Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

India's ICBM Will Carry Multiple Nuclear Warheads

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the multiple-heads-are-better-than-one dept.

The Military 351

An anonymous reader writes "India is equipping its longest range nuclear-capable missile, the Agni-V, with Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs), The Diplomat reports. A MIRVed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) carries multiple nuclear warheads on a single missile, which it dispenses towards numerous or a single target after the final stage of the ICBM boosts off. MIRVed missiles destabilized the Cold War nuclear balance and are likely to do so again: 'Because they give nations greater confidence in being able to destroy an adversary's hardened missile silo sites in a first strike by launching multiple, lower yield warheads at the sites.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So why can't Iran have Nukes? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870321)

Yet Iran gets all the bad publicity

Re:So why can't Iran have Nukes? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870375)

Thats becuase we like idia, while Iran is filled with a bunch of hate filled nutters!

Re:So why can't Iran have Nukes? (2)

Penguinshit (591885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870427)

No. It's because India already has them and has [barely] demonstrated restraint from using them.

Re:So why can't Iran have Nukes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870505)

India already has them and has [barely] demonstrated restraint from using them.

India is, in other words, barely legal. On the other hand, Iran has not demonstrated the capability for us to judge their restraint on using the said capability.

Actually Iran has ratified the non-proliferation treaty and bounded itself with the related responsibilities while India isn't.

Re:So why can't Iran have Nukes? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870639)

....because they're a militant theocracy ruled by fundamentalists determined to dominate their neighbours & force the region into a nuclear showdown? because they're already funding terrorist and insurgency in neighboring states? Because they're funding Assad , the Hizballah and Hamas? You can pick the reasons you want.

Re:So why can't Iran have Nukes? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870977)

Also, they're close friends with Venezuela [presstv.ir] . That alone could be a threat to the entire western hemisphere.

Re:So why can't Iran have Nukes? (1)

tigersha (151319) | about a year and a half ago | (#43871111)

Like China was in the 1960's? Unstable whackjobs with their finger on the button?

The Soviet Union were close to launching a preemptive nuclear attack on China's nuclear infrastructure? Sounds familiar?

The only reason they did not was because China and the USA had their rapproachment, mostly because China felt very threatened by the Soviets. Who attacked China because they felt threatened by the Chinese.

Re:So why _shouldn't United States_ have Nukes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43871159)

....because they're a militant theocracy ruled by fundamentalists determined to dominate their neighbours & force the region into a nuclear showdown? because they're already funding terrorist and insurgency in neighboring states? Because they're funding Assad , the Hizballah and Hamas? You can pick the reasons you want.

....because they're a militant _corporatocracy_ ruled by fundamentalists determined to dominate their neighbours & force the region into _an economic_ showdown? because they're already funding terrorist and insurgency in neighboring states _and everywhere else_? Because they're funding _Mossad, Jundullah, People's Majahedin of Iran, Boko Haram, etc_? You can pick the reasons you want.

Fixed that for you.

Re:So why can't Iran have Nukes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43871209)

....because they're a militant theocracy ruled by fundamentalists determined to dominate their neighbours & force the region into a nuclear showdown? because they're already funding terrorist and insurgency in neighboring states?

I can't tell if you're referring to Iran or Pakistan.

So, by that logic... (3, Interesting)

pablo_max (626328) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870627)

You are really saying that the world community must band together in order to take all of America's nuclear weapons? After all, America is the ONLY country in all of history to have ever used a nuclear device against another, not once, but twice.

You can make all the distinctions you wish about right or wrong, but one cannot argue it is untrue.

Re:So, by that logic... (1, Troll)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year and a half ago | (#43871021)

When making distinctions about right or wrong, I like to add up all the facts, and not go by one oversimplified statement devoid of any context, however truthful it may be.

Re:So why can't Iran have Nukes? (3, Insightful)

golden age villain (1607173) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870697)

Or maybe that's because India is the largest democracy in the world and has been mostly at peace since its independence in 1947 (minus border conflicts with China and Pakistan and some peacekeeping operations abroad). It's last conflict was in 1999 against Pakistan and the total death toll after 3 months of operations was less than 5000 victims. It's not a bad track record for such a large and populated country given the size of the societal issues it's dealing with.

