Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site fisher.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!astrovax!fisher!david From: david@fisher.UUCP (David Rubin) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Re: Strategic Arms (reply to Tim Message-ID: <346@fisher.UUCP> Date: Tue, 2-Oct-84 10:05:06 EDT Article-I.D.: fisher.346 Posted: Tue Oct 2 10:05:06 1984 Date-Received: Wed, 3-Oct-84 19:26:40 EDT References: <238@whuxl.UUCP> <29200149@uiucdcs.UUCP> <2283@ucbvax.ARPA> Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics Lines: 15 >Question: If MX wernt vulnerable, would you still think of it as >a first strike weapon? > Milo Answer: I would think of it as being both a first strike weapon and a second strike weapon (vulnerability reduces it to a first strike weapon only). However, because it would be a capable counterforce weapon, it would put pressure on a Soviet leader to "use 'em or lose 'em" in a crisis. Counterforce weapons, even if they can survive a first strike, are destabilizing, though far less so than vulnerable counterforce weapons. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david