Slashdot Mirror


India Test Fires Long-Range, Nuke-Capable Missile

An anonymous reader writes "India has successfully test fired a long-range, nuke-capable missile. Named after Hindu God of fire 'Agni', the ICBM is capable of hitting targets in China, East Africa and parts of Europe. With a successful launch of the missile, India joins an elite group of nations with long-range weapons. 'The BBC's Andrew North in Delhi says Indian officials deny it, but everyone believes the missile is mainly aimed at deterring China. A spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry, Liu Weimin, said his country was not threatened by the test. ... It was only launched once officials were sure they had the best weather conditions — so this was as much a demonstration as a real test, to show India's rivals that it has this kind of capability.'"

336 comments

  1. India invents the "V2"? by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 0

    India invents the "V2"?

    1. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      And why is the United States of America condemning this missile launch as it does every time North Korea even announces such plans?

    2. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you mean to say "not condemning"? India is a lot more responsible than N. Korea.

    3. Re:India invents the "V2"? by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, India to Europe is a bit farther than Normandy to London.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful
      [Assuming you meant to say not condemning]

      Because India isn't still technically in a state of war with the US (the Korean War never had a peace treaty, only an armistice, so it is still technically in a state of war), they haven't threatened to destroy the US, they aren't lead by a psychotic megalomaniac who might actually use nuclear weapons, and the missile can only reach to somewhere in China, which India is far more likely to ever go to war with than with the US. In other words, because the US has no real reason to care if India gets a long range missile.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    5. Re:India invents the "V2"? by captain_sweatpants · · Score: 2

      In NK military parades, intermingled with the goosestepping infantry, you will find tanks with messages scrawled across the front along the lines of 'we will crush the oppressive american dogs'. Meanwhile most of the country starves waiting for food aid the US and others provide, while the leaders sit around fucking whores and ordering the deaths of anyone who dare question their authority. Sure, India is a bit of a shithole, but they aren't comparable at all.

    6. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      USA and North Korea are not in a state of war. North Korea is ONLY in a state of war with South Korea. In addition, North Korea is constantly trying to invade the South. They constantly harass. They have been spreading nuke development around the world (North Korea and China are helping Iran, Burma, and Venezuela build nuclear bombs).

      Finally, NK has many treaties and agreements prohibiting them from developing nukes or missiles. They honor none of them. India has no such agreement. That is the real difference.

    7. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we do have a significant number of psychotic megalomaniacs in power

    8. Re:India invents the "V2"? by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

      Some minor adjustments -- Because [Iran] isn't in a state of war with the US, they haven't threatened to destroy the US, they aren't lead by a psychotic megalomaniac who might actually use nuclear weapons, and the missile can only reach to somewhere in [Iraq or Saudi Arabia], which Iran is far more likely to ever go to war with than with the US. In other words, because the US has no real reason to care if [Iran] gets a missile or nukes.

      Why do politicians like Obama and Romney say they want to bomb Iran??? There is no need.

      Ron Paul is right.
      The killing needs
      to stop ASAP.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    9. Re:India invents the "V2"? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Because India is a democratic country (for the most part) which has no intentions of using such a delivery system to unilaterally attack its neighbors. Anyone with any knowledge of the region can figure out pretty fast that the development of ICBMs is a message straight at Beijing, which India still has unresolved territorial disputes with.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:India invents the "V2"? by jmorris42 · · Score: 0

      Dude, is your brain a 6502? (Ripping on your nick.) Get an upgrade, cuz you can't think too good with that pokey old thing.

      Iran is no threat? The country where they all come together and shout "Death to America" every single day? For over thirty years and counting? And you paultards want to let em have nukes? Those guys might be crazy enough to use em straight up in a first strike. And ya can't even say that about the Norks so I'd say that puts em in a special category of their own.

      Now back on topic, nobody gives a rats ass about India rattling a saber at China because:

      a) India is a stable country with almost zero chance of launching a first strike.

      b) India has been launching stuff into space for years already. If you would upgrade yer brain to at least a 6809 you could figure out that any launcher that can put up a geostationary sat is more than capable of being repurposed to deliver atomic greetings anywhere on earth. So their explicitly demoing one labeled as a missle was purely public relations.

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    11. Re:India invents the "V2"? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Because we're trading partners...

    12. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why is the United States of America [not] condemning this missile launch as it does every time North Korea even announces such plans?

      Try reading some History.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

    13. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      True, but ICBMs don't mind. That is why they are called Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    14. Re:India invents the "V2"? by gtall · · Score: 1

      Actually, the U.S. does care and would wish India would )&)(*^%$ stop it. The administration isn't saying that in public for probably trade reasons.

      The reason the U.S. does care is because of missile and nuclear technology proliferation, and the fact that those crazy Pakistanis will now feel their manhood has been threatened and will attempt to build a bigger missile and similarly weaponize it with nuclear naughtiness. And the Pakistanis are not sheepish about spreading the technology around especially now that after their 67th or so year of mismanagement, the country is poor simply because they couldn't stand to live in peace with the Indians. Call it the Islam Tax.

    15. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 1

      *COUGH*outsourcing*COUGH*

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    16. Re:India invents the "V2"? by gtall · · Score: 1

      What makes you think the Pakistanis are so well-adjusted that they see the situation as you do. By all accounts, they are not. Just look at the amount of their military is positioned to repel the Indian invasion they just know is coming because they believe India wants access to the untold...well...something but it isn't riches, of Pakistan.

    17. Re:India invents the "V2"? by afidel · · Score: 1

      Yes, and that's why a comparison is inaccurate, this is no more a V2 than the Saturn V or the minuteman is a V2, it's an ICBM.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    18. Re:India invents the "V2"? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I don't want them to have nukes, but we shouldn't be telling a nation what they can and can not do within there own border.

      TO my ind, the smart response to the Iranian claiming the only want it for power would be to volunteer to give/sell then what they need for thorium 4g reactors.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Krojack · · Score: 1

      cpu6502 is clearly one of the few Iranian government officials that still has full internet access. For all we know cpu6502 could in fact be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

    20. Re:India invents the "V2"? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You have no evidence for the claims of helping those countries build nuclear bombs. That's abject bullshit. The scary thing is you probably think it's true.

    21. Re:India invents the "V2"? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      There's no evidence they're building nukes, and they are most definitely allowed to develop nuclear power. They admit the UN nuclear inspectors, and show them whatever they want to see. I have no idea where you get your information, but it sure as shit isn't reality.

    22. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you don't recognize the significant geopolitical differences between India and the DPRK, both internally and externally, then you're missing a few decades worth of relevant history.

      Routinely saying things like, "we're going to annihilate all the capitalist dogs", tends to skew how other nations react to developments in your military technology.

    23. Re:India invents the "V2"? by SomePgmr · · Score: 1

      I hadn't heard about those other nations and bomb building.

      I do know collaboration on rocket technology between Iran and North Korea hasn't been much of a secret since the 90's. They issue press statements about it, including one last week. I also seem to remember reading that Iran's medium [Israel] range rocket tech originally came from North Korea.

      But given Iran's precarious position, I'd think that nuclear tech sharing between the two would be kept pretty well hushed.

    24. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      This 'long range missile' was designed with SUBMARINE LAUNCH CAPABILITY IN MIND.

      Does India have working Submarines?

      Then the US is a target.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    25. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Khyber · · Score: 2

      "Iran is no threat? The country where they all come together and shout "Death to America" every single day? For over thirty years and counting? "

      I heartily point you out to some old Nat'l Geo magazines, where IRANS THEN-LEADER was extolling their wonderful nuclear power program in advertisements....

      And the USA was SUPPORTING IT.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    26. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Khyber · · Score: 3, Funny

      "For all we know cpu6502 could in fact be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

      But there are no gays in Iran!

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    27. Re:India invents the "V2"? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      When did Obama and/or Romney say they want to bomb Iran? Looking for an actual quote here.

    28. Re:India invents the "V2"? by jmorris42 · · Score: 0

      > And the USA was SUPPORTING IT.

      Could that be because a) everybody then was wanting nuke power for electricity and b) because the regime at the time wasn't doing daily choruses of "Death to America!"

      With the current rulers and their current production levels of natural gas and oil paired against the current costs of electricity from nuke the claim isn't very plausible. Then combine with the reasonable suspicion that they are desperate for a bomb and their clearly stated hostility to us and our various interests and we would be fools to allow them to succeed. WHen the circumstances change over time it is totally reasonable and consistent for our position to change. Unfortunately we currently have either a fool or a knave in charge here so they will probably have a bomb and we will have to cope. Have a terrible suspicion millions will die because the American people allowed themselves to be duped by the media in '08. (And the Stupid Party putting up the weakest candidate in a generation, never forget that part... especially as they appear desperate to repeat the mistake with the second weakest candidate in a generation.)

      --
      Democrat delenda est
    29. Re:India invents the "V2"? by shiftless · · Score: 1

      The country where they all come together and shout "Death to America" every single day? For over thirty years and counting?

      For the same reason they shout "Death to Taxes"...and "Death to Traffic"

      Overreaction is far worse than underaction. Enjoy your little World War; I'll be hiding waiting for you all to blow yourself to kingdom come, so me and my offspring can start picking up the pieces.

    30. Re:India invents the "V2"? by osu-neko · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Iran is no threat? The country where they all come together and shout "Death to America" every single day?

      Indeed. Look at the huge death toll all this shouting has caused all across the United States. The shouting must be stopped!!!1!

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    31. Re:India invents the "V2"? by vivtho · · Score: 1

      India has no such agreement.

      India unilaterally declared that it will not export any ballistic missile technology despite not being a member of the MTCR

    32. Re:India invents the "V2"? by vivtho · · Score: 3, Informative

      This 'long range missile' was designed with SUBMARINE LAUNCH CAPABILITY IN MIND.

      Does India have working Submarines?

      Then the US is a target.

      The Agni is a land-based missile and is expected to be launched from rail-based vehicles. The sub-launched missiles are the Sagarika (700 km range and tested successfully but not yet in service) and the K-4 (3500 km range which is under development and hasn't had any flight tests as yet)

      India does not have any ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) in service yet. The first one - the Arihant was launched last year and is undergoing tests. All other submarines are either SSKs or SSNs

    33. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the knowledge transfers to Iran are pretty well documented. Discussions with Burma/Venezuela are also known, buts its meaningless hot air.

      Ultimately NK has a very limited ability to help others, as they have ever built one on their own. The bombs they have are mostly Chinese, NK is totally reliant on their designs and technical assistance.

    34. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Dave+Emami · · Score: 1

      Because we're trading partners...

      "If goods don't cross borders, armies will."

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    35. Re:India invents the "V2"? by NemoinSpace · · Score: 1

      Why can't you do your own research You'll just try to discredit this anyway.

    36. Re:India invents the "V2"? by quenda · · Score: 1

      India has no such agreement.

      India unilaterally declared that it will not export any ballistic missile technology despite not being a member of the MTCR

      And Pakistan said it would not export nuclear weapon technology.

    37. Re:India invents the "V2"? by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Israel's Jericho missile range is 11,500 km
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jericho_missile

    38. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      You need to RTFA some more. What I stated is explicitly stated in TFA.

      Catch up on weapons tech with me, now. I'm already playing with 10kW lasers. Where are you, sonny?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    39. Re:India invents the "V2"? by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Your "research" doesn't say what you claim it says.

      "I will not take military action off the table" is an entirely different sentence than "I want to bomb Iran". Try to understand what people are saying and stop projecting your own fanciful views onto the situation.

    40. Re:India invents the "V2"? by vivtho · · Score: 1

      I don't see the article stating that the Agni was designed with submarine-launch capabilities anywhere. Wanna point it out to me?

    41. Re:India invents the "V2"? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "The present variant of the Agni-V will likely lead to spin-off Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBM) for India’s Ballistic Missile Submarines (SBBN)."

      TFS changed TFA link.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  2. Wait.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are they fighting about again?

  3. Good morning! by shemyazaz · · Score: 4, Funny

    Its a wonderful day in the neighborhood....

  4. Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Let's just get this straight.

    So North Korea, a despot nation with no natural resources and maybe, perhaps, who the hell actually knows, may just have a nuclear weapon but we're not totally sure if they actually work, fire a "missile" and everyone is pissed.

    India, a populous and relatively rich nation with a known nuclear capability, which has been to war with it's neighbour who also has a known nuclear capability, fires it's missile and we don't bat an eyelid?

    What the fuck?

    1. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      North Korea has been run by a familial succession of dictators who have been, at best, more than a little deranged. India is the closest thing that region has to a western democracy.

    2. Re:Wait, hang on by MayorOfTuesday · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. I think it's ok for other people to carry guns. I don't think it's ok for batshit crazy people to carry guns.

    3. Re:Wait, hang on by sirlark · · Score: 1

      Which means they're the most likely target, and very likely to use their offensive capabilities in retaliation.

    4. Re:Wait, hang on by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      Unlike many other countries, like North Korea, the muslim countries, and even the US, I think the Indians can be trusted with nuclear weapons, and there's no reason not to believe that they won't break their 'no first use' doctrine.

      Remember the muslim dictator of Pakistan, who said that he'd have a nuclear weapon (to threaten the neighbours with) even if the people had to eat grass?

    5. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly...

    6. Re:Wait, hang on by Nidi62 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except 1 is demonstrably false, as much as many people here would like to believe to the contrary, and 4 is questionable as well (is there corruption? of course. But is the corruption level high? not really, especially compared to many other states in the world). 2 is certainly true, and I guess 3 would be as well, given a rather loose definition of "regularly". It should be noted that all of the wars the US was involved in in recent history were undertaken with international participation, if not broad international support (yes, even in Iraq). I know you're just trying to score points by showing that the US is evil and more dangerous than states like North Korea or Iran, but even a basic knowledge of the issues shows your assertion is not all that well supported by the facts.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    7. Re:Wait, hang on by sideslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Lets talk about the US here : 1) Dictatorial style governance - check

      I understand that UR mad, bro etc. But seriously, how long do you think Obama will remain in office? I'm going to go way out on a limb and predict that he will leave office either in January of 2013 or 2017. If the former, it will be because democratic voters chose somebody else. If the latter, it will be because of written law superseding leaders' preference to stay in office, so that (once again) democratic voters can choose somebody else.

      But I admit that's a crazy expectation of mine. So tell me, what do you think will happen?

      Seriously: I get that the US government commits constitutional abuses from time to time. But that is a long way from dictatorship.

    8. Re:Wait, hang on by Bigby · · Score: 1

      You only oppose something like this when they didn't already have it. India can already blow up the world, so why contest it? The goal is to have as few countries as possible with the capability of blowing up the world. If Switzerland didn't have a nuclear weapon (i am assuming they do, but if they don't, even better) and they tried to get one, other countries would try to stop it. Once you are there, you are in "in the club". Hence the desire behind North Korea and other countries. You aren't respected until you have the power to kill everyone.

    9. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you actually know why North Korea is the way it is nowadyas?

    10. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The fact that he can blithely compare the US to North Korea like that without any repercussions is a demonstration in itself that the US enjoys significantly greater personal freedom than NK does, but I'm sure that didn't occur to him.

    11. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe US spokespeople are beginning to choke on their own hypocrisy. I'm sure they'd like to say the words, but they just won't come out.

    12. Re:Wait, hang on by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 2

      It should be noted that all of the wars the US was involved in in recent history were undertaken with international participation, if not broad international support (yes, even in Iraq)

      I am not sure I get your argument here. Sounds a lot like "I bullied that guy in high school because all my friends were doing that, too".

      --
      My first program:

      Hell Segmentation fault

    13. Re:Wait, hang on by dkleinsc · · Score: 1, Interesting

      India is the closest thing that region has to a western democracy.

      It of course depends a bit on how you define the region, but Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Nepal, and more recently Cambodia are all democracies largely modelled after the British government. Pakistan is at least in theory a democracy as well, although political violence is relatively common.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    14. Re:Wait, hang on by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I get the feeling that the current Kim is actually a level-headed guy playing the part of a crazy dictator (while trying to improve things as much as he can without idling and dismantling NK's military) to prevent a military coup.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    15. Re:Wait, hang on by samkass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It should be noted that all of the wars the US was involved in in recent history were undertaken with international participation, if not broad international support (yes, even in Iraq)

      I am not sure I get your argument here. Sounds a lot like "I bullied that guy in high school because all my friends were doing that, too".

      The argument is that the US is unlikely to unilaterally invade/nuke another country without warning. It has no active border disputes, no external threats to its existence, no significant internal insurgency, has changed leaders in a relatively orderly fashion regularly for over a century, has a military firmly under civilian control, and tends to seek approval of at least its western allies before military action. Of course, it's also the only nation on the planet to have used nukes in anger, so I would understand your skepticism, but don't pretend there's no difference between the US and North Korea in terms of the likelihood nukes would get used.

      --
      E pluribus unum
    16. Re:Wait, hang on by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dictatorial style governance HAHAHA

      Corruption high nope, try again.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    17. Re:Wait, hang on by parlancex · · Score: 0

      North Korea has been run by leaders not under the control of the US government who have been, at best, more than a little uncooperative. India is the closest thing that region has to a western democracy.

      FTFY.

    18. Re:Wait, hang on by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Yeah, in NK if you compare the US to NK you get put against the wall for implying any other nation could measure up to the greatness created by Great Leader and Dear Leader.

    19. Re:Wait, hang on by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 1

      Or that's just what he /wants/ you to think. Crazy like a crazy fox, they are.

    20. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds more like the good kids got together to kick the shit out of the asshole/crazy Bully after frequent warnings that they would do just that if the Bully didn't stop.

    21. Re:Wait, hang on by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The whole "used nukes in anger" remark is nonsense.

      We were in the middle of a war. We had been leveling cities for strategic purposes for a long while before we decided to do it with a single device.

      People that like to fixate on the nukes tend to ignore all of the other cities that got bombed and all of the other people that got killed. They also tend to trivialize the Japanese.

      I often wonder if there isn't a bit of racism mixed in there, trivializing the Japanese.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    22. Re:Wait, hang on by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think that anyone outside NK knows Dear Successor well enough to understand his state of mind. He's probably not batshit insane, and I don't think his father was either. However, he is a guy who probably enjoys the trappings of power, and also realizes that he has to keep the military and powerbrokers under him on his side. Although he may want a better future for his country, he may realize that it could be very, very difficult to realize that future with himself in power... or even alive at the end of the process.

      His best option is a sort of China-like situation where he ditches the Juche crap and starts trying to act like a dictatorial South Korea. Let's not forget, South Korea was not always a model democracy itself. NK can probably succeed by conferring with Bejing on how they can open their markets in certain ways, make nice with the West, while at the same time, not changing the political system very much at all.

    23. Re:Wait, hang on by drinkypoo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      f the former, it will be because democratic voters chose somebody else.

