Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou5a.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!hou4b!hou5f!hou5g!hou5h!hou5a!trc
From: trc@hou5a.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Empty silos vs mobile MX
Message-ID: <607@hou5a.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Oct-84 20:05:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou5a.607
Posted: Fri Oct  5 20:05:05 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 8-Oct-84 02:42:49 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 20

With regard to the old "Mobile MX" plan - couldnt the same benefits
be gotten by building a bunch of fake MXes and silos, and having
some sort of independent observers verify that only two in ten is 
real, before carrying them to the silos?  Then use double or triple 
blinds and high security methods to keep *anyone* from knowing exactly 
where the real missiles go to.  Since access to the missiles is almost 
certainly necessary, maybe cluster eight fakes and two real, far enough 
apart so that ten blasts would be needed to get them all, but close 
enough that a single control center can provide access via tunnel.  
The launch crews would know which is the real missile - but perhaps 
steps could be taken so that even they cant figure out which above 
ground target has the real missile under it.

Note that the fakes could cost a lot less than the real missiles,
and the fake silos somewhat less than the real ones.  Its bound
to cost a lot less, and be safer than taking one's nukes out for 
a Sunday drive!

Has this been proposed before?  If so, why was it rejected?
Tom Craver	hou5a!trc