With Russian help, India to join ICBM big league soon

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
Does the US give Pakistan some weapons which cannot be used in the war on terror? Yes. Does India protest it mildly? Yes. Are these game changers? NO.
F-16's? M-107's? OHP's class frigates? You know to fight the Taliban Navy. Yes, they are game changers.

US gives " some weapons" to Pak but they come with tons of stipulations added to the deal- like the F16 deal where they are not allowed to use it on India (purely defensive), not allowed to fly it across its borders and with a "kill switch" on it. Read up about the disgraceful deal Pakistan signed with US on the F16's they recently acquired someday on Google.
Kill Switch? lol, you humor me.

Now the reason they do is because the US views it as a "bakshis (gift)", small token in other words. Just like India gave the genocide killers in Sri Lankan govt some naval ships I thought I read awhile back-and helped out with some military hardware. Why does India do that? Because it's trying to get in favor (of sorts) with Sri Lanka. It's a form of playing strategic politics...
Yes Sri Lanka and Pakistan are the same.

Bottom line: It's not to antagonize India and Indian govt knows it all too well. That's why you don't hear but a " mild' protest from the Indian govt about it. To take such moves as the reason to rail against the US is naive thinking
We dont protest, because Pakistani's are busy killing Americans.

To be honest son, looking at your previous post, you dont even deserve to have the 'Indian heritage' tag on you.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
At least make an attempt to come up with something intelligent when responding.
I see no reason for a feud between us.:namaste:

I apologize for any intemperate response on my part.

Is that intelligent enough, do you think? :)
 
Last edited:

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
TR, Obama dashed a lot of hopes and primarily being the Americans themselves. So we Indians are just a third world country.

Obama was a dreamer but a bad one at that. He is a bad judge of international politics and the folly of this was exposed in his policy towards China. It emboldened the Chinese as it saw a chink in the US. Obama was a bad to happen in international relations.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,590
No its not the norm Ewald. Every country ( its a minority in India) has its version of neo cons or in this case US haters. rest assured they type their insane theories while being first in line to try the new US styled coffee houses :p
Jay, I understand the identity crisis that you face. Being a desi in the US must really be tearing you apart. How do you put your desi face on and yet defend the tyranny of your adopted home.
I, on the other hand dont have such an identity crisis. I know where my loyalties lie and will call a spade a spade.

On this thread, the discussion was about the sense and sensibilities of an Indian ICBM with a 10K plus range. I can surely sympathise with Ewalds sentiments - he probably feels let down. After all its been the Americans starting from Bush to Obama to Hillary who have been crowing that the Indian-American partnership is going to define this century. And its not just the crows. The foxes in your strategic forces, all have doctrines that spell the same.

However, reality is that the US is sitting on 10,000 + warheads and has practically every area of strategic significance covered with their nuclear triad.
Reality also is that, the US pulled every dirty trick out of the bag to rip the Russians out. Reality is that the US is miserably failing to contain China even with the sharpest of foxes strategizing in the Pentagon. And reality is that the US is hedging its bets on keeping India as a "REGIONAL" power to counter Chinese influence in Asiapac so that China and India are always too embroiled in the happennings here to ever emerge.

So your way of simpleton thinking is, why would a regional power need a 10K ICBM? Well I've got news for you son. Whether you like it or not, we are going to surpass you in terms of absolute wealth within our lifetimes. We are also going to surpass you in terms of relative wealth a short while after that. And you will not DARE to send in your Aircraft Carrier into our waters. You will not DARE implement any kind of sanctions. You will not DARE bully us at international forums. And to ensure this, our military strategies will include China, the US and the EU as potential conflict entities.
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
Here's what happened to India's ICBM program after the 123 nuclear deal with USA ...

Stratfor global Intelligence -

June 21, 2007 | 1924 GMT
Summary
India reportedly halted development of intercontinental ballistic missiles as a good-faith gesture aimed at facilitating the troubled civilian nuclear deal with the United States, according to an unconfirmed (and as yet not denied) CNN-IBN report June 18. Though the gesture may have appeared magnanimous, intercontinental reach is far down New Delhi's list of priorities.

Analysis
New Delhi appears to have halted — at least temporarily — development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), CNN-IBN reported June 18. The halt appears to be an effort to address Washington's discomfort with the proposed U.S.-Indian bilateral civilian nuclear deal. Though the report has not been confirmed, it also has not been denied.

