Word: programing
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1960-1969
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...ROTC graduate of '66, I will vouch for the almost complete absence of academic material presented in the program. Furthermore, students who were enthusiastic about marching (which was always interpreted as "leadership potential") received A's. And how important is drill? During my two years of active duty in the Army, I didn't even see a parade. Today's ROTC program is as outmoded as the single-shot rifle, and discredits both the Army and the universities...
...could continue with the program that he inherited, which he refused to do because he preferred to give still greater emphasis to protection of the U.S. nuclear deterrent...
...press conference, the President left the impression that the new ABM program would be severely cut back from Johnson's blueprint. He mentioned only two proposed installations, designed to protect Minuteman ICBM sites in Montana and North Dakota-compared with 17 Sentinel bases planned by Johnson primarily to defend major U.S. cities. As it turned out, the two installations will be built first, but later, Nixon's proposal calls for 14 ABM bases in all. The system's function has been shifted from the protection of cities to the defense of the nation's nuclear deterrent...
...differences between the Johnson Administration's Sentinel program and Nixon's Safeguard are more in emphasis than in scale. Johnson's 17 Sentinel sites would have covered all the continental U.S., Hawaii and Alaska with Spartan rockets designed to intercept incoming missiles up to 400 miles above target, backed up by shorter-range Sprints to knock down any ICBMs that penetrated the Spartan screen. Nixon's plan, while providing extensive area defense, will concentrate not only on Minuteman ICBMs in their concrete silos, but also on bomber bases, Washington, and the Charleston base for Polaris submarines...
...President explained it, the aims of his program are threefold. One is "protection of our land-based retaliatory forces against a direct attack by the Soviet Union." This is the strongest reason. The system could probably intercept a significant part of a massive Russian first strike against U.S. missile sites. The weakness of the argument, as critics point out, is that protection of the U.S.-based deterrent is not really necessary, because with its seaborne Polaris missiles and foreign-based bombers carrying H-bombs, the U.S. would retain a sufficient retaliatory strike force...