Page 2
University Daily Kansas Wednesday, October 18, 1961
The Peace Corps Snafu
A postcard written by an American Peace Corps member stationed in Nigeria for final training before assuming her duties there created quite an uproar a few days ago. The postcard described the "primitive living conditions" in Nigeria. It somehow strayed and ended up being reproduced and distributed by a group of Nigerian students. The result was student demonstrations and an offer by the Peace Corps member to resign.
THAT POSTCARD CAN CERTAINLY be called inconsiderate and rash. It hit a very sensitive nerve in the Nigerian students and they were irritated and resentful.
But the postcard contained statements that were accurate from the Peace Corps member's point of view. To an American the living conditions in the new African republics are primitive. And it is highly doubtful that the postcard was written with a desire to insult Nigeria or its inhabitants.
On a long term basis the incident was a minor one. Nevertheless, because of the sensitive nationalists in the areas where the Peace Corps will be operating, great care should be exercised
by U.S. officials to be sure this type of incident is not repeated.
THE NIGERIAN DEMONSTRATORS, however, showed as little discretion in the matter as the Peace Corps member did. To call the Peace Corps members "agents of imperialism" is only evidence of an irrational attitude. The Peace Corps is in Nigeria to help that country improve those "primitive living conditions" that the Peace Corps member commented on in her postcard. And that postcard is a poor basis for such name calling. Nigerian officials' decision to discipline the students who circulated copies of the postcard was therefore entirely justified. If they considered the postcard derogatory to Nigeria, it should have been turned over to Nigerian or American officials, not used as an excuse for a demonstration.
THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT and several Nigerian newspapers took the logical and responsible action needed in this situation when they pointed out that the postcard represented the action of one person and should not be allowed to jeopardize U.S.-Nigerian relations or the remaining Peace Corps members.
—William H. Mullins
Republic or Democracy
In these days of Johnny Birchers, superpatriots by other names, world crises and the confusion over the Peace Corps in Nigeria, individuals in America are evading national and international issues and debating whether we are governed by a democracy or a republic.
And many men-on-the-street are taken in with the idea of controversy over our government and begin screaming about the terms without any knowledge of them.
A DEMOCRACY IS GOVERNMENT by majority vote, it is the rule of men, by tradition or precedent. A republic is rule subject to laws, tradition and precedent, changed by due process, some groups tell us.
THOSE WHO ADVOCATE the republic say forces have been at work for decades to speed up a degeneration of the republic, to change the
We are also told the constitution guarantees a republican form of government, but does not mention a democracy at all. We are informed of Madison's Federalist Paper No.10, which shows the disadvantages of a democracy, we are told about many other facts, dating back to Greek city states.
economic and political structure of the United States so it can be comfortably merged with Russia.
Who are the "tremendous forces?" What have they been doing to change our economic and political structure?
If there is this force, the accusers should name those individuals involved, those organizations, state facts and figures, prove what is said or what has happened in the past.
The man-in-the-street is often uninformed, but he is not ignorant. He expects facts. He does not want to be confused by glowing generalities and political euphemisms.
THIS IS NOT MEANT to say one side or another has the better case. It is not meant that one side or another is wrong or right.
It is merely meant to say that both sides are glossing over their arguments, spending too much time on an issue that may not be as important as the preachers state it is.
But if it is so important, let us be told facts, the truth on both sides, the hard, cold facts, if you will.
Carrie Merryfield
LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler
"THREE TIMES NOW YOUVEE SEEN TH' ACTIVITIES OF TH' CHEER LEADERS — NOW, NEXT GAME KEEP YOUR EYES ON TH' DALL!"
Editor's note: The Daily Kansan strives to print all letters that are in good taste and of reasonable length. Attacks on personalities, as distinguished from issues, will not be printed. All letters must be signed. The writer's name will be withheld if he gives good reason for such action, but we cannot accept a letter that is not signed.
Daily Hansan
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904,
triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16. 1912.
Telephone VIking 3-2700
Extension 711, news rooms Extension 376, business office
Member Inland Daily Press Association. Associated Collegiate Press. Represented by National Advertising Service, News Service, University of Kansas, New service: United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the summer and on Sundays. University holidays and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
Tom Turner
EditORIAL DEPARTMENT
Managing Editor
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
Tom Brown Business Manager
Cullough, Manager.
