India ready to test fire 5500km+ ICBM called Agni 5

reply to post by Starling


International politics and global military strategy aren't defined by astrology or predictions.

They are defined by reason and logic.

reply to post by asen_y2k


But the thing is, North Korea does need aid. They are in starvation, their people barely can produce any food, and it's getting worst by the month. The only money left is being used in the military or keeping the luxuries of a few within NK society and hierarchy.

India doesn't. The aid it receives is like money in the back-pocket so they can stay friends. "Don't attack us because we give you money and aid, we are friends" type of thing.

International aid is great when you are in the gutter, but when you are trying to have a successful economy, having aid also tells the markets that you are a weak investment, otherwise, why would you need aid?

India is making the path to become a real power in the world theater.

reply to post by CaptGizmo

India has not constantly threatened it's neighbor or anyone else with total annihilation with nuclear weapons and invasion.

That's not true at all.

India and Pakistan (who share borders with each-other) have a very sensitive and difficult relationship. Almost like Turkey and Greece. They hate each-others guts. Hardly.

To the point where you have daily demonstrations of military power in the border, just to keep them both at check. Indians do their parade at the border, Pakistanis do theirs, and the world keeps moving.

Their relationship is one of the reasons why so many people feared the worst when both India (in 1974) and Pakistan (in 1998) got their nuclear weapons. And although this is a clear threat to Pakistan, (knowing that their neighbor has ICBM capability) they also know the Indians aren't stupid enough to nuke their own neighbor and being left to deal with the fallout. And the contrary is also true.

If there is a conflict between them, it will be standard war. Maybe all-out war, but not nuclear. Too much at risk for both sides.

EDITED TO ADD:

...and I don't want to scare anyone, but both Pakistan and India are not NPT countries. Along with North Korea and Israel, they haven't signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

reply to post by Tifozi

Did you happen to notice that every conflict the two have had was initiated by Pakistan? So when I said India has not threatened or invaded it's neighbors...now you know what I was talking about. I have know and read about the Indian-Pakistan conflict over Kashmir for a long time. All incursions into Kashmir and India have been initiated by Pakistan.

reply to post by CaptGizmo


You said that India never threatened any of their neighbors.

They have.

reply to post by AutOmatIc


how else do you be a tyrant but to threaten....
that's like, old school bully tactics dude...

have you ever argued over and issue and the it turns into conflict of position, then pride and ego get into the mix and then there is a line crossed....

never happen to you?

3 choices in the argument:
out shout
stay unemotional
stuff feelings

of these one might think India is trying to out shout China but really they are staying ever, hence unemotional.

So India has a successful launch. Is India a threat to the US or are they are allies? Didn't realize they had beef with China and why?

reply to post by Starling

my prediction isn't actually MY prediction, it's based on a culmination of several prophecies/sources.

reply to post by Tifozi


Ok. Two questions:

1) Sitting where you are (where ever that may be) do you see yourself under more duress with India having such a weapon or North Korea? Now if you sit in China or Pakistan then you have a may have an opinion that differs from the rest of the world but my point is that India is perceived as a lesser global threat than North Korea at this time.

2) If you had to wager money, whom would bet on having a better chance of success on being pressured/arm twisted into backing down from their respective missile programs? India or North Korea?
The point here is nothing much can be done about what India has done, even if anybody wanted to. Much like it is with the more powerful nations in the world today: economic, military , influence.

That is just how it is. But you know that. So your point is? Everyone should do away with nuclear weapons?
Sure! That would be great! But, until that happens (if it happens) we try to keep the weapons out of the hands of those we can, and try to ensure that those who have it are truly aware of the consequences of using it.
Also it is best to have parity rather than disparity in such matters.

Look at it this way:
You have Pandora's box and a bunch of keys; you want to ensure that only those responsible possess the keys and you also want to distribute that responsibility(keys) so that the risk of any one key-holder going crazy and opening the box is reduced.

