India studying NATO offer on joining missile programme

Discussion in 'Strategic Forces' started by LETHALFORCE, Sep 21, 2011.

?

Should India join NATO missile shield or not?

Poll closed Dec 6, 2011.
  1. Yes India should join

    9 vote(s)
    42.9%
  2. No India should not join

    12 vote(s)
    57.1%
  1. LETHALFORCE

    LETHALFORCE Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    Messages:
    20,536
    Likes Received:
    6,536
    NATO’s India Offer

    NATO’s India Offer | Flashpoints


    In a surprise move, NATO has reportedly offered to share its ballistic missile defence (BMD) technology with India. The tentative proposal, premised on the acknowledgement of the ‘commonality of threats’ faced by NATO and India, includes the sharing of BMD technology as well as the possibility of ‘training together.’ There has yet to be any official response to this offer, but its acceptance would make India the only non-NATO ally, apart from Russia, in the alliance.

    Russia’s reservations on this issue are well known, and it’s most likely that India, too, won’t be jumping at the bit. This could be attributed to at least three factors.

    One, as a non-aligned country during the Cold War years, India maintained its distance from bloc politics. Though the international landscape has changed drastically since then, India has retained its policy of not entering into an alliance with any country, though New Delhi does have strategic partnerships with a record number of nations today. While warming to the United States considerably in the last half decade, India is still unlikely to enter into any arrangement that might be perceived as compromising its sovereign autonomy. It may be recalled, after all, that India hasn’t formally accepted the Proliferation Security Initiative because it’s a US-led initiative. A US-led BMD architecture, then, would also be viewed from the same perspective.


    Second, while it’s true that India has been working on the indigenous development of BMD technology, and has conducted four successful interceptions since 2006, there has been no shared commonality of threats with NATO. As premised on the US missile threat assessment, threats to NATO are believed to arise from missile proliferation by problem states. BMD is seen as necessary to defend against limited ballistic missile attacks involving ‘up to a few tens of ballistic missiles.’ The United States and NATO have been categorical in assuring Russia and China that the BMD isn’t designed to degrade their nuclear deterrent.

    For India, the nature of the missile threat is quite different—it arises from its nuclearized neighbourhood. Both China and Pakistan have established nuclear and missile arsenals of substantive quality and quantity. In fact, both have spent the last decade enhancing their missile capabilities in terms of inventory build-up, range, accuracy, survivability, and reliability. In addition, China has invested in its own BMD and countermeasures technology. Therefore, the threats that the Indian BMD will be required to counter are very different from those of NATO, and there’s no clarity over whether NATO would be able to accommodate these threat perceptions.

    Third, while the Indian research and development establishment is euphoric over the technological success of four interceptions, two endoatmospheric and two exoatmospheric, the impact of BMD on strategic stability has yet to be completely fathomed. India’s nuclear doctrine is based on deterrence by punishment, which essentially implies the communication of the threat that any use of nuclear weapons would result in assured retaliation designed to cause ‘unacceptable damage.’ Eschewing nuclear war fighting, India has largely been against deterrence by denial and has largely accepted the classical logic of nuclear deterrence that it can best be maintained through the suggestion of mutual vulnerability, which was also seen as best for strategic stability.

    But the acquisition of BMD by China upsets the equation. India can’t hope to establish deterrence stability with China’s BMD without having a similar capability of its own. This, in turn, impinges on its deterrence relationship with Pakistan. The latter, meanwhile, doesn’t have the scientific and technological wherewithal to develop a BMD of its own, and is most likely to either increase its missile inventory and equip the missiles with countermeasures (acquired from China) or enter into some type of an acquisition or BMD-sharing arrangement with some of its allies, most notably China.

