No, and that was my major objection to the SALT II treaty.
It was not really arms control. Although it limited the total number of
launchers, there was no limitation in that treaty on the number of warheads.
Now a silo would never kill anyone unless you fell in one. A launcher is a
silo on the ground, it's a tube on a submarine, it's a bomber, but it
doesn't kill anybody. So any arms control treaty, in my opinion, to be
effective, must limit the lethal warheads. SALT II did not do that. And
although it limited the total number of launchers, the sub limits, without
getting into all those sub limits of 850 or 820 of this and 2,350 that, all
of the different sub limits, actually allowed very large increases in the
number of warheads that both the United States and the Soviet Union could
have. At the time in very rough numbers they both had 5,000 or 6,000 warheads. If
you looked at the sub limits in SALT II, both sides could come up with 12 to
13,000 warheads. Some even estimated 15 to 16,000. That is not arms
control. And even 10,000 warheads was more than enough to overcome a
racetrack system for MX many, many times over. So SALT II would not have
allowed that racetrack basing mode to be survivable.