University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Reader Urges Virginia Residents To Voice Opinions On ABM

The recent decision by President
Nixon to pursue deployment of a
"revised" anti ballistic missile
system (ABM) comes as a shock to
many thousands of concerned citizens
who have been actively working
to reduce military expenditures
and the spiraling arms race. Mr.
Nixon's decision is an obvious sop
to the military contractors involved
in this costly and ineffective program.

It is useless to write letters or
send petitions to President Nixon
because he has already made his
position clear but the entire project
can still be defeated or delayed if
enough individuals who are opposed
to the system will take the
time to write to their United States
Senators. President Nixon has admitted
that the vote in the Senate
will be close and a little effort by
those opposed to ABM just might
make the difference.

I particularly urge all residents
of Virginia to write to Senators
Spong and Byrd since neither of
these gentlemen has taken a position
on the system. It is unlikely
that proponents of the ABM can be
defeated in the House of Representatives
and this is why all efforts
must be expanded to influence
wavering U.S. Senators and to
bolster those who have come out
against deployment of the system.
It is vital that all members of the
Senate understand that large segments
of a responsible electorate
are against ABM. They won't know
this unless you tell them.

Another important effort by
those opposed to ABM should
include direct grass roots appeals to
friends and neighbors. They should
be urged to write their Senators
before debate on the system is
terminated. Concerned students
could accomplish this without too
much difficulty in their hometown
neighborhoods over the spring vacation.
When writing to your Senators
or talking to friends, you should
stress the following points:

1. Status of Missile systems

By 1968, the United States had
4,200 long-range deliverable nuclear
weapons and the Soviet Union had
1,200, according to former Defense
Secretary Clark Clifford. Since 400
of these weapons could destroy up
to one-fifth of the Soviet population,
as former Defense Secretary
Robert McNamara had earlier testified,
the United States now has
more than 10 times the destructive
power required to wipe out 50
million human beings.

If the Soviet leaders are rational,
they should have long since been
deterred against attacking the
United States by the certainty of
devastating retaliation. If they are
not rational, no changes in our
arsenal of overkill are likely to
deter them.

Likewise, if the Chinese leaders
are rational, they will not be
tempted to use their small supply
of nuclear weapons against the
United States once they develop a
delivery system. If they are not
rational, no shifts in American
military policy are likely to affect
them.

2. The ABM would spark
another spiral in the arms race

Despite Mr. Nixon's assurances,
it is likely that the deployment of
even the revised ABM system will
bring some kind of Soviet response.
The simplest response would be for
the USSR to increase the number
of its missiles, which in turn would
encourage the United States to
build more missiles and to expand
the ABM system.

3. The ABM would strengthen
the Soviet military-industrial complex

A decision by the United States
to build an ABM system would
tend to confirm the pessimistic
assessment of American intentions
which are the stock-in-trade of
those in the Soviet Union with a
vested interest in military production
and hard-line responses.

4. The ABM would devour
vitally-needed resources

According to Deputy Defense
Secretary Paakared, the minimum
Pentagon estimate for the "revised"
ABM system is 6 billion. Senator
Stuart Symington has estimated the
real cost as close to $10 billion and
past experience with military contracts
indicates that the cost will be
even higher than this. Estimated
costs for the "thick" system which
Mr. Nixon has not ruled out, vary
between $40 and $100 billion -
not counting fallout shelters. A
close examination of the President's
news conference revealed that new
programs for the cities and against
poverty have been reduced from a
"priority" to an "option." The
question of where our resources are
to be utilized in the coming decade
is involved in considering the ABM.

5. The ABM is unlikely to work
against nuclear attack

Most scientists who are not
subsidized by the government believe
the radar of the ABM system
can be rendered inoperative by
metallic chaff, nuclear explosions,
or both. Without radar, there can
be no ABM.

