Sample Letters

[February 2004: Many of these letters have been archived and are for reference purposes only. As we move forward with the tranistion of the WAND web site, we'll be cleaning up content further.]

Sample Letter-to-the-Editor #1

Editor:

Since Sept. 11, the plight of the women of Afghanistan has become a part of the U.S. consciousness. We've seen the pictures of women in burqas, and we've heard the stories about how their human rights have been violated in so many unimaginable ways.

The Treaty for the Rights of Women-formally known as CEDAW, the Convention to End All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, is an important tool for women around the world fighting such flagrant abuse. To date, 170 countries have ratified this United Nations treaty. The United States, along with Afghanistan, Iran, Sudan and Somalia, has not. Now, more than ever, the rest of the world is looking to the U.S. to ratify this important treaty.

Senators _________ and __________ should vote in support of the Treaty for the Rights of Women. The world will be watching!

(Your name)

---

Sample Letter-to-the-Editor #2:

Editor:

After 22 years, the Treaty for the Rights of Women--the U.N. convention that has been signed by 170 other countries--may soon be ratified by the U.S. Senate.

Both Republicans and Democrats must get on board in the struggle to end discrimination against women. Ratification of other human rights treaties has been achieved as a result of bipartisan action; after all, such fundamental rights as the right to inherit property and the right to education should not be reduced to partisan politics.

The Treaty for the Rights of Women helps women and their families worldwide - and Senators _______ and _______ should support it with their votes.

(Your name)

---

If your letter is printed please send a copy to:

Women's Action for New Directions
322 4th St. NE
Washington DC 20002
Fax: 202-544-7612
Email: will@wand.org

Letter to President Bush

7/19/02

President George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President,

I am writing you as a concerned student, and member of a national network of student activists requesting an end to the U.S. air strikes on Afghanistan. The strikes are doing nothing but creating more innocent victims and planting seeds of resentment. I request a formal apology and restitution for the many families affected by our wonton slaughter.

Have we not learned by now that violence does not cease with the use of force? Bombs will not bring us peace. These air strikes are not protecting us. Instead you are ensuring that there will be another generation of poverty stricken Afghanis who will despise the U.S. This is not real security.

I urge you to search for deeper resolutions to this violence. I ask you to adhere to the principals of Just War to ensure that our actions are proportional to the ends we wish to achieve and are not discriminatory to enemy peoples. We do not want or need an endless war. The time has come to lay down our weapons. We beg you, no more innocent victims!

The American public also have a right to know how many civilians have been killed in Afghanistan as a result of U.S. military action, and to examine the legality of those attacks. I have seen figures as high as 3,000, the same as the lives lost on September eleventh on our own soil. Please do not spread more grief and despair to innocent families any where in the world. If you are serious about deterring future attacks on the U.S. then stop the airstikes, which are ensuring resentment towards the U.S. from Afghanis for generations to come.

We wait for your reply of swift peaceful action.

Sincerely,

Sarah Johnston-Gardner
(Note: Sarah is a member and co-founder of STAND)

---

Letter to New York Times

Letter to the editor in response to: "Flaws in U.S. Air War Left Hundreds of Civilians Dead"
By DEXTER FILKINS, July 21, 2002

Thousands Not Hundreds, Left Dead in Afghanistan

I am writing to you as a concerned student who does not wish to live in an "endless war on terrorism". I appreciated Dexter Filkins piece of investigative reporting in "Flaws in U.S. Air War Left Hundreds of Civilians Dead" (July 21, 02). He brought a much-needed compassionate look to the innocent victims left dead in Afghanistan. I hope other reporters will also find the courage to report the effects of the U.S. slaughter on Afghanistan.

However, after reading the article I am still confused by the reports of Afghani casualties. I have seen reports from independent media outlets that tally the casualties to 3,000, as many as the lives lost here on September 11th. One such source is the study conducted by Professor Marc W. Herold, Ph.D., M.B.A., B.Sc. Departments of Economics and Women's Studies, at the University of New Hampshire. He found the civilian casualties to be between "3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002]." Herold's indepth findings can be attained at www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm. His findings were reported on the BBC, Thursday January 3rd. At that time he thought the death toll was between "3,000 and 5,000".(Access to that article is http://nigelparry.com/after911/BBCMarkHerold.pdf).

