opinions
editorial opinion
Nix the MX
President Reagan just can't take no for an
answer. And in the case of the MX missile,
his stubbornness could lead the country
closer to the nightmare of nuclear con
frontation.
The controversial deployment of the MX
missile has been debated for the past de
cade and Congress has rejected every pre
vioup attempt to implement the missile
program. The most, recent defeat for the
MX missile came last December when the
House voted 245-176 not to give money for
the production of the first five MX missiles.
After the defeat, Reagan formed the
Scowcroft Commission to propose a new
basing plan for the missile and also to make
the new land-based missile system more
acceptable to Congress.
The commission did just that in a report
released last week.
The commission whose members in
cluded four former secretaries of defense
made two basic recommendations.
The first is a repackaging of the MX
missile program. The commission came up
with a proposal to put 100 MX missiles (each
armed with 10 warheads) into existing Min
uteman missile silos in Wyoming and Ne
braska by 1986.
The commission apparently found little
danger in advocating the placement of the
nation's largest, most destructive, multi
warhead missiles in the same silos that
Reagan has 'warned are vulnerable to at
tack.
The commission's second recommenda
tion calls for the development of the "Midg
etman" missile . a small, single warhead
missile to be deployed by 1993.
Because the missile is mobile and con
tains a single warhead, the missile appeals
to many in Congress. Even arms-control
advocates in Congress who have stead
fastly opposed the MX missile favor the
Midgetman system because it would limit
the number of warheads on missiles.
Reagan political operator that he is
has packaged the debatable MX proposal
with a sensible and needed Midgetman
missile. Reagan figures that no harm can be
clone by proposing the package deal to
Congress.
Reagan is wrong
While Reagan continues to argue that the
MX is needed to protect the United States,
Fighting for the freeze
"The destructive capability of nuclear
firms is simply overwhelming. We have
linleashed the strongest force in the uni
verse. To overcome it amounts to a chal
lenge that literally defies imagination.
Jan Lodal, Former Director of Program
Analysis, National Security Council
The nation now faces great uncertainties
in developing a workable defense system.
Worried about a possible loss of military
.prowess, the country also faces unrelenting
Soviet threats of new military moves.
But when President Reagan stated last
month that, militarily, the Soviets boast a
”margin of superiority," the condition of
'the country's defense system has come
eriously into question.
• In only a few days a nuclear freeze resolu
tion will go before CongreSs. In the proposal
lies a message of moderation an attempt
to convince Soviet leaders that military
equality is the optimal solution to world
peace.
As part of the recent Undergraduate Stu
dent Government presidential elections,
University students had the opportunity to
vote on a proposed nuclear, freeze referen
dum. The proposal asked for a halt of
even his own commission saw through the
rhetoric and clearly labeled the MX the
first-strike capability weapon it is.
The MX missile has one clear purpose: to
threaten Soviet land-based missiles and
command centers. But the missile could not
be protected if the Soviets strike first, and
the Soviets could be tempted to launch such
an attack.
The MX missile is not, as Reagan has
argued, a way to safeguard U.S. missile
silos.
Rep. Joseph P. Addabbo, D-New York,
who led the fight against the MX missile last
year, makes a convincing argument against
deployment: "Basing in MinUteman 111
silos, was tested three years ago and found
vulnerable. If that's true, all we'd do is put a
$2O- to $3O-billion weapon into vulnerable
holes and leave the Russians with the im
pression that it is a first-strike weapon."
Reagan is maneuvering this country into
a direct nuclear confrontation with the
Soviets. And the MX missile would lead to
escalation of the nuclear arms race.
Reagan also wants to use the MX plan as a
bargaining chip in arms control talks with
the Soviets.
Under the administration's version of
arms control, Reagan hopes • to force the
Soviets into an arms control agreement by
holding the threat of the MX missile deploy
ment over their heads.
But building more missiles is not the way
to reach an accord in the arms race it is a'
way to escalate the already uncontrolled
nuclear arms race.'
There is little difference between the
latest MX plan and previous proposals
except that the latest plan places the mis
siles in fixed silos, making them more
vulnerable to destruction.
What Congress should do is separate the
MX production proposal from the devel
opment of the Midgetman missile.
The money wasted on the MX proposals
takes away froth real defense needs; more
useful military programs have to be de
ferred to accommodate the new missiles..
As for the MX missile proposal, the strate
gic arguments for it are still weak.
The MX fiascO has been around for a
decade. Congress should put an end to a $2O
billion plan for destruction once and for all.
nuclear weapons development in an attempt
"to improve national and international se
curity." •
About 65 percent of the voting student
body favored such a freeze. This University
support was forwarded to U.S. Sens. John
Heinz and Arlen Specter earlier this month.
And the nation-is in agreement.
According to a recent Time-Yankelovich
poll, President Reagan has lost the confi
dence of many Americans with his defense
budget. As he continues to fight to sustain
increases in military spending, Americans
continue to oppose increases 62 percent of
the voters polled said "substantial,cuts can
be made without jeopardizing national secu
rity."
Securing passage of the nuclear freeze
resolution will be a first, symbolic step
toward halting the arms race. And it's the
only step the step one country must take
first if our ultimate goal is to avoid
nuclear catastrophe.
If the U.S. government is truly to ,be the
voice of the people, Congress must heed the
messages concerning the nuclear freeze
referendum and act accordingly. It must
fight for the freeze.
reader opinion
REAL challenge
This is a letter from a shuttle-toting
(only quiche eaters call them birdies)
and supposedly non REAL man. It's
also an invitation to put your ego and
wallet where your obviously unen
lightened mouth is.
I challenge you to a duel. Racquets
at 10 paces a case of brew to the
winner. The proposed match will be
the best of three games to 15. I'll
GIVE you 12 in each. Or don't REAL
men accept charity? Just for fun and
editor-willing, we'll publish the re
sults right here for all your friends to
see.
Surely, a REAL man won't turn
down a chance to win a case of so
manly a drink or the opportunity to
put a lowly quiche eater in his rightful
place.
Besides, we badminton players try
our best to lose, right?
The name is Curt Henry. The num
ber is 865-0068. Bring a crying towel.
Curt A. Henry, 9th-aerospace engi
neering
April 18
Uncheerful
I can understand the cheerweeding
letter because my story directly re-
A friend convinced me to try out for
Penn State's cheerleaders. She was
good, but she got hurt and still didn't
make it. I on the other hand did and
am not too thrilled about it:
Sometimes I stop and wonder how
it happened. Could it have been my
great experience thought I have no
experience?
Maybe it was my adoring fans.
Then again, it could have been that
warm glow and extra color I gave
that made_me stand out among my
teammates.
I guess recruitment is needed ev
erywhere. Nevertheless, all the excit
ement of being a cheerleader doesn't
fascinate me at all; as a matter of
fact, I wouldn't care if I wasn't a
cheerleader at all.
But since I am, I guess I have to
deal With it.
I would, however, like everyone to
Tuesday, April 19,1983
Suzanne M. Cassidy
Editor
The Daily Collegian's editorial opinion is determined by
its Board of Opinion, with the editor holding final
responsibility. Opinions expressed on the editorial
pages are not necessarily those of The Daily Collegian,
Collegian Inc. or The Pennsylvania State University.
Collegian Inc., publishers of The Daily Collegian and
related publications, is a separate corporate institution
from Penn State.
Board of Editors Managing Editor: Lisa Hill; Editorial
/
/
/
•
,•
• ,
.i •
FAR OT
know spmething. I don't like to be
discriminated against for the so
called better or worse.
Caryn Holt, 3rd-engineering
April 14 •
Bad attitude
I would like to point out a few
fallacies and irrelevant points in Mr.
Sirakins's letter titled "Worse else
where."
The first irrelevent point is Mr.
Simkins's claim that the, African Na
tional Congress is "unabashedly
Marxist in sympathy and thought
process." My first response is, "so
what?"
Unfortunately, the reactionary atti
tude at Penn State is such that apart
heid is acceptable if the alternative is
Marxism. The truth is that any ma
jority rule government would result
in some form of socialism. This is not
difficult to understand given the bla
tant economic exploitation of blacks
by most whites in capitalist South
Africa.
The black man in South Africa is
nothing more than a labor resource.
In order to increase productivity he is
separated from his family, often
housed at the workplace (sounds like
the antebellum South) and paid sub
, sistance wages. All this is done ih the
name of increased profits. Why else
would multinationals, like Ford Mo
tor Co., be located in South Africa?
Capitalism and racism go hand in
hand in Soutth Africa so it is no
wonder blacks wish to eliminate both.
The "Marxist threat" can not be used
as an excuse to deny Africans social
economic justice.
A second fallacy is that Chief Bu
thewezi is the most influential black
in South Africa today. Unquestionab
ly the most influential leader of all
oppressed peoples in South Africa is
the imprisoned president of the ANC,
Nelson Mandela. If Mr. Simkins
doesn't believe so, I urge him to ask
any black South African.
