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