North Carolina Newspapers is powered by Chronam.
6fThe Daily Tar Heel Wr.'day. Decerns ;
j!M Hl'MMKL. Iiifc
Si 'SAN MAl'NHY. Ajwcic Z
GlioFFREY MtX:K. Atvuh-Mihw
BFTII BURRLLL. AstMuk- VJihw
Wilkes aimd megcotiattioim
Edwin a Ralston, v-mmy rJn
Rachel Perry, cuy vJiun
Charles Herndon. suh-au!NitiuiLJiM
Cljfton Barnes, spons iLdih
sets atomic scenario
.., L ., ,,.
Leah Talley. Am biu
Keith King, r-tatum Eduor
Scott Sharpe. phftwvty
Ann Peters, shv; eiv.
Chuck James, omhuhmw
89th year of editorial freedom
When the Campus Governing Council allocates more than $200,000 in
student fees to organizations each April, a 27-member board is armed
with the power to determine a group's future on campus. To help im
prove the allocation process, Student Government officials this fall
established a budget review committee to study the allocation procedures.
In a report to the full council Monday night, the committee presented
its recommendations, which provided another step in the effort to
simplify what at times has been a jumbled process.
Only two years ago, the complexity of the budgetary proceedings forced
final budget decisions to be made in the wee hours of the morning when
many of the council members were half asleep.
Last year's council decided to change all that. It voted to move the
budget schedule two weeks earlier and allow the final budget hearing to
begin at 8 a.m. on a Saturday as opposed to the traditional starting time
of 6 p.m. on a weeknight.
Following in the wake of last year's improvements, the current review
committee has recommended changes including the establishment of a
Treasurer's Budget Review Committee designed to study the group's re
quest forms for procedural errors. This committee would greatly reduce
the burden placed on newly-elected council members caught each year in
a myriad of conflicting budget proposals.
Now is the testing period for the committee's recommendations.
Because the recommendations will not be written into law before next
fall, future studies for improvements must continue. CGC Finance Com
mittee Chairman Mike Vandenbergh has said the simplification of the
budget request forms, often as complex as the budget process itself, must
now be considered.
But more importantly, the studies should include the possibility of
moving CGC elections to the fall or all campus elections to late January.
This could provide newly-elected members more time to familiarize
themselves with groups' requests before the spring budget process begins.
In an effort to prevent future budget fiascos, Student Government of
ficials have established review committees that effectively laid the ground
work for improving an otherwise complex process. It is now up to the
CGC members and student organizations to evaluate the process and sug
gest new ideas for the future.
America is growing older. At the turn of the century, only 4 percent of
the population was 65 or older. Today, 26 million elderly make up 11.2
percent of the population, and will account for 20 percent of all citizens
in 50 years. Not only is the elderly population growing, but it, too, is aging.
The country has entered "the decade of the elderly" and must come to
terms with the problems facing a graying America. It is both appropriate
and timely that the White House Conference on Aging convened Monday
to map out strategies for coping with issues of concern to older people.
The first conference, in 1961, laid the groundwork for Medicare. The
second, held 10 years later, pushed for a higher mandatory retirement age
and nutrition, programs for the elderly and was responsible for getting
Congress to crea'te the Administration on Aging within the Department
of Health and Human Services. Both served to illuminate the country
about the merits of a segment of the population often ignored by youth
Unfortunately, this year's conference has been marred by political con
troversy. Ironically, Ronald Reagan, the oldest man ever elected presi
dent in the United States, has tried to stifle such an important meeting,
fearful that the 2,266 delegates would embarrass his administration with
criticism of his proposals to reduce Social Security benefits and his budget'
cuts in welfare, food stamps and health care. Delegates have charged that
Reagan stacked key committees with staunch Republican supporters.
And Secretary Richard Schweiker of Health and Human Services has
squelched debate and discussion by ruling that only a single yes or no vote
on the combined recommendations of the 14 committees will be permitted.
"Ageism is as odious as sexism and racism, both of which have been
outlawed in this land," said 81-year-old Rep. Claude Pepper, D-Fla., in
the opening address. If participants at the conference channel their
energies into fighting ageism instead of wasting time on political bickering,
then they can confront the substantive issues affecting America's elderly.
