European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - December 31, 1991, Darmstadt, Hesse Tuesday december 31, 1991 the stars and stripes Page 13 commentary Robert Burn where to aim missiles if not at each other there a a More Basic question than whose Finger is on the nuclear Button in what used to be the soviet Union Are the missiles still aimed at the United states the answer apparently is yes. The reason there is nowhere else to aim them. And if they Arentt aimed at something what Good arc they it is a measure of How swiftly the world is changing that the disintegrating soviet Union a and perhaps the United states As Well a must re examine Why it needs strategic nuclear missiles if there is no enemy. Russia which holds about three quarters of the roughly 27,000 soviet strategic nuclear weapons could scrap them All. But will its leaders think that is Wise As Long As it remains in the Cross hairs of thousands of . Nuclear weapons even if russian president Boris Yeltsin saw no risk in a world with just one nuclear superpower he would still face the question of whether to hang onto some nuclear weapons As a hedge against new nuclear Powers emerging in the future. For both the United states and the former soviet Union not targeting nuclear weapons at each other is More than a matter of nurturing a newly Friendly relationship. For the Pentagon taking soviet targets out of its nuclear sights would be tantamount to acknowledging there is no a threat Quot to deter no rationale to its nuclear War fighting plan perhaps no reason to keep nuclear weapons. The rationale for building tens of thousands of . And soviet nuclear weapons throughout the cold War was that each Side needed to deter the other needed to be sure that if one struck first the other could deliver a massive counterpunch. The Bush administration is re evaluating the full scope of its nuclear strategy but so far there is Little sign that the deterrence argument will disappear. Retired adm. James Watkins who As Secretary of Energy is in charge of building the nation s nuclear weapons recently invoked the familiar theme of soviet nuclear might in explaining Why the administration Wasny to ready to Stop making weapons. A to the Best of our knowledge those missiles Are still pointed at the United states. Those that Haven t been destroyed Quot Watkins told reporters. A therefore we cannot take Down our guard everywhere. We have to be on his tour of the four former soviet republics that have strategic nuclear weapons on their soil Secretary of state James a. Baker 111 said he was asking Republic leaders not to aim the missiles at the United states. In a comment to reporters he acknowledged that his request invited an unwelcome complication. A i would like to see Zero weapons targeted on the United states but i am not prepared today to subscribe to the philosophy of a Baker said. Actually both the United states and the former soviet Union already have stopped aiming some missiles at each other although the changes weren t couched in such terms. In president Bush a sept. 27 disarmament speech that marked a historic shift in . Nuclear readiness he ordered the nations Fleet of b-52 and b-1b strategic bombers off Alert. He also ordered off Alert 450 minuteman ii intercontinental ballistic missiles that arc scheduled for eventual elimination. Then soviet president Mikhail s. Gorbachev essentially matched Bush s moves several Days later. Taking off Alert the nearly 1,000 . And soviet missiles affected by the Bush and Gorbachev decisions is equivalent to them no longer being aimed at anyone. Technicians removed from the missiles the computer tapes that Are a sort of Road map to specific targets. Without the tapes the missiles can t know where to go. _ even with those weapons out of commission both the United states and the former soviet Union have about 10,000 warheads each for missiles and bombs capable of reaching each other s territory. Until both sides decide they Don t need a substantial nuclear Arsenal they most Likely will continue to Point the weapons at each other private analysts say. Britain France and China a the Only other major nuclear Powers a Arentt considered a threat. Quot where else Are we going to Point them Quot asks Stan Norris a nuclear weapons specialist at the natural resources defense Council which favors nuclear disarmament. C the associated pres James j. Kilpatrick Public benefited from televising it was an ordeal for Willie and a worse ordeal for Patti but the nations most publicized rape Case had its up Side. Millions of to viewers benefited from their first real world look at a criminal trial. Television is Here to stay in our courtrooms and a Welcome development it is. Forty five of the 50 states now permit some to coverage a 25 of them in their trial courts another 20 in their appellate courts. Federal courts in six districts Are in the midst of an Experiment that promises to open Federal jurisprudence. We have come a Long Way since the intolerable circus that fouled up the Texas trial of Billie sol Estes in 1962. Estes was a High rolling swindler who had gained National notoriety. Relatively speaking television was in its infancy then. At the pretrial proceedings in Tyler As the supreme court would observe a cables and wires were snaked across the courtroom floor three microphones were on the judge s Bench and others were beamed at the jury Box and the counsel to Crews and still photographers disrupted the proceedings. Things were a Little Calmer when the trial itself began in october but even so the cumulative effect was to deny Estes the a judicial serenity and Calm to which he was entitled. By a vote of 5-4 he supreme court reversed his conviction. Chief Justice Warren in a concurring opinion denounced to coverage As a desecration of a Warren was so upset by the very idea that he employed one of the few exclamation Marks Ever to appear in his opinions. He feared that television a not Only offers a temptation to judges to use the Bench As a vehicle for their own ends but offers the same temptation to every participant in the trial be the defense counsel prosecutor witness or juror a some of these functionaries a a undoubtedly would play to the to audience. It has t happened that Way at All. In West Palm Beach fla., the to camera was a quiet Spectator. No cables were snaked across the courtroom. The Micro finones were the same microphones regu arly in use. None of the participants showed the slightest indication of playing to the audience. The result was that viewers got a sense of the real thing. We heard riveting testimony from Patricia Bowman the accuser and from William Kennedy Smith the accused. Viewers could Yawn through the tedious testimony of various expert witnesses. We saw a highly competent judge determined to see that no error on her part would result in a mistrial. We saw a prosecuting attorney botch her Case with irrelevant and repetitive questions. Every Law student in the land could learn from Roy Blacks Cross examinations. This is the Way it ought to be. Some judges a especially Federal judges with lifetime tenure a get it in their swelled Heads that the courtrooms belong to them. They dwell in the intoxicating Clouds that hover atop Olympus. No Mere taxpayers allowed in Point of fact Smith trial the courts especially the . Supreme court belong to the people who pay for them. We ought to have the same Access to the courts that we have to Congress and the executive agencies. All this Highfalutin talk of the a majesty of the Law is piffle. Chief Justice Rehnquist puts on his pants just like the rest of us. Thanks to court to a new program developed by Merrill Brown Steven Brill Fred Graham and others Cable viewers in subscribing cities have had an Opportunity in recent months to see 70 trials in whole or in part. About three fourths of these have been criminal trials one fourth civil trials. They have covered a spectrum from product liability to police brutality. No complaints have been heard that to coverage in any Way has violated due process of Law. Following the Smith trial a few viewers complained that the testimony of the principal characters was too explicit for family viewing. Some complained that the defendant was treated unfairly because his name and face were shown while Patricia Bowmans name was bleeped and her face was masked. I would reject both complaints. Sleaze is sleaze. Boys will be boys and girls will be girls. This is the Way the world is. Those of us in the Media have some decency left. We were not going to identify the accuser publicly. Since the trial she voluntarily has come Forward. It might be cynically said now that the trial is Over that no one gained hut the lawyers. Sot so. All of us who watched the trial on television benefited from seeing Justice Well served. C Universal press Syndicate Tot my of Wop of whom Ratasep Jutt Loemie 50m6outt
