Antimissile System Will Reignite Arms Race

Re “Test of Antimissile System Scores a Hit,” July 15: The 1972 ABM treaty and its corollary, mutually assured destruction, are sound policy. It’s foolish to cast them off as “relics.” With President Bush’s missile shield now undergoing fast-track development, every other nuclear nation is forced, however reluctantly, to consider countermeasure development. The consequences are obvious. They are military buildup, deficit spending, “improved” nuclear weaponry and tactics of mass destruction. That’s not a blueprint for a safer world. Every peace-loving American should reject this administration’s blind allegiance to this ill-conceived program.

Mark Osterstock

Mission Viejo

*

OK, we’ve successfully launched a missile that can supposedly knock an enemy’s missile out of the sky before it hits us. So, what are we going to do when our enemy launches a cluster of missiles at us at the same time--say, three armed with nuclear warheads and 25 of them decoys? Which one will our multibillion-dollar missile select to destroy? And which ones will get a free ride to blow Washington, New York or L.A. to smithereens? And while we’re at it, what’s our fabulous missile defense shield going to do about a warhead trucked across our borders in parts by two or three terrorists and assembled in some garage somewhere? And how’s that missile shield going to protect us from a bomb shipped in parts to L.A. from Iran, Iraq, Libya or some other place for about $50 postage?

Marc Ray

Sherman Oaks