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