Approval of Funds for MX

Rep. Ronald W. Dellums (D-Berkeley) summed up the case against the MX missile in his splendid article (Editorial Pages, March 26), “The MX Is Indefensible.” Neither the Senate nor the House listened to his sound, factual arguments that they . . . “should reject appeals to ideological paranoia and instead pursue a policy based on sanity, reason and strategic integrity.”

It is a sad time for this nation that it should be in the hands of a President whose concern is more with his “pride than with military necessity.” And it is even more sad and dangerous that our Congress should be swayed by the specious arguments of this President and not act on the facts and their own common sense.

A billion and a half dollars will be buying neither protection nor persuasion. It will be money wasted, thrown down those hardened silos yielding nothing.

In a speech made by the late Indira Gandhi in 1981 at a conference of the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, she stated that . . . “for the price of a single intercontinental ballistic missile it would be possible to plant 200 million trees, irrigate 1 million hectares (2,471 acres per hectare), feed 50 million malnourished children in developing countries, buy a million tons of fertilizer, build 65,000 health-care centers or 340,000 primary schools, etc.”

The Reagan Administration had no money for the American farmers. From his shortsighted viewpoint he overlooks the fact that the very first and supremely important need in war or peace is food.

Why are we always planning for war, war, war? Why isn’t there planning for peace? Why is it that the American people (including senators and congressmen) can so easily be taken in by a facile manner and empty rhetoric?

GERTRUDE KERN

Los Angeles

Dellums stated that the MX is useless. He is convinced it is meant as a first-strike weapon only. Greatly worried, Dellums says it may provoke the Soviets into launching their in-place 600 MX-type missiles along with their others. The fact that they have first-strike ability and their missiles have five times the throwweight of all U.S. ICBMs doesn’t bother Dellums, while the efforts of our military experts to build a proper defense against their greatly superior force worries him. Comrade Lenin foresaw such people, commenting to the effect that the democracies would furnish the rope to hang themselves.

ROY BURNETT

Newbury Park

Your editorial (March 21), “Money Down a Silo,” was very good indeed and it pinpoints the lack of savvy in Congress today.

After recognizing the vulnerable and costly MX system for what it really is, the brute of a weapon was set up for sure doom in 1985. But then President Reagan let loose, jamming threats down Republican throats and insinuating to Democrats that voting against MX would undercut our position in Geneva. Moscow must surely chuckle at such whimpering yahoos as Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

If our “bargaining chips” are obsolete, we are not even going to be able to make it to the table. And if we further bankrupt this nation on another billion-dollar weapons system we will not be able to buy any chips at all to bargain with.

Is Congress really that out of touch, or has it just sold out to the contractors?

THOMAS ANDREW

Santa Monica

The ultimate contradiction: Reagan’s bringing a chief disarmament negotiator home from Geneva at taxpayers’ expense to sell the nation on more arms .

D. L. CASSATT

La Palma

My heartfelt congratulations to the President and Congress for their exemplary leadership in causing the Russians to spend more money to keep up with us in building more bombs. It makes for a beautiful world!

HUGH HARRIS ANDERSON

South Pasadena

Now that the indispensable MX missile has been approved, I suggest we deploy it underground in Washington, D.C., where there is no danger to intelligent life.

R. A. HARMETZ

San Diego

I read that $1.5 billion is about to be spent to produce the MX missile--a 195,000-pound intercontinental weapon designed to carry 10 nuclear warheads.

It is my firm belief that the $1.5 billion would be better appropriated toward positive efforts of aid to those in this world who need food and shelter and a friend--indeed, some hope for their future, and, in my estimation, ours. By ensuring aid to the needy, we, the United States of America, could be much more of a threat to the Soviet Union and have a stronger position of negotiation for a true peace treaty in the future than by purporting “peace” through the increased production of weapons.

When will the United States of America become the leader and set an example of peaceful actions to unify the human race?

PATRICIA A. BARRON

Sierra Madre

Ignorance is knowledge; slavery is freedom; war is peace. 1984 may be a year late, but when our President responds to a vote in favor of producing MX missiles as “a vote for peace, for a safer future . . . “ we are clearly being taught Doublespeak.

Having named this misguided missile “Peacekeeper” long before the Geneva talks turned it into a so-called “bargaining chip,” President Reagan has continually shown us that he perceives the only strength as military strength. Mix that with the matter of presidential pride, referred to in your editorial, and we all have great cause for concern about the questionable way of thinking on which major policy decisions are based.

CAROL P. GOLDMAN

Glendale

It really bothers me that our President wants to appropriate funds for the MX missiles. He is worried about spending too much money and makes budget cuts on worthwhile programs. But he wants funding for the MX missiles.

Why should Reagan make budget cuts on constructive programs but want to approve funds for a destructive program? If there is money to be used, it should be spent constructively (for better roads, schools, helping the poor, etc.) and not destructively!

The United States alone has enough nuclear missiles and weapons to blow up the Earth (which is the only one we have) 20 times over!

I believe the United States needs a new President who will allocate funds for much-needed programs and not unnecessary programs. I am glad I did not vote for Ronald Reagan!

ANDREW GREENLEE

Long Beach

The MX!!! What a sinful waste of taxpayers’ money! Hunger, homelessness and unemployment abound. Incredible!

ARLENE WELDING

Los Angeles