Thursday, April 22, 1932The Daily Tar Heei7
T FT
imoritiec m.
NUCLEAR FRE
Honor. Coui'i
Debate over arms race heightens during Ground Zero Week
By LARR Y ELLIS
By MARK LANGSTON
By JONATHAN RICH
The current debate on nuclear weapons has reached an intensity not seen since the
1964 elections. After living through the 1970s fairly quietly, the world has suddenly
taken a massive interest in who owns what and how many of the various forms of nu
clear weapons. Not surprisingly, after this long dormancy of opinion, the thoughts on
the issue that have sprung forth are quite varied. Unfortunately, many of them are also
quite uninformed. Others lay shrouded in a midst of rhetoric, idealism, and illogic. The
debate has become clouded as a result.
Throughout the debate, a number of basic assumptions has been adopted by many
, people without proper consideration. What has resulted from these assumptions is that
many of the suggestions for resolving the nuclear arms race have been the product of
dangerously narrow-minded thinking. It is important that everyone understand the ra
tionale behind these assumptions if debate on this most delicate issue is to remain as clear
as possible.
The first major assumption has been that once adopted, a nuclear freeze will be
honored by all participants. This notion is nothing but wishful
thinking. If the nations could trust each other to adhere to the
freeze, it is quite likely that their differences would never have
led to an arms race to begin with. And as for verification, a
U.N. inspection team will see only what it is shown.
Even the sophisticated spy satellites over us reputed to
be able to detect when Chairman Brezhnev's reading
lamp is on cannot find bombs stockpiled
underground or mobile ICBMs hidden in a structure as
inconspicuous as a barn. A nuclear freeze
is therefore likely to be unenforceable.
A second underlying assumption made
in the debate over the freeze proposal has
been that the major differences between
the United States and the Soviet Union
can be settled successfully by peaceful
negotiations. It is further assumed that
the conflict and tensions existing between
the two powers are basically caused by
mistrust and jealousy, matters
that can be worked out if both sides
will show good faith. Few things are
further from the truth.
The conflict between the United
States and the U.S.S.R. is one of
viciously contrasting ideologies, or
two diametrically opposite systems
of life that are, m the long run,
mutually exclusive. Unless one
side corrupts its beliefs
noticeably, continued
conflict is inevitable. This is not to say that a nuclear
arms freeze is impossible or necessarily undesirable,
merely that to expect it to in any way alleviate the basic
tensions between the two powers is foolhardy.
A third major assumption is probably the most controversial,
namely that the United States and the Soviet Union are roughly
equal in military power. While such may be true of a full-scale
nuclear war in which both powers attack with no holds barred, it
is not true in a limited European scale.
Newsweek columnist George F. Will recently wrote that "Ap
plied to medium-range missiles in Europe," which are strategi
cally the most valuable weapons in that theater, "the
immediate-freeze proposal is Brezhnev's negotiating position:
U.S.S.R. 300, U.S. 0. A general freeze at current levels would
leave no incentive for the Soviets to negotiate ... substantial re
ductions ..." To adopt a nuclear freeze at this time, then, would
make any real kind of effective arms control with the Soviet
Union impossible.
A f ourth assumption is undoubtedly the easiest to accept off
hand, but is the most dangerous assumption of them all. That
assumption is that neither side can possibly win a nuclear war.
And of course if both sides were to attack one another with their
full arsenals, both would be devastated. But that is a very un
likely way for nuclear war to happen. Much more likely is that
one side would use a variety of devices such as killer satellites,
internal sabotage, radar-jamming tactical missiles, and radar
invisible aircraft to disguise an attack in the hopes of achieving a
quick, pre-emptive strike on the other power's forces. This
could be done with less trouble than the average person has been
led to believe. The above camouflaging methods need only be
effective for five to ten minutes, just long enough for a small
number of submarines to launch an attack that would
destroy every significant military, civilian, and communica
tions target possessed by the other. Such a plan involves great
risk, of course, but with every technological breakthrough
involving the improvement of delivery systems and
camouflaging techniques, nuclear war becomes less and
less "unwinnable."
