From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!ihnp4!ixn5c!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner
Newsgroups: net.politics
Title: Re: First Strike? How so? - (nf)
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.1244
Posted: Thu Dec 16 12:26:30 1982
Received: Sun Dec 19 10:18:44 1982

#R:sytek:-26300:uiucdcs:29200008:000:787
uiucdcs!renner    Dec 16 11:06:00 1982

     Each MX missile carries 10 independently-targeted, very accurate,
relatively low yield warheads.  These are suitable for taking out hardened
military targets, such as missile silos.  The MX missile therefore poses a
threat to Russian land-based missiles which submarines & bombers do not
(insufficient accuracy and long warning time, respectively).
     Furthermore, because the MX is to be land-based, it cannot realistically
be called a second-strike weapon.  Even considering the dense-pack basing mode,
very few of these missiles will be useable after a Russian first strike. 
     If the United States is interested in building a defensive nuclear
capability, then it makes more sense to invest in ballistic-missile submarines.
These can truly be called second-strike weapons.