Page 2
University Daily Kansan Tuesday, October 17. 1961
On Fallout Shelters
Nuclear fallout shelter have been much in the news lately. A Los Angeles firm specializes in building them, and many other building companies across the nation have advertised their fallout shelters. Just how effective are they?
THE ANSWER IS THAT THEY ARE worthless in any urban area suffering from a direct hit by a nuclear missile. The parts of a city like Kansas City that were not immediately pulverized by a nuclear blast would be destroyed by the city wide fire that follows a nuclear blast. That fire would, because of its magnitude, suck all the oxygen in the striken area and suffocate most of the people who had sought refuge in fallout or blast shelters and survived the initial blast. This is not merely some scientist's theory on what might happen. A good example of what a city wide inferno does was furnished by World War II. When the city of Hamburg was subjected to a saturation bombing with incendiary bombs, a city wide blaze resulted, with precisely the result that is described above.
Fallout and blast shelters are feasible for outlying suburban areas and small towns. But a
factor that should be considered here is whether or not the nicely planned recommendations on food and other materials for the shelters will work. The unconscious assumption that underlies the recommended program is that the enemy would not stagger its nuclear rocket attacks. But if it did, say in two week periods, the existing plan for survival in fallout shelters would not work.
WHAT WILL WORK, THEN? THE ANSWER is that no system of survival will work in a large urban area and the systems proposed for suburban and small town areas have serious flaws. And even if these measures for dealing with the initial blow were successful in the areas where they are feasible, there is no assurance the population would survive the intense radioactivity and destruction of industry and agriculture on a long term basis.
These are sobering thoughts, but they are not presented to frighten the reader. They are simply the unpleasant truths that we need to recall to deal intelligently with the situation.
—William H. Mullins
Khrushchev's Speech
The immediate results of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's speech before the 22nd Communist Party Congress would seem to be a considerable lessening of tensions over Berlin.
HOWEVER, WESTERN LEADERS have received word of the postponement of the Berlin deadline with little more than quiet reserve. They welcome his move as a step in the right direction but note that the power drunk Russian leader has seldom paced far in the same direction.
There is considerable significance in Russia's backdown from its 1961 German settlement deadline. It indicates that Western firmness and defensive maneuvers eventually proved the resolve of the United States and its allies not to back down over Berlin.
Khrushchev appears ready to negotiate the terms of a settlement over Berlin. But as always, the terms he is anxious to negotiate on are his own.
Khrushchev's announcement does not bring the world much closer to a settlement on the question of Berlin. The West has found the So-
viet's terms unacceptable in the past and no doubt still does.
THE RUSSIAN LEADER IS ACTUALLY using Berlin as a handle with which he can gain enough leverage to force allied forces completely out of Germany and most of the rest of Europe. Thus far, the determination of the Western powers has contained the Russians by allowing no concessions in the cold war situation.
Other than the lifting of the Berlin deadline, Khrushchev's speech was little more than a warmed over version of what he has said and worked for in the past. He still works under the assumption that Soviet action is justifiable in itself. He announced that the Russians would be ready to resume negotiations toward "general and complete disarmament" as soon as they end their current series of nuclear tests.
He also restated his definition of just and unjust wars. An unjust war is any action taken by the free world to prevent the spread of Communism.
Ron Gallagher
On People-to-People Editor:
Your guest Editorial "Dawson Praised" is neither the result of misinformation nor a symbol of sensationalism of American journalism. It is, on the other hand, positive recognition of a job well-done. It is a tribute to the University, the town of Lawrence, and the student body. It manifests the potentialities of initiative, hard work and leadership.
NOT MANY, among the foreign students, would deny so important a role played by the Dean of foreign students and with such tremendous tact, sincerity, and effectiveness, that it is laudable. It would also be difficult to forget the hospitality—extended so generously and lovingly—by the individuals, church groups and other organizations in the area. These impressions, based on personal experiences extending over four years, are sweet and pleasant and therefore imperishable.
Yet all this does not and can
... Letters ...
not deny Bill Dawson and his teammates a well deserved national recognition which is also a standing tribute to this great University in Lawrence.
IT IS AN OPEN INVITATION to any "sensitive soul" around campus to attend People-to-People meetings and see for himself the persistence, dedication, and hard work being put into the People-to-People Program. For these young PIONEERS OF PEACE, it involves a great amount of sacrifice in terms of time, energy and finance. It means WORK often stretching into the silent hours of the next morning. It does not promise any tangible and immediate rewards. It is not sensational.
But it has a much deeper and fundamental significance in terms of international understanding, based on personal contacts and friendships, indispensable pre-requisites for a sane and peaceful human society. A well-trained citizenry thrives more on its own initiative, confidence and enterprise than governmental spoonefeding. And here lies, in essence, the true spirit of the People-to-People Program.
Raja Mohammed Naib Pakistan graduate student
Liberalism and Mr. Love Editor:
We have been hearing and reading many foolish arguments against liberalism these days, the peak of which were Mr. Love's statements in his letter to the UDK of October 12. Such narrow-mindedness and anti-intellectualism does not deserve anything but ridicule, a job beautifully done by Dr. Ise.
Political Science is a fraud in Mr. Love's opinion, a very "limited" opinion, indeed. In Political Science we are trying to find the answers to certain problems, just as in other fields, surely, but nobody proclaims any absolute truths. Mr. Love is doing that; it seems to me he KNOWS the truth. Of course, it is because he is completely unbiased.
Daily Hansan
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904, triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephone Viking 3-2700
Telephone VIKING Extension 711 news room
Extension 741, 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.
What is a liberal, anyway? It says in a standard definition that he is tolerant and open-minded, favoring reform and progress. Anyone opposed to this gives clear judgment of himself, namely, of being intolerant, narrow-minded, and opposed to reform and progress. There is nothing to be objected against opposing socialism and communism, but I think it is a grave mistake to identify them with liberalism.
Manfred Grote Sulingen, Germany graduate student
Editor:
More On Housin Editi
Two of Earl Long's expatriates, now turned Kansas marchers, exhibit some of the erstwhile politico's characteristics. In effect, they quote scriptures to suit their cause, at times they are colorful in context, and oftimes they are incoherent.
There is really not too much to quibble about concerning the content of their letter which appeared in your columns, supposedly in answer to a prior one I had submitted. When one gets as subjective as Messrs. Smalley and Nelson, then there is only the course of attentive listener as they expound on their God-given right to express their innermost sentiments. It is only when an attempt is made to deliver objective "statements of fact" that one may refute their departure from reason.
THEY STATE THAT a declaration I made about the landlady's rights is at loggerheads with something further on. On further on to them is like "Shangri-La," never to be concretely experienced, since by then personalized versions of "ungodly and un-moral" have taken over.
I repeat, the landlady's home is, in the tradition of a free-people, hers to dispose of at will. Not all topics can be covered beforehand in a rental agreement. My own experience testifies to this when my room rent was increased in New York, during undergraduate days, because of excessive burning of the midnight oil. A friend of mine was evicted from a room because of his insistence on company of the opposite sex. None of these topics, as in the case which sparked the current controversy, were covered during the time the transaction was being completed. Divorces and employment terminations are eloquent testimony to the fluidity of human relationships.
THEIR TOPICS which show the injustices of discrimination are well taken, when their content does not encompass unessential items to a person's welfare. For instance, should I advocate free Federal, or state-sponsored, barber shops, because my impeccableness causes the barber shops to discriminate against me? However, in the large I agree wholeheartedly, and they even have me resentful of my role as family barber.
Now I ask you to consider with me the achievements of this state in the field you champion. There does not here exist a large block of minority voters; nor a core of influential intelligentsia; neither is there a proportional per capita contribution to the availability of jobs or wealth to engender same. The history of the state does not record any significant participation in the intellectual life nor in the formative development of its institutions. And yet, the State as a whole, and KU in particular, are anxious to see justice prevail in the field of minority relations. This,
despite the inertia of many to see their moral obligations towards the disenfranchised.
THE GAME MESSRS. Smallley and Nelson played of citing meritorious service on the part of individuals of an ethnic group is, to my way of thinking a two-edged sword, and irrelevant to the topic at hand. For one thing, none of the individuals cited, with a notable exception, were of sufficient stature to alter the course of history to where they "contributed to the landlady's welfare." They may have reached relative success and merit, as historians record it, in spite of the stigmas attached to their race, but on a relative plane, they enjoy popularity in posterity because of the handicaps imparted at birth. To be quite frank, the names they mentioned rate in the same category with the conventional selections to be found describing success stories in any alumni news. The former are chosen by encyclopedia salesmen to strike a sentimental chord, while the latter serve to enhance alumni contributions. The one exception is the extremely meritorious George Carver, who enjoined people to attain personal excellence to elevate one's status.
If per capita merit were the sole criteria of a group's participation in the more coveted fruits of man's world, then I am afraid that no matter what the basis for evaluation rests upon, we would all ultimately suffer. As an illustration, consider for instance that a Sino-American could elect to impart to us as charity the left-overs, for coupled to their unique and original record of intellectual achievement on a pro-rated and group basis, they have the ability to generate wealth while maintaining an unusually low crime rate. All these attributes have been acquired after a start in bondage, amidst ghetto-like environments, at the turn of the century.
THE PROBLEM THEN IS, as stated by several of your correspondents and the Chancellor, a moral one. And morals are tools that society uses to protect itself and maintain its standards. Therefore if the majority group has set up obvious ideas of what constitutes an elite, moral suasion will eradicate the evil.
The use of personal precept and example advocated by Messrs. Smallley and Nelson is something I would like to discuss personally with them, since there we are in perfect agreement. Maybe in good faith we can iron out our other points of conflict.
When a well organized minority secures a benign dictum to improve its status, too often encroaching statism follows in its wake. There's too much of this philosophy of transferring services and responsibilities to an impersonal entity of higher order. This was not the intent of the founding fathers.
Harold Schick
Baldwin graduate student
What can be said about the Civil War that hasn't been said before, and endlessly, in this first year of the centennial? That which is said here is said by an Englishman, and the book consists mainly of lectures he has delivered on the war.
THE CIVIL WAR IN AMERICA, by Alan Barker. Doubleday Anchor, 95 cents.
Alan Barker provides us here with acute perceptions. He leans heavily on Allan Nevins and Bruce Catton, and does not venture into untreated waters of Civil War historiography. But most of the standard interpretations are present.
Barker, like some other historians, is swinging back to the simple approach to the war, that slavery was the basic cause. He treats, of course, the sectional and state rights arguments, and he is fully aware of such matters as the devil theory of why the war came about. But he shows us that slavery was the No.1 issue.
He goes beyond the mere war itself, to offer an illuminating chapter on Reconstruction. Though, once again, there is nothing new, there is the whole story, compressed, of necessity, into a few pages. And as a conclusion he presents a good, though scarcely thorough bibliography.-Calder M. Pickett, Prof. of Journalism.