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: <29200148@uiucdcs.UUCP> Date: Sat, 22-Sep-84 16:23:00 EDT Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.29200148 Posted: Sat Sep 22 16:23:00 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 19:25:13 EDT References: <238@whuxl.UUCP> Lines: 27 Nf-ID: #R:whuxl:-23800:uiucdcs:29200148:000:1347 Nf-From: uiucdcs!renner Sep 22 15:23:00 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 I believe that the MX is at least as accurate as the Minuteman III missiles it is to supplement. That means that it could be used as a counter-force weapon. (As a rule of thumb, if a weapon can't be used against enemy missiles, it isn't "first strike.") Since the MX carries ten warheads, it is a perfect target for an enemy first strike. This is because it carries more warheads than the enemy needs to use to destroy it. If the Soviets strike first, they will strike hardest at the MX missiles. Consequently, the MX is not particularly useful as a second-strike weapon, because it isn't likely to survive the enemy first strike. What we have, then, is a weapon which could be used for a preemptive counter-forcestrike, but not for a second, retaliatory strike. This is why the MX is called a "first strike" weapon. This is also why we could find other, better weapons to spend our money on. Scott Renner ihnp4!uiucdcs!renner