File will be hundreds of times more erful than the bomb which destroyed It would destroy everything in a two-and-a-half mile radius, and d have a fall-out effect much greater that. econd is the purpose behind the MX. e words of the New York Times it is, only designed to escape a first strike, the accuracy needed for ps. 'This 'first strike' strategy is all the obvious now that Reagan has decidat it is not his priority to make the MX sites undetectable.
Presumably, well on their such on secret Pentagon Apparently, BUDGETS these weapons.
Cruise is attack the USA or Europe.
adversaries from making the the resolve and people' is running along. now.
This thinking is that this would only be essential if the Soviet Union launched a nuclear attack first. If the MX missiles were launched before the Soviet Union had the opportunity to attack the sites it wouldn't matter if the sites were blown up or not — the missiles would be way by then, indeed they would probably have exploded already.
The whole first strike strategy of the US is now becoming more and more obvious. On Sunday the Observer reported plans to launch nuclear strike against the Soviet Union in the event of a conventional war in Europe.
the US generals do not hold out much hope for NATO land forces in the event of such a conflict. They estimate they would only be able to hold off the Soviet Union for five days. Then, say the Pentagon, a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union would have to be launched.
Such thinking explains why the Cruise missile is so vital for the US, especially if it is deployed in Europe from where the military targets the US would aim for could be more easily reached. Again, the fact that Cruise missiles are intended to be chiefly aimed at Soviet military targets illustrates the 'first strike' thinking behind the use of By making the targets military ones designed to stop the USSR retaliating, because again, there would be little point in pinpointing such targets if the Soviet Union had already used them to In announcing his escalation of the nuclear build-up Reagan declared: It is my hope that this plan will prevent our mistakes others have made and deeply regretted in the past — the mistake of underestimating will American In reply, it could be said that no-one should underestimate the path to war on which Reagan has not only embarked, but The time to stop him is itself to be supporters of Reaganism, the cowboy President felt that in this instance a showdown should be avoided.
The conclusion is, if the rather conservative citizens of Nevada and Utah can kick out the missiles, then surely the rest of us can. REAGAN's new attack of missile madness could cost taxpayers in this country at least £1 billion - if we have a chance to spend it.
This is just one consequence of Reagan's decision to press ahead with the Trident D5 missile system. The Trident which the Tory government at present plans to deploy is the C4 system.
This would have the capacity to fire eight multiple independentlytargetable re-entry vehicle (MIR V) warheads, fired out of 16 tubes from four or five submarines.
The D5 system is an escalation of this — there would now be 14 MIRV warheads per missile. But all this hardware costs money. And if Britain decided to duplicate Reagan's weapon drive it would add fl billion to the astronomical £5 billion which the Tories have already earmarked for Trident. The signs are that the Tories will follow Reagan's lead.
First reaction from Defence Minister John Nott was to say: 'We have for some time recognised the possibility of the D5 option... the President's announcement is bound to CND THE SOME have a significance for us. If the United States is moy-: ing to a new system, then there will be undoubted advantages in us keeping alongside them.
Nott's broad hint that Britain will follow Reagan's example is not surprising. There have been constant discussions between the respective defence departments for a number of months. When Nott saw US Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger in August the updating of the Trident system was, according to Nott, the 'main part of our discussion'.
The increased cost of the new system is partly due to the fact that bigger submarines will have to be built to house the new terror weapons. But of course whether they are deployed at all by the British goverment will eventually depend on who the next government is.
For, although a final decision on which Trident system to buy will be taken by the Tories at the end of the year, last week's victory for unilateralism at the Labour Party conference could mean any decision on Trident would only be a temporary one