6. The ABM is Contradictory

Proponents of the ABM are
divided on whether the system is
designed against China or Russia.
The current purpose now seems to
be directed towards protecting a
small part of America's deterrent
strength against a limited attack by
China or the Soviet Union. It is
probable that a limited attack by
China would be directed against
urban areas and not against the
missile sites protected by ABM. Mr.
Nixon also indicated that the
revised ABM system would be
designed to insure that at least part
of America's retaliatory missile
force is preserved to strike back at
the aggressors. It is highly unlikely,
however, that a Soviet or Chinese
attack could destroy a significant
portion of America's Polaris nuclear
force in the U.S. arsenal of
retaliatory weapons. Nor can the
bulk of America's land based
weapons be defended by the
planned system unless expansion is
anticipated and expanding the
system again raises the question of
priorities and resources. The best
defense we can have is an agreement
with our adversaries to reduce
offensive and defensive weapons
systems and the development of
ABM is not a step in this direction.

7. Opposition to ABM is a
Bipartisan Effort

Individual Senators opposed to
ABM include distinguished members
of both political parties and
this opposition cuts across traditional
liberal-conservative lines.
Prominent Republican opponents
include Senator John Sherman
Cooper of Kentucky, Senator
Charles Percy of Illinois, Senator
Jacob Javits of New York, Senator
Edward Brooke of Massachusetts,
and Senator Barry Goldwater or
Arizona. Prominent Democrats include
former Vice President Hubert
Humphrey, the Senate Majority
Leader Mike Mansfield, Assistant
Majority Leader Edward Kennedy,
Senator George McGovern, Senator
Eugene McCarthy, Senator William
Fulbright and influential supporters
of the Vietnam War including
Senator Allen Ellender and Stuart
Symington.

If you feel, as these gentlemen
do, that deployment of an ABM
system is not in the national
interest, you should write or wire
your United States Senators now.
Defeat of this system is vitally
important if the priorities of
America are to be changed.

Support Dismayed

We were extremely dismayed to
see 106 of Virginia's athletes
express their support for a coach
who has produced a mediocre
record over the past six years. None
of the 106 have ever played varsity
basketball and none of them
therefore is in the best position to
blame the failure of the basketball
team on the "personal inadequacies
and immaturities" of the players
involved. If the mediocrity of the
basketball team this year was an
exception to the rule, or if only a
few players had griped, one might
understandably blame the players
rather than the coach. Such is not
the case.

On the basis of his poor record
over the last six years, Mr. Gibson's
tenure as a coach here at Virginia
should by now be questionable.
When in addition to his poor
record, his actions and practices
come into question by those
athletes who are in the best
position to judge him, then his
tenure should become doubly questionable.
If our basketball players
are not of the same caliber of the
"106" then the fault would seem to
lie with Mr. Gibson's ability to
recruit better players. It seems
more likely however, as the "106"
indicated that the players on the
squad have not produced to the
fullest extent of their capabilities.
This may be due in part to their
unwillingness to "pay the price,"
and the "106" implied. Again, it
seems more likely that Mr. Gibson
either because of his personality, or
his inability as a coach is responsible.
It seems to us, that it is up to
the coach to get the most out of his
players, and apparently Mr. Gibson
has been unable to do this.

While the players on the basketball
team initially did not choose
the best means available for airing
their grievances, to condemn them
in their efforts to deal with the
mediocrity prevalent in the basketball
program is rather irrational.
The bias of the sports editors in
The Cavalier Daily, if any, was
hopefully also in the best interests
of the basketball program here at
Virginia. The image of Virginia
athletics which the "106" were so
quick to defend has in the past
been one of mediocrity. Mr. Gibson
has done little with the basketball
program to improve that image. No
one will deny that there are both
good players and bad players, but
the same is true of coaches - Mr.
Gibson's record and his obviously
questionable ability to handle
players speak for themselves.

Disappointed

We were disappointed on reading
the 106 athletes' petition in
support of Coach Gibson. It seems
to us the only people capable of
effectively evaluating a coach are
his players.