Thirdly, Mr. Simkins would have us
believe that Chief Buthewezi's silence
about the ANC is a condemnation of
the organization. The truth is that any
dtaig Collegian
©1983 Collegian Inc
Judith Smith
Business Manager
The Daily Collegian
open support of the ANC by anyone,
black or 'white, is a crime punishable
by death. Silence about the ANC is not
a sign of condemnation; on the cont
rary, it is a sign of support.
By listing acts of persecution in
other areas of Africa while ignoring
persecution elsewhere in the world,
Mr. Simkins implies that under a
black government conditions would
be worse in South Africa. By doing
this he insults the African people and
tries to divert attention from the issue
of South African racism. Nothing
could be worse than apartheid, and
majority rule is the only alternative.
In closing I would like to defend the
ANC by pointing out that it is the only
political organization that condemns
racism and supports equal rights for
ALL South Africans.
Philip T. Vilardo, 6th-foreign service
April 13
Spirit booster
Kudos to Mike Felici for his fair,
yet tender, treatment of the Cleve
land Indians, a team I . have cheered
and suffered with for more than 20
years.
It is reassuring to know that the
Collegian will, if only occasionally,
turn its myopic eyes away from the
Pirates and Phillies (and Yankees, I
dare say) to bring news from some
other teams.
Being a graduate student, life tends
to get burdensome, even in spring
time. Still, when baseball comes
around, it's time for the Indians and
every win, meted out one at a time,
boosts my spirits (when you're a
Cleveland fan, every win is appre
ciated and savored, unlike jaded
Phils or Yankees fans).
P.S. Would you please move Kelly
Fracassa's column over to the comics
section, where it belongs? He may be
college-educated, but knowledge and
understanding do not appear to be his
forte.
Ira Beckerman, graduate-anthropol
ogy
April 14
Editor: Renae Hardoby; Assistant Editorial Editor: Marcy
Mermel; News Editors: Ron Crow, Rosa Eberly, David
Medzerian; Sports Editor: Ron Gardner; Associate Sports
Editor: Greg Loder; Assistant Sports Editors: Liz Kahn,
John Severance; Photo Editor: Eric C. Hegedus; Assis
tant Photo Editor: •Paul Chiland; Arts Editor: M. Lee
Schneider; Assistant Arts Editor: Ann Fisher; Campus
Editor, Dina DeFabo; Assistant • Campus Editor: Mary
Stephens; Town Editor: William Scott; Assistant Town
Editor: Rebecca Albert; Graphics Editor: Gary Feiss;
Copy Editors: Dana Buccilli, Mark Featherstone, Anne
Gallagher, Kathy Munn, John Schlander, Stella Tsai;
Weekly Collegian Managing Editor: Brian Bowers; Week
ly Collegian Assistant Managing Editor: Lori Musser.
Tuesday, April 19
emaior.4.364.talti4S6 .1911.0
What everybody should know about the MX
Average people including students
are usually being told . that the arms race is
too complicated for them to understand.
Certainly, President Reagan and his ex
perts would be happier if you'd just accept
what they say and forget about it. But you
don't have to do that.
While it is difficult to understand the
acronym-laced arguments of the "experts,"
to understand Reagan's recent decision on
MX missile basing you don't need to be an
"expert" you just need common sense.
"The right missile at the right time," is
what Reagan has called the MX missile. But
Congress refused to fund production of the
first five missiles on Dec. 19, 1982 because
they rejected Reagan's proposed "Dense
Pack" base for the missile.
Despite this setback, Reagan remains
determined to build the MX. On April 11 the
president's advisory commission recom
mended basing 100 MX missiles in existing
Minuteman silos in Wyoming and Nebraska.
In addition, they recommended that we
develop a new, mobile missile that would be
smaller than the MX, and carry a single
warhead. These plans will soon be presented
to Congress
Is this a good idea? If it is, the' proposal
should be logical and should not be contra
dictory. To reach a decision, we need to
review Reagan's handling of the MX missile
issue.
In his Nov. 22, 1982 speech on arms con
trol, Reagan said, "Some may question_
what modernizing our military has to do
with peace. Well, as I explained earlier, a
secure force keeps others from threatening
us and that keeps • the peace. The basing
mode is the key' , to making the MX missile a
"secure force!' secure from destruction
in a Soviet sneak attack or "first strike."
Theoretically, a secure force of American
nuclear weapons deters Soviet attack by
An Evening With
ARTHUR WASKOW
One of the prominent voices in
contemporary Judaism. Editor of Menorah, a
monthly journal of Jewish renewal
April 21,1983
7:30 pm
Eisenhower Chapel Frizzel Room
• Sponsored by
THE OFFICE OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS
and
B'NAI B'RITH HILLEL FOUNDATION
Tonight at the
f1ivA4.)34:91040.
