The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current, September 17, 1985, Image 2

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

    Page 2/The Battalion/Tuesday, September 17, 1985
Library shuttle
a good crutch
The new library shuttle between the Sterling C. Evans Li
brary and 17 libraries in the Austin area provides a wonderful
opportunity for Texas A&M students and faculty. But it
shouldn’t be a permanent solution.
The service will help silence the complaints about the inade
quacy of the Evans Library collection. Researchers now have ac
cess to materials far beyond the shelves of our library and the
demand for better resource availability from the College of Lib
eral Arts can be met.
The shuttle makes its run every Thursday and costs $8 — a
small price to pay for the services it makes available. The prob
lem is the bus leaves Parking Annex 34 at 7 a.m. and doesn’t
leave Austin until 5 p.m., which may not be convenient when in
formation is needed quickly.
The new service won’t cover up the shortcomings of our li
brary, but it should compensate for them temporarily. Our li
brary’s lack of research materials has been an ongoing problem
which the shuttle will help alleviate but not solve.
The shuttle should serve as a crutch until the Evans Library
has the funding and the materials to stand on its own feet.
The Battalion Editorial Board
tight seci
halted t>
saved d c
“death Its
“We h
coming L
you, it y
we woulc
said Cap
jlexas D
Ramsey I
i On Su
iboard se<
Ipublic toi
[where n
[locked h
mards sc
fining °i
IS,000 in
©W0* HOKTOtl
United Feature Syndicate
‘Hallett’s Nuclear Primer’ for upcoming summit
bloody gt
eight pns
s Howev
inmate ra
‘that may
officials Sc
'haler sa
biggest p
•unning i
lates. It’s
ind Rams
Iblace at I)
With the summit
conference be
tween President
Reagan and Soviet
leader Mikhail
Gorbachev slated
for later this fall,
the debate over
nuclear weapons
and “Star Wars”
will be in the head
lines once again. I
considered writing
egy in the U.S. is between the propo
nents of Deterrence and Deterrence
Plus. Deterrence proponents believe nu
clear weapons are useful only as a deter
John Halieft
a column on nuclear issues that will be
discussed in the upcoming weeks, but I
realized many people wouldn’t know
what I was talking about.
Instead, what follows is a “nuclear
primer,” to help prepare everyone for
the onslaught of news about to hit the
stands. I’ll avoid taking sides because
the purpose is not to influence or sway
opinion but to provide people, espe
cially those not familiar with nuclear is
sues, with a basic glossary of terms.
Deterrence— is, according to the
New College Edition of the American
Heritage Dictionary, the “measures
taken by a state or an alliance of states to
prevent hostile action by another state.”
Presently the debate over nuclear strat-
Deterrence Plus — is, according to
Donald M. Snow’s “Nuclear Strategy in
a Dynamic World,” “the strategic school
of thought that advocates nuclear war-
fighting planning in addition to deter
rent roles for nuclear weapons.”
Flexible Response — a policy First
devised by the Kennedy administration
that involves building up both conven
tional and nuclear warfighting capabili
ties. Flexible response is the backbone of
Deterrence Plus. Proponents of Deter
rence Plus claim that flexible response
allows the United States to act in a situa
tion without being limited to a nuclear
Controlled Response — that aspect
of Flexible Response which specifically
concerns nuclear response. The goal of
Controlled Response is to reduce the
likelihood of an all-out nuclear war.
According to former Secretary of De
fense James A. Schlesinger, an all-out
nuclear war is the least likely to occur
because of the high stakes involved.
Instead, according to the Schlesinger
Doctrine, the United States should be
more concerned with contingency plan
ning for small scale use of nuclear weap
ons. In addition, such planning is con
cerned with avoiding nuclear escalation.
Escalatory Process — is, according
Snow, the “ hypothesized sequence by
which the initial use of nuclear weapons
could eventuate in general homelands
exchange between superpowers.” The
Escalatory Process also is refered to as
the Escalation Ladder. Many propo
nents of Deterrence strategy believe the
Escalatory Process is inevitable and that
nuclear war can not be contained.
thermonuclear arsenals of the other
with no ability to protect against any at
ABM Treaty — considered the
“linchpin” of the MAD doctrine, the
Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty limits the
testing and deployment of ABM sys
tems. One goal of the Treaty is to elimi
nate the possibility of one superpower
gaining a Ballistic Missile Defense sys
tem that would alter the status quo, and
thus guarantee the Mutual Hostage
Relationship. This Treaty is still in ef
MAD — what opponents of the cur
rent U.S. defense buildup call President
Reagan. Seriously, MAD stands for Mu
tual Assured Destruction. The goal of
MAD is to obtain a situation in which
each superpower is deterred from
launching a nuclear attack because the
other side possesses an arsenal capable
of inflicting unacceptable losses in repri
sal. MAD is the primary doctrine fol
lowed by Deterrence strategists in the
United States.
