I have some questions about your article, “Kauai might host missile tests” (Star-Advertiser, Aug. 6).

Since it is the U.S. that has unilaterally withdrawn from the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, covering both nuclear and conventional missiles, why was there no mention of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (given the article’s date), nor any mention that President Donald Trump has been quoted as favoring “limited” nuclear war?

And since the planners are thinking of basing new missiles in Pacific “islands and coastal areas,” why is there no reminder that some of the Marshall Islands still have, after U.S. testing, higher radioactivity than Chernobyl? Why no acknowledgement that bases and test sites are more vulnerable to attack?

If companies Raytheon and Lockheed Martin are “competing” to supply the new missiles, where’s the list of Congress and executive branch members who have investments in or receive campaign funds from these companies? Who’s prosecuting for conflict of interest? In the face of new nuclear and “hypersonic weapons,” where are the protectors?

Kathy Phillips

Moiliili

Click here to read more Letters to the Editor.