If North Korea becomes a major economic, military, and influential powerhouse.. then there is not much anyone can do from stopping it from testing missiles etc. Same goes for anyone else.

Anyone threatens anyone. There is no country that does not threaten another today either directly or through proxies, alliances and other security umbrellas.

Can someone help me understand the rationale and thought process behind the Indian government for feeling the need to produce and test this missile?

Really, an ICBM in most cases is a method of force projection is it not?

Hit an enemy that is far away to weaken them so your military has an easier time attacking them....am I right?

We know Pakistan is a big enemy to them but the rationale behind this rocket proves it is not aimed against them.

I do not beleive they have any gripes with Europe.

They have some with China thou I dont beleive that is at any level to get military involved.

US has anti missile defence, so aiming it as US would be suicide.

Why would they feel the need to produce this? Surely they must feel threatend by someone but who?

reply to post by Daedalus3

Sitting where you are (where ever that may be) do you see yourself under more duress with India having such a weapon or North Korea? Now if you sit in China or Pakistan then you have a may have an opinion that differs from the rest of the world but my point is that India is perceived as a lesser global threat than North Korea at this time.

I sit in Europe. We have seen of share of destruction, past and recent past.

No, I don't see it being a greater risk, or less of a risk for that matter. I think it's stupid and unnecessary at this point in time. A lot of governments are going into elections, and I just don't trust mankind enough to put my hands on the fire swearing that "it will never happen".

It has happened in the past. Several times. (starting a confrontation or having a small incident that may escalate into serious conflict)

India is not perceived as a lesser global threat. It is what it is. I'm not saying India is a devil in the world theater. But India does have functional nukes, and does have the ability to launch and deploy them. If they have a hit is a matter of how good the missile-shield of the target is. Furthermore, India does have enemies, and is sitting in a very sensitive area.

North Korea can blow all the air out of their behinds as much as they like, but the reality is that, even if they wanted to attack, they provably lack the ability to strike anything besides their own territory, or South Korea (talking about nuclear), which is terrible since their nukes provably aren't as "clean" as modern ones. They would end up with more than what they could handle, making things even worst for them.

People argue that it's a safe policy from India, having nukes and the ability to launch them. I see it as a play in poker. A bluff that could be right, or could turn out wrong. It just depends if the other side will call your BS or not. And if someone calls India's bluff, things could turn pretty nasty.

India got hold of nukes before Pakistan, for instance. Instead of being two military powers facing each-other, after India got their nukes in the 70's, Pakistan started developing their own. So now, we have two more nuclear countries in the world, and they both hate each-other, so to speak...

If you had to wager money, whom would bet on having a better chance of success on being pressured/arm twisted into backing down from their respective missile programs? India or North Korea?

Not comparable, in my opinion. I see your point, and I agree with your larger view of the issue. But I don't think it's possible to compare the two.

North Korea had a serious war that crippled it since day 1. After that, it was just survival mode. That's why they even resort to the U.S. for aid. They are in the bottom line of the political food chain. Threats is the only thing they still have, along with a couple of artillery guns that could injury several South Koreans.

India is a raising power. It's getting stronger, not weaker, and it is independent both in economy and military.

The point here is nothing much can be done about what India has done, even if anybody wanted to.

Well, my point was for them to avoid doing it at all. Now it's done...

India has their nukes for decades now, and that alone is a statement about their maturity about dealing with that power.

However, there are necessary and unnecessary attitudes. This was unnecessary. Why? Because it questions the global community ability to be fair about foreign politics.

India could even do the test, just don't spit it in the face of everyone, just after what happened (and is happening) with North Korea and others.

It's like that guy that comes in insulting people just after a bar-fight. It's unnecessary, and doesn't calm anyone down.

My only issue with what India did is timing. They could have a better sense of timing to do these things.

Everyone should do away with nuclear weapons?

We have gone past the no-return point with nuclear weapons. Half the world has them, and the ability to use them. It would be unrealistic to even assume we could throw them all away for the good of the world.