The Daily Tar Heel
News Editor David Jarrett
Editorial Writers: Kerry DeRochi, Linda Robertson
Assistant Managing Editors: Mark Ancona, Cindy Cranford, Lynn Thomson
News Desk: Melodi Adams, Charyl Anderson, Paul Boyce, Stacia Clawson, Lisa Evans, Martie
Hayworth, Reniece Henry, Ivy HilUard, David McHugh, Melissa Moore, Sharon Moylan, Laura
Pfieif fer, Laura Seifert, Jan Sharpe, Louise Spieler, Steven Stock, Darryl Williams and Chip Wil
son. Ann Murphy and Lynn Peithman, assistant news editors.
News: Greg Batten, Scott Bolejack, Sherri Boles, Laurie Bradsher, Alan Chappie, Michelle Chris
tenbury, John Conway, David Curran, Tamara Davis, Pam Duncan, Lynn Earley, Dean Foust,
. Jane Foy, Deborah Goodson, Louise Gunter, Karen Haywood, Peter Judge, Frank Kennedy,
Dave Krinsky, Katherine Long, Dean Lowman, Elizabeth Lucas, Kyle Marshall, David McHugh,
Alexandra McMillan, Ken Mingis, Robert Montgomery, Jamee Osborn, Leisha Phillips, Scott
Phillips, Jeannie Reynolds, Suzette Roach, Nancy Rucker, Mark Schoen, Laura Seifert, Frances
Silva, Ken Siman, Kelly Simmons, Jonathan Smylie, Anna Tate, Sonya Weakley, Lynn Worth,
Jim Wrinn and Kevin Kirk, wire editor.
Sports: Norman Cannada and John Royster, assistant sports editors. Kim Adams, Tom Berry,
Jackie Blackburn, R.L. Bynum, Stephanie Graham, Morris Haywood, Adam Kandell, Sharon
Kester, Draggan Mihailovich, Scott Price, Lee Sullivan, and Tracy Young.
Features: Jill Anderson, Ramona Brown, Shelley Block, Jane Calloway, Teresa Curry, Lome
Douglas, Valeria Du Sold, Cindy Haga, Susan Hudson, Chip Karnes, Lisbeth Levine, Lucy ,
McCauley, Steve Moore, Mitzi Morris, Lisa Pullen, David Rome, Vince Steele, Lawrence Turner,
Rosemary Wagner, Randy Walker, Cathy Warren and Chip Wilson, assistant Spotlight editor.
Arts: Marc Routh assistant arts editor; Peter Cashwell, Dennis Goss, Yick Griffin, Julian
Karchmer, Ed Leitch, Christine Manuel, Dawn McDonald, Tim Mooney, Tom Moore,-David
Nelson, Nissen Ritter, Karen Rosen, Bob Royalty, Guha Shankar, Charles Upchurch . and
Graphic Arts: Suzanne Conversano, Matt Cooper, Pah Corbett, Danny Harrell, Dane Huff
man, Janice Murphy, Vince Steele and Tom Westarp, artists; Jay Hyman, Faith Quintavell
and Al Steele, photographers.
Business: Rejeanne V. Caron, business manager; Linda A. Cooper, secretaryreceptionist;
Lisa Morrell and Anne Sink, bookkeepers; Dawn Welch, circulationdistribution manager;
Julie Jones and Angie Wolfe, classifieds.
Advertising: Paula Brewer, advertising manager; Mike Tabor, advertising coordinator; Jeff
Glance, Julie Granberry, Keith Lee, Robin Matthews, Jeff McElhaney, Karen Newell and Betsy
Swartzbaugh, ad representatives. '
Composition: Frank Porter Graham Composition Division, UNC-CH Printing Department.
Printing: Hinton Press, Inc., of Mebane.
By BETH BURRELL
An irreversible course had been set. The capability of
destruction so vast, people could be killed instantly and
efficiently. So efficiently that scientists incorrectly esti
mated that 20,000 would be killed at Hiroshima, when in
reality 80,000 were killed.