      We never elected Bush and we had him twice. Wake up.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    24. Re:Wait, hang on by ArcherB · · Score: 0

      It should be noted that all of the wars the US was involved in in recent history were undertaken with international participation, if not broad international support (yes, even in Iraq)

      I am not sure I get your argument here. Sounds a lot like "I bullied that guy in high school because all my friends were doing that, too".

      You have to consider that the US is probably the only nation in history who goes to war for purposes other than loot and conquer. It should also be noted that the US usually goes to war against a local bully. Iraq, for example, it hardly what I'd call the nerdy kid on his way to violin lessons. Iraq had invaded every one of its neighbors, except for Syria and had a nasty habit of brutally repressing its own population. Afghanistan harbored a group that attacked us and was equally harsh on the people within its own borders.

      But, you use your analogy, the US and its allies force submission of a weaker kid at school, and GIVES him lunch money.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    25. Re:Wait, hang on by Luckyo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      South Korea is not a model democracy today. It's a fascist (or corporatist if you want to white wash it through name change) state where large corporations like Samsung and Daewoo essentially own the government regardless of who is actually voted in and get to decide on essentially all relevant policy.

      It is also very financially successful state, due to smart moves by said corporations in essentially "dronifying" the population to the point where wealthiest families move out of the country to avoid that happening to their children.

    26. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      North Korea has done multiple successful nuke explosions and we KNOW that they have the same nuclear capability as India. India may be at it longer, but no doubt about, NK HAS the capability.

      India's new missile just gave them capabilities that NK had 2 decades ago. NK is now trying to build a missile that will be an ICBM. Big difference. India is at least 5-10 years away from that capability.

      Finally, NK has multiple agreements that prevent them from doing what they are doing, while India has none.

      So the difference is that India is honest while nations like NK and China hide everything that they are doing.

    27. Re:Wait, hang on by Digicaf · · Score: 5, Informative

      Replying instead of moderating

      You make great points except for "used nukes in anger". There were a lot of considerations that went into the decision to use nukes, but anger definitely wasn't one of them. The debate over the US' decision to use them has been going on for quite some time, but a few things are pretty clear:

      1. The casualty estimates for an invasion without the use of nukes ranged between half a million to 1.5 million.
      2. The Japanese had a standing order to execute allied POW's in the event of such an invasion, of which there were about 100 thousand.
      3. The conventional wisdom at the time (which was probably true) indicated that Japanese leaders would be unlikely to surrender until well into the invasion of the Japanese homeland.

    28. Re:Wait, hang on by roman_mir · · Score: 3, Informative

      But seriously, how long do you think Obama will remain in office?

      - there is your mistake. You think dictatorship requires that one person stays in power and does whatever he wants. What you fail to understand is that that is not true.

      What you have now is a HYDRA type of government, and you don't need to 'cut' a head off, you vote one out, another one is lifted to light, etc.etc.

      Starting back from the times of Theodore Roosevelt, it's been the same people in power with rare exceptions (Harding maybe).

    29. Re:Wait, hang on by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have to consider that the US is probably the only nation in history who goes to war for purposes other than loot and conquer.

      This is so pathetic. Do you honestly think US leaders are the first EVAR to make stirring speeches and rouse the population to "defend" their nation for a "just" cause? Do you think the Iraqi insurgents or the Taliban in Afghanistan somehow started those wars in order to loot and conquer their own nations?

    30. Re:Wait, hang on by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The Japanese leadership wasn't prepared to surrender even after Hiroshima, and was still hesitant to do so after Nagasaki, and it was the direct intervention of the Emperor that finally forced the Japanese government's hand.

      Bullshit stories about Japan seeking a peaceful resolution in the weeks leading up to the attacks are pretty easily falsified by the behavior of the Japanese government at the time, which even after spectacular attacks on two of its cities still needed the Emperor to basically force the issue for them to raise the white flag.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    31. Re:Wait, hang on by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I expect the current Kim is walking a tightrope, and at least until he's a bit older, will basically be doing what he's told.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    32. Re:Wait, hang on by doston · · Score: 2

      Except 1 is demonstrably false, as much as many people here would like to believe to the contrary, and 4 is questionable as well (is there corruption? of course. But is the corruption level high? not really, especially compared to many other states in the world). 2 is certainly true, and I guess 3 would be as well, given a rather loose definition of "regularly". It should be noted that all of the wars the US was involved in in recent history were undertaken with international participation, if not broad international support (yes, even in Iraq). I know you're just trying to score points by showing that the US is evil and more dangerous than states like North Korea or Iran, but even a basic knowledge of the issues shows your assertion is not all that well supported by the facts.

      Were you in a coma during the Bush administration? The Iraq war had so little international support A few other countries that we have a lot of control over (France, UK, fucking Poland), after using all of our might to twist their arms, sent a few troops (against their citizens will...and they knew it). Not to mention the fact that something like 80% of the American public was totally against the Iraq war before it even started and it was even higher in EU nations. The PEOPLE (remember, we're not dictatorial), you know, the ones who pay for this shit, DIDN'T WANT TO GO TO WAR. That's unprecedented in US history. How is that not dictatorial? Bush went to war anyway, pretty much in the manner of a totalitarian state. Even watching the corporate shill press, you could clearly see this was just George Bush's war. Also, comparing the US to N Korea is a lot like overusing the Nazi/Bush analogies. Wise up, you can live in a (sort of) democratic society, that sometimes acts in totalitarian ways. That's what we have here. There is no correlation between the internal freedoms in a society and violent external behavior -- and all governments are ruthless to the extent that they are powerful.

    33. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The range on the new missile (the Agni-V) is 5,000 km. For an ICBM, that is short. It didn't have to be that short. They could, fairly easily, have given it a few thousand more kilometers. The Indians chose not to. The reasons for the short range are political, not technical. 5000 km gives them range on Beijing but conveniently leaves Tokyo and all of Western Europe out of range, to say nothing of the United States.

      The North Korean new 'satellite' launching rocket, if it worked, could easily drop something on Japan as well as the United States.

      Put bluntly, the North Koreans are building a weapon that threatens the US, Japan and Europe. The Indians are building a weapon that intentionally does not threaten the US, Japan and Europe.

    34. Re:Wait, hang on by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      North Korea has run around threatening its neighbors, sinking their ships randomly then threatening war if you try to blame them for sinking the ship, has a large army ready to invade South Korea at a moment's notice, kidnaps civilians from Japan and South Korea using midget submarines so they can be the dictator's playthings, starves their citizenry to retain dictatorial control, but other than that, they're exactly the same as India.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    35. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a really good chance the U.S. uses a nuke of a bunker busting variety on Iran...

    36. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here let me help you.

      Israel, a populous and relatively rich nation with a known nuclear capability, which has been to war with it's neighbour who also has a known nuclear capability, fires it's missile and we don't bat an eyelid?

      Get it?

    37. Re:Wait, hang on by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2

      The fact that India is a democracy is actually morally important.
      The fact that they are currently not at war (technically NK is at war with SK and has hundreds of artillery pieces pointed to Seoul) is also important.
      The fact that it never signed a treaty saying it would refrain from such tests is also important.
      A fuck was given when India first developped these capabilities. It was a nuclear nation a long time ago and now its missiles range went from 2500 to 3500. It is not that much a big deal.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    38. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whereas here you are ridiculed for it with some hostility.

      Same type of reaction. Difference in degree of sanction.

      What you're not addressing is the similarities between the two. You are falling for the knee-jerk "OMG he said we wuz like NK. Get'im!" reaction so increasingly common among your kind. Instead you could be enjoying a rational discussion and trial of ideas but, oh no, you're far more interested in rah-rah'ing your way into intellectual oblivion.

    39. Re:Wait, hang on by sideslash · · Score: 0

      We never elected Bush and we had him twice.

      Being sore when your side loses is a long and proud American tradition. But speak for yourself, dude -- I voted for Bush twice*. :D

      (*Though not in the Republican primary -- I preferred Alan Keyes.)

    40. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You were dumb enough (or asleep at the wheel enough) to elect him twice. Wake up.

      Nobody -stole- anything. You get the leaders you deserve.

    41. Re:Wait, hang on by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But is the corruption level high? not really, especially compared to many other states in the world

      Depends on what you call corruption. The illicit bribery is among the lowest in the world. Legal bribery is among the highest.

      I know you're just trying to score points by showing that the US is evil and more dangerous than states like North Korea or Iran, but even a basic knowledge of the issues shows your assertion is not all that well supported by the facts.

      When was the last time North Korea invaded anyone on false pretenses? How much leverage does North Korea have to force other countries to pass laws contray to the interests of their peoples? Can North Korea force the EU to send them all their air traffic data in violation of numerous privacy mandates, for instance? Can North Korea extend a war on drug users or a war on copyright infringers across the globe?

      If the North Korean regime was replaced by a sane one, it would be very good news for South Korea and welcome news to the rest of the world. If the US regime was replaced with a sane one, it would be cause for celebration in all corners of the world.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    42. Re:Wait, hang on by Hatta · · Score: 3

      It's not an autocratic dictatorship, it's an oligarchical dictatorship.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    43. Re:Wait, hang on by Hatta · · Score: 1

      It has no active border disputes

      But it seems to think its laws have worldwide jurisdiction.

      no external threats to its existence

      But, "Terrorism is an existential threat"

      no significant internal insurgency

      But we can hope!

      has changed leaders in a relatively orderly fashion regularly for over a century

      Changed figureheads, but we've been ruled by corporatists for decades.

      tends to seek approval of at least its western allies before military action

      Or rather, it manufactures the appearance of consensus. Does "doalition of the willing" ring a bell?

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    44. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes a rock, solid rank 22 right above fucking Uruguay. Way to raise the bar there, sparky.

    45. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, this is bullshit. The entire reason Britain went to war with Germany in 1939 was to honour a defence agreement, not to loot and conquer.

    46. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something I'm curious about. When you use words like corporatist, do you still expect people to listen to anything you have to say? If your twelve years old, then I apologize because this is what you should expect from someone lacking maturity. But if your an adult, then have you ever tried acting like one? I'm not trolling you, this is a serious question. And yes, posting a/c but I will keep an eye on replies. Trolls, or more phrases like corporatist/sheeple etc etc will be ignored. If you can carry on a conversation like a grown up, I will respond. If your twelve, well, never mind.

    47. Re:Wait, hang on by afidel · · Score: 1

      Since it's a perception index the absolute numbers are worthless, what matters is the perception that there is only a small amount of graft in the public sector. That perception from the US is probably justified since other than the federal campaign donation system which can be seen as a form of open graft there really is very little widespread corruption.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    48. Re:Wait, hang on by DerekLyons · · Score: 2

      Keep in mind that the Agni isn't exactly new... it's been around since the 1980's. Also, India has had theatre level ability to deliver nuclear weapons since the 1970's.

      So, seniority, not batshit crazy, generally stable, generally well behaved, all these things play a part.

    49. Re:Wait, hang on by doston · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The whole "used nukes in anger" remark is nonsense.

      We were in the middle of a war. We had been leveling cities for strategic purposes for a long while before we decided to do it with a single device.

      People that like to fixate on the nukes tend to ignore all of the other cities that got bombed and all of the other people that got killed. They also tend to trivialize the Japanese.

      I often wonder if there isn't a bit of racism mixed in there, trivializing the Japanese.

      There's some racism; but mostly it's just ignoring one's own crimes. The US is entirely guilty of both, especiallly the latter and *very* consistently. Take Pol Pot. While our enemies were causing genocide in Cambodia, of course it was getting *heavy* press here in the US. What did not get press was East Timor and was happening at *exactly* the same time, was just as severe, but the US was funding the aggressors (indonesia), so no reporting. History rarely makes a controlled experiment, but in that case it did and you can see how lock-step the press and government was in the US at prosecuting one and ignoring the other. Or take the Nazi Holocaust. It was awful, you hear about it all the time...6 million Jewish people killed. Do you hear about the Native American Holocaust? Not much. Even though probably 2-10 times (estimates vary) as many dark skinned natives were slaughtered. The difference was that we weren't responsible for the former, but entirely responsible for the latter. That generalizes....and it's real consistent. It's not just the US; all power systems ignore their own crimes. And their intellecutal class helps by writing history in their favor. If you want to read bad things about the US regarding Hiroshima, you'll probably have to read some subversive book, or simply visit a library in a country that isn't real fond of the US.

    50. Re:Wait, hang on by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And I still say we should have tuned into 2 more US states.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    51. Re:Wait, hang on by dave420 · · Score: 0

      Ha! You fucking idiot. Keyes, too! Brilliant.

    52. Re:Wait, hang on by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You do know that corporatism is a real thing, right? And it's "you're", not "your". You got that wrong 3 times in a single post, and yet you feel perfectly entitled to chide someone on being childish because they mentioned something you didn't know existed.

    53. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you think the difference between ridicule in a public forum and the threat of harm lies only in the "degree of sanction" then I've got some news for you about your supposed sense of rationality.

    54. Re:Wait, hang on by Luckyo · · Score: 2

      I called the system by it's real name, fascism. Then noted that corporatism is the same thing, whitewashed.

      Is there something unclear about these terms, are you perhaps unfamiliar with any of them and unable to access wikipedia and/or google from where you are, or do you just object to claims that modern South Korea is largely a fascist society?

    55. Re:Wait, hang on by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      I fail to see your point. Using coercive power on other nations is pretty much the definition of hegemonic power, which is what the US had at that time (and to some degree still has today, although it is waning). And you cannot pick and choose, international support is international support, no matter the reasoning or motivation behind it. And when governments go against their peoples' will, they get punished, as both the US government and the governments of other states (such as Britain) experienced. It's all about capital; even at that level there is a finite level of goodwill, of public support. The US used up a lot of it's excess capital, both domestically and internationally, during the Iraq War. No one can logically refute this. But coercive force, whether violent or nonviolent, whether it's through the carrot or the stick, is the bedrock upon which international politics, and really politics in general, is built. Despite wishes and attempts to the contrary, might really does make right. Even the UN tries to use coercive force on a daily basis, it just generally uses the threat of sanctions or the promise of aid to do so. Would it be better if every state cooperated and selflessly worked together? Of course. But that is not how the world works. The world is a zero sum game. You can decide to stop playing, but you'll lose. As long as one state is playing the game, every state has to if they want to keep any of their power.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    56. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What are you prejudiced against Uruguay?

    57. Re:Wait, hang on by doston · · Score: 1

      I fail to see your point. Using coercive power on other nations is pretty much the definition of hegemonic power, which is what the US had at that time (and to some degree still has today, although it is waning). And you cannot pick and choose, international support is international support, no matter the reasoning or motivation behind it. And when governments go against their peoples' will, they get punished, as both the US government and the governments of other states (such as Britain) experienced. It's all about capital; even at that level there is a finite level of goodwill, of public support. The US used up a lot of it's excess capital, both domestically and internationally, during the Iraq War. No one can logically refute this. But coercive force, whether violent or nonviolent, whether it's through the carrot or the stick, is the bedrock upon which international politics, and really politics in general, is built. Despite wishes and attempts to the contrary, might really does make right. Even the UN tries to use coercive force on a daily basis, it just generally uses the threat of sanctions or the promise of aid to do so. Would it be better if every state cooperated and selflessly worked together? Of course. But that is not how the world works. The world is a zero sum game. You can decide to stop playing, but you'll lose. As long as one state is playing the game, every state has to if they want to keep any of their power.

      Uh yeah, great argument. You do realize even dictators have finite political capital and are still, to some degree, accountable to their population. Your argument doesn't hold water. And as a side note, your auto signature is stupid; the two things aren't even related...only very tenuously. Learn to think and get back to me.

    58. Re:Wait, hang on by cyberchondriac · · Score: 3, Informative

      Maybe not that unprecedented.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_U.S._involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War

      By that war's end, 72% of the country were opposed. Plus then there was the draft; there has been no draft in decades. You could argue these polls were taken at the end, not the beginning of the war, but one could also argue that the "Iraq War" was not a new war at all; technically, the US was still at war with Iraq over Desert Storm; the terms of the cease fire were repeatedly violated by Hussein, the sanctions undermined by the UN; and our sustained military bases in Saudi Arabia fueling recruitment for Al Qaeda.
      Not that any of that makes it a good idea after all.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    59. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, Iraq was a different story, but the Taliban sure as hell started that war by allowing terrorists whose stated goal was to attack the US to, you know, attack the US. If that's not "starting it," I don't know what is.

    60. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's pretty much a guarantee that people who argue about our use of nukes in WWII have never heard of Dresden, and have very little idea of what actually happened in the war. (Btw, I'm guessing you mean trivializing the Japanese as a military threat. It reads like you mean it in general, which is a claim out of left field.)

    61. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'The argument is that the US is unlikely to unilaterally invade/nuke another country without warning again.'

      There, fixed that for you.

    62. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a fascist (or corporatist if you want to white wash it through name change) state where large corporations like Samsung and Daewoo essentially own the government regardless of who is actually voted in and get to decide on essentially all relevant policy.

      So, except for the names of the corporations involved, it's kind of like any other major western democracy - for example, the United States.

    63. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You used that word again, I stopped reading. If you are a grown up, please start acting like one.

    64. Re:Wait, hang on by doston · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe not that unprecedented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_U.S._involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War By that war's end, 72% of the country were opposed. Plus then there was the draft; there has been no draft in decades. You could argue these polls were taken at the end, not the beginning of the war, but one could also argue that the "Iraq War" was not a new war at all; technically, the US was still at war with Iraq over Desert Storm; the terms of the cease fire were repeatedly violated by Hussein, the sanctions undermined by the UN; and our sustained military bases in Saudi Arabia fueling recruitment for Al Qaeda. Not that any of that makes it a good idea after all.

      There was actually very little domestic dissent or press coverage about Vietnam. All the footage you see on the History Channel, the protests etc, that began like five years into Vietnam. The war in Iraq was strongly opposed before it even began. That's the unprecedented part.

    65. Re:Wait, hang on by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      First off my sig is very much related. When people don't take the time to educate themselves over the issues or who they vote for, then they elect leaders that will lead them to disaster, by trying to over legislate everything, or appealing to a popular belief that takes the country down the wrong road. And I was saying that it doesn't matter whether or not the US forced other states to participate. They still chose to give in to that coercive force, instead of doing what was best for them. I was also saying that international support is international support. It doesn't matter how or why they got that support, just that they did.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    66. Re:Wait, hang on by meanthinking · · Score: 1

      What the fuck?

      It means you don't know what you're talking about. Untwist your panties, and read the other comments that explain why this is ho-hum for the world, and news to you.

    67. Re:Wait, hang on by interkin3tic · · Score: 1

      The US is the only country to have used nukes in war... did you think we would be impartial about who else gets them?

    68. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would American have been 'still hesitant' had they lost Washington and New York. When you turn it around it all seems a little different. The difference being who got the bomb first. Not that the US were the good guys.

    69. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a real socio-political concept dating from the 19th Century. Educate yourself and stop your overblown sense of self importance, please.

    70. Re:Wait, hang on by doston · · Score: 1

      First off my sig is very much related. When people don't take the time to educate themselves over the issues or who they vote for, then they elect leaders that will lead them to disaster, by trying to over legislate everything, or appealing to a popular belief that takes the country down the wrong road. And I was saying that it doesn't matter whether or not the US forced other states to participate. They still chose to give in to that coercive force, instead of doing what was best for them. I was also saying that international support is international support. It doesn't matter how or why they got that support, just that they did.

      Stalin would agree with you on all counts.

    71. Re:Wait, hang on by timeOday · · Score: 1

      the Taliban sure as hell started that war by allowing terrorists whose stated goal was to attack the US to, you know, attack the US. If that's not "starting it," I don't know what is.

      More of the terrorists were from Saudi Arabia than anywhere else. Some were from other places, like Germany. Some had been living in the US for quite a while.

      Anyways, please do not expand my narrow point - I never said all wars or nations were morally equal, nor that the US is the worst. But when somebody says his nation is the first ever to go to war solely for pure motives, give me a break.

    72. Re:Wait, hang on by sideslash · · Score: 0

      I'm not an idiot. Idiots are people with nothing better to do than reply to trolls on the internet. Wait...

    73. Re:Wait, hang on by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      That is why, as you can see I said "model democracy" rather then "western democracy".

    74. Re:Wait, hang on by Thundersnatch · · Score: 1

      Yes, Israel has been at war with its neighbors, but only because it has been repeatedly attacked by those neighbors. Not that Israel plays especially nice these days - in fact they act like total dicks. I probably would act a bit dickish too if 90 million of my neighbors had vowed to wipe my people from the face of the Earth, and repeatedly attacked me with tanks and artillery to prove that they weren't just talking.

    75. Re:Wait, hang on by sdguero · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I grew up in the 80's going to public school in CA and I NEVER heard anything "good" about the bombing of Hiroshima. I do remember making origami swans and sending them to Japan to say we were sorry though...

      I also remember learning that the fire bombing of Tokyo killed 3x as many people in one night as the Hiroshima nuke and wondering why we focus so much on the horror of that single event. At 12, I concluded that it was because most Americans are blind apologists who don't have the mental fortitude to go beyond lumping together a couple of stand out historical events to formulate their world view.

    76. Re:Wait, hang on by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Japanese were the aggressors in WWII. Ask the Koreans, the Chinese, and all the other people of region. At any rate, they had no hope of winning. Yes, they could have cost a lot of Allied lives, but sooner or later they were done. They had no way of propping up their industrial capacity, and even with two A-bombs gone, a conventional bombing campaign would have wiped out what was left of its industrial capacity, not to mention killing hundreds of thousands in the process.

      The Emperor saw the writing on the wall. He knew that if they refused the unconditional surrender, Japan would be knocked back to the Stone Age, and everything the country had struggled to do from the Meiji Period on would be destroyed. He took the only sane approach, it was his government that had lost its wits and believed it still had any meaningful capacity to negotiate.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    77. Re:Wait, hang on by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Well, part of it is this is a pretty small change from the status quo. India has had nukes for a long time now. And they've had working ballistic missiles for a long time now. And they've had a domestic industrial base that can produce both. India and Pakistan did almost go at it with nukes, but that was almost twenty years ago. The cat's out of the bag and it's not going back in.

      North Korea, on the other hand, isn't much of a threat right now. They've been trying to make longer range ballistic missiles by essentially stretching the SCUD design, which won't work. They've been able to make nuclear explosions, but not very efficient ones, and they're at least a decade away from being able to put a nuclear warhead on a missile. They're still not very close to a reliable weapon system in other words, so it's possible they could still be prevented from developing one. A North Korean long range nuclear tipped missile would be a huge change to the balance of power, and that's why other countries are so keen to prevent it.

    78. Re:Wait, hang on by shiftless · · Score: 1

      Your post is 100% lies.

      The US is not corrupt?

      That's funny.....I could have sworn that this is a festering shithole of corruption. Maybe I'm just totally, totally off base.

      The US is not a dictatorship?

      That's funny, I could have sworn the entire news media is desperately trying to convince us that Ron Paul has lost and has absolutely no chance.....despite the fact that he is still in the race and looking more and more likely to win.

      But of course, one person or group of people having control of a) events and b) the message, with no requirement for making a and b match, isn't tyrannical at all. As long as we can point to that there "Constitution", we're a democracy....doesn't matter if the President wipes his ass with it or not!

      Wake up bro.

    79. Re:Wait, hang on by shiftless · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between a nuke and a conventional bomb? Oh yeah, the nuke is more likely to end your life completely, via just blowing some arms and limbs off so you'll have scars to remember us by.

    80. Re:Wait, hang on by slimjim8094 · · Score: 2

      What?

      When I went to school, we didn't skip anything. We went over the smallpox brought over (and sometimes transmitted delibrately) by Europeans, we read about the Trail of Tears and the rest of Jackson's Indian removal policy, Custer, the way we stole Texas from Mexico, imperialism, the Spanish-American War, slavery, Japanese internment camps, Hiroshima, the firebombing of Dresden, and our support of various dictators around the world, including the coups we've instigated. There wasn't any hiding.

      Of course, I grew up in one of those east-coast godless liberal states... so we were dealing in facts, not "isn't America the most perfect nation ever?" jingoism. If you grew up somewhere else, I'm very sorry.

      For the record, although people will be debating the atomic bombing of Japan forever, I think it was justified. There's a lot of evidence that it was a "better watch out" to Russia, who had become aggressive in the area, but I think it stands on its own anyway. The fact is, by that point Japan was going to lose the war. Hirohito had already tried to get his generals to surrender, but it wasn't working. And the US's experience with island-hopping was miserable - effective, but heavy casualties (especially for the Japanese). They literally built planes designed for kamikaze so there were no questions about a willingness to fight to the death. The argument has always been that something overwhelmingly powerful would be the only way to "shock" them into surrender, as opposed to simply destroying their ability to wage war, which would have been a huge number of casualties. Arguably, an atomic bomb (being so powerful on its own) was more effective than a massive conventional bombing campaign would be for that task

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    81. Re:Wait, hang on by shiftless · · Score: 2

      Bro I agree with you that the U.S. has committed many crimes. It has also excused others of crimes so it can benefit. For example, we let Japanese and Nazi war criminals go free in exchange for their medical "research"; for example, Nazis who put prisoners in a cold room and carefully recorded how long it took for them to freeze to death and die; Japanese who did such horrible fucking things to people (such as hacking off limbs or removing organs while unsedated, just to give doctors practice) that I don't want to bring it up in polite company; go read up if you want.

      If you want to make people see the evil and reject it, stop pointing to the nuke thing. We had good justification for using those bombs. We have done a million other things before and since which are NOT justified, and that's what we should be focused on if we're going to wake people up and make them see just what hypocrites this country is.

    82. Re:Wait, hang on by shiftless · · Score: 1

      I understand that UR mad, bro etc. But seriously, how long do you think Obama will remain in office? I'm going to go way out on a limb and predict that he will leave office either in January of 2013 or 2017. If the former, it will be because democratic voters chose somebody else.

      Or perhaps it will be because things only go bad enough that the people were finally able to overcome the machinations of the system and put someone real in office; like Ron Paul.

      If the latter, it will be because of written law superseding leaders' preference to stay in office

      Or it could be because said "leader" and his cronies have circumvented said law, while continuing to assure the people via their media tools that everything is as it should be.

      Seriously: I get that the US government commits constitutional abuses from time to time. But that is a long way from dictatorship.

      Sure it is. Just ask all those folks who had their doors and kicked in today in a SWAT style invasion, their dogs shot and wives and children harassed, on suspicion that the house might contain plants.....despite over half of the U.S. population now agreeing (despite full propaganda efforts to convince them of the contrary) that possessing or drying and smoking plants isn't and never should be a crime.

      Not a dictatorship? Sure, just ask the people who come under Uncle Sam's radar for some minor thing, and now find themselves charged with 50 other "crimes", which of course they can't afford to hire a lawyer to fight. "Public defenders" are the biggest fucking joke of our "justice" system (beside the name), considering they pretty much do jack shit for you and in fact are often cronies of the judge and prosecution, getting a kickback for more convictions.

      Meanwhile that speed limit sign out there still reads 55, and everyone still does 70 because that's the actual safe speed for this road....yet those cops still do sit on the side of the road in their brand new Dodge Chargers, pulling over people in their Escorts and banged up Chevy C10s.

      What's that sir? You needed that $300 for your light bill? Well sir, I'm sorry, but the state needs it more.....and we can throw you in jail and fuck your life over....so I think you better start stocking up on candles and maybe some firewood....supposed to be cold this winter, and it's a damn shame they sent you that disconnect notice before the winter "no shutoff" date.

      Let's not even get into talking about the for-profit prison industry, where men and women work at 49 cents per hour doing skilled labor for corporations. Or not; they can choose to just sit in their cells and twiddle their thumbs with no privileges if they prefer.

      It's all a sick fucking joke. Let me tell you, tyranny and oppression is alive and well in this country. The difference is our "leaders" are masterful at hiding and legitimizing to such an extent that the very victims will even get on Slashdot and praise the system and scoff at anyone who suggests this isn't the freest country in the world, God damn it!!

    83. Re:Wait, hang on by doston · · Score: 1

      What?

      When I went to school, we didn't skip anything. We went over the smallpox brought over (and sometimes transmitted delibrately) by Europeans, we read about the Trail of Tears and the rest of Jackson's Indian removal policy, Custer, the way we stole Texas from Mexico, imperialism, the Spanish-American War, slavery, Japanese internment camps, Hiroshima, the firebombing of Dresden, and our support of various dictators around the world, including the coups we've instigated. There wasn't any hiding.

      Of course, I grew up in one of those east-coast godless liberal states... so we were dealing in facts, not "isn't America the most perfect nation ever?" jingoism. If you grew up somewhere else, I'm very sorry.

      For the record, although people will be debating the atomic bombing of Japan forever, I think it was justified. There's a lot of evidence that it was a "better watch out" to Russia, who had become aggressive in the area, but I think it stands on its own anyway. The fact is, by that point Japan was going to lose the war. Hirohito had already tried to get his generals to surrender, but it wasn't working. And the US's experience with island-hopping was miserable - effective, but heavy casualties (especially for the Japanese). They literally built planes designed for kamikaze so there were no questions about a willingness to fight to the death. The argument has always been that something overwhelmingly powerful would be the only way to "shock" them into surrender, as opposed to simply destroying their ability to wage war, which would have been a huge number of casualties. Arguably, an atomic bomb (being so powerful on its own) was more effective than a massive conventional bombing campaign would be for that task

      Think what you want. Hiroshima is among the most unspeakable crimes in history. I don't think it was justified in the slightest and innocent people are still suffering to this day. . But you don't change people's (wrong) opinions endlessly debating on slashdot and you can't teach someone base morality on the internet.

    84. Re:Wait, hang on by sideslash · · Score: 1

      You know, for the sake of argument, I would easily grant most of the points you make above. I still don't think the USA qualifies as a dictatorship, but maybe that boils down to semantics. I'm looking at whether there are some people who can supersede any law whenever they choose to, and you're more looking at whether perhaps the law itself is oppressive and suppresses freedom. I do strongly agree that there are many things that the USA does wrong at many levels (international, federal, state, and local). Anyway.

    85. Re:Wait, hang on by dean.collins · · Score: 1

      are you kidding? they are currently at war and shooting with pakistan on a regular basis.

    86. Re:Wait, hang on by dean.collins · · Score: 1

      Wondering why no one in the USA government is getting up in Indias face the way they did with last week with North Korea?? - http://www.facebook.com/LivePoliticalChat/posts/125747644224881 The hypocrisy in the USA would be funny if it wasnt so serious.

    87. Re:Wait, hang on by vivtho · · Score: 1

      While the development of the Agni series did begin in 1983, the Agni-V launched yesterday is an evolved version of the Agni II. About as similar as the current-generation Porsches have with the original in 1963 :).
      The Agni family can be divided into 3 generations
      * Agni II (First into service)
      * Agni I & III
      * Agni IV & V - The Agni IV isn't meant to enter service but was a proving exercise for the technologies used on the Agni V

    88. Re:Wait, hang on by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      What's the difference between a nuke and a conventional bomb? Oh yeah, the nuke is more likely to end your life completely, via just blowing some arms and limbs off so you'll have scars to remember us by.

      What's the difference between a nuke and ten thousand conventional bombs? Oh, yeah, the nuke does a lot less damage, and kills a lot fewer people.

      Do remember that we were dropping thousands (shading up into the ten-thousand-plus range on busy days) of bombs on Japan (and Germany) pretty much daily. If we hadn't had the nukes, we'd have just used more conventional bombs, and wrecked more cities and killed more people.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    89. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It of course depends a bit on how you define the region, but Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Nepal, and more recently Cambodia are all democracies largely modelled after the British government. Pakistan is at least in theory a democracy as well, although political violence is relatively common.

      Singapore is a democracy? Nepal, a functioning democracy? ... I feel sorry for your deluded wordview.

      Also the Philippines is modeled after the US, not Britain.

    90. Re:Wait, hang on by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > Btw, I'm guessing you mean trivializing the Japanese as a military threat. It reads like you mean it in general, which is a claim out of left field

      It's the same thing really. The two are directly related to each other and can't really be separated.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    91. Re:Wait, hang on by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      While you win the pedant award - the underlying technology is irrelevant to the facts of the case. India has had the capability to deliver strategic nuclear weapons for decades, and this and other reasons are why the reaction to the Agni test was different from the reaction to North Korea's test.

    92. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "India is the closest thing that region has to a western democracy."
      India is a democracy.

    93. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The focus on the horror of a single event is because it is just that, a single event.

      The razing of other cities (Tokyo, Dresden) was accomplished by wave after wave after wave of large numbers of bombers. Skies literally filled with flying steel.

      The two nuke drops were single bombers. Think about that for a second. It isn't the droning noise of a thousand bombers, it was one plane. How many planes fly over where you live every day? 10, 50, 100, 1000?

      Now imagine if each bomber that went over Tokyo/Dresden had a nuke. Sent out over a country, almost any country and you could level it. A whole country. Not just one city.

      That is the horror of nuclear weapons. One bomber carrying the largest non-nuclear bomb could likely wipe out a number of city blocks. One bomber carrying a nuke could take out all of them. You only have to fail to shoot down one.

    94. Re:Wait, hang on by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the fact that something like 80% of the American public was totally against the Iraq war before it even started

      [emphasis mine]

      No, that's bullshit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq

      Which in particular cites: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-03-16-poll-iraq_x.htm

      "With a war against Iraq perhaps days away, Americans are backing President Bush but remain split over launching an attack without United Nations support, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows.

      By a 2-to-1 ratio, Americans favor invading Iraq with U.S. ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Not since November 2001 have they approved so overwhelmingly. Nearly six in 10 say they're ready for such an invasion "in the next week or two."

      But that support drops off if the U.N. backing being sought by the United States, Britain and Spain Monday is not obtained. If the U.N. Security Council rejects a resolution paving the way for military action, only 54% of Americans favor a U.S. invasion. And if the Bush administration does not seek a final Security Council vote, support for a war drops to 47%."

    95. Re:Wait, hang on by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You think dictatorship requires that one person stays in power and does whatever he wants. What you fail to understand is that that is not true.

      What you fail to do is provide a citation for your pet definitions. Here's an actual dictionary definition:

      "1: the office of dictator
      2: autocratic rule, control, or leadership
      3a: a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique
        b: a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated
        c: a despotic state"

      and for dictator:

      "a: a person granted absolute emergency power; especially : one appointed by the senate of ancient Rome
      b: one holding complete autocratic control
      c: one ruling absolutely and often oppressively"

      Now compare the powers of the US government with actual dictators. Remember SOPA? Would that even have been an issue up for discussion in a dictatorship? No, it would have just been handed down by government and expected to be followed without protest.

    96. Re:Wait, hang on by Crag · · Score: 2

      Furthermore, though the initial nuclear blast is highly visible, the ongoing damage is largely invisible. Folks visiting a blast site days or weeks later run a high risk of dramatically reducing their life expectancy and they won't know whether they are in danger unless they bring a Geiger counter with them. The damage from fire is short lived and obvious, but nuclear fallout is prolonged and difficult to detect.

      Even more frightening for some, while fire must get through the skin and lungs to damage the rest of a person, some kinds of ionizing radiation penetrate the entire body, often resulting in reduced fertility and increased birth defects. Nuclear attacks don't just destroy buildings and kill those caught in the blast, they also attack future generations. In as much as we are machines for propagating our genes, this is the most terrifying aggression possible.

    97. Re:Wait, hang on by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It is a real concept, but it doesn't have any relation to the economic or political system in South Korea, so one can't help but wonder if GGP understands the term when he uses it in that context.

    98. Re:Wait, hang on by hherb · · Score: 2

      Absolutely. Which is why I don't want the US to have nuclear capabilities either. To most of the rest of the world, the US of the last decade is simply batshit crazy

    99. Re:Wait, hang on by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Being sore when your side loses is a long and proud American tradition. But speak for yourself, dude -- I voted for Bush twice*. :D

      That's irrelevant; the majority voted for him zero times.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    100. Re:Wait, hang on by sideslash · · Score: 1

      That's irrelevant; the majority voted for him zero times.

      That's a combination of irrelevant and inaccurate. For one thing, the majority don't vote at all. For another thing, if voters felt strongly enough about changing the electoral college system and going with a more direct election of presidents, they could; the Constitution has provisions for making such changes. So that doesn't by itself say anything about the US being a dictatorial country -- it just indicates that most people are complacent about that issue.

      As for the inaccurate part, Bush won by a handy margin against Kerry in 2004, even though Gore beat him in the popular vote statistic in 2000.

    101. Re:Wait, hang on by quenda · · Score: 1

      It of course depends a bit on how you define the region, but Australia, New Zealand, ...

      NZ is 12,000km away. Twice as far as anywhere in Europe. Probably not considered part of the South Asia region.

    102. Re:Wait, hang on by quenda · · Score: 2

      We never elected Bush and we had him twice. Wake up.

      Actually, the second time it it widely agreed he was elected legitimately, no vote-rigging needed.
      This had the rest of the civilized world scratching and shaking its head.

    103. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      India's not threatening anybody, and is a relatively stable, capitalistic democracy. They are threatened by a militant-leaning Muslim neighbor (Pakistan) and a strong communist neighbor (China).

      So yeah...no eyelids batted here....

      Ferret

    104. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only Israel didn't start it with invading Palestine and calling the land something else, then forcefully drive all non-Jews out of the invaded territory, everything would be a bit more rosy. I can't understand why US couldn't give a huge chunk of Utah to them, I'm sure it would go down with the Indians (sorry, original Americans).

    105. Re:Wait, hang on by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Actually, the second time it it widely agreed he was elected legitimately, no vote-rigging needed.