Your article only provided general figures of "hundreds of civilians left dead". This is unacceptable. The citizens of this country must know the realities of the war, this includes real body counts.

If we were so shaken when 3,000 lives were lost here how can we act so ruthless as we murder hundreds and maybe even thousands abroad. Have we not learned yet that bombs will not bring peace? These airstikes won't protect us. What they are ensuring is that another generation in Afghanistan will harbor resentment and fear of the U.S. How is this protection against future attacks?

We must all raise our voices to call a complete end to the airstikes, as they have provided very little success and much misery. We must urge our President to submit formal public apologies and provide restitution to the families we have all but destroyed, if we are serious about creating positive relations and deterring another Osama Bin Laden.

Sarah Johnston-Gardner
Cambridge, MA
(Note: Sarah is a member and co-founder of STAND)

Letter #1:

Recent letters and editorials describing Yucca Mountain as a safe place for nuclear waste are either out of touch with reality or relying only on the nuclear industry for information. Why would we store highly radioactive material in a leaky hole in the ground filled with earthquake faults?

The scientists studying Yucca Mountain admit that the question is not if the repository will leak, but when. They have lowered drinking water standards near the site to allow for more radioactivity in water. They plan to put "drip shields" over waste containers to keep the water off and prevent corrosion. What kind of "safe" underground site needs high-tech umbrellas inside to keep things dry?

Yucca Mountain was to be dropped from consideration if it could not meet the criteria for storing nuclear waste. Instead, as serious problems were discovered, the standards were changed. "Sound science" had nothing to do with it. But it's the only site the government studied, so they are trying to bend the rules to make it work.

What's more, opening Yucca Mountain won't eliminate existing waste storage sites. Assuming nuclear reactors will keep running, any waste brought to Yucca Mountain will just be replaced by new waste. Meanwhile, millions of Americans in over 40 states will be exposed to thousands of tons of this deadly material as it's shipped to Nevada.

Yucca Mountain will never be the only place for high-level nuclear waste -- it will just be an additional place, and a poor one at that. Senators ____ and _____ should do all they can to stop it.

Sincerely,
(Your name)

---

Letter #2:

Backed by a powerful nuclear lobby, President Bush is pushing hard to open Yucca Mountain in Nevada as the nation's high level nuclear waste dump, even though it is known the site will leak. The proposal is ludicrous, unjust and scientifically flawed: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board have both criticized the science of Yucca Mountain as sub-standard.

Among the problems: it is riddled with earthquake faults; the porous soil will allow leaks and cause waste containers to corrode; and it failed to meet basic suitability criteria, so they were relaxed, including lowering drinking water standards. Getting waste to the site will require tens of thousands of shipments across 44 states on public roads and rails, putting an estimated 50 million Americans at risk. There are better options, but the government has not pursued them.

Nevada has vetoed a Bush recommendation to open the site, but Congress can override it. Senators ________ and _______ should uphold that veto and cancel the highly flawed Yucca Mountain project once and for all. There may be no good answers to nuclear waste, but that's no excuse to embrace extremely bad ones.

Sincerely,
(Your name)

---

Letter #3: (from Public Citizen)

Congress will soon vote on a proposal that could result in the shipment 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste to a repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada - a site crisscrossed with earthquake faults and perched above an aquifer that area residents rely on for drinking water.

Claims that the proposed repository would consolidate the nation’s nuclear waste in one location are inaccurate. Yucca Mountain could not contain all the waste projected to be generated by U.S. reactors estimated to exceed 88,000 tons. And “new” nuclear waste is literally too hot to handle and must be stored in a cooling pool for at least five years before it can be transported. So even if a repository opens, at least five years worth of nuclear waste will remain at each operating reactor.

Far from solving the nuclear waste problem, the repository would introduce new risks to Nevada and the millions of Americans living near transportation routes. Tens of thousands of train and truck shipments of deadly cargo would crisscross the country, passing through 44 states and the District of Columbia en route to Yucca Mountain.

