Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cubsvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!rocky2!cubsvax!noel
From: noel@cubsvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: MX missile: pro and con
Message-ID: <95@cubsvax.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 18-Aug-83 13:17:10 EDT
Article-I.D.: cubsvax.95
Posted: Thu Aug 18 13:17:10 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 19-Aug-83 04:44:56 EDT
Organization: Columbia Univ Biology, New York City
Lines: 28


Some reasons for NOT building MX:

1) cost: nearly $15 billion over the next five years could be better spent
	or saved.
2) sitting ducks: 10 accurate warheads in fixed, vulnerable Minuteman silo
	are very attractive targets.
3) destabilizing: 10 highly accurate warheads capable of silo-busting
	threaten our adversaries with devastating first strike.
4) escalation: U.S. ahead with this level of accuracy and "counterforce"
	"nuclear war-fighting" capability.
5) move toward launch-on-warning: as a result of 2) and 3) above, MX will
	push both U.S. and U.S.S.R. towards hair-trigger (computer-activated?)
	launch mode.

The argument which my Representative gave FOR MX was that we need it as
a bargaining chip.  Do people see this as persuasive?  Do you think Reagan
and Co. really want to reach arms control agreements?

I welcome discussion with anyone who thinks we should buy MX.  If you don't
want your money spent on MX, how about telling your elected officials so?
The House and Senate will be voting this fall on $2.5 billion for building
the first 27 MX's.

What do people think of the Cohen-Nunn "build-down" proposal?  Speak up!
-- 
 - Noel Kropf	{cmcl2,harpo}!rocky2!cubsvax!noel	212-280-5517
 - 1002 Fairchild; Columbia University; New York NY 10027