I would like to respond to Rick Smith's criticism of the Collegian's business manager in a letter to the editor published in Thursday's Collegian. If Mr. Smith had actually read the column, he would have realized that it in no way maligned his organization. Her criticism was confined solely to the Peikoff ad — and justifiably so.

With all due respect Mr. Smith, just how naïve do you think we are? The Peikoff ad clearly stated that war should be "fought in the manner most beneficial to the American cause, regardless of the death and suffering this will bring to countless innocents caught in the line of fire."

Yes, collateral damage exists, but it is accidental; we specifically go out of our way to avoid causing civilian casualties. Would Mr. Smith advocate the nuking of Belfast by the English, just to eliminate a few pesky IRA members who like to bomb English cities? In an example closer to home, would he have accepted the irradiation of Oklahoma back in 1995 in order to eliminate a few misguided militiamen?

Would "the death and suffering" this would have brought to "countless innocents" in Oklahoma have been a justifiable sacrifice for the "American cause" of ensuring the security of the 260 million other Americans?