An accident involving a nuclear waste shipment could result in billions of dollars of damage and threaten the health of our communities. These shipments would also be targets for terrorists.

[YOUR STATE]’s Congressional delegation should put public health and safety above nuclear industry special interests and vote against the flawed repository proposal.

Sincerely,
(your name)

---

Reply to Sec. Abraham's Editorial in Washington Post 3/25/02
Abraham editorial: www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17178-2002Mar25.html

Editor:

Energy Secretary Abraham's disingenuous plea for Yucca Mountain as "one safe site" to bury nuclear waste is a fine exercise in self delusion. However, it does nothing to advance the public debate about how to dispose of this deadly radioactive material.

His suggestion that Yucca Mountain will miraculously contain all waste in one location is pure myth. Waste must be stored on site for five years before it can be moved, so even if the repository opens, each operating reactor will continue to store waste. In addition, with recent license extensions, reactors will now produce more waste than Yucca Mountain can hold.

Besides, Yucca Mountain is not suited to contain radioactive waste. When the site could not meet the original criteria for storing waste, the criteria were changed. Because scientists know it will leak they've designed "drip shields" to cover waste canisters to protect them from moisture. And the drinking water standards Mr. Abraham cites so extensively were actually relaxed within an 11-mile zone of the site to allow for the higher radiation levels expected when waste escapes.

Many Yucca Mountain opponents are open to the idea of geologic disposal and support more research (Yucca Mountain was the only site studied), but see no sense in putting waste in a geologic sieve. The supposed "sound science" of Yucca Mountain has been widely panned for its shoddiness and the secretary should be ashamed to defend it. Nuclear waste is too dangerous for bad answers and wishful thinking.

-Pat Ortmeyer
WAND Field Director for Nuclear Issues
(Submitted to Washington Post 3/29/02)

(Sample letter to US Ambassador to Israel)

Dear Ambassador,

I am writing concerning the increase of mass human rights violations in Israel and the Occupied Territories. I urge you to take specific actions in order to ensure that US weapons are not used to commit grave human rights violations and to encourage control of arms in Israel and Occupied Territories in compliance with international human rights standards and international humanitarian law.

The US role has been in sharp contrast to that of the European Union. The French, German and UK governments have limited or suspended most arms sales to Israel, refusing to export military equipment and materials since September 2000.

In the period from 1995 to 2002, the US has licensed a total of $ 8,025,482,720 of weapons and military equipment and components to Israel, including AH64 Apache helicopters, F-16 fighter jets, Launch Rocket System (MLRS), assault rifles, missiles and missiles launchers. US arms transfers should be in compliance with the US Arms Export Control Act, the Foreign Assistance Act, and bilateral defense agreements with Israel.

In January and March 2002 Amnesty International's delegates collected evidence of increased Israeli Defence Forces air attacks against the Palestinian Authority's infrastructure. In addition to tank fire, these IDF attacks are carried out with US-supplied Apache Hellfire air-to-ground missiles and US-supplied F-16 laser-guided 500 and 1,000 lb bombs. The increased tonnage of high explosive that the IDF is dropping from the air causes a greater risk of casualties. The Israeli Defence Forces have used US-supplied flechette rounds against Palestinian residential areas and unlawfully killed Palestinians. US assault rifles have also been used by both sides to facilitate human rights violations.

Please help reduce the gross human rights violations occurring in Israel and the Occupied Territories and urge President Bush to:

• immediately suspend transfers of the above US weapons and ammunitions to the Israeli Defense Forces until it can be clearly demonstrated that such arms will not be used to facilitate gross human rights violations in the Occupied Territories;

• point out that the authorities in Israel and the Occupied Territories should ensure that all arms are registered and only authorized for use consistent with international humanitarian law and the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials; the US and its allies should encourage and support efforts by the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority to curb trafficking in small arms and light weapons used for grave human rights violations to armed groups that are not members of official security services.

