mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (05/06/85)
>From: sth@rayssd.UUCP > I propose that the missiles be put in a movable platform in Lake Superior. >1000 feet of water is an excellent radiation shield, and would be alot easier >to manoeuver in (:-)). The lake covers a massive area, and it should be very >difficult to track anything underwater. 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 excellent deterrent to any first strike ideas the Soviets might have. The submarine commanders have significant autonomy if they can't contact their home bases (e.g. after a first strike), and could hang out underwater for 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. In other words, if not a single missile leaves a land-based silo, and every bomber is destroyed on the ground, the submarines still can take out the fifty largest Soviet cities. Now *whose* window of vulnerability were we talking about? Mike Kelly
rastaman@ihdev.UUCP (Biding my time) (05/09/85)
> 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.."
mjk@ttrdc.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (05/10/85)
[in response to my statement that we don't need the MX because the subs are an effective deterrent] >From: rastaman@ihdev.UUCP (Biding my time) > 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. First, all these (except hunter-killer subs) apply as well to the MX and any missile you care to devise. My point was that submarines are one of the most invulnerable basing modes. The Soviet subs are much louder than U.S. subs, which can easily hear them coming before they even know the U.S. sub is present. Of course, Reagan realizes the invulnerability of the subs and has great plans in mind for them: basing the first-strike Trident II (D-5) missile in huge numbers on submarines. That presents the Soviets with a highly invulnerable first-strike threat potentially hanging a few hundred kilometers off their coasts. It reduces Soviet warning time from 15-20 minutes to 5-10 minutes. Great, huh? Sure, if you like the idea of Soviet missiles on a hair-trigger based on command and control systems using two generations old computer technology. Just another way Ronald Reagan has made us all safer. Remember, America's back. It may not be for long, though. Mike Kelly
medin@ucbvax.ARPA (Milo Medin) (05/28/85)
Mike, you say that our subs can take out the top 50 Soviet cities. So? Thats not the aim of our strategy. Subs are not counterforce capable systems. Even if the missiles were accurate enough, the poor C^3I prevents them from being used as a counterforce system, as ICBM's are. I won't even talk about the small yield the SLBM warheads have... When will people realize that MAD is not the way we do business anymore... Sigh. Even if we did, the top 50 Soviet cities do not represnt a significant amount of population damage... But, I've talked about that before... Milo
myers@uwmacc.UUCP (Latitudinarian Lobster) (05/28/85)
> > Sigh. Even if we did, the > top 50 Soviet cities do not represnt a significant amount > of population damage... But, I've talked about that before... > > Milo Sigh. Your brain does not represent a significant amount of your body mass. Why don't you remove it? :-( jeff m