Letters to the Editors

Nothing 'prudent' about planning nuclear attacks

Expressing opinions other than those of the government is not popular at this time. Your articles, At what point would United States use nuclear arms? (March 11) and Report calls for smaller nuclear weapons (March 10) have "nuked" my resolve.

I am in the class of "unpopular patriots" who have been questioning our (almost) daily loss of freedoms (in both the state and federal government), the gathering of power and promotion of agendas by those who realize that it is an advantageous time to do so, and the escalation of influence and spending in our military.

I realize that at times, war is a necessary evil, but it seems that it is becoming the focal point, the main purpose and the excuse of our government.

The use of "smaller nuclear weapons" is unacceptable. The entire free world should be horrified.

The devastation to all forms of life by nuclear weapons is well-known and documented. Not only are we opening the door for the pollution and/or destruction of this planet, we are opening the door for "more usable" nuclear weapon use by every country that can build, beg, borrow or steal them. We are giving the world America's "okay" for their deployment. (Or do we think that we should be the only country allowed to do this?)

I can't believe the American people will sit quietly by, with their eyes and mouths closed, and let the government go one step further with this line of thinking.

Colin Powell has stated that "this is prudent military planning, and it is the kind of planning I think the American people would expect." (My dictionary defines "prudent" as: cautious, exercising sound judgment, decorously discreet.)

Is this truly what the American people expect? Have we been so blinded by our grief and shock that we have taken a path of revenge that will destroy us and the planet? Will we allow ourselves to become a part of this "axis of evil" that is bent on "prudently" destroying our world?

I love this country, with its amazingly diverse peoples and natural wonders. I do not vacation "abroad" when the opportunity arises; there are too many beautiful things here that I have yet to see and experience.

I've always seen America as being an example of truth, freedom, compassion and justice for the world. What kind of example are we giving now?

I'll end this with a quote by Albert Einstein: "The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes."
-- Mary Wolfe, Belleair Beach

A nuclear option

Re: At what point would United States use nuclear arms? March 11.

As a nuclear scientist (nuclear power, not arms), a Korean War veteran and a terribly concerned citizen of the United States, I feel the referenced article cannot go without comment. Michael Gordon completely misread the differences between using nuclear weapons as a deterrent during the Cold War and now as a deterrent in a war with terrorists. The Soviets had much to lose, as did we, so neither dared attack the other. Both had concern for deaths and destruction in their own country and realized there could be no winner. The terrorists have no country to protect and obviously no concern for how many deaths would result, so we must therefore use any device available to prevent their acquiring a weapon of mass destruction. If they can develop a fission or fusion bomb as the Soviets did, within weeks they would use the first one to destroy Israel and the second on Washington or New York City -- and they seem to prefer the latter.

As I read the article, my mind kept comparing "lowering the threshold" with "lowering the bar," as in a sports event. In today's situation, the terrorists neither respect nor use any "threshold," and they obviously would bypass the "bar," as they have no rules or conscience. To make matters worse, the Muslim world leaders have not vigorously condemned the terrorists' actions. They simply say, "I do not agree with their killing so many people, but I do understand their anger." That attitude sanctions their actions, so they keep providing funds and suicidal operators who believe they will go straight to a heaven filled with servicing virgins.

Also, being somewhat familiar with mountain warfare and the use of machine guns in a war, my heart goes out to our soldiers advancing on that solid, cold rock with no place to dig a foxhole. The terrorists, who are holed up in caves, do not even have to aim carefully; their bullets will ricochet around in all directions, making a rocky ravine a tracer bullet-filled hell.

A perfect place to use a nuclear weapon would be in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan. As far as I can tell, those mountains have no value or purpose except to provide what Osama bin Laden thought was a perfect command post, training camp and retreat for his long-term terrorist war. A nuclear bomb would kill all terrorists over many square miles, and its radioactive fallout would prevent use of the mountains for a few years.

This may be the best time and place to put a stop to terrorist actions in a firm, no-nonsense manner, with no civilian casualties.
-- Gilbert M. Brown, Dunedin

The size of a nation

An old adage says: "The larger the weapon, the smaller the man."

I suppose the same could be said of nations.
-- Daniel P. Quinn, St. Petersburg

Are we part of the "axis'?

I'm confused by what qualifies a country to become part of the "axis of evil." I understand going to war against a group or country that has attacked us, but going after countries that haven't makes us the aggressor. Are we going after countries developing weapons of mass destruction? Are we going to use our weapons of mass destruction against them? If we attack a country that hasn't attacked us, do we qualify as a member of the axis of evil? Perhaps these countries are developing them to protect themselves from us.
-- Jeff Christian, Bradenton

President bears responsibility

Re: Hijacker visas rile tempers, March 14.

