Air Force should look west for expansion

In your recent story, “Air Force outlines expansion of range,” I was disturbed to read the claim that the Air Force needs more land to practice. I attended the public meeting and heard there that due to better technology, the range is currently too small. The advance of technology is infinite and land finite, so expanding the range will not solve the problem.

Another claim at the public meeting was that the Air Force is a good steward of the land and wildlife. When looking at a map of the North Range, I see a large network of roads and disturbed areas that would compete with any urban city. The South Range is mostly left untouched, except for the live active areas, a situation certain to change with the Air Force proposal.

I believe Air Force officials should look at other alternatives if they wish to expand. A wildlife refuge is not compatible with military training and land disturbance supporting warfare simulations. They should look to the west where land is already disturbed by the Nevada National Security Site.

Charles Chapman

Las Vegas

Another choice

In response to Dave Mesker’s Oct. 10 letter, “Big change,” in which he says he hopes someone with sense comes forward in the presidential race:

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, is on the ballot. His positions on the issues can be found on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, he is rarely mentioned in the news.

My only serious disagreement with his position is his attitude on abortion, which I consider murder.

I have corresponded with Mr. Johnson’s campaign, which I hope will deny both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton a majority of electoral votes and throw the election into the House of Representatives.

Jack Campbell

Las Vegas

Gullible people

The very remote possibility of a President Trump is worrisome, but I think Congress would keep him from doing too much damage in his four years. I think a far more important issue is the millions of gullible people who have jumped on his bandwagon. That’s scary, when we know this has happened in other countries throughout history.

Frank Mohler

Las Vegas

Court picks

Perhaps the most compelling response by the candidates in the third presidential debate came with the very first question on whether the Constitution should be interpreted as presented by the founders or is a living document subject to flexible interpretation. The only answer that should have come from both is that it will be their sworn obligation under the oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”

Hillary Clinton made clear that she would seek Supreme Court justices who “represent all of us,” completely ignoring the responsibility of the court to interpret the Constitution as written and intended by the founders until otherwise amended. What she is advocating is arbitrary rule, the same as exercised by President Obama, the same she will impose on the nation, and the same she will expect her justice appointees to preserve, protect and defend.

Kerry Bowers

Henderson

Over the top

In response to the Sunday commentary, “High-risk proposal”: Cannabis prohibitionist, Dr. R.J. Petrella, echoed the prohibitionist government’s lies, half-truths and propaganda right on queue but added enough additional discredited claims to make one believe that re-legalizing the plant equates to the end of the world.

I’d like to say Colorado voters heard it all before and voted, but Dr. Pertella went over the top in a way that is just plain preposterous.

One example is his rants about cannabis and cancer, which is interesting since cannabis has never caused a single case of cancer in more than 5,000 years of documented use. Compare that to cigarettes, which kill more than 1,000 Americans daily.

A sane or moral argument to continue punishing responsible adults who choose to use the relatively safe, God-given plant simply doesn’t exist.

Stan White

Dillon, Colo.