Letters, Nov. 19, 1979

• Share

Price of Power

To the Editors:

A better title for your article "What Price Power?" [Oct. 29] would have been: "What Price Weakness?" Our security is cheap at ten times the price.

Alan D. McLemore Beaumont, Texas

Only a fool (or a Communist) would be opposed to the regeneration of America's military might. Of course everyone would like to see broad social programs enacted in this country, but when we're looking down the barrel of the Soviet Union's atomic shotgun, there's not much choice as to priorities.

Jennifer Rice Fort Lauderdale, Fla.

You are correct in your assessment "that a nation's most fundamental social-welfare obligation to its citizens is to defend them against attack." But which attack is more real, a presupposed threat from without, or the threat of cities in decay, rampant inflation, a raging crime rate, etc.?

Carlos M. Magallanes Pasadena, Calif.

I have spent seven years in military service, trying to accomplish my mission with antiquated equipment and with personnel who can't even write their own names. The American people need to know what kind of Army they have defending their homes.

If they only knew the whole truth, American taxpayers would have nervous breakdowns.

(SP5) Joseph Rivas

U.S.A.

Fort Riley, Kans.

Senator Kennedy warns against additional defense spending that will cause a "disproportionate share" of the costs to be borne by "the poor, the black, the sick, the young [why did he forget the old?], the cities and the unemployed." By my crude calculations, this leaves about 6% of us who will be obliged to pay a ''proportionate share."

Gary P. Kutcher Potomac, Md.

With people starving throughout the world, I fail to understand how the U.S. can afford to sell huge quantities of wheat to the Soviet Union so that the Communists can continue to skimp on their agricultural infrastructure in favor of weapons production. Napoleon said it: "An army travels on its stomach." If the Soviets are hungry, let them eat guns.

Arthur M. Howard Daettlikon, Switzerland

You report General David C. Jones as arguing that SALT II is acceptable if the U.S. increases its arsenal to counter the growing Soviet threat. Does the corollary hold true, that without SALT II we would need no increase in arsenal?

It is mind boggling to think that an arms limitation treaty is only acceptable with an arms buildup.

Edward Q. Miller South Haven, Mich.

Fallaci vs. Kissinger

I have read in TIME the reference to me in Dr. Kissinger's book [Oct. 8]. I must re-establish the truth with the following observations:

1) Dr. Kissinger writes that he saw me out of vanity, in order to appear in my journalistic pantheon of world leaders, but that he had never bothered to read any of my other interviews. That is not what he said to me when he received me in his office. For one full hour he discussed my interviews with Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, Ali Bhutto and Yasser Arafat, and explained that leaders don't have to be intelligent, only strong and determined.