SDI — Strategic Defense Initiative or
“Star Wars". First publicly proposed by
Reagan on March 23, 1983, SDI is the
president’s effort to further Ballistic
Missile Defense tech nology in hopes of
rendering nuclear weapons “impotent
and obsolete.” Proponents of MAD be
lieve SDI will alter the Mutual Hostage
Relationship that presently exists.
ICBM — Intercontinental Ballistic
Mutual Hostage Relationship — is,
according Snow, “the situation in which
the populations of the United States and
the U.S.S.R can be destroyed by the
SLBM — Submarine Launched Bal
listic Missile.
Launch On Warning (LOW) — a.k.a.
Launch Under Certain Warning or
Launch Under Attack. Launch On
Warning advocates an automatic a
dear response upon identificationofi
actual Soviet attack before enemy mi
ons reach their targets.
Megaton (MT) — equal to one mill
tons of TNT. Presently, technolo
makes nuclear warheads up to 85 mtj
tons possible. “Fat Man,” the first!
dear device dropped in anger, had
equivalent explosive force of 20,
- tons of TNT.
Strategic Weapons — any wq
designed to strike an enemy’s hoi
First Strike Capability — the abil
to mount a pre-emptive nuclear vd
against an enemy, thereby eliminatii ment bond
the enemy’s ability to retaliate. | Th e add
7 1 will be de<
Second Strike Capability the abi; ir mg yy,
to absorb an enemy strike and still retwth $190
a nuclear arsenal capable of inflicff ceeds to b
unacceptable damage to the enemy.
MIRV — Multiple Independeni feeds to be
Targetable Re-entry Vehicle. Current! Ion in the
some U.S. and Soviet ballistic missi|^ ent of .
are capable of carrying up to 16
warheads. |)f the ren
$190 millit
the Texs
card to
illion of
John Hallett is a senior
ence major, a columnist and a AM projects
political st| j
and a Aeifi
Editor for The Battalion.
Soviets take tough stance despite soft talk
A diplomat or so
here, a few trade
there, sometimes a
journalist or two —
in recent years that
Guest Columnist
has been the record on expulsions be
tween the Soviet Union and Western
Expulsions of Soviet citizens from
Western countries are usually fewer
than a half dozen at a time. The Soviets
typically retaliate, frequently in fewer
numbers. Sometimes they take no ac
was ordered out of Moscow, go for an
eye-for-an-eye and order out 18 em
bassy diplomats and staff members, five
journalists and two businessmen?
Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the Soviet
party leader who came to power in
March, is taking a tough stand despite
his soft talk toward the West in areas
such as improved relations and disarma
So why did the Soviet Union, despite
the reported British warning of further
expulsions if even one British citizen
The last biggest single expulsion of
Soviets abroad, before last week’s action
by Britain against 25 Soviets which the
Soviets matched number for number,
was in April 1983.
France expelled 47 Soviets, saying it
would not be a soft “underbelly” for es
pionage, especially in military matters
and technology. Moscow called the or
der “arbitrary” but took no action.
The Soviet order Saturday for 25 Bri
tons to leave came two days after Lon
don announced it was expelling 25 Sovi
ets on spy charges.
Britain’s Foreign Office said the Sovi
ets it ordered out were tabbed as spies
by Oleg A. Gordievski, whom it identi
fied as the KGB’s chief agent in Britain.
It said Gordievski, a Soviet Embassy
counselor, defected and was granted
asylum in Britain.
In retaliation, Moscow expelled'the
Britons, accusing all 25 of “activities in
compatible with their official status,” a
diplomatic phrase for spying.
In December 1984, four months be
fore Gorbachev came to
power, British Prime Min
ister Margaret Thatcher
hosted him in London and
heralded him as a “man I can
do business with.”
no direct reference to the allegation.
Observers in Moscow say that while
Thatcher has pursued a “peace offen
sive” with the Soviets, she has remained
steadfastly aligned with U.S. policies
and may have aroused Soviet ire by
sometimes taking an even more hard
line stand.
