THE (December 30) article on the island's nuclear role raises as many questions as it answers. The Pentagon may have had the authorisation to deploy B-57 nuclear depth bombs to Bermuda but it will be interesting to see if any nuclear depth bombs were actually deployed to Bermuda.

I believe the closest Bermuda came to having these bombs on the island may have been on a P3 Orion, stationed at a US Navy East Coast base, that stopped in Bermuda for refuelling, unscheduled repairs or temporary alert deployment.

Going back to the 1950s, the US Air Force had C-124s that transported both high explosive atomic bombs and thermo-nuclear warheads across the Atlantic.

Occasionally, C-124s loaded with the warheads and bombs stopped in Kindley Bermuda for one reason or another. The United States Air Force fire department and the security force (Air Police) attended each landing and the aircraft was parked at the end of the finger that extends into Castle Harbour.

Each C-124 was given special security guarding as long as it was on the island. After a few accidents around the world the US stopped transporting both the high explosive atomic bomb and the thermo-nuclear warhead in the same aircraft.

Also by the late 1950s the Russians were very interested in what was going on in Bermuda with Sound Fixing and Ranging (SOFAR) and later the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) listening stations capable of identifying Russian subs thousands of miles away. Russian ships loaded with electronic equipment would get approval to dock in St. George under the guise of a person needing medical attention.

In the early 1960s the Strategic Air Command KC-97s from Bermuda did intelligence snooping around Cuba. By the 1970s the P3 Orions were capable of carrying three of the B-57 nuclear depth bombs. In 1970 the US Navy took over operation of Kindley as the need for anti-submarine warfare in the area increased.

If the US Navy was going to be storing, uploading and downloading nuclear depth bombs on Bermuda there would first have to be a hard-surface storage facility for these types of weapons.

The storage facility would be located in an area that provided protection to the surrounding area in case of an accident and easy to for guards to provide security for such a sensitive area.

I have been in and around Kindley since 1960 and in 1996 when the base was reopened to a limited degree and at no time did I see anything that resembled a nuclear weapons storage facility. There was some kind of storage constructed by the Navy at the end of the finger out into Castle Harbour which could have been for explosives but I'm doubtful they would have been of the nuclear type.

The US would have great difficulty authorising storage of any large amounts of explosives on Bermuda let alone nuclear. With only one runway and all the facilities close to the runway, any accident could be catastrophic.

I have been in nuclear storage sites in the US and the UK and if the US Navy was going to store 12 B-57s on the island the storage facility would have been away from barracks and other buildings and very noticeable by the security.

For the US Marines to provide security for a high explosive / nuclear weapon storage site on Bermuda would have been a nightmare. Locals working on the base would have been able to point out the storage site to anyone, including the Russians.

It is possible that P3 Orions with nuclear depth bombs were deployed to Bermuda at a time of "advanced readiness". The Orions may have stayed on "Alert" on Bermuda during the "advanced readiness" status and returned to their home station at the end of the "Alert".

However, Appendix "C" of the 1974 Nuclear Weapons Deployment memorandum says it is a list of "Conditional Deployments" authorised in wartime, not in peacetime. It will be interesting to see if the still classified papers show anything beyond authorisation to deploy the weapons on the island. My apologies, I don't need the attention I may get if I signed my name.

A fairer system

FURTHER to Jack Gauntlett's letter last week I own cell phones on the three Bermuda networks and two of the UK ones. The USA/Bermuda way of charging the owners of the cell phone receiving calls is, in my mind, a fairer system.

In most of the non-Americas world the unfortunate caller who happens to call a mobile is charged a higher rate than if he (or she) called a land line.

Calling a mobile from a land line or another mobile, during the day, in the UK converts to the caller paying about 40 cents a minutes; the mobile receiving the call is charged nothing. Land line to land line calls are about ten cents or less. In Bermuda my cost is the same to a cell phone or fixed phone.

The cost of roaming and land line long-distance calling in most of the world is not regulated and can be several dollars a minute. This is where the companies really make big bucks. In Bermuda we are fortunate that competition allows the savvy subscriber to obtain large discounts by shopping around and using one of the long distance carriers. I consider the Bermuda Telecommunications Authority has looked after our interests well over the last few years.

Out of our control

WE, the grounds staff at the St. George's Golf Club, wish to express our disapproval of the article in the (December 30) by News Editor Jonathan Kent under the heading "State of back nine holes drives golfers to despair".

Although we do not wish to address the many inaccuracies in the article, we do take exception to your reporter's implication that the grounds staff are partially to blame for the current state of the back nine holes of the golf course.

On page two, the continuation of the article, second column, first paragraph states: "It is understood that ground staff at the course were at first reluctant to carry out the re-seeding work and only after union intervention did they agree to do it."

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

There was no union intervention, as your reporter has stated. However, union officers were asked by the golf course management to speak to the employees because management wanted a guarantee that staff would be available to work the hours required to complete the 'sprigging' of the front nine.

The staff were well aware of the fact that overtime would be required to 'sprig' the front-nine greens with sea shore paspalum and were quite willing to work what ever hours were required to accomplish this task.

The front nine was sprigged with sea shore paspalum, professionally, without any problems and in less time than was estimated for completion. However, we take great offence at the implication that we are in any way responsible for the condition of the back nine.

All of us work hard to improve what we feel is our golf course. In fact, we are embarrassed by the present state of the golf course, but it is completely out of our control.

People must be reminded that staff can only do what management instructs them to do.

Not once in Mr. Kent's article does he quote a member of the golf club's management or any golf course trustees. Mr. Kent should check his sources.

Almost the entire article seems to be based on hearsay supplied to Mr. Kent by a few disgruntled and misinformed members, none of whom were willing to give their names.

We expect a retraction of your newspaper's references to the grounds staff at St. George's Golf Club and an apology from your reporter, Jonathan Kent.

: We were given information from sources ? some, but not all, of whom were disgruntled members ? that the grounds staff had been reluctant to carry out the work. If this is incorrect, we apologise for presenting a misleading impression.

It is true that we did not quote course management or trustees in the story. However, that was not through lack of trying. As was made clear in the article, our reporter did speak with the course manager, who declined to comment, and did leave a message for the chairman of trustees, who returned the call several days after story had been published.

St. George's Golf Club is a Government-run course undergoing a publicly-funded improvement and therefore the disappointing condition of the course is of legitimate public interest. We intend to follow up our story in the near future and hope that those running the course will let the public know the full facts.