Should the president, who is responsible for appointing Attorney General John Ashcroft, who is responsible for overseeing the Immigration and Naturalization Service, be "stunned"? Should the president, who also appointed Tom Ridge, in charge of domestic security, be stunned?

I can be stunned. He should feel responsible. He could even be embarrassed, and he should intend to take steps to assure the American people he will do his best to see it doesn't happen again.

What is disturbing is, instead of responsibility, we have innocent surprise.

It was suggested that we have a moratorium on foreign student visas until the INS has a chance to catch up on its investigations and track foreign students. The president did not insist on a moratorium. Obviously, we really need it. We need our president to promise that, instead of casting blame.
-- Ruby Grant, St. Petersburg

A worthy satire

The March 14 cartoon (with Osama bin Laden being told his student visa was approved) by Don Addis cemented his place in the "Satire Hall of Fame." It was the funniest piece he has done in the 26 years I have been reading the St. Petersburg Times. I laughed for 20 minutes, cried for 10.
-- Mark Noble, Palm Harbor

Cheney on safer ground

Re: Cheney starts 10-day tour, March 11.

It was very nice of President Bush to send Vice President Dick Cheney to the Middle East for a vacation. Since Cheney has had to keep in hiding in the United States, except for a few campaign stops, it will be nice for him to be able to travel around in safer countries such as Yemen, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I hope he is able to get a suntan before he returns to the caves of America.
-- Roger W. Gambert, Palm Harbor

Tolerance for a young religion

Re: Confronting the roots of Muslim rage, by Thomas Friedman, March 8.

Friedman makes some good points on why Muslims feel such rage, particularly against Israel, much stronger than they feel toward Hindus, for example. He maintains that it has to do with Islam's self-perception as the most perfect and complete expression of the three great monotheistic religions, in conjunction with the conditions of poverty and underdevelopment in which most Muslims live.

He may be right. I think there is something else here that needs to be remembered. Islam is younger than Christianity by about 600 years (and, of course, much, much younger than Judaism). We have to ask ourselves what Christianity was like 600 years ago. In the 14th century, had Christians developed tolerance and acceptance of other faiths? Weren't we fighting and persecuting those who didn't believe as we did? Weren't we so sure of ourselves that we actually thought and some said, "Error has no rights"?

Friedman maintains that only Muslims can heal their own rage. To a large extent, this is true, but anything that we can do to show our understanding, tolerance and respect surely will help.
-- Lucy Fuchs, Brandon

Diplomacy, not religion, needed

Re: Beware of Arab peace proposal, letter, March 6.

The letter writer would be well-advised to read Thomas Friedman's article, Confronting the roots of Muslim rage. Mr. Friedman reasonably points out that the root of the Israeli-Palestinian mayhem could very possibly be a loss of dignity on the part of the Palestinians. The letter writer asserts, sarcastically I would hope, that the answer to the Israeli-Palestinian situation is to increase Israel's territory. How would this injustice heal the Muslim rage and help restore their stolen dignity? The answer is that it wouldn't. It would serve to further inflame an already enraged population.

As Friedman so insightfully points out, however, one sure way to reduce the problem is for Israel to abandon its "insane settlement land grab." In the end, the only way to effectively reduce terrorism is for Israel to agree withdraw from the occupied territories, which is the basis of the plan proposed by Saudi Arabia.

I fail to see why the letter writer finds the recent peace proposal to be suspect simply because it originated in Saudi Arabia. If the turmoil in this region is ever to come to an end, the Arab public must fully support any plan that seeks to resolve the conflict. From all that I have read, Crown Prince Abdullah is an influential Arab leader who may be able to elicit a positive, unified Arab call for peace.

Finally, the writer thinks that our "Christian president" should read his Bible instead of embracing a peace plan proposed by those who "wish to kill us, according to their theological ideology." All of the problems that we face in the Middle East at this time have a theological ideology of some sort as their basis. Imposing our own Christian ideology on the situation will not solve anything. This is a matter that calls for diplomacy, reason and insight, not anyone's idea of religion.
-- Vickie Crabb, Tampa

Share your opinions

We invite readers to write to us. Letters for publication should be addressed to Letters to the Editor, P.O. Box 1121, St. Petersburg, FL 33731.

They can be sent by e-mail to letters@sptimes.com or by fax to 893-8675.

They should be brief and must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Please include a handwritten signature when possible.

Letters may be edited for clarity, taste and length. We regret that not all letters can be published.

© 2006 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright