Writer Demonstrates ‘Hard-Core’ Liberal Bias

I assumed when I turned to “The GOP’s Love Affair With Ballistic Missile Defense Chimera” (Innovation, July 8) that I might learn something. But as I began reading, it became obvious that writer Gary Chapman’s biases are deeply entrenched and that he has been locked in a time warp for about a dozen years. The article has been written entirely with a political slant, emanating from the hard-core liberal bowels of the University of Texas.

His entire argument rests upon his meager knowledge of present-day computer hardware and software technology and the quantum leaps these technologies have made since the mid-’80s, the time of his fixation.

Chapman says that “strategic ballistic missile defense cannot be tested in its conditions of use--we can’t fire a missile at Los Angeles to see if our defense works.” No, and we can’t fire missiles at Moscow, either. That didn’t preclude us from establishing our ballistic missile system. Was he one of those who advocated disarming unilaterally, and is he not aware that we test missiles over open ocean?

His argument about a missile defense system not being foolproof (i.e., it couldn’t protect all of our cities) is specious and disingenuous. Would not at least the effort of attempting to protect all our cities be worthwhile, even if it ultimately protected only one? Which city or cities does Chapman wish to apprise of their unworthiness of our protection?

It is indeed fortunate that Chapman was not an advisor to President Kennedy, for neither the president nor the scientific community was aware of the necessary technology to enable us to send a man to the moon and return him safely. Shakespeare said it best: “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

There is no greater charge given to our leaders through our Constitution than to offer the citizens of this country protection at any cost. If we are not safe, nothing else matters.

RONALD W. GRAVES

San Diego