Oregon Daily Emerald
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
NEWS STAFF
(541)346-5511
IEN SUD1CK
EDITOR IN CHIEF
STEVEN R. NEUMAN
MANAGING EDITOR
JARED PABEN
AY1SHA YAIIYA
NEWS EDITORS
PARKER HOWELL
SENIOR NEWS REPORTER
MORIAH BALINCIT
MEGHANN CUNIFF
KARA HANSEN
ANTHONY LUCERO
CANELA WOOD
NEWS REPORTERS
CLAYTON JONES
SPORTS EDITOR
JON ROELMAN
SFNIOR SPORTS REPORTER
STEPHEN MILIER
BRIAN SMITH
SPORTS REPORTERS
RYAN NYBURC
PULSE EDITOR
NATASHA CHILINGER1AN
SENIOR PULSE REPORTER
DAHVI FISCHER
AMY LICHTY
RYAN MURPHY
PULSE REPORTERS
DAVID JAGERNAUTH
EDITORIAL EDITOR
JENNIFER MCBRIDE
AILEE SLATER
CHUCK SLOTHOWER
TRAVIS WILLSE
COLUMNISTS
ASHLEY GRIFFIN
SUPPLEMENT
FREELANCE EDITOR
GABE BRADLEY
NEWS FREELANCE EDITOR/
DIRECTOR OF RECRUITMENT
DANIELLE HICKEY
PHOTO EDITOR
LAUREN WIMER
SENIOR PHOTOGRAPHER
TIM BOBOSKY
PHOTOGRAPHER
ERIK BISHOFF
PART-TIME PHOTOGRAPHER
BRET FURTWANGLER
ILLUSTRATOR/GRAPHIC ARTIST
KIRA PARK
DESIGN EDITOR
ELLIOTT ASBURY
CHARLIE CALDWELL
DUSTIN REESE
DESIGNERS
SHADRA BEESLEY
JEANNIE EVERS
COPY CHIEFS
KIMBERLY BLACKFIELD
PAUL THOMPSON
SPORTS COPY EDITORS
AMANDA EVRARD
AMBER UNDROS
NEWS COPY EDITORS
LINDSAY BURT
PULSE COPY EDITOR
ADRIENNE NELSON
ONLINE EDITOR
BUSINESS
(541)346-5511
JUDY R1EDL
GENERAL MANAGER
KATHY CARBONE
BUSINESS MANAGER
REBECCA CRITCHETT
RECEPTIONIST
NATHAN FOSTER
AIBINC GUO
ANDREW LEAHY
JOHN LONG
MALLORY MAHONEY
HOLLY MISTELL
DISTRIBUTION
ADVERTISING
(541)346-3712
MELISSA GUST
ADVERTISING DIRECTOR
TYLER MACK
SALES MANAGER
ALEX AMES
MATT BETZ
HERON CALISCH-DOLEN
MEGAN HAMLIN
ELISA JESSOP
MAEGAN KASER-LEE
MIA LEIDELMEYER
EMILY PHILBIN
SHANNON ROGERS
SALES REPRESENTATIVES
KELLEE KAUFTHEIL
AD ASSISTANT
CLASSIFIED
(541)3464343
TRINA SHANAMAN
CLASSIFIED MANAGER
KATY GAGNON
SABRINA GOWETTE
LESLIE STRAIGHT
KERI SPANGLER
KATIE STRINGER
CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING
ASSOCIATES
PRODUCTION
(541)3464381
MICHELE ROSS
PRODUCTION MANAGER
TARA SLOAN
PRODUCTION COORDINATOR
JEN CRAMLET
KRISTEN DICHARRY
CAMERON CAUT
ANDY HOLLAND
DESIGNERS
The Oregon Daily Emerald is pub
lished daily Monday through Fri
day during the school year by the
Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing
Co. Inc., at the University of Ore
gon, Eugene, Ore. The Emerald
operates independently of the
University with offices in Suite
300 of the Erb Memorial Union.
