| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
114245
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
International security concerns about ballistic missile proliferation have frequently highlighted the links between ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles. This article examines the extent of these links through a comprehensive survey of ballistic missile and space rocket programs in regional powers. It notes that missiles were derived from existing space launchers in just a small fraction of these cases. In a slightly greater fraction, space launchers were drawn from existing missile programs. This analysis suggests that though security concerns about space launchers being used as ballistic missiles are valid, the reverse trend, that of ballistic missiles being used as space launch vehicles, cannot be ignored. At the same time, as long as regional powers are limited to short-range and medium-range systems, their missile and space projects would only raise limited missile proliferation and space security concerns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
055724
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
073374
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
050229
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Seattle, University of Washington Press, 2003.
|
| Description |
ix, 252p.
|
| Standard Number |
0295982942
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 047562 | 327.1743/MIS 047562 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
173697
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article examines the alignment between Pakistan’s policies and U.S. security interests in six areas. While political rhetoric in the 2010s suggested that there was substantial divergence across all areas, the actual record was a mixed. There was considerable divergence on the war in Afghanistan and on India; manageable divergence on China; convergence with limitations on nuclear security; and convergence on the Middle East and on multinational soft security issues (peacekeeping and counterpiracy). Looking ahead, some cases could change from divergence to convergence or vice-versa, and the degree of convergence or divergence within each case may also change, though the overall mixed picture of convergence and divergence may persist. Washington may then adopt a tailored approach toward Islamabad. It could pursue a combination of pressure and engagement to reduce differences in the areas of divergence, while maintaining engagement to consolidate shared interests in the areas of convergence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
079117
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
020863
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Nov-Dec 2001.
|
| Description |
1023-1043
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
126700
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
IN JULY 2005, REVERSING DECADES OF U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy, President George W. Bush announced a commitment to attaining "full civilian nuclear energy cooperation and trade with India."1 In November 2006, Congress passed the Henry J. Hyde United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act and, in October 2008, approved the necessary follow-on legislation, to formally permit civilian nuclear trade with India. The nuclear agreement with India was a major U.S. foreign policy initiative, and Indian Americans strongly lobbied Congress to approve this agreement. To some, this advocacy effort heralded the emergence of Indian Americans as a leading ethnic lobby that could substantially influence future U.S. foreign policy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
069846
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
061071
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
056986
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
144287
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Over the past decade, contrary to declarations that they are pursuing “minimum” deterrence, India and Pakistan have considerably expanded their missile forces. India has developed eleven types of missiles while Pakistan has fielded nine. These missile forces have a mixed impact on deterrence stability. Both states' medium-range missiles strengthen their countervalue deterrent capabilities against the other, though India's China-specific missiles still have limitations. India's and Pakistan's short-range missiles and first-generation naval systems raise concerns about nuclear ambiguity, command and control, and escalation across the nuclear threshold, ultimately undermining deterrence stability on the subcontinent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
023405
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Spring 2002.
|
| Description |
91-122
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
052073
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jan 2004.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article assesses whether India is a great power in the world system, taking into consideration its nuclear status, its pursuit of a second generation of economic reforms, and its improving ties with the United States since the late 1990s. The article reviews three recent books on the topic, authored or edited by Stephen Cohen (2001), Sumit Ganguly (2003), and T. V. Paul and Baldev Raj Nayar (2003). These studies assess Indian power through its substantial military and economic capabilities, and also examine India's relations with its regional neighbors and with the world's major countries as a means to attaining power. The article further assesses national power as a state's ability to control international political outcomes and notes India's limitations on this dimension of power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
052161
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
132276
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
DelhI, Cambridge University Press, 2014.
|
| Description |
xii, 280p.Pbk
|
| Standard Number |
9781107073418
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 057831 | 327.17470954/MIS 057831 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|