Editor Dear Editor: I am writing in response to the column of Mr. Scott Simon reprinted in The Wisconsin State Journal a few weeks ago. I appreciate the State Journal giving space to pacifist thoughts especially during a time when other newspapers are touting violence as the only way to respond to terrorism. I agree with Mr .Simon to some extent. I am indeed fortunate to be a pacifist in a country that can protect me by an army should my life and beliefs be threatened. However, pacifists do not have to be protected by weapons of mass destruction. Instead we could be protected by nonlethal weapons. The Department of Defense has a program, coordinated by the U.S. Marine Corps, called the Joint Nonlethal Weapons Project (JNLWP). It funds governmental and non-governmental projects that develop weapons whose purpose is to confuse, frustrate, disorient, and control rather than kill and maim. Some of these weapons were deployed in the Gulf War and are now being used in the Bosnian peace-keeping operations. Some of these weapons include: electrical shock generators, nonlethal mortars, immobilizing foam, and microwaves that short-circuit electrical components in weapons and vehicles. An increased use of these kinds of weapons would communicate a very different message than the one we are presently sending to the world in Afghanistan: "The violence must end, but we will end it by frustrating you rather than killing you. Our goal is justice, not death." So, if anyone in power would ask me how the United States should deal with terrorism, I would suggest a two-prong approach: (1) a national defense policy rooted in the nonlethal weaponry discussed above and (2) an acknowledgement that the U.S. has treated some other nations unkindly in the past. However, we now stand united in our efforts to direct our wealth as a nation toward ending the economic injustices people endure all over the world. Sincerely,
S. Randall Converse |