Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!mcnc!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!ward
From: ward@ttidcc.UUCP (Don Ward)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: MX Missile Vote
Message-ID: <282@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 20-Mar-85 13:32:38 EST
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.282
Posted: Wed Mar 20 13:32:38 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Mar-85 00:06:30 EST
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 24

>In the next month the Congress is going to vote on the MX missile.
>While there have been disputes about the nuclear freeze and other
>topics I think there has been general agreement that the MX missile
>is totally unjustifiable and de-stabilizing.
>
>There is no point to the MX missile except to waste a lot of money
>and destabilize the current arms balance.
>
>        tim sevener

The alleged "general agreement" exists only among those whose viewpoint
Mr. Sevener is parroting (The New Republic, Pravda, etc.).

I wonder which arms "balance" he could be referring to.  Is it the
7,000 ICBM warheads the USSR ADMITS to having compared to the 2,000
we will have IF all 100 MX missisles are deployed?  Or could it be the
hundreds of Soviet IRBM warheads in Europe compared to our few recently
installed Cruise/Pershing missiles?  For the last three years, every
Soviet leader has claimed a "balance" exists while they have been
deploying new IRBMs at a rate of about one per week.  It has been 
claimed that a lie repeated often enough will be believed.  Apparently
Mr. Sevener and those of his ilk are the proof.  Fortunately for the
USA, these dupes are a minority.