The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Thank You, Mr. Secretary

9.6.06 @ 12:01AM

REAGAN RUM
Re: Jed Babbin's Reagan's Vision, Rumsfeld's Legacy:

Another outstanding article by Jed Babbin. I believe that, in the future, Mr. Rumsfeld will be acknowledged as one of, if not the best Sec. Def. that we have had -- ever.

Mr. Babbin makes an excellent case for the farsightedness of the Secretary as regards the missile defense concept/system. I believe that an equally important policy has been the remake of the military from the heavy, ponderous machine that it was (to accomplish tank battles supported by infantry and artillery in the Fulda Gap), into a lighter, more mobile, more rapid, yet more lethal organization that can take on our modern day foes and prevail.

Many call Mr. Rumsfeld cantankerous, stubborn, mean, insensitive, and those are the nice things that they say about him. The fact is that I have been watching and studying Sec. Def. since they were called Secretaries of War. I can not think of a single one that could have taken on the task that Mr. Rumsfeld has accepted and actually accomplish it. I can not think of a single one that would not have been overwhelmed by the entrenched bureaucracy of the military flag rank old boys club. There was the battleship club, the monstrous mobile artillery club, the plethora of almost single purpose - single service air craft club, and on and on. Then there was the huge phalanx of Congressional body guards for each of the military organizations and each of the developmental projects. Then there was the civilian bureaucracy at State, and CIA, and NSA, and even Commerce. And let us not forget the tremendous clout of the reserve component organizations and the veteran's organizations.

Mr. Rumsfeld has had a vision. Right or wrong, he has been consistent. He has consistently removed the roadblocks to that vision, be they technological or personnel related. Whether it is Mr. Rumsfeld, Gen. Honore, Gen. Mattis, or many of the other fine leaders, I celebrate a leader that refuses to "suffer fools." I have applauded Mr. Rumsfeld from the first moment that I saw him pop the balloon of a pompous *** in a press conference.

Thank you Mr. Rumsfeld, and thank you Jed Babbin for bringing to the public the facts of the good things being done by "Rummy" AND our military.
-- Ken Shreve

ALTERNATIVE SCIENCE
Re: William Tucker's Mandating Physics:

While I'm an advocate of Nuclear power, I think William Tucker understates the difficulty involved in bringing more nuclear power online in this country and does not understand the primary purpose of the environmental movement. The people that make a living off of mining coal and transporting it will probably take exception to his proposal to wipe out most of their jobs as a side note. I think William underestimates the scale of his proposal, the nature of capital investments (both existing coal fired plants and future nuclear plants) and the shear legal hurdles involved in bringing large scale nuclear power to market in this country. Like nuclear ships, the number of companies that have the expertise and means is small compared to the more conventional technologies.

I hope William understands that in the time it take to build a single nuclear plant in this country, several coal or natural gas plants each of equal capacity can be built. By the same token, several such plants can be built for the cost of one nuclear plant. The capital investment market abandoned nuclear power a long time ago for this reason. Everyone understands why it cost several times more and takes 10-15 years to build a nuclear plant. Short of those factors changing, nuclear power will continue to be a loser for capital investments.

In addition, nuclear plants require something that coal or natural gas plants don't, water for cooling and a lot of it. Ask the French about the need to provide adequate water resources for cooling to see the importance of this. Add on to this that this water usually comes from a nearby river and then look at where rivers usually run (along fault lines) and then look at California closely in this regard. Given that California is the eastern most side of the Ring of Fire in the Pacific rim, placing a bunch of nuclear plants in California probably won't go over very well with the population there. Perhaps all the plants could actually be built in Arizona or Nevada instead?

And finally, the environmental movement is not ignorant or ignoring nuclear power. Their primary purpose is not to solve any problem but to tear down capitalism at every opportunity and acquire political power. Like the Civil Rights industry, they are not going to vote themselves out of a purpose (and power). At the end of the day, California is the last place in this country you are likely to see a significant investment in nuclear power. It will take a significant political and business change in "climate" long before any measurable change in the real climate can occur from the use of nuclear power. You are right in one regard, it will be interesting to watch California shoot itself in the foot again as more and more businesses relocate out of the State. If enough businesses leave, the air should clear up a bit in California.
-- Thom Bateman
Newport News, Virginia

Regarding Mr. Tucker's article on CO2 levels, the conclusions reached are based on very questionable information, not to mention child-like logic.

For starters, the idea that today's levels being 25 percent higher than those measured in SOME ice cores within the last few thousand years is trivial. Look back further and you will find levels 1000 percent higher. Earth has had thousands of "ice ages," spaced every 20,000-40,000 years. CO2 levels have fluctuated wildly during those warming/cooling periods, as plant growth increased to utilize high levels, or decreased during periods of low levels.

Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer? Ha. Do some research! Jimmy Carter TOOK A CLASS in nuclear physics while in the navy. He is NOT a nuclear engineer.

On the amount of carbon dioxide released by burning coal -- (several tons of CO2 per ton of carbon in coal) this is meaningless gibberish. As a mining engineer, I have heard a lifetime of silly comments by EXPERTS such as Tucker, who grab whatever "facts" sound good to them at the time. Yes, several tons of CO2 COULD be created ...in a lab, theoretically...per ton of carbon...

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Foreign Policy, Trade, Business, Religion, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Global Warming, Books, Law, Military, Iraq, Pakistan, Africa, Socialism, Energy, Alaska, Oil