      Uh, no. It was not agreed. There was massive, well-documented vote-rigging, especially in Florida. For example, the scanners which read the ballots in black neighborhoods were set to silently accept errors and ignore those ballots, while the ones in white neighborhoods were set to flag and reject the ballots for rescanning.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    106. Re:Wait, hang on by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Do you think the Iraqi insurgents or the Taliban in Afghanistan somehow started those wars in order to loot and conquer their own nations?

      Um... Iraq attacked Kuwait to... wait for it... LOOT AND CONQUER.

      And, can you tell me why we have spent 10+ years in Afghanistan? Can you tell me why we are still in Iraq? If it were for the oil, as I'm even still hearing today, wouldn't we have finished taking it by now?

      And yes, the Taliban wanted us to get out of their way so they could do things like hang gays in the streets, force women to walk around under cover, and teach courses on "How to beat your wife".

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    107. Re:Wait, hang on by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Voting in elections is not democracy.

    108. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even the first time, after the election was certified and the news media was allowed to open up all the chads, er votes in FL, and counted them all using every rule Algore wanted to use, they took 6 months to do it, but ultimately concluded that Bush had won - granted very narrowly.

      It's high time that the tinfoil hat crowd to let it go.

    109. Re:Wait, hang on by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      As for the inaccurate part, Bush won by a handy margin against Kerry in 2004

      ...due to massive vote fraud and tampering with both paper and digital ballots. Voting machines essentially designed to be tampered with. Vote-counting machines deliberately misconfigured. Absentee ballots discarded, especially military ballots. Need I go on?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    110. Re:Wait, hang on by sideslash · · Score: 1

      Voter fraud is perpetrated by both sides, unfortunately. It's my impression that the left gets away with it more, just because it's easier to do in one shot on a large scale with urban population densities. Recall that our large, hopelessly corrupt urban centers like Chicago are heavily Democratic. And as far as the military vote, I agree that it's a crying shame when their votes get discarded. But isn't it also true that the militarily typically leans right when they vote? So wouldn't throwing out military votes have more likely helped Kerry?

    111. Re:Wait, hang on by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's my impression that the left gets away with it more, just because it's easier to do in one shot on a large scale with urban population densities.

      And yet, all the evidence points to the right getting away with it more. If you can demonstrate some evidence in the other direction, I'll check it out.

      as far as the military vote, I agree that it's a crying shame when their votes get discarded. But isn't it also true that the militarily typically leans right when they vote? So wouldn't throwing out military votes have more likely helped Kerry?

      No, because we were in the middle of a massive stop-loss program, and the military was overwhelmingly voting anti-Bush.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    112. Re:Wait, hang on by sideslash · · Score: 1

      If you only ever read Media Matters and the Huffington Post, I can understand you having those impressions. I think you're mistaken on both counts, but don't have time to follow up. Cheers.

    113. Re:Wait, hang on by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you only ever read Media Matters and the Huffington Post, I can understand you having those impressions.

      If you only say things to try to be clever, I can see why you'd say that. But I've never heard of Media Matters and I'm not particularly in love with PuffPo. But at least now I know you're incapable of participating in a conversation of substance.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    114. Re:Wait, hang on by sideslash · · Score: 1

      OK. Here's a link that suggests that Bush polled ahead of Kerry in the military vote: A Link.

      Now where did you get the idea that Kerry led over Bush among the military? Citation, please.

    115. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, but if the majority doesn't vote we still have to elect somebody. No vote = automatic vote for the winner, that's simply the way it works.

      Oh, you meant the majority of those who actually voted? Come back when you've learned how the US electoral process works.

    116. Re:Wait, hang on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also of note, Hiroshima was and still is a major industrial centre in Japan. It was not simply a random target.

  5. The gap is about 35 years by cyfer2000 · · Score: 1

    Some time like 1974 or 1975, China did similar tests. So the gap is, hmmm, let's say 35 years.

    --
    There is a spark in every single flame bait point.
    1. Re:The gap is about 35 years by sackbut · · Score: 1

      But I think when talking technology/science, part of the gap can be closed by knowing generally (if not specifically) how something can be done - or even knowing it can be done. And with science, most of it should be published and available (minus defense secrets). And speaking of secrets, let's not forget espionage. It can close the gap quickly! Witness the Soviet Union after WWII and the bomb and also Pakistan in the 80's.

    2. Re:The gap is about 35 years by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      when we make enough of these babies, that gap wouldn't matter. agni-v is mirv capable, so we can take out every major and minor city in china with about 10 of these missiles. that should be deterrent enough.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  6. Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The more players in the game of M.A.D., the better.

    1. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The chance of mutual destruction increases with each new player added to the game.

    2. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If one of us goes, we all should go at that point! No use in chillin out waiting for nuclear fallout to hit.

    3. Re:Good for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A deterrent to China?
      If China lost half a billion people I bet the government mind too much.

    4. Re:Good for them by Sarten-X · · Score: 1
      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
  7. Not competitors? by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From TFA, a spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry, Liu Weimin, said "China and India are large developing nations. We are not competitors but partners."

    I say bullshit.

    1. Re:Not competitors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I say: that 'news' is Old. And no big deal, since none of the proud group "ICBM owners" have got the balls to actually use those.

    2. Re:Not competitors? by benjfowler · · Score: 1, Insightful

      China plays the bullshit 'we are a developing country' lie card all the time. It's a pile of crap, as they already pretty much bully and control the world like the Americans. The only thing they lack now is a blue water Navy -- when that happens -- and as another poster recently said -- all us non-Han will be niggers.

    3. Re:Not competitors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing they lack now is a blue water Navy -- when that happens -- and as another poster recently said -- all us non-Han will be niggers.

      I started learning Mandarin five years ago. I can now say "I, for one, welcome our new Chinese overlords". Yes, I am a boiled egg. You can call me Uncle Wong.

    4. Re:Not competitors? by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      And let's hope they all remain emasculated in that way.

    5. Re:Not competitors? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Both India and China indulge in this bullshit, calling each others partners publicly, but rivals privately. There is a reason India banned dealings w/ Huawei due to the latter's proximity to the Chinese government.

  8. Serious Differences There by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:Serious Differences There by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      India has shown remarkable restraint in dealing with Pakistan.

    2. Re:Serious Differences There by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I wouldn't say respect to all other nations, that is a bit of a stretch, most of them yes.

      India is smart enough to know that the instant the fire, their country dies, simple.
      Yes, just like possibly in other countries, THEY COULD have underground cities as a backup plan if they wished to "cleanse" the world or whatever other even more insane reason they'd wish to use to defend it.
      But the fact remains is the surface would probably be raped of all living conditions and life for years
      I don't think any major power would want that to happen, even if they have self-contained cities deep underground.

    3. Re:Serious Differences There by benjfowler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Respect is earned.

      So far, Pakistan and its proxies have spent decades being violent terrorist barbarians and being a nuisance, and are then shocked (SHOCKED! I say...) that the entire world hates their guts.

    4. Re:Serious Differences There by MMC+Monster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pakistan is close to being a failed state.

      India, on the other hand, is the world's largest democracy.

      --
      Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
    5. Re:Serious Differences There by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lol, as if India has the $$$ to be a large welfare state considering its population. Maybe in a few decades.

    6. Re:Serious Differences There by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Has India actually ever been the aggressor in wars w/ Pakistan? Nope, except for arguably in 1971 when they interceded on one side's behalf in the Pakistani civil war that resultated in millions of refugees crossing the border in the former East Pakistan.

    7. Re:Serious Differences There by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Anti-Pakistan is a cheap tool/trick used by Forward caste to protect/promote their hegemony over BC/SC/ST/Minorities in India.

    8. Re:Serious Differences There by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nothing like taking a set of golf clubs to a baseball game

    9. Re:Serious Differences There by NewYork · · Score: 1
  9. Can't feed nor provide clean water for population by blahbooboo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's a huge poverty stricken country. It can't even provide food and clean water adequately (and don't get me started on the filth of their healthcare system). Yet they have enough funds to pay for this stuff. Great work and good priorities India!

  10. How Long? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

    Before one of the scientists/engineers involved sells the tech to North Korea and don't say it wouldn't happen how do you think NK got nuclear tech in the 1st place!

    --

    Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    1. Re:How Long? by theycallmeB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      North Korea got nuclear weapons technology from Pakistan, and possibly from China many years ago, not from India. Since India is not, unlike their neighbors to the north-west, bat-shit insane, they probably know that selling asymmetric weapons tech to countries that are bat-shit insane does not advance any of India's political or economic interests. As such they have probably already taken measures comparable to the US or France to secure their project rather than cold calling every drug exporting, famine inducing, hereditary dictatorship in their Rolodex.

      And for similar reasons, nobody is any more worked up about this than if France tested a new missile, and maybe even a little less concerned than if the US developed a new ICBM.

    2. Re:How Long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pakistan, and possibly from China many years ago, not from India.

      Last I heard, it was Pakistan, Chana, and Russia. Its rare for nuclear proliferation to occur without Russia's involvement. And surprisingly, France all too often has a hand in things too.

    3. Re:How Long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And surprisingly, France all too often has a hand in things too.

      It's not surprising if you've ever spent a bit of time reading up on nuclear technology (like the excellent HEW website). France was the key to the South African nuclear program, and was and still is involved with Israel.

    4. Re:How Long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NK got nukes from the Pakis, you dickwad. India hasn't proliferated nukes to anyone - never ever. Understand the difference between India and Pakistan before you pound on the keyboard.

