India Successfully Tests Missile Capable of Carrying Nuclear Warhead to Beijing

Nuke them now before its too late!!!!

That's one of the lamest statements I've ever read on ATS.

As far as India Goes there really is nothing to worry about with India testing a Missile. They've been a peaceful country for thousands of years they don't induce their realigion into the minds of the masses, so they aren't a threat at all.

[edit on 17-4-2007 by bartholomeo]

Originally posted by neformore

Iran signed the NPT in 1968. The world was a very different place then, and certainly the administration in place now is nothing at all like the one that existed back then. Maybe they view things differently now if they are developing nuclear weapons.

True.. and iff they indeed are then they could've backed out of the treaty at anytime..

Its all have and have not politics, but as I said earlier, its meaningless. Every signee breaks the treaty each time they update their stockpiles. The US has agreements in place to "lend" weapons to Non-nuclear NATO states, thus breaking the proliferation aspects, and I'm sure the Russians have similar agreements with their allies.

Actually, post NPT signing , I don't either the US or USSR has transfered nuclear weapons technology or nuclear weapons to foreign powers/foreign control. I would be interested to see recounts of the same though, true or untrue.

Infact the only country guilty of that would be China, who passed vital info to
Pakistan, who in turn opened the can of worms of underground nuclear proliferation which ended up in places like Libya, NK and Iran.

Besides, the treaty is inherently unfair because Nuclear weapons states have a different set of rules to follow and non-nuclear states have another set.

Arguing that someone needs to be pursued because they broke the treaty is hypocritical, and pointless. But when did that ever stop the dogs of war?

Actually in Iran's and NK's case its quite relevant since they have actually have broken the treaty by not allowing full access to IAEA inspectors who are not motivated by superpower agendas for teh most part.
Hans Blix infact is quite an anti-american..

Originally posted by Daedalus3

True.. and iff they indeed are then they could've backed out of the
treaty at anytime..

And maybe they haven't because they aren't? They're damned if they do and damned if they don't to be honest. Either way round Iran is the new US bogeyman.

Actually, post NPT signing , I don't either the US or USSR has transfered nuclear weapons technology or nuclear weapons to foreign powers/foreign control. I would be interested to see recounts of the same though, true or untrue.

The US, as a part of NATO, has agreements in place to hand over nuclear weapons to its allies for use and deployment by their aircraft should it be deemed necessary. Alot of European NATO member states (Spain, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy - their may be more) deploy aircraft that were specifically designed, or could be easily modified to carry, mounts to deploy free fall nuclear weapons directly from their aircraft, despite the fact that they are not nuclear weapon states. This agreement violates the NPT, even though it is only ever likely to be used in times of serious conflict. I imagine the Soviets had a similar arrangement in place with Warsaw Pact countries during the cold war.

Also - don't forget - the deployment of nuclear armed missiles on another countries territory is a technical violation of the NPT.

Infact the only country guilty of that would be China, who passed vital info to
Pakistan, who in turn opened the can of worms of underground nuclear proliferation which ended up in places like Libya, NK and Iran.

Well, you are forgetting the UK and US, both of whom passed on Nuclear tech and advice to Israel to aid their weapons programme. I can't imagine the Russians are covered in glory either.

Besides, the treaty is inherently unfair because Nuclear weapons states have a different set of rules to follow and non-nuclear states have another set.

Yep. Its hypocritical.

Actually in Iran's and NK's case its quite relevant since they have actually have broken the treaty by not allowing full access to IAEA inspectors who are not motivated by superpower agendas for teh most part.
Hans Blix infact is quite an anti-american..

Well, Hans Blix is retired, so he's kind of irrelevant here but to be honest though, if I'd been doing a job like Hans Blix did for so many years - and lets face it, its a bloody difficult job - only to be discredited and hounded by the US administration and called incompetent and a liar just so they could further their own political aims to invade Iraq that were based on a huge pack of lies, I'd be fairly Anti-American too.

Originally posted by neformore
And maybe they haven't because they aren't? They're damned if they do and damned if they don't to be honest. Either way round Iran is the new US bogeyman.

True..true..

The US, as a part of NATO, has agreements in place to hand over nuclear weapons to its allies for use and deployment by their aircraft should it be deemed necessary. Alot of European NATO member states (Spain, Germany, The Netherlands, Italy - their may be more) deploy aircraft that were specifically designed, or could be easily modified to carry, mounts to deploy free fall nuclear weapons directly from their aircraft, despite the fact that they are not nuclear weapon states.