The Emerald is private property.
Unlawful removal or use of
papers is prosecutable by law
■ In my opinion
Unrealistic missile defense system
Next month “Doctor Strangelove
or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying
and Love the Bomb,” widely ac
claimed as one of the greatest satirical
films of all time, will be re-released in
a 40th Anniversary Special Edition
DVD. For those who haven’t seen
Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 masterpiece,
it’s about the lighter side of nuclear
destruction. By chance, the re-release
coincides with the most ridiculous
nuclear fiction of our day — President
Bush’s plan to begin deployment of a
national missile defense.
The Ballistic Missile Defense Sys
tem (BMDS) is the modern incarna
tion of Reagan’s “Star Wars” program,
a shield designed to protect the Unit
ed States from nuclear attacks. So far,
the Washington Post reports President
Bush dumped $31 billion down this
black hole. He’s calling for an addi
tional $9 billion to $10 billion a year if
he’s re-elected.
The administration has shunned
requirements, goals and standard re
view processes. There is no way to
measure BMDS’s progress apart from
tests conducted by the agency whose
very existence depends on BMDS vi
ability. The result is unrealistic test
conditions involving incoming mis
siles equipped with global positioning
systems. Even these highly scripted
tests failed to prove BMDS’s feasibility
and were halted two years ago.
The project marches on, regardless.
Senator Jack Reed (D-R.L), member
of the Armed Services Committee,
criticizes the lack of oversight.
“We’re in this hugely expensive
race to build something, but we don’t
know how much it'll cost in the end
or what it'll do,” Reed said.
The few people in charge of inter
nal review doubt BMDS will be com
petent. Thomas P. Christie, director
of Operational Test and Evaluation at
JENNIFER MCBRIDE
QUASHING DISSENT
the Department of Defense, esti
mates that the system may be only
20 percent effective. Expert physi
cists question developers’ claims that
the system will ever be able to distin
guish a nuclear weapon from a de
coy. Tests with even simple targets
become exhibitions of pure pathos.
Pentagon officials blame this not on
design flaws but on issues dealing
with the quality of specific, individ
ual parts. Some of those “individual
parts” aren’t even available yet, and
won’t be in the near future.
If we’re not even sure if BMDS is
possible and it’s clearly underdevel
oped, why are we setting up to deploy
it? Nobody seems to know. But the
administration’s gung-ho efforts to
produce a public relations victory are
putting Americans at risk.
Deployment before equipment is
ready discourages further develop
ment. In the 1990s, the U.S. devel
oped Theater High-Altitude Area De
fense, a similar anti-missile system,
but pressures to deploy early led to
compromises in its design and test
ing. Ironically, early deployment de
layed the project by years.
The same thing could happen to
BMDS. Philip E. Coyle III, the Penta
gon’s chief weapons evaluator during
the Clinton administration, worries de
ployment will lock the U.S. into fatally
flawed technology while creating a
false sense of security. “The design gets
frozen in order to build something, so
development is stopped. ... You can't
be building a house and changing the
floor plan at the same time.”
“They'd still be testing at Kitty
Hawk, for God's sake, if you wanted
perfection,” Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld declared in yet another ex
ample of why he shouldn’t be let out of
the White House without a leash. But
the Pentagon isn’t just deploying a
flawed mechanism, it’s deploying a
fantasy — and U.S. taxpayers are ex
pected to shoulder the burden of an ad
ministrational pipe dream.
The problem is, if billions of dol
lars later BMDS actually does protect
us from nuclear launches, even opti
mistic officials estimate it can only
stop 80 percent of all missiles. To
compensate, other nations like Chi
na will have to develop more
weapons in order to maintain the
mutually-destructive status-quo.
This could lead to the entire destabi
lization of South Asia, pushing the
fragile India-Pakistan standoff near
er to the brink of destruction.
