purely for defense.
There is little question that elements of the
American military have fallen into dangerous
disrepair, and that increased allowances for
parts, training and modernization are warranted.
However, a defense budget that will provide
hundreds of new ships, more than 1,000 new
tanks, and 5,000 new nuclear warheads is not.
Military analysts are by nature conservative
and have traditionally stressed their own coun
try's weaknesses versus an opponent's strengths.
The current administration is no exception.
While Reagan has been intent comparing
American and Soviet capabilities, the real test,
the relative strength of NATO versus the War
saw Pact, has gone unnoticed.
According to the Center for Defense Infor
mation, combined NATO military spending has
exceeded that of the Warsaw Pact for many
years. NATO's edge is further accentuated by its
superior industrial efficiency. Despite the Soviet
Union's large standing army, trje, Warsaw Pact
is outnumbered in active military personnel 4.8
million to 5.1 million. Furthermore, U.S. and
NATO troops are better trained and equipped,
while recent events in Poland have placed the
future of the Warsaw Pact in considerable
jeopardy.
There are other little-known facts. According
to the Center for Defense Information, NATO
holds a striking naval superiority over the War
saw Pact in both major surface combatants (400
to 235) and in total tonnage. The United States
and its allies also maintain a significant lead in
the area of strategic nuclear weapons and mili
tary technology. Superior in overall weapons ac
curacy and submarine warfare, the United States
is in a much better position to exploit the emerg
ing situation in which fixed, land-based nuclear
systems are becoming vulnerable and obsolete.
Most military and political analysts agree that
China is much more likely to wage war with the
Soviet Union than the Western allies, and the
past several years have seen China move closer
politically and economically to the West. Op
posed by the combined forces of NATO, their
allies and China, the balance of world power is
overwhelmingly tilted against the Soviet Union.
Those politicians and generals who periodi
cally raise alarm over the U.S.S.R.'s formidable
conventional forces fail to recognize that the
Soviet's defense needs are much greater than
those of the United States. Surrounded by hos
tile nations and U.S. military bases, the Soviet
Union is much more vulnerable to invasion than
the United States. Their continued paranoia
over invasion from the West is deeply rooted in
enormous losses during both World Wars.
This is not to say that Soviet military forces
should not be respected and feared. Yet these
reactions must be coupled with a healthy under
standing of their defense capabilities and con
cerns. -
. The Reagan administration has demonstrated
little such understanding for either U.S. oppo
nents' or allies' concerns. A "defense gap" has .
been perceived and funds are pouring in without
any clear plan or overall strategy. The goal is en-'
larged American power around the globe.
Whether this can be achieved through an exor
bitant military program that hopes to make -America
the world's policeman is highly ques
tionable. Aside from escalating a global arms race,
Reagan's military program threatens to disrupt
the administration's entire economic program.
Through tax and budget cuts Reagan hopes to
revitalize the economy to the extent that it can
afford an increased defense budget. However, if
this does not occur rapidly, and there are many
skeptics, the large military budget could easily
become an inflationary burden responsible for
ever-widening government deficits. Past mili
tary cost overruns make this scenario even more
likely. America is still paying the price for infla
tion generated during the Vietnam years.
In other respects, rapid militarization will
compete with the private sector for scarce re
sources arid capital, therefore running against
administration plans to spur investment and
economic growth.
As the administration knows, world power is
as much dependent on economic strength as
military muscle. Any defense plan that under
mines the U.S. economy is clearly self-defeating.
National defense and rearmament is currentlj
a popular issue, with many advocates and few
critics. Yet rather than becoming immersed in
military hyperbole and paranoia, the nation
needs to step back and judge the matter with
some degree of objectivity. A strong military
capable of defending this nation and its allies is
a necessity. But the United States should not
make the mistake of initiating an unnecessary
and dangerous arms race, costly both in econo
mic terms and in its implications for global peace.
Jonathan Rich, a junior history and political
science major from Quogue, N.Y., is associate
editor for The Daily Tar Heel.