The iranian democracy on the other side is today nothing more than an empty shell and while its population is highly educated, young and probably wouldn't mind a change in government, its government and associates have proven time and time again since the 70s to have a rather proactive agressive stance.

Re:So why can't Iran have Nukes? (2, Interesting)

boorack (1345877) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870923)

The iranian democracy on the other side is today nothing more than an empty shell and while its population is highly educated, young and probably wouldn't mind a change in government, its government and associates have proven time and time again since the 70s to have a rather proactive agressive stance.

As opposed to so many way more brutal dicatorships US government supports (far too many to list them all here) and sometimes even gives them technology to build nuclear weapons (Pakistan).

Regarding Iran, their current, rather precarious condition their citizenry suffers is direct result of US and Britain intervention [wikipedia.org] . Regarding threat of Irans's nuclear capabilities, all we see and hear in western corporate media is crap and propaganda. Should they acquire some, they wouldn't be able to use them in other form than a deterrent. Their army contains of (mostly) defensive forces. Their defence strategy is to block Hormuz Strait and then look for diplomatic solution ("you stop invading us, we ublock your oil"). There was a publicly available Pentagon document describing it, yet I don't remember where I downloaded it. Use your favorite search engine to find it if you want.

Almost everything you see of hear about Iran in western media (maybe except of them being quite brutal theocracy) is a crap. The only reason western powers fear so much of iranian nukes is that since Iran acquires some nukes, US and friends won't be able to "bring democracy" to Iran as they brought it to Iraq or Libya.

Re:So why can't Iran have Nukes? (3, Informative)

tigersha (151319) | about a year and a half ago | (#43871131)

The US certainly did not give Pakistan nukes. The Chinese did help there.

Re:So why can't Iran have Nukes? (1)

Aussie (10167) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870989)

Posting to undo moderation.

Re:So why can't Iran have Nukes? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43871045)

Given what the USA did to them first and is STILL doing, can you fucking blame them?

Re:So why can't Iran have Nukes? (2)

Stephan Schulz (948) | about a year and a half ago | (#43871063)

The iranian democracy on the other side is today nothing more than an empty shell and while its population is highly educated, young and probably wouldn't mind a change in government, its government and associates have proven time and time again since the 70s to have a rather proactive agressive stance.

Since the 70s? The Iranian revolution was in 1979, with the new constitution coming into force in December. And in 1980 Iraq (under our then-ally Saddam Hussein) invaded Iran, leading to 8 years of war with somewhere between 500000 and 1 million Iranian victims (that's around 250 9/11s if you need a comparison). That looks more like a reactive and defensive stand to me...

Just another way to destroy ourselves (1)

Pecisk (688001) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870347)

Geee, I'm in awe...not.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870367)

Okay, Borat..

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (5, Insightful)

daem0n1x (748565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870421)

80% of the Indians don't have a toilet to shit in, but the government is more worried about expensive war toys with no purpose at all.

Way to go, India. There's nothing like getting your priorities straight.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870463)

you talk too much, we have your mouth to put the shit into.........

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870477)

LOL, Rambo Indian, I'd like to see one!

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870685)

Shit inside your skull, where your brain should be.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870773)

Indignant dotheads are always good for entertainment.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870483)

I'm sure there will be one warhead in each missile earmarked to take out a few 'untouchables', thus helping to reduce the percentage of Indians with no toilet at the same time

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870499)

So its ok if Indians are ruled by a Chinese-Pak-American invader force as long as they have a toilet to shit in?

The foremost priority of any government is to protect the nations borders, otherwise whats the point of nationalism anyway?

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870831)

The foremost priority of any government is to protect the nations citizens, otherwise whats the point of nationalism anyway?