The continued pursuit of this
chimerical daydream is destroying our
relationships abroad, as they see the
U.S. risking increased proliferation for
no reason. With our military stretched
thin, we are more dependent on allies
than ever for our national security.
Alienating them is less than wise.
BMDS technology is flawed, ex
pensive and puts the world in more
danger. Every good gambler can tell
you there’s a moment when you cut
your losses.
Continuing to parade BMDS as a
pre-election panacea for nuclear war
fare is the greatest farce of all. Who
knows? In 40 years, someone might
make a movie about it.
jennifermcbride@ dailyemerald, com
OREGON DAILY EMERALD LETTERS POLICY
Letters to the editor and guest commentaries are encouraged, and should be sent to (etters@dailyemerald .com or submitted at the Oregon Daily Emerald office, EMU Suite 300. Electronic
submissions are preferred. Letters are limited to 250 words, and guest commentaries to 550 words. Authors are limited to one submission per calendar month. Submissions should
include phone number and address forverification. The Emerald reserves the right to edit for space, gammar and style. Guest submissions are published at toe discretion of toe Emerald
■ Editorial
Parking
alternatives
follow same
bumpy road
If there is one serious issue on this campus
that gets no respect, it’s parking. It is an issue
that confronts the students, faculty and staff on
a daily basis and is one that has, for the most
part, fallen by the wayside as University plan
ners have set their sights on more glamorous
and high-profile projects.
Let’s face it — the University has a serious
problem with parking. The University sells two to
three times as many parking permits as available
spots, meaning students spend $94 per term (a 3
percent increase from last year) not for a parking
space, but rather for a license to hunt for one.
DPS Parking and TYansportation Manager
Rand Stamm told the Emerald in a Sept. 20 arti
cle that price increases are designed to “dis
courage students from driving. ”
Meanwhile, the University is trying to bully
students into either living in their cramped
dorms or moving just off-campus to areas that
the city government now seems to want to strip
of student tenants.
Well, it is working. The thought of having to
drive to campus makes it hard to get up in the
morning.
Many in the University community, especially
those with off-campus jobs, have no choice but
to drive. That can mean scheduling classes in two
hour blocks to accommodate parking or desper
ately searching for the few free parking spots in
the neighborhoods surrounding the campus.
We don’t condone the notion that everyone
should have their own personal parking space on
campus either, but other options seem to be in
danger of withering on the vine. The bus is gener
ally a good alternative and we applaud the Uni
versity for making good use of mass transit, but
depending on where you live and where you
need to go during the day the bus often won’t
take you there in a timely manner, if at all.
Biking to school, always a popular alternative
form of transportation, now promises to become
more of a hassle now that DPS is increasing en
forcement of bike laws. Besides, the prospect of
biking down any of the University’s main streets
(which are essentially the only approved bike
routes) five minutes before class means weaving
in and out of crowds of clueless pedestrians.
While we don’t want to encourage students
to drive alone to campus before looking at more
environmentally friendly options, there are
some cold hard facts to face: the University is
growing. In 1997, the total fall enrollment head
count was 17,207; today that figure is at 20,033.
There are no easy solutions, but more parking
or smarter parking should definitely be part of the
conversation. The University loves to make claims
about how well it plans for the future, but even
with all the brain power and innovation in this in
stitution, we still cling to the simplest choices.
Parking lots around campus, such as the lot be
hind the Knight Law Library, just isolate the com
munity from the University, setting us off from
Eugene like a moat around a castle. University
planners might consider skipping the vast vacant
lots of blacktop currently employed as parking
lots — when new buildings are constructed they
should come with underground parking facilities.
Whatever the decision, the University needs
to take a long hard look at the policies in place,
because right now we are on a collision course
with disaster.
EDITORIAL BOARD
Jennifer Sudick
Editor in Chief
David Jagemauth
Editorial Editor
Steven R. Neuman
Managing Editor
Gabe Bradley
Freelance Editor