Unlimited Access. Try it Today! Your First 10 Days Always $0.99

Readers Respond

News Opinion Readers Respond

Nuclear threat keeps U.S. troops overseas

Nobody wishes for peace more than a veteran. As someone who deployed to a combat zone and knows what it's like to endure deep pangs of family separation and be awoken at 3:30 a.m. because there's a large group outside your post who is trying to kill you, I would love nothing more than to see every American come home.

And that is precisely why we must do everything we can to keep Iran from developing military-grade uranium. America is not an imperial country. We have only ever asked other countries for enough land to bury our dead. Today, America maintains forward presences primarily for one reason — unfriendly and unstable countries with nuclear weapons.

Europe pays us to be there because Russia'sgovernment still can't be fully trusted with nukes. We're concentrated in South Korea because of North Korean nukes. President Barack Obama is calling for new forces in Southeast Asia to counter China's unpredictability. And if Saddam Hussein had allowed inspectors full access to Iraq, we never would have gone in there. We (incorrectly) assumed he was hiding nukes from us, when he was actually hiding the fact that he did not have any from Iran. Who knew? Lastly, we're ultimately still in Afghanistan as an indirect means of keepingPakistan's nukes out of the hands of extremists.

Looking forward, if Iran gets nukes, its people will risk the permanent servitude that North Koreans endure. And Saudi Arabia will most certainly want its own counter-arsenal. We will comply because our oil addiction will demand that we do. All subsequent plans for securing our energy supply and protecting Americans from "loose nukes" will undoubtedly include developing a new, large permanent base in Kuwait.

And nobody wants that — especially veterans.

Larry Smith, Timonium

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • U.S. negotiations with Iran are a dangerous farce
    U.S. negotiations with Iran are a dangerous farce

    Having missed a July deadline for reaching an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the six world powers party to the talks -- the United States, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom and Germany -- have set November 24 as their new deadline. Iran says there will be no extension if a deal...

  • Sanctions were working in Iran; why are we letting up?
    Sanctions were working in Iran; why are we letting up?

    It seems to me that the sanctions levied on Iran were working or they would not be at the negotiating table ("Netanyahu's pointless speech," March 3). Maybe if we continue this policy, instead of the one we seem to be embracing, they would give up their nuclear program. This is just North Korea...

  • Iran talks peace while it builds its bomb
    Iran talks peace while it builds its bomb

    Unfortunately, the U.S. and Iran's decision to extend their nuclear talks with a new deadline of June, 2015, will only give Iran the opportunity to further its nuclear and ballistic missile programs unhindered ("Keep talking with Iran," Nov. 24).

  • Keep talking with Iran
    Keep talking with Iran

    The announcement today that the U.S. and Iran have agreed to extend talks over Tehran's disputed nuclear program is far short of what we might have hoped for. But the extension can't be counted as a failure either. If the goal is to keep up the pressure on Iran's leaders to reach a deal, keeping...

  • Cardin must drop support for more Iran sanctions [Letter]
    Cardin must drop support for more Iran sanctions [Letter]

    Thank you for your support for continuing negotiations in your July 17th "Keep talking with Iran" editorial. U.S. and Iranian negotiators agreed to continue the talks through late November due to the progress they have made already toward peacefully resolving the standoff over Iran's nuclear program....

  • Congress should not kill Iran deal
    Congress should not kill Iran deal

    South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham got it right on Sunday when he said the framework accord between Iran and the major world powers on Tehran's disputed nuclear program is probably the best deal the Obama administration could have gotten. Of course, he didn't mean it as a compliment...

  • Congress should not dismiss Iran deal
    Congress should not dismiss Iran deal

    Before those opposed to the recent deal with Iran settle on their opposition ("Negotiating with Iran," April 5), I would hope they consider the following.

  • There's good reason not to trust Iran — or Democrats
    There's good reason not to trust Iran — or Democrats

    Most people agree there is a real problem with any relationship with Iran ("Negotiating with Iran," April 3).

Comments
Loading

50°