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