Word: laird
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...only a part of the U.S. deterrent, it is unnecessary. Even if many of the 1,054 U.S. ICBMs were knocked out, the U.S. would still have not only its strategic bomber force but also its 41 nuclear-powered Polaris submarines. Each can launch its 16 missiles instantly. However, Laird reported that the Soviets are developing their own equivalent of Polaris.* He said that they are also launching nuclear-powered attack submarines designed to track down the U.S. subs wherever they go, and thus might be able to neutralize a key element of the U.S. deterrent by 1972. The Navy...
Dialogue of the Deaf. Except for Laird's disclosures, his presentation on Capitol Hill and the answering attacks last week resembled a dialogue of the deaf, in which debating opponents resolutely ignore each other's arguments. Laird first appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he preached to the converted and encountered skeptical questioning only from Missouri's Stuart Symington. When Laird later came to grips with hostile Republicans and Democratic members of Senator William Fulbright's Committee on Foreign Relations, there was scarcely a new idea on either side...
...before, critics argued that the proposed Safeguard system is unnecessary, unproved and likely to intensify the arms race. Laird maintained that construction of Safeguard is essential to U.S. security. It would not provoke the U.S.S.R., he said, because it was purely defensive...
Option to Ride Out. While Laird found it "most encouraging to see a national debate" growing on ABM, he did not budge under attack. Tennessee's Senator Albert Gore told Laird that deploying ABMs "would make armaments-limitation agreement more difficult, if not impossible, to attain, and thus ultimately could degrade our deterrence." Laird replied soothingly that he would like nothing better than to see his job done away with by disarmament. Gore described the ABM scornfully as "a defense in search of a mission," noting that the system had been switched from defending cities to protecting missile sites...
...asked Symington, could the U.S. not launch ICBMs at an attacker's territory as rapidly as it could fire ABMs at incoming missiles? Laird passed the question to Dr. John Foster, the Pentagon's research and engineering chief, who replied that he would much rather the U.S. had an option to "ride out" an attack before it had to commit its missiles to irrevocable retaliation. That was one of the few fresh points made on either side...