While citizens should consider the opposition's point of view, they should also question it just as vigorously as they question the army. Furthermore, they should be skeptical of promises that sound too good, such as claims that safer, more cost-effective methods of destruction are readily available. Such claims are disputed by the National Research Council and the General Accounting Office. Many citizens will be disinclined to take a harder look at this issue, for their mistrust in the army or the government breeds a proclivity to accept the claims of the army's opponents. In some cases, the roots of this mistrust lie in the army's original relationship with the community.
Some citizens distrust the army for reasons other than the incineration program.
In Lexington, Kentucky, residents have been scowling for decades, ever since the army moved the weapons into this heavily populated area in a hush-hush manner. Inhabitants near the Umatilla, Oregon, storage site were subjected to unannounced releases of radioactive material from the Hanford plutonium plant during the Cold War. Those living near Pueblo Depot, Colorado, believe that the army will behave irresponsibly in destroying chemical weapons, just as they believe the army did when disposing of missile boosters under the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Likewise, citizens of Maryland were outraged when three officials who ran a chemical weapons development pilot plant at Aberdeen Proving Ground were jailed in 1985 for letting the facility fall into disrepair. Mismanagement in the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program has not helped either.