U.S. concerns, however, have nothing at all to do with Indian ICBMs. India has only moderate interest in such a capability, since its most pressing international concerns are hardly at intercontinental distances. As such, India's need for ICBMs — especially in the near term — is quite limited.

Pakistan

Ultimately, India is fairly geographically secure. Oceans and mountains constitute the bulk of New Delhi's border. The Himalayas provide a nearly impenetrable barrier to meaningful military confrontation with China. Pakistan, which along with Afghanistan occupies the Hindu Kush to the northwest, is the only real power within India's immediate geographic zone.

The Indo-Pakistani rivalry has been well entrenched since 1948 — but Indian strategic missiles are well-suited to deal with that threat. Moreover, the nuclear balance between the two has matured to the point that it now injects an element of stability and restraint into the rivalry. An ICBM has almost no relevance to a direct confrontation with Pakistan. The 3,000-kilometer (about 1,800 miles) distance from Bangalore in southern India to the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, in northern Pakistan is probably approaching the minimum range of a true ICBM.

Thus, unlike the intercontinental ranges of the U.S.-Russian Cold War rivalry, the Indo-Pakistani rivalry is not a long-distance rivalry. The medium-range Agni II, the longest-range ballistic missile yet deployed by the Indian military, already allows India to cover the entirety of Pakistan from nearly anywhere in India.


In terms of this particular rivalry, the Agni II will suffice for New Delhi's ballistic missile needs. Other avenues, like the BrahMos cruise missile and the Prithvi-derived Dhanush ship-launched ballistic missile now under development, can be pursued to complement this ability. Any additional range actually would be counterproductive.


China

The Sino-Indian balance, however, is another story. With the Himalayas as a geographic buffer, neither country represents an imminent strategic threat to the other. And neither has much interest in any sort of arms race, since both have far better things to worry about.

This is where the Agni III intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) comes in. A successful test in April followed a serious stumble in 2006, when a failure with the first-stage exhaust nozzle destroyed the test mission in the first minute of flight. It took nearly a year to retool and test a second missile. The Agni III gives New Delhi the ability to target Beijing, though this is not something New Delhi is in any particular hurry to do given the two countries' distracted bilateral relationship.

Beijing, by contrast, already can target all of India with most of its strategic arsenal. With another major power so close by, New Delhi could only consider it prudent to establish a basic counterbalance. Given the state of the two countries' current relations, such a counterbalance could be more than sufficiently accomplished with a small force of Agni III missiles.

Other Motivators for India

This is not to say India does not want an ICBM capability; who would not? But just like anyone else, India has priorities — with establishing the military capability to obliterate Pakistan ranking near the top. Achieving a basic parity with China also is important. But for the immediate future, the importance of the nuclear deal with Washington ranks far above its desire for intercontinental reach.

While an ICBM is indeed within India's grasp, the nation's missile programs reflect that this is not a top priority. Development of the Surya ICBM has been rumored for more than a decade without tangible results. This is despite continued progress with the indigenous geostationary and polar orbit satellite launch vehicles on which the Surya theoretically is based. (Ultimately, the distinction between a satellite launch vehicle and an ICBM comes down to payload.) What is more, India is poised to become only the sixth country in the world to field a cryogenic upper stage, a particularly complex technology. So if it were a real priority, the Surya would surely be further along.

On the other hand, few things are more important to India right now than maintaining control over its own nuclear fuel cycle (and thus retaining the ability to extract its own weapons-grade plutonium for military purposes). This has been a contentious issue in the nuclear negotiations with the United States. India's defense establishment is extremely wary of the conditions the United States wants to place on India before the civilian nuclear deal can pass, and New Delhi is offering very little leeway on any concessions that would set India back militarily. Before the announcement of the Indian ICBM halt, the Indian Cabinet ratified an amendment June 15 to the International Atomic Energy Agency convention providing for protection of nuclear material from acts of terror and sabotage. This was another key U.S. demand for India (a nonsignatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty) to facilitate the ongoing negotiations.

In essence, the apparent sacrifice of the ICBM program is nothing more than a low-cost way for India to promote itself as a responsible nuclear player deserving of the civilian nuclear agreement with the United States. India can certainly stand to take a missile program essentially already on the back burner off the stove for a little while. But with the continued development of the Agni III IRBM and launches of its geostationary and polar satellite launch vehicles, India will continue to progress in this direction regardless.
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
TR, Obama dashed a lot of hopes and primarily being the Americans themselves. So we Indians are just a third world country.

