| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
122502
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
058908
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Oct-Dec 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
098893
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Dr. Senn is a lecturer in security studies in the department of political science at the university of innsbruck, Austria.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
077437
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Both India and Japan have evinced interest in deploying defences against ballistic missiles because of the threat they pose. Significantly, both have shifted their stance on US Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD), from previous opposition to active support. Notwithstanding certain basic differences between India and Japan on the nature and degree of interest and participation at present, shared interests offer an opportunity for them to cooperate with each other on the BMD issue to further consolidate the 'strategic partnership' understanding they have evolved. Since Japan is already actively collaborating with the United States in not only deploying BMDs but also co-developing certain critical components, and India actively weighing various options, including cooperation with the United States, in this field, it may become imperative for India and Japan to cooperate once India takes a firm decision on BMD deployment. Apart from common concerns about proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles, in particular the clandestine deals between North Korea and Pakistan, the strategic relations between the two countries have so far been focused on the maritime cooperation. Joint work on missile defence could become a new dimension of bilateral relationship and help co-development of advanced technologies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
057363
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
020925
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Nov 2001.
|
| Description |
445-451
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The University of Queensland's School of Political Science and International Studies organised a round table in Canberra on 27 June 2001 that brought together a select group of government policy-makers and academic specialists to discuss the issue of ballistic missile defence (BMD). The round table provided useful insights into Australian thinking on the issue. This report seeks to summarise the essence of those discussions in order to contribute to the broader national debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
020935
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Dec 2001.
|
| Description |
321-324
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
055724
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
063763
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
086790
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2009.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
One needs only glance at a map to see that Saudi Arabia and the small Gulf Emirates would have a great deal to fear from a nuclear-armed Iran seeking to extend its influence beyond its borders. The open identification of these states with a perceived Sunni Arab interest in the region might be expected to further exacerbate fear of Iran and a desire to counter its ambitions. Fear of Iran certainly does exist in these countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
052431
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2004.
|
| Description |
p123-142
|
| Summary/Abstract |
China has made a conscious effort to prioritise stable relations with the US and Japan over its long-term concerns about BMD. Many Chinese analysts, backed by sober technological assessments of the prospects for BMD deployment, have concluded that time is on China's side. But this does not imply that China's opposition to missile defences has ceased to exist. Beijing remains wary of US and Japanese intentions, and believes that BMD is aimed at China's containment. The United States and Japan, as they implement long-term plans for missile defence, should be aware that the latent Chinese opposition will be an enduring factor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
114838
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
022365
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Aug 2002.
|
| Description |
38-44
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
019812
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2001.
|
| Description |
16-18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
109180
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
094544
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
065036
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
004718
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Harvard, Centre for Science and International Affairs, 1987.
|
| Description |
v, 60p.
|
| Series |
CSIS Occasional Paper Series
|
| Standard Number |
081916173X
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 035620 | 358.174/YOR 035620 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
019810
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
June 2001.
|
| Description |
29-48
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
111881
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Conventional wisdom seems to hold that under Barack Obama, the US ballistic missile defence programme has been pushed aside to allow for a refreshed domestic and international agenda. Proponents point to Obama's campaign thinking and rhetoric, the ballistic missile defence (BMD) budget cuts, the decision to end the Third Site in Europe, and the reset relations with Russia through the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) as evidence that the programme has undergone a significant period of change, retraction and rationalisation. This article argues instead that BMD has not fallen from prominence and that there is a change in focus rather than retraction of its strategic goal. Consequently, BMD continues to grow in importance as a component of US national security strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|