The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 71, No. 13, Ed. 1 Friday, November 18, 1983 Page: 8 of 24
twenty four pages : ill. ; page 20 x 14 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Nuclear freeze supporters sponsor arms race forum
by Brock Wagner
Nearly 100 people attended a
forum on the nuclear arms race in
the Chemistry Lecture Hall on
Monday night. The forum,
including speakers from around
the nation, was sponsored by
Texans for a Bilateral Nuclear
Weapons freeze.
The four speakers were retired
Admiral Eugene Carroll, Rice
Associate Professor of Sociology
Steven Klineberg, author and
economist Gordon Adams, and
Professor of Physics at M.I.T.
Bernard Phalen, who was also a
member of the Manhattan Project.
The purpose behind the forum
was, according to its introduction,
to "put a little fire under the people
up in Washington."
Carroll, speaking first, stated
that fear and technology are the
two things driving the arms race.
The fear that the Soviet Union is
getting ahead of the United States
makes us want to keep advancing
and making more sophisticated
and greater quantities of nuclear
missiles, Carroll claimed. He
wished to calm American fears,
claiming that the U.S. is the
strongest nation on earth and has
more nuclear weapons than all
other countries combined.
The factor that will deter a
nuclear war is the realization on
the part of each world power that
its enemy possesses nuclear
weapons and has the will to use
them. Carroll went on to say that
arms control agreements are the
solution. In the past, he noted, the
USSR has never broken a pact,
only exploited ambiguities within
treaties. A clear, fair treaty is
needed which the Soviets would be
willing to sign and obey.
Carroll outlined four steps in
moving toward a freeze safely and
quickly. The first step involves the
end of all testing of nuclear
explosives. Currently, under
international agreement, such
explosives may not be tested in the
atmosphere. Such a pact would
require only 30 days after signing
to take effect.
Second, the nations would cease
to create new delivery systems, i.e.,
the missiles that carry the
warheads.
The U.S. and the Soviets should
then agree to end the deployment
of all new rockets, which would
logically lead to the final pact, the
cessation of all production of
nuclear explosives. Carroll
expressed the hope that with
cooperation, the nuclear
superpowers could soon realize
this goal.
Klineberg then spoke of a new
American inclination toward
peace movements and a nuclear
freeze. Lately the nation has seen a
mass turn toward peace
movements with all ages of people
from all walks of life becoming
involved.
A marked increase in people
favoring a bilateral nuclear freeze
has emerged, as about 50 percent
of Americans polled favored it in
1980, and currently better than 75
percent support it. He also
reported that 80 percent of
Americans feared the Soviets six
months ago, and 93 percent after
the Korean airliner was shot down
in September. On the other hand,
only 19 percent of Americans think
that the Russian citizens fear the
U.S.
Klineberg concluded by stating
that the people's goal is peace, a
process with which government
should not interfere.
Third to speak was Gordon
Adams, who addressed the subject
of hope. He said, "We are in a
prewar era," and parallelled
American interests in Lebanon
and Grenada to the minor events
leading to World War One.
The economic effects of a
nuclear freeze would be quite
favorable, said Adams, who
expects it to save the U.S.
economy. A solution to the
national debt and the problems
caused by decreasing government
spending could arise from
discontinuing the building of
nuclear arms and a general
slashing of the defense budget.
Phalen presented the last
segment of the forum, giving the
scientist's view of the arms race. He
furthered the idea that new
technology is causing all of the
problems. The U.S. and Soviet
Union approach the problem of
how to stay ahead othe other
country differently. The U.S., he
said, shuts down the old assembly
lines when new technology arrives,
while the Soviets keep the old lines
going while just adding new facto-
ries for the new technology.
In addition to a nuclear freeze,
Phalen would like to see a mutual
cooperation in technology in such
areas as space programs. This
would lower American and Soviet
fear of each other and would speed
up and cut costs of future
developments.
General Falrbourne explores nukes
by Melissa Durbin
Last Wednesday evening in
Jones Commons, Major General
William Fairbourne spoke on the
topic of the "New Arms Race." The
speech was organized by United
Campuses Against Nuclear War
(UCAM).
Fairbourne, a former member of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, believes
that President Reagan has helped
embroil the U.S. in an
uncontrollable arms race, the size
of which has never been seen in a
time of peace. Aside from the
escalating of the buildup,
Fairbourne criticized the weapons
themselves. He said that placing
the MX in Minuteman silos not
only would serve no useful military
purpose, but also would make
them the most vulnerable of all
GRADUATE STUDENTS
The Rice University
Graduate House is
Available for Occupancy!
