University of Houston, 4333 University Drive, Houston TX 77204-2000, (713) 743-1050.
© 2013 University of Houston. All rights reserved.
| Title | Houstonian, 1989 |
| Contributor (LCNAF) |
|
| Date | 1989 |
| Description | This edition of the Houstonian, published by the students of the university in 1989, is the official yearbook of the University of Houston. |
| Subject.Topical (LCSH) |
|
| Subject.Name (LCNAF) |
|
| Subject.Geographic (TGN) |
|
| Genre (AAT) |
|
| Language | English |
| Type (DCMI) |
|
| Original Item Location | LD2281.H745 H6 v. 55 1989 |
| Original Item URL | http://library.uh.edu/record=b1158762~S11 |
| Digital Collection | Houstonian Yearbook Collection |
| Digital Collection URL | http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/yearb |
| Repository | Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries |
| Repository URL | http://info.lib.uh.edu/about/campus-libraries-collections/special-collections |
| Use and Reproduction | In Copyright |
| File Name | index.cpd |
| Title | Issues |
| Format (IMT) |
|
| File Name | yearb_1989_242.jpg |
| Transcript | r„ /' s«*W / ^m** **** «■ ree to agree, we agree to disagree. — Reagan, Gorbachev spring of 1983, a special bipartisan (Scowcroft) commission concluded that the proposed MX arsenal would be incapable of surviving the first strike, and that a far more viable alternative was reliance on smaller single- warhead mobile systems. The debate, however, was suddenly given a new turn by Pres- ident Reagan when he announced his Strategic Defense Initiative as a possible solution to the new set of problems posed by jthe danger of a suprise non- retaliable nuclear attack. The premise behind the proposal was that science — its credibility now running higher than ever — should be given the benefit of the doubt on finding a viable solution. A critical factor was the astronomical problem- solving speed of modern comput ers, the computer guided missile propellants evidently allow for highly dependable ground-based interceptors. Other developments in modern technology, the names of which may be of little use to lay audience, such as "kinetic-kill," "directed energy," "particle beam," and the highly regarded "free electron" systems, offer much promise for installation of dependable space-based shield from incoming missiles. There are legitimate disagreements on whether the deployment of SDI would be a violation of the ABM treary. SDI's purpose is to prevent the missiles from coming in, which makes it an anti-missile system of some kind. It is certainly an attack on the premise of mutual assured destruction which underlied the arms control agreements of the previous decades. As America's ability to deliver a retaliatory second strike became increasingly problematic, SDI furnished the needed reorientation of American nuclear strategy emphasizing a high-tech solution, which threatened to in- effectuate the entire generation of Soviet military investment. There can be hardly a doubt that it had given momentum to successful conclusion of the bilateral negotiations on arms control. Its real significance, however, is the opportunity it offers in dealing with that gray Third World area of potential emergencies, which neither side is immune from or has the power to control. ► Fabian Vaksman Perestroika ■ 291 |