FTFY, though it doesn't change your argument ;)

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (-1, Offtopic)

MrWindmill (2919231) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870503)

A lot of Americans suffer from obesity, yet you oppose a ban on soda cup size as if a 16 ounce cup isn't big enough. Way to go, USA. There's nothing like getting your priorities straight.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (2)

daem0n1x (748565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870535)

I fail to understand your point.

Who said I oppose to anything soda-related? What is "16 ounce"?

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (0)

MrWindmill (2919231) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870581)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluid_ounce [wikipedia.org]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/13/soda-obesity-diabetes-ban-_n_2862064.html [huffingtonpost.com]

Most governments often don't have their priorities straight. Everybody has their own problems.
Besides, as rightly pointed out by a comment below, what logic says that India should stop worrying about its defence till all Indians are shitting in toilets?

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870679)

Besides, as rightly pointed out by a comment below, what logic says that India should stop worrying about its defence till all Indians are shitting in toilets?

The common sense kind of logic? Anyways, the MIRV missiles here are decidedly not for defense, as the (very short) article also states. MIRV is a first strike weapon, meant to more thoroughly vaporize an area containing another nations nuclear armaments - there would be no reason to do this unless you're striking first. First strike == aggression != defense

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (2)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870769)

Except that, doing so gets the ire of the entire world, and potentially brings in retaliation strikes if you don't vaporize them before they see it coming. The reality is these are political bargaining chips. So they are actually not missles at all, they are just bullshit. A potentially very dangerous and caustic form of bullshit, but, bullshit none the less.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (1)

MrWindmill (2919231) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870809)

The common sense kind of logic?

No country can focus on only one of its problems until it's completely fixed, leaving its other issues untouched.

Anyways, the MIRV missiles here are decidedly not for defense, as the (very short) article also states. MIRV is a first strike weapon, meant to more thoroughly vaporize an area containing another nations nuclear armaments - there would be no reason to do this unless you're striking first. First strike == aggression != defense

Note that India has never invaded any country (unless you count the border disputes as a full-blown 'invasion'), and hopefully never will. The article mentions that India has a 'no first-use nuclear' doctrine, and it only says that MIRV missiles "put a premium on striking first", and not that the missiles are decidedly not for defence.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (-1, Offtopic)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870589)

The Government has no business telling you what you can or cannot do with regard to soda. In theory at least, the US Government has no powers other than those granted in the Constitution. So either the Government must discard the Constitution and can then dictate in minute detail what you can eat, drink and think - or the Constitution holds and the Government can GTFO of your life. Only closest totalitarians want the former.

Mississippi (4, Insightful)

tekrat (242117) | about a year and a half ago | (#43871071)

Obviously, you've never read an anti-abortion bill.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (2)

WoodenKnight (895480) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870511)

What logic says that India should stop worrying about its defence till all Indians are shitting in toilets?

Yours is just another predictable response that shows up whenever anything like this is reported on /.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870559)

What logic says that India should stop worrying about its defence till all Indians are shitting in toilets?

They should consider defence, maybe not that much.

Yours is just another predictable response that shows up whenever anything like this is reported on /.

I'm glad not to disappoint.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (2)

WoodenKnight (895480) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870587)

And who decides what "that much" is? Like I've noted elsewhere, different areas that a government spends on get their share of yearly budget and then the decision makes in those areas decide how the money is spent. Nobody is taking away money allocated to providing clean drinking water to make missiles. Indian defence spending is decreasing every year and projects like guaranteed employment and food-at-lower-than-market-cost to poor are getting a larger share of spending. So looks like they have their priorities in order.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (3, Insightful)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870711)

Nobody is taking away money allocated to providing clean drinking water to make missiles

As if the money didn't all come from the same bag? The Indian government is taking in money, allocating it to "defense" and building first strike weapons to bomb an imaginary enemy; all while ignoring that a large part of their population is living in poverty. The fact that there are reasonably well educated people here that are OK with this shit speaks volumes.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (1)

daem0n1x (748565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870725)

And who decides what "that much" is?

India is a democracy, so the answer is "the Indian people".