-optional meal service*
- private baths
-close to campus
kitchenettes and washer!dryers
- swimming pool
a congenial atmosphere for graduate study
Give The House a "Fly-By"! Tours of the Graduate House
will be held Friday afternoons, November 11 and 18, from
3 to 6 p.m. Beer and Pretzels. All graduate students welcome!
Until Dec. 1, graduate students will be given first priority
for all space except the Guest Floor. After Dec. 1, faculty,
post-d(K toral research assistants, staff and undergraduate
applications will be accepted.
* Buffet service meals will he provided only if a minimum
of 50 persons \ign up.
For More Information Call 527-4085
The Owl has latided!
strategic weapons. He further
questioned how Congress could
fund such a weapon.
The Soviet threat was another
topic Fairbourne addressed in his
speech. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
are "ideological adversaries" that
must "continue competition and
conflict to sustain national
interests."
However, Fairbourne warned
that political leaders must
remember that now, in the nuclear
age, their words and actions will
affect not only the safety of their
armies and their citizens, but all of
society and mankind as well.
Fairbourne saw the current
administration's arms program
and a nuclear arms freeze as
"mutually exclusive." He
advocated altering the president's
policies and suggested an
immediate bilateral freeze
followed by an agreed reduction of
arms on both sides.
If something is not done the
arms race will just continue
escalating, and the defense budget
will expand without bound,
Fairbourne stated. If the U.S. is to
fight and win a nuclear war, the
current defense budget is
appropriate. If, on the other hand,
the American people want to limit
nuclear arms, the nation spends
billions of dollars each year in
vain.
Ekren anti-freeze, not Furlong
by Becky Basch
On Thursday, November 10,
UCAM sponsored a panel
discussion on "The New Arms
Race? or New Ways of Thinking?"
an elaboration of the issues
discussed by Major General
William Fairbourne the night
before. Norman Furlong, head of
UCAM, and Chris Ekren,
Thresher editor, presented their
views on the arms race. Political
Science Professor Richard Stoll,
Physics Professor Stephen Baker
and History Professor John
Guilmartin then contributed
comments and factual knowledge
to the presentations; a question-
and-answer session concluded the
discussion.
Furlong asserted an increasing
need for new ways of thinking as
technology develops more
accurate and devastating
weaponry, bringing the world
closer to nuclear annihilation. As
all sides become stronger, he
argued, "New weapons may reduce
security, and we have to start
thinking about resolving world
differences in ways other than the
build-up of nuclear arms."
In contrast to Furlong, Ekren
described himself as a "member of
NEEDED
Loving, Responsible Person to
assist working Mother with
delightful Children (9 & 11) &
small residence on Buffalo.
Flexible schedule, but MUST be
.available Monday • Friday 3 p.m.
till ?. Room & Board available.
Marilyn Meagher
Hm. 439-1660 or Wk 228-0044
the legion of the unconvinced." In
his opinion, an arms freeze with a
country led by former KGB head
Yuri Andropov, whom Ekren
described as a "murderer," would
not work. The U.S. needs to
employ force and counterforce in
order to ensure psychological
security, the most important
aspect of the new arms race.
Ekren asserted that people are
too uninformed about the exact
situation of the United States'
defense compared to that of the
Soviet Union, and therefore have
no basis with which to assume that
the Soviets would stop testing or
producing nuclear weaponry in the
event of a freeze. According to
Ekren, we cannot determine
whether or not the Soviets even
want peace.
In the physical aspect of the
arms race, he called numbers of
nuclear weapons irrelevant
because, as he said, "in a minor
first strike, everyone will die."
In response to Furlong's and
Ekren's arguments, the panel of
professors brought up many
technicalities and historical points
involved in thinking about arms
negotiations with the Soviet
Union. Both Stoll and Baker
seemed to view the Soviet Union as
less of a threat than the students
described them, reasoning that the
U.S. has no definite proof as to the
extent of Soviet power and
aggressive inclinations at this time.
Guilmartin's view that the U.S.
should revert to peaceful
commerce and more conventional
warfare from what he described as
an "atypical two centuries"
stimulated discussion on how the
U.S. and Soviet Union would
display their power differently to
compensate for a freeze in nuclear
competition.
V
The Rice Thresher, November 18, 1983, page 8
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Ekren, Christopher. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 71, No. 13, Ed. 1 Friday, November 18, 1983, newspaper, November 18, 1983; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245545/m1/8/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.