Eventually the day will come when one power feels it
possesses the ability to destroy the other without fear of retaliation. To most Americans,
any type of nuclear war is a loss for all humanity, but it must be remembered that dif
ferent nations have different ideas as to what constitutes a nuclear victory.
The blind acceptance of these assumptions underlying the movement to initiate a
nuclear arms freeze has threatened the clarity of thought needed to resolve such an issue.
The United States should welcome discussion of the issue, but citizens should be wary of
falling prey to these arguments based on fantasy. There is simply too much at stake here
to be uninformed.
Mark Langston is a freshman from Greensboro.
When the capitols of Europe erupted in mass demonstration against nuclear arms last
fall, the Reagan administration was quick to criticize the Europeans for their "appease
ment" in the face of Soviet aggression. Less than a year later, growing opposition from
the previously loyal American citizenry is now forcing Reagan to reconsider his own
nuclear arms program. With the advent of the second national Ground Zero Week, the
American movement against nuclear arms has been definitively established.
This week over 500 communities and 350 colleges are participating in a nationwide
campaign against the continuing development and deployment of nuclear weapons.
Their ranks include Democrats and Republicans, numerous mayors, state officials and
clergymen. The movement's popular support has already been reflected in the number
of congressmen who now advocate a bilateral freeze on all nuclear weapons. Along with
an increasing number of Americans across the nation, these representatives have finally
recognized the strategic, economic and social imperatives for a moratorium on nuclear
arms. . ... . . , ,
From a strategic or military point of view, there has never
been a better time for a nuclear freeze. Contrary to what some
alarmists in the Pentagon are prone to claim, the United States
has maintained parity, if not superiority over the Soviet Union
in the area of nuclear weapons. This opinion is held by
the likes of such conservatives as Defense Secretary
Casper Weinberger -and Secretary of State Alexander
Haig. It is also bora out by America's established
superiority m deliverable warheads (9,500 to 6,000),
mobile missiles (on submarines and
planes) and overall technology and ac
curacy. With only 200 bombs needed to
devastate the Soviet Union's major citites .
and industries, this country has the papa- ;
city to kill every Soviet citizen several
times over.
Despite such overkill capacities, Presi
dent Reagan wishes to devote $222 billion
toward a major expansion of U.S. nu
clear forces over the next six years.
The implied purpose of this program
which would give us 17,000 more
warheads and an array of new
weapons is to gain nuclear "superi
ority" over the Soviet Union. A major
component for such a drive would
be the ability to wage a "limited"
nuclear war as well as an all-out at
tack. The most dangerous
element in such a pro
gram is the marked shift in emphasis from conceiving of
nuclear weapons as deterrents to how they can be used as
offensive weapons. As the Center for Defense Informa
tion has pointed out: "The U.S. public is being mis
takenly led to believe that the continued expansion of our
nuclear forces enhances deterrence. In fact, if it contributes to
Soviet insecurities about the safety of their own nuclear
retaliatory forces it may be doing just the opposite."
Due to ongoing technological advances, the United States has
developed missile systems with the accuracy to destroy small
hardended targets such as missile silos and command bunkers.
By the end of this decade, such first-strike capability will be pre
sent in all legs of the land-air-sea defense triad in the form of
MX and Cruise missiles and a new generation of submarine
launched weapons. . .
" The deployment of these accurate missiles, capable of striking
Soviet military targets within five minutes as in the case of
submarine launched missiles will pose a definite threat to the
Soviet Union, which would have little time ito detect and re
spond to a U.S. attack. It would also spur the Soviet Union's ef
forts to achieve similar weapons systems, capable of destroying
U.S. land-based missiles. The development and deployment of
such weapons will thus contribute greatly to international insta
bility and the chances of an inadvertent nuclear war.
A bilateral nuclear moratorium would halt Reagan's dan
gerous preparations for nuclear war as well as diminish the
threats posed, by continued technological advances in nuclear
weaponry. It would assure both sides of a clear capacity for re
taliation in the event of a nuclear strike, thereby maintaining the
mutual deterrence that has 'preserved the peace.
Aside from military considerations,; there are solid
economic reasons for a nuclear freeze. Like every previous
administration since World War II, the Reagan administra
tion has stressed the economic benefits ofdefense spending,
particularly its job-creating potential. Yet according to
the Council on Economic Priorities, jobs created by the
military are generally highly-skilled, concentrated in only
a few geographic regions and are less numerous than the
civilian alternatives created by the same expenditures.
A freeze on the development and deployment of nuclear weapons would constitute an
important step toward reducing the astronomical proportions of the U.S. military bud
get. The $1 .6 trillion that Reagan has proposed to spend over the next five years will only
destabilize our military and economic positions. Faced with even harsher realities, the
Soviet Union has indicated a willingness to negotiate substantial arms reductions if not a
nuclear moratorium. The United States should not miss this historic opportunity to
work for peace rather than war and toward the advancement rather than destruction of
our civilization.
TonatRan Rich, a junior history and political science major from Quogue, New York, is
UNC coordinator for Ground Zero Week.
You are a male, age 20. You are charged with cheating on a Chemistry U exam.
You are black. The Instrument of Student Juridid Governance states that you have
the right to racial representation: at least three of the five members of the trial court
shall not be of the majority race. Do you choose, to. exerdse this- right?:.-::
The 1982-83 Honor Court has focused on minority recruitment to meet the re
quirement of racial representation. From posters on South Campus to extend minori
ty application deadlines, recruitment attempts appear to have succeeded. Eight of the
30 court members selected are minority students. Many people challenge the court's
obligation to recruit minorities. Should the right to racial or sexual representation ex
ist? Can the court serve its purpose without the representation clause?
The Honor Court functions to give fair and impartial hearings to defendents,
said Joe Doloboff, vice chairman of the 1981-82 court. Would a defendant receive an
unfair trial if he or she were not judged by members of the same sex or race?
Court members are trained to regard only the.eviden.ee in deciding a verdict. Exten
sive preparation at a fall retreat, a certification examen th? igstnonectj knd informal
discussions throughout the year qualify court mern3ep to
Training at the fall retreat includes lectures arid discuons the. standards; by which
decisions are reached, said Anne Bowden assistantjxles
judicial programs officer. -; -. - '- -: -: v-VVC'--v-' ' .'
"We also have a simulated trial at which old court members observe and comment
on new members," she said. "It (training) is thorough." Several court members
agreed that in all of their cases, whether a special court had been requested or not,
impartial verdicts had been rendered. -; ' ;'v'.."-
Even if every defendant is assured a fair trial, should not racial or sexual represen
tation be an option to make the defendant as comfortable as possible? In keeping
with the spirit of the tradition "innocent until proven guilty," should not the court
overcompensate to protect the individual? The court should seek to accomodate the
defendant. However, accomodation must be weighed against damages to the system.
To ensure racial or sexual representation, the governance instrument requires in its
composition clause that at least eight members be of the majority race and eight of
the minority, with at least 12 female and 12.male mly Jackie Jeffnes;: vice chair
man of the 1982-83 court, fears possible misconceptic
students. "White students may feel blacks have an easier dhance to get on the court.
But initial evaluation of applicants is blind to sex aiid(.onetheless,' 1983
chairperson Elizabeth Ennen says, "If our blind admission ppJicy- fails to yield eight
minorities, we may have to sacrifice equality for the quota '
; Perhaps those most adversely affected by the composition : clause are minority
members of the court. Junior Al Perry was recruited for the 1981-82 court after the
application deadline last year because too few qualified blacks had applied. 'He (the
recruiter) said they wanted the most qualified black applicants," Perry said. "What
annoyed me was being sought as a blacknot because I was qualified. ,
'He (the recruiter) said they wanted the most qualified black ap
plicants. What annoyed me was being, sought as a black not
because I was qualified.' . . . '
- ' At Perry
Honor Ccurt member
"If I had applied and been accepted under those conditions, I would not have felt
good about myself. People plight have thought the only reason I was on the court
was because I am black-specially other court 'mernbeTS.'':; - ":
Others contend that quotas perpetuate prejudices. Court members are all able to
weigh evidence and to judge impartially. Whereas all court members are equally
qualified, requesting a special court reinforces a false perception that such a court will
conduct a fairer trial. This constitutes a pre-judgement of cxurt members.
"There's' so much diversity among the black population and among the white
population, Doloboff said. "Trial by rrs is irrrtam
similar pressures and concerns. We are aU rrs."
Lowered acceptance standards and a peet6n'pfjuHi are each potential
damages that, outweigh accommodating 'defent:d;t-'sufr;i need for a
revision of the governance instrument. Yet is there no res sex
ual representation for seeking minority involvement oh 'the (wurt?'H-v
The new court in some ways serves an educational purpose for the University com
munity. Broad awareness of the community is important to a body that seeks to
uphold the standards of that community. Law school professor Robert Byrd, who
has played a central role in revising the governance instrument over the last twenty
years, said, "If minorities distrust the honor court and the' honor code, then the
clause may be very important." Byrd said he would like to see, minority involvement
in the court occur spontaneously. i; - 'r-
. Unfortunately, however, many minority students perceive the court to be closed to
them. Many of the students interviewed did not know how to get inyolyed with the
court. Few knew what court membership entafled. The lS32-83 honor jcpurt is work
ing to overcome these barriers. Recruiting "efforts, helped M?rs f'TQ Minority can
didates, of whom seven were accepted in the color-blind, admission process. . Court
members make presentations on the honor code id freshman English classes and fre
quently to large lecture classes. :'; '. rt.ir v v
Other avenues must also be explored. Residence hall officers and resident assistants
might become involved in such presentations. All presentations rmght include infor
mation on the court and its responsibilities. Different rninority populations should be
approached. Even open question-and-answer sessions for students who are consider
ing applying for the court might be held before selection.
Clearly any solution to the problem of minority membership oh the honor court
must aim toward self-generating involvement. Involvement sparks leadership which
sparks change and growth of the system. But many barriers persist. Minorities are
rarely part of the network that produces a court of 85 percent Greek membership. In
formation about the court is often limited to Greek groups, and "such information is
just now circulating in campus minority publications. ' - -
The problem is not a lack of interest, then, but of lack of irJorrai'bn, "Per capita
blacks applied as much as whites this year," Enr.;n r-? , IT', r ' - just as much
of an interest. It just needs to be tapped, . - '- ; ; T - ; s
Larry Ellis is a junior philosophy major from Skillman, N.J.
Nuclear freeze movement a simple one
By KEN MINGIS
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire. . .
Robert Frost, Fire and Ice
Proponents of a proposed nuclear arms
freeze fear much the same thing that the
world will end in fire, nuclear fire. That's
why many Americans have finally stop
ped going about their everyday lives long
enough to think about nuclear war and its
consequences. What they see frightens
them.
The nuclear freeze movement in the
United States has been mushrooming dur
ing the past several months for one rea
son it's a simple idea. Its supporters
don't give a damn about the details,
about how many missiles we'll trade for
how many of their bombers. They just
want It all stopped. It's a message every
one can understand.
The push for a freeze began in March
1981, when 18 cities in small, conservative
Vermont passed resolutions calling on the
United States to halt its nuclear arms
build-up and begin negotiations with the
Soviet Union to do the same. Before
long, cities and towns across the country
were adopting similar resolutions. Sens.
Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.,' and Mark
Hatfield, R-Ore., introduced a nuclear
freeze bill in the U.S. Senate. One week
later a weaker version was introduced by
Sens. Henry Jackson, D-Wash. and John
.Warner, R-Va. Anti-nuclear films were
even shown in the House of Representa
tives. All had one thing in mind coming
to grips with the nuclear fear growing in
America.
