Defense Costs

To the Editors:

Your analysis of defense spending was welcome [March 7]. It is unfortunate that we have to waste so much of our resources on defense. By using those resources unwisely we will ultimately destroy confidence in our Government.

William G. Smith Victorville, Calif.

The Franklin Spinneys of this world are the type that President Reagan has asked us to emulate: honest, forthright and fiscally conservative. Yet the Reagan Administration tries to curb Government growth but encourages defense spending. Welfare is deplored, but military and industrial pork barrels are filled to the brim. It does not make sense.

Ross L. Sargent Visalia, Calif.

Your story on defense spending scared me. How can there be such disparity of opinion in the Pentagon? Someone is not telling the truth. The Department of Defense was created to promote unity among the services. Secretary of Defense Weinberger should tell the armed forces to get with it.

Donald G. Johnson Bar Hills, Me.

Close by the Pentagon is a memorial to the 56,000 American soldiers who gave their lives in Viet Nam. They were members of the most sophisticated and technically advanced army in the world. Their enemy wore uniforms that looked like pajamas, and shoes made from discarded tires. The Vietnamese carried their firepower on their backs. Their arms, a conglomeration of captured and handmade weapons, held the U.S. at bay for ten years.

Paul M. Sullivan, Viet Nam vet Selden, N. Y.

If funds for military personnel are cut, who will operate the high-tech weapons systems? The legislators who drew up the defense budget fail to recognize that the military's most valuable asset is its people, not its weapons.

Gregory L. Davies Ensign, U.S.N. Athens, Ga.

The examples of defense spending cited in your story lead me to believe that a heftier military budget does not ensure a more effective one.

Cary Brazeman Atlanta

Franklin Spinney's briefing is frightening. Yet devotees of high technology are absolutely convinced, despite historical evidence, that highly complex weapons will make up for a lack of readiness and a shortage of men and basic materiel.

Austin E. Miller Springfield, Va.

Franklin Spinney was talking about history, not about our current situation. The day before Spinney made his presentation, the Army Chief of Staff testified that cost overruns have been cut to one-tenth of 1%. In addition, Spinney overlooked the savings that were made in last year's budget by the Armed Services Committee. He ignored the fact that the real cost increases last year and in the years to come were caused by the combined actions of the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee, neither of which is known for expertise in arms.

You have given substance and credence to this young man's work, which, while thorough, applies to the 1970s. Spinney did not shed any light on the problems that we face today in getting this country prepared.

Barry Goldwater U.S. Senator, Arizona Washington, D.C.

Re TIME'S commentary on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle: the Bradley was designed to give the U.S. infantry offensive fighting capabilities in addition to protecting mobility. Its 25-mm gun is not "highly inaccurate" but exceeds rigorous Army standards in all tests to date. The sticker price is not $1.94 million but $1.1 million, and the M113 costs $180,000, not $80,000. What's more, the vehicle's aluminum armor does not vaporize, incinerate or form a fireball. The armor is not "twice as thick" as the M113's--it measures 1 in., in contrast to 1 3/4 in. for the M113. Antitank rockets can penetrate steel and aluminum, but aluminum has no additional casualty-producing effect.

Robert H. Malott Chief Executive Officer FMC Corp. Chicago

You state that I added $100 million to the defense budget last year by winning approval for a new minesweeper to be built in Wisconsin. I did not put the money in the budget--it was requested by the President and the Pentagon. In fact they asked for four mine-countermeasures ships at a cost of $371.6 million. The Senate approved the request, but the House turned it down. Later, the Conference Committee on the Defense Appropriations Bill, a committee on which I sat, approved one of the four requested vessels.

William Proxmire U.S. Senator, Wisconsin Washington, D.C.

Green Growth

I disagree with your contention that West Germany has produced a generation, including supporters of the Greens, with little historical perspective [Feb. 28]. To the contrary, German history is one reason why this movement is so strong. Its members know enough about the cold war era not to let it happen again.

Christof Braun La Jolla, Calif.

As a voter for the Greens, I can say that this movement does not have much to do with romanticism or nationalism. The Greens reject capitalism and the style of living that accompanies it. The West Germans have to change their political attitudes drastically to prevent a "ground zero" on German soil.

Mo Petersen Hamburg

You find our Greens dangerous romantics. Fifty years ago, Adolf Hitler led our country to believe that security depended on military superiority. From this we got bombed cities and a divided nation. Today the U.S. has more than enough nuclear warheads in our country to annihilate Germany. The Greens are Germany's realists.

Stefan Buckwalter Butzbach, West Germany

Home Robots

In your article "Here Come the Robots" [March 7], Computer Journalist Carl Helmers stated, "These robots will be perceived as companions, like dogs or cats." Anybody who thinks a robot can be a chum, equal to a dog or a cat, is more a mass of shorted circuits than he is human.

Bill Homer Fort Leavenworth, Kans.

When a robot can be programmed to unload the dishwasher, then it definitely will sell.

Susan Cameron Olean, N. Y. This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.