Slashdot Mirror
India Plans Hypersonic Space Plane by 2007
MaximusTheGreat writes "While India has announced plans for a hypersonic plane (speeds greater than mach 5) before, this is the first time a firm date for test of an unmanned plane has been given. Final version of this plane called Aerobic Vehicle for Hypersonic Aerospace Transportation (AVATAR) is envisaged to deliver a 500 kg to 1,000 kg payload to low earth orbit. It will reduce the cost of space travel to a fraction to what it is today, by being completely reusable. Also, by allowing hypersonic speeds, it would for example reduce the travel time from Sydney, Australia to New York to less than 3 hrs. The crucial technology in the development of Hypersonic planes is supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet). India has already demonstrated the basic technology of ramjets by the development of world's fastest cruise missile Brahmos which outspeeds famous US Tomahawk by three times, and by ground tests of scramjets. US, Australia and Japan are also pursuing similar programs."
Now they can outsource my job to orbit, where they don't have to pay for gravity or air...
Now *that's* what I call the fastest call center on Earth!
Sunday you're Thinking Different, Monday you're a huge tool, paying too much and waiting to think like everyone else.
India said they planned to outsource the programming to lower paid US programmers.
They have nuclear weapons and they'll be able to place objects in orbit cheaply...
Twenties Retirement
From the article: "Brahmos which outspeeds famous US Tomahawk by three times, and by ground tests of scramjets."
The Tomahawk cruise missile was intentionally made subsonic. The sound from a supersonic cruise missile with a range in exceess of 800 miles would negate much of the stealth aspect of the missile.
If you want to compare it to a US missile, compare it to some of our anti-ship or anti-air missiles.
I think you're a bit confused here. This story is about India, not the USA.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
You don't need to be a superpower to experiment in this area. The University of Queensland here in Oz has the HyShot program which, despite a few teething problems, is producing world class results. The US has yet to see any results from its X-43 series. It will be interesting to see if India can live up to its own hype. Good luck to them.
I don't understand why everytime India advances technologically, people immediately think "oh they have nuclear weapons". The United States has Nuclear weapons and continues to develop and is the *only* country to ever have used them in war - and it is very debatable whether they needed to - definitely, not the second bomb.
Anyway, I digress - the point I am trying to make, why don't we see this as it is - other countries (besides the US, Germany, UK, France) are also trying to develop advanced avaition and technological capabilities. This is going to happen more often now.
Of all the countries in the world, the last one we have to worry in as far as using nuclear weapons is India. It is so completely against the basic pysche of the country. Clearly, nukes are a deterrant to all the hostile neighbors India has. India lives in a very tough neighborhood bordering Pakistan and China, with Afghanistan only a hundred miles from the border. They have to develop nukes to keep the enemies at bay.
Again, I digress - bottom line: please don't think nukes everytime India develops new space, missile etc technology.
More so than the US it seems. With NASA pulling the funding on every new shuttle replacement just before it starts working and our commercial aerospace industry relegated to Boeing, who seemingly can't compete on a level playing field, it seem slike all the exciting advancements are going to happen in China and India.
I'm not certain if I should put ":-(" or ":-)" on this one.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
The Western countries have lost their population advantage long ago - there are much more Chinese and Indians than Europeans and Americans.
The military advantage is already gone in thecase of e.g. France or UK or is already decreasing like e.g. US and Germany.
The industrial advantage is also gone: most industrial consumer products are not produced in Western countries these days leading to the huge trade deficit of the US.
What is remaining is the technological advantage.
However, India and China are catching up.
The US has traditional 2 strategies to keep this advantage:
- Sucking brillant minds out of 3rd world countries by getting them into the US via e.g. graduate schools.
- Blocking advancement in 3rd world countries by covering every rubbish with patents.
However, both strategies are failing these days:- Foreign graduates from India and China are in fact returning to htheir home countries. By this they are exporting the US technology there and creating unbeatable (cost !) conpetitors to US businesses.
- With reducing importance of the US in the world China and other countries are less and less willing to accept the US patent dictatorship - killing the exploiting by IP strategy of the US.
Bush tries to cover these facts by made up wars in the middle east. But the Iraq war wouldn't last forever and the US public will be forced to face their bleak future.Owner of a Mensa membership card.
