The Tar Heel Thursday. June 19, 198613
Who is Shearomi Harris ainid wh
s
Anyone opposed to opposition of
any kind should turn around right
now and forget he ever saw this. IVe
never been one to mince words, and
this editorial presents me with the
supreme chance to get some things
off of my mind and make some
people madder than hell at the same
time. Those who know me recognize
the latter as being my speciality.
Following the recent controversy
over the Shearon Harris nuclear
plant has given me the opportunity
to see things that others don't get to.
They merely rely on the second-hand
information given to them by
journalists.
My big gripe is that the controv
ersy is recent, but the plant is not.
It's been under construction for over
15 years now. Where was the Coa
lition for 'Alternatives to Shearon
Harris (CASH) in 1971-72. 1 have
a sneaky suspicion that they were
snatching the sheepskin from an
administrator's hand at UC-Berkeley.
Meagami tosses 'salt'
over both
President Reagan's decision last
week to end U.S. compliance with
the SALT II treaty has been greatly
misunderstood. Critics have accused
Reagan of encouraging the arms race
and creating a much more dangerous
world. However, Reagan, by discon
tinuing unilateral observance of the
treaty, may be waving a much-needed
flag of reality in the face of the Soviet
leaders. In his press conference June
11, Reagan answered questions
about his reasons for abandoning the
treaty and what he predicts the effects
of this decision will be.
In the first of these questions,
Reagan said that the abandoning of
the treaty should not be a shocking
revelation. The treaty was never
ratified by the Senate, and had it been
ratified, it would no longer be in
effect anyway. The SALT 11 treaty
would have only had a limited time
of effectiveness. The hopes at the
signing of the treaty were that a better
agreement could be reached in the
short period covered by this hol
dover. The treaty was never intended
to be the final word on the nuclear
arms race, but only a limiting factor .
until the long-winded diplomatic
process could turn out an agreement
for bilateral "reduction of arms,"
which Reagan said has been his goal
since he came into office.
He also reiterated the Soviet's
breeches of the treaty over the years.
The United States, despite the fact
that the treaty was never ratified, has
courteously observed it for the past
seven years. The Soviets have,
however, screamed for arms talks in
Geneva while they secretly violated
the treaty again and again. Con
tinued U.S. compliance with the
treaty while the Soviets continue to
build up would be ludicrous and
defeats the purpose of our nuclear
arsenal, which is to be a deterrent.
Reagan said, "We don't want a
superiority over them, but also we
simply want to maintain enough of
a deterrent that even with whatever
superiority they have, it won't be
enough for them to take the chance
on the follow up action that could -
Scotf Greig
City Editor
I don't have a grudge with CASH.
As a matter of fact, 1 admire them
for standing up so vehemently, for
something they feel so strongly
about. It's just that I have serious
doubts about whether they're speak
ing for as many concerned citizens
as they say they are.
It gets tiring having to listen to
these CASH supporters laugh and.
jeer at CP&L officials whenever they
try and discuss the safety of their
plant. Maybe it's just a paranoid
reaction to the Chernobyl disaster,
or maybe it's just some kind of cosmic
unbalance in their collective subcons
cious that wont allow them to play
Bob Dylan or Grateful Dead albums
on a turntable that might be powered
shoulders
Bill Logan
The Right Stuff
happen."
Three times Reagan stressed his
objective in abandoning the worth
less "treaty." He said, "Now we have
the first Soviet leader to my knowl
edge that has ever voluntarily spoken
of reducing nuclear weapons and we
want to follow up on that." Reagan
made the point that now that the
decision to exceed the limits of the
treaty has been made, the Soviets
. have several months to show whether
they are serious or not about arms
control before we actually break it.
"We are going to see if we cannot
persuade them (the Soviets) to join
in the things they're talking about
arms control or arms reduction. And
if nothing is done, then well make
the decision."
1 am very much in favor of a
nuclear arms free world, but realism
is essential. Critics of Reagan's plan
must realize that in dealing with the
Soviets, we are dealing with a nation
with a history of tremendous anti
American sentiment and breech of
their word in international affairs.
The Soviet Union is a nation whose
leaders have echoed by their actions
Nikita Khrushchev's promise to
destroy America somehow.
When serious arms negotiations
finally do take place, it will be
because the Soviets are convinced
that America will no longer put up
with their hypocrisy. Reagan's aban
donment of SALT II may wave this
message of reality in the face of the
Soviet leaders. If so, it may bring
about bilateral arms reduction, an
action which has been sought by our
country all along.
Bill Logan, a senior biology major
from Chapel Hill, is a staff writer for
The Summer Tar Heel who also
dabbles in photography.
by energy from a nuclear power
plant. Jerry Garcia and the Jokerman
would never stand for it.
These aforementioned meetings,
and some of the forums on the
Shearon Harris issue, deserve to be
covered by a journalist like Hunter
Thompson who'd probably be drink
ing Wild Turkey over ice and having
the time of his life watching these two
great superpowers (CASH and
CP&L) go at it verbally with ever
ything but knives and the Municipal
Building's folding chairs. I know it's
dragging, but what do you want
perfection? There's no such thing!
Wouldn't it be nice to hear some
one ask, "Who's this Shearon Harris
IVe been hearing so much about?"
It would indicate a social apathy that
every society needs. If people get so
caught up in making sure that things
don't happen, then nothing happens
at all and the whole mess stagnates.
1 know there are a very self
important few who think this letter,
deserves nothing more than a rusty
ww
"HAVE "0J EXPERIENCED THE AMBIANCE OP DOWNTOWN BUFFALO? HOW ABOUT OSHK3SH IN THESPRING?
WE HAVE A SPECIAL tO-FRlLLS, NOBOMBS PACKAGE WITH A THREE-DAY UttOVER IN AWE-INSPIRING
paper shredder. But do those people
represent a majority of followers who
feel as strongly about this issue as
they do?
People these days are too quick
to follow. What's needed are more
leaders because there are already
enough followers. People are afraid
of what they might find out about
themselves if they decide to walk
alone. So they hide in a group where
it's easy to get lost.
Would any of the CASH suppor
ters be opposed to Shearon Harris
if they lived in Charlotte? I doubt
it. But then again, why not? Nothing
ever happens in Charlotte anyway.
Are these CASH folks opposed to
nuclear energy in general or the fact
that an accident could occur within
25 miles of their homes. Is this
concern of theirs selfish or social?
These plants have to be built some
where. Are the petitions signed
outside of the post office a fair
sampling of the feeling of residents
about this zany nuclear thing? Who
knows, maybe most of those signees
just decided to take a break from the
everyday weirdness of Chapel Hill.
So they stop and sign a piece of paper
that they've seen other people sign.
Maybe someone will see them sign
it and actually think they have some
kind of social usefulness.
I don't know what to do about this
controversy. If I did, I probably
would have told you by now. Maybe
the big message hidden away in all
this garbage is that no one ought to
follow someone else because it seems
like the right or correct thing to do.
There are too many right or correct
things to follow.
Any questions about my reasoning
or mental ability can be hopelessly
filed away at the Tar Heel office or
they can be answered in person at
the back booth at Troll's any night
of the week.
Scott Greig is a senior journalism
major from Charlotte.
!