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (-1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870609)

The purpose is to deter the US. Remember that the US flies drones and fires missiles over Pakistan whenever it feels like it and with total impunity, with the Pakistani government apparently unable to do anything about it despite being nuclear armed. India doesn't want to be next if something happens to get the US interested in it.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (-1, Flamebait)

gatkinso (15975) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870785)

If we want to overfly India and shoot some missiles, we will - ICBM's or not - and India won't do shit about it. Because India is weak, both in might and in will.

Any country that is cowed by Pakistan is nothing to worry about.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (5, Informative)

Nutria (679911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870847)

The purpose is to deter the US.

How, pray tell, does an ICBM with a range of 5,500km deter a country that's 12,500km away?

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (3, Insightful)

tigersha (151319) | about a year and a half ago | (#43871165)

India's nukes is and have always been built to deter Pakistan foremost and China secondmost.

The ICBM cannot even reach the US, by a long shot.

Same reason very few Chinese nuclear weapons can reach the US. All of them can reach Russia just fine.

Way to go USA! USA!, USA!, USA! (5, Informative)

pablo_max (626328) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870669)

Yeah, so maybe the subject is flame bait, but self righteous ass clowns like you really grind my gears.
You have the balls to talk about India spending money on weapons when the 21% of US children live in poverty?
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/ [census.gov]
When there an estimated 500k homeless people living in US cities?
America spends 4.5% on GDP on the military, NOT including the illegal wars being waged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures [wikipedia.org]
You sir, are a jackass.

Re:Way to go USA! USA!, USA!, USA! (-1, Flamebait)

daem0n1x (748565) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870701)

Who said I am American, douchebag?

I see we could actually agree about a few subjects, but your aggressive attitude just spoiled everything.

Go fuck yourself.

He's just another anti-American Slashtard (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870765)

There's plenty on Slashdot, most who live in America. any time there's a discussion of a foreign country, they feel the need to steer it back to America and do so by hating on America. Near as I can tell it is a combination of two things:

1) Trendiness in hating the US. For some reason, they feel that "cool" thing to do (so to speak) is to hate on the US. If anything is bad anywhere, they need to find a way it is worse in the US.

2) Arrogance/self centeredness. They can't deal with a discussion that isn't about them or their experiences, so they have to steer any discussion back to the US so it is. They mentally justify it to themselves as pointing out the US's flaws, but it is really about making the discussion about them and their world.

There's sadly a lot of it on Slashdot, it often gets moderated up, and it can make it difficult to have a real discussion about problems in the rest of the world.

Re:Way to go USA! USA!, USA!, USA! (3, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870893)

You really need to examine the definition of "poverty".

Re:Way to go USA! USA!, USA!, USA! (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43871057)

Exactly. I'd rather live in American "poverty" than Indian poverty.

Re:Way to go USA! USA!, USA!, USA! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43871191)

This.

Poverty in US: You're on food-stamps, living in low-income housing, and making less than $12k/year (not including previously mentioned programs).

Poverty in India: You're on less than $12/month. [wikipedia.org] (and probably without programs like welfare/foodstamps, etc).

Re:Way to go USA! USA!, USA!, USA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43871061)

India has 78 million homeless [wikipedia.org] . Maybe it's time to kill two birds with one stone. The homeless could be employed by the weapons program. Who needs trucks when you can have everything handled by hand?

Re:Way to go USA! USA!, USA!, USA! (1)

tigersha (151319) | about a year and a half ago | (#43871169)

Feed the homeless to the hungry

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (2)

Gaurav Goyal (1407747) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870695)

Indians got into this shit by not spending enough on defence anyway. So as an Indian I don't mind spending on defence. Had Indian rulers cared for defence, they would have not been invaded by Muslims first and then the British, turning them into a third world craphole.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870855)

It is a popular misconception that the Indian government is not getting its priorities right.
The government has been very busy running schemes for benefit of masses, but these wont find mention on Slashdot.

Here are 2-3 important ones:
http://tsc.gov.in/tsc/NBA/NBAHome.aspx
http://nrega.nic.in/netnrega/home.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rural_Health_Mission

The spending on defense is nothing compared to money and effort invested in public welfare.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (2)

geekmux (1040042) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870897)

80% of the Indians don't have a toilet to shit in, but the government is more worried about expensive war toys with no purpose at all.

