Editor in Chief, Ron Yates
Business Manager, Pam Flatley
Editorial Editor Alan T. Jones
Editorial Editor Dan Wuesterbush
News Editor Joanna Wieble
Sports Editor Bob Kearney
Ad Manager Kathy Sanders
Defense or plaything?
President Richard M. Nixon is expected to endorse the controversial anti-ballistic missile defense system within the next few days.
The system has become controversial since a number of important congressman, including Sens. Edward M. Kennedy, William Fulbright and Mike Mansfield, have voiced opposition to it. Opposition goes back to former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara and before.
With Americans and their representatives becoming more socially conscious, more pressure is being put on leaders to find money to be used to fight poverty, discrimination and other of the social ills of this country.
Many fail to see the need for an ABM system and their arguments back their sentiments well.
The system, basically, is centered on two missiles, one to intercept ICBMs outside the earth's atmosphere, and another that would intercept those that go through, from one to 100 miles above the earth's surface.
One of the arguments against the system is that all the enemy missiles could not be intercepted. To this, experts add the fact that there are a number of penetration devices that can easily evade the ABMs. These include multiple warheads, dummy missiles and metallic chaff that would foul up the radar tracking devices.
These experts also say the cost of equipping ABMs to handle all the penetration devices is about 10 times what it costs to install the devices.
The primary reason for installing the system is defense; however, some also say it would improve U.S. bargaining position with Russia. Another argument voiced in fear of Red China with its relatively unsophisticated missile system.
Political scientists have noted that since World War II the Russians have had almost a fetish for defense. This is attributable to the tremendous losses the Russians suffered in that war. The argument for bargaining power, then, is that the Russians see the United States has no defense system, then think this country is an aggressor force because the U.S. has extensive offensive weapons but few defensive armaments.
If the argument that the system will not provide adequate defense is true, and it seems valid, one would contend the expenditure of billions of dollars for its installation is wasted.
Whether it provides a better bargaining position or not, it seems difficult to justify this expenditure for the system when it cannot provide an adequate defense.
While avoiding the argument of trust between nations and the possibility of a weapons treaty of some sort, the expenditure of this additional money by the military seems totally unjustified when the money is so badly needed in so many other domestic areas.
The one argument that would favor installation of the system is that it could prevent a nuclear mistake. If someone should push a wrong button somewhere, an ABM could probably stop one missile and prevent a nuclear war. (ATJ)
Jazz favored for Murphy
To the Editor:
John Hammond, now Talent Acquisition Director for CBS/Columbia Records, produced most of the most important jazz recordings of the past forty years, including Bessie Smith's last records and Billie
From a conversation with jazz' most distinguished mentor, we gain some insight into the instant pleading: Why can't jazz players use the facilities of Murphy Hall?
Holiday's first. He organized and managed Benny Goodman's most successful orchestra, "discovering" Lionel Hampton, Gene Krupa, Teddy Wilson, Charlie Christian and Harry James.
John Hammond came to KU in 1963 to record the Paul Winter Sextet for a Columbia album, "New Jazz on Campus" (no longer available). Several years later, he recalled the incident, calling Winter's
"probably the only jazz group that Dean Gorton ever allowed-over his dead body, I might add-to play in Murphy Hall.
A few people, even in 1969, fail to recognize jazz as a legitimate form of artistic expression. If you pressed him, John Hammond might be able to name one.
Gary Shivers, Salina Graduate Student
Readers' write
To the Editor:
If this piece gets printed rather than the other, longer piece I submitted recently, I shall be disappointed.
I find it interesting that Mr. diZerega of the New Left reads, save for his penta-syllables, very much like my old Birch buddies of Wichita. "Somebody up there" has perverted the role of our government.
What's the matter, Gus, isn't God following orders?
I once-upon-a-time asked the same question of a few Birch friends of mine in Wichita. They didn't like it either. Irrelevant question. Meaningless.
What was relevant was that they get their own way. LIKE any other gang of 12-year-olds. I found I couldn't tell the difference between camps.
I went digging through political 'science' and political 'philosophy', looking for answers. Found that the Rightist is a nineteenth century European politician, the Leftist a nineteenth century European economist. Notice, no need thus far to use either the word 'American' or the term 'twentieth century'.
Friend of mine dumped a bunch of books in my lap, knuckleheads writing about 'future' worlds. Science-fiction. Stuff read suspiciously like commentary on 20th century. One guy, you can't tell whose side he's on; you can't tell when he's serious and when satiric. He re-tells The Republic with technology not even on the drawing boards.
And then you get to thinking about drastic social reorganizations like indoor plumbing and the Pill. . . Indoor plumbing simply means running water, a bath each day—the thing you miss most when the Army sends you on maneuvers. And what can a female on The Pill do to a 'rabid' male? Read the Greek play Lysistrata and then substitute men who take sex for granted like you do indoor plumbing, and suddenly we're drafting women. Or maybe they give a war and no one comes?
Talk about drastic social reorganization . . . what happens when the plumbing goes on the fritz in any modern 'dwelling unit'—permanently fritzed? Just for fun, work on the technological problem of hauling water to the residents of New York City, with all its old wells and cisterns neatly cemented over as 'hazardous to health'.
So we have this twentieth century thing, where the forty hour work week has replaced the old 50 or 60 and may soon be replaced by the 30. Lotsa money and lotsa time. What shall we do, go back to school, pick up another degree—learn something new?
I got a better idea. Let's go re-argue the nineteenth century, with hind-sight, and discover how they should've done it to give us the world we want.
In the meantime, I'm taking bets . . . which country with a nuclear device but no delivery system smuggles the first bomb into Washington, or Denver, or Omaha. . .
That, too, is 'the twentieth century'.
Dave Cook Wichita Senior
Off the Walls
"The world should sit down and hash out its problems"
“What's the alcoholic content of a Molotov cocktail?”
"Unzipped mail is immoral"
"Thank God I'm an atheist"
"Temperates should be stoned"
Published at the University of Kansas daily during the academic year except holidays and examination periods. Mail subscription rates: $6 a semester, $10 a year. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kan. 66044. Accommodations, goods, services and employment advertised offered to color, creed or national origin. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of Kansas or the State Board of Regents.