Yours sincerely,

(signature)

Nuclear Reductions Sample Letter

April 9, 2002

Congratulations to presidents Bush and Vladimir Putin (Russia) for agreeing on the need to reduce nuclear stockpiles from Cold War levels. Both presidents have the opportunity to shepherd their countries away from the threat of nuclear war by going one step further-- and destroying the warheads rather than storing them, as Bush has proposed.

Although no friend to arms control, Sen. Jesse Helms is offering some wise advice that any nuclear arms reductions with Russia be submitted to the Senate as a formal treaty.

The threat of proliferation is far too great to risk. I strongly encourage Sens. (your senators names) to advise the president to make his suggested reductions permanent and bound by treaty when he and Putin meet in Moscow in May.

Sincerely,
(signature)

---

Letter from WAND Intern Jean Manney
(Submitted to Boston Globe 4/2/02.)

Editor:

I was too young to realize the threat we faced from nuclear weapons in the 80's. Instead, my generation has grown up without the fear of nuclear war, feeling "protected" by the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. Given this, I never thought I would see our government considering the use of nuclear weapons, as revealed by the Nuclear Posture Review. However, before September 11th, I also never imagined that we would suffer such a large-scale attack on U.S. soil.

While we need to take action to increase our security and prevent the loss of more innocent lives, the events of September 11th have shown us that the United States' actions in the world arena may have consequences, and that we are not invincible to those consequences. Pulling out of the ABM Treaty, President Bush's declaration of the "Axis of Evil," and now the Nuclear Posture Review providing the possibility of using nuclear weapons on nuclear as well as non-nuclear states will undoubtedly have consequences.

It would be absurd to presume that other nations will not increase or begin to develop their own nuclear capacities if the United States reverts back to testing and considering using nuclear weapons. Even the use of so-called "mini-nukes" would be a terrifying precedent for the U.S. to set.

The Nuclear Posture Review is not the answer to increasing our homeland security. Nuclear proliferation is the more likely result, threatening the security of all nations. Let us leave the story of the arms race in the pages of the history books, and prevent it from becoming front-page news once again. Previous generations have taught us well of the dangers of nuclear weapons. Have they now forgotten?

Jean Manney
Boston, MA

---

Back From the Brink Sample Letter

Editor:

In the name of keeping us safe from the spread of nuclear weapons the Bush administration is scaring me to death. They’ve bought the Pentagon’s plan to build a new--supposedly more usable--nuclear weapon, to threaten nations that might be developing nuclear weapons with nuclear strikes, and to continue the Cold War policy of keeping scores of nuclear weapons poised for a quick launch against Russia (which will only spur Russia to keep the weapons they have aimed at us on a hair-trigger).

What are we thinking? Isn’t threatening the large-scale destruction of innocent people the ultimate act of terror? That’s what using nuclear weapons means.

The Bush administration should be acting to get all nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert, working with Russia on irreversible reductions in nuclear arsenals, and beefing up arms control and non-proliferation programs.

Most importantly we should stop this game of nuclear chicken. Saying we plan to use nuclear weapons to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, leaves us looking like a nuclear rogue state.

Your name and address.

---

Peace Action Sample Letter

Editor:

The Bush administration is dangerously wobbling over the line between nuclear and non-nuclear warfare.

The Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) outlines the government's reckless intentions to expand the scope of circumstances under which nuclear weapons would be used, blurring the line between conventional and nuclear warfare. The NPR broadens potential nuclear targets to include Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, China and even our ally, Russia.

The US is preparing to use nuclear weapons in what would formerly have been conventional missions. The NPR specifically states that the Administration would consider using nuclear weapons against China in a military confrontation over Taiwan, nuking Iraq should that country attack Israel or another country, launching a nuclear attack against North Korea should it attack South Korea, and using nukes in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The US may use nuclear weapons in retaliation for a non-nuclear attack, or "in the event of surprising military developments."

The President's NPR gives nuclear weapons a new legitimacy that could have devastating results. The kind of nuclear step up the President envisions can only encourage nuclear proliferation, increasing the possibility that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists. Had the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center been nuclear, we might today be mourning many hundreds of thousands of casualties. The President's 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude of intimidation is already breeding further resentment toward the US.

