Letter: Missile shield merits support

Monday, Aug. 13, 2001 | 9:33 a.m.

For nearly three decades our nation has been shackled from defending against nuclear missiles. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 caused it. Signed by Russia and the United States, it was described to us to be effective because Mutually Assured Destruction would occur if either nation broke the treaty and attacked the other. It also provided either nation could withdraw from it by sending a six-month written notice to the other. But at that time, only Russia was a threatening nation.

Today we must fear Russia, China, Iraq, Iran and North Korea -- each in its way threatening to attack us. Undeterred by any missile defense protecting us, these nations can ready themselves to vent their hatred of the U.S. by destroying us. It's no secret. We've been repeatedly warned. Ballistic missiles could destroy much of our nation and kill tens of millions of Americans. All for lack of a missile defense!

Yet we hear many members of our Congress and some statesmen argue that we must abide by this archaic treaty. They're influenced by leaders from some countries threatening that if we build such a defense, they will destroy us with missiles. Why don't all these nations instead build their own missile defense? That not only defends against the U.S. they curse, but also from all their fellow mouth-frothers? No way.

I put this question to those in Congress and the statesmen who quiver at withdrawing from the treaty and building a missile defense: If your bully neighbor shook his fist at you, saying you could not buy a gun to fight him from breaking into your house, would you acquiesce? Please say "Hell, no" and vote for a strong missile defense.

PAUL L. LARSEN

archive