rej (12/16/82)
The Soviets do not have anywhere near as an effective triad as does the US. Except for the Backfire (which they insist is not a strategic warplane) all their bombers are antiques. Their submarines are noisy, usually in base for repairs, and generally unreliable. To make up for their poor fleet of bombers and submarines, the Soviets have an excellent group of ICBMs. They have a lot of missiles, with big warheads, and many of their missiles carry MIRVs. However, the Soviets are much more vulnerable to a first strike than we are. Most of their offensive capability is in land based missiles, and could conceivably be wiped out by a first strike. So far, the US does not have a first strike capability, which is why MX worries the Soviets so much. The Soviets have had missiles with big warheads for a long time. Recently they seem to be making their missiles much more accurate, so some observers claim that they have a first strike capability. However, it doesn't seem to me that it matters much, as only about 1/3 of our warheads land based, according to my often fallible memory. The argument is that the Soviets will go for a first strike, tell us that they are not going to attack our cities unless we strike back, and then have an overwhelming superiority. However, MAD works because we promise not to be reasonable, and to attack even if it is to our best interests not to, thereby preventing an attack in the first place. Therefore, there is no reason to expect a first strike, even if the Soviets could wipe out all our land based missiles, since we would still have subs and B52's with cruise missiles. The MX is also a first strike weapon because it has multiple warheads per missile (ten, I believe). MIRVs are vulnerable to first strikes because one warhead can take out several (ten, in this case) allowing several warheads to be aimed at each target with a few left over. Thus, if you had twice as many warheads as me, but yours were packed ten to the missile, I could fire four warheads at each of your missiles and still have some left over to threaten your cities. Since MIRVs are vulnerable to a first strike, they are more useful to make a first strike. MX is fast, powerful, accurate, and extremely velnerable to a first strike, thus it is a first strike weapon. The cruise missile is a much nicer retaliatory weapon. It is slow, so it cannot be used to surprise the other side. It is mobile, so it can be placed anywhere, making it very difficult to destroy prior to launching. It can be useful with a non-nuclear warhead, saving taxpayers money. It works because it uses the leading edge of computer science, thus promoting a useful technology and using a technology that the Soviets find hard to imitate. The MX is a useless weapon for defending the country. If I were president and the previous president had just spent 100 billion to install MX, I would junk it. Ralph Johnson