Interview with Jeff Latas, Democrat for Congress In Arizona's CD8
Published March 21, 2006
M: Being as you want to be on the Energy Committee, and they are responsible for DOE and funding nuclear threat reduction programs, such as that advocated by Kerry in the last election, what funding will you seek for such programs?
J: I would push to reduce our nuclear arsenal. I would definitely make it a priority to get funding for nuclear threat reduction [loose nukes and securing nuclear materials for making weapons] back on track. I would also look at modernizing our nuclear arsenal by renegotiating the treaties that currently restrict us from developing the latest nuclear deterrents that are more humane, specific and very effective against chemical and biological threats. We could have a stronger and more humane deterrence with less weapons.
M: Should we reduce the size of our nuclear deterrent and what size is sufficient?
J: Zero is sufficient. I would like to see us get to that. I think we need to take a leading role in saying we can still be a strong nation without WMD. We are a promoter now of WMD. Everybody uses us as a model. If we can be a strong America and protect the rights of our people without WMD, I think that is the way we have to lead.
M: Is National Missile Defense [Star Wars] as viable and useful program and would you continue funding it?
J: The technology is very expensive. I don't know if it's going to be a viable program in the long-run. It's a technological challenge. It does keep an escalation of countries like Korea from developing short-range, and even long-range, ballistic missiles. If we can sit there and pop them off, we don't need a deterrent force of destruction. We can take care of those types of weapons in a defensive posture.
This is where I'm going in terms of a strong defense. If we do have a viable, workable, affordable system, it's something we ought to consider for our own protection from countries that are rogue. However, I don't know that's really the biggest threat. Suitcase bombs are much easier to deliver.
M: Do you think the US should be the first to deploy space based weapons as recommended by the Rumsfeld Commission?
J: Weaponry is not allowed [by treaty]. There are [non-weapons] systems that can promote peace. First strike weaponry is - no. Not first-strike, not at all. Then you get into an escalation situation. It's not the way to go. The best way to go is to outsmart your enemy without spending money.
M: Does the 'Bush Doctrine' of preventive warfare have any place in American military doctrine?
J: No.
M: Give me your position on Iraq.
J: We should never have invaded Iraq and we need to get out. I join John Murtha in his plan to re-station fast-reaction air and ground forces in friendly countries such as Turkey, Qatar, Kuwait, etc. However we should not go into Iraq unless the Iraqi ask for help. We have to be able to quickly analyze the treat they face, too. Only if their democracy is being threatened, but we don't need to be stepping into the middle of a civil war, or trying to snuff out the Sunnis, for examples. We don't need to take sides except to defend democracy.
- Interview with Jeff Latas, Democrat for Congress In Arizona's CD8
- Published: March 21, 2006
- Type: Interview
- Section: Politics
- Writer: Michael D. Bryan
- Michael D. Bryan's BC Writer page
- Michael D. Bryan's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
1977-1980 we reduced our oil requirements from the Middle East by 87% at the same time the GDP went up 27%, so it's obviously healthy for this economy to get off of oil.
He must have forgotten the average 12% yearly inflation rate during that period which went along with that GDP growth, which effectively reduced it to a -21% rate of growth.
Dave
I neglected to include his homepage. Thanks for pointing out the oversight.
Michael, you could go back and edit that into the article at an appropriate place.
Dave
I too share similar opinions about the F-22 V Joint Strike Fighter and alot of other systems to numerous to mention.
I recall while in High School,1959 to 1963, I wore a Hughes Missile Pin of The Falcon on my shirt every day, and being called to the cafeteria with other Hughes Families because Hughes paid a direct subsidy to the school for my being in attendance.
The same is true of the many good aircraft and systems that did not get off the ground because of "Favorite Defense Contractors inside the Pentagon," as was Boeing, favored by Dwight Eisenhower, and it got the contracts over Lockeed and Martin and Convair and many others that had a superior aircraft but lost to Politics.
General Spots the first Air Force General and whom broke off from The Army ,then called Army-Air Force, was a good friend of my Family and was born in Boyertown,P.A. where I was Born. Since the Town is so small everyone knew everyone else,and in the First and Second World War with Spots in Command we had alot of options open to us.
Hughes alone has Government Contracts now over a TRILLION Dollars, Iam a member of Davis Monthan Air Force Lodge #105 and have spent alot of time in the Bone Yard now and back in the 1960's as I hauled out 250 B-26's to be refitted and sent to Madam Nue and her Air Force in Viet Nam under The Kennedy Administration.
For anyone who wants to see their Tax Dollars , visit the Bone Yard to see everything from B-1 Bombers back in time to your favorite aircraft,all coated with white sun guard.
The point that my Father always made as he was stationed at Langley to Hughes was that when a contract was complete the JIG was Destroyed so that no more production of PARTS or THE AIRCRAFT could continue, this forced special jobs to make more parts from new JIGS that most engineers had a hard time matching the tolerances down to the original and the parts did not fit or work in many systems SCRAPPING many thousands of parts that had to be made over and over again,then if a repair order was ahead of schedule the parts were scrapped on purpose to continue the contract.
With this in mind beware of Politicians whom are connected to the Pentagon or its Contractors because you will experience Haliburton all over again.
Most of the complaints you raise about incompetent and inefficient management of the aircraft parts by the military would be true regardless of who built the planes. You make the mistaken assumption that any one of those aircraft contractors was less corrupt than the others, and even more that Boeing was corrupt just because they were the one that got the contract. If Hughes or Douglas or Convair or whoever had gotten the contract you'd be complaining about them today.
Dave
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/45300)
Great interview Michael! Is there a website where people can learn more about / contact / support Latas' campaign?