• ~ olas .
( c. _.i..____eoti44....___ 7
p 4
The Targets
NO COVER!! *o
.
David Fox ...... e
....
Andy Jackman be
Roger Schultz , l'ox-:)sfe,
V'
Kenny Volz 0
Beat the 11 °A) on TSA
Tax Bite 11.4% oh IRA
with VALIC's fixed annuity
• Available as IRA or payroll deduction TSA for
PSU employees
• N 6 sales charge
• No current taxes on deposits or earnings
• Prinbipal and benefits guaranteed
• • Variable accounts also available (stock, bond
and money market funds)
For further information on the Fixed Account and
current prospectuses on the Variable Accounts
call:
John Wolanski ' T. Bryant Mesick
238-0143 or 237-0586
rY \
1)45‘
People with foresight read The Daily Collegian. But you already knew that, didn't you?
making it absolutely clear to Soviet leaders
that their nation cannot escape annihilation
even if they attack first.
The Reagan administration, however, has
demonstrated that it is not interested in
making the MX a "secure force.'? During
1981 and 1982, the administration presented
three plans for basing MX missiles in exist
ing Minuteman silos.
These are the same silos Defense Secre
tary Caspar Weinberger has told Congress
and the public could be destroyed in a Soviet
first strike. But Congress insisted that the
MX be a "secure force" and refused to fund
these schemes. So, in December 1982 Rea
gan submitted the "Dense Pack" plan,
which he claimed would make the MX a
"secure force."
But if Reagan were truly interested in
making the MX secure, why didn't he pro
pose "Dense Pack" in the first place? Why
did he ever propose basing the MX in
existing silos that he also tells us are vulner
able? Perhaps the reason was best summa
rized by Richard DeLauer, the Under
Secretary of Defense for Research .and
Engineering:
"We wanted to build the MX that was a
given," he said. "There was no survivable
basing scheme we could count on right now
and so what we said was we'll put 'em in
existing holes (silos)."
In his Dec. 11 radio address, Reagan said,
"the basing mode is not an issue . . . what
we need now is a clear positive vote on the
missile itself . ." It would seem the "mis
sile itself" is the issue, not the basing mode.
The MX missile itself carries 10 highly
accurate and very powerful nuclear war
heads. They are so accurate that one
launched from the other side of the world
would have a good chance of landing inside
Beaver Stadium.
Just as easily, the same warheads could
land on Soviet missile silos or command
centers. This ability makes
,the MX one of
the "nuclear war-fighting" weapons that
the Reagan people believe the United States
must have. This ability also makes the MX a
first strike weapon, which is a weapon that
could be used first against Soviet missiles in
their silos.
According to Air Force Chief of Staff
General Lew Allen, this "would be devastat
ing to them. They would have to consider a
U.S. first strike whether we think we would
do that or not."
They certainly would because 74 percent
of their warheads are carried by missiles
protected in land-based silos. These silos
are vulnerable because they are at a fixed
location on land and, using satellites, we
know exactly where they are.
During a crisis, Soviet leaders might
conclude that launching these missiles was
the only way to keep their warheads from
being destroyed by the MX. Far from reduc
ing Soviet incentive to strike first, the MX
would be the best reason they've ever had
for striking first
Indeed, if the MX were only intended to be
used in retaliation, then Reagan should
never have proposed basing it in existing
Minuteman silos the same silos his De
fense Secretary says are vulnerable to a
CAIJI PUt
100/44
atitivtot
ctiocV
T(1 1 4 's
Soviet first strike
In contrast, the United States does not
face a similar threat from the Soviet SS-18
missile because only 31 percent of our war
heads are carried by land-based missiles
based in fixed silos. The bulk of our war
heads are carried on invulnerable subma
rines at sea and on airborne bombers. The
vulnerability of our land-based Minuteman
missile silos is a problem, but putting the
MX in those vulnerable silos is not a solu
tion.
Even without a crisis, the threat posed by
UNIVERSITY CALENDAR
Tuesday, April 19
Sports: women's lacrosse vs. Lock Haven, 3 p.m.
Gamma Sigma Sigma meeting, 6 p.m., Room 322 HUB.
P.S. Singers meeting, 7 p.m., Room 111 Chambers.
P.S. Water Ski Club meeting, 7 p.m., Room 169 Willard.
Circle K meeting, 7 p.m., Rooms 323-324 HUB. ,
P.S. Science Fiction Society meeting, 7 p.m., Room 317 Boucke:
Sigma lota Epsilon meeting, 7 p.m., Room 319 Boucke.
PSOC Mountaineering Div. meeting, 7 p.m., Room 109 Boucke.
College Democrats meeting, 7:30 p.m., Room 318 Willard.
College Republicans meeting, 7:30 p.m., Room 106 Boucke.
Youth for Energy Independence meeting, 7:30 p.m., Room 314 Boucke.
Lion Ambassadors Burrowes Committee meeting, 7:30 p.m., Room 204
Boucke.
APR•c lasseslL 24 start
for the
June 4 SAT
'4IIIP.A.T.
• Parents' Orir tation
Night, April 21 PREP COURSE
Ask about SCONE MORE'S
comprehensive program, outstanding
faculty, small classes, quality facilities
all backed by a WRITTEN
GUARANTEE!!!
0 ,0' 44
s o
•
CALL TODAY
`NimmomosimMite -
SCORE MORE'S
the MX might force the Soviets to adopt the
dangerous policy of launch-on-warning. Un
der such a policy, the Soviets would launch
their missiles when their computers decided
that the United States had launched a first
strike. In effect, we would be gambling the
fate of the United States on the reliability of
Soviet computers.
But Reagan argues that we need the MX
not for a first strike, but to close the "win
dow of vulnerability." Through this "win
dow," Defense Secretary Weinberger tells
us that a Soviet first strike, using only a
limited number of their missiles, could
destroy over. 90 percent of the 1,000 land
based Minuteman missiles.
However, the new Reagan plan for putting
the new missile in the old silo will not close
this "window." Reagan wants to put the MX
in the old silos because that is the fastest
way to get them deployed. He thinks we
need them•to maintain our policy of nuclear
first use.
This policy holds that to deter. the Soviets
we must be able to threaten to use nuclear
weapons first in a local or regional conflict.
For this threat to be credible, the theory
continues, we must have the ability to de
stroy Soviet nuclear weapons at interconti
nental range if need be. Hence the
attractiveness of the MX.
The growing Soviet nuclear strength wor
ries Reagan because it raises the nuclear
CALL collect
for a BROCHURE
STATE COLLEGE
.237-0812
dVAftrwlN mar. no,,w,uw
PRAYER IS EFFECTIVE
IN OUR ECONOMY
A Christian Science lecture - 6y
Edwin G. Leever
4 p.m. Wednesday, April 20
HUB Gallery Lounge
Sponsored by Christian Science Org.
The Daily Collegian Tuesday, April 19, 198--7
threshold thus making it harder for the
United States to use nuclear weapons first
without suffeting SOviet retaliation. Finally,
the theory predicts that the higher nuclear
threshold will allow the SoViets to be more
"adventurous."
Proponents of this policy are quick to.
overlook •the fact that in 1961, a vastly
inferior Soviet Union tried to put nuclear
missiles in Cuba an adventure that
brought the world close to the brink. Nor do
these proponents explain exactly how an
MX missile will help us get the Soviets out of
Afghanistan or Eastern Europe.
Rather than a world where nuclear weap
ons are less likely to be used, Reagan wants
to give us a world where the use of nuclear
weapons is very likely.
The MX is supposed to add to our deter
rent by, being able to survive a Soviet first
strike, thus preventing them from even
considering such an attack. But as we have
seen; the administration is not really inter
ested in making the MX a "secure force."
Moreover, by threatening the bulk of the
Soviet deterrent, the MX increases exactly
what it is supposed to decrease: threat of a
Soviet first strike.
Therefore, the MX should not be built
because it cannot contribute to the strong
nuclear deterrent President Reagan wants
to build. The MX could weaken deterrence if
the Soviets adopt a policy of launch-on
warning. This would increase the possibility
of an accidental nuclear war by entrusting
the decision to launch Soviet missiles to a
computer
Though dangerous, the Soviets might
adopt the policy because it would be the
cheapest way to counter the MX (as opposed
to building a mobile missile) and also most
worrisome to the United States. Such a
' policy, spurred by the deployment of the MX
missile, would gamble the secruity of the
United States on the reliability of Soviet
computers.
We are like two people who hate each
other sitting at either end of a rowboat in the
middle of the ocean. Rocking the boat to try
to throw the other overboard is the best way
to capsize. But we can't afford to capsize,
because we only have one boat.
John Dougherty is a 14th-term geoscience
major and a columnist for The Daily Colle
gian.