Page Four SCARLET AND BLACK . Friday May 5; l96| Kamm Argues For Gradual Culback l ‘ Of $40 Billion ln Arm By Michael Kamm Although the arms question i Spending national energies are channeled ‘ J’e lCant. from p. 2 , lmcii's rcsrdenccs. So it sccnis tu‘ many of us that the men cirioy functions of this sort and have is one of the most important toward increasing nationallthc right to hold tlicm. confronting the human race to-istrength. Perhaps the nation iSi day. it also seems to have besigetting some kind of macabre more concerts and crime at Grumman what “’elnell nor do we deny that they on which to obtain any informcould do to that other guy it serve an essenllal ClllLul‘alandlllri come one of the most difficult r-nation, The press merely re- ports that Russia has launched :’cat or dog. is ahead in this area, although she is definitely behind in another. .Political candidates and gen; crals confine themselves to hurl. ,pigmy of om. woke. and “mi ing invectircs and crying we are in danger or annhilation be- cause our “defense posture” ’s substandard. These generalities only tend to reinforce or chip away at some vague stercolyPeS,to draw in view of these factslcago area representative thatl ltlie admissions office is encourr‘ we have built up. Hence, the question con. front. as: What would happen if Russia launched a surprise attack? Do the necessary con- ditions exist that would make a nuclear war . thrill iust knowing we ever took a mind to. . At the rate things are going. wc w i l 1 probably n o t have a choice of figh has been predicted that due ‘to the increasing electronic com- Ling systems plus human falli- [bility by 1965 the odds will be ,for, rather than agai t, a war iloeing started by a mistake. E Thc conclusion we are forced fis that the parity concept in (arms is no longer valid. it was ‘tl‘ue that in the days of con- .vcntional Warfare the mere lquantity of guns, planes and lbombs would determine who None of us deny the need For ltcllcclllal purpose in a college ,community But it seems only fair ,to let us expand and improve the lhccause it enables men to have ldatcs on a relaxed, healthy basis and provides a program the men want and. lor that reason, tics serve. Lewis Ungcr 1T0 the Editor: I recently heard via the Chis laging a cut-off system using col liege board scores for next year This to me is a very disturb- ling policy, and if it goes into ‘full force i feel the duality of orofitnble ‘0 icould bluff whom and who eouldi Grinnell students will suffer. By her? would the us. be almost idem, whom Now, however‘ the‘ getting up a cum“ line 10.. “mm!“ With ““5“: 00ml“! iidca that we must keep up withprimigggor.s A ‘zi potential aggressor is obsosl nut relatively unscathed'l little investigation of surprise attack mechanics proves the contrary. Both Russian and Us. air force generals know that the most successful Soviet surprise attack would consist of her launching her entire airborne arsenal of 35 odd ICBM'S, 300 bombers and firing her400 800. mile missiles so that they all would be detected at once. ln this way one us. base could not detect part of thc incoming “"e attacking force and warn another base and thus increase its warning time. We might, therefore. picture a perfectly timed attack report— ed on the civil defense bands as “All overseas bases prepare to be hydrogen bombed in 7 minutes; all U. 5. cities in 15 minutes." Even this grim news would produce panic in the cities; the lfisminute warning would allow the Strategic Air Command to get 1/3 of its home—based bombs ei-s (about 300). its 15 lCBM’s and a few of its medium range rockets and bombers in Europe off the ground. Missiles are un- stoppable and. raccording to Newsweek, about so percent of our bombers would reach their targets. lncvitubly then, a Russian sure pries attack would result in our delivering at least 250 hydrogen bombs to Russian cities and in- dustrial centers. Since Hiroshi— mat-sized bombs .are being used merely to detonate present bombs. it is certain no city— in Russia or anywhereiwould survive a single thermonuclear bomb. Also it might be mention- ed that the Japanese killed in the Pacific a few years ago were over 300 miles down~wind of our ‘test explosion. ’The picture thus painted is hardly a pretty one. Even a politician as hyper-security eon» scious as Wayne Morse estimat» ed that Russlan casualties would probably be about 100 million— and that would be for the first so minutes of the war. it is evident that World War lll, if it comes, will be like no other war mankind has ever fought. ‘Convmtlonal' or feasible war is a thing of the past. is it even possible then to believe that Russia would em- bark on n surprise attack, knowing that every inhabits ant of its major cities and iuost of its industry would be wiped .out 30 minutes aftc'r the war gets under way? Hardly. What mania is it then that drives us to producing more and more weapons every year? What sadistic or masochistic (both are applicable) forces impell us to increase our ICBM’S from the present number of 15 to 300, clnublc the number of super car- riers :lnd increase our launching subs by 15 times in the next three years? Both the East and the West seem to en- joy iiesuscitatiiig the dead demon of surprise attack so that m rsilev ‘Iete. The qualitative the reality of , able to totally l Rusians no matter i ahead or who is stronger com- ‘ pels us to recognize the i worthlessncss, not to mention l the danger, of continuing to l compete militarily. our being destroy the it is imperative, therefore, that take the initiative in eas- ing international tensions by the discarding of our missile, and ‘submal‘ine building programs. By this i do not mean complete unilateral disarmament; that would be naive at best and dan~ gerous at worst. We must, how- ever, begin a partial cut—back of our colossal expenditures for weapons by at least $10 to $15 billion per year so that we can examine (1) the salutary effects on Soviet attitudes and (2) has gin to cope with the economic problems which will inevitably confront us. Since, as l have tried to illus- trate, our present deterrent forces are more than adequate we might hope for a total aboli— tion of our arms budget in three or four years. For those who may protest that a son billion arms out is too great for our country to adapt to in four years, it should be pointed out that we successfully adjust to a govs ernincntal arms out of a ticn dollars at. one strike after World War 1‘ without reces: sion or depression. I l l After we have ceased to allow expenditures for weapons, we could turn our attention to the dismantling of our existing lweapons with all the attendant problems of controls and inspec- tion, i i think the suggestion made‘ here is a compromise between the existing extremes and con» tinuing or accelerating the arms race on the one hand and total unilateral disarmament on the other. It is obvious we have arrived at the point where some- 1 thing new must be ventured. We can no longer afford the dubious‘ lluxury of hurling epithets across U.N. tablcs or talking back to the Russians. The course we are presently pursuing is suicidal ~ land perhaps genocidal. lEIizabe’rhan Ediling lDiscussed By Prol. l Richard Van Fosscn of the Cornell Collcgc faculty spoke in the viewing room of the library this afternoon at z. The sub iect of his talk was “Editing Elizabethan Plays: or Problems of the printing Housc" Van Eosscn, a graduate of Duke and llarvarcl U11)\'Cl’