The atomic age had been born. Since its birth and that
first testing of the atomic bomb, the United States has
reached a point of no turning back. Scientists involved in
the Manhattan Project to construct the first atomic bomb
could only speculate about its power, its ability to des
troy. Now it is known.
The secrecy of the development of that bomb is well
documented today. Renowned scientists gathered in the
early 1940s to choose a site for the atomic bomb labora
tory. In November 1942, Los Alamos, N.M., was se
lected. Under the direction of J.R. Oppenheimer, tech
nicians and scientists at that laboratory worked under
tremendous pressure to build the bomb as quickly as
possible. A war, was going on. Because of that war, a
race with the Germans to develop the most powerful tool
of modern warfare began.
Perhaps the United States did not realize the sociolo
gical and biological implications of such power, but its
effects on human life became clear.
The atomic age had been born. Since
its birth and that first testing of the
atomic bomb, the United States has
reached a point of no turning back.
Scientists involved in the Manhattan
Project to construct the first atomic
bomb could only speculate about its
power, its ability to destroy. Now it is
Early in August 1945, one technician died and two
others were blinded in a chemical explosion at Los
Alamos. Harry Daghlian received an overdose of radia
tion in late August 1945 when he was checking a plu
tonium bomb. He died Sept. 15 of that year.
Dr. Louis Slotin, a 32-year-old physicist, prevented a
near nuclear explosion at the Los Alamos lab in May
1946. Poking at two pieces of fissionable material, his
tool slipped, allowing the pieces to unite and set off a
chain reaction. A sudden burst of ionizing radiation
filled the room. As he attempted to cover the mass with
his own body while wrenching the two pieces apart, the
observers in the room filed out. ,
The man standing behind Slotin, Dr. Alvin Graves,
developed cataracts and became blind years later. Two
others in the room later died of acute leukemia. But
what happened to Slotin, whose whole body was ex
posed to the heaviest dose of radiation, was most atro
cious. His body slowly disintegrated, and he died nine
days after the accident. .
What happened to Slotin's body is what would hap
pen to any body exposed to a nuclear tactical weapon
uncomplicated by the effects of heat and blast. Such a
weapon today is the neutron bomb. Because a human
body is most sensitive to neutrons and can provide no
defense against them, the use of the neutron warhead
would be one of the most immoral byproducts of the
Designed to release an enormous amount of radiation
enough to penetrate enemy tanks the neutron
bomb would have none of the explosive effects of the
Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs. While most of the deaths
in Hiroshima were caused by the blast and by buildings
falling on civilians, using the neutron bomb would allow
buildings and property to be minimally damaged. Tanks
could be stopped before destroying the city itself pos
sibly saving millions of lives. -
But Dr. Dietrich Schroeer of the UNC physics depart
ment says these advantages of tactical nuclear weapons
may be outweighed by the overdose of radiation that
occurs from their use. While 500 rems (unit of radiation
measurement) are enough to kill a human, 8,000 are
needed to penetrate tanks, he said. If 8,000 rems can
vaporize steel, it is not hard to comprehend the effect
they would have on human tissue.
What happened to Slotin's body is
what would happen to any body expos
ed to a nuclear tactical weapon un
complicated by the effects of heat and
blast. Such a weapon today is the
neutron bomb. Because a human body
is most sensitive to neutrons and can
provide no defense against them, the
use of the neutron warhead would be
one of the most immoral byproducts of
the atomic age. ,
But Schroeer said that if the Soviet Union were tb in
vade Western Europe and if NATO were unable" to stop
the invasion using conventional weaponry, then "under
those circumstances tactical nuclear weapons (that is, the
neutron bomb) would be the only available defense left'
Those civilians nearest the attack would be so heavily
exposed by the radiation that normal living would be in
conceivable. Those farther from the radiation may re
ceive lethal doses but not die for weeks or months. .
It took Slotin nine days to die from 1 ,930 rems. Graves
was eventually blinded by only 390 rems.
