Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: MX missile vote Message-ID: <522@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 18-Mar-85 13:14:01 EST Article-I.D.: whuxl.522 Posted: Mon Mar 18 13:14:01 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 19-Mar-85 05:47:05 EST References: <326@abnji.UUCP> <831@ames.UUCP> <1438@dciem.UUCP> <514@whuxl.UUCP> <570@rlgvax.UUCP> Organization: /usr/exptools/lib/netnews/myorg Lines: 47 Is there any good reason to support the MX? Please consider the reasons used so far to justify this weapon: 1)It is needed because of the vulnerability of our current ICBM's Actually the MX is *more* vulnerable than our current ICBM's. I would urge people to read the November, 1983 Scientific American article on this question which estimated that 77% of MX missiles could be knocked out by a Soviet pre-emptive strike as opposed to 45% of our current ICBM's. Some analysts have estimated that 90% of MX missiles could be knocked out by a first strike. That is probably too high an estimate. But the essential point is that the MX is actually more vulnerable, because it is more centralized, than our current ICBM's. 2)It is needed as a "bargaining chip" in the Geneva talks Will it be offered as a "bargaining chip"? Not according to Caspar Weinberger: last week he said that the MX missile was essential to our defense and could not be negotiated in Geneva. (One begins to wonder what *will* be negotiated in Geneva??) Moreover it seems rather foolish to support a weapon *solely* for the opportunity to get rid of it. The valid question is: can the MX missile achieve its objective of making mutual deterrence more stable? The answer is: no it does not. 3)Our forces need modernization IF our forces need modernization then why go back to reliance on the old and vulnerable technology of huge landbased missiles? It would make more sense to spend more money on submarine based missiles than an old dinosaur-era weapon. 4)The MX is not a dinosaur- it provides our forces with unprecedented accuracy This is exactly what is *wrong* with the MX: besides itself being vulnerable to a potential first strike ( or more vulnerable than our current weapons)- it poses a potential threat to the Soviet landbased missile force. This only encourages the Soviets to launch their own forces first or early on if they detect a possible nuclear exchange so that their own deterrent is not destroyed. Are we planning on launching a nuclear war? If so then it might make some sense to have a weapon which could knock out Soviet missiles but could be largely destroyed in a Soviet attack. If not then it is incredibly foolish to support a first-strike weapon like the MX. Does anyone seriously think we should prepare to launch a first-strike? Even Wm Colby testified against the MX missile last week. Call your Senators and Representatives to oppose the MX. tim sevener whuxl!orb