Special operations in the desert
In: Military technology: Miltech, Band 15, Heft 4, S. 62-65
ISSN: 0722-3226
40541 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Military technology: Miltech, Band 15, Heft 4, S. 62-65
ISSN: 0722-3226
World Affairs Online
In: Nato's sixteen nations: independent review of economic, political and military power, Band 30, Heft 1, S. 55-59
ISSN: 0169-1821
World Affairs Online
In: Marine corps gazette: the Marine Corps Association newsletter, Band 89, Heft 4, S. 46-48
ISSN: 0025-3170
In: K. Ziolkowski (ed.), Peacetime Regime for State Activities in Cyberspace. International Law, International Relations and Diplomacy, Tallinn 2013
SSRN
A letter report issued by the General Accounting Office with an abstract that begins "The utility of land mines on the modern battlefield has come into question in recent years, largely because of their potential for causing unintended casualties and affecting U.S. forces' maneuverability. These concerns were raised during the Persian Gulf War. U.S. land mines of all types--nonself-destructing and self-destructing, antipersonnel and antitank--were available for use if needed in the Gulf War from U.S. land mine stockpiles, which contained 19 million land mines. U.S. forces sent to the Gulf War theater of operations took with them for potential use over 2.2 million land mines. U.S. war plans included plans for the use of land mines if required by the tactical situation. According to Department of Defense (DOD) documents, no nonself-destructing or "dumb," land mines were used; and the reported number of self-destructing, or "smart," land mines used by the services totaled approximately 118,000. DOD did not provide information on the effect of U.S. land mine use against the enemy. According to U.S. service records, of the 1,364 total U.S. casualties in the Gulf War, 81, or 6 percent, were killed or injured by land mines. Concerns about land mines raised in DOD lessons-learned and other reports included the fear of fratricide and loss of battlefield mobility. These concerns led to the reluctance of some U.S. commanders to use land mines in areas that U.S. and allied forces might have to traverse."
BASE
In: Fonck , D , Haesebrouck , T & Reykers , Y 2019 , ' Parliamentary involvement, party ideology and majority-opposition bargaining : Belgian participation in multinational military operations ' , Contemporary Security Policy , vol. 40 , no. 1 , pp. 85-100 . https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2018.1500819
this article examines the impact of parliamentary involvement in troop deployment decisions on restrictions on military mandates by examining the belgian contribution to the 2011 libya intervention and the coalition against the self-proclaimed islamic state. More specifically, we analyse (1) the effect of party ideology on mandate preferences, and (2) the impact of bargaining between majority and opposition parties on the outcome of mandate negotiations. Our case study demonstrates that left-wing parties show a strong inclination toward imposing restrictions on the use of military force beyond humanitarian goals, while right-wing preferences tend to depend on the national interests at stake in the operation. With regard to majority-opposition bargaining, our study shows that the impact of opposition parties is dependent on the degree of contention between government and opposition parties, as well as on the extent to which the executive needs to seek support across its own majority.
BASE
In: Military Affairs, Band 48, Heft 2, S. 97
In: Military Affairs, Band 7, Heft 4, S. 228
In: American journal of international law: AJIL, Band 107, Heft 2, S. 466-468
ISSN: 2161-7953
In: American journal of international law, Band 107, Heft 2, S. 466-468
ISSN: 0002-9300
In: Jane's defence weekly: JDW, Band 44, Heft 15, S. 5
ISSN: 0265-3818
In: Armed forces journal: AFJ, Band 141, Heft 2, S. 16-19
ISSN: 0004-220X, 0196-3597
In: Soldier: the British Army magazine, Band 57, Heft 8, S. 18-20
ISSN: 0038-1004
In: Jane's defence weekly: JDW, Band 26, Heft 15, S. 22
ISSN: 0265-3818
In: Foreign policy bulletin: the documentary record of United States foreign policy, Band 3, Heft 1, S. 59-59
ISSN: 1745-1302