Military Base Closures

* I read with mixed feelings your May 2 article and May 5 editorial on a possible new round of military base closures. I hope that the news might rouse a sense of urgency in California’s elected representatives to a serious threat that many of us have been concerned about for quite a while.

I regret that The Times published claims by unnamed “experts” that three particular bases might once again be singled out.

I was pleased that the editorial expressed support for retaining California’s bases, but I’m afraid that the call for equity as a basis for base closure decisions won’t carry much weight with the Pentagon or Congress.

Some observations:

* The services do indeed have more bases than they need in the post-Cold War era.

* Publishing unsubstantiated comments singling out specific bases causes unnecessary alarm and worry in host communities.

* There are valid and important reasons for defending California’s bases from closure beyond equity. California offers vast land, sea and air spaces free from civilian encroachment for conducting realistic, safe and unrestricted development, test and training operations; ideal testing and training climate and terrain; a long history of cooperation among the services in joint use of facilities; and linkage by a continually upgraded telecommunications system for exercises encompassing multiple ranges and simulation facilities.

PHIL G. ARNOLD

Ridgecrest