Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (April 23, 1982)
Page 4 Daily Nebraskan Friday, April 23,1982 ymJt w r . 5L I AY .WW A Fear transforms into protest Several soldiers run through a city park, away from the center of the blast. When the bomb detonated, they were close enough to that center to lose their sight. Their melt ed eyeballs run down their faces and onto their uniforms. Images like tliis one from John 1 Jersey's Hiroshima have haunted Americans for almost 40 years. This year, those images have moved many Americans to action. According to Newsweek magazine, nuclear-freeze re solutions have been approved by 33 city councils, 10 county councils and legislative bodies in 1 1 states. This week protests across the country may involve as many as 10 million to 20 million people in 650 communities and on 350 college campuses, according to Ground Zero, the non-partisan group that has organized the effort. Obviously, a good number of Americans are worried that nuclear war is a real possibility, not just a rhetorical device to use against the Soviet Union. Many believe it is no longer an issue to leave to the decision-makers, and rightly so. Ronald Reagan told reporters Tuesday that protestors must remember he is the only American with "all the facts necessary to base a decision" on the armament issue. "Therefore, I would ask their trust and confidence, that feeling as sincerely as I do, that . . . they would allow us to take the actions we think are necessary to lessen this threat," he continued. In other words, Reagan is asking for blind faith. But remember, this is the man who has taken money from the poor, cut aid to education, proposed substantial increases in the defense budget and made numerous erroneous statements at presk conferences. And he's asking for our trust on an issue as far-reaching and possibly devastating as nuclear armament. If ever there was an issue Americans should be involved in, it's this one. Congressmen and senators arc involved, and their plans vary. Chief among them is a nuclear freeze proposal spon sored by Sens. Fdward Kennedy , (D-Mass.) and Mark Hat field, (R-Ore.). Also drawing support is a proposal by Sens. Henry Jackson, (D-Wash.) and John Warner, (R Va.), to increase U.S. nuclear forces and then negotiate balanced reductions with the Russians. Rep. Morris Udall, (d-Ariz.), has suggested an exchange of U.S. and Soviet students to safeguard against sneak at tacks. These students would include the children of gov ernment leaders on both sides. In a Newsweek poll conducted in mid-March, 51 per cent saw their chances of surviving a limited nuclear war with the Soviet Union as being "poor"; 38 percent belie ved their chances would be "just 50-50." Only 9 percent thought their chances would be "good." People seem to be running scared, but instead of just running, many are beginning to channel their energy into protest. On these two pages, syndicated columnists William Rusher and Richard Cohen examine the anti-nuclear movement. Mark Dahmke, a former UNL student and a computer consultant, discusses an alternate plan for defense. Read their comments and suggestions. Examine the issue. Your involvement could make the difference bet ween peace and holocaust. Shields ideal model, not swords Editor's note: Mark Dahmke, author of the following opinion, is a member of the Citizen's Advisory Council on National Space Policy, a group formed to advise the president. A former UNL student and a computer consultant, he is also a consult ing editor for BYTE and Popular Comput ing magazines. Mutually Assured Destruction, appro priately referred to as MAD, has been the dominant strategy of the superpowers for more than 20 years. That means in the event of an attack launched from either the United States or the Soviet Union, the re sult would be the all-out destruction of both societies. That is, our response to an attack would be to commit suicide. Considering the human element and the fallibility of our machines, I am amazed that we have survived this long. To any dis passionate onlooker, the solution to the sit uation would be to install defensive wea pons and to assure survival, rather than as suring destruction. Recently, I attended a Space Develop ment Conference sponsored by the L-5 Society, a national organization to pro mote space development. There, I met re tired Lt. General Daniel Graham, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agen cy. He started Project High Frontier with private funds, in an attempt to find "a technological end-run" around the growing Soviet missile threat. His plan calls for a layered defense, involving a few short-term, ones. The first layer is a system of non-nuclear anti-missile defenses around our missile silos, costing about SI billion. This would take about two or three years to complete and would make a first strike more diffi cult for the Soviets. The next layer would consist of 432 or biting satellites. Each satellite would carry a number of non-nuclear heat-seeking pro jectiles that together could destroy 95 per cent of all ballistic missiles launched in the event of an attack. The ring of satellites would cost about S10 billion to S15 bil lion (consider the SI 00 billion cost of the MX missile plan), would use current tech nology and could realistically be in place by 1989. The placement and maintenance of the satellites is made feasible by using the space shuttle. This system is not an instant cure. It will not solve the theater nuclear weapons problem in Europe. However, it does re duce the chance of an all-out first strike, and it costs only a fraction of what more missiles will cost. The real advantage is that we would be shifting to a defensive "survi val" strategy. Unfortunately, the system does make a pre-emptive strike more likely during the time it would take to install it. If the So viets believed we would soon have a defen sive system, they might decide to launch an attack while they still had the opportunity. We would therefore have to invite the Sovi ets to build a similar defensive system. We ino- might even offer them some of the teel logy required to build it. Jn the long run. such defensive systems could mean the end of nuclear prolifera tion and the dismantling of an offensive weapons system that we hope never to use anyway. Considering the cost of the new systems, it starts to look very cost effec tive. According to the 175-page report from Project High Frontier (which is currently being studied and considered by the White House and members of Congress), the lay ered system could close the window of vul nerability, shift us away from MAD and help to open up space development for pri vate industry. Amazingly, the Pentagon is not space happy. It doesn't have plans to put nuclear weapons in orbit. In fact, we may have to drag the Pentagon into the space age. I agree with Michael Getler of the Wash ington Post when he wrote that Project High Frontier "would take advantage of a U.S. edge in space technology, use equip ment already in development, not require new American nuclear weapons, and is not based on attacking missile silos in the Sovi et Union." It should be noted that this system is not based on killing large numbers of Rus sians. At the conference, science writer Jer ry Pornelle, said: "The best world model I can envision is one where everyone has a shield and no one has a sword." Project High Frontier can give us that shield. Nebraskan Editorials do not necessarily express the opinions of the Daily Nebraskan's publishers, the NU Board of Regents, the University of Nebraska and its employees or the student body. USPS 144-080 Editor: Martha Murdock; Managing editor: Janice Pigaga; News editor: Kathy Stokebrand; Associate news editors: Patti Gallagher, Bob Glissmann; Editorial assistant: Pat Clark; Night news editor: Kate Kopischke; Assistant night news editor: Tom Hassing; Entertainment editor: Bob Crisler; Sports editor: Larry Sparks; Assist ant sports editor: Cindy Gardner; Art director: Dave Luebke; Photography chief: D. Eric Kirch er; Graphic designer: John G. Goecke. Copy editors: Mary Ellen Behne, Leslie Kendrick, Sue MacDonald, Melinda Norris, Patty Pryor, Peggy Reichardt, Lori Siewert, Michiela Thuman, Tricia Waters. Rob Wilborn. Business manager: Anne Shank-Volk; Pro duction manager: Kitty Policky; Advertising manager: Art K. Small; Assistant advertising manager: Jerry Scott. Publications Board chairperson: Margy Mc Cleery, 472-2454. Professional adviser: Don Walton, 473-7301. The Daily Nebraskan is published by the UNL Publications Board Monday through Friday during the fall and spring semesters, except during vacation. Address: Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb., 68588. Telephone: 472-2588. All material in the Daily Nebraskan is covered by copyright. Second class postage paid at Lincoln, Neb., 68510. Annual subscription: $20, semester subscrip tion St 1 . "POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Daily Nebraskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R St., Lincoln, Neb , 68588."