Way to go, India. There's nothing like getting your priorities straight.

Plenty of homeless people in the US too, including Veterans of many wars.

Don't make it sound like any other country anywhere is justified in even stockpiling these damn things, let alone developing them to make them more "effective" at total annihilation.

Re:Just another way to destroy ourselves (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870941)

Don't know why this is modded insightful as it's isn't true (interpreting it one way) or irrelevant (interpreting it another way).
. People don't need toilets. Nature have equipped us with a system that simply works - just remove clothing covering your ass, crouch down and relax your sphincter.
. Most toilets are easy to build. A hole in the ground + a branch to sit on have been used since the start of human existence.
. WCs just isn't a good solution. I hope you don't meant that as they would contribute to a bigger problem in India - lack of drinkable water. In some places people knowingly drink arsenic poisoned water as it is the only thing available...

MIRVs? (1)

Hrrrg (565259) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870353)

> MIRVed missiles destabilized the Cold War nuclear balance

Really? I thought it was the movie Star Wars the scared the Soviet Union into surrendering.

Re:MIRVs? (2)

Arancaytar (966377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870415)

I thought it was the Holiday Special, but chronologically, it apparently just made them angry.

Star Wars Holiday Special [wikipedia.org]
Cold War (1979-1985) [wikipedia.org]

Re:MIRVs? (0)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870561)

I thought it was the movie Star Wars the scared the Soviet Union into surrendering.

Well, considering the movie stars they send to wars, you'd have been scared and surrendering too.

One useful use of these missiles: (0, Offtopic)

Issarlk (1429361) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870369)

Nukes stopped the war, they should be able to stop rapists in India.

One vehicle per guy in a gangrape should do the job ; nuclear deterrence indeed.

and ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870387)

Pakistan will race to be the first muslim country to do the same thing.
Then they'll duke it out with the Indians in Kashmir and Cina finally takes over what's left of the Indian subcontinent that is
non radioactive.

Re:and ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870667)

Cina? He helped Katniss with the dress, right?

Poor Resource Allocation (1, Funny)

some old guy (674482) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870395)

India could launch unarmed missiles at a desert island and still destroy everything of value in Pakistan.

Re:Poor Resource Allocation (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870471)

India's concern is not Pakistan at all. It is extremely unlikely that a small country like Pakistan will launch a nuclear attack. That would be an act of suicide. China on the other hand is the country that keeps the Indian defense establishment awake at night.

Re:Poor Resource Allocation (2)

tubs (143128) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870485)

Pakistan Small? 6th biggest population on the planet and you call that small?

Re:Poor Resource Allocation (2)

MurukeshM (1901690) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870557)

When you have China and India to compare to, yeah.

Re:Poor Resource Allocation (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870827)

India has fought 3 wars with Pakistan in modern times and directly threatened them with nuclear attack on several occasions, they have been at each others throats since they kicked the British out, currently they barely tolerate each other.

This is the path to madness (2, Interesting)

Alioth (221270) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870439)

We need to stop this madness. Even if we assume that fall-out outside of India/Pakistan's borders is not severe if they were to ever have a war that turned nuclear, the entire world will suffer the climatological consequences. See the following link (warning, PDF)

http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSAD.pdf [rutgers.edu]

Re:This is the path to madness (3, Interesting)

WoodenKnight (895480) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870501)

There won't ever be a nuclear war with Pakistan. The real focus is China. And slowly but surely India is beginning to equalize the equation though it's still pretty far from doing so; at the moment it's advantage China. So these developments have to be read in context of China, not Pakistan.

Re:This is the path to madness (1)

Alioth (221270) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870607)

It's irrelevant who they have the nuclear war is, my point is we *all* will suffer the consequences due to the abrupt disruption of the climate. The developing world especially which will likely be pushed into famine.

Re:This is the path to madness (2)

Pinky's Brain (1158667) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870717)

India is more like Greece than China ...

