| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
005616
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Switzerland, Harwood Academic Press, 1993.
|
| Description |
xiv, 227p.
|
| Standard Number |
3-7186-5400-8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 035369 | 338.47355/COO 035369 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
004407
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
|
| Description |
x, 253p.Hbk
|
| Standard Number |
0521413575
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 035235 | 623.451970973/SPI 035235 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
090893
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Much of the debate over US ballistic missile defense (BMD) has been characterized as a battle between proponents and opponents over both the desirability and feasibility of BMD.The arguments for and against BMD have been articulated many times since they were first made in the 1960s,and the rhetoric of these positions has become entrenched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|