Why India needs an ICBM

[vsdoc]

Indians who believe that we as a nation do not need true ICBM deterrent or that Surya I and II are wasteful pipedreams are either deluding themselves or are historically and politically naive.

Thankfully, I am pretty sure that our leadership on such core areas of national security are neither.

How we test and manage global perceptions when the time comes will be the real crux.

 

[Skallagrim]

India doesn't need an ICBM. It's the most peaceful country on earth. It should strive for global peace following the path of Mahatma Gandhi. Having once acquired the status of Switzerland of Asia its neighbors would be enough to protect its sovereignty. India should rather focus on alleviating poverty within its national boundary and boost already existing multilateral trade with other countries.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Indians who believe that we as a nation do not need true ICBM deterrent or that Surya I and II are wasteful pipedreams are either deluding themselves or are historically and politically naive.

Thankfully, I am pretty sure that our leadership on such core areas of national security are neither.

How we test and manage global perceptions when the time comes will be the real crux.

India does have many wise people, why do they get buried and let fools rise?

 

[ayesha.a]

India doesn't need an ICBM. It's the most peaceful country on earth. It should strive for global peace following the path of Mahatma Gandhi. Having once acquired the status of Switzerland of Asia its neighbors would be enough to protect its sovereignty. India should rather focus on alleviating poverty within its national boundary and boost already existing multilateral trade with other countries.

India is already focussing on alleviating poverty, and is raising millions out of poverty every year. In fact India raises more people out of poverty every year than any other country on earth, with the possible exception of china. Such news do not get posted on a defence forum, hence you may not hear much about it. India spends several times more on poverty alleviation schemes, education, agriculture, health and infrastructure development than it does on defence.

We would love to be the switzerland of asia. But do us a favor - take a world map, and find out which countries switzerland has as neighbours, and which countries India has as neighbours. Then you will understand why we need missiles and switzerland doesn't.

 

[Skallagrim]

India is already focussing on alleviating poverty, and is raising millions out of poverty every year. In fact India raises more people out of poverty every year than any other country on earth, with the possible exception of china. Such news do not get posted on a defence forum, hence you may not hear much about it. India spends several times more on poverty alleviation schemes, education, health and infrastructure development than it does on defence.

Well-done, keep it up!

We would love to be the switzerland of asia. But do us a favor - take a world map, and find out which countries switzerland has as neighbours, and which countries India has as neighbours. Then you will understand why we need missiles and switzerland doesn't.

Whatever.. Gandhism is the way!


And welcome to the forum!

 

[vsdoc]

India does have many wise people, why do they get buried and let fools rise?

A fool is one who can only look beyond his nose. And reacts.

A wise man sees further. And plans.

 

[ayesha.a]

Well-done, keep it up!



Whatever.. Gandhism is the way!


And welcome to the forum!

No its not "whatever". And I'm not sure how "gandhism" (whatever that means) applies when you have nation states in a state of potential hostility. Gandhi applied his methods of resistance to unjust rule - that's not what defence and armed forces try to achieve. Completely different scenario.

Thanks for the welcome.

 

[abhishekgoel80]

We don't live in the cold war anymore.


More than ICBM we need to concentrate on making the existing delivery systems more effective by augmenting them with MRIV and making them capable of launching from various platforms.

ICBMs are an expensive venture without a purpose for India.

Currently we don't have all the technologies required to build one.

I agree that we don't need ICBMs now as we just need to cover China, but I think we can make ICBMs as India has good scientific capabilty in delivery systems since India had experience in developing PSLV had been successful and have a string of satellites to help in precision targeting (though India has still a long way to go as its coverage is limited)

 

[vsdoc]

No nation plans its defence only based on what is current right now.

Today's friends can be tomorrow's enemies.

More so if today's friends had been yesterday's enemies.

Regardless, you cannot base any relationship on the paradigm that you can hurt me if you choose to, but I cannot if I need to.

Not even a friendship.

 

[vsdoc]

The point is not so much about WHY India needs an ICBM. We do.

The point is HOW India is going to get the ICBM.

It needs testing, to make sure it works.

Testing also brings into the open India's capability. Without that there is no deterrent.

But testing will spook current friends, and there will be HUGE pressure on India, overt and covert, to step back.

Is there a way out?

Or is there a way around?

THAT is the real question we should be discussing.

 

[GoodBoy]

We don't live in the cold war anymore.


More than ICBM we need to concentrate on making the existing delivery systems more effective by augmenting them with MRIV and making them capable of launching from various platforms.

ICBMs are an expensive venture without a purpose for India.

Currently we don't have all the technologies required to build one.

More than ICBM's we need Submarines having second strike capabilities and solid Missile Defense Shield. Any missile at 5000kms is good enough for present security concerns.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

More than ICBM's we need Submarines having second strike capabilities and solid Missile Defense Shield. Any missile at 5000kms is good enough for present security concerns.

Yes , our submarine building capabilities are maturing only now.

Missile shield , i wouldn't be too optimistic.

I would prefer an 8000Km SLBM with MRIV as the true second strike capability.

 

[vsdoc]

Submarines will not solve the problem or address the real need of deterrence. It just completes a triad that ensures second strike. The idea of deterrence in its purest form is to prevent the first.

Not to forget the fact that when it comes to our nuclear submarines, the powers that matter would probably already have their signatures well in place.

There is no such thing as a fool proof missile shield. Conventional missile red-herrings can saturate the best. And we are a long way from having the best.

It is much cheaper in the long run to build ICBMs. Once you have the technology in place.

The issue is taking that final step. Once taken, there is no turning back.

 

[GoodBoy]

I don t think AGNI V is an ICBM...

here is the link of soviet union missile which has similar range of agni.....but considered as MRBM

But what's the guarantee that AGNI-V is not 5500+kms... it might be a hogwash to say it's under 5000kms.

 

[GoodBoy]

Yes , our submarine building capabilities are maturing only now.

Missile shield , i wouldn't be too optimistic.

I would prefer an 8000Km SLBM with MRIV as the true second strike capability.

great... navy needs to be very potent in future. But we don't need to hit Finland,Sweden or Hawaii with an 8000Km SLBM.

And again 8000Km is a ICBM and that too submarine based thus costly again.