David Weiss National Advertising Manager; Charles Martinacine,
Classified Advertising Manager; Hal Smith, Promotion Manager.
From the Magazine Rack
The Control of War
By Oliver D., Knauth
The reason it was possible to "limit" the Korean War was because small tactical nuclear weapons had not been developed. Since Korea, the family of nuclear weapons has grown so rapidly it is difficult to distinguish between a large conventional weapon and a small nuclear one. As armed forces come to be equipped with a variety of small tactical nuclear weapons, the temptation for each belligerent to use a slightly larger weapon will be hard to resist...
Among nuclear powers, limited war has its weakness even as an instrument of policy because, to quote Paul Keckemeti ("Strategic Surrender, 1958"), "In dealing with the political problem of securing a settlement on the basis of partial nuclear operations, the winner must take into account the loser's ability to unleash a last orgy of destruction... When it comes to setting terms, the possibility of a last explosion of despair must be counted as part of the loser's bargaining strength... This implies that in nontotal war, the final political payoffs must be moderate."
By Charles J. Hitch and Roland M. McKean
The emphasis of the advocates of limitation has been on the high rather than on the low end of the spectrum of weapons. They have talked in particular of nuclear limited wars on the assumption that nuclear weapons will favor the defender rather than the aggressor and that the West can depend on these to compensate for men and conventional arms...
The argument runs that the offense requires concentration and so the aggressor necessarily provides the defender with a lucrative atomic target. This ignores the fact, in a delivered nuclear weapon itself, the offense has an enormous concentration of force. The use of nuclear weapons in limited wars might make it possible for the aggressor to eliminate the existing forces of the defender and to get the war over, reaching his limited objective before the defender or his allies can mobilize new forces. Like all-out nuclear war, it puts a premium on surprise and forces in being rather than on mobilization potential, which is the area in which the West has an advantage...
We are inclined to believe that most of those who rely on tactical nuclear weapons as a substitute for disparities in conventional forces have in general presupposed a cooperative Soviet attacker, one who did not use atomic weapons himself. Here again is an instance of Western-preferred Soviet strategies, this time applied to limited war. Ironically, according to reports of Soviet tactical exercises, described in the last few years in the military newspaper "The Red Star," atomic weapons are in general employed only by the Russians, the West apparently employing Soviet-preferred Western strategies. The symmetry of the optimism of East and West here could be quite deadly.
By Raymond Aron
The strategy of deterrence is essentially psychological. It aims at preventing an enemy state from taking the initiative of aggression. We try to predict an enemy's decision under given circumstances, and we are compelled to accept the hypothesis that he will act rationally. (But) can we determine with certainty what a rational behavior would be? Would it be rational, for instance, for the leaders of the Soviet Union to accept twenty million casualties in order to eliminate the military power of the United States? Would it be rational for the United States to accept fifty million casualties in order to save West Berlin? Can we be sure that our opponent will adopt the pattern of behavior that seems rational to us?
This double uncertainty inevitably affects the conclusions of all so-called "scientific" studies of the strategy of deterrence.
By Harrison Brown and James Real
If the arms race continues, as it probably will, its future pattern seems clear in broad outline. As a result of the emergence of the current tremendous capabilities for killing and destroying, programs will be started aimed at the evacuation of cities, the construction of fallout shelters in regions outside the major metropolitan areas, and the construction of limited underground shelters. Increased offensive capabilities will then emerge which will to some extent neutralize these efforts...
The new developments will cause people to burrow more deeply into the ground. Factories will be built in caves, as will apartment houses and stores. Eventually most human life will be underground, confronted by arsenals capable of destroying all life over the land areas of the earth. Deep under the ground people will be relatively safe—at least until such time as we learn to make explosives capable of pulverizing the earth to great depths...
The Soviet Union has apparently, in the last few years, instituted a civilian defense program of substantial magnitude. It is probable that within the next two or three years the United States will embark on a crash shelter program for a large proportion of its citizens and some of its industry. Once the shelter program is under way, it will constitute a significant retreat from the idea of the obsolescence of war.
Once the people are convinced that they can survive the present state of the art of killing, a broad and significant new habit pattern will have been introduced and accepted, one grotesquely different from any we have known for thousands of years—that of adjusting ourselves to the idea of living in holes. From that time onward it will be simple to adjust ourselves to living in "deeper" holes.