HSFK Bild
 
Navigation

// HOME
// BULLETINS
// ADMINISTRATION
// KONGRESS
// BUNDESREGIERUNG
// BUNDESTAG
// RUSSLAND/ TSCHECHIEN/ POLEN
// FRIENDS & FOES
// LITERATUR
// POLITIKBERATUNG
// HINTERGRUND
// WHAT'S NEW?
// TERMINE
// DEMNÄCHST
// PRESSE
// ARBEITSKREIS
// KONFERENZEN
// LINKS
// ABKÜRZUNGEN
// WIR ÜBER UNS
// MITARBEITER
 
Mitglied in der Leibniz Gemeinschaft
Drucken Druckersymbol   Kontakt
//  Literatur

Literatur

Neue Literatur zum Thema

2007

  • Adomeit, Hannes J. / Bitter, Alexander: Russland und die Raketenabwehr wer spaltet wen?, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Berlin, 2007.
  • Bauer, Thomas / Baumann, Florian: Raketen für Europa? Die US-Pläne offenbaren die strategischen Schwächen Europas, Centrum für Angewandte Politikforschung (Universität München), 2007, 18 S.
  • Black, Sam: Russia and the future of the INF, Center for Defense Information, Washington/D.C., 2007.
  • Blank, Stephen J.: Putin's Gambala gambit more than missiles, in: Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, Washington/D.C., 9, 12 (13 June 2007).
  • Bragin, Mikhail: Munich's echo over the banks of the Potomac, in: International Affairs (Minneapolis/Minn.), 53, 3 März 2007, S. 30-35.
  • Burg, Artur: Rhetorischer Rückfall Ende der Freundlichkeiten? Der Kreml ließ verstaubte Feindbilder wieder auferstehen auf der Münchener Sicherheitskonferenz ging Russlands Präsident Putin mit den USA hart ins Gericht, in: Magazin der Bundeswehr, Frankfurt/Main, April 2007, S. 26-27.
  • Bukkvoll, Tor: Effective deterrent? Ukraine begins work on new missile system in: Jane's Intelligence Review, 19 (January 2007) 1, S. 55-57.
  • Carle, Christophe: Missiles matter, in: Disarmament Forum, Geneva, 2007, 1, S. 3-10.
  • Clement, Rolf: Raketenabwehr Russlands Reizthema, in: Europäische Sicherheit, Hamburg, 56, 6 (Juni 2007), S. 16-17.
  • Coyle, Philip E., Amerikanskaja PRO i al'ternativa Putina (Das amerikanische Raketenabwehrsystem und Putins Alternative), in: Rossija v global'noj politike, Moskau (Juli-August 2007).
  • Dibb, Paul: Is ballistic missile defence destabilising? , Australian National University, Canberra, 2007.
  • Do the United States and Europe need a missile defense system? : joint hearing ; 110th Congress, 1st sess. ; May 3, 2007 / Subc. on Europe and Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, Cmte. on Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives. - Washington, DC : GPO, 2007. - 61 S..
    Serial No. 110-54.
  • Dvorkin, Vladimir: Threats posed by the U.S. missile shield, in: Russia in Global Affairs, Moscow, 5, 2 (April-June 2007), S. 22-32.
  • Dylla, Daria: US-Raketenabwehrbasis und polnische Sicherheitsinteressen, in: Europäische Sicherheit (Hamburg), 56, 7 (Juli 2007), S. 20-22.
  • Elbe, Frank / Weisser, Ulrich: Der Raketenstreit wächst sich zu einer internationalen Krise aus, Forschungsinstitut der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, Berlin, 2007.
  • Gärtner, Heinz: USA vs. Russland das ewige Sicherheitsdilemma, in: Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik, Bonn, 52, 8 August 2007, S. 920-922.
  • Gottemoeller, Rose E / Arbatov, Aleksej Georgievic / Olcott, Martha Brill: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Kennebunkport summit preview: can U.S.-Russian relations be revived? , Washington/D.C., Federal News Service, 2007, 21 S.
  • Government Accountability Office (United States): Defense acquisitions: missile defense acquisition strategy generates results but delivers less at a higher cost. Report to Congressional committees, Washington/D.C., 2007.
