What's new

India Can Not Be Trusted

Recommendations

Under the July 18, 2005 joint statement, the U.S. and India committed themselves to “build closer ties in space exploration, satellite navigation and launch, and in the commercial space arena”. This does not require, nor should it encourage, U.S. cooperation on India’s ICBM program directly or indirectly. In fact, the U.S. has already taken a step in the right direction by offering to launch Indian astronauts in upcoming space shuttle missions and to involve them to the fullest extent in the International Space Station.

The U.S. should do more to encourage India to launch its satellites and science packages on U.S. and foreign launchers by making these launches more affordable. The U.S. also should be forthcoming in offering India access, as appropriate, to the benefits of U.S.
satellite programs -- including communications, earth resource observation, and exploration of the cosmos.

India, in fact, has some of the world’s best astrophysicists and cosmologists. It is in our interest, as well as the world’s, that we welcome these Indian experts into the search for basic answers about the universe. We should make the data from the Hubble telescope and similar systems available to Indian scientists and encourage them to become full partners in its analysis.

On the other hand, there are some critical cautions to be observed.

1) Do not be naive about the nature of India’s program.

After more than two decades of reports about India’s interest in an ICBM -- including reports from Russia, statements on India’s ICBM capability by the U.S. intelligence community, and the firing of an Indian official after he publicly described the Surya program -- there should be no illusions. The reports consistently state that India’s ICBM
will be derived from its space launch vehicle technology.

o The U.S. should not believe that it is possible to separate India’s “civilian” space launch program -- the incubator of its long-range missiles -- from India’s military program.

o There should be no illusions about the target of the ICBM. It is the United States -- to protect India from the theoretical possibility of “high-tech aggression”.

o The U.S. intelligence community’s semi-annual unclassified reporting toCongress on India’s nuclear and missile programs was discontinued after April 2003. This reporting should be resumed.

# 2) Do not assist India’s space launch programs.

The U.S. should not cooperate either with India’s space launches or with satellites that India will launch. India hopes that satellite launches will earn revenues that will accelerate its space program -- including rocket development. U.S. payloads for Indian launches -- such as the envisioned cooperative lunar project -- risk technology transfer
(see recommendation #3) and invite other nations to be less restrained in their use of Indian launches.

o The U.S. should resume discouraging other nations from using Indian launches, while encouraging India to resume the practice of launching satellites on other nations’ space launch vehicles.

o Given the frequent reports of Russian cryogenic rockets being used in the Surya, the U.S. should work with Russia to ensure that Russian space cooperation with India does not undercut U.S. restraint.

o Because there is no meaningful distinction between India’s civilian and military rocket programs, the U.S. should explicitly or de facto place ISRO back on the “entities” list of destinations that require export licenses.

o Congress should insist that the U.S. explain its “red lines” regarding space cooperation with India. If these lines are not drawn tightly enough, Congress should intervene.

3) Review carefully any cooperation with India’s satellite programs.

India is reportedly developing multiple nuclear warheads for its long-range missiles. If India develops an ICBM, the next step will be to develop countermeasures to penetrate U.S. missile defenses. Certain satellite technologies can help India with both of these developments.

o The U.S. should review its satellite cooperation to ensure that it does not aid India inappropriately in the technologies of dispensing or orienting spacecraft, of automated deployment of structures in space, or of other operations that would materially contribute to multiple warheads or countermeasures against missile defenses.

4) Stop using cooperation in dangerous technologies as diplomatic baubles.

India is the current example of a broader, disfunctional tendency in bilateral relations to display trust and friendship by opening up the most dangerous forms of cooperation. The U.S. should not fall further into this trap with India -- or with any other nation.

o India needs many other forms of economic and military cooperation more than it needs nuclear and space technology. If India insists on focusing technology cooperation in these areas, the U.S. should take it as a red flag.

o The U.S. removal of technology sanctions imposed after India’s 1998 nuclear tests was an adequate -- and perhaps excessive -- display of friendship. Further technology cooperation should be limited to areas that do not contribute to nuclear weapons or their means of delivery.