We can't allow ourselves to forget the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear weapons are mass, indiscriminate killers. There is a reason that nuclear weapons have not been used in fifty years - their use is a crime against humanity, acknowledged by the International Court of Justice in 1996.

Twelve years after the end of the Cold War, the US is looking to expand the uses for nuclear weapons, rather than leading the way toward elimination.

The NPR release has been met with sharp international criticism. Yet, Congressional criticism here at home has been disquietingly silent. Surely there are leaders within this country who would stand up to stop us from risking nuclear anarchy. Where are they?

Sincerely,

Letter on budget priorities from human needs groups

Organized by Spending Priorities Working Group and sent to Senate and House offices April 10, 2003

The following is a letter to Congress from 58 national and local organizations expressing concern about a rapidly rising military budget. These organizations, dedicated to providing and advocating for basic human needs, include many prominent groups such as American Association of University Women, Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), Children's Defense Fund, National Head Start Association, National Organization for Women, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Volunteers of America. The letter calls on Congress not to increase military spending at the expense of vital domestic programs. The letter states: "As the fiscal 2004 budget process continues over the next several months, we urge you to oppose any attempt to reduce non-defense discretionary spending or use the Social Security or Medicare trust funds to pay for the additional defense increases."

April 10, 2003

Dear Senator or Representative,

We the undersigned organizations, urge you to adequately fund human needs programs and oppose any attempt to reduce non-defense discretionary spending or use the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds to pay for increases in defense spending.

The Bush Administration has requested $399.1 billion for the fiscal 2004 national defense budget request. This figure is sure to grow, with supplemental appropriations requests of at least $75 billion expected to fund the war on terrorism as well as the conflict in Iraq. The 1991 Persian Gulf War cost $60 billion.

With a budget deficit topping $300 billion and a proposal for hundreds of billions in further tax cuts looming, there is little room for meeting current needs or adding spending for critical domestic discretionary programs.

The President's budget request already calls for a $16.9 billion increase in defense spending for fiscal 2004. This increase is greater than the federal budget for special education ($10.7 billion), education for the disadvantaged ($14.2 billion) and child nutrition programs ($11.4 billion). Meanwhile, other programs already face daunting cuts in fiscal 2004 spending.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, non-homeland security domestic discretionary spending will increase less than one percent above spending levels enacted in fiscal 2002. Elementary, secondary and adult education programs, public housing, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Legal Services Corporation, the National Endowment for the Arts and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention all suffer cuts in the Administration's proposed budget for fiscal 2004.

As the fiscal 2004 budget process continues over the next several months, we urge you to oppose any attempt to reduce non-defense discretionary spending or use the Social Security or Medicare trust funds to pay for the additional defense increases.

Sincerely,

(signed by 58 human needs groups. For a copy of the letter and signatories, contact Marie Rietman.)

---

More Letters on Military Spending

President Bush has taken a giant step toward sending the already-too-high military budget completely through the roof. Let's take this as an opportunity to raise our voices for a better way. Please take one of the following four model letters (or mix and match several) and send it in to your local newspaper over your name. Thank you for taking a few minutes to do this vitally important work. Your letter really will make a difference.

Letter #1
President Bush has proposed increasing Pentagon spending by $48 billion in fiscal year 2003. Certainly we must do whatever is necessary for national defense, yet the President’s increase will largely go to unnecessary, exotic Cold War weapons and missile defense -- systems that offer bad answers to past problems and drain taxpayer dollars from urgent human and environmental needs.

Letter #2
President Bush proposes a $48 billion Pentagon increase, the largest since the Reagan-era buildup, in spite of rising deficits, and alongside cuts in domestic programs. Thus, his blank check to the Pentagon ironically renders us less rather than more secure. We cannot have real security when deficits force Congress to raid the Social Security trust fund. We cannot have real security when unemployed workers, having lost jobs as a result of the recession, lose their health insurance too. We cannot have real security when states are no longer able to afford Medicaid. Real security means health care and housing for all, quality education, food and jobs. Another $48 billion on top of last year’s $328 billion Pentagon budget will not buy real security.