Well India has more people with Doctorate degrees per capital than any other country in the world. So I could see India getting the plain up and running by 2007.
I think you can not read.
I said BASIC medical care. You can walk into almost any hospital in the USA and almost any clinic and get access to BASIC medical care.
The same can not be said of India.
And where in the USA is there a major problem getting clean running water?
What's probably the saddest bit about this is that the India/Pakistan cold war is proving to be just as much of a boon to technological development as the US/USSR cold war was. It's as if it's impossible to leapfrog in technology without the political motivation of an enemy to mobilize it.
In the US, for example, it's hard to imagine that considerations of intellectual property, patents, NDA's and the like would have been allowed to hamstring the development of strategic military technologies. But peacetime technological development is increasingly being stymied by such factors.
Probably because India and Pakistan appeared to be very close to going to war fairly recently, and there are sufficiently advanced weapons on both sides to make people nervous.
:-)
Even if you assume that India will never use thier nukes, won't an increase in power on thier part make thier neighbors feel that they need to increase thier military power as well?
On the other hand, cheap space travel is really cool no matter who is developing it..
Twenties Retirement
India has been working for more than 20 years on an indigenous jet figher to replace its Mig-21s, and also a jet trainer to replace its Hawks. The latest report: some Mig-29s and new Hawks have been rented "temporarily" from Russia and England to "fill in" until the local products are ready.
So - if it has taken India 20 years to produce some Mach 1.5 aircraft, how long will it take to produce a usuable Mach 20 spacecraft?
sPh
Why ?
I regularly donate cash to charities to drill wells in India and other such poverty relief measures - and yet their government spends a ton of cash on nuclear weapons and prestige projects.
Time to redirect my charity I think.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Regarding those missles, yes, India's missle is indeed faster, but the article states that it has a range of only 280km. That, compared to the American Tomahawk of anywhere between 1100km to 2500km, is just a drop in the bucket. The article states that had India been able to fire off some missles at the same time as the Americans that their chances of getting Bin Laden would have been greater. The problem is with a range of only 280km, they'd have to get pretty close to or within the country. With the Tomahawks extremely long range, the American's can fire from the Ocean without taking any land. Although its slower, the fact that it has between 4 and 9 times the range of the BrahMos, the Tomahawk would realistically 'get there sooner' because of its longer firing range in a real world situation.
Oh yes, I'm not American, I'm Canadian. This is an objective perspective.
To make a pun demonstrates the highest understanding of a language
Actually, not true. It has poverty but that shouldn't stop any country from the pursuit of progress. Research like this will bring more wealth if it materializes into a saleable priduct, which in turn will solve poverty issues in the long run. Its actually a faster route to prosperity.
The thought of a missle named after a cow just dosn't scare me somehow.
Just so you know: India is allied with the US client state of Israel. They have a common foe: Islamic states. India also shares a common "competitor" with the US namely: China. They are very much on the US "team."
Pray explain what noise would make it audible before it physicaly arrives.
It's Supersonic i.e, faster than sound!!
The fact that the bang might be heard and the news radioed ahead is rather trivial as cruise missiles don't need to follow a straight line of attack.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
> First our jobs, now are missiles.
I guess they've taken our ability to write coherent English as well.
Read the article:
It scoops oxygen in the atmosphers at hypersonic speeds, and then oes into space.
What agreements? NPT? which requires India to give up the nukes before signing? what's the point in signing.
By the way India has a declared No-First-Use policy, while USA has a declared Pre-emptive-strike policy. And, US has exercised that poilicy once, and with the new tactical nukes it plans to do so again and again.
which nuke power is more dangerous?
Because something travelling at Mach 5 max will never reach escape velocity. So this thing is suborbital at best.
Not to mention scramjets only work from Mach 2 or thereabouts, so you need an alternative engine to speed the plane up to Mach 2, then you use the scramjet to go up to Mach 5. Plus there is the additional problem that liquid hydrogen is low density, cryogenic fuel.
The main use for such technology is a high-speed intercontinental bomber or reconnaissance platform. Not space launch. So far no other engine beats rockets for cost/efficiency when doing space launches.
Sharks with laser beams... er, what was I thinking. Oh right, mmm num num.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Bollocks, there is no free access to basic medical care for all the population in the US. This would be a remarkable step forward for the US but it's not going to happen.
Slight quibble: Concorde was *not* grounded for safety reasons. Concorde was grounded for financial reasons - after 30 years of service, major investment would have been necessary to keep Concorde aloft. With only one major accident, Concorde has (had?) a better safety record than most major commercial aircraft.
This is where the serious fun begins.
Being a Canadian, and having several Australian friends, I think you're so far off base it's amazing. Australia is far more American than European, and Canada is actually becoming more Asian influenced then most realize.
I've got to laugh at your opinion that until 1903 the US wasn't imperialistic. I guess the Lousiania Purchase, the American-Indian wars, the Spanish-American war, and the Mexican-American war isn't something you're too familiar with. Try a little research before you make a complete jackass out of yourself.
Europe is somewhat different. Western Europe is very much a post-modern society, whose power is economic and diplomatic (and in those areas FAR exceeds the US's power). And has little interest in Imperialism of any kind.
Ok, first of all--Europe is a post-modern society?? What the hell does that mean?!
Not interested in Imperialism? Really? Tell that to the French neo-colonies in West Africa. I wish I still had the link, I saw a great picture after France unilaterally sent troops in Cote d'Ivoire of Ivoirians holding up signs saying "Bush! Save us from the French!" Better yet, tell that to all the struggling 3rd world farmers who are oppressed by subsidized European agricultural goods. Economic imperialism at its finest!
You think European economic and diplomatic power far exceeds the US? Well, the economic point is so laughable as to not even deserve refutation, and the I'll refute the second below!
Also, show me some European led international diplomacy that has gone succesfully without US participation? They've certainly managed to do a bang up job in the middle east! Who is spear heading peace in the Middle East right now? The US. Who was responsible for peace between Israel and Egypt. Largely the US! Who is responsible for Libya opening? The US! Who is responsible for recent NK negotiations? The US. Show me ANY comparable European led initiatives.
Which is strange as the US just over a 100 years ago also lacked imperial ambition - but then post WW2 took serveral major steps backwards (imo): Vietnam, Panama, Iraq 2003.
Inaccurate representation of American history--you need to go much farther back. Hell, start looking back to the 1840's if you want to see American imperialism in its nascent form. You absolutely cannot say that American imperialism starts post-ww2. I can list examples if you don't know them, or are interested, just reply, I'd be glad to.
So personally I'm relaxed about West European countries (and I include Canada, Australia and New Zealand in that group as culturally they are) having nukes. The US, India and Pakistan owning nukes however scares the crap out of me.
If you're European all I can say is, WW2 would have been much nicer had the US not joined the European front, and had the US not nuked Japan. Things would have been rosy and happy all around! And since then, America's nuclear atrocities are absolutely unforgivable. Your post is truly insightful!
the US just over a 100 years ago also lacked imperial ambition - but then post WW2 took serveral major steps backwards (imo): Vietnam, Panama, Iraq 2003.
Some would argue that American imperial ambition began with the Declaration of Independence, and continued throughout the Western expansion -- that every square inch of what is today America was taken by force.
Even a less sanguine historian -- say, Mark Twain -- would agree that American imperialism was obvious by the time of the Phillipine war.
-kgj
-kgj
Ever been to mississippi? Georgia? Alabama? Texas? Wyoming? These all have levels of povery that make places in Mexico and India look rich.
India is doing the right thing. They are raising themselves by their bootstraps and doing it well. By getting business to come there, they are providing jobs for their locals.
As to building a space plane, they have the right idea. We have also tryed it, but it was embroiled in politics and extreme greed.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Ever been to mississippi? Georgia? Alabama? Texas? Wyoming? These all have levels of povery that make places in Mexico and India look rich.
India has substantial private wealth in the hands of its upper and upper-middle classes. English rule largely left the princely fortunes intact - there are still many families in India worth 10s and even 100s of millions of dollars. And below them families which have hidden stashes of gold and jewels they've been amassing for centuries. The 100 million best off people in India have wealth comparable to the 100 million best off Americans - even though there are also the 100s of millions of Indians living in such often-total poverty.
As more immigrants come into America to drive down the costs of servants and menial labor, we will come increasingly to resemble India - palaces for the rich and squalor for the rest. America is a young civilization yet, India an ancient and wise one. There is much to learn from them, especially regarding the institution of a caste system. Let us not be too proud, as they show us the way to our inevitable future.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Do yourself a favor, and visit India before you make hollow remarks based on some one-sided documentary made 50 years ago, or on the CNN documentary you saw.
I grew up in rural India. Guess what? Not only BASIC, but much more than BASIC medical care is available for FREE if you go to a Govt. run hospital.
My sister's a doc in India. It's a private practice, and if she feels that her patient can't afford it, she does't charge them. And most of the docs in India have the same attitude. Do you know what a Hippocratic Oath is?. So if you are comparing the US medical amenities & cost to India, there is one huge component missing in the US... compassion. Don't compare apples to oranges.
From importing most of the grains in the past 30-40 years, India is now the world's largest foodgrains producer, the second largest fruit producer, the largest vegetable-producer, and the largest milk producer. India can not only feed its entire population, but it exports too. CNN didn't tell you that did it?
Another fact for the news deprived: India has NEVER had an expansionist ideology. Go read up some history. How about a few thousand years back from 2004? India has always been attacked before she responded in every single war since she was formed in 1947. Can you say I-R-A-Q? Who's a hippocrite?
Back to the topic... this is for the thought-handicapped:
If this project is successful, then India will be competing with Boeing and Airbus, never mind the military applications. How is that bad? Isn't that going to get more money into India? Was IT bad for India? The US refused to sell us a Supercomputer (one of the Cray machines) back in the 90s. Surprise, surprise! We built one that was faster and much cheaper than the Cray we were looking to buy for Weather Forecasting. Thanks a bunch US!
Then the US blocked the sale of some rocket parts from Russia. We built it from scratch. Thanks again US! We should be partners!! Oh wait, that pisses off Musharraf, the Chinese Commies, half the fucking Arab world... never mind, we can manage it on our own...
Would the US be self-reliant and the leader of the world if the politicians here threw up their hands and sat on their asses after all the US residents all had running water? You sound just like the geniuses who screamed "WASTE" when the US space program was launched.
Flaimbait? No, just an Indian who is fsking pissed that people can be so fsking unintelligent.
____
Sometimes the voices in my head speak over each other. This is one of those times.
One of the very important issues I see neglected in many of the news reports relating to SCRAMjet-powered craft is the issue of getting the damned things up to a speed where the SCRAMjet can actually start working.
With a small unmanned craft the solution could be to use rocket boosters to get the vehicle up to around Mach 1 -- at which speed the SCRAMjet would be able to start producing sufficient thrust to continue the acceleration.
However, what do you do with a passenger craft filled with people. The acceleration to 0.9M is going to need to be done far more gently (or they'd spill their prawn cocktails and Bucks Fizz). Perhaps they plan to use conventional turbojet engines -- in which case you're now talking about a whole heap of additional weight (engines plus fuel) and drag that will penalise the hypersonic performance. and range.
Then there's the issue of landing...
Since the SCRAMjet will not provide any useful thrust at mid to low subsonic speeds, what safety margins are built in for aborted landings or other problems. Sure, the space shuttle can glide to a landing -- but it has a dedicated runway, clear airspace and only seven lives at risk.
Finally, one has to ask: just because we *can* build something, does that necessarily mean it's a sensible idea to do so?
Increasing the flight-speed of a craft is an expensive business in terms of energy consumption. To double the speed requires four times the power (all other aspects being equal) so to push a craft along at mach 5 would require 256 times as much thrust as it takes to push it along at mach 1.
Unless there's some clever magic involved, that means 256 times as much fuel being used to travel five times as fast -- making it 50 times *less* efficient in terms of miles to the gallon.
Now think about this for a minute.. would you pay 50 times as much as it presently costs to fly from one place to another if it meant saving a few hours?
The Concorde service died because it was too expensive and they only flew at Mach 2. How on earth then, could a hypersonic passenger service be economically viable?
And don't make the mistake of thinking that liquid hydrogen is going to be cheaper than Jet-A fuel, last time I checked it was almost identical.
A final note, even if this all panned out and India was able to introduce a hypersonic passenger jet service, would anyone use it? After all, just look at their railway safety record
20 years is actually not that very long. I've worked on military research before, and while I was doing so a report stated that the average time between the start of a military research project and a deliverable hitting even limited deployment was 10 years (in the UK and USA). Given that a lot of projects are quite simple upgrade to existing technology, 20 years isn't that bad.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What about the major gender imbalace that is developing in your country? You know the one that is happending because your highly developed civilization places such little importance on girls that it is ok (wink, wink) to kill them.
Sure. The rich in India are better off than the poor in the US. Now, for a fair comparison, contrast the poorest/middle/richest in both countries.
The one belonging to no country which is hidden on a barge, rather than sitting atop an ICBM that leaves a trail pointing home.
--
Power to the Peaceful
What a load of crap! How does such uninformed bullshit get modded up as insightful?
Which was the last "war" that the so-called war-mongering India has started?
Hint: The last war India has been involved in ended in 1972. In it's 56-year history, India has initiated military action only once and that was to help Bangladesh gain its independence.
Meanwhile the great benevolent non-imperial nations of UK and France continue to maintain their colonies such as Falkland Islands and the islands in the South Pacific that France likes to blow up with nukes whenever it feels like pissing off the Aussies and Kiwis.
And I won't even begin to dwell into the economic imperialism that Europe is imposing upon Africa. European nations also have a long way to go before they can be excused for the mess their greedy exploitation and subsequent hasty departure has left in large parts of Asia and Africa.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Once upon a time, way back when space and aeronautical engineering was cool,(er, you remember a thing called engineering?), there was a similar project called HOTOL.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/6 133/hotol.html
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/hotol.htm
WTF happened.....
TSR2 Fan
My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
(A)erobic (V)ehicle for (H)ypersonic (A)erospace (T)ransportation == AVATAR?
/. tradition, I've not yet read the article... I'm satisfied with just making fun of the summary. :)
To what extent are we allowed to arbitrarily select letters to form a cool acronym?
Maybe they felt that AVHAT was a little too close to "asshat"?
On the other hand, since "avatar" is derived from Sanskrit and can mean "the incarnation of a Hindu deity, especially Vishnu, in human or animal form"... and since Vishnu is the "protector and preserver of worlds", perhaps AVATAR is meaningful symbolically rather than acronymically (is that a word?... didn't think so).
Of course, in
The britshit are very good with partitionning countries, and it always blows-up in their face: Ireland, India, Koweit.
Perhaps it is time to get rid the world of the anglo-saxon incompetence, because whenever anglo-saxons touch something, they fuck it up irremediably.
Do something positive for Mankind today: shoot an anglo-saxon.
They're actually Su-30 MKI (M- Modified, Advanced, K-Export, I-India), but they're damn good planes all the same.
Here is a rebuttal to your diatribe:
Govt. run hospital.
Tuberculosis, AIDS and malaria are the main diseases that India has to grapple with across the length and breadth of the country. For many years the government has been focusing on family planning programs to control population growth. Primary health care schemes have been on the agenda also but the services and facilities are stretched. There is a big gap between facilities available in urban and rural areas. Some of the urban private institutions have the most modern equipments and expert doctors, while the government run hospital are scraping for funds and facilities. Patients are overflowing into the urban hospitals at an alarming rate and the health infrastructure is unable to cope with it.
http://www.oneworld.net/article/archive/4509/
India can not only feed its entire population, but it exports too.
India is the second most populous country in the world and third largest economy in Asia. Since its independence 50 years ago, India has followed a policy of self-sufficiency in food production and has never been a major player in the world grain market. This is likely to change in the future due to economic growth, population growth, and resource constraints.
The adoption of market-oriented domestic and trade policies in 1997/98 has led India to an accelerated economic growth. If this growth becomes broad based, it is likely that there will be a significant change in dietary preference. In addition, projected higher population growth will make India the most populous country by the middle of the next century, increasing the pressure on food demand. More importantly, according to United Nations projections, more than 55 percent of the total population will live in urban locations in 2030, compared to 26 percent in 1996.
In contrast, India's agricultural production has slowed significantly in recent years. Historically, growth in agricultural production since the 1960s has been from a sustained rising trend in yields, with no, or slight, increase in area production. Three inputs--irrigation, fertilizer, and high yielding varieties--have accounted for much of the yield growth in the past decades. It has been argued that a declining rate of irrigated area and per hectare fertilizer application has been responsible for the slowing of yield growth. It is alarming to note that production growth is declining at a rate higher than the inputs in recent years.
In the face of the declining growth of agricultural productivity and likely increase in food demand, it is probable that in the future India will come to depend on imported food to meet domestic requirements. To quantify these effects, FAPRI evaluated India's grain demand and supply situation for 2015. Food demand is estimated by taking into account structural change in consumption due to urbanization and income growth. Strong income growth and urbanization are expected to significantly change the composition of the food basket. The average per capita consumption of cereals is projected to rise from 160 kg in 1993 to 168 kg by 2007, and then start declining after 2007, falling to 165 kg by 2015. Rural per capita cereal consumption increases throughout the period, whereas urban per capita cereal consumption until 1999, and then starts to decline.
http://www.fapri.iastate.edu/bulletin/oct98/indi a. htm
India has NEVER had an expansionist ideology.
GROWING MENACE OF INDIAN EXPANSIONISM
Indian state of late has been stepping up its Indian expansionist design over its neighbouring smaller countries. In the context of Nepal, not satisfied with physically nibbling away Nepalese border land bit by bit, stationing of it's military camp over Kalapani land and building illegal barrage in Laxmanpur, inundating thousands of Nepalese villages. it is trying to create psychological pressure of is domination by hook or crook! Take the instance of an Indian Airline plane that was
I know one shouldn't believe uncritically what one reads in the papers, but in a recent piece discussing the display of the "Enola Gay" the topic of the necessity of the use of the bombs was brought up.
... :(
According to the article, there is evidence showing that at the time the bombs were dropped, Japan was communicating with Russia with the aim of having Russia act as an intermediary in negotiating a peace in the US. Further, the USA knew of this.
At that point in time, Japan was in a very poor position, running low on resources and having its cities severely bombed conventionally. Again, according to the article, provided that the terms of a peace would allow them to keep the Emperor, Japan was all too willing to surrender.
The choice wasn't between using atomic bombs or a land invasion. Given this situation, a land invasion, along with the concommitant loss of life, would have been simply unnecessary.
Note also: even if there had been a land invasion, the lives lost would have been chiefly confined to those in the armed forces of the two nations (note also that this figure as estimated today would have been similar to or less than the 160000 casualties of the Hiroshima bombing.) Dropping an atomic bomb on a city of course kills mainly civilians. Whether this is significant or not depends on your attitudes towards war.
PS: For comparison, the firebombing of Tokyo is said to have killed about 80000 to 100000 people. The firebombing of Dresden, between 25000 and 150000. With such attrocities it demonstrates that the actions of the victors in WWII were in the end no better than that of their foes, as regards the deliberate targetting of civilian populations. I guess you can always point a finger at the Germany and say 'they started it'
You know, as odd as it seems, I am not terribly worried about Iran's future. The population of Iran is VERY young. the majority of the population has been born after 1978 and the Religious revolution. The older generations remember the Shah and American aid and forced westernization.. The younger generations only know the strict religious rule and forced Islamic law etc. There is GREAT disatisfaction amongst the youth in Iran.
Ironically enough, the religious revolution brought the form of a true democracy to Iran, without the full function (since the Religious supreme leader and Guardian Council essentially can veto candidates and anything the democratically elected can do). Yet the people in Iran now EXPECT democracy. Things are changing, and I seriously expect that very soon things will change in a big way due to popular social movements.
Having said that, I agree completely with the point of your post.
Not interested in Imperialism? Really? Tell that to the French neo-colonies in West Africa. I wish I still had the link, I saw a great picture after France unilaterally sent troops in Cote d'Ivoire of Ivoirians holding up signs saying "Bush! Save us from the French!"
Like others have pointed out, such pictures can be misleading. How do you know the people asking for Bush's "protection" weren't supporters of one or the other faction in the civil war?
You think European economic and diplomatic power far exceeds the US? Well, the economic point is so laughable as to not even deserve refutation.
Actually, the EU's total GDP as of 1999 was about the same as that of the US; once EU enlargement takes place this year, with the accession of Poland, Hungary et. al., the EU's GDP will actually be larger than that of the US (though per capita GDP will be rather lower). Many member states export proportionally far more than the US as well -- such as Germany, for example.
Furthermore, the Euro has succeeded in becoming the largest reserve currency after the US dollar, and continues to grow in usage (one reason for the dollar's decline in value recently -- many countries are partially switching reserves to Euros to spread out their risks).
