India studying NATO offer on joining missile programme

Should India join NATO missile shield or not?

  • Yes India should join

    Votes: 9 42.9%
  • No India should not join

    Votes: 12 57.1%

  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
WARD OFF DEBATERS....



this nato shield is good and can be applied for smaller duration say 10-15 yeas time till the domestic tech is developed fully and validated. moreover this shield wont be put up on western border as obama admin dont want to offend pakis till 2014. this can be put up against chinese provided India gets its belt tight so that it can withstand the rhetoric from china and also the extreme pressure from the same. this shield will be be very useful for protecting the installations.
the shorter duration contract type deployment will be better for India in any case.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Russia invited to participate in NATO missile shield


[HR][/HR]Russia invited to participate in NATO missile shield

By News Wires the 19/11/2010 - 22:56

On the first day of the NATO meeting in Lisbon, allies agreed to set up the first-ever Europe-wide anti-missile defence shield, inviting Russian President Dmitry Medvedev (pictured) to take part as well.

AFP
- US President Barack Obama and his NATO allies agreed Friday to set up a new anti-missile defence shield across Europe and to invite Russia to take part.

The deal means NATO leaders will set up a network of radars and interceptors forming an anti-ballistic missile shield extending over Europe and possibly linking with Russia too.

"I'm pleased to announce that for the first time, we have agreed to develop a missile defence capability that's strong enough to cover all NATO European territory and populations, as well as the United States," Obama said after a first session of the two-day NATO summit in Lisbon.

Russia had been fiercely critical of a US missile defence plans, seeing it as a direct threat to its nuclear deterrent.

But the 28 NATO powers hope President Dmitry Medvedev can be won over in discussions with the alliance on Saturday, the first encounter at this level since Moscow waged a war in Georgia in 2008.


NATO chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said he expects Russia and the Allies to begin a joint study of Russia's possible inclusion in the missile defence system, which would be a significant softening of Moscow's position.

In a "strategic concept" released Friday setting out NATO priorities for the next decade, the leaders agreed to "develop the capability to defend our populations and territories against ballistic missile attack as a core element of our collective defence."

"We will actively seek cooperation on missile defence with Russia and other Euro-Atlantic partners," they said.

The broad agreement marks a significant advance for Obama's scheme, first announced in November 2009 when he ditched plans for a missile shield in Eastern Europe, the cause of a Cold War-style row with Russia.

Obama decided to replace the shield, the brainchild of former US president George W. Bush, with a more mobile system targeting Iranian short-range and medium-range missiles, initially using sea-based interceptors.

Before leaving Moscow, the Russian party said it was keen to share ideas about common missile defence but played down the chances of a major decision realigning the continent's security.

Rasmussen said Russia would likely be invited to link up with the NATO missile umbrella rather than merging its defences with those of the alliance, set up in 1949 to contain the Soviet Union.

"I think, realistically speaking, we can't start by merging our systems into one common missile defence system," Rasmussen said earlier in the day.

"Realistically speaking, I think we should think of two separate systems that cooperate. We could exchange information and data and thereby make the whole system more efficient and give better coverage."

In addition to wooing the Russians, NATO allies have tiptoed around Turkey's concerns about its sensitive relations with neighbour Iran.

Diplomats had been discussing publicly identifying Iran as an emerging missile threat but Turkey had refused to countenance this possibility and Tehran did not figure in the document released.









[HR][/HR]Source URL: Russia invited to participate in NATO missile shield - DIPLOMACY - FRANCE 24
Source and Video: Russia invited to participate in NATO missile shield - DIPLOMACY - FRANCE 24
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
189
The only issue I have is, I wouldn't put it past them to squeeze in some backdoor into whatever hardware they provide us. I am not sure if the USA can truly be a 100% faithful ally of a non-AngloSaxon nation like India. I shall be satisfied when the USA proves its 100% commitment to India. Till then, I would be very cautious.
Then don't hold your breath if 100% subjugation of the US on its knees is the qualifier... You are talking about NATO shield, you are talking about an international agreement that involves 10's of countries which have a say in the matter. I think you guys are imagining this deal like you would with your local baniyas--- this is not some mom and pop show or deal. Plus its a defensive shield they would and will have in this region- give or take India.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Medvedev: Russia won't join NATO missile defense as piece of furniture

