Opinion
Jana Pedersen, Editor, 472-1766
Eric Pfanner, Editorial Page Editor
Diane Brayton, Managing Editor
Walter Gholson, Columnist
Paul Domeier, Copy Desk Chief
Brian Shellito, Cartoonist
Jeremy Fitzpatrick, Senior Reporter
Ozone alarm
Humans must solve man-made problem
The United Nations issued alarming news this week about
depletion of the ozone layer. A group of U.N. scientists
said the earth’s atmospheric protective level could drop
by 3 percent within the next decade.
Even more dire was a finding that the ozone layer is being
depleted all along the northern and southern hemispheres in the
spring and summer. Previously, most scientists had thought the
depletion was more limited.
Ozone depletion is particularly dangerous in the months
when throngs of people strive to achieve that savage tan. The
scientists said the expected depletion over the next 10 years
could cause a 10 percent increase in the number of skin cancer
In addition,
the summertime
ozone drain
could cause
increased
damage to
crops from
ultraviolet light,
thereby reduc
ing yields, said
Robert Watson,
co-chairman of
the U.N. group.
The report
shows that
efforts to
protect the
fragile layer
that filters some
of the sun’s
damaging rays
have not been
enough.
Ozone deple
( tion is caused
primarily by
chlorofluorocar
Lisa Pytlik/DN D°ns, Or CFCS,
which arc used
in cooling devices and in the production of foam plastics.
Tuesday’s report underscores the need for further reductions —
both mandated and voluntary — in the use of CFCs.
DuPont, the world’s largest producer of CFCs, said it would
do just that, announcing a planned phase-out of CFCs and
substitute chemicals that are less destructive but still damage
the ozone layer, The Washington Post reported.
Watson said the U.N. scientists believe that “human actions”
are the reason for the ozone loss. If so, human actions must
also be used to find and enact solutions to the problem.
—E.FJ».
Greek, Latin add quality,
not costs, to university •
There must be some word said
regarding Paul Domeier’s column
(“Students ignoring budget buzz,” DN,
Oct. 24, 1991) regarding the propri
ety of culling the Department of Clas
sics being, perhaps, similar to the
removal of alchemy or astrology.
True, should Greek and Latin be
self-centered programs that only look
upon themselves and possess no in
trinsic worth, I would wholeheart
edly support the proposed budget cuts.
Yet such is not the ease of Greek
and Latin. For, without Greek and
Latin, serious study of ancient his
tory, medieval history and literature,
philosophy is frankly impossible. A
university without Greek and Latin
cannot, in any sense of the word, be
called a university. For without seri
ous study of these fields (thanks to the
support of Greek and Latin), we would
be only a community college — a
very expensive community college.
But, apart from lofty goals, the
destruction of the Department of
Classics would not save money — it
would cost money. To the tune of
$650,000 a year. For the students
taught by the Department of Classics
must be taught these courses else
where. Every other department in the
College of Arts and Sciences costs
more per credit hour to leach the
same number of students than does
the Department of Classics. There
fore, this cut will not shore up the
university’ financial house, but will
author a self-created financial crisis
that will result in cither the pumping
in of millions of dollars to the univer
sity, or the cutting of yet more depart
ments.
Finally, some word must be said
regarding Domcier’s statement that
this cut will not affect him. 1 beg to
differ. For the name of this university
is going to be upon every diploma.
With the removal of classics, the
watering down of the curriculum, and
the subsequent removal of accredita
tion from this university, a UNL degree
would be comparable, in the eyes of
future employers, to a degree from
Chadron State College. You might
must as well have saved the money
and the time.
Bruce Gregg
graduate teaching assistant
Department of Classics
-LETTER POLICY
The Daily Nebraskan welcomes
brief letters to the editor from all
readers.
Letters will be selected for publi
cation on the basis of clarity, origi
nality, timeliness and space avail
able. The Daily Nebraskan retains
the right to edit all material submit
ted.
Submit material to the Daily Ne
braskan, 34 Nebraska Union, 1400 R
St., Lincoln, Neb. 68588-0448.
AS VJE ARE FALEt> “WESE ...
ECOiOVWC T\ME£ ... VslE ARE COKfcRMEO
Vs/to' PERSER^VU "tV\' WER\CW V«/^
O' UFE W^-mESE ... ^EU_...EET<i
^ ^ vvPEOPLE O' QUESTlOWAvBtE
vJORK EflWCS."
r BWT l HMWK CKM USB
v^*T~T
" V'W ''"-- i-ZZSr&Zzd
CHRIS POTTER
New nuclear threats brewing
After four decades of pathologi
cal nuclear brinksmanship, the
world rests easier. The two
principal nuclear powers no longer
menace each other and the world with
these awful weapons.
