Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!trwatf!rlgvax!plunkett
From: plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: MX Victory for USSR (reposting)
Message-ID: <602@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Apr-85 09:31:13 EST
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.602
Posted: Tue Apr  2 09:31:13 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Apr-85 06:48:02 EST
References: <108@pyuxh.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 42

In response to Steve Daniels (Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ, !pyuxh!sdd)

> 1.  The US is diverting billions of dollars to deploy a system
>     that is potentially unsound militarily.  That money in the
>     long run could be better spent on other projects (stealth,
>     Trident II missile, etc.).

The best "other project" would be SDI, but that, and your suggestions
wouldn't fly in Congress.  As G. Will wrote in support of the MX:
if the money is not spent on the MX it would be frittered away on
welfare programs of one type or another.  (Deficit reduction is
just a Congressional posture, so don't even think the money wouldn't
be spent.)

> 2.  The non-stop debate on MX keeps the focus of opinion on the
>     US, not on the USSR.

The focus is *always* the U.S.  The "blame America first" crowd
know of no other focus.  If you can find a way to "focus opinion"
on the USSR, please tell, after all, shooting down an airliner,
and killing an American officer don't seem to do an effective
job.  Threatening Pakistan and undertaking the usual Bolshevik-
style genocide in Afghanistan also don't seem to "focus opinion"
except on the President of the U.S. and just when is he going to
go visiting anyway?

> 3.  This US will try to bargain with the MX in Geneva, and the
>     Soviets won't buy it.  Why should they give up one of their
>     newer systems for one of ours that is neither survivable
>     nor of much strategic value?

If it is neither survivable or strategically valuable, then explain
why the Soviets have vast arrays of an equivalent weapon already
in place.  One MX escaping the fray will deliver what 10 Minutemen
would.  In addition, once the MX has deployed it's 10 independent
warheads, there's no stopping the consequences.  An annoying missile
gives birth to 10 uncontrollable brats, making military minds reel
with the problems arising from this.  With point defense of the
silos a distinct possibility I am certain the Soviets have a far
higher respect for MX than you do.

..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett