What's new

technological edge over Pakistan and China has been to some extent proven

Status
Not open for further replies.
Please prove that I did indeed lie ... And China is a lesser evolved nation than India - the entire civilized world knows that. ...

Well, excuse me of catching your lying time and again.


The case in point is :

And China is a much more evolved nation than India - the entire civilized world knows that; or

in other words, more or less:

And China is a lesser evolved nation than India - the entire Uncivilized world knows that.


.
 
Okay back on topic.

The article implies that India is ahead of China in ABM technology. This is not true as India has only now accomplished terminal ABM with a success rate of 66% in controlled environments. China achieved 87.5% success rate with terminal ABM in the 1970's. China has also achieved mid course interception and ASAT at 250 Km altitude and 875Km altitude respectively with KKVs travelling at speeds of 8Km/s. India has had terminal phase interception at the highest 50 Km with explosive warheads at speeds of 1.7KM/s.
 
Standard "Arguing" Procedure for Indian media and most Indians around the world (real & virtual ones) :

( what I refer to as "Hindustan Triology")



Step 1 : Brag, Brag and more Brag


Step 2: (after being caught as a cheat) Lies, Lies and more Lies


Step 3: ( after all their lies & excuses being exposed) Name Calling, Racist Card pulling, and more Name Calling

.
 
Speeder 2.

Most Indians I know in real life are hardworking, honest, and very intelligent. Virtual ones are a little different I admit but lets not generalize a entire race based on that experience.

Lets get back on topic. You can place a more detailed analysis comparing Chinese and Indian ABM developments.
 