Re:This is the path to madness (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870555)

This is about stabilization. Say what one will about chaotic India, they're not the sort of place that has much interest in apocalyptic annihilation of an enemy. Pakistan unfortunately is moving that way. Going to MIRVs is really the only thing that India can do to assure that their nuclear deterrent will continue to be a deterrent. At least for most of the nutjobs that Pakistan may have in power at some point in the next couple of decades. MIRVs mean pretty much nowhere in Pakistan will be spared from the response, at much less cost than making the equivalent number of single missile sites.

Re:This is the path to madness (3, Informative)

pinkushun (1467193) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870623)

Undeniably so, but isn't it too late for that already, looking at this animated timeline of nuclear tests between 1945 and 1998 [ctbto.org] . One wonders how the planet is still alive.

Re:This is the path to madness (1)

Nutria (679911) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870905)

Since the planet is most assuredly still alive, maybe you should reassess your abject terror of the occasional nuclear detonation out in the middle of nowhere.

Still receiving aid (3, Insightful)

MrMickS (568778) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870469)

Doesn't India have other priorities? http://www.wateraid.org/uk/where-we-work/page/india [wateraid.org]

Re:Still receiving aid (1)

tommeke100 (755660) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870529)

like overpopulation?

Re:Still receiving aid (5, Insightful)

WoodenKnight (895480) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870533)

Like any country, or rather any unit that has multiple areas they need to work on, everything gets its fair share of resources. One doesn't "prioritise" one thing in neglect of other things. Defence gets its share. Social upliftment gets its share. Remember, Indian defence spending in GDP terms is pretty low given the kind of neighbours it has and the amount of terrorism and insurgent violence it bears generally.

Re:Still receiving aid (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870621)

they could use it for actual defense.

you know, for getting rid of corrupt police for one. then building a toilet builder. but admittedly fixing those things is much harder than building a mirv.

This is about choices (1)

ecotax (303198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43871033)

Like any country, or rather any unit that has multiple areas they need to work on, everything gets its fair share of resources. One doesn't "prioritise" one thing in neglect of other things. Defence gets its share.

There is no such thing as a 'fair share'. This is all about making (political) choices.

By choosing to spend money on nukes that could have been spent elsewhere, Indian politicians do prioritize. The Indian defence spending may be relatively low, but one may still have the point of view that a part of it should have been spent differently. Assuming there is a 'fair share' for defence is assuming that whatever the outcome of a political debate is, is inherently the right outcome.

WORD: NUKE PAKISTAN !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870481)

Nuke em now !!

They should work an a curry bomb (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870497)

The resulting dry cleaning bills will bankrupt the enemy.

Why the IC in ICBM? (4, Insightful)

spectrokid (660550) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870521)

India is keeping its ennemies close. The nukes are foremost to keep Pakistan and China under control. Why the heck are they devellooping ICBM capability? Thy really just need to be able to lob them far enough over the border...

Re:Why the IC in ICBM? (3, Insightful)

WoodenKnight (895480) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870553)

umm... because China is fairly big and the larger cities are pretty far away from where these ICBMs will be launched?

Re:Why the IC in ICBM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870779)

China in on the same continent, actually. But ICBM refers to range, so even if there is no targets one would want to hit on a different continent, we call them the same.

It's like people care about how fast a car is even when the fastest they go is the stop-and-go on the daily commute.

Re:Why the IC in ICBM? (1)

CanadianMacFan (1900244) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870585)

Just because their enemies are currently close doesn't mean that they will always be that way. Maybe they will get into an escalating trade war with Brazil or some other emerging nation. (Admittedly not very likely.) The point is that you develop the capability before you find out that you really need it.

Or they just want to lob a couple over at England for all of those years of colonization.

Re:Why the IC in ICBM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43871167)

a trade war with brazil that escalates to nuclear while their current relations with its neighbours did not ?
yeah right, lol

Re:Why the IC in ICBM? (2, Insightful)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870599)

Actually the reason for developing long range missiles is, as usual, the US. Remember that people were talking about a limited nuclear retaliation for 9/11 against parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan?

