Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!ucbvax!medin
From: medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Strategic Arms (reply to Tim
Message-ID: <2283@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 30-Sep-84 15:57:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.2283
Posted: Sun Sep 30 15:57:49 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 1-Oct-84 04:40:43 EDT
References: <238@whuxl.UUCP> <29200149@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 26

Well, at least we agree on the need for improved C^3I.  The 
first strike nature of our systems comes from their inherent
accuracy, and people dont build missiles with less accuracy than
they can put in.  But accuracy alone does not constitute a first
strike system, not even vulnerability.  Some people think a 
vulnerable accurate system is built for a first strike.  Its not,
its built because various bozo's don't think that fixed silos are
vulnerable, or that it would cost too much to harden them, or
because they think BMD is destabilizing (something no one on
this newsgroup has been able to give me a good reason to believe).

No, I dont think think everyone opposed to MX is a commie, I never
said anything about commies, I said freezeniks.  There is a difference.
At least I believe there is.  But there is way too much irrationality
involved in the weapons debate.  But you have to deal with things
in cold factual terms.  We need a strong counterforce system,
and that leads to MX and D-5.  I am not arguing for vulnerability
however, remember I am a BMD advocate.  

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



				Milo