Extracted Article Text (OCR)
THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR- PAGE 9 TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 1983- Hilliani Raspberry W-J. VW A UV.H il 1. 1 II If I ft lit Space and the arms race be capable of destroying them short ly after they were launched. "RECENT HISTORY predicts that it will be hard to get the Russians to agree with us on terms for such a joint project. In this.
case. I suggest that we announce that we are going ahead with the project on our own. but that Russia is welcome to send observers or participants. I'm sure they will decide that this is an offer they can't refuse, since it will allow them to assure themselves that the system will really shoot down our missiles as well as theirs." No doubt there is some fatal flaw in Saichek's modification of the Gra ham scheme, but I haven't spotted it yet. I find it hard to imagine that we and the Soviets could so easily end our arms race, considering our mutual fixation on the notion that we can arm ourselves into nuclear security.
Still, the High Frontwoncept (as modified here) might give us and the Russians something other than throw-weights, megatonnage, warheads and MIRVs to talk about while we grow up enough to talk about genuine arms reduction. And it just might leave both sides with enough leftover resources to feed their hungry, educate their ignorant and get their economies going again. Washington Post Wrlttn Group deadliness of their own missiles. It would be, said Stone, "the most des tabilizing development imaginable," one that might even tempt a preemptive strike against the side known to be developing such a technology. I WROTE a second column apologizing for the oversight.
Here we go again. At least three readers responded with the same general suggestion. Here is how Jack C. Saichek of Rockford. put it: "You endorsed the (Graham) plan until Jeremy Stone pointed out that the Russians would be intimidated by the knowledge that we were developing such a system which would incapacitate them but not us.
They might panic and launch a preemptive attack. "The ideal solution to the dilemma would be to get the Russians to work jointly with us on a system that would destroy any and all missiles launched, including our own. Such a plan would have at least three salutary effects: 1) It should allay Soviet fears of being at the above-mentioned disadvantage. 2) It should Soviet and American fears that some other power might launch a nuclear attack. 3) It should, therefore, end the missile-building race.
There would be no reason for any power to build any more missiles once the system was shown to Washington t- Let's try again. Some weeks ago, I wrote a column touting an idea of Lt. Cen. Dan Graham, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. Basically, his notion is that the United States should "put into space a nonnuclear system that could shoot down Soviet nuclear weapons over Soviet territory" an approach that, according to Graham, doesn't even require new technology.
Graham's system (he calls it, and the nonprofit Washington based group he heads, "High would be useless as an offense against un-launched missiles, because its high-velocity projectiles would be burned up in the friction of the earth's atmosphere. But since it would be deadly against 'missiles in space, it would be a perfect defense against a Soviet nuclear attack and (I thought) a major step toward military stability- A few readers, among them Jeremy Stone of the Federation of American Scientists, saw the flaw immediately. If we could use the Graham device to neutralize any Soviet-launched missiles, the Soviets would be left with no defense against our own. Just think how we would react on learning that the Soviets could shoot down our missiles over the U.S. mainland while retaining the ii rA VROrATUi LEGAL SERVICES GORftRATlOM WORD IT YOU'RE IM NEED C3F A Tom Uickcr Focusing on recovery Letters to the editor Straight answers Satire local payrolls.
A new version of the most successful CETA programs, employing people while they're trained and educated to contribute to the econo: my, this doesn't seem much different in principle from the job training program Mr. Reagan says he favors. A public works program focusing on. actual needs not the "make-work, dead-end" jobs Mr. Reagan derides In a $3 trillion economy, a program of such measures amounting to $30 billion to $40 billion would be out of line; and it has to be remembered that for every point of reduction in unemployment, the deficit would be reduced by $25 billion to $30 billion (in rising revenues and falling benefit payments).
As a practical political matter, Mr. Reagan's opposition to most such ideas, as well as fear of the deficit, would force the Democrats to offer partially compensatory budget reductions. The most obvious target is military spending, cuts in which command more or less bipartisan 1 agreement already. THE DEMOCRATS could also of fer help in restraining what the President called "the line on the chart that is going up at the steepest pitch" the growth in entitlement programs, including Social Security, Whatever is done necessarily should avoid immediate payroll tax in- creases or other steps that would-counteract measures of stimulation The President, in short, has defined the problem but seems unwill-ing to do anything about it. That's" the Democrats' opportunity.
N.Y. Times News Service New York If President Rea gan's roundabout answers at his last news conference are a guide to budgetary policy, they suggest that he will not seek new taxes or cut military spending significantly but will attack the budget deficit with further reductions in social spending. That puts him 33'j percent on the right track. But with this President, it's not easy to know when his ideology is speaking, to be overcome later by the more pragmatic pleas of his advisers, or whether in Sen. Paul Laxalt's phrase he is already "very close to set in concrete." So proceed with caution: Will he ask for a tax increase? "It's a common rule and an accepted fact that increasing taxes is not the way out of a recession." Will he reduce military spending? "If it can be cut, it will be cut.
But not if it means reducing our ability below the level at which we can declare ourselves safe." WILL HE "STRETCH out" military spending? "Well, we have looked at such things and we'll continue to look. As I say, we're looking at-everything." Will he seek more cuts in social spending? "Now you've got a deficit. You want to cut it down, obviously, you've got to spend less." After the first of those answers, everything is downhill. But Mr. Reagan amplified his apparent unwillingness to raise taxes by the sensible observation that "the real answer to the deficit is recovery of the economy We want (the deficit) reduced.
But what we must do is get the economy restored on a long term, permanent basis. And everything we do must be directed toward that." However this may have been intended, and whatever shape Mr. Reagan's budget takes, Speaker Tip O'Neill's House Democrats have here an invitation to stop wringing their hands over the deficit and focus on "the recovery of the economy." In fact, if unemployment were now under 6 percent, the deficit would be 2 percent or less of Gross National Product, about what it was in fiscal 1981 (compared to the 5.6 percent of GNP projected for 1985). BY THROWING the economy into recession, moreover, the Federal Reserve Board, with Mr. Reagan's complicity, has reduced the rate of inflation to 4.5 percent and produced ample unused plant capacity at the cost, of course, of 10.8 percent unemployment.
Those figures mean that the economy could be sharply stimulated with little immediate risk of rekindling inflation. Short-term increases in the budget deficit could be recovered and the deficit ultimately reduced by added tax revenues flowing from economic growth. If, therefore, "the real answer" is "recovery of the economy," the Democrats would be taking the President at his word if they proposed: Moving the scheduled July 1 tax cut to Jan. 1, a move in which Mr. Reagan has expressed interest.
Restoring earlier cuts in food stamps and welfare payments, and increasing the amount and duration of unemployment benefits all putting money quickly into people's hands. INCREASING GENERAL rev enue sharing to the states and mu- nicipalities, to maintain or restore I merely "told the top Soviet agent to stop spying and go home." Nonsense. Burgess was not recruited by Prof. Blunt. Far from being the "top Soviet agent." Burgess was a minor and discredited official with no access to highly sensitive material.
(The year happened to be 1952. not 1951.) Neither then nor at any time did I have any hard evidence against I knew nothing of Philby and Maclean. The information I had on Burgess and Blunt was. as Mrs. Thatcher told the House of Commons, insufficient to provide the basis for prosecution.
Until Prof. Blunt chose to confess, the information I provided to William Safire's column, "The definition of traitor and patriot," strikes me as a nasty exercise in character assassination. It saddens me to see it published in the New York Times. The column (which also appeared in The Star Jan. 9 through the New York Times News Service) is wildly inaccurate and plainly injurious to me.
Setting aside its cheap sneers and insinuations, let me comment on three matters of fact. Mr. Safire states that my "greatest contribution to the Soviet spy system came in 1951 when (I) ran into another of Blunt's recruits. Guy Burgess, in Washington." Instead of going at once to British intelligence. the FBI and to MI5 was of limited value.
Mr. Safire describes me as a "Red under the bed" who choss to "deride Joe McCarthy for looking for Reds under the bed." Utterly false. In my book on McCarthy. "Trial by Television." and in editorials in the New Republic. I condemned the Communist Party as a source of subversion and espionage.
My criticisms of McCarthy were identical to those made by the New York Times. Mr. Safire declares that the statement I made to the FBI in 1963 was given "strictly to clear Imy) career path." Utterly false. I withdrew my name from consideration for a Federal appointment before making my statement. In the opinion of my attorneys.
I have been seriously libeled by the New York Times. I have chosen to write this letter rather than to seek legal redress solely because I continue to hold the New York Times in high regard. MICHAEL STRAIGHT New York Giving prisons 'priority' 3 A hint of what's to come can be found in another story in the same Dec. 30 issue of The Star: "Goldsmith asks wider criminal targeting." The prosecutor and those he represents want, among other things, to make an individual's juvenile record a criterion for determining longterm imprisonment. The irony and criminality of the state comes through in Federal Judge Dillin's reported quote in the budget priority story: "Hundreds of grown men are being held in less space than is required by law for a dog or cat." More prisons do not lessen crime.
ACHEBE H. LATEEF Indiana State Prison Michigan City More apples I have just seen another one of those nauseating "Move over New York. Apple is our middle name" commercials. When will our city fathers learn that most people who live in Indianapolis don't want this city to become like New York? Almost weekly we are treated to new. unnecessary and costly projects.
The mayor recently announced another way to make this city more like New York: mounted policemen. Big Apple, look out. We've got road apples, too. ROBERT W. VAN BUSKIRK Indianapolis This is regarding The Star article of Dec.
30, "Giving prisons budget priority denies other deserving agen-ies." Reporter John J. Shaughnessy does an incredible job, along with the editors, of misleading readers. While the reporter's approach is somewhat different, the intention is the same, to misinform. Readers would think a grave disservice is being done the taxpayer. Indeed it is, if the headline is any real indication of state policy.
The reporting belies what the lawmakers have in store for the unemployed and working poor, not to mention the youth of this state and particularly black youth who have been hit hardest by the reshuffling of domestic priorities and who are now over represented in Indiana's prisons. The idea of giving the prisons budget priority at the expense of "other deserving agencies" is because of the tremendous amount of people the state foresees coming into the prison system in the future as the economy continues to fall. Even before Ronald Reagan and economics with its "trickle down" theory took power, prison populations were swelling, due in part to habitual criminal laws and mandatory sentencing. Now prison populations have the potential to swell to unbelievable proportions. Before this happens, the state should be forced to feed people and provide productive jobs, not prison cells.
ssmm mm tod INBH 1 rvn GfflU in i -r-r buni'j Fi'iaia num. I a i mm if Take a few minutes to compare all the new money market accounts available today. You'll find that they all offer about the same thing. All except f. Morris Plan.
Morris Plan's Market-Money Account guarantees to pay you a full 5 more than the 7-day money market average now through January 14, 1983. With check writing privileges and interest compounded daily. After January 14, 1983, watch your investment grow as Morris Plan continues to pay interest higher than current money market rates! Take five minutes to call us. We'll be glad to explain why the Morris Plan Market-Money Account is the smart way to plan. fcs ym Danger Signals of Pinched Nerves: 1.
Headaches, Dizziness, Loss ol Sleep 2. Neck Pain, Tight Muscles 3. Pain Down Arms, Shoulder Pain 4. Numbness in Hands or Feet 5. Pain between the Shoulders 6.
Painful Joints, Nervousness 7. Lower Back Pain, Hip Pain, Pain Down Legs I'll. 1 A ii i "mm'" 'S'Wjf' I i' Kmiiwiiiii'Hi, i i I I'm. Ill .11.11111 il I HOW! NEW Ufflli Now you can top the money market rates and have unlimited checking with one account at Morris Plan. With a balance of.
$2,500 or more, your Profitchecks account will provide all the convenience and flexibility you want from a checking account while it pays you the higher interest you've come to expect from Morris Plan. Stop in and ask a Morris Plan teller about improved high yield Profitchecks! WHY because this examination can help determine whether or not your health problem may respond to modern chiropractic treatment methods. During the next 90 days we will accept what your insurance companies pay as payment in full without an additional cost to you. Group Auto Health Accident Workman's Comp. Dr.
Paul A. Palombi Community Arts Chiropractic Clinic, Inc. 6326 Rucker Road, Suite 253-1644 "This oMer subject to our review and your assignment o' policy and benedts Free examma-1 tion does not include x-rayS or treatment Tf fSSIflnT l-TAY TO RATS..
Get access to Newspapers.com
- The largest online newspaper archive
- 300+ newspapers from the 1700's - 2000's
- Millions of additional pages added every month
Publisher Extra® Newspapers
- Exclusive licensed content from premium publishers like the The Indianapolis Star
- Archives through last month
- Continually updated
About The Indianapolis Star Archive
- Pages Available:
- Years Available: