Does India need 8,000 Km Range missile?

[ajtr]

At this point there is no need for deterrence as US sees India as a natural ally and encouraging India to play a more global role. The benefit of that is what India reaped as US was the one who brought India out of nuclear pariah status. With many geo political developments expected like the expansion of SC in the coming years, prudence is what is needed from India at this point of time. I would quote Sun Tzu here "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious."

natural ally in what sense.What is the definition of natural ally.USA and india are two banks of ariver which can run parallel but can never meet.USA's interest and indian interests never converges.With usa sitting in Indian subcontinenent and IOR f0r 6 decades there is/was always threat perception from usa.since bill Clinton's 2nd term usa has improved relations with inda over a decade that doesnt mean it wont go sour anytime.USA is like that camel you never know which side it will sit on.And with pakistan as live example i wont even trust usa even if gods comes and tells me.Btw obama admin backtraked a lot on bush admin's commitment.

 

[Sashan]

natural ally in what sense.What is the definition of natural ally.USA and india are two banks of ariver which can run parallel but can never meet.USA's interest and indian interests never converges.With usa sitting in Indian subcontinenent and IOR f0r 6 decades there is/was always threat perception from usa.since bill Clinton's 2nd term usa has improved relations with inda over a decade that doesnt mean it wont go sour anytime.USA is like that camel you never know which side it will sit on.And with pakistan as live example i wont even trust usa even if gods comes and tells me.Btw obama admin backtraked a lot on bush admin's commitment.

Quote my words - I have said that US considers India as natural ally and not vice versa. India have not made up its mind at this time and will not do so unless there is a compulsion as Indian politicians are clueless. AFA Pakistan is concerned, it is an isolated case as it was pursuing an agenda which was against the global agenda(I am not stating it overtly as I do not want diversion of discussions at this time). Pres. Obama admin backtracked a lot on Bush's commitment but what is there to lose for India? India did not commit to anything on a reciprocatory basis. It is US which is courting India at this time but will not do so forever. I would say strike when the iron is hot.

I am regurgitating what I stated in another thread.

It is in India's interests to align with US. Here is why.

1. U.S in the recent times have proved how it can be a powerful ally especially by bringing India out of nuclear isolation. It is in India's interest to take advantage of a powerful ally in U.S for other global issues as well.
2. NAM was useless as was seen during the 1962 war when the countries in NAM gave a lip service and was "non-aligned" - true to the name.Even in 1965, NAM provided little support to India.
2. 1965 war was stalemate as India never had the support of super power.
3. 1971 - India gave a decisive blow to Pakistan as India had signed a treaty with USSR few months before the war. If not, USSR would have kept quiet and India would have called for a cease fire fearing the US carrier group near India. In short, India was decisive in war only after it aligned with a super power.
4. Imagine a quick strike by China - Is India ready now to push back Chinese troops as India does not have the firepower in the Indo-China border. If India is aligned with US, there is an assured weapons support as seen during the 1962 war though it was late at that time.
5. Pakistan will be China's ally going forward and if there is an Indo-Pakistan conventional war, India need to be cognizant of China opening another front. If U.S is an ally, China will think twice about opening another front.
6. The reason for 5 holds good for Chinese aggression as well.(with no Pakistan participation).
7. Alignment with US is for economy reasons as well. SCO or ASEAN+3 will be dominated by China and many a time, it may not be in the best interests of India. Whereas TPP is an anti-Chinese trade group which is fostered by US. Japan may join in future. Likewise Korea will join TPP in future. It is in India's interests to join any of these trade groups and what best than TPP.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

4. Imagine a quick strike by China - Is India ready now to push back Chinese troops as India does not have the firepower in the Indo-China border. If India is aligned with US, there is an assured weapons support as seen during the 1962 war though it was late at that time.

This is overhyped, considering larger part of Indian military is based on Russian hardware, adapting to American weapons will be a challenge, same problem was faced by Pakistan in 1965, despite Chinese offers for arms.

7. Alignment with US is for economy reasons as well. SCO or ASEAN+3 will be dominated by China and many a time, it may not be in the best interests of India. Whereas TPP is an anti-Chinese trade group which is fostered by US. Japan may join in future. Likewise Korea will join TPP in future. It is in India's interests to join any of these trade groups and what best than TPP.

Agree!

 

[Sashan]

This is overhyped, considering larger part of Indian military is based on Russian hardware, adapting to American weapons will be a challenge, same problem was faced by Pakistan in 1965, despite Chinese offers for arms.



Agree!

If you talk about new weapons like a new F16, it is overhyped but here is what I am talking about with couple of examples.

1. India is getting C-17s and C-130s. Between them India can lift about 3500-4000 soldiers to a place of interest. Imagine in the times of war, US is providing additional C-17s and C-130s? Now imagine the boost India gets in terms of strategic lift capabilities? Won't it come in handy especially in a 2 front war?
2. India is buying about 145 M777 howitzers operated by US army and Marines as well. In case of war, if US transports about 200 of these to India on a short term lease basis, the firepower will be augmented on China border significantly.

And these need not even happen. But it will give China one more factor to think about.

 

[illusion8]

how you define the threat perception.based on what.USA is sitting at ur doorsteps in your backyard and you say you dont have any threat from usa.Amazing.No wonder i can know now how india got easily colonized by british.

Army,navynAF ke guts ki baat to dur they get threaten by Dosa-iers throwing lungiwala sitting in home ministry till last week.

I did not understand WTH you said there, can u be clear and also tell me from what avatar i.e. as a Indian or a Pakistani you are posting right now, so I can reply back accordingly?

 

[shuntmaster]

India already has 8000kMs range missile.

 

[asad71]

If you know the poor performance of ISRO, DRDO, etc, then you would understand the fear we in BD have. Any of these "developed" by Indian technicians/scientists targeted towards North or West is most likely to misfire and fall either on the head of the firers or on us. 8,000 km - my fo-t.

 

[Sergi]

If you know the poor performance of ISRO, DRDO, etc, then you would understand the fear we in BD have. Any of these "developed" by Indian technicians/scientists targeted towards North or West is most likely to misfire and fall either on the head of the firers or on us. 8,000 km - my fo-t.

Then you should actually be happy for that as it will put an end to your miserable life
Go troll somewhere else

 

[IND151]

Smarty i mentioned true ICBM in my post not some 10000km or 8000km range missile.Try to focus on post while reading.

Deterrence is the keyword here.

at colored part> a 8000 to 10000 Km missile is not true ICBM?

 

[IND151]

i repeat my question

Does India need 8,000 Km Range missile?

 

[Abhishek_]

If you know the poor performance of ISRO, DRDO, etc, then you would understand the fear we in BD have. Any of these "developed" by Indian technicians/scientists targeted towards North or West is most likely to misfire and fall either on the head of the firers or on us. 8,000 km - my fo-t.

i dont think indians will complain if it "accidently" drops over BD. heck some might even give kudos to DRDO

 

[IndoUS]

In my opinion, for now there is no need, but I think that DRDO should work on it and keep the designs ready in case we need the missile. For now I believe we need to improve the current missiles. The Agni 5 is a step forward, we still need MIRV tech. so rather than increasing the range we should focus on cutting down the size and weight of the current missile and adding MIRV to it.

Other than that Sub. launch version of Agni 3 or 5 should be given priority.

 

[Abhishek_]

And with pakistan as live example i wont even trust usa even if gods comes and tells me.

you pick and choose to believe in what god tells you? amusing logic

 

[mfreak]

See, none of these missiles are ever gonna be used by either China or India, or even Pakistan for that matter. But a strong military is needed in order to balance out the power in this region, and for deterrence. So yes, we should not only go for 8000 km, but also the 10000 km Agni 6. (or is it more?)

 

[surya kiran]

i repeat my question

Does India need 8,000 Km Range missile?

To be more precise we need two types of missiles

1. Land based 10,000 km for deployment in ANC. And in the future if we get to Maldives/Seychelles/Diego Garcia.
2. SLBM of range 6,000 kms + to have the ability launch off the Mallacca Straits or off the Gulf of Aden.