The Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1969. Omega: Fact And Fancy

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31981, 7 May 1969, Page 16

The Press WEDNESDAY, MAY 7, 1969. Omega: Fact And Fancy

For almost a year the Omega controversy has continued more or less unabated, and to those citizens who have not lost interest in it through boredom or confusion it must be apparent that the critics of the system remain convinced that an Omega station is a dangerous neighbour. The Government, for its part, maintains that the Omega navigation system is nothing more than it is purported to be: a general-purpose system for aircraft, ships, and submarines, available to any military or commercial user with the equipment to receive its signals. Noone has produced evidence that it is being used, or will be used, to assist submarines to launch ballistic missiles. No-one who has studied the system doubts that, in theory, it might be used for this purpose; but the Polaris submarines of the United States Navy have long used a superior navigation system, which appears to have satisfied their needs. A great variety of arguments, accompanied by quotations from technical journals, have been produced by the critics to suggest that, notwithstanding the inadequacies of Omega’s accuracy, it has features which favour its employment by Polaris submarines. The crucial point among the many arguments seems to be that these submarines need the Omega system in order to escape detection. Yet there is no evidence that the United States Navy has been persuaded on this ground to install Omega receivers in Polaris submarines. Perhaps such evidence exists somewhere. Even then it is irrelevant to the main purpose of the Omega project If it were produced the question of a risk in being one of the countries operating Omega stations would be raised. It is perfectly proper for citizens to require their Government to consider such a question, but the Government which sees no special advantages in the Omega system for Polaris submarines, considers the establishment of a station in New Zealand does not expose the country to risk. Extracts from an article by Nicholas Turner, a freelance writer—an article he has made generally available to newspapers—are printed today on page 12. While not doubting the sincerity of the critics of Omega, he has discussed at length the use they have made of various authorities and documents to support their arguments. His inquiries have uncovered many shortcomings. Most of them will probably surprise the critics themselves. As many of the critics are scientists and students they will not be unfamiliar with objective criticism of their work; that is a normal part of academic training and experience. Other readers may feel that some Omega critics have been careless in their use of source material and that the whole discussion has been unnecessarily confused and distorted. These readers may reflect that although scientific debate should impartially assess all the evidence on its merits this debate has been conducted largely between students and some scientists on the one hand and the Government on the other. The desire to persuade has at times, it seems, outweighed purely scientific considerations. Mr Turner has not been kind to newspapers. They, in his opinion, have fallen short of a duty to examine the issues independently and to untangle the problems for their readers. “ The Press ”, which has printed many columns of argument and comment from the Omega critics, certainly feels a duty to allow Mr Turner space to discuss the basis of their statements.