Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Defeating Reagan, pass 2 Message-ID: <36200157@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Tue, 2-Oct-84 22:16:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.36200157 Posted: Tue Oct 2 22:16:00 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 4-Oct-84 01:48:32 EDT References: <217@boulder.UUCP> Lines: 34 Nf-ID: #R:boulder:-21700:uiucdcs:36200157:000:1597 Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner Oct 2 21:16:00 1984 > A Russian pre-emptive strike is simply not practical, regardless of > their motivation. Our defensive system is set up so that 2/3 thirds of > our nuclear force is mobile and hidden -- it is essentially > invulnerable to a first strike. By preparing for a first strike of our > own (MX, cruise missiles are first strike weapons), we just increase > the tension. This is not true. SAC airfields will have between six and ten minutes if Soviet submarines launch from near the coasts. The bombers may or may not make it. Next, about half of the US SSBN fleet is in port at any time, and none of these subs are likely to survive a Soviet first strike. Where did you get the idea that cruse missiles are first-strike weapons? The whole point of a counterforce first strike is to destroy the enemy's weapons before they can be used. Cruise missiles take hours to reach their target. > I can no longer remember the exact text [of the ERA], but it is very > simple (< 50 > words). Paraphrasing, it says: > " The United States shall make no law that discriminates > on the basis of sex." This isn't even close. It's wrong on at least two major points. If you want to read the exact text of the proposed equal rights amendment, you can find it in net.politics. Now this *is* net.flame, and I suppose that some folks think that facts and sound reasoning are out of place here. But I don't see any reason why I should pay attention to arguments written by people who demonstrate ignorance of the reality behind the dispute. Scott Renner ...ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner