Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david
From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Strategic Arms (reply to Tim
Message-ID: <346@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Oct-84 10:05:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.346
Posted: Tue Oct  2 10:05:06 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Oct-84 19:26:40 EDT
References: <238@whuxl.UUCP> <29200149@uiucdcs.UUCP> <2283@ucbvax.ARPA>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 15

>Question:  If MX wernt vulnerable, would you still think of it as
>a first strike weapon?

>				Milo

Answer: I would think of it as being both a first strike weapon and a
second strike weapon (vulnerability reduces it to a first strike
weapon only). However, because it would be a capable counterforce
weapon, it would put pressure on a Soviet leader to "use 'em or lose 'em"
in a crisis. Counterforce weapons, even if they can survive a first
strike, are destabilizing, though far less so than vulnerable
counterforce weapons.

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david