Letters

US needs nuclear deterrence – from developing more weapons

In response to the article, "A US plan for simpler, safer nuclear arms," from March 9: The plan to replace America's existing nuclear warheads with more reliable versions is illogical and a waste of taxpayer money.

The purpose of our nuclear weapons is to serve as a deterrent to potential attackers. Would any adversary be so foolish as to assume that most of our "old" warheads wouldn't function if they attacked us? Even if the US arsenal is reduced to 1,000 warheads, any would-be attacker would realize they would suffer a devastating counterattack even if half of the warheads malfunctioned.

We don't need new, improved versions – a fraction of our current warheads can serve as an effective deterrent for many years to come.
Philip O. Nubel
Naperville, Ill.

Recommended: Could you pass a US citizenship test?

In response to the March 9 article about America's next generation of nuclear weapons: The idea seemed benign considering that the Reliable Replacement Warhead was "meant to be safer, easier to manufacture, and more robust than current models."

Let's not be fooled. These are weapons of mass destruction. Just one or two of the thousands of nuclear weapons now in our arsenal can kill hundreds of thousands of people.

Recognize this plan for what it is – a new generation of nuclear weapons to justify a jobs program that will simply fatten the coffers of weaponsmakers.

Congress should seize the moral imperative and reject any further funding for these weapons.
Barbara G. MacArthur
Hilton Head, S.C.

Clubs – good for families; hard on ears

In response to the March 9 article, "Baby loves disco: clubbing for the Mommy-and-me set": At first, I was delighted to see coverage of mother-child dance clubs but quickly became disappointed. The social bias against people dancing together has reared its head once again.

As a founding member of the San Francisco Late Night Coalition, established in 1999, I've worked to reverse misconceptions about and unfair pressure against nightclubs and their customers.

The community-oriented dancing featured in the article, very different from the velvet-rope glitz of Hollywood or disco-era values, blossomed in the early 1990s. People who went to raves as young people continue to love the music and social connection, but once they have kids, finding family-friendly events with quality music becomes nearly impossible.

Blessings to Heather Murphy for coming up with the perfect solution: Parents dancing with their children, connecting with other parents, and building community through dance. This is one of the most family-appropriate activities I can imagine.
Leslie Ayres
Spokesperson, San Francisco Late Night Coalition
San Francisco

In response to theMarch 9 article on mother-daughter dancing parties: In addition to the concerns mentioned in the article, I wonder how loudly the music is played at these events? My generation attended rock concerts with highly amplified volumes, and many of us are regretting it. I started avoiding clubs several years ago because of the painfully loud music.
Deborah Peetz
Arlington, Va.

The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number. Any letter accepted will appear in print and on our website, www.csmonitor.com.

Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to (617) 450-2317, or e-mail to Letters.

Share this story:

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

Loading...

Loading...

Loading...