Word: respondents
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1980-1989
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...alumni. On the few occasions, when students engineer a majority on the ACSR--as they did in recommending divestiture from Carnation last year, the Corporation routinely ignores the ACSR vote. This year, 82.4 percent of the undergraduates voted for immediate divestiture from Carnation: the corporation did not bother to respond. For six years, students have been marching, signing petitions, attending open meetings, and voting to get Harvard out of South Africa, and the Corporation has treated us like a distracting nuisance...
...first propaganda salvo came from Marshal Nikolai Ogarkov, Chief of the Soviet General Staff. In a rare interview, Ogarkov bluntly described the consequences of any NATO missile buildup as "very sad, very bad." The Soviet Union, he told the New York Times, would have to respond to a NATO nuclear attack by striking back directly at the U.S. Declared Ogarkov: "If the U.S. would use these missiles in Europe against the Soviet Union, it is not logical to believe that we will retaliate only against targets inEurope...
Georgi Arbatov, director of the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies and a man believed to be close to Soviet Leader Yuri Andropov, followed Ogarkov's lead with an authoritative commentary published the same day in Pravda. He offered an equally chilling assessment of how Moscow would respond to the deployment of new American missiles in Europe. To preserve nuclear "equality," Arbatov said, the Soviets "would have not only to add to our missiles in Western Europe but also to deploy them near American borders." The meaning of the final phrase was left deliberately vague, but Western arms analysts...
Clearly, the parallel is not perfect: Americans are less committed to an egalitarian society, the New Deal and Great Society have lost their appeal in the face of the new selfishness, and one cannot be sure that voters will respond so directly, Still, a welfare state has a certain amount of inertia. One cannot easily deprive people of privileges they have had a taste of, and even Reagan has been forced to compromise, sparing Social Security, signing the new $5 billion jobs bill, and even raising some taxes. But the pressure for new taxes will continue as the projected deficit...
Similarly, why should a Soviet counterforce capability-as now exists-be treated as consistent with strategic stability, while our attempt, represented by the MX, to provide a much smaller means to respond is considered as somehow destabilizing? If the U.S., by its abdication, guarantees the invulnerability of Soviet missile forces while the Soviets keep ours exposed, any Soviet incentive for serious negotiation will vanish. A secure Soviet first-strike capability poses an unprecedented danger-ultimately that it may some day be used, in the near term that it may increase Soviet willingness to run risks in regional crises...