Obama was a dreamer but a bad one at that. He is a bad judge of international politics and the folly of this was exposed in his policy towards China. It emboldened the Chinese as it saw a chink in the US. Obama was a bad to happen in international relations.
Yusuf, I clearly do not agree with you in this. Obama's policies have done nothing to embolden China. China is emboldened by two simple facts -

1. USA economy is in a pretty bad shape and with US military waging two and a half wars already, USA is in no position to take on China presently, so, the Chinese can be a little belligerent.
2. China also holds about 12% of all US government debt. Which means that any war with China will cause further turmoil in the US economy. No US government would like to take the bull (China) by it's horns, knowing that those horns can take of it's balls.

The rest of Obama's foreign policies have worked out pretty well - Whether at Egypt, Libya, Syria or Iran - even for Israel, Obama's hands off approach has reduced the burden for USA.
The only area of worry for Obama's foreign policy is and will be Pakistan - but that has been true for the last 10 years ...
 

ace009

Freakin' Fighter fan
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2010
Messages
1,662
Likes
526
Jay, I understand the identity crisis that you face. Being a desi in the US must really be tearing you apart. How do you put your desi face on and yet defend the tyranny of your adopted home.
I, on the other hand dont have such an identity crisis. I know where my loyalties lie and will call a spade a spade.

On this thread, the discussion was about the sense and sensibilities of an Indian ICBM with a 10K plus range. I can surely sympathise with Ewalds sentiments - he probably feels let down. After all its been the Americans starting from Bush to Obama to Hillary who have been crowing that the Indian-American partnership is going to define this century. And its not just the crows. The foxes in your strategic forces, all have doctrines that spell the same.

However, reality is that the US is sitting on 10,000 + warheads and has practically every area of strategic significance covered with their nuclear triad.
Reality also is that, the US pulled every dirty trick out of the bag to rip the Russians out. Reality is that the US is miserably failing to contain China even with the sharpest of foxes strategizing in the Pentagon. And reality is that the US is hedging its bets on keeping India as a "REGIONAL" power to counter Chinese influence in Asiapac so that China and India are always too embroiled in the happennings here to ever emerge.

So your way of simpleton thinking is, why would a regional power need a 10K ICBM? Well I've got news for you son. Whether you like it or not, we are going to surpass you in terms of absolute wealth within our lifetimes. We are also going to surpass you in terms of relative wealth a short while after that. And you will not DARE to send in your Aircraft Carrier into our waters. You will not DARE implement any kind of sanctions. You will not DARE bully us at international forums. And to ensure this, our military strategies will include China, the US and the EU as potential conflict entities.
Come on dude - now you are sounding like the Pakistani forum members at PDF - "USA is plotting to keep Pakistan poor, the west is conspiring against us ... blah blah blah."
Wake up - USA has no plans to keep India down anymore than it has plans to keep the UK down or France or Germany or Japan. All it's allies. Why? simple - more dependence on USA, bigger market for them. It's nothing to do with "India".

As for wealth and power, as a sane Indian, I am sure Indians are not trying to compete against USA - 15 times our size in total economy or 40 times our size in per capita incomes. However, we would definitely like to move into better territory - I personally will be happy to see India doing a South Korea like per capita economy.
As for ICBMs, Sure India can develop one - but the priority should be to develop deterrents against our present enemies/ rivals, then think of future possible ones. Otherwise it would be like trying to save the barn from fire while the house is actually burning down.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Yusuf, I clearly do not agree with you in this. Obama's policies have done nothing to embolden China. China is emboldened by two simple facts -

1. USA economy is in a pretty bad shape and with US military waging two and a half wars already, USA is in no position to take on China presently, so, the Chinese can be a little belligerent.
2. China also holds about 12% of all US government debt. Which means that any war with China will cause further turmoil in the US economy. No US government would like to take the bull (China) by it's horns, knowing that those horns can take of it's balls.

The rest of Obama's foreign policies have worked out pretty well - Whether at Egypt, Libya, Syria or Iran - even for Israel, Obama's hands off approach has reduced the burden for USA.
The only area of worry for Obama's foreign policy is and will be Pakistan - but that has been true for the last 10 years ...
Its precisely that, hands off approach with which it wanted to reduce the burden and then share the world with China that emboldened China. China started to push more. They declared SCS their own. Closer home, they started intruding in our territory of Gilgit Baltistan. Obama denied the Taiwanese new F16s.

