Word: deployments
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Forces as an entirely separate service. Republican Senator William Cohen of Maine is pushing a plan that would carve out all of the Special Forces missions performed by the military and put them under a new civilian-run agency, reporting to the Secretary of Defense, that would control and deploy the units...
...arsenals for both our countries." But, he added, "there was remaining at the end of our talks one area of disagreement." He said "the Soviet Union insisted that we sign an agreement that would deny to me and future Presidents for ten years the right to develop, test and deploy a defense against nuclear missiles for the people of the free world. This we could not and will...
...1960s we had irrefutable evidence that the Soviets were deploying an antiballistic-missile system around Moscow--a system to defend their capital against our long-range missiles. We made the reasonable--but perhaps incorrect--assumption that they would deploy the system across the entire Soviet Union. Why would anyone put a system around one city and nowhere else? Were a nationwide Soviet ABM system to be put in place, it would require that we make major changes in our force levels...
...Congress believed that the proper response to a full-fledged Soviet antiballistic-missile network was for the U.S. to deploy its own countrywide ABM system. The Army had been working on such systems since the late 1950s, first the Nike-Zeus and later the Nike-X. In 1966, therefore, the Congress authorized and appropriated $167.9 million for production of a Nike system (when fully deployed, the weapons would probably have cost a total of $30 billion). President Johnson and I believed the system would provide little if any protection either to our population or our weapons. We refused to spend...
...that point I said to the President, "The Chiefs' recommendation is wrong; it's absolutely wrong. The proper response to a Soviet ABM system is not the deployment of an admittedly 'leaky' U.S. defense. The proper response is action that will ensure that we maintain our deterrent capability in the face of the Soviet defense. What the Chiefs are recommending has nothing to do with maintaining that deterrent. If our deterrent force--our offensive missiles and bombers--was of the proper size before the Soviets deployed their defenses, it must now be expanded to ensure that the same number...