TO THE EDITOR
BY JANE K. CRAMER
with me and was waiting for the day he could
get his driver’s license.
Ian Kenneth Cate, Jr. was 17 years old.
He was waiting for his 18th birthday to get
his car, go to college, and start his life. On
Sept. 20, 2002, Ian borrowed a bike, rode
around the block, and was hit by a woman
driving a Chevy Blazer. Ian died that day.
The woman was able to come after me,
Ian’s mother, for a rental car, lost wages, and
damages. Ian was not a pedestrian because he
was on a bike, yet he was not protected be-
cause he had no insurance.
Everyone needs to be protected, even kids
and people on bikes.
In loving memory of Ian Kenneth Cate Jr.
Laura K. Horton
Eugene
OUR RIGHT TO RIVERS
It is interesting, as a concerned citizen and
voter, to read a column written by one of our
state senators every week in EW. Tony
Corcoran gives us an insider’s view of the
wrangling and horse trading that goes on be-
hind the scenes at a legislative session. He
often decries those who sell out their con-
stituents by voting for bad bills in order to get
their own legislation passed. What he doesn’t
do, however, is let us know when he is doing
the same thing.
When a special interest bill (SB293) ap-
peared in the Senate Land Use Committee dur-
ing the current session that would have the ef-
fect of stripping Oregon citizens’ rights to ac-
cess the state’s navigable streams below the
high water mark, a large coalition of river users
banded together to fight it. After public outcry,
many senators — including Corcoran — told
their constituents they would vote against it.
The bill ground to a halt in committee.
But the big money interests behind The
Cattlemen’s Association, The Farm Bureau
and real estate lobbyists won’t give up so eas-
ily. Barring the public could have tremendous
financial benefit to landowners along public
waterways, and they have been attempting to
pass a restrictive bill for years. Never mind
that the bill that made Oregon a state guaran-
tees all U.S. citizens the right to free access on
all available navigable streams in the state. As
the Senate runs out of time to do business, lots
of backroom deals are being made to get pet
legislation passed. The powerful senator who
works for the Cattlemen’s Association, et al
has given the old bill (SB293) a new name
(SB928) and it has turned up in the Rules
Committee with a bunch of co-sponsors.
Some of these co-sponsors — such as
Corcoran — were previously committed to
vote “no” on the old bill. While the new one
does have some slight revisions, this bill is still
a stab in the back to anyone who loves to boat,
raft or fish on Oregon’s many beautiful rivers.
Ephraim Payne
Eugene
LETTERS POLICY: We welcome letters on all topics and
will print as many as space allows. Please limit length to
250 words, keep submissions to once a month, and
include your address and phone number for our files. E-
mail to editor@eugeneweekly.com (please put “letters” in
the subject line), fax to 484-4044, or mail to 1251
Lincoln, Eugene 97401.
Oregon Family Dental, PC
Welcomes
Stephanie Coursey, RDH
Now accepting new hygiene patients
“Providing quality care
with a gentle touch.”
344-7900 • 11th & Chamers • Eugene
Silver Jewelry
Yoga Mats
Meditation Cushions
Goddess Statues
Ethnic decorative items
Scented candles & incense
Books, Cards, Tarot Journals
RUBY CHASM
152 W 5th @ Charnelton
Remembering
Hiroshima
and Nagasaki
Fear drives U.S. policy today.
O
n Aug. 6, 1945 the U.S. dropped an atomic bomb nick-
named “Little Boy” on Hiroshima Japan, killing more than 130,000
people. Three days later “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki, killing or
injuring over 100,000 people. The American public rejoiced at the news of
these bombings because it meant the victorious end of a horrific war.
Victory using nuclear weapons was possible then, but much has changed
over the past 58 years. People now look back on the bombings of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki and vow “never again” — never should any country wage a
nuclear war. Nuclear war is now unthinkable for almost all people for two clear
reasons:
First, powerful states today have hydrogen bombs, measured in megatons
— millions of tons of TNT — a thousand times larger than the bombs of 1945. A
single 10-megaton bomb would completely destroy a large city such as New
York, killing millions of people instantly.
Second, nuclear war is unthinkable because the U.S. lost its nuclear monop-
oly. The Soviet Union quickly developed nuclear weapons, soon followed by
Britain, France and China. Eventually, powerful nuclear states became mutually
deterred — they did not attack each other for fear of suffering nuclear retalia-
tion.
Today, only eight states possess nuclear weapons, defying repeated predic-
tions of extensive nuclear proliferation. This reality has eased most people’s
fears of an all-out nuclear war — a fear widely shared during the Cold War.
However, many people still fear a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of a
terrorist group.
Extreme fear of nuclear proliferation drove the Bush administration’s
unprecedented policy of waging a pre-emptive war on Iraq. Fear also drives
the new policy to create new nuclear weapons, “bunker busters,” intended for
use in a future nuclear war against terrorist hideouts. Fear drives the new all-
out push to quickly build a national missile defense system. This system will
not be good for defense since any aggressor could easily knock out its radars
with a small conventional or terrorist attack. Instead, this “defense” system is
planned as useful for backing up a first strike against “rogues” in a future
nuclear confrontation. These policies that fearfully plan for waging an aggres-
sive nuclear war are incompatible with policies aimed at avoiding nuclear war.
C
oncurrently the U.S. pursues a policy called “Cooperative Threat
Reduction.” This program has helped Russia destroy more than 400
missile silos; eliminate more than 1,400 ballistic missiles, cruise mis-
siles, submarines, and strategic bombers; eliminate 150 metric tons of
weapons-grade uranium; and support approximately 50,000 weapons scien-
tists in peaceful research work. This is tremendous progress, but much more
needs to be done.
These efforts focus directly on securing the most likely source for a possi-
ble terrorist nuclear weapon — the insecure arsenal of the former Soviet
Union. However, these highly successful efforts are incompatible with the
plans for building and using new nuclear weapons, and waging pre-emptive
war. First, these efforts compete for funding and attention, and have not fared
well.
Second, if the U.S. argues it has a right to wage nuclear war unilaterally
and builds new nuclear weapons to do so, this undercuts arguments that
nuclear war is unthinkable and nuclear weapons are not useful. Other states
feel they need to respond to these policies by building their own nuclear
weapons rather than cooperatively giving up their nuclear programs. In fact,
today North Korea and Iran appear to be quickly building their nuclear arse-
nals, and it appears much of the world sympathizes with these states. Instead
of condemning these states, many have quietly argued that North Korea and
Iran probably do need nuclear weapons for defense since the U.S. is openly
threatening to unilaterally invade them.
The U.S. can fearfully plan to wage nuclear war, or the U.S. can continue to
work to avoid nuclear war, but it cannot do both at the same time.
Jane K. Cramer is an assistant professor of political science at UO. She teaches and does research on inter-
national security. A community gathering is planned Aug. 6 to remember the victims of the bombing of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki and to strengthen the campaign to rid all governments of their existing nuclear
weapons and stop the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons systems. The event will be at
Alton Baker Park, shelter #2, beginning with a 6 pm potluck, followed at 7:15 by music, poetry and educa-
tional presentations.
EUGENE • 344-4074
M-Sa 11-5:30
JULY 31, 2003 7