One can attribute our poor
record to either a weak coach or
weak players. Assuming, as these
athletes seem to be doing, that the
fault does not lie with Gibson's
coaching ability, then the problems
must stem from the players themselves.
But from where do these
players come? They are a reflection
of the coach who recruited them
and worked with them through
their college years. If the players
are not adequate, who can be
blamed but the coach and his six
years of recruiting.

Gibson is the basketball program
at this school. If the basketball
program is a failure, Gibson is a
failure. In what other profession
can a man fail so consistently and
be allowed to continue?

True Honor

Congratulations on your March
18 editorial "Honor's Honor." The
first step toward a true system of
honor, or student ethics, or whatever
we choose to call it, is public
recognition of the fact that we do
not have such a system now. Your
editorial has undoubtedly contributed
to this recognition.

Let me suggest again, as I did
after September's University Forum
on the honor system, that the next
step is for The Cavalier Daily to
solicit and print a series of commentaries
on different aspects of
the problem from different points
of view.

Publish And Perish

In the academic world, most
either publish or perish; but in one
masterful stroke, Alan Bromberg
(Letters, March 14) has managed to
do both. The magnitude of his
muddle is best described in this
segment of his letter: "Since our
economists seem so enamored of
paying University employees $1.00
an hour, perhaps the University
should pay that amount to its
economics professors. After a few
months of trying to raise a family
on that pitiful income, I suspect
that our pre-Keynesian scholars
would feel rather different about
the blessings of $1.00 an hour."

No economist - at U.Va. or
elsewhere - prefers to see people
poor. Morally, we'd like to see
everyone earning $10, even $100 an
hour. Such wages, with present
prices, imply that everyone is
tremendously productive. With the
resulting shorter workweek, people
will have more time and greater
means to do the things they want.
Unfortunately, reality doesn't conform
to this model, so some
moralists have sought to bend
reality, by introducing artificial
impediments into the labor market
- artificial in the sense that wages
are raised above what the market
will pay for some workers. Both
classical and post-Keynesian economists
are in virtual agreement that
such impediments, primarily the
minimum wage law, are a bad
means to a good end - the
elimination of poverty. A simple
example should show why: Suppose
that tomorrow wages are
raised to $20 per hour nationwide,
as a minimum, through voluntary
or legal means. I think even Mr.
Bromberg will agree that under
present conditions many would lose
their jobs. With wages at that level,
automation would replace many,
and others will lose their jobs as
employers close down, because
employees worth $.01 to $19.99
would be paid $20.00. The group
left relatively untouched by the
wage increase will be those presently
earning more than $20 an hour -
corporate executives, movie stars,
etc. If, reacting to unemployment
wage levels are allowed to fall,
various types of workers will be
rehired - with the most productive
in each category being hired back
first. Wherever the minimum wage
finally settles - say at the current
$1.60 - its impact will be concentrated
on those presently earning
less than the minimum. As Mr.
Bromberg correctly points out, one
is poor working at $1.00 an hour,
but it is precisely this person whose
job is placed in jeopardy, and the
less he is worth on the market the
greater the jeopardy. Remember
those two women fired from the
Grill last year when the minimum
wage was raised? Even worse, such
people have few alternatives, since
the minimum wage eliminates those
jobs which they have the skills to
perform. That is why Mr. Bromberg's
example of reducing the
economist's pay is so ill-taken.
Reducing his wage to $1.00 an hour
will cause him to shift employers,
or, if the wage is the same
nationwide, he will move into
alternate employments that pay
more than $1.00. A university
economist has skills and potentials
which the poor lack - he has
alternatives.

In place of minimum wage laws
- as an anti-poverty weapon -
economists put forth various proposals
including 1) a return to
noninterference, 2) noninterference
and subsidized or Federal job
retraining, 3) noninterference
coupled with a subsidy to bring
everyone up to a specified level,
like $1.60 an hour, and there are
doubtless other proposals. These
are all better methods than artificially
raising wages in some manner,
because they avoid unemployment
and its undesirable consequences by
allowing the market to determine
the wage at least initially.