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,net.women
Subject: Re: Female Veep
Message-ID: <235@fisher.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Jul-84 10:47:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: fisher.235
Posted: Fri Jul 27 10:47:53 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jul-84 09:34:51 EDT
References: <832@pyuxn.UUCP>, <879@akgua.UUCP>, <426@tty3b.UUCP> <308@loral.UUCP>
Organization: Princeton Univ. Statistics
Lines: 19

Ray, you're mistaken about some of the Carter administration positions.

(1) The Carter adminstration scrapped the B-1; they rightfully felt that it
    would be obsoleted by stealth technology in about five years, and
    that ALCM's would serve admirably till then.
(2) The Carter administration did propose the MX, but would not
    support it in its present form. Because the MX puts so many "eggs"
    in one "basket" (each missile has 10 warheads), the "shell game"
    was considered critical to its deterrence value. Instead, Reagan
    is satisfied to base it in fixed position siloes, where its
    vulnerability to a Soviet strike reduces it to a first-strike-only
    weapon, and thus it becomes destabilizing, rather than deterring.
    It was clear that Carter would have scrapped the MX once it became
    apparent that political pressure would prevent the "shell game"
    basing.
(3) The Carter administration did support the Trident, as you said.

					David Rubin
			{allegra|astrovax|princeton}!fisher!david