suicide by the Jewish zealots at Masada). I share the same feelings as these people, but I, as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States, possess considerable power to protect my freedoms and the freedoms of others. I have used that power and will use it again, if necessary, to protect these freedoms. The phrase "better red than dead" has been used time and again this century, and I neither agree nor disagree with it. If the majority of the people of the United States choose to live under a Communist system of government, I will be very discouraged, but I will not try to reverse the will of the majority through physical force. If, however, a Communist society is forced upon us against the will of the majority, then I'll be fighting to the bitter end.

Essentially, it is a threat to basic human freedoms that stirs this otherwise mild-mannered individual to the use of maximum force. For those who feel that the United States should not have fought in Southeast Asia, I offer as justification the state of freedom in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia today. By not continuing to assist these countries with all of our strength when they needed our help, we, as a country, acted just like the bystanders who watch the brutal rape of a young girl and do nothing to help. I believe my analogy fully conveys the feelings of a man who thinks that one of the greatest crimes against God and humanity is to have the power to stop injustice and to choose not to use it.

The problem within my profession todayand it's one that's been with us for a long timeis that many fighter pilots I run into are solely interested in the trappings of the job and not the actual job itself. They love going fast, impressing girls and nonfighter pilots at the bar, wearing patches, and doing all of the things that fighter pilots are "supposed" to do (get drunk and obnoxious, etc.). I don't think very many of them have sat down and really thought through what is expected of them if they're ever called on to use the skills they've been taught. I'm convinced that most of them

would not change a thing that they're doing, but it bothers me that there is so little interest in talking about the moral and ethical issues of killing someone else. That's why I start off every flight briefing by reminding the flight members that the primary objective of a flight of fighters is to kill someone or destroy something. We can't refuel other aircraft, we can't rescue people, and we can't deliver supplies. Other aircraft and pilots are tasked with those critical roles. Our job is one of destruction.

I'll never forget one of my first missions in Southeast Asia. My flight lead had dropped his bombs in a wooded area next to a clearing, and the forward air controller (FAC) was pleased with the drop. "OK, # 2. Your leader's got the whole unit on the run, and they're trying to make it across the clearing. You're cleared in."

I didn't have bombs, I was carrying cluster bomb units (CBUS)-specifically designed to kill people, not destroy equipment. As I rolled in, I realized that a couple of hundred human beings were less than a minute away from dying-and I was their executioner. A minute later it was all over. "Nice drop, # 2. There's not a soul moving. It is going to take quite a while

by-minute for the word to launch their destructive charges. What kind of person would do a job like that? The answer is easier than one would expect because that person is a lot like any of the other people you meet during the day-the grocer, the ad executive, the athlete, etc. He or she has simply chosen another profession. The safeguards against accidental or even unauthorized intentional launches must be seen to be believed. Are they perfect? Well, probably not, but they're good enough to allow me to go through a day without worrying about an unintentional nuclear war.

We were exercised frequently during my years of sitting alert, and there's just no way to describe the thoughts that go through one's mind when the horn goes off and you start sprinting for your aircraft. Things happen so fast that any attempt at a logical determination of the ethical and moral consequences of what might be occurring is just not possible. However, once you were in the aircraft waiting for the rest of the message, there were usually a few seconds to collect your thoughts, and that's usually when I began praying. In our hearts we always believed that every horn was an exercise horn, but we all knew that there was always a possibility that this time it could be for real. Obviously, I never got to experience the thoughts that go through a person's mind when the message is a real one and the gates open up and you suddenly realize that you're really going to launch. That's one of the many things I've wondered about but don't ever care to experience.

Would I have launched? Would I have done my best to get to the target and drop my bomb? Yes, I would have and still would. Don't I realize the consequences, you ask? As a matter of fact, I think I do, and as I indicated before, I have personally chosen death over slavery. It is also important to remember that the decisions to build and deploy nuclear weapons were made by officials elected by the majority who voted in our country, and a majority of the voters have also freely elected the individual to

initiate that exchange. As an active member of society, I support those decisions and will do my best to see that they are carried out. The moral debate in our country has been ongoing for decades, and the majority still believe that nuclear weapons are a necessary part of our arsenal. If I did not agree with the majority on this issue, I would be doing precisely what the antinuclear minority in our country is doing. I sympathize with them, and I wish that the world could be as they want it to be, but I don't believe that it ever will be, using their methods. One need only study history to see the inevitable results of unilateralism.

So am I a warmonger? No, I hate

war more than most because I've been there and I've seen the devastation and misery it can cause. I've lost several close friends and seen my comrades in arms killed before my very eyes. It's a terrible feeling, and I pray that I never feel it again. But as we get farther and farther away from Southeast Asia, the percentage of those military men who have experienced war gets smaller and smaller, and the passions of the time become obscured and begin to fade away.

There are many lessons that come out of each conflict and, from a technical standpoint, I think that we have made tremendous progress in applying the lessons of our last war to our present force structure. But have we in the military addressed the deeper issues? At the senior level of command, I would answer yes. From all that I see and hear coming out of Washington, our military leaders are the most hesitant to use military force to solve a problem, whereas their civilian counterparts appear to be rather quick on the draw. However, when given a mission, as in Grenada, the military leadership has opted for the use of overwhelming force, which, history tells us, is the surest way to minimize casualties on both sides. My concern is with our younger officers. Youth always has a tendency to react more on gut feel and enthusiasm than on carefully thought-out options.