orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/04/85)
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.
The MX missile is no less vulnerable than our current ICBM force, while
very much more threatening to the Soviets. It is in the category of
"use 'em or lose 'em" weapons: if it is vulnerable to a first-strike
then it must be launched before it is knocked out. On the other hand
its accuracy and destructive power make it a potential first-strike
threat to the Soviets. This would make them more quick on the
nuclear button as well, and more likely to launch their ICBM's before
they might be decimated by the MX missile.
There is no point to the MX missile except to waste a lot of money
and destabilize the current arms balance.
All those who agree with this assessment should write or call their
Congressmen to vote AGAINST the MX missile in the next month.
This could be a very close vote: while the MX only survived the last
Congressional session thru Bush casting the tie vote, the Administration
is pushing as hard as it can to pass the MX. It is important for those
who oppose this boondoggle to place greater pressure against it.
tim sevener whuxl!orborb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/07/85)
The MX missile vote will probably be scheduled around March 18th -20th.
The place to send letters is:
Your Congressperson
House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
For those people concerned about the arms race please mail or call your
Congresspeople to oppose this potential first strike weapon. Worse than
simply being a boondoggle and a waste of money, the MX is a destabilizing
weapon which increases the advantage to both sides of being first to
launch a nuclear attack. This is the very *last* type of weapon we need.
tim sevener whuxl!orbplunkett@rlgvax.UUCP (S. Plunkett) (03/12/85)
"The MX missile vote will probably be scheduled around March 18th -20th.
The place to send letters is:"
Your Congressperson
House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
For those of you concerned about the imbalance of forces in favor
of the Soviet Union, for those concerned that the Geneva negotiations
may simply turn into yet another give-away program benefiting the
Reds, and for those who are concerned that the U.S. deterrent capability
continues to decline as politicians gas on and on and on ...
then mail or call your Congressman, or Congresswoman as the case may be,
and urge your representative to quit posturing and start doing something
about the aforementioned concerns. Vote Yes on MX. This weapon is
needed urgently.
..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkettgjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (03/13/85)
[aforementioned concerns omitted] > Mail or call your Congressman, or Congresswoman as the case may be, > and urge your representative to quit posturing and start doing something > about the aforementioned concerns. Vote Yes on MX. This weapon is > needed urgently. > > ..{ihnp4,seismo}!rlgvax!plunkett Why is such a vulnerable weapon so urgently needed? We should stand up to the Soviets by getting a real weapons system, not one that puts so many warheads in one spot. Haven't you ever heard of "don't put all your eggs in one basket?" The MX is such a false (and expensive) answer to the Soviet military build-up. --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/18/85)
Is there any good reason to support the MX? Please consider the reasons
used so far to justify this weapon:
1)It is needed because of the vulnerability of our current ICBM's
Actually the MX is *more* vulnerable than our current ICBM's. I would urge
people to read the November, 1983 Scientific American article on this
question which estimated that 77% of MX missiles could be knocked out by
a Soviet pre-emptive strike as opposed to 45% of our current ICBM's.
Some analysts have estimated that 90% of MX missiles could be knocked out
by a first strike. That is probably too high an estimate. But the essential
point is that the MX is actually more vulnerable, because it is more
centralized, than our current ICBM's.
2)It is needed as a "bargaining chip" in the Geneva talks
Will it be offered as a "bargaining chip"? Not according to Caspar Weinberger:
last week he said that the MX missile was essential to our defense and
could not be negotiated in Geneva. (One begins to wonder what *will* be
negotiated in Geneva??) Moreover it seems rather foolish to support a
weapon *solely* for the opportunity to get rid of it. The valid question
is: can the MX missile achieve its objective of making mutual deterrence
more stable? The answer is: no it does not.
3)Our forces need modernization
IF our forces need modernization then why go back to reliance on
the old and vulnerable technology of huge landbased missiles? It
would make more sense to spend more money on submarine based missiles
than an old dinosaur-era weapon.
4)The MX is not a dinosaur- it provides our forces with unprecedented accuracy
This is exactly what is *wrong* with the MX: besides itself being vulnerable
to a potential first strike ( or more vulnerable than our current weapons)-
it poses a potential threat to the Soviet landbased missile force. This
only encourages the Soviets to launch their own forces first or early on
if they detect a possible nuclear exchange so that their own deterrent is
not destroyed. Are we planning on launching a nuclear war? If so then
it might make some sense to have a weapon which could knock out Soviet
missiles but could be largely destroyed in a Soviet attack. If not
then it is incredibly foolish to support a first-strike weapon like the MX.
Does anyone seriously think we should prepare to launch a first-strike?
Even Wm Colby testified against the MX missile last week.
Call your Senators and Representatives to oppose the MX.
tim sevener whuxl!orbward@ttidcc.UUCP (Don Ward) (03/20/85)
>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.
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (03/21/85)
bargaining chip is.
Expires:
References: <326@abnji.UUCP> <831@ames.UUCP> <talcott.317> <1438@dciem.UUCP> <514@whuxl.UUCP> <570@rlgvax.UUCP> <522@whuxl.UUCP>
Sender:
Reply-To: srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian)
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale
Keywords:
There's been a lot of talk about the MX as a bargaining chip at the Geneva
talks with the Russians. That's backwards, just as Reagan intended us to
see it.
Reagan was never too interested in disarmament talks, but he's always been
in favor of the MX. Cleverly, he has managed to raise the hopes of all of
us who want to believe that the human race has a future. He did this by
agreeing to arms talks with the Russians, and he has carefully timed the
start of these talks to coincide with critical votes on the MX.
