Letters to the Editor: Get rid of nuclear weapons. Not just some of them — all of them

To the editor: If nuclear deterrence depends on our enemies being rational, do we really need to threaten retaliation to deter nuclear attack? Isn’t it enough the vanquished would become a radioactive wasteland, and the entire planet would suffer a climate catastrophe? (“Missiles and warheads in holes in the ground are no way to deter nuclear war now,” Opinion, April 19)

But even if retaliation is required to deter, are our enemies more deterred by our 2,250 nuclear weapons than they would be from 225, or even just 22? Heck, having just one weapon might suffice.

Reducing our nuclear capability to a small number is the easy part. The real challenge will come when humankind is ready to go from one nuclear weapon on each side, to zero. That’s when courage and faith will be required.

Our current challenge to give up a few hundred fixed-location, nuclear-armed missiles is nothing. Future generations will scoff at us for regarding this as difficult.

Jeff Vaughn, Encino

..

To the editor: Thanks to Richard A. Clarke and Steve Andreasen for their op-ed article on America’s arsenal of aging ground-based missiles. For 60 years we have maintained these missiles at our own peril.

I fear an accidental catastrophe more than a nuclear war. Let us be warned by frightening accidents in Arkansas in 1980, when a nuclear-tipped missile exploded in its silo, and in North Dakota in 2007, when cruise missiles carrying nuclear warheads were mistakenly loaded onto a bomber that flew to Louisiana.

Pity the servicemen assigned to monitor these missiles. Let’s fill those silos with concrete.

Carmen Stratemeyer, Murrieta