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