  • Gruselle, Bruno: The final frontier missile defence in space? , in: Disarmament Forum, Geneva,1, (2007) 1, S. 53-57.
  • Hauser, Gunther: NATO, internationale Rundschau (Österreichische militärische Zeitschrift), Wien, 45 (Juli-August 2007), S. 469-472.
  • Hicks, Alan B.: Extending the Navy's shield: sea-based ballistic missile defense, Proceedings / United States Naval Institute, Annapolis/Md., 133, 1247 January 2007, S. 56-59.
  • Hildreth, Steven A.: Long-range ballistic missile defense in Europe : updated July 25, 2007 / Steven A. Hildreth and Carl Ek. - Washington,DC : LoC, 2007. - 13 S. - (CRS report for Congress).
  • James, L. Paul : Should the Navy do missile defense?, Proceedings / United States Naval Institute, Annapolis/Md., 133, 1248 February 2007, S. 36-39.
  • Kallmorgen, Jan Friedrich / Beckmann, Andreas: Deutschland diskutiert am strategischen Nutzen der Raketenabwehr vorbei, Forschungsinstitut der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, Berlin, 2007.
  • Kokeev, Michail E.: Russia-NATO relations between the past and the future, in: Russia in Global Affairs, Moscow, 5, 2 (April-June 2007), S. 93-98.
  • Kubbig, Bernd W./Nitsche, Axel /Anthes, Carolin/Knaus, Sascha: The nuclearization of the Broader Middle East as a challenge for transatlantic policy coordination, Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, Frankfurt/Main, 2007.
  • Lambakis, Steven: Missile defense from space, in: Policy Review Online, Washington/D.C., 141 February-March 2007.
  • Lange, Sascha/Thränert, Oliver: Raketenabwehr in und für Europa?, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, Berlin, 2007.
  • Lange, Sascha/Thränert, Oliver: Missile defense in and for Europe?, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (Berlin), 2007.
  • Lavrov, Sergej Viktorovic: Sderživanie Rossii: nazad v buduščee? (Die Zurückhaltung Russlands: zurück in die Zukunft?), in: Rossija v global'noj politike (Moskau), (Juli-August 2007).
  • Mangott, Gerhard/Senn, Martin: Rückkehr zum Kalten Krieg? Das russländisch-amerikanische Zerwürfnis über die Raketenabwehr in Osteuropa, in: Internationale Politik und Gesellschaft, Bonn, 3 März 2007, S. 11-22.
  • Mangott, Gerhard: Die russisch-amerikanische Raketendebatte, in: Russland-Analysen, Bremen, 129 (09.03.2007), S. 2-13.
  • Moniac, Rüdiger: Die neue US-Raketenabwehr, in: Europäische Sicherheit, Hamburg,  56, 4 (April 2007), S. 35-37.
  • Putin, Vladimir: I do not rule, I simply do my work, in: International Affairs (Minneapolis/Minn.), 53, 2 (2007),  S. 1-9.
  • Reisinger, Christoph: Umstrittener Schild wie Amerikas Schutzschirm gegen Interkontinentalraketen funktionieren soll, in: Loyal, Frankfurt/Main, April 2007, S. 14-15.
  • Rovshan, Ismayilov: Analysts: chances slim for US-Russian radar station, Open Society Institute, New York/N.Y., 2007.
  • Rubin, Uzi: The rocket campaign agaist Israel during the 2006 Lebanon War. - Ramat Gan : Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, 2007. - 47 S. - (Mideast security and policy studies/ BESA ; 71).
  • Spring, Baker: Putin’s missile defense proposal leaves key questions unanswered, Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C., 2007.
  • Weitz, Richard: Russian-American security cooperation after St. Petersburg challenges and opportunities, Strategic Studies Institute (United States Army War College), Carlisle Barracks/Pa., 2007.
  • Weitz, Richard: The Gabala gambit and Aserbaijan's geopolitics, in: Central Asia-Caucasus Analyst, Washington/D.C., 9 , 12 (13 June 2007).

 

2006

  • 109/1 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Strategic Forces: Budget request for missile defense programs, Hearings on National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006 and Oversight of Previously Authorized Programs, 15.03. 2005, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 2006.
  • Bradley, Timothy: Why a ballistic missile defense program is the wrong path to U.S. national security, Defense and Security Analysis, Abingdon, 22 (March 2006) 1, S. 95-99.
  • Cimbala, Stephen J.: Missile Defenses in a "deuces wild" context proliferation, terror and deterrent disorder, Comparative Strategy, Philadelphia, 25 (January-March 2006) 1, S. 1-18.
  • Cimbala, Stephen J. : Nuclear force reductions, missile defenses, and U.S.-Russian relations managing contextual complexity, in: The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Philadelphia/Pa., 19, 3 September 2006, S. 469-487.
  • Cimbala, Stephen J.: Russia and missile defenses, in: The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, Philadelphia/Pa., 19, 1March 2006, S. 1-24.
  • Coyle, Philip E.: The limits and liabilities of missile defense, in: Current History, Philadelphia, 105 (November 2006) 694. S.391-394.
  • DeBiaso, Peppi: Proliferation, missile defense and the conduct of modern war, Comparative Strategy , Philadelphia, 25 (July-September 2006) 3, S. 170-171.
  • Eshel, David: Missile/rocket defence emerges as top Israeli priority, in: Military Technology, Bonn, 30, 12 2006, S. 34-37.
  • Feske, Susanne M. / Helmig, Jan: Der politische "Fallout" von Nordkoreas Waffentests Japans Sicherheitspolitik im Umbruch, in: Sicherheit und Frieden, Baden-Baden, 24, 4 2006, S. 192-197.
  • Filipiak, Rainer: Europäische Sicherheitspolitik und amerikanische Verteidigungskonzeptionen, Essen, Univ., Diss. Duisburg, 2006.
  • Frühling, Stephan/Sinjen, Svenja: NATO missile defence - the political an operational case for a two-base structure in: The RUSI Journal, London, 151 (December 2006) 6, S. 58-61.
  • Ghazala, Yasmin: Missile Defence in South Asia, implications for the region, in: Strategic Studies, Islamabad, 26 (Autumn 2006) 3, S. 84-115.
  • Gertler, Jeremiah / Campbell, Kurt M.: The paths ahead: missile defense in Asia, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., 2006.
  • Ilg, Thorsten: MEADS - ein zukunftfähiges System für die bodengebundene Luftverteidigung, in: Europäische Sicherheit, Hamburg, 55 (September 2006) 9, S. 43-48.
  • Johnson, Chalmers: Nemesis the last days of the American republic, Metropolitan Books, New York/N.Y., 2006.
  • Kopec, Grant: Technical obstacles and Limitations to the implemention of effective mid-course ground-based missile defence, Defense and Security Analysis, Abingdon, 22 (March 2006) 1, S. 89-94.
  • Kreienbaum, Bernd: Missile Defense Feasibility Study - NATO's baseline for the political and military debate on protecting aliance cities and population against ballistic missiles, in: Military Technology, Bonn, 30 (2006) 9, S. 50-55.
  • Lorber, Azriel K.: Low-altitude defence for priority targets against evolving threats, in: Military Technology, Bonn, 30 (2006) 12, S. 28-32.
  • Miller, Eric: Missile defence launches US-Ukrainian co-operation, in: Jane's Intelligence Review, Coulsdon, 18, 2 February 2006, S. 38-40.
  • Neuneck, Götz / Rothkirch, André: Weltraumbewaffnung und Optionen für präventive Rüstungskontrolle,Deutsche Stiftung Friedensforschung DSF, Osnabrück, 2006.
  • Obering, Henry A. (III) : US ballistic missile defences progress, in: Military Technology, Bonn, 30, 8 2006, S. 14-22.
  • Schissler, Jakob: Wissen als Machtfaktor im Kalten Krieg, in: Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Wiesbaden, 47, 4  Dezember 2006, S. 745-747.
  • Seaboyer, Anthony / Thränert, Oliver: What missile proliferation means for Europe, in: Survival, Oxford, 48, 2 Summer 2006, S. 85-96.
  • Spring, Baker: The enduring features of the debate over missile defense, Heritage Foundation, Washington, D.C., 2006.
  • Tellis, Ashley J.: The evolution of U.S.-Indian ties missile defense in an emerging strategic relationship, in: International Security, Cambridge/Mass., 30,4  Spring 2006, S. 113-151
  • U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Long-term implications of current defense plans summary update for fiscal year 2007, Washington, D.C., 2006.
  • U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense acquisitions: Missile Defense Agency fields initial capability but falls short of original goals report to Congressional committees, Washington, D.C., 2006.

 

