Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihdev.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!ihdev!rastaman
From: rastaman@ihdev.UUCP (Biding my time)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: An Alternative to the MX
Message-ID: <222@ihdev.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-May-85 17:25:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihdev.222
Posted: Wed May  8 17:25:49 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 03:30:09 EDT
References: <728@rayssd.UUCP> <171@ttrdc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 19


> This points out precisely why we don't need the MX; we already have lots of
> missiles underwater.  They're on our submarines, and they provide an 
...
> weeks, lobbing missiles at the USSR every day or so.  As a lecturer of mine
> once said, the Soviets
> could expect to lose their fifty largest cities after executing a 100%
> successful strike against all land- and air-based forces.  
...

	Given that the the subs get by any "Hunter-Killer" subs that
	are after them,  Soviet surface ASW forces don't get them,  the
	penetration aids work correctly (or even the warheads through a 
	defensive blast for EMP effects maybe?), plus all the other 
	unknowns that won't show up until we launch under war conditions.
	
	ihnp4!ihdev!rastaman
	"Welcome, if you will, a zone which is ruled by tech-weens.."