It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

India Successfully Tests Missile Capable of Carrying Nuclear Warhead to Beijing

page: 1
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   

India Tests Missile Capable of Carrying Nuclear Warhead to Beijing


mensnewsdaily.com

India has successfully test-launched a ballistic missile capable of carrying nuclear warheads across much of Asia and the Middle East. VOA’s Steve Herman reports from New Delhi that officials say this latest test significantly expands India’s nuclear reach.

India’s defense ministry says the second attempt to launch an Agni Three missile went off with “textbook precision” Thursday morning from an island off the east coast.

Most of India’s existing arsenal is designed to counter its neighbor and arch-rival, Pakistan. But experts say the Agni Three, with a range of more than 3,000 kilometers, would be able to carry a 300-kiloton nuclear warhead all the way to Beijing, or to the Middle East.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.news.com.au

Related ATS Discussion Threads:
India test fires Agni III missile


[edit on 2007/4/12 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 06:41 AM
link   
India says that this new successful launch should not be taken as an offensive threat to China & the Middle East.

What do you think?



mensnewsdaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 2007/4/12 by JacKatMtn]



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 06:55 AM
link   
A Weaponry thread on this:

India test fires Agni III missile



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 07:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
A Weaponry thread on this:

India test fires Agni III missile


Very good info and background on this missle test and launch found in Daedalus3's thread, check it out...



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   
Quick. Where are the war hawks? Put carriers off their coast! Bomb them back into the stoneage! These people should not have this technology! Its a menace to the world and threatens global and regional security! A couple of nukes should put them right.....

Hmm.... no comments like that. Mixed messages. India can have them, Pakistan can have them, North Korea can't and Iran sure as hell can't....

Anyone smell the hypocrisy here?



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Hmm.... no comments like that. Mixed messages. India can have them, Pakistan can have them, North Korea can't and Iran sure as hell can't....


How can you even compare India to North Korea and Pakistan?



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
How can you even compare India to North Korea and Pakistan?


Well I have to put something in to preceed this, or I'll get modded for a one liner, however;

Its easy. They all have people living there.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Its easy. They all have people living there.


Great



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 08:02 AM
link   
neformore..
with that logic what exempts the US,UK, Russia, China, France etc.. from this list of yours?

Simple logic..

You can't bully these countries around.. They're too strong to be pressurised by sanctions,carriers etc..
Same with India.

Pakistan is too valuable to the US for its own nefarious purposes.
When Pakistan has exhausted its importance in the US frame of things, the US will begin arm-twisting it too..

You don't pick fights with guys you know you can't beat outright.

India's reputation as a peaceful responsible neutral non-aligned state is another matter altogether.

[edit on 12-4-2007 by Daedalus3]



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   
Isn't that nice to know, good old India and the enemy of Pakistan have now great weapons. . . that can take out northern Europe . . .

But . . . we only want Iran to stop their nuclear program . . . because they can wipe Israel. . .

Give me a break.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Oh puhhleassee stop the Iran rhetoric..
Its getting really stale right now..

US & co. are bullying Iran and Co BECAUSE THEY CAN!!
Deal with it!

You CANNOT stop countries like India from pursuing a nuclear program.
You slap sanctions on India and you risk kicking yourselves in the behind.

You move military assets to confront India, you risk a bloody nose th say the least.

THAT is the emprical difference between countries like India and Iran.

If you say that India and Iran should be measured with the same yardstick then basically you're saying that nobody has the moral right to possess nuclear weapons.

Now please stop this cribbing..

If Iran can raise its prowess to that of India's then US & co will leave it alone.
Guaranteed..
If it can't, then it better submit to US & co dominance, or it better get ready for a confrontation in which it will eventually suffer the same fate as that of Iraq.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Oh puhhleassee stop the Iran rhetoric..
Its getting really stale right now..

US & co. are bullying Iran and Co BECAUSE THEY CAN!!
Deal with it!


Fair point. Except that its usually the case that someone eventually comes along and slaps the bully stupid. Might not be now, and may not be for a while but sooner or later, it may just happen. Thats the problem. You are looking short term. Look long term. Sooner or later it all comes back round.



