Letters to the Editor

U.S.’s job is to protect other countries, oil

Martin Austermuhle’s column makes insightful observations and naive assumptions. The assertion that a $270 billion military budget is "bloated" is fallacious. National defense, foreign affairs and veterans’ affairs comprise 20 percent of federal outlays, while Social Security and Medicare make up 38 percent. Social programs account for another 18 percent. I believe the United States can, and must, provide further funding for the arts, education and social programs; yet, we must provide for national defense.

Undoubtedly, the United States and every other nation repeatedly have ignored pleas from the oppressed -- especially when we are the oppressors. The Filipino Insurrection (1899-1902) is an example. We sold out the Kurds during and after the Gulf War, allowed for massacres in Bosnia to persist for nearly five years and permitted ethnic African conflicts to denigrate into wholesale genocide. "We the People" bear equal blame for this slaughter, thanks to our blatant apathy; indeed, the cries of the morally outraged are often shouted down by those who claim, "It’s not our concern!"

History is overwhelmed by examples of destructiveness for profit’s sake. Potential threats for a "21st century Pearl Harbor," nevertheless, affect the welfare of all Americans. Will such a disaster awaken our misguided leaders? Americans need a new breath of freedom that rises above the malaise in our hearts and the vicious partisanship in Washington, D.C.; then we can embrace honest principles for all people, social justice, religious freedom and the end of economic imperialism. America must be prepared to meet these challenges, then we shall walk arm in arm with every nation toward authentic world peace.

Daniel M. Valente
senior-secondary education

Contrary to the editorial by the Board of Opinion last week, a national missile defense system is necessary for our national security and possibly even for our national survival. This is a program designed not at protecting us today, but in the future. It is the short-sightedness of the editorial staff that would prefer to leave our borders unguarded than to face the harsh reality of ballistic missiles.

One argument was producing a missile defense system would place countries such as Iran, Iraq and North Korea "on their guard even more." North Korea and Iran (with the help of Chinese technology) currently are developing medium-range ballistic missiles, the former even having launched one over Japan just last year and more tests are scheduled. These are aggressive countries that only want to produce missiles for one thing: to use them.

Such a technological undertaking of a ballistic missile defense will take time. It is suicidal to wait until there is a very serious threat 15 years down the road, when capable missiles could be aimed at us, to begin developing a system that idealists and political activists foresee as useless for today.

Logan Harr
sophomore-mechanical engineering

I was appalled by the opinions expressed toward U.S. efforts at developing a working ballistic missile defense system. While there are probably many valid points arguing against such an action, the strongest arguments come in support for such a development.

The treaty was signed during a time that was a bit more stable then what we have now. At the present, we have Russia, owning the second largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, in the midst of a financial meltdown. We also have Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Libya, which all have expressed a desire in obtaining an ability to inflict real and serious harm on the United States through the acquisition of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, and have the means to do get both the missiles and weapons of mass destruction. In short, we are not living in an Utopian paradise.

Also, creating a working missile defense would give a guarantee of flexibility to our future overseas policy. Our present lack limits the United States to the recourse of negotiation with, and monitoring for and disarmament of rouge nuclear powers.

The United States needs a missile defense system because the world is still very much a dangerous place to live. The nation would only be doing its duty if it took steps to protect its citizens from threat if it went ahead with missile defense development. Refusing to do anything would be a real-world example of the saying "penny-wise, pound-foolish." Developing a missile defense now allows us to enjoy the protection that it offers, while not doing so may very well cost the United States dearly in the future.

Cheng Tseng
junior-economics