Word: chips
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...elect "liberals" who would "chop up" SDI and thus, in effect, hand Gorbachev, free of charge, what he could not buy at a very high price in Reykjavik. Speakes later conceded that the speech had been "too shrill." Yet those in Congress who believe SDI should be a bargaining chip do face a dilemma: if they cut back funding for the program, which has so far been valuable in wangling serious concessions from the Soviets, it loses its value as a bargaining chip...
...President should have taken the deal because SDI was a bargaining chip, and that's the way it should have been played. It didn't have to be signed and delivered in Iceland. The President should have said he needed more time to consider everything. SDI is clearly not the almighty, towering, impregnable shield we hear described. At best, it is a small, leaky, fragile shield. I have grave doubts that it can ever be implemented. SDI should be placed in the proper perspective. But I don't think everything is lost. The important thing to remember now is that...
...have always thought SDI was a dynamite bargaining chip. There are two things that the summit proved. It proved that SDI is one hell of a bargaining chip, and it proved that Ronald Reagan is indeed a true believer in SDI. I * think the President basically should have traded SDI. But Ronald Reagan has this vision of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. I think the Administration was going to take the p.r. high ground by offering something very radical and dramatic. I don't know how they got snookered into that notion (of complete disarmament); it scares the bejesus...
...given up SDI and accepted the Soviet package, though I am skeptical about whether SDI can be the ultimate defense screen. What America's allies need to know is exactly what the Administration's intentions are about SDI. What is it supposed to be? If it is a bargaining chip, then at some stage it can and should be used. If it is a crucial part of our defense, then I think we really need to know more about how it's going to do that and what the implications are for the future of nuclear weapons. In any case...
...prepared to take substantial risks to reach an agreement -- and still the Soviets insisted on their terms. In the final analysis, the Soviets proved that they're not interested in fair and equitable reductions. They're interested only in killing SDI. But SDI is not a bargaining chip. It shouldn't be. I don't believe the Soviets are serious about reducing their nuclear arsenal. We ought to get as heavy a cut in offensive forces as possible. That doesn't preclude us from defending ourselves...