Word: buildups
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1980-1989
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
Although the U.S. would prefer what Haig calls a more "robust" affirmation of the need for a military buildup, any variation of this formula will satisfy Washington. The Administration had considered calling on its allies to renew a collective pledge, first made in 1979, to increase defense spending by 3% per year. Haig, however, opposed such a numerical target because he believed it would be an unfair way to gauge the relative contributions of member nations, and over the past three years has led only to fruitless finger pointing. Washington dropped the idea. Besides, noted one high State Department official...
...again to see if the Soviets cannot be persuaded to give more consideration to rejoining the family of nations. Obviously, their obsession with the military at the expense of their people's standard of living has not paid off for them, other than in having the greatest military buildup in world history. But we are offering an opportunity-by way of these arms-reduction talks-to indicate to them that there is another road, that there is a road of cooperation. But it is going to take deeds, not words, to convince us of their sincerity if they choose...
...some demonstration on their part that their utterances about peace are not just talk. You know, it is a little hard to accept someone iterating and reiterating, over and over again, that they are the peace seekers in the world while they sit there behind the greatest military buildup in all history. We are saying: "Well, look, join us. We do not want an advantage over you. We want to bring the arms level down to where the whole world can breathe easier." Well, if they really mean peace, I would think that they would jump at that...
Administration officials believe that the Soviets, who are now completing a major strategic-weapons program, will have to agree to reduce some of their existing systems in order to prevent the U.S. from deploying some of the weapons planned in the Reagan defense buildup. Says one senior official: "What do the Soviets see? They see us opening production lines for MX missiles, cruise missiles, B-l bombers, and soon Stealth bombers and Trident II missiles. We could go on building them in definitely." Soviet officials object to that kind of argument as intimidation. Said Radomir Bogdanov, an arms-control expert...
...outcome of the Falklands war is almost sure to involve U.S. military strategy as well as diplomatic policy. The first full-scale naval battle in 40 years erupted just as Reagan's fiveyear, $1.6 trillion defense buildup was being debated by the Senate. The war provides ammunition to both sides of a dispute about the effectiveness of large surface ships for projecting power into areas of conflict...