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 .

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
189
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.
You make a statement below( see highlighted and underlined) and then run away from it when I call your obvious quote "100% faithful ally" claim...

Let me ask you something- did any of those policies kill a single Indian directly? Because you sure are all cozy with UK who killed 100's of thousands of Indians directly! How can you expect me not to call your mindset out when a debate about what's at hand / todays scenario and looking forward is always met with this insane past feeling about the US? If we follow those standards then Sri Lanka should not allow India anywhere close--- china should be kicked off and banned in India (companies) ... I mean it's this absurdity that holds US to a whole freaking standard vs. others I don't get.

where do you come up with. they may put something in the back door in hardware?

where do you get dismissing a NATO shield and contract with NATO and magically go " well its with the US" .

This is insane the conspriracies one cycles through!

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.
 
Last edited:

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
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 ?
We really dont have to join it. As long as we have a viable and available alternative.
 

The Messiah

Bow Before Me!
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2010
Messages
10,809
Likes
4,619
Yanks dont trust us with a transport plane and stripped it down to fuck so what will they trust us with a nato shield :lol:

Not only that but we will have to follow there foreign policy aswell. It will be master-servant relationship.
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
189
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.
see another made up conspiracy. that's it - no if and or but's. I mean - a smart thinker would go" hmm is that what Russia is worried about"? ( i would assume russians dont have those great concerns you have magically come up with)

if that was the deal why is Indian govt who put their foot down on those silly CISMO and interoperability clauses that its own military leaders have NO issues with- is considering something like this?


do you think indian govt strategic thinkers are all idiots and have missed this great find you have come up with?
why do you guys come up with these thoughts?


Its like Pakistanis when they say India is funding their terrorist... you know - make any statement and hope it sticks.
 
Last edited:

Bangalorean

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 28, 2010
Messages
6,233
Likes
6,855
Country flag
You make a statement below( see highlighted and underlined) and then run away from it when I call your obvious quote "100% faithful ally" claim...

Let me ask you something- did any of those policies kill a single Indian directly? Because you sure are all cozy with UK who killed 100's of thousands of Indians directly! How can you expect me not to call your mindset out when a debate about what's at hand / todays scenario and looking forward is always met with this insane past feeling about the US? If we follow those standards then Sri Lanka should not allow India anywhere close--- china should be kicked off and banned in India (companies) ... I mean it's this absurdity that holds US to a whole freaking standard vs. others I don't get.
"You sure are all cozy with UK...."

What nonsense is this? :frusty: Are we really "all cozy" with the UK? I don't think so.

And understand that we are not talking about companies here. Why are you talking about Chinese "companies" in India? (I am suspicious of Chinese companies also, but that's a different story). No one is suspicious of IBM, Accenture and GE opening offices in Bangalore.

I will say it again - let us not even get into the cold war days. Let us limit ourselves to the recent past. I remember the "sanctions" and the "We will come down on them like a ton of bricks" and "how dare they think of getting nukes", "India Pakistan equal equal". I remember it very well.

It is all very well to have business and trade links. However, if one were to talk about real strategic and military relationship, the onus is on the US to really show India that they are willing to come off their high horse and treat India like they would treat any anglo-saxon or European nation.
 
Last edited:

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
189
"You sure are all cozy with UK...."

What nonsense is this? :frusty: Are we really "all cozy" with the UK? I don't think so.

And understand that we are not talking about companies here. Why are you talking about Chinese "companies" in India? (I am suspicious of Chinese companies also, but that's a different story). No one is suspicious of IBM, Accenture and GE opening offices in Bangalore.

I will say it again - let us not even get into the cold war days. Let us limit ourselves to the recent past. I remember the "sanctions" and the "We will come down on them like a ton of bricks" and "how dare they think of getting nukes", "India Pakistan equal equal". I remember it very well.

