sdd@pyuxh.UUCP (S Daniels) (03/31/85)
<>
Now that the Reagan administration has its victories on MX
(at least for now), the Soviet government must be smiling.
They probably wanted us to build it all along. Here's why.
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.).
2. The non-stop debate on MX keeps the focus of opinion on the
US, not on the USSR.
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?
Steve Daniels (Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ, !pyuxh!sdd)
(Apologies if duplicated, original garbled)plunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (04/02/85)
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
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (04/04/85)
> > 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.) And we all know how awful it would be if we used money to help our fellow citizens with their problems. After all, that's what the Salvation Army is for. Besides, we all know how objective George Will is. (Do I relly have to put that graphic symbol here to get my point across?) *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
mike@dolqci.UUCP (Mike Stalnaker) (04/07/85)
> > > > 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.) > > And we all know how awful it would be if we used money to help our fellow > citizens with their problems. After all, that's what the Salvation Army > is for. Besides, we all know how objective George Will is. > (Do I relly have to put that graphic symbol here to get my point across?) > > *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** Why is it, that until the days of FDR, this country managed quite nicely without all those "great social programs", and now, in the thinking of so many people, we are doomed to be opressors, dictartors, or worse if we don't have them? A case in point; the current farm crisis. While there is no denying that the farmers in this country are in a major, and in some cases, life threatening bind, if the goverenment again comes to the rescue, the farmers will be just that much worse off in the long run. The farm industry in this country, like so many others, is changing, and some people had better damn well take their heads out of the sand, and look around, and either sell their land and get another sort of job, go back to school or somthing. They may not like doing this, but nobody should expect a government hand-out just because conditions are changing. In my opinion, the family farm is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, due primairly to automation. Did the government give handouts to all of the people who have been put out of work in other areas that have lost their jobs due to automation? I think not. The whole point I am trying to make is that for the last 50 years, everybody in this country seems to have expected handouts and help from the government. Who pays????? We do. It's time to quit blaming the Defense budget for the deficit. Place the blame for the deficit squarely where it belongs, on the heads of all of our dear politicians who only know how to throw money at a problem, rather than bite the bullet, lose some popularity, and do the job that needs doing. I am not saying that we should cut all social programs, not by any means. We certainly should help those who cannot help themselves, the handicapped, the elderly, etc. We should not help those who are capable of working, and are too lazy to work, or collect unemployment/welfare rather than work for the same or less money. -- Mike Stalnaker UUCP:{decvax!grendel,cbosgd!seismo}!dolqci!mike AT&T:202-376-2593 USPS:601 D. St. NW, Room 7122, Washington, DC, 20213 "You can have peace, or you can have freedom. Never count on having both at the same time." -Lazarus Long.
sdd@pyuxh.UUCP (S Daniels) (04/11/85)
I am constantly fascinated by the way net.politics so easily goes off on tangents. Post one article stating an opinion that the MX is not particularly sound, either strategically or as a bargaining chip, and we end up discussing the New Deal, the welfare state, SDI (which I did NOT endorse in my posting), and the Salvation Army. When do we start discussing Harold Stassen's 1988 bid for the Presidency? :-) I would have posted to net.flame, but my system wasn't recognizing it. -- Steve Daniels (Bellcore, Piscataway, NJ, !pyuxh!sdd) "I'm counting the smiles on the road to Utopia."