U.S. arsenal is still needed

The recent guest opinion by a physician from Hanford (!) arguing for unilateral reduction of our country’s nuclear arsenal reflects a naïve and illogical mentality. Ironically, a recent interview in the Wall Street Journal of the U.S. commander (Lt. Gen. Hodges) in Europe provides a more realistic assessment for world peace and stability.

The description, by Hodges, of the Pentagon’s reduction of nuclear silos, B-52 bombers and submarines while Moscow simulates nuclear strikes on Western capitals should be bothersome even to a doctor residing in the safety of Washington state.

Furthermore, the avowed intention of Iraq to wipe Israel off the map, and the construction of military nuclear plants by North Korea, Syria and Iraq, begs the question: Why would the West, in general, and the U.S., in specific, give up our deterrence capability?

Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arms in exchange for Western guarantees of security against Russia – how is that working out now? A more simple analogy would be: If cops were unarmed, how safe would we be from criminals?

Our country, in spite of this current weak administration, is the major guarantor of world peace; readers should listen to those in the know, not starry-eyed pacifists.

Joseph Harari

Spokane