Talk about the "vulnerability" of a nuclear missile system is obscene, in view of the fact that each of the 25,000-plus warheads in the superpower arsenals, if dropped on a major metropolitan area, will kill half a million people. And the "solution" to that "vulnerability" problem by deploying nuclear warheads in a "road-mobile configuration" is doubly obscene. Can you imagine being behind one of those suckers on the freeway when a nuclear attack is imminent? Will these mobile missiles cruise the roads of the High Sierra at 15 m.p.h., or race across the Nevada salt flats at 90? Is that a "realistic alternative" to a "rail-garrison" for the MX? Gimme a break!
More important, the putative "vulnerability" of our land-based nuclear missiles to a decapitating Soviet strike has become largely irrelevant. The United States has a bloated arsenal of more than 14,600 nuclear warheads, of which only 2,200 are aboard missiles in land-based silos. It is possible, but by no means certain that the Soviet Union would be able to destroy most of the land-based missiles. But it is certain that the Soviet Union would be able to destroy only a few and perhaps none of the 20 U.S. nuclear ballistic-missile submarines (carrying more than 5,600 warheads). Any one of our nuclear subs could wipe out the Soviet Union as a functioning society. Any one of the Soviet subs could do the same to us.