The message is clear. If you can see any potential future where you might be at odds with the US you can't just rely on there being a Democrat in the White House at the time, you need Mutually Assured Destruction. Geography dictates that for most countries that means they need ICBMs to strike back.

Re:Why the IC in ICBM? (1)

Beyond_GoodandEvil (769135) | about a year and a half ago | (#43871079)

The message is clear. If you can see any potential future where you might be at odds with the US you can't just rely on there being a Democrat in the White House at the time, you need Mutually Assured Destruction. Geography dictates that for most countries that means they need ICBMs to strike back.
Yeah, that worked out real will for Gaddafi, hell the democrat in the White House didn't even get authorization for the use of force from Congress. So you may need to update your antiquated believe that only Republicans are jingoists, or stop getting your history from Oliver Stone.

Re:Why the IC in ICBM? (1)

tgd (2822) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870885)

India is keeping its ennemies close. The nukes are foremost to keep Pakistan and China under control. Why the heck are they devellooping ICBM capability? Thy really just need to be able to lob them far enough over the border...

How do you know the "I" doesn't stand for "intra"?

They need to leapfrog the tech (4, Funny)

paiute (550198) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870613)

India should be working on improved stick technology so they can win WWIV.

Re:They need to leapfrog the tech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870983)

They have already developed the weapon that will WWIV, its the Cricket bat.

No it wont (0)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43870761)

Indias new ICBM will sit in the ground and carry nothing, because its not going anywhere. So its incorrect to say it will cary multiple nuclear warheads. It will, at most, carry multiple dummy test warheads.

"the only winning move is not to play." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870793)

Didn't anyone watch War Games?

Re:"the only winning move is not to play." (1)

lightknight (213164) | about a year and a half ago | (#43871067)

Oh God, let them. It seems today that a lot of governments seem to be suffering from Highlander Syndrome ("There can only be one"), so let them nuke each other back to the Stone Age. At the very least, it will weaken them, and hey, if one of them manages to dominate the others, it will be so f*cked up from being bludgeoned half the dead with a brick from its neighbor (since it will have exhausted its conventional weapon supply by then), that it won't pose much trouble.

Then people can go back to doing what they do when they are being ruled: living.

I'm Okay WIth This (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870853)

Because I feel a lot better about Polar Bears going extinct quickly, all at once, rather than by slow starvation.

Been there before (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43870959)

http://controversialhistory.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/myth-of-ancient-nuclear-war.html#.UaiVCKq8xwA

MIRV is for sissies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43871073)

As long as they do not get Deathheads, we're ok !

-- I played "Scorched earth" way to much ...

Nuclear Politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43871083)

"and are likely to do so again: 'Because they give nations greater confidence in being able to destroy an adversary's hardened missile silo sites in a first strike by launching multiple, lower yield warheads at the sites.'"

Not true, here's why:

During the Cold War this was true because most missile silos were well, just that, ground-based. In nuclear scenarios, the idea was to have a powerful and overwhelming "first strike". The first strike would take out the enemy's ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This was why stealthy / high speed bombers were created, so they could penetrate enemy airspace and destroy his ability to counter-attack.

Fast forward to nuclear missile submarines, when an enemy presented a threat, the subs were dispersed from their pens into the ocean and would go quiet. The hidden subs presented a new first-strike threat. A sub could have SRBMs loaded, and pop up off the coast of a country (read: Russia) and destroy their land-based nukes.

However, all this became completely irrelevant when the opposition also possessed nuclear subs. Basically, the nuclear arms race has been a constant battle of one-upmanship where MAD reigns as the only realistic deterrent in the event of a war.

In theory, if India had many MIRVs they could feasibly take out all of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. But that's a joke. All it takes is a couple of nukes to get through to ruin your country's day. Beyond that, China would *never* stand for a nuclear exchange near their borders. This is why they are distancing themselves from North Korea.

How cares.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43871093)

...Pakistan will simply block ICBM on their great firewall...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?