Word: sentinel
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...effort to install new missile launchers, making inspection a relatively routine task. As for ABM systems, the Russians are not about to permit on-site inspection-or dismantling-of Galosh. Neither is a U.S. President likely to risk a political uproar by canceling plans for the "thin" $5.5 billion Sentinel system. A pact that would place severe limits on both systems, and keep down their enormous costs, is feasible, though on-the-ground verification is certain to remain a thorny issue, given the deeply ingrained fear of espionage that persists in Russia's closed society...
...fact is that Sentinel was intended less as a truly effective defense system than as an expensive propaganda gesture for Soviet consumption. McNamara admitted that the Administration's original decision to go ahead with Sentinel was prompted by "marginal" factors. Some cynics speculated that another Johnson objective was to prevent the G.O.P. from making an election issue out of the "antimissile...
Circular Line. Thus, when Clark Clifford, McNamara's successor as Defense Secretary. went to Capitol Hill to request $227 million as a first installment on Sentinel, he ran into a skeptical Congress. In the Senate, Sentinel was opposed by a potent bipartisan coalition that included such normally defense-minded figures as Stuart Symington, a former Air Force Secretary, and Maine's Margaret Chase Smith. Their arguments: Sentinel is worthless and would merely prompt both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. to build more offensive missiles. Eugene McCarthy interrupted his presidential campaign to denounce the ABM system on the Senate...
Defending the Administration's decision, Clifford underscored Sentinel's real value-as a deterrent to further Soviet moves in the ABM field. "If they [the Soviets] develop and deploy a workable ABM system and we do not," he declared, "we are at a disadvantage." His logic made an impact. By a 52-to-34 vote, the Senate defeated a move to eliminate funds for Sentinel from the defense budget...
Already pinched by a defense budget of $50 billion, up 15% since last year, the Kremlin seemed to seize on the Senate's vote as a chance to check huge military spending. It was a decision gratifying to both sides in the Sentinel debate. The system's opponents could claim credit for underscoring U.S. reluctance to pay for redundant weaponry. Its proponents could congratulate themselves for prompting Gromyko's move. Together, they proved that the shortest distance in rocket diplomacy between Washington and Mos, cow is often a circular line...