The US economy may be in a bad shape but the US is still not a Kane horse. It carries a lot of weight and power.

Once Obama realized his mistakes he started cozying up with India once again. Started pushing us to take more lead in Asia.

Obama's Egypt policy is not a success but a failure. His failure to back Mubarak didn't go down well with it's allies including Israel. The US under Obama has failed all it's allies. A super power cannot have a hands off approach. The US was the " US" because it poked it's nose everywhere and was the international police. With US backing off, China tried to squeeze in.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,590
Come on dude - now you are sounding like the Pakistani forum members at PDF - "USA is plotting to keep Pakistan poor, the west is conspiring against us ... blah blah blah."
Wake up - USA has no plans to keep India down anymore than it has plans to keep the UK down or France or Germany or Japan. All it's allies. Why? simple - more dependence on USA, bigger market for them. It's nothing to do with "India".

As for wealth and power, as a sane Indian, I am sure Indians are not trying to compete against USA - 15 times our size in total economy or 40 times our size in per capita incomes. However, we would definitely like to move into better territory - I personally will be happy to see India doing a South Korea like per capita economy.
As for ICBMs, Sure India can develop one - but the priority should be to develop deterrents against our present enemies/ rivals, then think of future possible ones. Otherwise it would be like trying to save the barn from fire while the house is actually burning down.
ok .......

Are you sure your views are not clouded by the fact that you are in the US now? Especially the part about India not wanting to compete economically against the US.
 
Last edited:

thakur_ritesh

Ambassador
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
4,435
Likes
1,733
TR, Obama dashed a lot of hopes and primarily being the Americans themselves. So we Indians are just a third world country.

Obama was a dreamer but a bad one at that. He is a bad judge of international politics and the folly of this was exposed in his policy towards China. It emboldened the Chinese as it saw a chink in the US. Obama was a bad to happen in international relations.
What a curse he has been mate, if we Indians would have had a chance we would have given bush another two terms at a stretch, but only if they allowed a person to have more than two terms and Indians to cast the vote :D

Had someone like bush been around, this relationship would have by now seen some amazing highs, Obama has been below disappointment on that count.

What's with the Indian obsession for center to left parties? In India it's the congress, in the US it's the democrats, in the UK it's the labour.

There is something about huge expectations and people faltering, and Obama has indeed been a disaster on the foreign policy front, its been all a story of traditional allies being deserted, then half-hearted corrective measures being initiated, one can only hope the US voter this time will make a better choice.
 

mattster

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,171
Likes
870
Country flag
Jay, I understand the identity crisis that you face. Being a desi in the US must really be tearing you apart. How do you put your desi face on and yet defend the tyranny of your adopted home.
I, on the other hand dont have such an identity crisis. I know where my loyalties lie and will call a spade a spade.

On this thread, the discussion was about the sense and sensibilities of an Indian ICBM with a 10K plus range. I can surely sympathise with Ewalds sentiments - he probably feels let down. After all its been the Americans starting from Bush to Obama to Hillary who have been crowing that the Indian-American partnership is going to define this century. And its not just the crows. The foxes in your strategic forces, all have doctrines that spell the same.

However, reality is that the US is sitting on 10,000 + warheads and has practically every area of strategic significance covered with their nuclear triad.
Reality also is that, the US pulled every dirty trick out of the bag to rip the Russians out. Reality is that the US is miserably failing to contain China even with the sharpest of foxes strategizing in the Pentagon. And reality is that the US is hedging its bets on keeping India as a "REGIONAL" power to counter Chinese influence in Asiapac so that China and India are always too embroiled in the happennings here to ever emerge.

So your way of simpleton thinking is, why would a regional power need a 10K ICBM? Well I've got news for you son. Whether you like it or not, we are going to surpass you in terms of absolute wealth within our lifetimes. We are also going to surpass you in terms of relative wealth a short while after that. And you will not DARE to send in your Aircraft Carrier into our waters. You will not DARE implement any kind of sanctions. You will not DARE bully us at international forums. And to ensure this, our military strategies will include China, the US and the EU as potential conflict entities.

Trackwhack........take a chill pill !! Maybe you should rename yourself TrackWacko.
You must be one of those people who enjoys making a fool out of yourself in a public forum.


