Nuclear Plan Creates Shock Waves Worldwide

Re “Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable,” by William M. Arkin, Opinion, March 10: I was a young woman with small children when the Berlin Wall was being built; atomic bombs were being tested and people were building bomb shelters. I lived with the anguish of knowing that in the expected atomic holocaust there was no way I could protect my children. For years I felt the fear and worked for peace. At last it seemed that disarmament was a possibility. Now my children are grown and I have grandchildren. But because of this administration’s saber-rattling--the legitimizing of atomic arms as a reasonable response in military conflict--the specter of atomic destruction rises once more and the fear returns.

To even consider building a program and a plan for the use of atomic weapons is outrageous madness. Let us divest ourselves of this set of Dr. Strangelove clones and find some leaders who will help us bring about peaceful resolutions of our world conflicts rather than lead us into another arms race.

Patricia M. Ross

Nipomo

*

As a cancer survivor, it’s horrifying to me that the Bush administration has secretly concocted plans to develop tactical nuclear weapons (“U.S. Works Up Plan for Using Nuclear Arms,” March 9).

The nightmare devastation wrought on the civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be burned indelibly on our collective consciousness. Nothing can justify the use of nuclear weapons, small or large. No soldier of any army deserves such inhumane annihilation. Winds could carry radioactive fallout away from military targets for a radius of many miles, raining slow, cancerous death on innocent civilians.

That we would stoop to consider such a ruthlessly immoral act is a supreme irony in view of President Bush’s recent remarks. Axis of evil, indeed.

Kimi Reith

Altadena

*

The Times and every news publication that subsequently ran articles regarding the U.S.’s new plans for using nuclear arms have endangered the security of our country. Regardless of whether the Bush administration is correct in making such a plan, the information should not have been made public. By making it public, we may be one step closer to entering a new Cold War. At a time when it is of utmost importance that we build an alliance of countries, the last thing we need is to give other countries reasons to distrust us. The media need to learn that in the current environment sometimes national security is more important than being the first to break a story.

Matt Renaud

Santa Barbara

*

Thank you for publishing the front-page article about the just-disclosed first nuclear strike strategy “against at least seven nations.” It is absolutely mind-boggling that people do not comprehend the scale of destruction and suffering that nuclear bombs have already caused and would cause if used again. To people in Southern California--a region with over 13 million people living near many military targets--this should be scarier than all the hoopla about anthrax. To me, as a scientist used to dealing with numbers, this is also scarier than the gruesome attacks of Sept. 11. The retaliation elicited by a “first use” could be the destruction of the U.S. as a functioning society. This is what I would call an impeachable offense, even worse than Enron!

Antonie K. Churg

Torrance

*

Can The Times really be surprised that the U.S. government makes contingency plans for the use of our weaponry? Would you rather have us without such contingency plans? After quoting nuclear arms opponents first, you supply a rebuttal from the Heritage Foundation, labeling it “conservative.” If it deserves a label, don’t the two nuclear arms opponent organizations also deserve some sort of label, like “liberal” or “left-leaning”?

You make the reader wade through the bulk of the article before noting that Congress requested that the nuclear strategic review be updated and that the Clinton administration also had nuclear contingency plans. Is anyone other than The Times surprised that plans developed after Sept. 11 may have changed from those done eight years ago? (The Times does not know, of course, if in fact the plans are any different.)

Jeffrey C. Briggs

Los Angeles

*

The only thing smarter than updating our contingency plan directing any--God forbid--necessary nuclear arms deployment is making certain that those who might be our enemies are also aware of such a plan.

Nice leak by the White House.

Tom von Gremp

San Clemente