It is all very well to have business and trade links. However, if one were to talk about real strategic and military relationship, the onus is on the US to really show India that they are willing to come off their high horse and treat India like they would treat any anglo-saxon or European nation.
You missed my point about harping on the past with my UK analogy. You have depended on UK military hardware with strategically important assets! But even so- where is this NATO shield standard - India would have concerns about coming from and where even Russia their mortal rival seemed have missed?
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
see another made up conspiracy. that's it - no if and or but's. I mean - a smart thinker would go" hmm is that what Russia is worried about"? ( i would assume russians dont have those great concerns you have magically come up with)

if that was the deal why is Indian govt who put their foot down on those silly CISMO and interoperability clauses that its own military leaders have NO issues with- is considering something like this?


do you think indian govt strategic thinkers are all idiots and have missed this great find you have come up with?
why do you guys come up with these thoughts?


Its like Pakistanis when they say India is funding their terrorist... you know - make any statement and hope it sticks.

respected Jayatl SIR I donot have wits and logic to match you and I had no intention of trying to cross your line. How can I go against omniverse and most intelligent person ever born on this universe. Instead of preaching kindly address my concern that why whats applicable to Russia should be applicable to India ? I am sure you are aware of geographical location of Russia and India. Russian is a neighbor to Europe while we are not.
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
189
respected Jayatl SIR I donot have wits and logic to match you and I had no intention of trying to cross your line. How can I go against omniverse and most intelligent person ever born on this universe. Instead of preaching kindly address my concern that why whats applicable to Russia should be applicable to India ? I am sure you are aware of geographical location of Russia and India. Russian is a neighbor to Europe while we are not.
Finally getting it. yes I'm omipotent :)

The " Russian" question is not why should be applicable to india, but why not if an arch rival is willing to join it. the question answers concerns of " trust". You are not doubting its capability rather you/others are always arguing some " conspriracy" theory as why not to... thus the " if russia does not have those qualms" then where do you and your ilk of similar doubters have it?

Separately why should India get it-- well its another add on to the current effort which is fantastic strategic advantage for India. Nobody is stopping india BMD program- in fact Russia is going continue its personal shield and have the NATO shield both being asked to work ( together/ interoperability)

Let's put this way - Do you remember the AWAC deal to pakistan in the 80's ? That was a game changer... Imagine for second if NATO offered it to pakistan( won't happen but for educational purposes debate it). That would be a huge strategic game changer in terms of any military theater in the region.

This not an Indo- Pak only deterence

You don't know what the future holds- if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. Currently their ballistic missiles can reach western part of India. These are not stable countries. If Iran gets it- all of Middle East will go nuclear. The world is getting more radicals owning Nuclear missiles.

This is about not ONLY having a superb shield BUT also taking advantage of radars in many countries to get an early warning of incoming missles. The ballistic missles have a higher range than the range of radars in one place ( india as example) picking up on a launch.


Pakistan and India are not friendly neighbors. Pakistan is already seeing great destabilization within their government. Furthermore, Pakistan seems to have no issues with helping other nations get nuclear technology for the right price. It has already been discovered that Iran has documents relating to nuclear weapons manufacture which were provided by someone. Identical documents were found in Pakistan. Since Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, it is logical to believe the documents were supplied to Iran
 
Last edited:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,572
It would be of far more practical use to continue the development and deployment of the indigenous PAD and AAD missile defence systems than to bend over to NATO's offer.

Having the capability to intercept a few Paki nukes (they won't be able to throw much) should not be beyond our reach.
 

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
Missile shield unacceptable, says Russia

Russia warned that U.S. deployment plans such as the agreement with Spain were undermining chances for a deal, with the foreign ministry saying it saw no sign the United States was prepared to address its desire for binding guarantees that the NATO system would not be a threat to Russia.
Russia Criticises NATO-wide Missile Shield DealRussia threatens to stop cooperation with U.S. over missile defense

No progress in Russia-U.S. missile shield talks - deputy defense minister | Defense | RIA Novosti

Iran Views NATO Missile Shield in Turkey as Major Threat to Russia

Kremlin officials have threatened to deploy Russian missiles to the Baltic region, sharply increase the number of conventional forces on Russia's western frontier and develop new-generation nuclear weapons if NATO goes ahead with the missile defence plan.

Russia says may boycott NATO summit over missile shield controversy - Monsters and Critics


The weekend announcement that Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin will seek to regain his old job as president is not seen as boding well for prospects for resolving the missile defense dispute, the Associated Press reported.
U.S.-Russia Missile Defense Negotiations Remain at Impasse, Kremlin Says

 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
189
and none of what you have refutes that they STILL WANT IT--- but want it on terms more than any other partner i.e. they are insisting on where it is located as an example, because they think it's against its own missiles. It's semantics - has zero concern to anybody else.

Russia says " NATO should provide Moscow with legal guarantees that its projected European missile defense shield will not be directed at Russia." This a whole different argument or need-- i.e. has none of the Indian posters concern of "will they turn it off" or "put things in the hardware" or "it will stop their local BMD programs" ....

Funny enough they are debating location on the European side. and NATO does not need russia to sign this...

09:30 GMT, October 10, 2011 MOSCOW | NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, U.S. Admiral James Stavridis and Russia's Chief of the General Staff Nikolai Makarov will make another attempt to overcome the deadlock in Russia-NATO talks on European missile defense during their meeting in Moscow on Monday.
 
Last edited:

nrj

Ambassador
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
9,658
Likes
3,911
Country flag
and none of what you have refutes that they STILL WANT IT--- but want it on terms more than any other partner i.e. they are insisting on where it is located as an example, because they think it's against its own missiles. It's semantics - has zero concern to anybody else. Russia says " NATO should provide Moscow with legal guarantees that its projected European missile defense shield will not be directed at Russia." this whole diffrent arument or need-- i.e. has none of the Indian posters concern of "will they turn it off" or "put things in the hardware" or "it will stop their local BMD programs" ....
I wonder what range of legal guarantees NATO will have to provide India.

I will start with EUMA. Rest you guys can figure out :bolt:
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
189
I wonder what range of legal guarantees NATO will have to provide India.

I will start with EUMA. Rest you guys can figure out :bolt:
Monitoring agreement is what US always wanted... and NATO needs it to be a NATO shield. else there is no " coverage for all'.
 

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
The " Russian" question is not why should be applicable to india, but why not if an arch rival is willing to join it. the question answers concerns of " trust". You are not doubting its capability rather you/others are always arguing some " conspriracy" theory as why not to... thus the " if russia does not have those qualms" then where do you and your ilk of similar doubters have it?
care to explain which arch rival ? and again why should we follow Russian footsteps ? and respected *****JI kindly come down from 7th heaven as I was not praising you .

Let's put this way - Do you remember the AWAC deal to pakistan in the 80's ? That was a game changer... Imagine for second if NATO offered it to pakistan( won't happen but for educational purposes debate it). That would be a huge strategic game changer in terms of any military theater in the region.
hmm . so why not debate worst case scenario of NATO defence shield just for educational purpose. game changer my a$$ we have decent enough missile defence sytems thats as per our requirement . NATO has luxary of sitting faar faar away from its possible enemies while we are living next door. I am sure someone as bright as you must be aware of missile interception techniques. we have developed interception technology for final stage of a missile while NATO work on boost phase or middle course interception.
Then , you don't know what the future holds- if Iran gets a nuclear weapon. Currently their ballistic missiles can reach western part of India. These are not stable countries. If Iran gets it- all of Middle East will go nuclear. The world is getting more radicals owning Nuclear missiles.
cant you get any better example. Iran has no dispute with India and is not our enemy. They are threat to west not to us.
Pakistan and India are not friendly neighbors. Pakistan is already seeing great destabilization within their government. Furthermore, Pakistan seems to have no issues with helping other nations get nuclear technology for the right price. It has already been discovered that Iran has documents relating to nuclear weapons manufacture which were provided by someone. Identical documents were found in Pakistan. Since Pakistan already has nuclear weapons, it is logical to believe the documents were supplied to Iran
Again a pathetic and waste example.
 

sayareakd

Mod
Joined
Feb 17, 2009
Messages
17,734
Likes
18,953
Country flag
Monitoring agreement is what US always wanted... and NATO needs it to be a NATO shield. else there is no " coverage for all'.
hope it will work on both ways, we are able to monitor them and they are able to monitor us. one way is not good specially when we are parters in the project.
 

