Thesis (M.A.) - Simon Fraser University, 2005. / Theses (Dept. of Psychology) / Simon Fraser University. Also issued in digital format and available on the World Wide Web.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego and San Diego State, 2002. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 101-113).

National discourse on cyberconflict has largely focused on defensive concerns, or protecting “critical infrastructure” from cyber threats. By contrast, the U.S. government’s employment of cyberattack is shrouded in secrecy and receives scant public attention. The seminal study on U.S. cyberattack, published by the National Academy of Sciences in 2009, noted that the clandestine nature of U.S. cyber operations hinders “widespread understanding and debate about the nature and implications of U.S. cyberattack.” This secrecy has contributed to a policy and legal framework for cyberattack that the NRC-NAS Report called “ill-formed, underdeveloped and highly uncertain.” Since the NRC-NAS Report was published, the U.S. government has signaled an unprecedented seriousness of purpose in addressing cyberconflict. It has marshaled its cyber resources under the leadership of a single “Cyber Command” and attempted to articulate formal “cyberstrategy.” Media reports from 2010-11 provide rare insight into cyberattack decision-making, and describe gradual development of policy and process for a specific type of cyberattack. The topic of U.S. cyberattack merits revisiting. This Report surveys the current international environment regarding cyberconflict, traces the development of “cyberstrategy” by the Executive Office of the President (EoP) and the Department of Defense (DoD) to make general points about the U.S. approach to cyberattack, and examines the statutory framework applicable to U.S. cyberattack in a narrow set of cases. This Report draws on news media reports about a series of cyberattack incidents to examine the dynamics of the cyberattack policy-making process, discusses recent attempts to address these issues, and summarizes lessons learned. / text

In their natural environment animals must balance their safety requirements (i.e., avoiding predation) with their need to satisfy their energy demands (i.e., securing food). How the brain integrates these competing demands to promote adaptive responding is not well understood. The current study examined the effects of chronic food restriction on rats' behavioural defense profiles in two animal models of anxiety; the shock-probe burying and elevated plus-maze tests. In agreement with previous research, food restriction dramatically increased rats' open-arm exploration in the plus-maze. By contrast, food restriction did not alter the duration of time rats spent burying an electrified probe in the shock-probe burying test. Furthermore, food restricted rats displayed increases in risk assessment behaviour in both tests. Animals’ behaviour in both animal models of anxiety does not suggest a food-restriction induced reduction in anxiety. Alternatively, the results suggest that rats' willingness to explore normally avoided open arenas is sensitive to their current energy demands. In particular, it appears that under conditions of food scarcity rodents adapt their defensive profiles in order to meet both safety needs and satisfy energy demands. Further, the dramatic shift in open-arm exploration displayed by food-restricted animals seems to involve activation (as indexed by cFos) of brain regions previously implicated in feeding behaviour and normal open arm avoidance. Notably, an interaction effect of feeding and testing was observed in the anterior basolateral amygdala. This nucleus may be involved in integrating the competing demands of safety and energy requirements. / Thesis (Master, Neuroscience Studies) -- Queen's University, 2008-09-18 16:58:44.385

No description available.

This study assesses the U.S. bargaining chip approach in strategic arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union. The study's theoretical framework is based upon several concepts inherent in the theory of compellence as conceptualized by Schelling (1966) and Craig and George (1983). Furthermore, several key elements of domestic politics are incorporated into the framework to add richness to this traditional conception of inter-state bargaining. The empirical validity of the hypotheses rests on the findings generated by four case studies, including the use of the Strategic Defense Initiative as a bargaining chip. This study's findings show that there is, in fact, no basis for traditional criticisms levelled at the use of bargaining chips in arms control. However, the study strongly suggests that policy-makers should be prepared to escalate the operation of a negative leverage from the threat to deploy a weapon system through actual deployment to the exercise of positive leverage to fully exploit the bargaining chip's potential.

Thesis (LL. M.)--Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, 1974. / "April 1974." Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves xi-xiii). Also issued in microfiche.

Thesis (LL. M.)--Judge Advocate General's School, United States Army, 1997. / "April 1997." Computer-produced typeface. Includes bibliographical references. Also issued in microfiche.

Thesis (M.A.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1992. / Vita. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 78-79). Also available via the Internet.

Thesis (doctoral)--Friedrich-Alexander-Universität zu Erlangen.