Letters to the Editor

Your views in 250 words or less

Tag: nuclear weapons

Jan.
29th

NUKES: Officers’ cheating reflects lax mentality

Re: “Cheating on nuke exams endemic” (TNT, 1-26).

Many officers who hold the keys to nuclear weapons cheated on proficiency tests, and this has been a major problem for decades. Air Force officials attempted to downplay this problem saying that “there is no potential for a nuclear mistake because several backup procedures are in place.”

We Puget Sound area residents wonder whether this endemic cheating mentality is present in the naval officers who manage the nuclear warheads at the Navy’s Bangor Trident submarine base near Bremerton. And we wonder whether dishonesty is linked with complacency, which could result in

Read more »

Nov.
27th

IRAN: Leaders no more insane than any others

Re: “Keep illusions out of any deal with Iran” (editorial, 11-27).

This editorial is beyond presumptuous, a blend of pop punditry with no deep or accurate knowledge of the country, its contemporary history or its leaders. How dare the writers blithely tell us about the attitudes of the mullahs toward the United States? I seriously doubt that they have indulged in any profound research or academic study on these extraordinarily complicated subjects.

Since the end of World War II, the United States has co-existed with many dangerous and nuclear-armed enemies: the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, our so-called ally

Read more »

Nov.
19th

IRAN: War no answer to nuclear conflict

War is not the answer – but it appears that’s the way we are headed in the Middle East. The duel between Israel and Hamas in and around Gaza may just be a peripheral skirmish to what appears to be an inevitable showdown with Iran.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says that Iran is getting ready to dramatically increase the production of enriched uranium (necessary for an atomic bomb), and that Iran’s refusal to permit IAEA inspections strongly suggests that Iran’s program has “possible military dimensions” – i.e., production of an atomic bomb.

President Obama has repeatedly stated

Read more »

Aug.
31st

ISRAEL: Is Iran trying to pick a fight?

Charles Krauthammer (column, 8-31) presents a good case for Israel being concerned about presumed Iranian nuclear weapon ambitions, but is less than convincing that it would be advantageous to Israel to launch an air attack on existing nuclear facilities, some of which are underground.

Any attack on Iran by a nuclear power (which Israel is) would tend to justify Iran’s need for nuclear weapons. Secondly, doesn’t it appear from statements by Iranian officials in regard to Israel that Iran is trying to goad Israel into attacking?

Similarly, in making public statements about “progress” and intentions to reconstruct surface nuclear

Read more »

Aug.
24th

ISRAEL: Dangers of pre-emptive attack on Iran

Charles Krauthammer discusses possible Israeli pre-emptive war with Iran (column, 8-24) without mentioning Israel’s nuclear stockpile estimated (in a national publication) at 75 or more warheads.

If Israel launches a conventional bombing strike at Iran, there are three possible outcomes:

• Most Israeli planes are downed, with limited damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities, some of which are constructed underground.

• Damage by airstrike is considerable, in which case Iran might chance a counterattack, knowing that Israel might escalate to a nuclear strike or the United States might intervene militarily.

• Damage of the initial airstrike is considerable, but Iran

Read more »

March
12th

IRAN: Politicians being needlessly alarmist

Historian Barbara Tuchman observed: “Confronted with menace, or what is perceived as menace, governments will usually attempt to smash it, rarely to examine it, understand it, define it.”

And so, Israeli officials publicly urge the U.S. to launch a war on Iran to prevent its possible development of a nuclear bomb. If the U.S. will not commit itself to doing this, Israel threatens to, itself, launch an attack.

Republican candidates for president, excluding Ron Paul, have publicly expressed their individual willingness, if elected, to do as Israel is urging. Romney, in obeisance to Israel, has even promised that Jerusalem will

Read more »

Jan.
3rd

NUKES: ‘Big stick’ just increasing tension

Re: “We’re safer carrying a big stick” (letter, 12-31).

Miraculously, and perhaps in answer to many of our prayers, North Korea has called for peace, acknowledging that war on the Korean Peninsula would “bring nothing but a nuclear holocaust” (TNT, 1-1). South Korea’s president sent a similar New Year’s message.

Perhaps this can be an example to all combatants and political leaders to consider the consequences of hostilities to the people on both sides. Is this too much to hope for?

Carrying bigger sticks (meaning nuclear power) will not result in more safety. Instead, nuclear buildup has resulted in increased

Read more »

Jan.
3rd

NUKES: Bad guys will always target the weak

Re: “We’re safer carrying a big stick” (letter, 12-31).

The letter writer is right on target.

As a retired naval reserve officer who has attended the U.S. Navy War College, I speak from a perspective of international power.

Among the examples of “might makes right” – a philosophy of our defense establishment – I cite the nuclear philosophy of the 1960s known as MAD – mutually assured destruction. Many anti-war advocates grabbed this as an example of insanity; however, it was a prime example of retribution theory which held the Soviet Empire in check, although it could have overpowered Western

Read more »