The article in your paper on the Úquot;Hiroshima MemorialÚquot; was more propaganda and editorial than news. There were many inaccuracies and fallacies in the article.

We are all for peace and against war. We all stand united in our opposition both to going to war and to using nuclear weapons. Because we differ in our approach from that taken by SANE, does not mean we are insane. History has shown time and again that a strong defense is the best and only means of precluding war. The cost of a strong defense is peanuts in comparison to the cost in blood and treasure of recovering from an attack against an unprepared country. The Pearl Harbor attack by our violent friends in Japan and the resulting war in the Pacific is a case in point. One must learn from history to avoid making the same mistake.

I am sorry to see that Town Supervisor May Newburger and Assemblyman Tom DiNapoli endorsed that group's position by their presence. Mrs. Newburger, if quoted correctly, wanted to act against the Úquot;threat of missile defense,Úquot; whatever that means.

Nuclear warfare has not been Úquot;kept downÚquot; for the past 10 years. The theory of Úquot;mutual assured destructionÚquot; worked when the Soviets and the West (U.S., Britain, and France) faced off with innumerable nuclear weapons. When the Soviets collapsed economically, both sides could reduce their readiness and their strength, and they did to a degree. The ABM treaty had no part in keeping the world free from nuclear war. Its sole purpose was to prevent the destabilization of a further arms race to build an anti-missile missile system capable of denying the opposition a major strike capability. Now, although the Russians continue to have massive numbers of nuclear warheads and intercontinental missiles, they no longer have the will or economic ability for instant massive launch. However, they, and the other ex-Soviet countries, have the propensity to sell the hardware and technology for hard cash to others. China and North Korea are also selling missiles and technology to others.

Other countries do want to have a nuclear and intercontinental missile capability. China has about 20 weapons already. North Korea, Pakistan, India, and Iraq, to name a few, are aspirants. The purpose of the present effort for a missile defense system is to have the ability to prevent a few (1 to say 20) missiles, launched from various parts of the world, from reaching our homeland. Not having a defense against a nuclear weapon on board a jet landing at Kennedy is no excuse for not having a defense against an incoming missile bearing a gift from Ben Laden. The ABM Treaty has served its purpose but is now an impediment. We need a defense against a foreseeable threat now and for the next 25 years.

Getting Úquot;rid of the bombÚquot; is no small matter. The genie is out of the bottle. Until the entire world joins to remove nuclear weapons from the shelf, the United States would be foolhardy to do so unilaterally. Deterence does work. It worked from 1958 to 1989 even though there were many shooting, conventional wars.

There are lots of violent countries in the world. Try standing on a street corner in Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan and saying that that country is the most violent. You would not see daybreak again. Say it here in a state assemblyman's presence, and there is no response. Mr. Van Meter has his head in the sand.

The US has not Úquot;unilaterally declared its goal of conquering space, by nuclear force if necessary.Úquot; That is a simple lie.

Yes, Mr. Assemblyman, you are wrong. We can and will spend money on war, great quantities of it, unless we prepare ourselves against those who want to dominate us. If we maintain a strong defensive posture, we will then have both the time and money to spend on the better things of life. Think how much we would spend if a country sent one nuclear-tipped missile to Chicago and another to Seattle. Suppose we thought he had one left. How much would it cost to salvage and rebuild our cities, to make a crash development of a defensive system, and also to eliminate the threat? How many would die?