Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.13 $; site iuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!jec
From: jec@iuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Strategic Arms (reply to Tim
Message-ID: <2000034@iuvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Sep-84 16:52:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: iuvax.2000034
Posted: Wed Sep 19 16:52:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 06:27:08 EDT
References: <238@whuxl.UUCP>
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-23800:iuvax:2000034:000:475
Nf-From: iuvax!jec    Sep 19 15:52:00 1984


[]
	It seems to me that you could hardly call the MX a first strike
weapon.  The idea behind it was that it would be impervious to a first
strike so that it could be used as a second strike weapon.  The MX missiles
aren't as accurate as the type of missiles used to take out other silos.
A minor quibble since it is totally unnecessary with a large submarine
fleet.

--


					James Conley
					Indiana University
					68K Education Board Project
					...{isrnix|iuvax}!jec