Replies

Let's see, how long have you been in the mother ship?

This reads like a page out of the "Rockefeller, Internationalist" handbook.

I'm not going to refute every nonsensical claim here, especially the lunacy that somehow American leaders are deliberately disarming to give the Russkies a "win."

It is enought to point out that Reagan KNEW that the MX was obsolete when he deployed it in the early 1980s, but he did so both to fulfill a campaign promise and to just simply "add numbers." If you begin with that starting point, the rest of this article is pure nonsense. Fixed, land-based missiles in the 1980s were obsolete in that they could be easily targeted, unlike sea-based assets. The Trident II missile, with GPS, was FAR superior in Hard-Target-Kill-Capacity than the MX, and now, with better targeting, is even more so. Moreover, as we have seen, cruise missiles and RPGs are becoming far more effective than any fixed missile ever was.

Now go off to the mothership. They need you.

Looks like we have someone who is thinking tin-foil. Care to comment?

These pin point strikes are one thing. No doubt our technology is great for that. Our air defense is better than the technology Russia has. But what can you say about them building civil defenses and having actual dug out bunkers to save at least 70% of their population? What does America have to compare to that?

A true sign is why are they slaughtering their own livestock in massive numbers? Perhaps for stocking?

I hate to rain on your parade, but look up the warhead yield and CEP of the Trident II D5 vs. the MX. The Trident is not a hard target killer. Period. The d**n thing has a 100 kiloton warhead. The MX has an in-flight selectable 300 - 475 kiloton warhead. The MX has a CEP (look it up, to long to explain) of 90 meters. The D5 has a CEP of 250 meters.

The MX was not outdated then and isn't today. It is the apex of ballistic missile technology throughout. That level of accuracy is the limit unless you start using manuverable re-entry vehicles.... which are more complicated and break easier - not what you want for your front-line warhead. The only thing obsolete about the Peacemaker was the basing startegy. Congress was a bunch of cheap spineless RATS (not much has changed!), they took the state of the art missile and put in frigging 20 year old Minuteman II silo's. The MX was designed to be a mobile ICBM, rail and road based launchers, just like Russia's new Topol-M (ss27).

Look at it this way, WE couldn't take out 50's technology SCUD's in Desert Storm, do you think we have a chance against the Topol-M? The MX is the TIP OF THE SPEAR... why do you think Russia hated it so much? They KNOW that if we had deployed that bad boy in strength on mobile launchers, they would have no chance. None.

And now, here we are..... the only country that believes it gets safer every time it THROWS AWAY its weapons.

Thank you for your brief and fairly accurate response. The Trident is most certainly a key pillar of our nuclear deterrent, and in inself refutes this article. The bomber leg of our triad poses a lot more trouble for an enemy than some recognize because it seems less technologically advanced at first blush. The missile leg of it is somewhat more vulnerable than the Trident, but is still hugely important to our defense, and I have seen no sign of getting rid of the Minuteman missiles.

A few days ago, I was speaking with a very good friend and military historian and suggested I might react favorably to a suggestion that the missile leg could be dismantled without any real effect on our safety. It appears that the administration may be leaning in that same direction. This is all smart thinking about the present needs of our country, in my opinion.

I do agree with the author of the article, however, about the threat posed by the Red Chinese, especially in the realm of inroads into economic production arteries, items like the Panama Canal debacle, and likely infiltration into the decision making apparatus of our government, especially in the last administration.

I've lurked on Free republic for a year now, but it's time for me to actually create a sn and say something... LS: "It is enought to point out that Reagan KNEW that the MX was obsolete when he deployed it in the early 1980s, but he did so both to fulfill a campaign promise and to just simply "add numbers." --The MX was never obsolete, in fact it was just about the only truly survivable land based deterrant we had. Rail basing them, the "shell" game, all gave our forces more validity in the eyes of a potental attacker. The pure fact that the Russian military copied our idea and now has a substantial force of MX-ski's (Topol-M) should say enough..... "Fixed, land-based missiles in the 1980s were obsolete in that they could be easily targeted, unlike sea-based assets." ---Land based missiles like the MX were always set to L.O.W. (launch on warning), the russians would be targeting empty silos. Also, the MX was designed to be a rail mobile system. "The Trident II missile, with GPS, was FAR superior in Hard-Target-Kill-Capacity than the MX, and now, with better targeting, is even more so." ----No, I'm afraid you're wrong on this, the CEP of the MX system is far superior to any of the Tridents. So, for that matter, is the loft capacity of the MX vs. Trident (IE more warheads on the MX's). It's moot at any point. Search the I-net about P.A.L. codes being removed from the subs. They need the ELF emergency action message to launch, without one (which would obviously be the case in a pre-emptive decapitory strike [target fall in 6 minutes from an enemy sub], they could not fire the missiles...even if they got them out of the tubes, they would not detonate...BY DESIGN ""Moreover, as we have seen, cruise missiles and RPGs are becoming far more effective than any fixed missile ever was. "" ---This is great, but not true. Yes cruise missiles platforms are generally harder to totally wipe out than a land based platform (or the sub for that matter), but the sick, sad truth of it is that all the tomahawk-N (nuclear-tipped) missiles have been removed from our active navy's inventory. That means a refurb, re-trit, and reload time of minimum 24 hours (from storage to ship). That's assuming we have the warning time, viable tritium stocks, etc. That's PER MISSILE. Don't forget the fact that the CIS has a completely viable, operational, and effective ABM system. This system has been under constant expansion/refinment/updating since the 1960's. The U.S. was the only country who actually held to the 1972 ABM treaty. We're on the precipice here. No tinfoil about it...

A bunch of SLBM's and sea-launch cruise missiles would really go a long way toward thwarting the Russian ABM system...not to mention what sort of unpleasantness we have squirreled away in black projects.

Remember, the F-117 was 25 years old (iirc) before the public found out about it.