2005

  • Ahn Byung-Joon: South Korea: "offensive realism" vs. "wounded nationalism", in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26, 3 December 2005, S. 686-700.
  • Beier, J. Marshall: Canada: doubting Hephaestus, in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26, 3 December 2005, S. 431-446.
  • Blumenthal, Dan: The revival of the U.S.-Japanese alliance, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C., 2005.
  • Dehéz, Dustin: Umfassender Schutz für Truppe und Heimat? das Flugabwehrsystem MEADS in der Kritik, Düsseldorfer Institut für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, Düsseldorf, 2005.
  • Domisiewicz, Rafal / Kaminski, Slawomir : Poland: waiting for Washington, in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26, 3 December 2005, S. 571-587.
  • Dragsdahl, Joergen: Denmark and Greenland: American defences and domestic agendas, in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26, 3 December 2005, S. 486-504.
  • Everts, Philip: The Netherlands: procurement without debate, in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26, 3 December 2005, S. 558-570.
  • Ghosh, Probal: Is missile defence destabilizing for South Asia? , in: The RUSI Journal, London, 150, 5 October 2005, S. 54-59.
  • Gosch, Ralf: Luftverteidigung - Veränderungen in der neuen Struktur, in: Europäische Sicherheit, Hamburg, 54, 3 März 2005, S. 44-50.
  • Grams, Christoph: Das Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS) -ein Prüfstein für Deutschlands Streitkräftetransformation?, DGAP-Analyse, Nr. 2, Februar 2005.
  • Heurlin, Bertel / Rynning, Sten: Missile defence international, regional and national implications, Abingdon, Routledge, 2005.
  • Hildreth, Steven A.: Missile defense: the current debate, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C., 2005.
  • Ishikawa, Taku: Japan: harmony by accident? in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26,3 December 2005, S. 639-662.
  • Kas'janova, Alla: Russia: in search of strategy, in search of self , in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26, 3 December 2005, S. 663-685.
  • Kazan, Isil: Turkey: where geopolitics still matters, in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26, 3 December 2005, S. 588-604.
  • Kempin, Ronja/ Mawdsley, Jocelyn: France: missile defence à la française, in : Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26, 3 December 2005, S. 505-519.
  • Khol, Radek: Czech Republic: Prague's pragmatism, in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26,3 December 2005, S. 470-485.
  • Krause, Joachim: Ist bodengebundene Luftverteidigung noch notwendig? MEADS in der Kontroverse, in Europäische Sicherheit, Hamburg, 54, 3 März 2005, S. 51-55.
  • Kubbig, Bernd W. / Nitsche, Axel: Germany: selective security provider in the Schröder/Fischer era, in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26, 3 December 2005, S. 520-543.
  • Kubbig, Bernd W.: Als Entscheidungsgrundlage für das Raketenabwehrprojekt MEADS ungeeignet, eine Analyse der Dokumente von BMVg und Berichterstattergruppe, Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, Frankfurt/Main, 2005.
  • Kubbig, Bernd W.: Raketenabwehrsystem MEADS: Entscheidung getroffen, viele Fragen offen, Hessische Stiftung Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, Frankfurt/Main, 2005.
  • Kubbig, Bernd W.: The domestic politics of missile defence, in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26, 3 December 2005, S. 385-409.
  • Labarre, Frederic: Is missile defence moral? , in: International Journal, Toronto, 60, 2 Spring 2005, S. 553-573.
  • Moens, Alexander / Cooper, Barry: Canadian partizipation in North American missile defence a cost-benefit analysis, Fraser Institute, Vancouver, 2005.
  • Mützenich, Rolf / Grams, Christoph: Pro und Contra dem Raketenabwehrsystem MEADS, in: Internationale Politik, Frankfurt/Main, 60, 3 März 2005, S. 114-117.
  • Pedatzur, Reuven: Israel: coping with a proliferated region, in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26 , 3 December 2005, S. 621-638.
  • Peterson, M. J.: International regimes for the final frontier Albany/N.Y., State Univ. of New York Pr., 2005.
  • Prüfstein für Deutschlands Streitkräftetransformation?, Forschungsinstitut der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, Berlin, 2005.
  • Racz, Andreas: Hungary: a most reluctant ally, in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26,3 December 2005, S. 544-557.
  • Rajagopalan, Rajesh: India: largest democracy and smallest debate?, in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26, 3 December 2005, S. 605-620.
  • Senn, Martin: A submissive nuclear power? Russia and the United States' national missile defense system, in: Gerhard Mangott (Hg.), Russlands Rückkehr : Außenpolitik unter Vladimir Putin, Baden-Baden : Nomos Verl.-Ges., Wiener Schriften zur internationalen Politik ; Bd. 7, 2005, S. 153-202, Lit. S. 197-202.
  • Smith, Mark: Britain: balancing "Instinctive Atlanticism", in: Contemporary Security Policy, London, 26, 3 December 2005, S. 447-469.
  • U.S Government Accountability Office, Report to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Defense acquisitions actions needed to ensure adequate funding for operation and sustainment of the Ballistic Missile Defense System, Washington, D.C., 2005.
  • U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional committees, Defense acquisitions status of ballistic missile defense program in 2004, Washington, D.C., 2005.
  • U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report to the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives, Military transformation: actions needed by DoD to more clearly identify new triad spending and develop a long-term investment approach, Washington, 2005, D.C.