| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
131944
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
072790
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2005.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article traces the development of the post-Cold War American discourse on ballistic missile defences from its arms control supportive stance during the first Clinton administration to the abandonment of the ABM Treaty in 2002. It shows how military primacy and the absence of a peer competitor enabled conservative opponents of the ABM Treaty to change the discourse on National Missile Defense. Especially after the landslide victory of the Republicans in the 1994 congressional elections, national missile defence became politically driven, reducing the influence of more moderate forces on the debate. The 1998 Rumsfeld Report and the missile test by North Korea in the same year led to the Senate vote in 1999 to go ahead with a national missile shield. Neoconservatives dominated the agenda and the ABM Treaty was doomed. The article concludes with a review of the current missile defence testing programme. It suggests that contrary to the expectation of realizing post-Cold War primacy, the limits of technology have put more formidable shackles on American unilateralism than the constraints of the ABM Treaty Neoconservatives thought to escape from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
130132
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
147147
|
|
|
| 5 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
129711
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
057363
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
072793
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2005.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article highlights four key aspects of British ballistic missile defence policy. These are, first, the Anglo-American connection; second, the participation in American-led 'coalitions of the willing'; third, the role of NATO; and, fourth, the role of the defence industry. These four factors operate inside a strategic culture of 'instinctive Atlanticism' coupled with a Europeanist trend in recent years. Developments in the United States are likely to be more influential in British policy than missile proliferation. An American offer of BMD coverage of the UK homeland, perhaps as part of the American system, might be attractive, but the lack of a strong pro-missile defence constituency in Britain, other than in the defence industry, probably means that it is only in this context that London would make such a decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
072791
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2005.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In February 2005 Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin announced that his government would not partner with the United States on continental missile defence, confounding growing anticipation of imminent Canadian involvement. Predicated on the dominance of economic concerns underscored by a general sense of deteriorating Canada-American relations, these erstwhile expectations discounted the weight of a popular outlook influenced by deeply held identity commitments, something the minority Martin government could ill afford to do. Analysis of identity as a key determinant of Canadian policy in this instance is revealing not only of the sources of the decision taken on missile defence, but also of the centrality of identity performance to Canada's ability to successfully enact its international diplomacies. On these terms, it also finds non-participation in continental missile defence to be well recommended by broader Canadian interests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
129938
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
076358
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
094544
|
|
|
| 13 |
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 | |
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
150478
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
079368
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Pentagon Press, 2008.
|
| Description |
2 vol (x, 338p.)
|
| Standard Number |
9788182743106
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:2/I:0,R:1,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 052637 | 358.1703/MEH 052637 | Main | On Shelf | Reference books | |
| 052638 | 358.1703/MEH 052638 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
147149
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
028587
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New York, Vintaze Books, 1984.
|
| Description |
xxi, 293p.
|
| Standard Number |
0394728947
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:2/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 025965 | 358.174/TIR 025965 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
| 035522 | 358.174/TIR 035522 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
080337
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Missile defenses have become a source of controversy between the United States and Russia, out of proportion to their technological capabilities and in negligence of strategic and political realities. Cooler heads should prevail. U.S. or other national missile defenses will not abolish mutual deterrence based on assured retaliation. In addition, whether defenses support or undermine deterrence is a question of political intent, not of technology determinism. U.S. missile defenses deployed in Europe, for example, might be provocateurs of Russian distrust or they might be instruments of collaborative research and development under a regime of cooperative security.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
073533
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
127922
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
According to a DRDO press statement on November 23, 2012, it successfully tested the indigenously developed Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) system. After the test DRDO officials claimed that the system will be ready for deployment by 2014. Already, India's BMD project has created ripples in Pakistan. In response to India's pursuit of missile defences, Pakistan has expanded its countermeasure efforts, primarily through development of maneuvering re-entry vehicles. The Pakistan Army strategic Force Command, which controls Islamabad's ballistic missiles, has sunce at least 2004 said it wanted to develop such warheads; analysts now believe these are in service. Moreover, Pakistan continues to increase its inventory of nuclear weapons' land vector by citing India's BMD claims as a destabilizing factor. In addition to this, China has an advanced nuclear and ballistic missile programme. What is more Worrisome is the clandestine nuclear and ballistic missile cooperation between China and Pakistan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|