I'm glad you brought up Vieques. That is an excellent illustration of the hypocritical essence of the "support our troops" mantra. It's all good until it's on MY backyard. Now, granted, there was additional political animosity in the case of Vieques due to the historic territory status indecision of Puerto Rico and the general fanaticism that engulfs cultural identity down there (I grew up there, I've seen it first hand). People in the states were generally unsympathetic to the arguments pertaining to the Vieques range. Having this hiccup happen in New Jersey brings into perspective that at the end of the day, nobody is willing to put life and limb for what to them is in the end the pursuit of appearing supportive, not actually being supportive.
That said, I do not subscribe to the idea that losing one's home or life in a ordinance-related forest fire is just price to show one's support for the military and it's need for readiness, in that respect those toting the readiness argument at all costs need to re-evaluate the unilateral way in which they paint the argument.
Are there ways one can mitigate these issues? Perhaps. I think a more fundamental angle is going straight to the source, the community. In the end it is the community that will set the tone of how they want to feel about the issue and ultimately how they want to be perceived by the military and the country. I wouldn't fault them for pushing towards the closing of the facility, but that's a position they have to develop, after all it's their houses and schools, not somebody else's.
You know, this argument is not unique, the same thing happens with communities adjacent to military installations. It's no mystery bases are good for the adjacent economy but BAD for communities right outside the gate. Military members always speed thru the gate and scoff how ghetto these places are, and would never seriously consider housing options there; so there ya go, if you don't susbcribe to the idea that the prescence of said base keeps the outlying communities at the depressed value you're drinking too much of the Kool-Aid. Should we close that base too? Of course not, but to dismiss the negative aspects of the overall impact a military installation has on the immediate community is evidence of the point I made in the beginning, that people may say one thing, but in the end act in self-interest.
As for the particular range in question, I am not well-informed on what are the regional options for alternate facilities and how this or other communities are affected by changing the current use of said facilities. I agree that moving all ops to the Nevada Desert (for argument's sake) is not the most practical avenue. We'll see how this one turns out.