You CANNOT stop countries like India from pursuing a nuclear program.
You slap sanctions on India and you risk kicking yourselves in the behind.

You move military assets to confront India, you risk a bloody nose th say the least.

THAT is the emprical difference between countries like India and Iran.


Sitting at your computer, probably 4,000 miles away from Iran, that sounds like good rhetoric. What if they can inflict a bloody nose on the US, then what? If suddenly the US is two carriers down, whats next. Yeah, you can argue that the US has better death tech, and yeah, the odds are probably stacked against the Iranians but sometimes, with a bit of misfortune and a tail wind things happen. What then?



If you say that India and Iran should be measured with the same yardstick then basically you're saying that nobody has the moral right to possess nuclear weapons.


Bingo! Exactly! Give the man a prize! What made us in the West so bloody morally superior that we have any kind of right to dictate to any country about what they choose to do within their own borders?

Let me put it this way. If someone in Iran says that the US needs to give up all its nuclear weapons right now because they represent a danger to the world, would you agree? Hell no you wouldn't. Why? Because its non of their damn business. What then gives you - or anyone else - the right to say to Iran that it can't posess the same thing, or develop the technology in its own country? Because they are muslims maybe? Well I suggest you take a good long look at the established national religion of Pakistan (the reason, in fact, that Pakistan was created) and then realise that Musharraf is in exactly the same position now that the Shah was in Iran 30 years ago.



Now please stop this cribbing..

If Iran can raise its prowess to that of India's then US & co will leave it alone.
Guaranteed..
If it can't, then it better submit to US & co dominance, or it better get ready for a confrontation in which it will eventually suffer the same fate as that of Iraq.


Firstly, I'll crib all I want.

Secondly, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Its this kind of crass rhetoric and arrogance that causes people to fly airliners into skyscrapers.

[edit on 12/0407/07 by neformore]

[edit on 12/0407/07 by neformore]



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Fair point. Except that its usually the case that someone eventually comes along and slaps the bully stupid. Might not be now, and may not be for a while but sooner or later, it may just happen. Thats the problem. You are looking short term. Look long term. Sooner or later it all comes back round.



Well, like I said later on in my post above, if Iran can stand upto US & Co. then good for Iran!!




Sitting at your computer, probably 4,000 miles away from Iran, that sounds like good rhetoric. What if they can inflict a bloody nose on the US, then what? If suddenly the US is two carriers down, whats next. Yeah, you can argue that the US has better death tech, and yeah, the odds are probably stacked against the Iranians but sometimes, with a bit of misfortune and a tail wind things happen. What then?


Aren't we all sitting at our computers now?

Really not taking sides here.
All I'm stating is that I know for sure that Iran's military capability does NOT match up to that of India's. That's for sure. If you want we can discuss that elsewhere in depth.
Now looking at at what you have to say about Iran giving the US a bloody nose:
As far as I can see, and believe me I've tried to look a lot, Iran got it tough against the US, but it can inflict damage if it plays its cards right..
Now taking out a couple of carriers? I seriously doubt it..
Maiming one carrier and sinking a few frigates? Possible with the cards Iran's got..
Can they do that?
Personally I have my doubts; unless they've improved their strategies since the 8 year war with Iraq (That war was like two kids fighting; abs no brains)

If you'd care to look at some of the threads, I myself (sitting on me comp incidently
) have put forth 'realistic' scenarios by which Iran can deal that blow.No soviet super-weapons or killer-tech stuff. You need to have the balls and brains to pull it off though.

Here's one example.

And again if they pull it off... good for them; they've arrived and arrived in style.. They deserve respect.

And you don't have to be geographically 'big' to pull it off. People may hate Israel today. But they've got to where they are, by giving a bloody nose to oppressors who were exponentially stronger than them. Its no joke when 5 countries simultaneously attack you just a few days after you gain independance. And the US hasn't always there to help Israel.
So yes, Iran can do wonders if they have the balls and brains, just like Israel has so many times. Its got nothing to do with religion,race etc..




