The Anniston Star, in its never-ending tunnel vision defense of burning the chemical weapons stored in Alabama, has missed the bigger picture.In the editorial “Priorities and incineration” (Anniston Star: March 21) Star editors assume that incineration will get the job done without considering the value of a contingency plan should serious problems arise.
Noting Sen. Shelby’s consideration of requesting the Army to do a study on retrofitting to neutralization, The Star’s knee-jerk reaction was to regurgitate its rhetoric on the “aging and corroding” stockpile. The Anniston stockpile is not “corroding;” that language is meant to instill fear thereby appearing to justify the need to hurry up and burn the stockpile — which is The Star’s historical position.
For The Star editors to say that perhaps considering an alternative was worthwhile before Sept. 11, 2001, is completely disingenious. The Star was fighting against alternatives long before Sept. 11. Playing the terrorist card to make themselves appear reasonable is truly manipulative and wily. I don’t ever recall a Star editorial pre-Sept. 11 calling for an assessment of alternatives. Rather, The Star has been one of the staunchest obstructionists to any such consideration for over a decade.
Right now, there is no option should the incinerator fail to complete its mission. Whether burning is stopped via litigation, tightened emissions regulations, accidents, design problems or any number of other possible reasons, The Star would prefer Shelby do nothing rather than allow a study to plan for such a possibility. A “what if” scenario and contingency plan makes complete sense. Without one, should incineration fail, the citizens in the region would be left with these weapons even longer. So, while The Star argues that the weapons are rotting away, the editors advocate relying entirely on one approach for disposal, no doubt keeping their fingers crossed.
Perhaps it is not so much that The Star doesn’t “get it” on this point, but rather the editors fear such a study would show the cost/schedule/health and environmental benefits of neutralization and the dangers associated with incineration. At every site where a choice has been offered, incineration has been abandoned.
It is ridiculous to ignore the need for studying options should one approach fail, and the Army always has contingencies in planning activities — except for chemical weapons disposal. Why?
This all begs the question: Is The Star’s real motive to make sure the ultimate goal of weapons destruction can be achieved, or is it merely defending the historical position on incineration?
Craig Williams, Director
Chemical Weapons Working Group
Berea, Kentucky