2010 January 11 ABM test

Header: VZCZCXYZ0009OO RUEHWEBDE RUEHC #2634 0120551ZNY SSSSS ZZHO 120423Z JAN 10FM SECSTATE WASHDCTO RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING IMMEDIATE 2381-2382INFO DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATENATO EU COLLECTIVERUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN PRIORITY 5683-5684RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 6217-6218RUEHCP/AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN PRIORITY 1607-1608RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 8726-8727RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 6370-6371RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 8696-8697RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 0999-1000RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 7931-7932RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 3695-3696RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL PRIORITY 2756-2757RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV PRIORITY 0342-0343RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 1856-1857RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON PRIORITY 0883-0884RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 9388-9389RUEHIN/AIT TAIPEI PRIORITY 5571-5572RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITYRHMFISS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITYRUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA PRIORITY 5967-5968RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITYRUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITYRUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY 6702-6703RHMFISS/USSTRATCOM OFFUTT AFB NE PRIORITY
Tags: CH,MCAP,PARM,PREL,TSPA
S E C R E T STATE 002634 S E C R E T STATE 002634 C O R R E C T E D COPY (SUBJECT LINE) NOFORN SIPDIS GENEVA: FOR CD DELEGATION E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/11/2035 TAGS: CH, MCAP, PARM, PREL, TSPA SUBJECT: DEMARCHE FOLLOWING CHINA'S JANUARY 2010 INTERCEPT FLIGHT-TEST Classified By: EAP DAS David Shear, Reasons 1.4 (a),(d),(e),and (g)
1.(U) THIS IS AN ACTION REQUEST. Embassy Beijing is instructed to deliver the demarche contained in paragraph 3 below to appropriate Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) officials on Tuesday, January 12, 2010. The demarche in paragraph 3 should be handed over to MFA counterparts as a non-paper. Embassy is requested to report confirmation of delivery and any PRC reaction immediately. In the course of delivering the demarche to MFA officials, Embassy may also draw upon the contingency Q and A in paragraph 4 as Embassy determines appropriate.
2.(S//REL TO USA, FVEY) BACKGROUND: The U.S. Intelligence Community assesses that on 11 January 2010, China launched an SC-19 missile from the Korla Missile Test Complex and successfully intercepted a near-simultaneously launched CSS-X-11 medium-range ballistic missile launched from the Shuangchengzi Space and Missile Center. The CSS-X-11 was launched from Shuangchengzi at 1150:00Z; the SC-19 was launched from Korla at 1152:42Z. U.S. missile warning satellites detected each missile's powered flight as well as the intercept, which occurred at 1157:31Z at an altitude of approximately 250 kilometers. No debris from this test remains on-orbit. A Chinese news service published an article on 11 January 2010 stating, "On 11 January, China conducted a test on ground-based midcourse missile interception technology within its own territory. The test has achieved the expected objective. The test is defensive in nature and is not targeted at any country." An SC-19 was used previously as the payload booster for the January 11, 2007, direct-ascent anti-satellite (DA-ASAT) intercept of the Chinese FY-1C weather satellite. Previous SC-19 DA-ASAT flight-tests were conducted in 2005 and 2006. This test is assessed to have furthered both Chinese ASAT and ballistic missile defense (BMD) technologies. (S//NF) Due to the sensitivity of the intelligence that would have to be disclosed to substantiate the U.S. assessment, the U.S. Government in its demarche to the PRC Government will not associate the January 2010 SC-19 intercept flight-test with past SC-19 ASAT flight-tests. The United States will request assistance from our Asia-Pacific allies Australia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea in demarching China in a fashion similar to the U.S. approach. END BACKGROUND.
3.(S/REL CH) BEGIN U.S. DEMARCHE:
-- We noted with interest the January 11 Xinhua report announcing the conduct of a ground-based midcourse missile interception within China's territory.
-- On January 11, 2010, the United States detected two geographically separated missile launch events with an exo-atmospheric collision also being observed by space-based sensors.
-- For the purpose of increasing transparency, building confidence, and avoiding misperceptions and miscalculations, the United States requests answers to the following questions:
---- What was the purpose of this intercept flight-test? Was the intercept flight-test conducted on January 11, 2010, part of a ballistic missile defense (BMD) development program?
---- The U.S. position on the relationship between missile defense, stability, and deterrence is well-known. In light of China's testing activity, how does China view missile defense and its relationship to the Asia-Pacific military balance, deterrence, and stability?
---- What is the direction of China's BMD program? Will China develop and field BMD systems and capabilities to defend its deployed military forces against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, as well as for the protection of populations and territory against longer-range ballistic missiles?
---- Which foreign ballistic missile threats are China's BMD development and testing program intended to defend against?
---- What steps were taken to minimize the creation of orbital debris?
-- In order to enhance transparency between our countries on BMD issues, the United States reiterates its desire to conduct a bilateral dialogue on strategic security issues to better understand the plans and intentions of each other. END U.S. DEMARCHE POINTS AND NON-PAPER.
4.(U) BEGIN CONTINGENCY Q AND A: Contingency: If asked about the Obama Administration's position regarding China's earlier direct-ascent anti-satellite flight-test:
-- U.S. objections to China's direct-ascent anti-satellite testing previously delivered in January 2007 and January 2008 demarches and U.S. concerns voiced at the Conference on Disarmament and at the United Nations are still valid and reflect the policy of the United States.
-- Since the U.S. demarche delivered on January 15, 2007, the United States has steadfastly urged China not to conduct further anti-satellite weapons flight-testing in space through diplomatic, military-to-military, and scientific channels. END CONTINGENCY Q AND A. CLINTON
 
You must work with different Indians. The ones I've worked with in the states are like the ones here, talkers and bullshitters. The ones in the UK are better, they still bullshit but the Brits put them on a tighter leash.

Still in school pal.
 
Speeder 2.

Most Indians I know in real life are hardworking, honest, and very intelligent. Virtual ones are a little different I admit but lets not generalize a entire race based on that experience.

Lets get back on topic. You can place a more detailed analysis comparing Chinese and Indian ABM developments.

Then I must be forced to assume that you are in an academic environment such as school or university alike, where the Indians you know are creme of the crop of India, thus non-representitive. And how many you know that you can remember theior names , half a dozen ? 1 dozen?

Since most of them are first-generation immigrants (and most of them are therefore highly & overly educated to meet immigration criteria) whom you are engaging with in an academic environment as a stud, it seems to be safe to reason that your environment is not as competitive, as diversed, and as "lethal" , as that of the real world.

Everything in a confined , limited small acadamic circle is very likely to be painted with rosen colour.

Aren't most German folks you meet not "hardworking, honest, and very intelligent"?

Aren't most Swedish folks you meet not "hardworking, honest, and very intelligent"?

Aren't most Dutch folks you meet not "hardworking, honest, and very intelligent"?

Aren't most Chinese folks you meet not "hardworking, honest, and very intelligent"?

Aren't most Japanese folks you meet not "hardworking, honest, and very intelligent"?

...

See what I mean?


Wait, my friend, until you step into the real society, in which you will encounter Indians of all social statues, educated and uneducated, 1st & 2nd generation settled downed ( thus more relaxed) immigrants and harden uped recent new comers, ones in univeristies and ones in 7/11s or Car-washes or Motels or a Logistic Co., ones of priviledged backgrounds and ones from inner Mumbai slums or a Delhi Trading company...

This enviroment is what I am talking about ! This is what I see day in and day out here in London ( and in Amsterdam, in Frankfurt ...for that matter) , where one can see what the average Indian is like without rosen-tilted academic glasses, in order to form a relatively more imformed and rather perhaps unbiased opinion on their average stock, don't you think it's fairer?


And I disgree with you after all my life exposure to them in above environment, unfortunately!

It's quite usual at dinner tables , in high street shops or night clubs here in London that I could hear stories of how such such Indians in their new company managed to badmouth a talented easten European to the boss in order to get more bonus or pormotion while doing much much less; and how such such Indians in a team collectively setting a trap to get a newl comer Chinese immigrant fired at spot by the boss and laughing at this poor high IQ "low EQ" Chinese girl in her face thereafter; how such such Indians backstabed their English team leader by falsely accusing him a racist to make him resign in order to conner the team for their own end... and so on and so forth. :angry:

I think you are making the same mistake ( an illusion actually) as what CardSharp ( a memeber here) and other US & Canada-based Chinese members are making. A disporpotionally much larger presence of Indian educated elite immigrants in the North America is the root cause of that twisted illusion.

An average Indians in a large society inhabitated by all kinds of Indians - the good, bad and the ugly, in my experiences,

- is not hardworking but normal;

- is not really honest but rather conning and sly who is most likely to backstab you without 2nd thought whenever you're in his way in a competitive enviroemnt ( such as working together in the same team for a profit-oriented org ) ;

- and to be perfectly honest I find average Indian here in the UK rather unintelligent, or regular at best --- an average Chinese or an average European given the same level of education background is much much more intelligent in my experiences.

You have to ask you self this question:

Why average Indians in PDF (self-selected - hence can be seen as random in statistical sense) is totally different from what you experienced , but more like what I see in my daily experiences then??


Open your eyes and see the full picture beyond your tiny campus , my friend.

.
 
Thanks speeder for the explanation. But since those are the kind of Indians I'm going to be working with I think I'll just ignore the other rabble. Ignorance is bliss:partay:
 
Speeder 2 is right. If you are the lone Chinese guy in a group of Indians, get the hell out or find another job. You are screwed.
 
Speeder 2 is right. If you are the lone Chinese guy in a group of Indians, get the hell out or find another job. You are screwed.

Don't worry. I'll be working with mostly Caucasians anyways.

So anyone want to debate ABMs?
 
Well terminal ABMs do not do so well against MRBMs, ICBMs, or even some SRBMs which have MIRVs

With MIRV and MaRV and decoys, ABM isn't really for state to state conflict. The reaction time just isn't sufficient. Something will get through. Why to you think Pakistan is building as many nukes as possible?? To overwhelm any Indian defences
 
With MIRV and MaRV and decoys, ABM isn't really for state to state conflict. The reaction time just isn't sufficient. Something will get through. Why to you think Pakistan is building as many nukes as possible?? To overwhelm any Indian defences

I'm guessing they wouldn't work well against cruise missiles capable of nuclear warheads like the AGM 129 or DH 10 either right?
 
I'm guessing they wouldn't work well against cruise missiles capable of nuclear warheads like the AGM 129 or DH 10 either right?

I have a Russian co-worker who in another life manned a s-300 battery for Moscow. They were told they would be shot if a cruise missile got through to Moscow. Needless to say, they expected to get shot if the West ever attacked. They were also told the radar could make them sterile. That's what he told me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom