2. 32
Page 2
University Daily Kansan Monday. November 6. 1961
U.S. Nuclear Testing
President Kennedy announced recently that the United States will resume nuclear testing in the atmosphere if it is found to be necessary for maintaining strong national defenses and preserving the superiority of U.S. nuclear weapons over those of the Soviet Union.
U. S. officials have said that if atmospheric tests are resumed, the much discussed neutron bomb, an anti-missile missile and improved types of nuclear warheads would probably be among the weapons tested. President Kennedy emphasized that radioactive fallout from any new U.S. testing would be held to an absolute minimum.
THE RESUMPTION OF NUCLEAR TESTING by the United States is probably unavoidable. Despite the dangers of radioactive fallout, the effective defense of the NATO countries in particular and the West in general depends on the continued superiority of U.S. nuclear weapons.
If we examine the balance of military power between the Communist bloc and the West, it quickly becomes clear that the advantage is with the Communists in the area of conventional forces. The standing army of the Soviet Union is larger than the combined armies of the NATO countries. It also has at its disposal the conventional armies of its satellites, although they are probably not reliable in view of the example the Hungarian Revolt furnished, when the Hungarian Army fought for the rebels. But Red China maintains a large standing army which is probably loyal to the Communist rulers of that country.
THE RESUMPTION OF NUCLEAR TEST-
THESE HUGE CONVENTIONAL FORCES of the Communist bloc have access to Europe and Asia by land. In a conventional war they would overrun all of Western Europe and much of the Middle East and Asia.
It would be possible for the Western nations to create large conventional forces, but this would involve great expense and the disruption of many people's lives and would undoubtedly meet with public opposition. And unless the nations of Western Europe supplied the bulk of any enlarged conventional forces, the United States would have to shoulder the burden. This would place the United States at a great disadvantage in trying to maintain large conventional armies at extended distances from its own territory.
It is unfortunate that the Soviet Union chose to break the test moratorium. But judging from the number of tests—over 30—and the length of time needed to prepare for such a series of tests, it is obvious that the Kremlin had long meant to break the moratorium, even while it was loudly supporting it. Viewed from a realistic standpoint, the Soviet action has really left the United States no choice. Tests to develop its own nuclear arsenal further became necessary and will undoubtedly take place.
TO COUNTER THIS IMBALANCE OF CONVENTIONAL forces, the West has relied heavily on nuclear weapons. It is for this reason that the U.S. lead in the development of nuclear weapons must be maintained. It is definitely necessary in view of the unilateral resumption of nuclear testing by the Soviet Union. The U.S. tests, as has been pointed out, are necessary for the development of new and improved types of defensive and offensive nuclear weapons. The West cannot afford to allow the Soviet Union to gain a superiority in nuclear armament. And the tests the Soviet Union has been conducting have contained, aside from the massive and pointless terror bombs, many other tests that probably resulted in a considerable improvement in its nuclear arsenal.
—William H. Mullins
Lord Home on the Congo
The House will remember why the United Nations went into the Congo. They went in because it was necessary to forestall external intervention, which was designed according to the Communist pattern to bring the Congo right into the cold war. And it was according to the Communist pattern for this reason: that the Russians took immediate advantage of a condition of civil war to try to establish a Communist presence in that country. If the United Nations had not gone in, the alternatives were either a Korea situation or an open door to the Communists.
THE FIRST OBJECTIVE, to prevent a clash between the big powers in the Congo and the cold war from being imported into the country, was successful. The second objective, to bring the civil war to an end, so that the Congo leaders might settle their own affairs without distraction, was only partly successful — but, of course, it was a much more difficult task. Because private armies were milling around the Congo and making the chances of a constitutional settlement almost impossible, we agreed, on February 21, that in the last resort force might be used by the United Nations to preserve order
WE THOUGHT THAT that was wrong, for these reasons, and I have thought nout them a great deal. Whatever the merits of the United Nations in its present state of organization, it would greatly exceed its strength if it tried to do anything of that kind; and, if it did get involved and opened itself to the accusation that it was interfering in internal politics, it would excite passions in Africa which would get completely out of control. This was particularly true of the Congo. Lastly, it was true that the role of the United Nations in the Congo was to help to keep order; but its first and most important role of all was to reconcile interests and there-
I cannot say that at the time I was happy about voting for that resolution, but we did it because we believed that the authority of the United Nations must be sustained. That was the over-riding interest. But we made a public reservation, through our permanent representative at the United Nations, which said that while it was proper to use force in the last resort to prevent the spread of civil war, we could not support the use of that force by the United Nations to impose a particular political pattern on the Congo.
posing political solutions by force. I do not deny that this was an extremely difficult resolution for Mr. Hammarskjold to interpret, but so certain was I that the advice which we were giving was right—from my own knowledge of Africans I know that you cannot hurry them in their constitutional developments — that I repeated this advice to the Secretary General at regular intervals between February and August of this year.