The US does need India as a hedge against China because its not the US that is getting humiliated on the North-East by the Chinese Army.
It is not the job of the US to contain China, except when it threatens its allies.

Those allies are Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Philipines, Korea, etc. If India wants to remain neutral, then they can face China or anyone else alone.

As for crowing about future potential relative and absolute wealth of India - I dont know about you, but I would be happy to see an India where the average folk have uninterrupted electric power for just one month.
 
Last edited:

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
Uncle Sam

In this thread and some others, I see a theme regarding the attitude of some posters about the US which is kind of amusing. It seems to go like this:

Uncle Sam isn't doing enough for India and has never done enough for India.

Uncle Sam is always a bully whether he helps India or not.

We don't need Uncle Sam anyway, and one day we will nuke that son of a bitch.
 
Last edited:

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,508
Likes
1,021
Country flag
The US does need India as a hedge against China
It is not the job of the US to contain China, except when it threatens its allies.

Those allies are Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Philipines, Korea, etc. If India wants to remain neutral, then they can face China or anyone else alone.

As for crowing about future potential relative and absolute wealth of India - I dont know about you, but I would be happy to see an India where the average folk have uninterrupted electric power for just one month.
First I m NOT anti-US

But you say Us doesn't need India's help to hedge out Chinese. Agreed, But why did you make them your Allies in the first place ??????

And we face all our wars by ourselves, we don't remember running to NATO or Britain or France(when it's not a part of NATO). We don't remember asking for help in any war.

And I would be happy to see US give uninterrupted CIVILIAN NUCLEAR POWER and TECHNOLOGY.
 

Param

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
2,810
Likes
653
In this thread and some others, I see a theme regarding the attitude of some posters about the US which is kind of amusing. It seems to go like this:
"We don't need Uncle Sam anyway, and one day we will nuke that son of a bitch." _ that's just figment of your imagination.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
"We don't need Uncle Sam anyway, and one day we will nuke that son of a bitch." _ that's just figment of your imagination.
I did not imagine this, (from trackwhack) did I?

The next 20 years is going to witness an irreversible shift in balance of power and there is nothing you [Americans] can do about it - nothing except try to maintain a military advantage that will inevitably be used to meddle in our [Indian] strategic interets (sic). So do we think we need ICBM's that can hit every major city in the United States. Yes. How naive do you think we are?
Just to be clear, I don't take that kind of posturing seriously, considering the source.:lol:
 
Last edited:

amitkriit

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
2,463
Likes
1,927
In this thread and some others, I see a theme regarding the attitude of some posters about the US which is kind of amusing. It seems to go like this:
Uncle Sam isn't doing enough for India and has never done enough for India.

Uncle Sam is always a bully whether he helps India or not.


India doesn't want anything for free from Uncle Sam, we just want consistency. We don't want a nation to call us friend/ally which arms and props our enemies (in past or in present).

Neither China nor Russia ever supported (financially or otherwise) insurgent groups inside India, but USA and it's allies did.

Uncle Sam helps India either for money or for something else it wants from India. So its not really what we call help, its simple business.

Its not so easy to forget the past, Saddam Hussain's Iraq and Mujaheddin were once the trusted allies of USA, we know who discovered a Great Evil in them later.
 

trackwhack

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2011
Messages
3,757
Likes
2,590
I did not imagine this, (from trackwhack) did I?
Like it or not my US friends, you will be a threat. We will have deterrence against you. You can condascend as much as you want. But there will be deterrence against you in the future, say 20 years.

We all will still be alive to witness this so pull your pants up.

And yeah, there isnt squat you can do about it except moan and bitch. :)
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,508
Likes
1,021
Country flag
Uncle Sam isn't doing enough for India and has never done enough for India.

Uncle Sam is always a bully whether he helps India or not.


India doesn't want anything for free from Uncle Sam, we just want consistency. We don't want a nation to call us friend/ally which arms and props our enemies (in past or in present).

Neither China nor Russia ever supported (financially or otherwise) insurgent groups inside India, but USA and it's allies did.

Uncle Sam helps India either for money or for something else it wants from India. So its not really what we call help, its simple business.

Its not so easy to forget the past, Saddam Hussain's Iraq and Mujaheddin were once the trusted allies of USA, we know who discovered a Great Evil in them later.
Very well said amitkriit :) :)
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top