Interesting.. I would think that these countries would allow US forces to store and use nuclear weapons from their soil.
Anyways, some linkies on the same would do good for a bit of reading..
I still think the US does not hand over 'control' of N-weapons to foreign states..

Also - don't forget - the deployment of nuclear armed missiles on another countries territory is a technical violation of the NPT.

Wasn't that pre-NPT? And whether that translates into of the NPT will require some reading of the NPT in detail.

Well, you are forgetting the UK and US, both of whom passed on Nuclear tech and advice to Israel to aid their weapons programme. I can't imagine the Russians are covered in glory either.

Again, wasn't that pre-NPT?

Besides, the treaty is inherently unfair because Nuclear weapons states have a different set of rules to follow and non-nuclear states have another set.

Yep. Its hypocritical.

Well, Hans Blix is retired, so he's kind of irrelevant here but to be honest though, if I'd been doing a job like Hans Blix did for so many years - and lets face it, its a bloody difficult job - only to be discredited and hounded by the US administration and called incompetent and a liar just so they could further their own political aims to invade Iraq that were based on a huge pack of lies, I'd be fairly Anti-American too.

No arguements here..
But even the current IAEA is quite neutral.. As far as I can see..

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Interesting.. I would think that these countries would allow US forces to store and use nuclear weapons from their soil.
Anyways, some linkies on the same would do good for a bit of reading..
I still think the US does not hand over 'control' of N-weapons to foreign states..

Nuclear Sharing

Wasn't that pre-NPT? And whether that translates into of the NPT will require some reading of the NPT in detail.

US Tomahawks stationed at Greenham Common springs to mind. The article I linked above gives more.

^^

Very interesting.. Esp the last para about the possible violations of the NPT.
It seems that the US(and recipient collaborators)witheld this vital information form most countries (except the major nuclear weapons states) at the signing of the treaty..

And one can logically deduce that countries like the USSR would have agreed to keep quiet for similar concessions.

There is still some ambiguity about whether peace-time 'handling' of nuclear weapons by personnel of 'recipient' states is infact a breach of the treaty.
Also the fact that actual handling would only occur at 'times-of-war' during which the treaty would be void anyways.

However IMHO, all that is a load of freshly served horse cr**...
Such hypocracy is ridiculous..


I feel the true losers are the minnow states(Iran at the time?) which did not have the 'intelligence gathering' resources/motivations to sniff out something
like that..
And those who did either stayed clear or sought more concessions..

That treaty was hollow right from the word go..

And I wager the same for the CTBT..

Originally posted by neformore
You talk about conjecture, and then come up with the first part of this paragraph.

Iran has repeatedly said its nuclear ambitions are for peaceful purposes, and it is allowed to pursue these ambitions by the NPT.

Show me a direct quote from the Iranian administration that says they are seeking to acquire nuclear weapons?

The Nazi's also said they didnt know anything about any Jew killing. But we found out the truth later. If you are going to take the word of that crazy Idiotinadinnerjacket, they you must be more deluded that the Iraninas who voted the fool into power.
Nobody is going to say they are developing nuclear weapons. They do so covertly because it is something the world doesnt want any more of. The Iranians have one of the largest deposits of oil and they claim they need "power" ? If you are going to beleive that tripe then that is your right but dont expect the international community to hold their breath on the word of the Iranians.

The Iranians have one of the largest deposits of oil and they claim they need "power" ?

This was explained OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

If the most powerful country in the world (USA) would have been hijacked by corporate interests hellbent on invading countries that don't have a Rothschild controlled bank (Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria) and have oil, I would like too to have nuclear weapons to defend my homeland against tyrans who killed my government 50 years ago and put in place a brutal dictatorship.

If you would know anything about Iran, and put yourself in their place (as a lot of americans NEVER DO) you would understand why they would want nukes.

[edit on 19-4-2007 by Vitchilo]

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Yes but Like I've stated before, all of China's nuclear arsenal(long range- high yield) is US-specific.
Also, a majority of the Chinese short/medium range -subMT yield arsenal is NOT India specific!
The main targets are Japan?, Taiwan and the Former Soviet Republics(Europe too??).

So you think they will make special nukes that say "Bombay or Bust"? Just for India ? They will use what ever they have against any threat and all threats they perceive. US/India/Japan whatever, the name doesnt matter. When the PLA Artillery command gets the order they launch without hesitation.

So, stating that India develop a deterrence level to match china's ENTIRE deterrence which is directed across 5-6 separate countries and 3 continents would be the most aggressive nuclear posture since the peak of US-Soviet stockpiles.

