Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.13 $; site iuvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!jec From: jec@iuvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Re: Strategic Arms (reply to Tim Message-ID: <2000034@iuvax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 19-Sep-84 16:52:00 EDT Article-I.D.: iuvax.2000034 Posted: Wed Sep 19 16:52:00 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 06:27:08 EDT References: <238@whuxl.UUCP> Lines: 16 Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-23800:iuvax:2000034:000:475 Nf-From: iuvax!jec Sep 19 15:52:00 1984 [] It seems to me that you could hardly call the MX a first strike weapon. The idea behind it was that it would be impervious to a first strike so that it could be used as a second strike weapon. The MX missiles aren't as accurate as the type of missiles used to take out other silos. A minor quibble since it is totally unnecessary with a large submarine fleet. -- James Conley Indiana University 68K Education Board Project ...{isrnix|iuvax}!jec