| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
064770
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
193568
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Japan announced its new space security blueprint in June 2023. The new blueprint lays down a ten-year roadmap for the country to enhance the utilization of space for its military. While the announcement has been widely perceived as a ‘first’, it is in fact a crystallization of Japan’s space security strategies over the last few decades. This article interprets the blueprint in light of Japan’s counterstrike doctrine. It traces Japan’s rise as a military space power since the 1970s and analyses its evolving approach to space security. Continuities and changes in the 2023 blueprint are assessed against Japan’s historic policies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
064594
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jul-Aug 2005.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
007548
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jan 1995.
|
| Description |
22-27
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
063528
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
115047
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Anxiety about the intemperance and misbehaviour of the European soldiery in nineteenth century India prompted a raft of regulations which not only imposed a punitive regime on those living and working in and around the cantonments, but prompted an extension of military space. This paper specifically examines the methods and levels of control-both of which existed and were attempted in and around the cantonment. These ranged from regulations enacted to order the physical space of the cantonment, to calls for a more direct control over the bodies of the soldiers themselves as well as the numerous others who occupied the land. Crucially for this argument, moral and medical concerns were of critical importance in moulding this ordering. However, as this paper argues, social and class perceptions of the men-and the fear of provoking their wrath-dictated what officers and officials felt was legally possible. The various ways in which the military and government imposed order on the cantonment (or attempted to do so) had serious implications for the shaping of the empire itself and European understanding of its inhabitants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
108519
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Salamander Books Limited, 1981.
|
| Description |
293p.Hbk
|
| Standard Number |
0861010752
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 024665 | 629.4/GAT 024665 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
070120
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
063497
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
062872
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
138285
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Concerns about the future of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) have forever dominated Canadian policy considerations regarding participation in the US missile defence program. Yet, fears that a Canadian decision not to participate could lead to the ‘‘demise’’ or marginalization of NORAD appear entirely unfounded in the wake of the formal Canadian refusal in 2005. This article identifies the reasons behind these fears relative to the nature and future of NORAD, and explains why they are both understandable and misplaced. Since the United States neither has, nor has ever had, a significant system requirement for Canadian participation, Washington has separated missile defence from the NORAD question. While this change in approach and legitimate concerns about NORAD’s marginalization have been managed through a Canadian military space contribution, it is likely that missile defence and military space cooperation will be managed on a bilateral basis largely outside of, and in support of, existing NORAD missions. This process reflects the reality of Canada–US North American defence cooperation, and NORAD’s limited place within it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
063547
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
047504
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Praeger, 2000.
|
| Description |
xi, 286p.
|
| Standard Number |
0275962954
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 043406 | 358.80973/HAN 043406 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
115365
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Ontario, Project Ploughshares, 2012.
|
| Description |
216p.
|
| Standard Number |
9781895722918
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 056814 | 358.80954/JAR 056814 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
063826
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
064771
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
161004
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Combat in near-Earth orbit is emerging as a more realistic possibility. The argument here is that changes in space technologies combined with a sea change in political rhetoric is bringing the possibility of military conflict in space technologies. This movement reflects a generational shift as the original decisions regarding military conflict in space are now being reassessed by a generation who did not experience World War II or the Cold War. For these, the sanctuary approach to space activities is not as persuasive and new enhanced space technologies bring the possibility of victory or at least survival possible during a conflict in space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|