IN MY OPINION, mistakes were made: mistakes in interpretation of the resolutions and mistakes in their applications on the ground; but I hope that the lessons have been learned. The main lesson is not that the United Nations should leave the Congo or that the United Nations should leave Katanga, but that the United Nations should apply all its talents, and they are very great, to helping a reconciliation between Mr. Tshombe and Mr. Aduola.
fore not to get involved in imposing political solutions by force.
Let me make clear the United Kingdom's objectives beyond doubt, because I do not want any ambiguity about this whatsoever. We want to see a unified Congo and we have worked hard all the time and have supported the United Nations in that objective. We have never seen a future for an independent Katanga and we see no future for it now.
Daily Hansan
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephone VIking 3-2700
Extension 711, news room
Extension 376, business office
Member Inland Daily Press Association. Associated Collegiate Press.
Represented by National Advertising Service, 18 East 50 St., New York 22,
N.Y. News service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates:
$3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon
during the University year except Saturdays and Sundays. University
holidays and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence,
Kansas.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Managing Editor
Tom Turner ... Managing Editor
Linda Swander. Fred Zimmerman, Assistant Managing Editors; Kelly Smith, City Editor; Bill Sheldon, Sports Editor; Barbara Howell, Society Editor.
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Ron Gallagher ... Editorial Editor
ALL OUR INFLUENCE, therefore, has been and will be exerted to help the Congolese to work out their own constitutional future and arrive at a united federal constitution or whatever their own decision may be, and to help the United Nations to help them to do so. Now, the thing that is necessary is to assist Leopoldville and Elisabethville to get together. This is no time for pride or prejudice, and I sincerely trust that after all the treasure and blood that has been expended Mr. Adoula and Mr. Tshombe will agree to meet and settle their troubles in their own way.
(From a speech by the Earl of Home. British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, before the House of Lords on Oct. 17.)
"AT LEAST HE'S TRYIN' TO HOLD OUR INTEREST."
Is Peace Inevitable?
By Art Buchwald
People who have been upset over the way things have been going in the world lately will be happy to know there is now an organization concerned with peace and its consequences. It's called "Ban the Peace," and its major appeal is to people who would like to go to war immediately and "get it over with."
WE HAD THE good fortune to talk to the Secretary of B.T.P. and he told us there was more interest in his organization than ever before. "After all the hysterical peace mongering in the United Nations for the past fifteen years" he said "people are starting to come around to our point of view that peace is not the answer to the problems facing the world and some other solution will have to be found. For years we worked alone, just a few dedicated souls stoking the fires of world conflagration while every one else sat around talking, talking, talking. But now we're receiving support from every corner of the globe and people are finally becoming frightened of all-out peace."
"But what exactly does your organization do?" we asked the secretary.
PICKING UP A hand grenade and tossing it up and down, he replied, "Our organization works on the theory that people basically hate each other and their leaders are standing in the way of a universal war. We try to point out provocations which will lay the groundwork for hostilities. For a short time people were deaf to provocations and wouldn't recognize one if it was thrown in their faces. But things are changing fast. Now people are willing to be provoked on any issue. One of our biggest successes was in Cuba, and now the Tunisian crisis shows what you can do with the slightest of provocations. This came as a bonus to us as we were concentrating all our efforts on Berlin, and we never counted on the French losing their sangfroid in North Africa.
"Our organization tries to find intolerable situations such as Kasmir, South Tyrol, and the Congo, and we help people to work our warlike solutions to problems that otherwise might be solved by peaceful means. We promote nationalism and encourage people to pay more attention to race, creed, and color. We favor rearmament conferences and military aid to underdeveloped countries."
"WE HAVE A PACKAGE plan for 'Atoms for War,' and we are anxious to get nuclear tests started again. We also have a missile-to-missile program which, when put into effect, will discourage room for negotiation. We believe in getting people into a corner and forcing them to fight their way out."
"This must be a very expensive thing."
"Yes," the secretary said, "but it's not half as expensive as what peace costs. Do you know that people still spend more money on peace than they do preparing for war?"
"It's hard to believe," we said.
"WELL, IT'S TRUE," he said, jabbing a bayonet into his desk. "Look at all these international exchanges, trade fairs, and good will tours. Just think what you could do with that money if there wasn't a peace? Do you know you could build ten hydrogen bombs for what it costs to build ten universities in Africa? Do you realize you could have constructed an aircraft carrier for the same amount of money thrown away on the Olympics last summer? When I think of all the money wasted on technical aid to underdeveloped countries that could have been invested in jet fighters, where it would have done the most good, my blood boils.
"But I shouldn't complain," the secretary said, lighting his cigar with a flame-thrower. "People are finally starting to come around to our way of thinking.
"We thought 1956 with Hungary and Suez was the greatest year for 'Ban the Peace,' but 1961 is shaping up even better. People everywhere are finally getting tired of being pushed around."
(—New York Herald Tribune, August 8)