Missile Shield Defends False Sense of Security

Re “Daunting Hurdles for Missile Shield,” May 3: What’s next if we build a shield? Enemy missile shields. I do not feel the least more secure from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s “logic” that something is better than nothing.

Our model from history for this decision should be Germany and Japan after WWII, not France after WWI. Our WWII leaders knew what war was really like. Those today play video simulations and are in the pockets of weapons merchants. These profiteers depend upon lack of security, false promises of security and technological “progress” (the arms race). President Bush’s plan is just plain stupid.

David Case

San Diego

Question for Jeffrey A. Isaacson (Commentary, May 3): Assuming for the moment that we already had boost-phase interceptor missiles on hand, how would he have handled the test missile that North Korea fired over Japan?

Paul Fuller

Palm Desert

As I understand it, Russia, China and American liberals don’t like the idea of an American antimissile shield. Too bad about them. The cost seems not so prohibitive and the result so desirable that I say it’s worth a try.

Sam Woods

Los Angeles

Bush’s multibillion-dollar missile defense system is supposed to shield America from a possible missile attack from hostile nations. However, before we commit our vast resources to shooting down flying missiles, shouldn’t we first try to figure out how to defend our multibillion-dollar military assets (like Navy destroyer Cole) from a $300 dinghy packed with explosives and two illiterate zealots?

Ron Kryngel

Clovis, Calif.