JayATL

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
1,775
Likes
189
care to explain which arch rival ? and again why should we follow Russian footsteps ? and respected *****JI kindly come down from 7th heaven as I was not praising you .
err russia being that rival? duh... read again what I said. and I told you clearly in the next paragraph why India should have it



hmm . so why not debate worst case scenario of NATO defence shield just for educational purpose. game changer my a$$ we have decent enough missile defence sytems thats as per our requirement . NATO has luxary of sitting faar faar away from its possible enemies while we are living next door. I am sure someone as bright as you must be aware of missile interception techniques. we have developed interception technology for final stage of a missile while NATO work on boost phase or middle course interception.
a NATO shield is called game changer by every educated analyst worldwide. Russia again is tripping over it because its a game changer- but you A$$ as you put it don't get it. :). NATO is sitting far far away? Wtf is that line of thought? Do you know how the shield agreement works? do you not get a simple statement that your BMD program does not cease, infact works in tadem with a NATO shield if interested( like russia is doing( their shield) with the Nato shield)

cant you get any better example. Iran has no dispute with India and is not our enemy. They are threat to west not to us.

Again a pathetic and waste example.
Realtistic views shared by educated analysts worldwide is a "waste example" to you- got it champ, enjoy your simplistic views of the world threat matrix in present and future. Btw Pssst- Mullah's of Iran ( real leaders) have made anti Indian/ anti kashmir statements often ...

inflammatory statement by Iran's supreme religious leader Ali Khamenei. In his Hajj message, the Ayatollah had called upon the Islamic ummah to engage in struggle and resistance against aggressions in some parts of Muslim world including Kashmir.

This is not the first time when Iran, despite a history of good friendly relations with India in post-revolution period, has given us cause for displeasure. Since July this year, Iran has on three occasions remarked supporting the "struggle" in Kashmir and bracketed the situation in the state with that in Gaza and Afghanistan.
Iran has regularly voted against India on Kashmir resolutions at the OIC summit meetings
.


upset over persistently critical statements by Iran on Jammu and Kashmir, this time New Delhi has taken serious note of Ali Khamenei's utterances. It summoned Iran's Charge de Affairs, Reza Alaei, and issued a strong demarche expressing its "deep disappointment" over the remarks seen as "impingement of territorial integrity and sovereignty of India
 
Last edited:

SHASH2K2

New Member
Joined
May 10, 2010
Messages
5,711
Likes
730
err russia being that rival? duh... read again what I said. and I told you clearly in the next paragraph why India should have it
READ again . these are two seperate sentences and are not at all related . and I have already told you why India shouldnt have it .

a NATO shield is called game changer by every educated analyst worldwide. Russia again is tripping over it because its a game changer- but you A$$ as you put it don't get it. :). NATO is itting far far away? Wtf is that line of thought? Do you know how the shield agreement works?
smart ass :D do you really know how this shield works before going into how this agreement works . and care to enlighten me how this shield agreement works. I want details if you dont have them then stop talking about them.
Realtistic views shared by educated analysts worldwide is a "waste example" to you- got it champ, enjoy your simplistic views of the world threat matrix in present and future. Btw Pssst- Mullah's of Iran ( real leaders) have made anti Indian/ anti kashmir statements often ...
I guess they made those kind of statements often and west has made such statements too often. I would again say that it was a pathetic example. when we are working on interception of pakistani missiles which give hardly few minutes then Iranian missiles are much easier target .

a NATO shield is called game changer by every educated analyst worldwide. Russia again is tripping over it because its a game changer- but you A$$ as you put it don't get it. :). NATO is itting far far away? Wtf is that line of thought? Do you know how the shield agreement works
I guess you are one of those enlightened ones . :pound:
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top