Missiles and U.S. Security

* “U.S. Missile Defense May Jeopardize Security” (May 8) accurately describes the security problems we will face if we build an antiballistic missile system. Let’s ask our leaders why any country would even consider launching a small-scale nuclear missile attack on the U.S. Would it be easy for foes to overwhelm this ABM system with decoys or additional missiles? Would terrorists be likely to use stealth, or UPS, rather than missiles to deliver nuclear weapons? Why do our allies oppose changing the 1972 ABM treaty? How might Russia, China, Iraq or North Korea react to a U.S. ABM system?

Using nuclear weapons, or threatening to use them, is not a realistic military strategy. Killing millions of civilians is not a valid foreign policy. We can make the world a safer place and enhance our own security if we keep the ABM treaty, repudiate launch-on-warning, de-alert nuclear weapons, reduce numbers of missiles, pledge no first use, ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and promote weapons control in space.

DICK HEISER

Los Angeles

*

Why should deployment of a missile defense system with a capability that is limited to intercepting a relatively small number of missiles be a threat to Russia, China or any nation? On the contrary, it seems to me that by providing the U.S. with some defense against an accidental or terrorist-initiated missile attack we would lessen the chance of the U.S. mistakenly retaliating against a possibly innocent third party, a benefit to everyone.

Common sense dictates that, given time, someone eventually will use or try to use nuclear weapons. The U.S. must face the reality that sometime, in some way, it will be targeted. I suggest that the experts review the result of one single 1940s-style atomic bomb over Hiroshima and not be overly concerned about damaging relations with our so-called allies.

What security do we have to jeopardize anyway? So far as I know, we have absolutely no way of defending ourselves against one single lonely ICBM.

ROBERT L. RODMAN

Studio City

*

Re “Putin: a Mixed Picture,” editorial, May 9: I am amazed that in an editorial on the inauguration of Vladimir V. Putin as the president of Russia you fail to mention his success in securing passage of START II and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by the Duma. Putin is asking to be viewed as a person very much on board with us in terms of containing unbounded strategic warfare.

We should recognize that we present a rather threatening aspect to the world by our own refusal to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. We have an incredible opportunity by virtue of having a willing negotiating partner on the other side, one who does not wish to pour Russia’s scarce financial resources down missile silos. Those of us who have been following this history since World War II have reason to be profoundly relieved to finally have a Russia to deal with that is so accommodating on these crucial strategic interests.

SIEGFRIED OTHMER

Sherman Oaks