The MX is what Reagan is negotiating with Congress and the nation about, and
his "bargaining chip" is the continuation of the arms talks--talks that he
has no intention of pursuing in good faith. He has already prepared us for
long hard talks, and I'm sure that they will serve again and again as a
bargaining chip for his long-range military buildup plans.
As a final corroboration of my point, assume that he really does want the
MX as a bargaining chip. (This is how reductio ad absurdum proofs begin.)
(1) He wouldn't be so blatant about an important negotiating
strategy.
(2) The Russians have an easy counter-strategy, obvious to
anyone: they can let us keep the MX and insist that we
give up something substantive. After all, everyone agrees
that the MX is no good ("but it doesn't matter, since it's
only a bargaining chip").
I could say more, but the point is clear enough, even if all the details
are wrong.
--
Richard Mateosian
{allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPAorb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/22/85)
> > 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. > I do not have the tables at hand to dispute your contention that the Soviets have 7,000 ICBM warheads to our 2,000 ICBM warheads. However I do know that in fact the missiles currently being deployed in Europe are partially in addition to and partially substitutes for weapons we already have deployed in Europe. In fact for some time we have had approximately 5,000 nuclear warheads in Europe. If you wish to confirm these figures if you don't believe me, why don't you call your own Department of Defense and ask them? You might also like to read "Deadly Gambits" by Strobe Talbott of Time magazine which talks extensively about the whole issue of the deployment of *new* and *additional* weapons in Europe. There is another publication, "Arsenal of Democracy" which catalogs every major American weapon system. Please check your facts before calling anyone a "dupe". OK? Would you do me a favor and check out these facts on your own? "Deadly Gambits" is in every bookstore. Simply browse through it and confirm what I have said. I am serious, please do this. thanks! tim sevener whuxl!orb
mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) (03/22/85)
>From: ward@ttidcc.UUCP (Don Ward) >I wonder which arms "balance" [Tim Sevener] 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? The Pershing and Cruise deployment will result in 408 U.S. medium-range missiles in Europe, not exactly a "few". This must be added to the British and French missiles. There are no corresponding East German or Polish missiles. Where Mr. Ward gets his figures I have no idea; perhaps if I believed as he did, I would also be worried about the alleged inferiority of the U.S. nuclear capability. Fortunately, the facts are quite different. The U.S. has *added* 5500 strategic nuclear warheads over the past decade. (Source: Scientific American, November 1982) The Soviets have added about 5000 warheads during that period. This puts the U.S. at a 9500 to 7800 advantage. If both strategic and tactical weapons are counted, the US has about 30,000, the USSR about 20,000. We have increased three-fold the number of nuclear warheads our highly invulnerable submarines carry; we have three times as many submarine-launched warheads as the Soviets do. (Source: Paul Warnke in Arms Control Today, May, 1982.) The International Institute for Strategic Studies notes, "The premise that the U.S. has stood still is nonsense ... On any index that is significant, the U.S. retains superiority." (quoted in Scheer, Robert "With Enough Shovels: Reagan, Bush and Nuclear War", Random House, 1982.) Of course, military comparisons are complex and by emphasizing certain areas, a serious defficiency can be made to appear evident. Here is a simple chart: U.S. U.S.S.R. More Warheads More Launchers More diversity More land-based missiles Greater Accuracy Greater megatonnage NATO nations have Warsaw Pact nations do not. nuclear weapons "There is still 'rough equivalence.' The US has and will continue to have the ultimate deterrent." -- Former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, 1982. It is interesting that many of the same people who rightly criticize the Soviet economy as inefficient and bureaucracy-ridden believe that same economy can produce superiority to the largest and most powerful economy in the world. It just doesn't make sense. And the figures above show that not only doesn't it make sense, it simply isn't true. But Mr. Ward speaks for himself on this: >It has been claimed that a lie repeated often enough will be believed. Mike Kelly
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (03/22/85)
> > The alleged "general agreement" exists only among those whose viewpoint > Mr. Sevener is parroting (The New Republic, Pravda, etc.). This kind of sets the tone for what's coming! > > 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. > I am really frightened by the number of people on this net that have no problem with associating a fellow netters' name with Comunism. Maybe it's because I deal with data communications and data bases, but I know how easily this type of thing could be interpreted wrongly and then propogated very quickly. It's also a bear to correct once it's done. Try to remember how many systems and organizations these postings go through the next time you want to post something that could literally ruin a person! *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) (04/02/85)
... > I do not have the tables at hand to dispute your contention that the > Soviets have 7,000 ICBM warheads to our 2,000 ICBM warheads. > However I do know that in fact the missiles currently being deployed > in Europe are partially in addition to and partially substitutes > for weapons we already have deployed in Europe. In fact for > some time we have had approximately 5,000 nuclear warheads in Europe. ... > tim sevener whuxl!orb You're right that 2,000 ICBM's is way off. However, the 5,000 nuclear warheads you are referring to are not missiles. They are tactical nuclear warheads, and most of them could not reach Soviet soil unless we mobilized our troops, which is very unlikely in a missile exchange. Although I think these tactical nukes are wrong and should be removed, the Soviet threat there is real---they put in MIRVed IRBM's to "balance" our nuclear shells and nuclear-capable artillery. At the moment they have 350 missiles, which makes over 1000 warheads which can be delivered in less than 20 minutes. We have put in 100 (single-warhead) Pershing II's so far to counter. -- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "No Marxist can deny that the interests of socialism are higher than the interests of the right of nations to self-determination." -Lenin, 1918