Slanted nuke coverage?

-A A +A

This is a protest against the consistently slanted reporting of the Los Alamos Monitor on nuclear weapons issues. It appears that the Monitor takes pleasure in attacking the foundation of this town’s existence and deriding its proud history of supporting the nation’s defense.
I am open to balanced criticism and, although I do not agree, I can respect intelligent advocacy of the abolition of nuclear weapons. However, I am disgusted by the extensive quoting of anti-nuclear ideologues that are treated like Statesmen and are accorded greater authority and recognition than our elected representatives.
In fact, these critics are a priori against anything nuclear and produce canned denunciations on every related topic. They add nothing to a serious consideration of complex national security issues.
The most recent example is a front-page article in the Los Alamos Monitor of Sunday, July 14. The headline is “Critics Blast Lujan’s Nuclear Stance.” The underlying newsworthy event is that all of New Mexico’s Congressional Representatives supported funding of the nuclear weapons complex (including nonproliferation initiatives) in the House Energy and Water Appropriations Act for Fiscal 2014.
The Monitor gives a cursory account of their statements supporting the Bill, and then proceeds to observe that the unanimous support of New Mexico’s Representatives “did not sit well with at least one watchdog group.” What a surprise!
There follows ad nauseam quotations from people whose intellectual contribution to reasoned analysis is virtually nil. These pundits believe that anything that perpetuates the existence of nuclear weapons is anathema and stupid. Once you depart from that ideological stronghold, they have nothing to add.
We live in a time when every nation that possesses nuclear weapons or the potential to build them is reaching for greater capability, except the United States. The wisdom of U.S. unilateral nuclear disarmament, or acceptance of the relentless degradation of the U.S. nuclear arsenal, is at least debatable.
The Monitor’s editorial policy serves to bleed the morale of those in this community who wish to preserve our nation’s options in the face of a murky, challenging and dangerous future.
Philip Kunsberg
Los Alamos