Editor,

There’s one thing wrong with the scenario offered by Mr. Stevens in his Sept. 15 letter to the editor, “Be advised, the jets will never leave Whidbey.” He may be right!

Do we want a government that takes at-will from a certain community, even if we can presume, I’m not so sure, that it is for the greater good of all? Does the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution — private property rights — mean anything anymore?

Mr. Stevens knocks the Pearl Harbor analogy. Isn’t placing all of the electronic attack community in one location similar? Can we count on mutually assured destruction as a deterrent when we are dealing with the insane leaders of North Korea, Iran and others? Are we willing to risk blowing Whidbey Island, including Seattle, off the map to test this theory?

State-of-the-art technology flight simulators should be able to provide most of the visual and “muscle memory” training that carrier landings require at a fraction of the cost and impact on the community and the environment. Are they being fully utilized?

Are they the latest tech?

Environmental impact money spent seems to be wasted. Results are heavily biased — study by the Navy, for the Navy. Put this money to use constructively by investing in a second FCLP facility in an unpopulated area.

There is an easy solution: Spread out your assets to two locations. Lessen impact on each community. Have several defense strategies, not just one.

Yes, it might not be as efficient to have two locations for the electronic attack community. Money spent shouldn’t be the final determinant. Community impact, and vulnerability to the enemy, are even more important considerations.

Tim Verschuyl

Oak Harbor