Oh, and half of the G8 are in the EU -- France, the UK, Germany and Italy.
The EU's economic influence is thus hardly "laughable" at all...
As for European diplomacy succeeding with or without American participation, one can quite easily turn your statement on its head and point out that American diplomacy doesn't work in a vacuum -- American initiatives tend to work far, far better when the Europeans are on board. Think of it as the "good cop, bad cop" routine. Worked brilliantly in Iran recently, as the Iranians agreed top open up to the IAEA (after intense consultations with EU members as well as having American troops on its borders).
A final point about 'European' diplomacy: don't forget that the EU is really just a collection of nation-states, and can only act as a unit in nearly all cases when a consensus amongst those states has been reached.
In that light, to blame "Europe" for diplomatic weakness is misguided: the EU is weak, but its individual members still have quite a lot of influence abroad -- far, far more than other countries of similar size. France, Spain and the UK all punch far above their weight, and Germany is also taking an ever higher profile in recent years.
No offense intended, but such blinkered remarks are why many non-Americans get so exasperated with us -- factually wrong (or iffy) boasts, filled with misinformed chest-pounding about our supposed achievements and so on. We as Americans do have much to be proud of, but that doesn't mean we need to overdo it -- nor does it mean we need to rub everyone else's faces in it (especially not when we claim too much credit). Not a good way to make friends and keep them.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
"No better"? As someone living in Germany (and married to a German), I can hardly tell you how wrong you are. Where to begin?
America and Britain did not seek to exterminate an entire people (and nearly succeed) as the Nazis did, or summarily rape and pillage and entire city, as the Japanese did,
America and Britain did not do human wave attacks, unlike the Soviets.
America and Britain did not, as a matter of policy, summarily execute prisoners of war, as did the Soviets, Japan and the Nazis.
America and Britain did not impose dictatorships wholesale on the countries they occupied, unlike the Soviets, Nazis and Japan. Indeed, most countries the US and UK occupied got liberal democracies and independence.
Indeed, America even rebuilt its defeated enemies, gave them liberal democracies, gave them huge amounts of money and aid, defended them from the Soviets through the Cold War...need I go on?
To make the statement that America was "no better" than the Nazis, Imperial Japan or Stalinist Russia is just completely out of touch with basic facts. Yes, America and Britain did commit many crimes, like the internment of Japanese-Americans and dropping the atom bomb on civilians and firebombing German cities and so on. But on balance I'd still much rather have a world where America and the UK won, as opposed to one where the Soviets or (shudder) Nazis won, thankyouverymuch.
And given that I live in a city which was flattened by Bomber Harris, and which has Hiroshima as a partner city, I can tell you that the "defeated" Germans were in the end just as much 'winners' in the end as us Americans -- and they know it, and won't forget it easily. That's why Germany still commemorates the Berlin Airlift, Kennedy's "Berliner" speech (no, he did not say he was a jelly donut), the Marshall Plan and so on.
America little better than the Nazis? Today's Germans -- at least all the Germans I know -- would say America's a hell of a lot better.
Cheers,
Ethelred
Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
I am so tired of this far too frequent "argument".
European: "I think X is true, because of Y".
American: "We saved your ass in WW2. Therefore X is false. QED."
Am I the only person in America who can spot the logical error in this exchange??
Just putting some of the parent-post's rebuttal statements in perspective. India is self sufficient as regards food grains and does export a lot of food products. Note that the link contains more recent stats..
The Expansionism link is from a website which is a mouthpiece of the for the ultra left and rebellious Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), which has been known to spread propagandist statements against India (and the US!!).
Cray computers: Never happened.
US did refuse to give India Cray super computers and we invented the Param supercomputer to do the same job in much cheaper and more efficient manner. Hell, I had classmates in undergrad who worked on many of the projects to develop Param and its successors.
It takes a lot more than a technological accomplishment in design to compete with the likes of Boeing and Airbus.
But its definitely a start. Something similar happened in the Pharma industry 15-20 years back. But Indian pharma companies are beginning to compete with American pharma giants in their own markets due to technologies and expertise they developed.
Public healthcare in India is lacking, but as was the original posters claim, there is still FREE public healthcare available to the common man. Hopefully, as India as a country matures and becomes richer, the quality of healthcare will improve.
However your 'facts' and arguments are completely false.
Not quite...See above.