Letter #3
President Bush has proposed increasing Pentagon spending by $48 billion in fiscal year 2003, claiming the increase is necessary to fight terrorists and protect the United States from future attacks. Yet the President’s increase will largely go to unnecessary, exotic Cold War weapons and missile defense -- systems that offer bad answers to past problems and will not make us safe.

Letter #4
President Bush is right to call for a transformed military capable of addressing modern threats, but he is wrong to toss another $48 billion, the proposed increase in next year’s Pentagon budget, in this direction. The administration’s initial message on defense transformation called for tough choices between competing priorities. Now it seems that the Pentagon can have it all -- Cold War weapons, missile defense, unmanned aircraft, special-operations forces, everything -- in spite of budget deficits, and alongside cuts to domestic programs. Congress should turn off the tap of taxpayer dollars pouring unchecked into Pentagon coffers. Real security means more than that.

---

If your letter is printed please send a copy to:

Women's Action for New Directions
464 Cherokee Ave., SE,Suite 201
Atlanta, GA 30312
Fax: (404) 524-7593
Email: membership@wand.org

---

Editor:

Speaking with South Korean allies this week, President Bush explained his reference to North Korea as part of an “axis of evil” by referring to North Korea’s lack of transparency.

There is cause for concern over North Korea’s closed and secretive behavior, yet I cannot help but juxtapose our President’s indictment of North Korean secrecy with this week’s headlines describing a Pentagon “Office of Strategic Influence” that would provide news items, possibly even false ones, to foreign media in both friendly and unfriendly countries in order to manage information and influence public sentiment. The President further justified his hard line by condemning North Korea’s willingness to tolerate starvation. In his words, “Korean children should never starve while a massive army is fed.”

Again my mind turns to our own headlines proclaiming a federal budget that will spend almost $400 billion on the Pentagon, while cutting programs for people such as job training, public housing, payments to teaching hospitals, Community Development Block Grants, and heating assistance for the poor.

(signature)

Editor:

In his State of the Union address, President Bush boasted of a $48 billion increase in the Pentagon budget for the next fiscal year. This increase, the largest in two decades, would boost Pentagon spending to a staggering $379 billion, more than $1 billion per day, poured out amid rising deficits and cuts to domestic programs.

The President rightly proclaims that the cost of freedom is never too high, yet this increase is not about freedom from the threat of terrorism. Much of the increase will go to unnecessary Cold War weapons and missile defense systems that offer bad answers to past problems and will not make us safe.

Congress should turn off the tap of taxpayer dollars pouring unchecked into Pentagon coffers. As Representative Gephardt said in the Democratic response to the President's message, "We know that real security depends not just on justice abroad, but creating good jobs at home...not just on bringing governments together, but creating a government here at home that lives within its means, cuts wasteful spending and invests in the future."

(signature)

---

If your letter is printed please send a copy to:

Women's Action for New Directions
464 Cherokee Ave., SE,Suite 201
Atlanta, GA 30312
Fax: (404) 524-7593
Email: membership@wand.org

"Nothing" is Better than Missile Defense

To the Editor:

Bush's proposed limited missile defense system is a disaster waiting to happen. It doesn't work, and it can't intercept the missiles.

Since 1999, three of the eight U.S. tests of "hit to kill" interceptors have failed, including the most recent failure last week.

Experts say that if an incoming warhead released small, jack-shaped decoys made of ordinary wire, the radar in Alaska could not distinguish that chaff from the target.

"The whole system could be paralyzed by the simplest methods you can imagine," said Theodore Postol, arms-control expert and missile defense critic at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Attacking nations could use other cheap measures to foil an anti-missile system, such as wrapping warheads in plastic bags filled with foam and radar-absorbing materials; the bag would burn up during re-entry but could fool radar during the crucial midflight phase. Tricking the interceptor's infrared sensors with balloon decoys would be nearly as easy.

