Plan for U.S. Missile Defense

Warfare state paranoia oozes from the April 9 editorial, “Russia a Key in Missile Plan.” It makes the case for the plan of Congress and the president to expand our missile defenses, which requires amending or abrogating the successful 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and sabotaging any effort of Russian President-elect Vladimir V. Putin to get the Russian Duma to finally ratify the START II treaty.

The justification offered is the threat of a small number of missiles by rogue states, such as North Korea. Who in the world can believe any rogue state would take action that guarantees its nuclear obliteration by launching a nuclear missile at the U.S.? Why would anyone even consider such an attack, when nuclear bombs can be transported into the U.S. as easily as drugs are smuggled in today?

The rulers of our corporate-warfare-prison state are addicted to military spending that took 47 cents of every 1999 federal tax dollar to pay for the wars of the past, present and future and denies the American people investment in public services essential for a functional and sustainable society.

NICHOLAS V. SEIDITA

Northridge

*

Your editorial misses the mark. You rightly say, “The United States doesn’t want to lose START II because of Russian antipathy to a new U.S. missile defense.” But why push a “missile plan”? Rogue nations will back off from launching at us for the same reason Russia backed off--because of our nuclear superiority.

We need nuclear abolition. We will get this only with the help of an international body of treaty enforcers that can get rogue nations to swap their nuclear weapons for food and the other things they lack. We need a presidential candidate who will come out for nuclear abolition. Readers should urge Al Gore and George W. Bush to pledge that they’ll let other nations’ inspectors watch us junk our nuclear weapons at the same time that our inspectors watch their nukes being junked.

HAROLD WATERHOUSE

LU HAAS

Pacific Palisades