Medvedev: Russia won't join NATO missile defense as piece of furniture


 
Last edited by a moderator:

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,508
Likes
1,021
Country flag
WARD OFF DEBATERS....



this nato shield is good and can be applied for smaller duration say 10-15 yeas time till the domestic tech is developed fully and validated. moreover this shield wont be put up on western border as obama admin dont want to offend pakis till 2014. this can be put up against chinese provided India gets its belt tight so that it can withstand the rhetoric from china and also the extreme pressure from the same. this shield will be be very useful for protecting the installations.
the shorter duration contract type deployment will be better for India in any case.
I for one, truly believe this should be the case. This will also bolster domestic R&D.Meanwhile Indian ABM can be developed in parallel.

I don't believe Obama govt would bother much about offending Pakis. they themselves had tried to sell us the PAC3 missiles.
 

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,855
Country flag
Then don't hold your breath if 100% subjugation of the US on its knees is the qualifier... You are talking about NATO shield, you are talking about an international agreement that involves 10's of countries which have a say in the matter. I think you guys are imagining this deal like you would with your local baniyas--- this is not some mom and pop show or deal. Plus its a defensive shield they would and will have in this region- give or take India.
Talk a little less nonsense. Local Baniya? Mom and pop show? "Subjugation of US on its knees"? No wonder you put everyone's backs up, with the way you talk. :rolleyes:

International agreement involving 10s of countries - bullshit. It is only the US that really counts.

And it is not about "100% subjugation of the US". It is about making sure that we can trust the US. And making sure that the US really is on India's side. All the bullshit of "sanctions against India", "India's human rights record", "coming down on India like a ton of bricks for daring to develop nukes", "India-pakistan equal-equal", "India must solve Cashmere for peace in South Asia", "Nuclear flashpoint" - all this is a recent memory. Hardly 10-11 years back. I won't even go back to the cold war days.

Mind you, I was a supporter of the Indo-US nuclear deal, and I am not really "against" the NATO shield. But I don't trust the US completely as an Indian ally yet. I am a little apprehensive. That's all I said.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
Your post above- apparently you dont know what a shield is... and what's NATO's purpose( shield). Why do you bother to debate me? I mean - your single minded personal agenda against the US is apparent- it is in the minority when " smarter minds" discuss the NATO shield. But even so why debate topics you have no clue about?

I dont debate military hardware but in rare occasions because I know there are way more smarter, well informed posters on that subject here. Why do you debate on topics you apparently have no clue about- only come in because like a bull sees red you see anything " america" on it and come in blind.
Thats why you ran from the genocide thread ?

You are off your rocker.
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
Jay, you make reasonable arguments. You are also entitled to your opinion and should not change it to please others. However, if you don't mind a friendly suggestion from me, perhaps you could consider phrasing your sentences in a little more courteous manner? It is easier to convince people when you sound calm and composed.
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
189
Medvedev: Russia won't join NATO missile defense as piece of furniture




the larger picture being they want it. but just want some qualifiers... But they want it!

India- "we want C130j, but we want qualifiers"- that's called negotiations Russia wants an advantage and they are politicking it. US does need Russia to have it but wants to avoid the political theatre on its bordering neighbours.
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
189
Thats why you ran from the genocide thread ?

You are off your rocker.
Ran off? how many times can I repeat things to people who stuck on stupid? running off is making one statement and walking off. This is got to be the most childish , immature line from you guys " you ran away"... I can only handle idiotic thinking for a little while
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,508
Likes
1,021
Country flag
the larger picture being they want it. but just want some qualifiers... But they want it!
Is that why they are trying to refuse it, when the opportunity knocks the door ????????????????????
 

pmaitra

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
33,262
Likes
19,600
the larger picture being they want it. but just want some qualifiers... But they want it!