Those who advocate the use of nuclear weapons today
argue that they are much more efficient than conven
tional weapons. It is easier to drop one bomb and kill
7 ; w x u
. 80,000 people than drop hundreds of bombs, requiring
1,000 planes, to do the same amount of damage. The
risk to American lives is greatly reduced by sending one
plane and one bomb.
As Dr. Reuben G. Gustavson, vice president of the
University of Chicago (where much of the atomic re
search began), said in a September 1945 speech: "When
you are in a war, you are in a dirty business. It doesn't
make much difference how you do the killing, since vic
tory depends on doing it effectively." If war is taken as a
given, then it becomes difficult to draw the line between '
which weapons nuclear or conventional are more
devastating to human life.
In' March 1945, firebombs dropped on Tokyo killed
100,000' people more than were killed at Hiroshima.
And the Japanese did not surrender.
While not defending one type of weapon over another,
the protest against nuclear weapons such as the neutron
bomb has arisen because they seem to be "a symbol that
nuclear war is a more likely possibility," Schroeer said.
To him, the number of nuclear weaDons is not neces
sarily growing, but the likelihood of their use is increasing.
"More people are sympathetic to the idea of using nu
clear weapons in a limited way today," Schroeer said.
More feel that a limited nuclear war can remain limited;
there is less belief that it will escalate into a full scale
atomic war. But Schroeer said he thought the possibility
of a small-scale nuclear war being stopped before it
reaches the level of a total nuclear war was small.
Moreover, the biological effects of nuclear weapons
used in even a limited way may not be realized for cen
turies. Conventional warfare certainly kills civilians and
wreaks havoc upon cities, but it is free from the debili
. tating after effects of nuclear warfare. No radiation
lingers to destroy what life remains.
Tactical nuclear weapons release a high-speed flow of
neutrons that destroys whatever is in its path, causing a
death incomparable to any- other known to man.
Perhaps the men and women who gathered in the
early 1940s to devise the most powerful of weapons
could not have comprehended the size of the nuclear ar
senal today. Perhaps no one could have known that a
country's security would one day rest on its number of
nuclear weapons. Today it seems a weapon's ability to
destroy must be so great that no sane human would con
template using it.
The biological effects of nuclear
weapons used in even a limited way
. may not be realized for centuries. Con
ventional warfare certainly kills
civilians and wreaks havoc upon cities,
but it is free from the debilitating
aftereffects of nuclear warfare. No
radiation lingers to destroy what life
Therefore, the United States and the Soviet Union
both are crippling themselves by pouring billions of dol
lars into weapons that are not meant to be used and are
often obsolete by the time they are built.
After that first atomic bomb was tested in New
Mexico, a War Department release on July 16, 1945,
said: "It was a great new force to be used for good or for
. evil. There was a feeling in that shelter that those con
cerned with its nativity should dedicate their lives to the
mission that it would always be used for good and never
Because knowledge can hardly be banned, the imple
mentation of a ban on nuclear power would be a ridicu
lous failure. But a dedication to use these weapons only
for good, as proposed in 1945, must begin.
The present arms race was surely not the intention of
those scientists who first put atomic power into use. Per
haps it was idealistic of them to believe the atomic bomb
would be the bomb to end all wars. But it is also unrealis
tic to believe we can continue moving in our present di
rection. Science devoting itself to greater and greater
methods of destruction is not only expensive but also
senseless and counterproductive. "
Gustavson said in his 1945 speech, after the bomb had
been dropped: "Let us here highly resolve that we shall
learn to live in peace, because if we don't make that re
solve, and we don't live up to it, the echo will surely be,
Ye shall die.'"
If he realized that in 1945, then almost 40 years and
many bombs later it seems imperative to have a similar
resolve. After all, it is not the political security of a
nation, but the survival of the human race that is at stake.
Beth Burrell, a senior journalism and political science
major from Matthews, is associate editor for The Daily
launch verbal battle
By ALEX CHARNS
Last week a world war began. The United States
fired first, and the Soviets responded in kind. No one
was killed; no property was destroyed. It was a war
of words. The battle was fought in the living rooms
of 200 million TV viewers. The struggle was for con
trol over European public sentiment. The purpose
was manipulation of the burgeoning European peace
movement. So began the Soviet-American nuclear
propaganda war of 1981.
