Word: deploys
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: all
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...limit of about 2,400 on the total number of missile launchers that each nation may deploy. That includes land-based and submarine-fired missiles; in addition, each long-range bomber would count as a single launcher, even though each plane can release more than one bomb. In a major concession, the Soviets dropped their demand that tactical nuclear weapons (both airborne and land-based) deployed with NATO forces in Europe be counted as launchers...
...part of the 2,400 launchers allowed, each nation would be permitted to deploy a maximum of 1,300 missiles carrying multiple independently targeted warheads (MIRVS). Although the Soviets have been testing such weapons, they currently have deployed none. By next year they are expected to deploy their SS-17 and SS-19 missiles, which can carry about four warheads each...
...Coventry. Tip-offs of enemy intent affected almost every phase of the war. During the Battle of Britain, Ultra's eavesdropping on Goring's scheme for using his 3-to-1 superiority in planes to "wipe the British Air Force from the sky" helped the R. A.F. deploy and husband its forces until the Luftwaffe, crippled too, abandoned the attempt. It was Ultra and not General Montgomery's much celebrated "intuition" that told when Rommel would strike at El Alamein, the turning point for the British in the North African desert war. As the D-day landings...
...Soviets and the Americans deeply disagreed on the main issue: how to get the stalled SALT II arms limitation talks moving again. Nixon and Kissinger had hoped to negotiate another extension of SALT I's restrictions, expiring in 1977, on the number of launchers that each country can deploy. In addition, the American leaders sought to limit the development of MIRV warheads, several of which can be clustered in the tip of one missile and aimed at individual targets. The U.S. has a five-year lead over the Russians in the development and deployment of MlRVs...
...reminds us why, as a root of our visual culture, we still need great museums. Organizations like the Met, the Louvre, or (presumably) the Hermitage can be pachydermatously insensitive to the confused needs of their public. But when they move, they move with weight. They can deploy enormous diplomatic clout to get loans, bring together constellations of work that could never be assembled under one roof, and surround the whole with rigorous scholarship. "Masterpieces of Tapestry" is such an event...