    BMD, therefore, has the potential to upset the deterrence stability in the two nuclear dyads of the region. In fact, the deployment of BMD will impel the adversary toward the development and deployment of countermeasures or advanced offensive capabilities against BMD. This will push the countries into an offence-defence spiral, leading to an arms race not just in earth-based systems, but also in space-based ISR and navigation capabilities as they try to increase the accuracy of their missiles, along with their manoeuvrability, in terminal stages to avoid interception. The automatic tendency, then, will be to develop ASAT capabilities and resort to pre-emption to degrade the space-based assets of the adversary. It therefore appears likely that uncertainties and insecurities will only grow rather than decrease with availability of BMD in all three countries.

    As India grapples with finding the best response to its missile threats, the NATO offer to share the ‘technology of discovering and intercepting missiles’ is an interesting development. It comes at a time when the Indian BMD technology trajectory seems to be on an upswing, when the state of Pakistan’s stability is on a downswing, and ambiguities on China’s intentions are on the rise. Is there a deeper message in this offer? India must undertake a careful assessment of all dimensions.
     
    Dovah, Neil and Yusuf like this.
  2.  
  3. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,121
    Location:
    EST, USA
    De-jure, India is non-aligned. De facto, India ceased to be so when it signed Indo-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

    If BMD can offer some protection to India from Pakistan and PRC, why not?

    P.S.: Last paragraph says it all.
     
  4. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    India should stay away from NATO politics, but if we can get BMD technology with no strings attached it is in our interest to obtain it.
     
  5. JayATL

    JayATL Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    USA
    Stick to your day job...Russians are also part of NATO missle shield .
     
  6. civfanatic

    civfanatic Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2009
    Messages:
    4,562
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Location:
    తెలంగాణ
    Is it really so hard to post something coherent?
     
    Godless-Kafir likes this.
  7. Yusuf

    Yusuf GUARDIAN Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    24,272
    Likes Received:
    11,275
    Location:
    BANGalore
    What India also needs is to increase its nuclear weapons stockpile and delivery platform. If China and Pakistan form a BMD shield of their own, the few 10s of missiles that India has will easily be countered. The arms race has already begun. India needs to ratchet up its own nukes and ballistic missile program. Some help in this regard if required by India would really be appreciated.
     
    Dovah and sandeepdg like this.
  8. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,121
    Location:
    EST, USA
    Relax Jay. If there were no disagreements, won't DFI be very boring? :)

    CivFanatic does have a point. We need to read the fine print in any such NATO-BMD deal.
     
  9. Illusive

    Illusive Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    2,335
    Likes Received:
    1,418
    This is an important tech, will save plenty of life and property in a nuclear war.

    Can these BMD's counter MIRV's?
     
  10. Kunal Biswas

    Kunal Biswas Member of the Year 2011 Moderator

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    27,580
    Likes Received:
    28,355
    Location:
    BHARAT, INDIA, HINDUSTHAN

    They do, Given the amount of interceptors you have..

    For Example Russian BMD like S-400/500 Deploy around 100 missiles via Launchers ( Each with two-four missiles )..
     
  11. Kunal Biswas

    Kunal Biswas Member of the Year 2011 Moderator

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    27,580
    Likes Received:
    28,355
    Location:
    BHARAT, INDIA, HINDUSTHAN
    Many Media reports are reporting wrong informations, What NATO provided is the technical assistance in BMD development..
     
  12. plugwater

    plugwater Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Messages:
    4,149
    Likes Received:
    1,060
    No sir, S series or SM-3 or THAAD have no chance against MIRV.

     
  13. Phenom

    Phenom Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    401
    Nato is like yesterday's news, it has liitle or no relevance for the 21st century. We have seen how capable they are in Afganistan, where most countries refused to send soldiers to fight.

    We could try to make deals US on a one to one basis, but NATO as a whole is not very useful and it also comes with a lot of baggage that would annoy the Russians.
     
  14. SLASH

    SLASH Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2011
    Messages:
    1,156
    Likes Received:
    458
    Is there anyone strong enough to challenge them? Would any country dare to challenge us with NATO on our side?
     
  15. Phenom

    Phenom Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    401
    Yes,

    I believe China would have no problem with attacking us even if NATO is 'on our side'. Most of their member nations are unwilling to send soldiers to fight the Taliban, do you think they would risk a war with China?

    US is still powerful and more importantly, it has the will to fight for its interest, but I don't think Europe has the same kind of determination. NATO is just a huge bureaucracy with diverging and sometimes opposing interests (like Turkey and Greece). India would be better off in dealing directly with US, instead of relying on NATO.
     
    asianobserve likes this.
  16. pmaitra

    pmaitra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2009
    Messages:
    31,640
    Likes Received:
    17,121
    Location:
    EST, USA
    BBC News - Russia 'to work with Nato on missile defence shield'

    We can work with NATO and yet not annoy Russia.
     
  17. asianobserve

    asianobserve Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2011
    Messages:
    7,308
    Likes Received:
    2,976
    China has no problem attacking India while it has a mutual defense agreement with NATO? You must be joking? China can't even invade puny Taiwan which is just a couple of kilometers from its coastline. Note that the closest US troops to Taiwan is almost 2,000 kilometers away in Japan.

    NATO at its current form has genuinely no rivals at the moment. With the EU economies crumbling the gutsy central Europeans cannot muster enough political and economic rationale to create a European super military force in lieu of US-central NATO. Maybe in twenty years time China can create its own Warsaw Pact type of military confederation with Pakistan at the core.
     
  18. Phenom

    Phenom Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2010
    Messages:
    878
    Likes Received:
    401
    Right now there are atleast half-a-dozen European NATO nations standing in front of China with a bowl in their hand. Do you expect us to believe these same nations will be willing to send their soldiers to fight china,over some small village in Arunachal pradesh or Ladakh. Ability to fight and willingness to fight are two different things, just because NATO has enough hardware to defeat the Chinese doesn't mean they would be willing to fight a war with China.

    In future, India does need allies, but those allies are in Asia, not Europe. I would put far more faith in the proposed US-Japan-India alliance than in NATO.

    IIRC, those talks are like the Indo-Pak summits that we have every now and then. Russia and US have very diverging views on what the joint missile shield should be, and neither are willing to compromise. Recent news reports from Russia are all about how their missiles can penetrate the shields,

    Russia will counter any NATO missile defense - Russian envoy | Russia | RIA Novosti

    IIRC, earlier Russia even went to the extent of saying it would target any city that hosts the radar. So let's wait and see if the talks succeed, if it did then we would have nothing to lose by joining the program, but if we would find ourself in a difficult spot between the Russians and the Americans.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2011
    Daredevil and Sridhar like this.
  19. agentperry

    agentperry Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    3,022
    Likes Received:
    678
    Location:
    delhi
    instead of increasing nuke stockpile India should make it more deadlier that is getting it more powerful. replacing 45 kiloton nuke with 200 kiloton or if possible a megaton nuke on one on one basis. this wont attract global criticism and will strengthen India's offensive capability. moreover missile should be made more stealthier, even the so called new age shaurya missile give 400 seconds of time to enemy to shoot it down which is way more and if this the achievement claimed by drdo then i have nothing to say about prithvi and agni.

    and whats the problem from extracting as much as possible from nato. even it is gone day stuff many of the member state still holds dominant status in other forums of global significance and nato type relations with them will surely enhance India's position worldwide
     
  20. JayATL

    JayATL Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    189
    Location:
    USA
    What? who do you think leads NATO and the BMD deal offer? Did you think NATO is a UN like body India has to deal with-- The US says it will give India something and NATO complies. I'm amused at the comment that NATO has no relevance -- I don't know where to begin on such a statement. It begs suspension of belief that the largest body of countries allied has no relevance to you...

    Russians will be annoyed? THEY are a part of the Missile shield deal with NATO.. That news piece about Russian with counter NATO shield is what I call " political posturing" - all talk !

    They desperately want to be a part of the shield as Russia finds it too expensive to maintain one for itself nor can it approach the higher technology level of the NATO shield. It's asking NATO to share the BMD technology.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2011
  21. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    We should build our own. West is known for its backstabbing qualities.

    I am seeing a trend of nato coming to us with offers whenever we are near at completing or testing our own defense hardware.
     

Share This Page