Well the first use
proposition is certainly something that has been argued back and forth for the last 30 years
among defense intellectuals and the academic strategists as well as the military practitioners.
And I think it's clear that if you are going to have this war, that one side would go first and
obviously the other side second. That's not the same thing as talking about first strike. First
strike means that one side will attack and the other side won't do anything until that attack is
completed. The US policy is that first use is you know, theoretically probable whereas first
strike is theoretically impossible because the other side is going to react during the attack
phase. Your question was what do we, what about the first use in terms of holding at risk target
structures in the other country. And the answer becomes scenario dependent. If you believe that
the Soviets are going to launch all of their ICBMs at one time, then you hold at risk silos that
they can use to reload with additional ICBMs but you still attack their communications
facilities, you attack their leadership bunkers, and you attack their war supporting industries.
So even though you may not be able to attack some of their ICBMs because they're already
launched, we believe that you still significantly deter them because you hold at risk the other
values that I just mentioned.