Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!paul From: paul@uiucuxc.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Hart scares me to death!! - (nf) Message-ID: <6188@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Thu, 15-Mar-84 03:32:18 EST Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.6188 Posted: Thu Mar 15 03:32:18 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Mar-84 03:55:55 EST Lines: 46 #R:cepu:-19700:uiucuxc:34700001:000:2422 uiucuxc!paul Mar 14 23:33:00 1984 Most elements of the MM missiles have been replaced over the course of time. Every two or three years a program is started to upgrade one portion or another of the missile. The solid fuel motors have been replaced at least once in the MM 3, other components have had multiple upgrades. Most recently the Mark 12a warhead has been fitted onto most of our MM 3 missiles. What makes the MM a credible deterrent is that it's not reliable or accurate enough to be a first strike weapon. At the same time the Soviets lack a credible first strike weapon as well. A credible weapon would have to knock > 99% of the 1054 MMs to forestall a devastating counter-strike. The MX, on the other hand, appears designed as a first strike weapon. Advanced inertial guidance with Navstar data for mid- flight course corrections made it a very credible silo killer. What need of we to hit empty silos? Or would we launch first? Tricky questions. Note that Navstar satellites may be knocked out by an early EMP pulse. The B-52 does have its problems. Unlike a missile sitting in a protected silo, the plane is used and subject to wear, tear, and the occasional crash in Spain with a belly full of gravity bombs. Whether it is worth replacing is quite another story. Far too many questions about the B-1b's usefulness have been buried with the Pentagon selecting contractors from all other the country. With jobs in every Congressional district riding on it, it takes more guts in more Congressional reps to stop it. That effort of will probably won't appear. If this country is going to a new bomber at 100+ million a copy, we had damn well get our moneys worth. Write your congressman demanding FULL operational testing before production is authorized. This will probably mean having the GAO or OMB overseeing the AF methodologies and test results. Personally I'm dismayed at the proportion of our national income that is spent on war. To keep the costs down for our armed forces, the munition makers sell abroad to countries that can't afford to feed and house their people. We aren't living in a peaceful world - arms ARE necessary. I don't believe we need or can afford all that we're making. I recommend the "Arsenal of Democracy II" by Tom Gervasis. It's a survey of american weapons and arms exports plus a study of the new cold war. Paul Pomes, ihnp4!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!paul University of Illinois, CSO