Word: mx
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1980-1989
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...budget, which in theory was to have been wrapped up and in effect on Oct. 1. The $263 billion package contains $247 billion for the Department of Defense and $16 billion of military monies in other budget bills. The House approved funds for the nation's first 21 MX missiles and for the B-1 bomber but voted against producing chemical weaponry that had been requested by the Administration. On the Senate side, legislators voted in favor of the new chemical weapons, and will probably appropriate $2 billion more for the military. Even so, both versions of the bill...
...Democratic and Republican congressmen can claim support for nuclear reduction of freeze proponents, while simultaneously maintaining an image of backing for strong national defense, through modernization of weapons. The President, by accepting the congressmen's proposal, will also be able to call on favors when the final vote for MX missile is cast...
...actually increases the likelihood. The core of the proposal simply flies in the face of established deterrence theory. The main problem lies in the projected trend for land-based missiles. "Build down" would decrease the current force by almost half, from 1.050 missiles to a total of 100 MX's plus 500 yet-to-be-designed Midgetmen. The number of warheads on these missiles would decrease less from 2.145 to 1500 Reducing the number of missiles (i.e. potential targets) more than the number of warheads compounds an already existent problem--the fewer separate targets each side has, with more warheads...
...nebulous nature of the initiative should also cause Americans grave concern. Five-sixths of the projected land-based mix depends on Midgetman, a small missile proposed by the special Scowcroft Commission essentially to mitigate problems with the MX. However, the Midgetman has yet to be designed, and Congress and President Reagan have yet to move on it. It would seem unwise to summarily dismantle existing deterrent systems before equally effective replacements are assured. Also, verification of Soviet compliance with any "build-down" scheme would be extremely difficult. Finally, "build-down" has become an instant symbol of so-called bipartisan cooperation...
...folly of MX should be apparent by now. It is only the inherent inertia of any large weapons system with a complex sum of industrial, defense, and governmental special interests that keeps the missile alive at all. America should cut its losses now, stop work on the giant missile, and move toward-those systems that enhance deterrence--small, mobile missiles and submarines. Of course, reduction of nuclear weapons is a desirable goal, but it can be done in much better, safer ways. "Build-down" should be recognized as a confused smokescreen for all the parties in Washington, and should...