Word: sdi
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2000-2009
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...creating a defensive shield that would ''render nuclear weapons obsolete''? Although that dream might seem unassailable, the strategic realities involved raise a far more unsettling question: Will the attempt to create a nuclear shield enhance stability or undermine it? In attempting to rid the planet of doomsday weapons, might SDI merely increase the risk of their use? At the TIME conference on SDI, it was apparent that there was a deep division within the Administration over the real aim of SDI. While he applauded Reagan's ''vision,'' Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle bluntly stated that a leakproof Astrodome against...
Ever since Reagan propounded his Star Wars proposal in March of 1983 as part of a campaign to win support for his defense budget and arms-control policies, the fundamental goals and purpose of SDI have been cloaked in a protective shroud of ambiguity. Yet now, as Congress prepares to decide whether to provide increased funding, SDI is approaching a moment of truth, not because of any scientific breakthroughs or the lack of them, but because a series of changes in the turbulent political and diplomatic atmosphere makes it imperative to come to grips with what is the most important...
...Among the events that have raised the stakes for SDI is a barrage of assaults on the arms-control environment from which it emerged. Reagan has announced plans to jettison the limits on offensive weapons in the unratified 1979 SALT II agreement unless the Soviets are more forthcoming on new arms-control initiatives, and last week he awkwardly tried to explain what this posture really means. His Administration is split on how to apply the 1972 ABM treaty, which limits development of antimissile systems, but Pentagon hawks have gone a long way toward undermining any restraints the treaty might place...
...conference in Washington on SDI sponsored by TIME on June 3, the discussions revealed that fundamental disagreements still exist about the nature of the program. Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle and Chief SDI Scientist Gerold Yonas agreed that SDI should not initially be regarded as a way to protect the nation's population from nuclear attack, as Reagan has envisioned. The purpose, said Perle, is "the defense of America's capacity to retaliate." Paul Nitze, the Administration's senior arms-control adviser, disagreed. "Maybe it's (Perle's) view," he said, "but I can't see the rationale...
...Discussing the ABM treaty, Lieut. General James Abrahamson, director of SDI, said that his program might confront "a problem in terms of the narrow interpretation of the treaty somewhere in 1989," two years earlier than previous Administration estimates. Perle declared that a new, looser interpretation of the ABM treaty, one that would permit the development of SDI technology, "is going to happen within the lifetime of this Administration." Although Nitze assented that the less restrictive interpretation was correct, he denied that it was Administration policy to apply it to SDI...