‘Star Wars’ Defense

The increased potential for a ballistic missile attack from Iran or North Korea should disturb us, but the development of a national missile defense shield (March 17) holds a much greater potential threat to our national security interests. If a terrorist state ever decided to launch a small nuclear attack, the last method it would choose would be a missile delivery system, one that could be easily detected on launch, ensuring devastating retaliation. Undetectable suitcase bombs, bypassing any nuclear umbrella we might create, would be a far more likely scenario.

On the other hand, there are still thousands of Russian nuclear weapons that may not be decommissioned if we break the 1972 ABM Treaty by deploying a defense shield. The destabilizing effect of this as-yet-unproven technology could adversely impact Russia’s decision to proceed with the START II Treaty, stalling the destruction of their nuclear arsenal. How can the Russian leadership justify to its constituency a U.S. violation of a treaty that tips the nuclear balance so much in our favor? The impact of this serious arms race escalation will not be lost on Russian nationalists and militarists. This is the real threat to U.S. security: a politically unstable nuclear giant reverting back to Cold War mentality. Even the argument that a defense shield might protect us in the unlikely event of an accidental launch pales in comparison to the dangers posed by a new Russian nuclear challenge.

EDWARD MARKARIAN

Van Nuys

*

I think Einstein said it best: “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.” When are we as human beings going to understand that all forms of violence, including war and its preparation, are but symptoms of other solvable problems? As in medicine, mere reaction to a symptom never addresses its underlying causes.

We do not see that any isolated attempt to create security, whether by the individual or the group, inevitably leads to its own insecurity. Whether the shield is made of money, arms or ideological conclusions, it is the reaction of a fragment that only further divides the whole. And clearly, where there is division, there must be conflict.

The real tragedy is that most people have come to accept war as they have accepted other forms of aggression. There may be opposition to certain conflicts here and there, but nobody seems interested in ending war altogether.

ERIC J. HASSETT

Los Angeles

*

The French had their Maginot Line, and Congress is intent on duplicating it with a “Star Wars” missile defense system. Both are acts of futility, easily circumvented. Ours will simply cost a whole lot more.

ROBERT M. ROCCO

Los Angeles