Ironically the freeze movement comes
in part as a reaction to President Ronald
Reagan and his strong rhetoric. Things
have changed quickly since he was sworn
in more than one year ago. This president
talks of a "limited nuclear war." Com
bined with other tough talk and some of
the largest defense spending ever, Reagan
himself probably insured the success of
the freeze movement. With every new
presidential threat comes added support
for the freeze.
Unlike past anti-nuke campaigns, this
one enjoys widespread support among
many groups of Americans. In the late
1950s and early 1960s the first stirrings of
today's protests began with "Ban the
Bomb" rallies. In those days, bomb shel
ters were the thing to have. If you didn't
have one, you made close friends with
someone who did. But at the time, most
people were unwilling to accept nuclear
war as a possibility. They worried about
money, taxes, children and their future.
They did not worry about the bomb. It is
a mentality that exists even today; no one
really wants to contemplate a nasty war,
at least not before now.
Supporters and opponents of the freeze
both have valid points. Opponents feel
that such a move would place the United
States permanently behind the Soviet
Union in number of arms. They point out
that verification of any freeze agreement
would be next to impossible and doubt
the Soviets would even go along with it in
the first place. "
Supporters simply say that it doesn't
matter whether the Uiited States is first,
or not. Both countries can destroy each
other; the only solution is to stop making
the bombs.
CIS'''
ATT 1
The freeze drive has sparked several
off-shoots, among these the Ground Zero
Movement (April 18-25 is Ground Zero
Week). If is an effort to educate people
on nuclear war and the resulting effects;
and its slogan is meant to hit readers
hard: If this were ground zero, everything
within two miles of you would be totally
destroyed. Such statements have little
counterargument.
No one really doubts the effects of an
all-out nuclear war. An estimated 140 mil
lion Americans and 113 million Soviets
would be killed. The lucky ones might
very well be the dead. There would be no
food, no medical help, little shelter for
those still aliye. Everything would be con-'
taminated with radiation. Those immedi
ately injured in the war would remain in
jured the doctors would be dead and
most hospitals destroyed. : '
' Cities would burn out of control as super-hot
firestorms fed their flames with
100 mile per hour winds sucked from sur
rounding areas.' There would be no law
enforcement. Disease would spread as
unburied corpses rotted. There's a term
for just such a full-fledged war: Mutual
Assured Destruction (MAD). It means
that if the Soviets launch a war and de
stroy all our military installations,. the
United States would do the same to them.
And to get even, we might just take out;
Moscow or Kiev. Then it would be their
turn again. You gtfce ricture, . . . .
Scextsnossuch.fcs tr-r-rlis 'ct the root of
the;nuctoi8K3$ frees? prrossis; In the
' past, if a war were to occ -ir, it was always
assumed some life on Earth would re
main. But with the. fecrer,se in number '
: and strength of weapons during the past
. few years, even this is now in doubt. Ad
vocates of freeze ask ' 'Are we ready to de
stroy mankind?" Nuclear war means you '
can forget exams, more money from
home, mom and dad. For better or worse,
whatever dreams and plans you had are
over.-' . ' .'4. '.'-.. v-' .
- The debate over, arms control and a
.'; .freeze nXyXoccrMviilt effects as a '
'i; 'movement rrs'i rsibb ti j-r?dict.But
v.wfcsl ii fcTr"t'!i thzt r it is being-
,,' ... iiS'CUSC p i -t i ... ll JlTid CX
nothing else, suprerters of the movement
: ', have accomplished that. Many Americans
now realize that responsibility for nuclear
, war lies not only with one person, the
president, but with everyone.
. Think about it. Rather than fire per
haps it is time to hold with those who fa
vor ice.
. Ken Minsssff junior 'journalism major
from &.f h' coci,-? editor of The
J:DdlyTwi:v.;4v:-yVr--, :
Hll Pupils