So, its survivability *and* "command and control". Neither of these are being affected by any agreements presently being negotiated.[/quote]Calvin wrote: sub may actually be cut off).
I had three points; the above two and the quantum of damage making capabiliity which survives. That is purely a numbers game; basically how much is enough post a second stike.
Also I was thinking of deterrence independently so far and discussing it without getting other issues touching it. I was not thinking of any deals while thinking about deterrence so far; and since this is a ground which has been beaten till death already; I wish to not go into the details of my views on the "deal".
However for the record; two things
yes I agree that the above two aspects are not touched on directly by any deal currently under consideration
Now switching tracks; my opposition to agreements being negotiated from a startegic perspective is w.r.t. to
1) Possible warhead numbers (i.e. backdoor FMCT possibilty)
2) Strategic hold that it gives US.
3) Dubious benfiets
4) Oppertunity costs.
However I am exteremly reluctant to go into a discussion on deal making issues; since we will just reopen the can of worms which have killed the other threads before it.