Missile Shield Too Costly for U.S.

Re “Star Struck,” by Frances Fitzgerald, Opinion, May 13: Considering that the United States is the only industrialized Western nation without a national health plan, that the number of children living in poverty is appalling and that a beginning teacher makes, on average, $24,000 a year, let’s keep pouring billions into a missile shield.

Maybe the anger of those of us without health insurance, living in poverty or underpaid will be a distraction. Won’t some brave politician stand up to this insanity--or is it only children in fairy tales who will say the emperor has no clothes?

Bobbie Savitz

Portland, Ore.

*

Re “Technical Leg Up Is the Best Defense,” Commentary, May 10: Using technology for defense purposes has been important since prehistoric man defended himself with a sharp stick. Ideas like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s, to build a missile defense shield and to have weapons in space, suggest equally effective possibilities, which may be less costly.

If an enemy tried to shoot down our satellites, we could annihilate him with our high-tech current arsenal.

We could prepare for the onslaught of weapons of mass destruction that threaten the U.S. using new technology. We could attack the drug epidemic with technology-driven treatment.

Feathering the defense establishment’s bed is not the only means to anticipate deadly threats.

Diane Forve

Los Angeles