Page 2 University Daily Kansan Monday, Sept. 25, 1961 New Forum Praised The new Presidential Forum program, designed to stimulate fresh ideas on important national problems, is an encouraging development. It is encouraging because its official policy is to urge students to be both non-partisan and critical. SUCH A FORUM IS A VALUABLE ADDICTION to university life and a welcome relief from programs with partisan speakers who oppose each other with clichés and party dogma. Unfortunately, this latter type of program seems to dominate political forums and it does not serve to clarify issues. The partisan groups are often so busy trading charges that they do not even bother to answer one another. BUT WITHOUT CLICHES AND DOGMA to rely on, and exposed to the critical opinions of others, the student who attends these Presidential Forums will be under pressure to support his opinions on such subjects as disarmament and atomic fallout shelters (the first two subjects) with facts and logic. He will also have the benefit of other viewpoints and approaches to the problem under discussion. THESE OTHER VIEWPOINTS AND AP- approaches are one of the best features of the forum. Whether the student agrees with them or not, he at least has an opportunity to be informed about them. He can then consider them to see if he thinks they are supported by fact and reason. This is important, for people too often tend to accept the political dogma fed to them by the political parties and other partisan interests without questioning it. That dogma needs to be continuously challenged and tested to see if it can stand the test of evidence and logic. The Presidential Forum is unusual in its approach, but that approach is a sound one. If it fulfills its promise, it will fill a much needed and useful role. - William H. Mullins NSA Congress Termed Hectic By Scott Payne The 14th annual congress of NSA was in many ways like any convention but at the same time it was really unlike any convention that has ever been held. It was large and unwieldly; it was well-organized but yet so very confusing to the uninitiated. It was extremely political in nature and at the same time personally satisfying and enjoyable. LIKE ANY CONVENTION it had its playbags — those who came to see the sights and to have a good time. The beauties of the University of Wisconsin waterfront and the attractions of Madison proper did attract or distract a good many delegates at various times. The emphasis at the congress, however, was far and away on hard work and maximum attention to the matters at hand. Most of the delegates attended to their jobs with a commendable, and somewhat surprising fidelity. Upon arrival and registration, each delegate and alternate was given a packet containing about four pounds of written matter. Among these materials was a very thick booklet known as the working papers of the congress. This booklet was crammed with information concerning any and all matters that NSA has ever deliberated upon. SUBJECT MATTER IN THE working papers ranged from the aims of education to foreign student programs to the peace corps. By the third day of the congress supplements to the working papers comprised a mass almost as thick as their predecessor. The working papers were the basis for the deliberations of the congress. They provided the grist for the mills of committee and sub-committee debate and work from whence came final resolutions appearing before the general plenary sessions. Toward the middle of the 10-day congress, the pace became hectic and exhausting. Work consumed from 15 to 18 hours per day. Delegates going to and from committee meetings looked as if they were all in the middle of a rigorous final week. MANY OF THE DELEGATES were kept up late into the night by liberal or conservative caucuses or by one of a dozen formal debates or discussions which were in constant session. That little was really accomplished at the congress is perhaps overshadowed by what the congress and its membership signify. In the face of so many facts and so many contradictions a great majority of the delegation was probably bewildered most of the time. Nevertheless, they were interested and concerned in spite of their confusion. That they were interested is nice — that they were concerned is important — and a little relieving. Sound and Fury I question the logic of the University's position on discrimination in housing. As I understand the University's policy it is that the University itself will practice no discrimination. However, this policy continues, the University has no right to tell landlords and apartment owners to whom they may rent rooms and apartments. In practice, this means that the University will list all Lawrence rooms and apartments which meet the standards for health and safety. Now, I agree with the first and second points I applaud the University's stand against discrimination, and I quite agree that the University has no right to run downtown to tell property owners to whom they may rent and may not rent. LITTLE MAN ON CAMPUS by Dick Bibler "DO YOU EVER HAVE ANYTHING ON YOUR MIND BESIDES GIRLS? " However, the University goes beyond these two legitimate points when it lends itself to discriminatory practices, as it does when it lists all living units without checking as to whether discrimination is practiced. The University has the right and the obligation to demand standards from those who seek to use its services to publicize their rental units. -OB If the University were to act consistently, were to conform to its position of not practicing discrimination, then how can it justify the listing of property owners who refuse to rent to certain students? Let these home owners use the downtown newspaper to advertise their rooms. This is the practice in two of the universities where I have taught. Dailu 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 Repres- ented by National Advertising Service. 