In a satellite-televised speech Nov. 18, President
Ronald Reagan launched his "peace offensive." The
president proposed canceling the 108 new Pershing II
intermediate-range ballistic missiles and 464 ground
launched cruise missiles that were to be deployed in
This "zero option" would require the Soviets to
dismantle their 600 SS-20, SS-4 and SS-5 intermediate-range
missiles. The proposal also included an
offer to begin strategic arms reduction talks and to
lower the level of conventional armed forces in
Soviet President Leonid I. Brezhnev responded
Nov. 24 with a counter-proposal. Brezhnev proposed
a moratorium on the stationing of new medium
range nuclear missiles in Europe. He also said, "As a
gesture of goodwill, we could unilaterally reduce a
certain part of our medium-range nuclear weapons in
the European part of the Soviet Union."
That Reagan and Brezhnev have begun to make
disarmament proposals is to be praised. The willing
ness of both nations to start a dialogue on arms con
trol and disarmament should be encouraged. But the
reasons behind these proposals must be carefully
3 A cursory examination of Reagan's proposal re
veals a departure from his administration's bellicose
posture toward the Soviet Union. What prompted
Many foreign policy analysts feel that the growing
sentiment against nuclear arms' in Western Europe
forced Reagan to modify his nuclear arms rhetoric.
Both Washington and Moscow regard the European
peace movement as a formidable cross-national poli
tical alliance. Some believe the peace movement has
the power to turn Western Europe against either or
Such opposition is perceived as particularly
tiireatening to the United States, which relies upon
Western Europe to station its intermediate-range
The Brezhnev and Reagan proposals are conflict
ing alternatives; each is unacceptable to the other.
Both nations are vying for the favor of the European
peace movement. U.S. advisers and Soviet officials
realize that large-scale Western European opposition
to the deployment of the new U.S. nuclear missiles
may make such action politically impossible.
Reagan's proposal was intended to appeal to the
collective European psyche. He relied on the Euro
peans' survival instincts. The Soviets had to be tact
fully portrayed as the sole threat to peace, so that
Europeans might see U.S. nuclear weapons as a
deterrent to Soviet nuclear aggression.
The public image of Reagan had to be altered. To
dispel the European peace movenlent's view of
Reagan and Secretary of State Alexander Haig as
nuke-toting cowboys was imperative. Certain Reagan
administration actions in the past year had alarmed
One such incident was Reagan's statement about
the possibility of a "limited" nuclear war. Another
was Haig's discussion of the NATO contingency plan
for a "demonstrative" nuclear detonation. Such re
marks, as well as the U.S. decision to build and
stockpile the neutron bomb, had to be overcome.
Thus, Reagan made a politically safe, theatrical
move. He made a proposal that was appealing to the
West Europeans but unacceptable to the Soviets.
In his proposal, Reagan spoke of America's over
riding desire for peace. His offer to stop deployment
of new nuclear weapons in Europe, in exchange for
the dismantling of Soviet weapons, was said to create
nuclear parity in Europe. But the president's calcu
lations failed to include British and French nuclear
weapons and U.S. nuclear submarines.
Brezhnev's response was simply to invert Reagan's
unacceptable proposal and return it to the United
States. The Soviets proposed to freeze the present
level of nuclear weapons in Europe. The Brezhnev
proposal failed to acknowledge Soviet superiority in
intermediate-range nuclear weapons.
To the extent that people are appeased by such
proposals, the move for disarmament may stall.
Without an international disarmament movement,
world leaders have little incentive to undertake real
discussion and negotiation.
Monday, the United States and the Soviet Union
began Theater Nuclear Forces reduction talks in
Geneva. If the envoys to these talks follow the
sophist's game embodied in the ReaganBrezhnev
proposals, there is no hope for European nuclear
Realizing that failure to accomplish nuclear dis
armament in Europe imperils world security, we
should not accept this result. A nuclear exchange
begun in Europe would resound worldwide, making
us the casualties of our own propaganda and decep
tion. , :.
Alex Chants, chairperson o f the Coalition For Social
Justice, is a third-year law student from Santa