Supporters are suggesting that the Patriot anti-missile system, called PAC-3, could target missiles. But PAC-3 has been successful in fewer than half of tests performed by the Army this year. Most precision warheads used by the U.S. and other nuclear powers spin like footballs as they move, making for steady, predictable paths and pinpoint accuracy. Iraq's Scud missiles don't use such spin-stabilization but rather tumble in ways that are difficult for anti-missile systems to track.

Rumsfeld says that this system is "better than nothing", but I say "nothing" is much better, cost-effective, and safer. Sincerely,

(Your name and address)

---

Missile Defense Budget Trade-offs

Editor:

This year, states are running a collective $25 billion deficit, and will prepare next year’s budgets under the worst fiscal conditions in a decade. This is having a disastrous effect on education programs across the country. Forty-seven states and Washington DC will require $11.3 billion more for K-12 education next year, just to stay even with inflation.

Against this backdrop, the Bush Administration has informed Russia that America will scrap the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty to test and deploy a national missile defense system, which if it ever worked would provide little defense against modern threats. Congress approved $8.3 billion for national missile defense in 2002. The phenomenally expensive national missile defense will eat up scarce budget dollars that could be used to help educate thousands of children across the country.

Sincerely,

(Your name and address)

---

If your letter is printed please send a copy to:

Women's Action for New Directions
322 4th St. NE
Washington DC 20002
Fax: 202-544-7612
Email: nuclear@wand.org

---

Implications of ABM Withdrawal

Editor:

President Bush's regrettable decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) has implications far beyond whether or not Russia accepts the decision. This unilateral action is a devastating setback to international relations, particularly with China and Southern Asia, undermining America's security needs.

China has a nuclear arsenal of approximately 400 weapons. China's response to U.S. deployment of a national missile defense will almost certainly be to modernize and add weapons to its arsenal-making it more of a threat to the U.S. In addition, the U.S. needs to work cooperatively with China to insist that it does not transfer ballistic missile or nuclear weapons technology to other countries, as it did in the past to Pakistan. Controlling transfer of nuclear weapons technology and proliferation of nuclear materials is already a growing problem in South Asia.

The issue with deploying a national missile defense is whether the United States would be more secure or less secure as a result.

Sincerely,

(Your name and address)

---

If your letter is printed please send a copy to:

Women's Action for New Directions
322 4th St. NE
Washington DC 20002
Fax: 202-544-7612
Email: nuclear@wand.org

---

Mistake to Rush Into National Missile Defense

Editor:

The terrorist attacks of September 11 show clearly that the United States must change its national security priorities. Prior to those attacks, President Bush was focused on deploying a national missile defense, despite the fact that tests have not shown whether the system will work. In addition, many scientists fear it may never work.

Since the attacks, President Bush has correctly focused US policy on international cooperation, building a global coalition to begin the campaign against terrorism. The President deserves strong praise for his efforts to build that coalition.

Unfortunately, some are using September 11 to justify rushing ahead with national missile defenses. This would be a serious error. Besides not addressing the most pressing threats we face, it would rupture the international anti-terrorist coalition the Bush administration is so carefully creating. Moreover, the technology for missile defense is simply not ready. We need to make sure missile defenses work before investing the tens of billions of dollars required to build them.

Sincerely,
(Your name and address)

---

If your letter is printed please send a copy to:

Union of Concerned Scientists
1707 H St. NW Suite 600
Washington DC 2006
Fax: 202-223-6162
Email: syoung@ucsusa.org

---

Terrorism no justification for missile defense

Dear Editor:

Recent acts of terrorism in this country in no way justify our nation building a national missile defense (NMD). Though some politicians have spoken out for a NMD in light of recent events, and many others have chosen not to oppose it at this tenuous time, it is a flawed plan with potentially disastrous consequences.

There are serious global implications of U.S. deployment of a NMD. Nations throughout the world have claimed that weapons proliferation will result, and given the current security environment, and the growing inability to trace the transfer of weapons systems among rogue states and terrorists, the development of missile defense is a more dangerous proposition than ever. In addition, proceeding with NMD would violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia.