8 East Avenue, New York, N.Y. Service Number: United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year. University holidays and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas. NEWS DEPARTMENT Tom Tunner Managing Editor Tam Sander. Managing Erieerman, Assistant Managing Editors; Bill Smith, City Editor; Bill Sheldon, Sports Editor; Barbara Howell, Society Editor. NEWS DEPARTMENT EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT Ron Gallagher Editorial Editor BUSINESS DEPARTMENT Tom Brown Business Manager From the Magazine Rack The Control of War By Klaus Knorr Recent Soviet successes in the development of nuclear bombs, ballistic missiles, and earth satellites have raised doubts in Western Europe about the American ability, in the longer run, to check the military power of the Sino-Soviet Bloc; and it has been suggested in various quarters that the growth of Soviet retaliatory power makes it uncertain, if not improbable, that the United States would in the future protect its allies from nuclear blackmail or invasion by making a credible threat of massive destruction against the Soviet Union... If this balance of terror applied generally, no country could be expected to protect an ally by a course of action inviting heavy destruction of its own cities and population. It is the logic of this argument that deterrence requires national retaliatory forces—such as SAC (Strategic Air Command) and British Bomber Command are for the United States and England... This logic is not altogether compelling, for it is not necessarily consonant with reality. First, the United States surely has a considerable counterforce capability now, and though it seems likely at present that it will lose most of this capacity, this need not hold for the indefinite future. Second, even if the United States comes to possess no more than insubstantial counterforce capabilities, it is not clearly irrational for this country to threaten massive reprisals against Soviet cities in the event the U.S.S.R. attempts to subjugate Western Europe, or key areas in it, by invasion or nuclear blackmail... Third, strategic reprisal need not be massive. Even the threat of limited nuclear war, of a less than massive blow, should give the U.S.S.R. serious concern. Fourth, even though it were irrational for the United States, without sufficient counterforce weapons, to follow up a threat of strategic retaliation by an attack on behalf of Western Europe, it is not certain that this country would respond rationally. On all these grounds, Soviet planners could not be sure of American inaction; some degree of deterrence will therefore be exerted in the future, and this degree may be enough to restrain Soviet aggression. Bv Alastair Buchan It has become clear "that no other NATO power can fill the vacuum created by ineffectual or indecisive American leadership. As European NATO becomes economically richer and politically more dynamic, what one must look for is something more closely resembling collective leadership of the Alliance through a consortium of powers with the United States as "primus inter pares," and this in turn must be reflected at the level of official planning... There now seems to be less danger that NATO countries other than Britain and France will attempt to develop national nuclear deterrents despite the fact that six of them—Canada, West Germany, Italy, Holland, Belgium, Norway—all probably have the physical and scientific resources to do so... The progress being made in the American missile program, notably the improvements in the performance of "Atlas" and the successful tests of "Polaris." (has) created greater confidence in the continuing efficacy of the American strategic deterrent. What has had an even more important effect is the evidence of the vast costs involved in developing not just a national bomb, but an effective means of delivery... A system of allied as opposed to national deterrence is by no means a perfect answer to the dilemma that now confronts NATO...(but it) is the best that is available to us... Though a NATO deterrent may be slower in reaction than a collection of national ones, it would provide a higher degree of security than at present against the irresponsible use of power by any one member of the Alliance, and thus conform to the strategic reality of today — namely the need for stability. It would be a measure of internal self-discipline within the body of the free nations which might do much to convince a skeptical adversary and a frightened world that it is possible to reach limited international agreements in this field without destroying the pattern of security. By Walter Millis Given a desire by all the great powers to disarm, there would be nothing very complicated about disarming, but given the desire (now firmly retained by all the great powers) merely to reduce the threats and burdens of arms while clinging tenaciously to the simplicities, the supposed securities, and the opportunities of the war system, the problem becomes one which all the technical and intellectual expertise in the world is unlikely to resolve. It is not just difficult; like "duplicating the cube," it is impossible. By Thomas K. Finletter Disarmament is not primarily a technical problem. The negotiations on the subject are, indeed, complicated and technical. But it is not the complexity that blocks an agreement; the trouble is that the negotiating parties have not made up their minds whether they do or do not want to reach an agreement. It may be that in the past one of the two sides has wanted to agree. We cannot know that because there never has been an agreement or anything approaching one to put this to the test. But we are sure that never have both sides at the same time wanted an agreement, because if they had there would have been one.