Word: bombers
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1980-1989
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...business leaders to visit Viet Nam since the end of the war. A two-day stopover in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) provided the travelers with poignant reminders of the conflict. At one point, the group was escorted to the crash site of a B-52 bomber that had been shot down over Hanoi in December 1972. A U.S. insignia was still visible on the wreckage. The Newstour met with Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Co Thach and aging Premier Pham Van Dong. In an interview that is excerpted in the World section, an intransigent Pham seemed unwilling...
...limitation on range of cruise missiles that we would find very disadvantageous. Finally, I personally think what they intend is no new systems deployment permitted. The Soviets having deployed their new systems, this would prevent us from going ahead with the small (Midgetman) missile, the MX, the "Stealth" (bomber...
...edge in ICBM warheads--which because of their size, speed and accuracy are called "prompt hard-target killers" or "silo busters"--could conceivably wipe out American land-based missiles in a first strike, making it hard for Washington to retaliate. Though many U.S. submarine- and bomber-based warheads would survive, most of these weapons are too slow or inaccurate to be effective against the Soviets' super-hardened military targets. In this grisly war-game scenario, an American President's only options would be to surrender or use his remaining weapons in a suicide attack on the "soft targets" of Soviet...
...Soviets also continued their old practice of counting warheads delivered from bombers in the same manner as those launched on missiles. The U.S. has argued that bomber weapons (gravity bombs, air-launched cruise missiles and short-range attack missiles) should be treated more leniently, since bombers take longer to reach their targets and are vulnerable to enemy antiaircraft defenses. The U.S. argues that the bombers are thus not first- strike weapons...
Executives have to be concerned that their investments could fizzle like misfired rockets. Rockwell's Beall painfully remembers how his company spent $400 million to rev up for large-scale production of the B-1 bomber, only to have the program dropped during the Carter Administration. It has been restarted under Reagan. "There is the risk that it could happen again," he says. "But in this business you have to take chances. The real risk is in not taking any risks at all." Beall believes that even if his Star Wars business goes sour, the research will lead to improvement...