Conclusion


The target of an Indian ICBM would be the United States. The technology of an Indian ICBM would be that of a space launch vehicle -- either directly via the PSLV or indirectly via the Agni, which is based on India’s SLV-3. The U.S. should not facilitate the acquisition or improvement of that technology directly or indirectly In this matter, U.S. clarity and restraint are what the world -- and India -- need.

The U.S. needs to divert from the present “glide path” and reorient itself and India onto a more productive course of cooperation. It would be a cruel irony if, in the hope of becoming strategic partners, we became each other’s strategic targets.

http://www.npec-web.org/Essays/060207SpeierICBM.pdf

:usflag::pakistan:

Oh bhaiya,welcome to a new decade!2010-2020.
:cool:
 
Sorry for Bursting your bubble:pleasantry:, How many Indo-Americans are top diplomats in The Obama Administration???

I really don't know about that

but actually what i do know is that US will not need INDIANS for ECONOMY BACK UP
 
I really don't know about that

but actually what i do know is that US will not need INDIANS for ECONOMY BACK UP

India is in the midst of a rapid economic expansion, and many U.S. companies view India as a lucrative market and a candidate for foreign investment.

US economy is certainly benefited as long as they have Invested here in upgrading our Airports, Roads and Other Infrastructures..... U.S. economy is India's second-biggest export market....

Well About the Indian Americans Living there, They are playing a key role In American markets.... And Obama has Certainly Understood the Value of Indians and Did the right thing By Appointing them For monitoring various Technical and Economic Aspects
 
Last edited:
Recommendations

Under the July 18, 2005 joint statement, the U.S. and India committed themselves to “build closer ties in space exploration, satellite navigation and launch, and in the commercial space arena”. This does not require, nor should it encourage, U.S. cooperation on India’s ICBM program directly or indirectly. In fact, the U.S. has already taken a step in the right direction by offering to launch Indian astronauts in upcoming space shuttle missions and to involve them to the fullest extent in the International Space Station.

The U.S. should do more to encourage India to launch its satellites and science packages on U.S. and foreign launchers by making these launches more affordable. The U.S. also should be forthcoming in offering India access, as appropriate, to the benefits of U.S.
satellite programs -- including communications, earth resource observation, and exploration of the cosmos.

India, in fact, has some of the world’s best astrophysicists and cosmologists. It is in our interest, as well as the world’s, that we welcome these Indian experts into the search for basic answers about the universe. We should make the data from the Hubble telescope and similar systems available to Indian scientists and encourage them to become full partners in its analysis.

On the other hand, there are some critical cautions to be observed.

1) Do not be naive about the nature of India’s program.

After more than two decades of reports about India’s interest in an ICBM -- including reports from Russia, statements on India’s ICBM capability by the U.S. intelligence community, and the firing of an Indian official after he publicly described the Surya program -- there should be no illusions. The reports consistently state that India’s ICBM
will be derived from its space launch vehicle technology.

o The U.S. should not believe that it is possible to separate India’s “civilian” space launch program -- the incubator of its long-range missiles -- from India’s military program.

o There should be no illusions about the target of the ICBM. It is the United States -- to protect India from the theoretical possibility of “high-tech aggression”.

o The U.S. intelligence community’s semi-annual unclassified reporting toCongress on India’s nuclear and missile programs was discontinued after April 2003. This reporting should be resumed.

# 2) Do not assist India’s space launch programs.

The U.S. should not cooperate either with India’s space launches or with satellites that India will launch. India hopes that satellite launches will earn revenues that will accelerate its space program -- including rocket development. U.S. payloads for Indian launches -- such as the envisioned cooperative lunar project -- risk technology transfer
(see recommendation #3) and invite other nations to be less restrained in their use of Indian launches.

o The U.S. should resume discouraging other nations from using Indian launches, while encouraging India to resume the practice of launching satellites on other nations’ space launch vehicles.

o Given the frequent reports of Russian cryogenic rockets being used in the Surya, the U.S. should work with Russia to ensure that Russian space cooperation with India does not undercut U.S. restraint.

o Because there is no meaningful distinction between India’s civilian and military rocket programs, the U.S. should explicitly or de facto place ISRO back on the “entities” list of destinations that require export licenses.

o Congress should insist that the U.S. explain its “red lines” regarding space cooperation with India. If these lines are not drawn tightly enough, Congress should intervene.

3) Review carefully any cooperation with India’s satellite programs.

India is reportedly developing multiple nuclear warheads for its long-range missiles. If India develops an ICBM, the next step will be to develop countermeasures to penetrate U.S. missile defenses. Certain satellite technologies can help India with both of these developments.

o The U.S. should review its satellite cooperation to ensure that it does not aid India inappropriately in the technologies of dispensing or orienting spacecraft, of automated deployment of structures in space, or of other operations that would materially contribute to multiple warheads or countermeasures against missile defenses.

4) Stop using cooperation in dangerous technologies as diplomatic baubles.

India is the current example of a broader, disfunctional tendency in bilateral relations to display trust and friendship by opening up the most dangerous forms of cooperation. The U.S. should not fall further into this trap with India -- or with any other nation.

o India needs many other forms of economic and military cooperation more than it needs nuclear and space technology. If India insists on focusing technology cooperation in these areas, the U.S. should take it as a red flag.

o The U.S. removal of technology sanctions imposed after India’s 1998 nuclear tests was an adequate -- and perhaps excessive -- display of friendship. Further technology cooperation should be limited to areas that do not contribute to nuclear weapons or their means of delivery.


Conclusion


The target of an Indian ICBM would be the United States. The technology of an Indian ICBM would be that of a space launch vehicle -- either directly via the PSLV or indirectly via the Agni, which is based on India’s SLV-3. The U.S. should not facilitate the acquisition or improvement of that technology directly or indirectly In this matter, U.S. clarity and restraint are what the world -- and India -- need.

The U.S. needs to divert from the present “glide path” and reorient itself and India onto a more productive course of cooperation. It would be a cruel irony if, in the hope of becoming strategic partners, we became each other’s strategic targets.

http://www.npec-web.org/Essays/060207SpeierICBM.pdf

:usflag::pakistan:

India CANNOT be trusted !!! Canada trusted India and India backstabbed Canada by stealing nuke secret from Candu Nuclear Reactor to build nukes.
 
India CANNOT be trusted !!! Canada trusted India and India backstabbed Canada by stealing nuke secret from Candu Nuclear Reactor to build nukes.
And the same Canada was cool when China tested their nukes 10 years before we did. NSG was created after we conducted the test. If it was done in 1960 itself, our entire neighbourhood would be nuclear-free and we won't be needing nuclear tests either.

But what's past is past. Now even Canada has scrambled for a nuke deal with us. The point is, Canadians are smart enough to realize that victory lies in mutual benefit and not unilateral isolation, unlike their cousinz Down Under.
 
WHY DO INDIA'S NEIGHBOURS DISTRUST AND HATE INDIA?
WHY DO INDIAS NEIGHBOURS DISTRUST AND HATE INDIA? : rajee kushwaha blogs on sulekha, current affairs blogs, rajee kushwaha blog from india

A CURSORY GLANCE AT OUR NEIGHBOURHOOD!

