Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.14 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Re: Strategic Arms (reply to Tim Message-ID: <29200149@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 26-Sep-84 16:39:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.29200149 Posted: Wed Sep 26 16:39:00 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 28-Sep-84 04:38:20 EDT References: <238@whuxl.UUCP> Lines: 31 Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-23800:uiucdcs:29200149:000:1548 Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner Sep 26 15:39:00 1984 > The bottom line is that the people who complain about MX and > trident being first strike weapons are just plain opposed to them > first strike capability or not. They dont want any modernization. > That first strike stuff is all smokescreen... > -- Milo Medin (ucbvax!medin) Wrong. Just plain wrong. I object to MX because as a first-strike weapon, it does nothing to support the policy of mutual-assured destruction. The MX has always been a damn stupid idea ever since Jimmy Carter thought it up. It takes money from weapon systems that make some sense. I object to Trident subs because they are too big; rather than one huge SSBN, we should build two or three small ones. Subs are considered invulnerable today, but that won't last for long. I am in favor of improvements to our strategic forces. But the area that most needs improvement is command, control, communications, and information (C3I). This doesn't involve flashy new weapon systems. It involves a number of less glamorous but badly needed modernizations in SAC and Navy communications: eg. building phone & data lines resistant to EMP, reducing dependencies on vulnerable satellites, making sure that we can talk to our ballistic-missile subs. Better C3I systems reduce the chance of accidental war *and* make us less vulnerable to a first-strike aimed at command centers. It may be emotionally satisfying to imagine all those opposed to specific weapon systems as commie-loving peace nuts. But it isn't true. Scott Renner ...ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner