WASHINGTON (AP) -- It is safe to say that until recently, relatively few
                  had heard of the tiny Puerto Rican island Vieques, let alone understood how
                  it suddenly surfaced as a national security crisis of such magnitude that
                  President Bill Clinton felt compelled to intervene.

                  Clinton announced Friday that the Navy and Marines will resume training on
                  Vieques' bombing range but at reduced levels and with dummy bombs.
                  Puerto Rican Gov. Pedro Rossello quickly rejected the plan, which throws
                  into question the Navy's future in Puerto Rico and the combat readiness of
                  some U.S. naval forces.

                  Here are some questions and answers to explain why the Navy considers it
                  so important to drop live bombs, artillery shells and missiles on Vieques over
                  the vehement objections of Puerto Ricans.

                  Q. Why can't the Navy do its bomb training somewhere else?

                  A. This is at the heart of the controversy. The Navy says it has looked hard
                  and can find no other place along the Atlantic Coast where it can bring naval
                  and Marine forces together for realistic combat training using live
                  ammunition. It has used Vieques since World War II, but after an errant
                  bomb killed a Puerto Rican security guard last April, the Navy suspended
                  training on the island.

                  Q. What is wrong with using dummy bombs, instead of real ones?

                  A. Dummy, or "inert," bombs are used -- with sand or concrete inside the
                  casing instead of explosives. But the Navy insists there is no adequate
                  alternative to using at least some real bombs as part of the training that
                  sailors and Marines get before heading overseas in aircraft carrier battle
                  groups.

                  Q. What is so special about live ammunition?

                  A. In the Navy's view, two things: those who assemble, load and arm the
                  bombs and shells fired from naval aircraft and ships need to practice with the
                  real thing or risk losing their edge; and the Marines who storm ashore in
                  coordination with aerial bombing and Navy shipboard gunfire need to
                  experience the sound and fury of real weapons in order to be fully prepared
                  for combat they may face later.

                  "The use of live ordnance in training rivets the attention of those who
                  manage, handle and employ it with a combination of fear and reverence that
                  inert ordnance cannot convey," the Navy wrote in a July report that laid out
                  its rationale for insisting that sailors and Marines keep training on Vieques.

                  Q. Why not do this training after a battle group arrives on station abroad
                  instead of before it leaves?

                  A. That is a possibility, but not one U.S. military leaders like. The Navy,
                  Marine Corps and other services pride themselves on knowing that troops
                  sent abroad are combat-ready. This is important, they say, because units
                  sometimes are called on to fight immediately upon their arrival abroad.

                  That was true with two of the last three carrier battle groups deployed from
                  the East Coast.

                  In the early days of NATO's air war over Kosovo, the USS Theodore
                  Roosevelt and its battle group crossed the Atlantic at high speed to the
                  Adriatic Sea in spring to relieve the USS Enterprise battle group. The
                  Roosevelt began combat operations shortly after arrival. The Enterprise
                  group had begun its deployment in the Persian Gulf, where it, too, began
                  operations soon after arrival. Both carriers' air wings had prior live-fire
                  training at Vieques.

                  "To provide our soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen with less than this
                  optimum training in the future would be unconscionable, cause undue
                  casualties and place our nation's vital interests at risk," Army Gen. Wesley
                  Clark, the top NATO commander, wrote in August in arguing for resuming
                  training on Vieques.

                  Q. Isn't this just a Navy problem?

                  A. It is mainly a Navy problem, but some in the Pentagon believe the
                  Vieques episode could have far-reaching consequences for the entire armed
                  forces. They fear that U.S. access to training grounds in other countries
                  could be in jeopardy if the Puerto Rican example of civil protest is repeated
                  elsewhere.

                  Navy Adm. Jay L. Johnson, the chief of naval operations, and the Marine
                  Corps commandant, Gen. James L. Jones, wrote about this in a joint
                  statement after a presidential panel recommended in October that the Navy
                  get out of Vieques within five years.

                  "Our friends and allies also have interest groups that would prefer that these
                  activities not take place near their communities," Johnson and Jones wrote.
                  "The 'not-in-my-backyard' movement is a phenomenon that, if it succeeds at
                  home, could greatly undermine training opportunities abroad."

                    Copyright 1999 The Associated Press.