Bingo! Exactly! Give the man a prize! What made us in the West so bloody morally superior that we have any kind of right to dictate to any country about what they choose to do within their own borders?


reality check: Nothing makes them morally superior; they've just climbed the evoluntionary(socio/eco/mil development) ladder faster than countries like Iran. So they play to their advantage.
Morality governs NOTHING here..People need to deal with that too..
I've been saying that about the Iran-UK sailors' row too:
It doesn't really matter who was on which side of which border. The Brits gave the Iranians a chance to make them look silly and the Iranians(quite rightly) took complete advantage of it. Morality,right-wrong has nothing to do with it.



Let me put it this way. If someone in Iran says that the US needs to give up all its nuclear weapons right now because they represent a danger to the world, would you agree? Hell no you wouldn't.


I wouldn't agree or disagree. I would actually smirk because Iran wouldn't be able to put 'weight' behind that claim, and make it worthwhile.
If Iran were to tell the US to bugger off from the Middle East, and give the US a vietnam-esque bloody nose thereafter, the US would retreat..quietly.. w/o nuking anybody or anything..
But Iran has to be able to do that.



Why? Because its non of their damn business. What then gives you - or anyone else - the right to say to Iran that it can't posess the same thing, or develop the technology in its own country? Because they are muslims maybe?


Its got nothing to do with anybody's rights or religion. US & co does what it does because it is confident that it can come out with the upper hand in any confrontation: military,economic or diplomatic.
If US & co has miscalculated this.. then well tough on them then.. The Empire would begin its descent to miniscularity from there on, and we see the rise of new regional power in the Middle East. Game on..



Well I suggest you take a good long look at the established national religion of Pakistan (the reason, in fact, that Pakistan was created) and then realise that Musharraf is in exactly the same position now that the Shah was in Iran 30 years ago.


I didn't quite get you here. Maybe you need elaborate.
The creation of Pakistan is a joke in itself. They wanted a separate state for the Muslims of India, and as of today there are more muslims(overwhelming majority patriotic) in India than in Pakistan.
Creating/governing/developing a state on the basis will lead you to a dead eventually. Yes Musharraf is where the Shah was 30 years ago, but the control he exerts over his army(and his army over the country in turn) is more than the Shah could have ever dream of.You won't see a revolution overthrowing him anytime. Even Mushy's enemies in Delhi are making sure of that. Everyone knows that Mushy's the "better" option for all parties concerned.
I feel sorry for Pakistan. I hope they understand the importance of secularism soon, and distance themselves from the fundamentalist quagmire(And I suspect Mushy-boy know this all too well).



Firstly, I'll crib all I want.

Secondly, I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Its this kind of crass rhetoric and arrogance that causes people to fly airliners into skyscrapers.


Go ahead, I hope it serves a purpose though..Because I can't see one..Not one which will have implications in real world.

Its not crass rhetoric.. Its REALITY..Whoever figures it out first has a chance of coming out victorious, whether it be the Bush Admin at the White House or the Senior council of Religious Elders at Tehran.

If either of them crib, feel sorry themselves,or cry foul, then the other guy's already won.
And if they both cry foul, then everyone else has won!
Hurray!


The motivations behind flying airliners into buildings are manifestations of a frustrated class of society that are so shamed,angered and enraged by their plight that they do not have the bl00dy common sense to realise 'terrorism' does not help their cause(which I believe is to end the rule of the infidels etc etc..)

They are too freakin daft to realise that the only way end empire unipolarity is to build an empire in opposition, through education,economic reform, social reform,indigenous military capability etc etc..
All the rising powers know that this is the only way.

Or worse yet.. they've realised something else, something so horrible, so damning that they only see suicidal terror attacks as the last option..
They've realised that they do NOT have the ability to do all these things in order to grow.
They've realised it is now a inevitability that they have been left behind, left behind for elimination by nature itself, natural selection, evolution.. whatever you may call it.
The time of religious fundamentalism has ended and this 'terrorism' is just one of its last gasps before the final death. Religion has nothing to do with it, neither does race, ethinicity or anything.

This post is just a hash of my insignificant thoughts btw.. coming to you from an insignificant computer somewhere..


DD3

[edit on 12-4-2007 by Daedalus3]



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I don't get it Deadelus. Or, more importantly, I don't get you.