This question rises time and again in my mind. Yes, Why do India's neighbour distrust and hate India? I am not being negative--I am just wondering about. Can we do some honest introspection?
Ok, I say forget Pakistan. It might be surviving and thriving on anti -India thoughts. What about NEPAL, BANGLA DESH, SRILANKA and CHINA? Bhutan? Well! it is a microdot on the world's map!! Mauritius? Even it is not comfortable with us.
We had open borders with Nepal. But, today, it wants a VISA SYSTEM. The MAOISTS do not trust us at all. Didn't we work continuously, since 50s, against the well established Monarchy by propping up guys like GP KOIRALA and NEPALI CONGRESS? It has today, backfired on us. Why do we work against the interests of our neighbours and also, inadvertantly, against our own interests?
Take the case of China. We had amicable relations with them. Suddenly we permitted DALAI LAMA and his entourage to settle in India and allowed him to carry on with his ANTI-CHINA activities from Indian Soil. Do we think China would have taken it lightly? Our this act in 1959 sowed the seeds of 1962 war.
Let us look at BANGLA DESH. It should have been ever grateful to us. It should be HATING PAKISTAN for the atrocities of its army in 1970-71. But no, it is the hub of ISI activities against India. Top leaders of ULFA and North East militant outfits openly live in Dacca. In fact ULFA militancy of ASSAM survives because indirect patronage by BANGLA DESH OFFICIALDOM.
Now let us come to SRI LANKA. Who does not know as to who created LTTE and PRABHAKARAN? It is the same people and politicians who had created BHINDRAWALE in PUNJAB. Then, we go to SRILANKA with our army to act as OMBUDSMAN between LTTE and SRILANKAN Government. Finally, we do a U TURN against the LTTE and make them our enemies. Hundreds of Indian soldiers lose their lives and limbs. The indian army becomes an object of hate amongst both LTTE and SINHALESE. What more our own politicians in TN ridiculed the poor soldiers who were sent as a national effort. In fact, when they returned from SRILANKA in 1990, they were not even shown basic courtesies. Now again there are voices in Chennai who are wanting India to intervene in SRILANKA to save LTTE. What is worse is the fact that we are allowing such organisations as "Of ERR----ORGANISATION for ELAM REFUGEES REHABILITATION" to function from CHENNAI and allowing them to spread VENOM against SRILANKA. Do we think SRILANKA relishes this? This organisation is, I am sure, supported by LTTE. I draw your attention to OfERR's activities. They might look innocent but their very existence on indian soil creates distrust in Srilanka. see this site:-

War as seen through refugee kids` eyes

My simple point is to highlight the fact that INDIA was a victim of its own LOPSIDED policies. We are a SELF INFLICTED INJURY. We step on our toes because of our poor bureaucracy. Our bureaucracy is to be blamed for such a confusion in our minds. It is this bureucracy which had led RAJEEV GANDHI up the garden path in 1985 when it advised a pact with JAYWAERDENE and despatched our army there to fight SRILANKA's WAR with LTTE. It were these PAPER PUSHERS who formulated this policy. But everyone forgets these "NOTE-WRITING CLERKS", who are behind all our ills.
We ought to have good relations with our neighbours if we want to become a dominant player in world affairs. It is because of our poor standing amongst our neighbours that the WORLD merely shrugs at us when we want to nail Pakistani lies on TERRORISM.
Look at the foreign secretary of UK , who comes to India and advises us to resolve Kashmir problem with Pakistan to end TERRORISM. It means UK agrees with PAKISTAN's view point that TERRORISM in India had roots in KASHMIR. And our loveable FUTURE PRIME MINISTERIAL CAN DIDATE , Sh. RAHUL GANDHI hobnobs with this MILBANDI character in AMETHI VILLAGES.
Do you think we can become a GLOBAL PLAYER by having FRICTION with our neighbours and licking those who kick us on our *****? We should be hobnobbing with our neighbours and shooing away the outsiders. I do think so. What is your take?

I don't trust India too.
 
I don't trust India too.

10%20cool%20story%20bro.jpg
 
Dude,you are obsessed with India!
And please do not post from such unknown blogs!
 
I really don't know about that

but actually what i do know is that US will not need INDIANS for ECONOMY BACK UP

But what they always going to be needing is our BIIIIIIIIIGG MARKET to make some extra money.
 
A 2006 article? :blink: Really man? Is this what you can do to troll? It is 5 years since that time. Come out of your hibernation.
 

Back
Top Bottom