In defense of defense
In: Defense management journal, Band 16, Heft 2, S. 38-42
ISSN: 0041-7599, 0011-7595
In: Defense management journal, Band 16, Heft 2, S. 38-42
ISSN: 0041-7599, 0011-7595
World Affairs Online
In: Worldview, Band 12, Heft 11, S. 15-18
Confusion and a deep division within the American public over die value of an anti-ballistic missile (A.B.M.) defense system was reflected in the midsummer vote in the Senate to authorize about $900 million for expenditure in fiscal year 1970 for President Nixon's Safeguard A.B.M. system.During the debate that preceded the Senate vote, public and religious presses carried many articles that presented forceful arguments against the Safeguard program. These seem to boil down to two principal issues of moral concern: it is alleged, first, that the Safeguard A.B.M. would introduce a destabilizing element into the strategic nuclear balance just at the time we are attempting to enter negotiations with the Soviet. Union for limitation on strategic armaments; second, that deployment of the Safeguard system would be wasteful of national resources needed for pressing domestic problems.
ISSN: 0191-6513, 0082-9854
In: FP, Band 16, S. 93-108
ISSN: 0015-7228
THE PRIMARY PROPOSALS OF DEFENSE CRITICS FOR CUTTING DEFENSE SPENDING ARE ANALYZED AND THE SHORTCOMINGS OF EACH POINTED OUT. THE PROPOSALS CRITIQUED INCLUDE MANPOWER CUTS, DELAYED MODERNIZATION, STRETCHING OUT PRODUCTION, AND REDUCING OVERSEAS TROOP LEVELS. A FEW AREAS WHERE CUTS MAY BE POSSIBLE, MAINLY IN PERSONNEL COMPENSATION AND LESS COSTLY WEAPONS ARE SUGGESTED.
In: Defense and security analysis, Band 27, Heft 4, S. 383-387
ISSN: 1475-1801
In: Asian affairs: an American review, Band 5, Heft 5, S. 326-326
ISSN: 1940-1590
SSRN