Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner
From: renner@uiucdcs.UUCP (renner )
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: A Missile Epistle - (nf)
Message-ID: <4100@uiucdcs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Nov-83 04:26:48 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcs.4100
Posted: Thu Nov 24 04:26:48 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 26-Nov-83 06:46:00 EST
Lines: 20

#R:ucbesvax:7500053:uiucdcs:29200044:000:808
uiucdcs!renner    Nov 24 01:59:00 1983

Basing missiles in population centers makes no difference to the
practicality of a US first strike.  Retaliation against cities is
always an possible response to a first strike; furthermore, after a
first strike, the missiles will be *gone*; empty missile silos will
not make the Soviets more likely to hit cities or to avoid them.

The other arguments are valid.  With missiles in cities, the Soviets
can no longer make a "counter-force" attack; blowing up our missiles
means blowing up our cities, and would result in retaliation against
their cities.  Odds of accidental war are reduced as well; since the
US does not fear a first strike, it need not adopt a launch-on-warning
policy.

Now, how do we convince the Soviets that *we* won't launch a first strike?

Scott Renner
{pur-ee,ihnp4}!uiucdcs!renner