The US would keep a few stored in secret, and so would everyone else. Nobody is going to lower their pants and get vulnerable.

The best thing we can do from now-on, is to behave like "global adults". Knowing the responsibility of our actions.

And personally, what India did was childish. If they have no immediate military need for that missile, why not post-pone until a more calm world scenario? Why now? To show-off? Sometimes show-off prevents conflicts, but in other circumstances it could end badly.

And spitting in the western media that the missile is able to hit the interior of China doesn't help either. Not that their military didn't knew about it... But again, it's unnecessary.

But how about looking at it this way:

India never developed a nuclear capability directed at Pakistan. It did so because it it was wary of its foe China (and yes, contrary to popular belief there IS a lot of bad blood here, thousands of sq kms of disputed territory and the soft sponsoring of proxies on either side (Maoists running an almost-civil war in India, and the Tibetian govt in exile in India).
India and China fought a war in 1962, which India lost .. badly. Almost had the transformational effect on India that WWII had on the French Military. Then China went nuclear in 1964, and embarked on an associated missile program and in no time was not only capable of hitting every inch of Indian territory with nukes, but was able to do so at a global level.
So essentially India has lived in nuclear disparity with China for over 3 decades until this test, and probably until 2015 when they operationalize the capability.
This missile, its range, is solely intended to be able to hit any part of China from sufficiently deep within India. It serves not other purpose. Its range is 5 times what is required to target Pakistan from equally deep within India, and so it has absolutely no intent towards Pakistan. It may actually be have to be launched from outside Indian territory in case it were intended for Pakistan with its full range.
It is NOT intended for ANY other foe, but as the Americans always say (aptly) 'no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent strategic interests.'

So it is nothing but a credible deterrent, lest China and India get drawn into a conflict and niceties of conventional warfare are thrown out of the window.
So what does this mean? Does it mean that every nation that lives in the threat of nuclear disparity with another deserve the right to nuclear weapons to protect itself? Say Iran. Well deductive logic states: YES of course. The key is whether they have the clout to get it.

Conversely does it mean that, countries living in nuclear disparity refrain from raising the nuclear stakes by acquiring that capability they know they can? Do they live in good faith of restraint their nuclear foes will exercise or under someone else's nuclear protection umbrella and (therefore their whims and fancies)?
I think no sensible country or person would make that choice.

So its not that simple. The day nuclear weapons were brought into this world, it was inevitable that it would be pursued by any and everyone who could.

As far as the public display goes, I actually think it helps. Public display of power (here) is ironically a greater push towards true deterrence and therefore restraint in using such weapons. Nuclear weapons and missiles are not tools to be actually used. They are meant to showcase and deter. If done correctly, they may actually be the single most effective 'peace-catalyst' that this world has ever seen: The great leveler.

Originally posted by AutOmatIc
I'm sorry is this October in the year 1962?

That was obviously a rhetorical question, no it is not. So why are all these countries trying like hell to develop friggin nuclear missles and bombs that only lead to death and destruction?????!!!!

What is wrong with this world? More nuclear missles....in the name of defense of course...pfft!

The world doesn't need MORE NUCLEAR BOMBS YOU IDIOTS!!!

What the world needs is peace...ffs, someday someone is going to use one of these and then the entire human race will wake up and be sorry for what they've done.

Go on and continue to live in your utopia of rainbows, unicorns, and a chicken In every pot.

Your post is ignorant. If you don't know HOW this world works, within true reality, then continue to preach about "peace on earth" that will NEVER happen.

Originally posted by Tifozi

The best thing we can do from now-on, is to behave like "global adults". Knowing the responsibility of our actions.

And personally, what India did was childish. If they have no immediate military need for that missile, why not post-pone until a more calm world scenario? Why now? To show-off? Sometimes show-off prevents conflicts, but in other circumstances it could end badly.

Sorry missed this.

So the problem is what does behaving like global adults constitute?