Well one would, if they hoped to achieve a "credible" deterrence against an enemy. Why do you think Pakistan is trying to build as many weapons as India has, even though you have both Pakistan and China to contend with ?
Because they expect India not to discriminate against which nuke goes where when its survival is at stake. When you are going to die, you arent going to need any extra weapons for later.

Anyways my point being, India wants to maintain a 'balanced' minimum N-deterence which will evenutally factor in 3500-5000km MIRV-ed SLBMs with 300KT yields.

I understand quite well what you are trying to say. You dont understand that your philosophy of ying-yang doesnt hold true. There are no weapons painted "for the USA" "For the Russians" etc in China. Nukes are to be used at anybody who they see as a danger. That could be you too. They have already taken from you because of similar complacence earlier. Hoping that they serve you only the "Indian curry" and not apple pie is foolhardy. When they decide to nuke somebody they wont do a half hearted attempt. You should be sure that you at least take them down with you. With the deterrent you talk of, it would be a situation where you die but they are bruised.

True, China can move the majoirty of its forces(which are in the East and North) in due course, but the losses faced till then would be difficult to overcome, thus complicating the whole conflict and raising it to a more dangerous threshold.

I'm not talking about climbing up and down the mountains playing soldier. I'm talking about surviving a nuclear war. The Chinese with their superior industrial base and economic prowess are much more likely to survive a nuclear war. I would think the goal of a deterrance would be to ensure MAD but the Indian position doesnt reflect that, the Indian administration apprears not to truly understands the magnitude and scope of what this "deterrence" entails. They are hoping a few loud bangs will keep them safe, which is not going to work. They have to prepare for a "doomsday" scenario, with all 1.6 billion Indians dead. That should be worst case scenario, not the loss of Bombay or Delhi.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
This was explained OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

If you gave everybody this lame explanation, no wonder nobody buys it. Rothchilds is it??

We havent been in Iran for 30 years. We have 0 interest in experiencing their version of madness. Moreover the Europeans are the ones who are worried most about the Iranians because the beady eyed crazy in Iran can drop nukes on them if Iran gets nukes. And with his, move Israel to Europe etc rant, who knows what he and his thugs would do ?

Originally posted by IAF101
So you think they will make special nukes that say "Bombay or Bust"? Just for India ? They will use what ever they have against any threat and all threats they perceive. US/India/Japan whatever, the name doesnt matter. When the PLA Artillery command gets the order they launch without hesitation.

Ah a sense of humor!!

I was trying to indicate the motivations behind the building of the chinese N-stockpile and correspondingly current orientations of the Chinese N-stockpiles.
I was by no means indicating that the Chinese are limited in the targetting options.
Now I'm not saying that India is as insignificant to China's nuclear arsenal as
say 'Chile' or something, but I am saying that China does not aggressively position its N-deterence towards India, as it does towards other global and regional foes.

So, stating that India develop a deterrence level to match china's ENTIRE deterrence which is directed across 5-6 separate countries and 3 continents would be the most aggressive nuclear posture since the peak of US-Soviet stockpiles.

Well one would, if they hoped to achieve a "credible" deterrence against an enemy. Why do you think Pakistan is trying to build as many weapons as India has, even though you have both Pakistan and China to contend with ?

Firstly if you really ask me, thats because they're a loony militarised banana republic which does not have much of a future unless it concentrates more on economy rather than a military pissing contest which cannot possibly win..
Why? Ironically because they do not have the economic/industrial base.

Secondly they(Pakistan) cannot build as many weapons(conventional or otherwise) as India.
They will implode(much worse than the fate of the USSR) if they continue to invest so much in the military without having the long term purchasing power to do so.

I understand quite well what you are trying to say. You dont understand that your philosophy of ying-yang doesnt hold true. There are no weapons painted "for the USA" "For the Russians" etc in China. Nukes are to be used at anybody who they see as a danger.

I agree with your philosophy as well.
And perhaps so does the the Indian think tank.
And so the unwritten motto whispered in the corridors of the Indian missile program(and lobbies of the MoD) could be "we will have only truely arrived when we can send big gifts all the way to San Fransisco.. not by sending toffees to Tokyo ".
Ditto in terms of yield and thus payload. India is not knieve enough to believe that their eternal foes will always be China and/or Pakistan.
However publicising these intentions globally before(or even after they have been achieved) would definitely undermine many other objectives, esp at the current juncture.
Infact even to do so on Discussion fora is highly inappropriate IMHO
.
So all I can say to you IAF101 is 'point well taken and noted'

I'm not talking about climbing up and down the mountains playing soldier. I'm talking about surviving a nuclear war.

hmm.. nuclear war..
Well all wars are not nuclear..

[edit on 20-4-2007 by Daedalus3]