The following are a reminder of just some of the reasons to oppose missile defense:

• The development of a shield is an act of proliferation. This fact has been stated by nations throughout the world. If a shield is developed, more weapons of mass destruction will be sought by other nations throughout the world. The more weapons there are, the more difficult it will be to keep them out of the hands of terrorists and rogue states.

• If a missile defense system were at some future point able to shoot down some small number of missiles, that simply means potential enemies would attempt to produce and launch more missiles to bypass the "shield."

• Even the Pentagon's own former head of testing and evaluation, Phillip Coyle, has said the program is not working and may never work, despite its monstrous price tag.

• This Administration has more conflicts of interest on defense issues than any other in recent memory. The big four defense contractors will profit most from building a system of missile defense. Not surprisingly, this group contributed billions of dollars to the last election. Now they are poised to get the payoff they think they deserve-a likely go-ahead on NMD.

• Once NMD gets past its current research phase and goes into production, defense contractors will make sure it never stops.

• No family on a limited budget would ever buy an appliance with an open-ended price tag and absolutely no performance record, so why should our government?

If we are to truly make America a safe place, taxpayer money should be spent elsewhere. It is not easy to speak the truth at a time when all defense seems like a good defense, but the deployment of NMD will put our nation at a greater risk, and this must be realized.

Sincerely,
(Your name and address)

---

If your letter is printed please send a copy to:

Women's Action for New Directions
322 4th St. NE
Washington DC 20002
Fax: 202-544-7612
Email: nuclear@wand.org

Letters on De-Alerting
Learn more about de-alerting nuclear weapons at: www.backfromthebrink.org

Critical to Remove Nuclear Weapons from Hair-Trigger Alert

Editor:

When President Bush meets President Putin in Texas in November, they have a unique opportunity to finally abandon their outdated cold war strategies. For even as they proclaim a friendship and partnership, the U.S. and Russia are poised to destroy each other with a quick-launch of thousands of nuclear weapons still on hair-trigger alert.

This "vestige of cold war confrontation," as George Bush called it during his Presidential campaign, is perhaps the most urgent reminder of what has not changed after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. The greatest danger to the United States-and the world-remains the threat posed by nuclear weapons.

President Bush had only a little time on September 11th to decide whether to shoot down a commercial jetliner filled with passengers. Presidents Bush and Putin have even less time to decide whether to launch their nuclear weapons if either country thinks they are under attack.

We congratulate Presidents Bush and Putin for agreeing to discuss cutting the number of nuclear weapons in their respective arsenals. However, if they merely cut the number of nuclear weapons while leaving behind significant numbers of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, the two nations will still be courting disaster.

President Bush must maintain a commitment to the ABM treaty designed to provide a framework of trust for both sides, while working with President Putin to reduce the number of nuclear weapons in their respective arsenals AND removing all weapons from hair-trigger alert.

(Your name and address)

---

If your letter is printed please send a copy to:

Back From the Brink Campaign
6856 Eastern Avenue, NW, Suite 322
Washington DC 20012
Fax: 202-545-1004
Email: prgrm@backfromthebrink.net

Submitted to the Boston Globe

To the Editor:

Mikhail Gorbachev reminds us, in his excellent and insightful commentary in the Oct 28 Boston Globe, "Eliminating the tools of future terrorism", of the continuing and potentially increasing threat posed by the thousands of nuclear weapons still maintained on hair-trigger status by the United States and Russia, a hold-over from the Cold War policy of launch-on-warning. Alongside our justified urgent efforts to protect ourselves from biological attacks, we must act swiftly to take all our nuclear weapons off high alert as a first and crucial step toward reducing the threat of a nuclear accident or war. Our global safety and survival can be ensured only if we, in Mr. Gorbachev's words "continue on the path toward the ultimate abolition of all weapons of mass destruction - nuclear, chemical, and biological - before they abolish us".

Janet P. Fitch
(member of North Shore WAND in Swampscott, MA)

---

If your letter is printed please send a copy to:

WAND National Field Office
464 Cherokee Ave. Suite #201
Atlanta, GA 30312
Fax: 404-524-7593
Email: membership@wand.org