Nobody tested nuclear weapons because they had an immediate need to use it. They tested it as soon as they could and showcased it so that it was a factor they could leverage faster in related and unrelated matters while dealing with other countries.

The Indian test was planned I presume, independent of the North Korean one, and though I see your point on the timing, I see no value in delaying. Would it prevent the parts of the world that already see the west as hypocrites from crying foul? Perhaps just this once. But then how long do you delay it by? 6 months? A year? Push out operationalization by that much too? Wait another 3-4 years to be able to sit at a table with China and negotiate with comparable clout? Who knows?

The reality is we live in a world where everyone fends for themselves and the real key to behaving like a global adult is to be viewed as one. Let's be honest: that distinction belongs to only a few, and all of them have big guns to support that status.

reply to post by gortex


No, but it can hit China now.

reply to post by Daedalus3

So the problem is what does behaving like global adults constitute?

The same way you don't walk around in the street yelling in people's face that you have a gun in your belt, governments should be more aware of the timing of making things like these happen.

Everything has a purpose in world politics, nothing is said without being thought out and looked at from every possible angle.

So, assuming that, India did a very irresponsible thing.

Nobody tested nuclear weapons because they had an immediate need to use it. They tested it as soon as they could and showcased it so that it was a factor they could leverage faster in related and unrelated matters while dealing with other countries.

Nobody, especially experts in the matter, had doubts about India's nuclear capability. They have their nukes since 1974, like I stated multiple times.

But like you said, it is a statement, not a real objective measure. It's not like they really need to have that missile NOW, at least, if you go by their own words, and fellow governments.

They did it with a purpose, and that purpose was to remind everyone in the area and the world, that India has nuclear abilities and has developed the means to deliver them. I disagree with the timing. We could dance around the issue all day long, I won't agree with it.

The Indian test was planned I presume, independent of the North Korean one, and though I see your point on the timing, I see no value in delaying.

Personally, I have no information on that. I don't know when the test was scheduled.

As far as I see it, the missile was already in developed stage. They already knew it was functional, and they already knew that it was a good missile. Let me remind you that this is an update version, with more reach, not an actual brand new missile they didn't have before.

Again, India has nuclear capability since 1974, and usually, you don't buy or make nukes without having the means to deploy them. That only happens when you are North Korea, bounded by hundreds of sanction laws and treaties after the Korean war.

Would it prevent the parts of the world that already see the west as hypocrites from crying foul? Perhaps just this once.

It wouldn't stir things so much, that's for sure.

I don't know if you have read the recent news, but China isn't hiding from their support to North Korea anymore. They actually praised their relationship with North Korea and openly admitted they aided them by selling parts for a nuclear carrying case (those silos that are carried by a truck, apparently China sold them the truck and the casing).

If I had to bet, I would bet this is an indirect response to the India case, and recent double-standards by the U.N. and western countries.

First China says it isn't happening, now they allow their company to boast about selling the truck (it has a reenforced chassis built to carry very-heavy loads, like missiles ready to launch)? I don't buy it. Especially coming from a country that even censors Google to meet their political purposes.

I just wonder if India hadn't done the test, would China make a strong stand like recently...

But then how long do you delay it by? 6 months? A year? Push out operationalization by that much too? Wait another 3-4 years to be able to sit at a table with China and negotiate with comparable clout? Who knows?

Why not? Military development happens all the time. Countries get together and negotiate experiments and tests, not because they want cooperation, but because they are letting the other side know that they understand their concerns, but they also wish to carry on with their tests.

A negotiation would have provably suit both India and China, especially since India has a lot more diplomatic power than North Korea. If China allows North Korea to launch their missile, whatever the payload, then it would have no real issues with India, given that India showed them the missile wasn't even aimed at them, and it was just a fire and functional test.

They provably did. Usually countries don't launch missiles without giving out warnings under the table, but still, as world politics go, it was a very bad call. Gave them power (to India), but also brought some countries closer to an edge. Personally, it concerns me that Pakistan hasn't really made a clear statement about it.

To me, silence is worst than outrage.