You first post where you described what Marg and I have writen as "cribbing" smacks of crass American arrogance of the highest degree.

And yet your follow up post is more set out and strategic.

Essentially what you are saying though is that the big dogs own the yard. And I happen to agree with that.

However, if the big dog manages to rile enough of the smaller ones, for long enough, the pack is likely to turn and on that day, the big dog gets turfed out.

Its happened to Empires and Superpowers since the dawn of time.

And if it happens to the US - particularly with the current administration in power - then thats likely to have serious consequences that are likley to potentially upset everyones breakfast one morning.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
I don't get it Deadelus. Or, more importantly, I don't get you.

You first post where you described what Marg and I have writen as "cribbing" smacks of crass American arrogance of the highest degree.



hmmm..

Well then I guess I owe the two of you an apology for the offending remarks in my first post.
I apologise




And yet your follow up post is more set out and strategic.
Essentially what you are saying though is that the big dogs own the yard. And I happen to agree with that.


Essentially.. yes

Its a cruel reality. But the faster we(dogs) accept it, we can all aim for that top-dog spot.



However, if the big dog manages to rile enough of the smaller ones, for long enough, the pack is likely to turn and on that day, the big dog gets turfed out.


True. And infact it doesn't need to be 'many' small dogs turning on one.
One small dog that has the spunk can do it alone..
Like I said, it requires balls and brains (oh-so fitting for the dog analogy!
)




And if it happens to the US - particularly with the current administration in power - then thats likely to have serious consequences that are likley to potentially upset everyones breakfast one morning.


Again, this it what I am trying to say.. If the US 'lose' in Iraq, it'll show badly on the Bush Admin, not on the American hegemony as a whole.
Empires do not collapse in a day,week or even a year. It takes decades.Similarly a 'victory' for Iran does not spell immediate stardom. They will need to wade the economic aftershocks of such a monumental event.
Nonetheless such a result would set the US on downward spiral and Iran on a
course to power and respect.

Summarising, all I want to say is that there's no such thing as 'right' or 'wrong' here.. I mean I do believe in absolute rights and wrongs; but all that tends to get blurred in the macroscopic scheme of things.
Iran isn't all innocent and helpless; they've done some nuclear hanky-panky that totally validates the international uproar.
Similarly the US isn't all 'bad'..They've played a vital role in human development over the last century or two.
So if there's no real right or wrong here, there's no real point in blaming EITHER party, not incessantly at least.


and btw I'm not American, not by a longshot..
'Crass American Arrogance'? I wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole! No sir!



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Isn't that nice to know, good old India and the enemy of Pakistan have now great weapons. . . that can take out northern Europe . . .


So the hell what? India never said any country should be wiped off the map, or the regime should be demolished, or the country has no right to exist (at least not in the last few decades). They are not irresponsible and are very important on the world's stage.

So your comparisons are ridiculous just like the OP's examples.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
The reason why US is much more lenient to India concerning their nuclear weapons is simple - US never had really bad foreign relations with India. India didn't attack US embassy and didn't support terrorist groups in Lebanon, Indian politicians do not call US Great Satan every day.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Quick. Where are the war hawks? Put carriers off their coast! Bomb them back into the stoneage! These people should not have this technology! Its a menace to the world and threatens global and regional security! A couple of nukes should put them right.....



LOL thats a good one. Seriously though, that can't happen. What would Michael Dell, Bill Gates and all the other CEO's do with all the billions of dollars they have invested in outsourcing to that country?!!! LOL Imagine getting tech support with an American thats really named Steve instead of a dude named Rajih that says his name is Steve LOL

I would also like to know what Middle Eastern country are they referring to that has nuclear capabilities that they would deem a threat to them?



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
So the hell what? India never said any country should be wiped off the map, or the regime should be demolished,


No, they are smarter they are getting their nukes and can now reach northern Europe.

With nukes like that any country will get the point, words are not needed.

You know sometimes I wonder about some of you people . . .specially you RetinoidReceptor. . .



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043


You know sometimes I wonder about some of you people . . .specially you RetinoidReceptor. . .


Oh god


You don't even know me. Silly bee



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join