Letters to the Editor

Shortening assignments will heighten intellectual growth

Ryan Salvatore '02's column on the overwhelming amount of class reading was on the mark. If faculty want Princeton students to go beyond the immediate task of getting the reading done — to consider the ramifications or the language of the text — they can't assign 300-plus pages of reading every week.

I had a precept with a history professor last year who has been with the department more than 35 years, and he said he had noted a rising trend in assignments during his career. His colleagues assign more reading so that students will spend more time on their class (after all, if a class only assigns 150 pages a week, who takes it seriously?). I have had professors assign between 400 and 600 pages for several weeks in a row.

Where does it stop?

College is about intellectual growth, not just fulfilling requirements. Professors would see better quality work and a more intellectual environment if students had time to process what they read. As it is, the most fundamental thing I've learned in a classroom during my four years is how to skim. Kit Cutler '01

Threat of Chinese arsenal must not be overlooked

Although I agree with Melissa Waage '01's conclusion that the National Missile Defense would spark further Russian nuclear proliferation, I believe that she misses other, more important issues regarding the NMD.

Besides Russia, China remains a larger concern regarding nuclear proliferation. Although it can be argued that the NMD does not mitigate the Russian nuclear deterrent, the NMD can be perceived as effectively neutralizing (assuming it works) China's limited arsenal, compelling China to respond with a massive buildup, expected at over 200 warheads by 2015. China is also concerned that the U.S. "shield" may be extended to Taiwan, which China views as a renegade province destined for reunification. As China enhances its arsenal, India and Pakistan will inevitably follow, causing further instability in the region.

As a result, the NMD would endanger any cooperation of China and Russia on the issue of non-proliferation. Not only would implementation of even a "limited version" of the NMD violate the ABM Treaty, it would also imperil the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The NPT is based on the commitment of nuclear weapon states to decrease their respective nuclear arsenals.

The second major point that was not expounded upon is the complete ineffectiveness of the NMD. Things as complex as plastic decoys confuse the NMD. The NMD has never been tested in real-world scenarios, and any inadequacies are hidden by tests due to "targets." More serious problems will be incurred when adversaries actively attempt to defeat the system. An example of this was the famed Patriot missile. While perfect in tests, there was no evidence of a single Scud destruction during the Gulf War.

If we are going to violate the ABM and NPT, we might as well do it with something that works. Waine K. Tam '01