New York Timcs/CBS News polls
reveal that the American fear of nu
clear war has declined dramatically
over the last five years. In 1985, nearly
20 percent of those polled considered
it to be the most important problem
facing the country. Well under 3 per
cent do today.
But the collective sigh of nuclear
relief is premature. People errone
ously believe that nuclear war would
come only as a violent conclusion to
the Cold War. That assumption is
patently wrong and extremely dan
gerous.
The threat of deliberate and pro
tracted war between the United States
and the Soviet Union is today much
diminished. U.S. presidents no longer
deem the Soviet Union an “evil
empire,” and Soviet premiers have
stopped their shoe-tapping denuncia
tions of the Un ited S tales at the United
Nations. Beyond the end of such rheto
ric, both sides have taken more con
crete measures
The number of strategic warheads
on both sides will be reduced dra
matically under the Strategic Arms
Reduction Talks. President Bush’s bold
proposal to scrap unilaterally nearly
all tactical warheads and stand down
from nuclear alert is likely to be met
with a similar commitment from
President Gorbachev.
But while neither country poses a
serious deliberate threat, both pose a
serious threat of accidental nuclear
exchange.
The movie “War Games” struck a
nerve with the American public when
it depicted this eventuality. In the
movie, a computer assumed control
of the nuclear control structure and
convinced military officials that the
Soviets had launched a salvo of mis
siles aimed at the United Slates.
Military officials discount the
scenario.
Bruce Blair, a senior fellow at the
Brookings Institution, and Henry
Kendall, a physicist and chairman of
the Union of Concerned Scientists,
do not.
In a “Scientific American” article
last year, they claimed that in 1980 “a
computer chip generated indications
Contemporary nu
clear powers view the
Persian Guff War as
g redemption of con
ventional weaponry.
Against a non-nu
clear Quanta. <uL
ranced conventional
arms, mie. fully suffi
cient. But other
countries view the
war as a redemption
of the nuclear option.
of a massive Soviet attack ... in the
ensuing confusion, a nuclear alert was
declared.”
In another scenario, the nuclear
exchange is deliberate but unauthor
ized. An overzealous military offi
cial, for example, might initiate a first
strike unauthorized by the legitimate
political authority.
Blair and Kendall also lend cre
dence to this “Dr. Strangclove” sce
nario: “Numerous military installa
tions possess all the codes needed to
authorize launch.”
As nuclear technology becomes
widely available outside the United
Stales and Soviet Union, more na
tions will join the nuclear club. Third
World countries need only send their
brightest students to physics and
chemistry departments in the West to
obtain the knowledge necessary to
build fission and fusion weapons.
Even now many countries in the
Third World probably have fully
advanced nuclear programs. Iraq is
not an isolated case.
A research analyst for the Wiscon
sin Project on Nuclear Arms Control
told The Associated Press last week
that the list of these countries is quite
long: North Korea, South Africa,
Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan, India,
Libya, Taiwan, South Korea, Alge
ria, Israel and Iran. The list will grow.
The incentive for these countries
to develop their own stockpile is
obvious. A superpower nuclear mo
nopoly has long been seen by the
Third World as a tool for exerting
control over other nations. An inde- i
pendent capability would render that
tool less effective.
Contemporary nuclear powers view
the Persian Gulf War as a redemption
of conventional weaponry. Against a
non-nuclear country, advanced con
ventional arms were fully sufficient.
But other countries view the war as a
redemption of the nuclear option.
Iraq’s example suggests to these
nations that they should keep their
research programs secret, not that they
should abandon them. The United
Stales would not have been so eager
to counter the invasion of Kuwait if
Iraq had been a genuine nuclear power.
As frightening as the likelihood of
a country such as Libya having nu
clear weapons capability is, a far more
frightening likelihood presents itself.
Many of the countries listed above as
having advanced nuclear programs
also have strong ties to terrorist or
ganizations.
Terrorists do not need to build
sophisticated intercontinental rock
ets to deliver nuclear warheads. A
zealot with a briefcase will do.
Now more than ever, the world
must address the proliferation of
nuclear arms. The United Slates should
take the lead in spreading the taboo
against the use of these weapons. It
should take concrete measures to
dismantle nuclear arsenals worldwide.
Beyond this, the United States
should strive to eliminate the root
cause of any deliberate nuclear ex
change. This means a sincere dedica
tion to the peaceful resolution of in
ternational disputes.
Despite global changes in the last
few years, humanity still has the power
to eradicate itself. If we are to realize
our full potential as a species, we
must make an explicit moral renun
ciation of the capability.
The lessons learned by the United
States and the Soviet Union during
the arms race should not be lost on the
rest of the world.
Potter is a senior physics, philosophy, his
tory and math major and a Daily Nebraskan
columnist.
