Word: bombs
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1970-1979
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...step in the right direction [March 27]. Arguments both for and against the treaties are sound. However, it merely requires simple logic to ascertain that while ratification of these treaties will not necessarily guarantee perpetual euphoria, failure to do so can only induce grim repercussions. Panama is a time bomb that the Senate must defuse with caution, by approving the resolution of ratification...
This transatlantic furor was set off last week by an incorrect front page report in the New York Times that Jimmy Carter had decided against production of the neutron bomb. For months U.S. diplomats had been trying to win NATO nations' support for the bomb on the ground that its lethal radiation would offset the Soviet Union's 3-to-l superiority in tanks in Central Europe. Now Carter seemed to have changed his mind despite the recommendations of his chief advisers on defense and diplomacy. All week long U.S. officials kept denying the Times report, insisting that...
...Friday, finally, after a NATO Council meeting in Brussels, Carter publicly announced that he was not scrapping the bomb-but not putting it into production either. Instead, he postponed his final decision on full-scale production. At the very least, the President was keeping open his options while determining not only what effect the deployment of the bomb would have but also what the Soviets might give up in exchange for cancellation of the weapon. Nonetheless, the uproar, and Jimmy Carter's response to it, raised unsettling questions about the way he makes important decisions and conducts foreign policy...
...issue is a 1-kiloton nuclear bomb* that can be delivered to battlefield targets by 20-ft. Lance missiles, with a range of 75 miles, or by 8-in. howitzer shells, which can be fired about 13 miles. The weapon gets its name from the fact that on detonation it releases enormous quantities of radioactive neutrons that kill people without destroying buildings. According to proponents, the bomb could break up a Soviet tank attack without destroying buildings outside the battle zone. Moreover, since most neutron radiation dissipates in seconds, NATO troops could move in quickly to secure the battlefield...
Most NATO admirals and generals back the neutron bomb because of its advantages over existing tactical warheads, but their civilian leaders have reacted more coolly, and some military men also voice dissent. British Admiral of the Fleet Sir Peter Hill-Norton dismisses the neutron bomb as "sexy for the media [but] a new dimension of warfare that we do not want to go into." The Dutch are attempting to keep the bomb out of the NATO arsenal and Christian Democratic Leader Willem Aantjes declared last week that the false report of Carter's decision was "extremely good news" because...