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: <315@fisher.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Sep-84 10:26:03 EDT Article-I.D.: fisher.315 Posted: Fri Sep 21 10:26:03 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Sep-84 21:06:56 EDT References: <238@whuxl.UUCP> <2000034@iuvax.UUCP> Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics Lines: 18 >[] > 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 > ...{isrnix|iuvax}!jec It is precisely because the MX is so vulnerable to first strike that it itself can only be considered a first strike weapon. The original idea WAS to make MX impervious to first strike (with the "shell game" basing), but this administration will be satisfied to put them in existing fixed siloes. David Rubin {allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david