Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/7/84; site ucbvax.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!ucbvax!medin From: medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: Re: Strategic Arms (reply to Tim Message-ID: <2283@ucbvax.ARPA> Date: Sun, 30-Sep-84 15:57:49 EDT Article-I.D.: ucbvax.2283 Posted: Sun Sep 30 15:57:49 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 1-Oct-84 04:40:43 EDT References: <238@whuxl.UUCP> <29200149@uiucdcs.UUCP> Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 26 Well, at least we agree on the need for improved C^3I. The first strike nature of our systems comes from their inherent accuracy, and people dont build missiles with less accuracy than they can put in. But accuracy alone does not constitute a first strike system, not even vulnerability. Some people think a vulnerable accurate system is built for a first strike. Its not, its built because various bozo's don't think that fixed silos are vulnerable, or that it would cost too much to harden them, or because they think BMD is destabilizing (something no one on this newsgroup has been able to give me a good reason to believe). No, I dont think think everyone opposed to MX is a commie, I never said anything about commies, I said freezeniks. There is a difference. At least I believe there is. But there is way too much irrationality involved in the weapons debate. But you have to deal with things in cold factual terms. We need a strong counterforce system, and that leads to MX and D-5. I am not arguing for vulnerability however, remember I am a BMD advocate. Question: If MX wernt vulnerable, would you still think of it as a first strike weapon? Milo