India- "we want C130j, but we want qualifiers"- that's called negotiations Russia wants an advantage and they are politicking it. US does need Russia to have it but wants to avoid the political theatre on its bordering neighbours.
Well if you see, the Soviet Union dismantled the Warsaw Pact, then allowed for pulling down the Berlin Wall, itself disintegrated and eventually hoped that NATO will also be disbanded. That did not happen. Instead, NATO went ahead and started bullying traditional allies of Russia, stole away former members of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, started courting and setting up missile shields along Russia's borders, started propping up the Saakashvili regime in Georgia, bombed Yugoslavia and recognised Kosovo and followed it with setting up a military base there. The list is long. Russia has serious reasons not to trust the US. Russia has Europe by the neck because Russia supplies a lot of energy to Europe. Russia also wants to create a pan-European Union that will exclude the US. Russia is clawing back into Central Asia diplomatically. The US needs Russia more than Russia needs the US, at least that is what I think. I would not blame Russia for whatever it is doing.

Similarly, keep in mind, it is India who was offered the missile shield by NATO, hence, India obviously gets a slight edge here; although India would like to see the US make up its mind and pick one of the two, India or Pakistan. The US cannot have one foot on one boat and the other on another.
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
189
Jay, you make reasonable arguments. You are also entitled to your opinion and should not change it to please others. However, if you don't mind a friendly suggestion from me, perhaps you could consider phrasing your sentences in a little more courteous manner? It is easier to convince people when you sound calm and composed.
I know I have a edge to my tone. I guess I get this more with indians- others I can expect to be idiots, anti US punks w/ blind hatered when they see the word US is attached to anything. I'll work on being nice to the children to the lesser gods..:p
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
Ran off? how many times can I repeat things to people who stuck on stupid? running off is making one statement and walking off. This is got to be the most childish , immature line from you guys " you ran away"... I can only handle idiotic thinking for a little while
You can twist it all you like.

You were the one repeating the same thing again and again that too when it proved to be wrong.

Not wanting a nato shield doesn't mean im anti-america :boink:
 
Last edited:

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
every thread becomes personal thread and defence goes out of it. what happening???
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
189
Well if you see, the Soviet Union dismantled the Warsaw Pact, then allowed for pulling down the Berlin Wall, itself disintegrated and eventually hoped that NATO will also be disbanded. That did not happen. Instead, NATO went ahead and started bullying traditional allies of Russia, stole away former members of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR, started courting and setting up missile shields along Russia's borders, started propping up the Saakashvili regime in Georgia, bombed Yugoslavia and recognised Kosovo and followed it with setting up a military base there. The list is long. Russia has serious reasons not to trust the US. Russia has Europe by the neck because Russia supplies a lot of energy to Europe. Russia also wants to create a pan-European Union that will exclude the US. Russia is clawing back into Central Asia diplomatically. The US needs Russia more than Russia needs the US, at least that is what I think. I would not blame Russia for whatever it is doing.

Similarly, keep in mind, it is India who was offered the missile shield by NATO, hence, India obviously gets a slight edge here; although India would like to see the US make up its mind and pick one of the two, India or Pakistan. The US cannot have one foot on one boat and the other on another.
all salient points, I was of course referring to the shield itself is not needed to be in Russia ( from a deployment perspective). I'm not sure how you can blame the US for not choosing. How much more does it need to insult, drone bomb, treat like red headed step child it does to pakistan?
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
This missile defence shield is like getting an Ipad 5 without 3g connection and proper data card. we will always be dependent on our service provider in order to use it. say we agree for missile defence shield of NATO and tomorrow we go to war against their wish will that defence shield be still active ? Answer is no . If we agree to something like that we will be forced to cowtow their lines. Their enemies and friends wil be forced upon us.
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,508
Likes
1,021
Country flag
why don't you enlighten us with your supreme theories of NATO shield jayATL.

Except for the statement that Russia is joining it. SO most countries too should join it
you still haven't answered my question jayATL
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
This missile defence shield is like getting an Ipad 5 without 3g connection and proper data card. we will always be dependent on our service provider in order to use it. say we agree for missile defence shield of NATO and tomorrow we go to war against their wish will that defence shield be still active ? Answer is no . If we agree to something like that we will be forced to cowtow their lines. Their enemies and friends wil be forced upon us.
Does nato trust us enough to sell it to us so that we can operate it ourselves ?

Answer is No. If they dont trust us then why should we ?
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top