Britain and the Soviet Union have a
long-standing espionage enmity.
And Gorbachev appar
ently means business.
Through the Soviet press
and the Western news media,
including a recent interview
with Time magazine, the 54-
year-old Soviet leader has
proclaimed a desire to im
prove ties with the West.
However, when the United
States announced it would
test an anti-satellite weapon,
the Soviet news agency Tass
reported that Moscow no
longer felt bound not to de
ploy anti-satellite weapons in
When the United States ac
cused Moscow of using a
chemical “spy dust” to track
Americans, Gorbachev made
In 1971, Britain kicked out 105 Soviet
diplomats, trade people and journalists
whom it accused of being spies in dis
guise. The Soviet Union barely retal
iated, expelling five Britons and not al
lowing 13 others who were on vacation
to return to the Soviet Union. Relations
were strained for years.
At the time, observers noted that
London did not have more than 100
embassy employees — including diplo
mats and support personnel — and a
Soviet retaliation would have amounted
to a virtual severance of diplomatic ties
with London.
Britain has since imposed limits on
the number of Soviet envoys in London,
and the unofficial lineup after last
week’s expulsions was 32 full diplomats
in Moscow for Britain and 33 Soviet dip
lomats in London.
Although journalists have always
been considered a low-level way for
countries to get at one another, Britain
expelled five journalists among the 25
Soviets ordered out and the Soviets re
taliated by expelling five journalists.
By unofficial records, it appears to be
the largest single group of Western cor
respondents ordered out at once and
leaves Britain with nine permanently ac
credited correspondents in Moscow.
Roxinne Ervasti is Moscow bureau
chief for The Associated Press.
The Battalion
USPS 045 360
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
The Battalion Editorial Board
Rhonda Snider, Editor
Michelle Powe, Managing Editor
Loren Steffy, Opinion Page Editor
Karen Bloch, City Editor
John Hallett, Kay Mallett, News Editors
Travis Tingle, Sports Editor
The Battalion Staff
Assistant City Editors
Kirsten Dietz, Jerry Oslin
Assistant News Editors
Cathie Anderson, Jan Perry
Assistant Sports Editor
Charean Williams
Entertainment Editors
Cathy Riely, Walter Smilli
Art Director. Wayne Grabein
Copy Editors Reoecca Adair,
M i ke Da vis, Sarah Oates
Make-up Editor Ed Cassavov
Staff Writers.. Tamara Belt
Meg Cadigan, Ed Cassavov,
Cindy Gay, Doug Hall,
Paul Herndon, Wendy Johnson
Tammy Kirk, Jens Koepke,
Trent Leopold, Mary McWhorter,
June Pang, Tricia Parker,
Brian Pearson, Lynn RaePovec,
Marybeth Rohsner, Gigi Shams)',
Kenneth Sury
Cartoonists Mike Lane,
Scott McCullar, Kevin Thomas
Columnists Camille Brown,
John Hallett, Karl Pallmeyer
Photographers Greg Bailey,
Anthony Casper, Frank Hada,
Jaime Lopez, Michael Sanchez
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaptt
operated as a community service to Texas AltM and
Bryan-College Station.
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are those of tit
Editorial Board or the author, and do not necessarily rep
resent the opinions of Texas A&M administrators, laculy
or the Board of Regents.
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory newspaper for
students in reporting, editing and photography classes
within the Department of Communications.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday
during Texas A&M regular semesters, except tor holidaf
and examination periods. Mail subscriptions are (16.15
per semester, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full
year. Advertising rates furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald
Building, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
77843. Editorial staff phone number: (409)845-3316. Ad
vertising: (409) 845-2611.
Second class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Battal
ion, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843
dedicated t
trol project
The ante
the legisla
creation, ai
gram to wl
to $250 mil
to insure f
of and int
iivisions of
servation, v
quality enh
drainage, r
or desalinis
to continue
the membe
gram will <
ersary of
ition beet
itution. B
fore expira
not be affe
The ame
the legislat'
priate mom
Btate treasu
and other f
able to go
certain enu
; purposes. A
be permitte
of constitul
projects to
The prop*
pear on the
“The cons
tional $9£
ter Deveh
special y
water qu;
control, d
trol, reel
gram, anc
for which
went Bom
Section 3
■ion 6 pro
Texas Wate
i and i
*ater cons*