Weinberger, Schweizer on Defense Spending

Re “Reduce Armed Forces at Our Peril,” Commentary, Dec. 18: The credibility of Caspar Weinberger and Peter Schweizer’s argument for an increase in defense spending is severely damaged by not squarely addressing the fact that the Cold War is over and, as we are often told, so is the era of big government.

To be sure, there are simmering disputes around the world that may require a military response from the U.S.; however, they pale in comparison to the threat, real or perceived, this country faced from the Soviet Union.

What we need today are more creative and realistic analyses of the role our armed forces should play in the future. A simple plea to pump more money into the Pentagon because, after all, that is what we used to do, is not only wrong but also dangerous.

THOMAS FORAN

Burbank

* I recall the time shortly before World War II when we had such a ragtag, ill-equipped military that maneuvers were held in the fields with trucks bearing large signs, “Tank,” on their sides so the troops could pretend they had the right equipment. Most people sat back as though it were impossible that we would go to war.

I entered the military in the summer of 1941, and in December Japan attacked, which they would not have done had we been prepared. Fortunately, we had time to build a gigantic war effort, turn out the machines needed to defeat the aggressor nations, and the result was peace and prosperity. Now we sit back and let our leaders emasculate our military. The next time we are attacked, we will not have time to prepare. We will be hit so fast and so hard we will be subjugated, enslaved or slaughtered before we know what has happened.

We all must demand the protection of a strong military. This would be expensive, but who ever said that freedom is cheap?

H.H. MINICK

Laguna Beach

* Weinberger and Schweizer want us to believe that, even though we continue to sink billions of dollars into the Pentagon, there is “profound neglect of the armed forces.” You don’t need to be a scholar with the Hoover Institution to know that the U.S. is the only remaining superpower and that its armed forces are the supreme military power on the planet, if not in actual numbers of personnel, then in technology, training and organization. While it is prudent to keep a trained, alert and powerful national defense, let’s have one that we can afford and that takes into account actual threats. Military spending, though necessary, is tough on the economy. When you buy a bomb, it is expensive to build, store and deliver. It must be launched by a highly trained staff. It only has potential use and if it’s used, it’s gone and that’s it; it’s an expensive crater in northern Iraq. If it’s not used, it’s expensive to keep, guard and later to dispose of. The bomb buys security, but there is a point at which just getting more bombs isn’t going to make us any more secure; in fact, too many bombs may make us less secure. Too many bombs threaten the loss of economic power, also. When you buy a school, support research or put up a bridge, these items have immediate use for generations.

DENNIS DOYLE

Glendale