Why the Rush on Missile Defense?

Re “Bush: Missile Defense by 2004,” Dec. 18: President Bush is at it again. The big question is, who is going to shoot a missile at us? Could it be China? Anyone been to China lately? They’re raking in billions in trade surplus from us. Why would they want to shoot a missile at us?

Who else is there? Tiny North Korea? We’re going to spend billions to defend against possible missiles from the boogeyman in North Korea? Terrorists? Even if they had the ability to get a ballistic missile and shoot it at us, why bother? There are so many proven, low-tech, low-cost ways to bring us down, like smallpox, anthrax and ebola. The alleged Washington-area snipers showed how one man with a rifle can terrify our people and cripple our way of life. Who needs a missile?

Missile defense is really about payoffs to the defense industry. If Bush wants to protect national security, he should do it by spending the money to step up our vigilance against the low-tech attacks that are sure to come.

Geoffrey Holland

Studio City

Thank you for your Dec. 19 editorial, “Missile Plan Doesn’t Fly.” During the late 1980s, there was healthy international debate about the Strategic Defense Initiative and all the related issues. Not now. The executive order to deploy antimissile systems has implications and consequences hardly even alluded to in any of the media.

The serious issues that should be openly discussed range from strategic to technical. For example, not only is the matter of hitting targets in the presence of decoys a basic problem but so also is the overall reliability of such systems. I hope that your remarks will initiate thorough coverage and discussion of the proposed system. A good beginning would be a complete, objective summary of the test program on which the decision to deploy has been based.

F.E.C. Culick

Professor, Mechanical

Engineering and Jet

Propulsion, Caltech

Bolstered by the recent, failed missile defense practice run -- the third miss in eight rigged attempts -- Bush wasted no time in ordering the program’s immediate deployment. He cited unnamed “new threats we face” -- presumably terrorists -- as justification for the construction of the same Star Wars program he wholeheartedly endorsed way back in 2000.

A flawed and expensive missile defense will not deter these “new threats” any more today than the U.S.’ vastly superior military forces deterred the terrorists before 9/11.

Michael Duffy

Simi Valley