  11. pakistan next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    let me guess..
    umm.. Islamabad is rolling out its 3-stage peeshooter next.. named "Ache-me"

    1. Re:pakistan next by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maximum range .. newDelhi

  12. We broke the NPT with India by mdsolar · · Score: 0

    We engaged in nuclear cooperation with India, abrogating our obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. So, now India is in the drivers seat in regard to our relations with China. Basically, there is nothing we can say. India has carte blanche. We should end nuclear cooperation with them immediately.

    1. Re:We broke the NPT with India by Lobachevsky · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, the NPT itself is a carte blanche to US, USSR, UK, France, and China. The NPT gives carte blanche to all nuclear powers prior to 1969 and India tested in 1974 and many /signed/ the NPT in 1992, like China and France. That said, like any legal document the NPT has loopholes, or at least ambiguous wording, and just like the wealthiest lawyer wins, the wealthiest country wins. The U.S. decided to re-interpret the NPT from "not collaborating with nations outside the NPT on nuclear matters" with "not collaborating with nations outside the NPT on /military/ nuclear matters" and gave a green-light for selling nuclear fuel and technology to the civilian sector in India (which consequently frees up India's domestic nuclear resources for military use if they can import nuclear fuel and tech for civilian use). And once the U.S. gave that interpretation, Russia, France, and soon Canada and Australia will also adopt that interpretation and begin exporting nuclear fuel and tech to India for civilian use. Australia and Canada are big since together they have 80% of the world's uranium deposits.

      In the end, it's all big chess game. What was the point of the NPT? Choices like "world peace" and such are nice for elementary school kids, but the reality is that the NPT like everything else is done to win, and in this case to maintain status quo for the major powers so they remain major powers. Then why be flexible and allow India? Because rigid structures are more prone to break than flexible structures. India became the 3rd largest economy ahead of Japan this year on purchasing power and by 2050 both the economies of China and India will independently surpass the U.S., and combined surpass the U.S plus Europe. Moreover, the U.S. doesn't see any long-term conflict with India, and in fact sees India as an ally which has a democracy, a liberal society, and a focus on business and economy rather than military. While India has nuclear and missile programs, its military budget is tiny, at only 2.7% of GDP, compared with 2.6% for England, 3.9% for Russia, 4.7% for the U.S. and 10.4% for Saudi Arabia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Military_expenditure_by_GDP_2008.png

      All that said, it makes sense to slowly induct India into the status quo than risk a change in the global order. Every exclusive club has to occasionally induct new members to keep from turning irrelevant. That said, while a country club may accept a rich black man with the changing of the times, it's not a free-for-all where it accepts a homeless man. So the nuclear status quo will

    2. Re:We broke the NPT with India by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There were and remain solid reasons to remain in good stead with India. It's the country that's going to keep the schizophrenic state, Pakistan, in line and is also the only substantial military and economic competitor to China in the region. As well, there is over a half a century of reasonablly good relations between the two countries.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:We broke the NPT with India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It hasn't just been the US that has been accepting in affirming India's role as a nuclear power. They will probably join the Nuclear Suppliers Group sooner or later.

      It is absolutely in the US's interests to prop India up as a counterweight to China.

    4. Re:We broke the NPT with India by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      The goal of the NPT is to eliminate nuclear weapons. That makes abrogating it a problem.

    5. Re:We broke the NPT with India by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      Doesn't hurt relations to be a country that can keep its word rather than breaking it. The opposite is usually the case. There is no reason to trust the US on non-proliferation now.

    6. Re:We broke the NPT with India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US and India haven't really had good relations since the 1990's. India was originally one of the leaders of the non-aligned movement during the early cold war, but after Pakistan and the US became chummy, India was forced to align itself (weakly) with the USSR.

    7. Re:We broke the NPT with India by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 1

      Normally I would take this opportunity to correct your use of schizophrenic. Most people use schizophrenic to describe a state of having multiple personalties (this is actually dissociative identity disorder). Schizophrenia is the one marked by irrational actions, poor social interaction and the hearing of voices.

      After a moment though, I realized that schizophrenic describes Pakistan pretty well!

    8. Re:We broke the NPT with India by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      And India became weakly chummy with the USSR solely to upgrade it's military on the cheap. Once they had done so, they asked the Russian military trainers/techs to leave.

      The US had offered our stuff, but it was too expensive for India, that's why the turned to Russia. Out of sheer spite, the US became chummy with Pakistan. Stupid Stupid Stupid. I'd rather the US was chummy with India over Pakistan any day of the week, and twice on sundays.

    9. Re:We broke the NPT with India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of sheer spite, the US became chummy with Pakistan. Stupid Stupid Stupid. I'd rather the US was chummy with India over Pakistan any day of the week, and twice on sundays.

      Really? You don't think being chummy with the largest and richest, and above all nuclear armed Muslim country isn't perhaps a good idea?

    10. Re:We broke the NPT with India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Richest? Largest? Pakistan? Are you living in bizarro world?

      Saudi Arabia is the richest Islamic country. Indonesia has the largest number of Muslims in the world. If you were to somehow try and find the "richest and largest muslim country", guess what, it would probably be India, which has more Muslims (2nd only to Indonesia) than Saudi Arabia, and a much higher GDP.

    11. Re:We broke the NPT with India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We engaged in nuclear cooperation with India, abrogating our obligations under the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. So, now India is in the drivers seat in regard to our relations with China. Basically, there is nothing we can say. India has carte blanche. We should end nuclear cooperation with them immediately.

      BS.
      Why don't you disarm your nuclear warheads, then we will see.

    12. Re:We broke the NPT with India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social stratification at the state level.

    13. Re:We broke the NPT with India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As well, there is over a half a century of reasonablly good relations between the two countries.

      Not true, US actually sent a aircraft carrier to assist Pakistan in the second war faught between the two countries. India would have been forced to surender if it had reached indian ocen, but India managed to extract surender from Pakistan in just seven days before even the US fleet could reach.

      No indian Prime Minister or US presendent had state visits since then for a long time

    14. Re:We broke the NPT with India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling India, whose population is only 13% Muslim, as the largest and richest Muslim country, takes a major stretch of one's imagination. If one has to combine it, the answer would probably be Iran, which population wise is the largest of Muslim countries in OPEC. Indonesia is in OPEC as well, but I doubt that their GDP is as high as that of the Gulf countries

  13. Stop by Sav1or · · Score: 2

    Stop acting like this is fair, the ones who got there first are the ones who decides who has these weapons and who doesn't. This "Oh but we have nukes! why do we get nukes and no one else does?" is old and just shows off your bleeding heart and inability to understand how things work on the world stage. India isn't run by a, like stated above, a batshit leader who is constantly threatening their neighbors. I say more power to them, they can have their rockets.

  14. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by daem0n1x · · Score: 5, Funny

    Excuse me, I didn't get it. Are you talking about India or the USA?

  15. If only things were that simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    India is a country surrounded by Pakistan, China, and nearby N. Korea, and other countries who are horribly oppressive, violent and aggressive regimes. They are also currently harboring the Tibetan government in exile; which royally pisses China off.

    Time will tell if this was a good idea but from a strategic point of view, I have to agree with their decision.

    And don't forget - public protests can be the polar opposite of what's said behind closed doors. Especially, when you need to keep amicable relations with all sides.

    1. Re:If only things were that simple. by o'reor · · Score: 2

      North Korea is as "nearby" India as New York is "nearby" Los Angeles. But granted, India's closest neighbours aren't the friendliest guys around.

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    2. Re:If only things were that simple. by Any+Web+Loco · · Score: 2

      Just out of curiosity - are you willing to extend the same grace to Iran? Their neighbours are just as "nasty", arguably more so, and they face a very real threat from countries like Israel and the US. Are they allowed to acquire a nuclear capability because they're surrounded by assholes too or is it only the people we like who get to do that?

    3. Re:If only things were that simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only after all our call centers are outsourced to Iran instead of India.

    4. Re:If only things were that simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they allowed to acquire a nuclear capability because they're surrounded by assholes too or is it only the people we like who get to do that?

      Pretty much -- I'm good with that.

    5. Re:If only things were that simple. by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity - are you willing to extend the same grace to Iran? Their neighbours are just as "nasty", arguably more so, and they face a very real threat from countries like Israel and the US. Are they allowed to acquire a nuclear capability because they're surrounded by assholes too or is it only the people we like who get to do that?

      If Iran quit electing people like Ahmadinejad who deny Israel's right to exist and the Holocaust, I expect that Israel would be much less of a threat to Iran. But after Iraq lobbed dozens of rockets into Israel -- who wasn't even a participant in the conflict -- during the Persian Gulf War, and given Iran's supplying war materiel to Hezbollah, I can't blame the Israelis for being nervous at the prospect of nuclear weapons in Iranian hands.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    6. Re:If only things were that simple. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody threatened to destroy Iran and remove them off the map. India and China for that matter has no first use policy on nukes and US and Israel has never even suggested nuking Iran even if they have bombs. Iran on the other hand have repeatedly threatened that they would love to destroy Israel. That makes them the assholes.

  16. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude your forgetting India is where we dump our e-waste. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2071920,00.html

    What did you think they would do with it?
    BR> They also have built the first fully functional 35$ computer (keybaord, monitor, os,etc) , before the raspberry pie (you have to provide monitor, keyboard, etc). http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2011/10/india-introduces-the-aakash-a-35-dollar-tablet-computer.html

    Sure they seem haphazard in their ways http://lh6.ggpht.com/-UhCp2pPblI0/R-1DtL5owuI/AAAAAAAABEw/ZSn9PR4RDCs/P1040295.JPG

    But they are a head of a few things, regardless of how they do things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outsourced_(TV_series)

  17. Re:Friday! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I like your enthusiasm XD

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  18. Context is important by alexander_686 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    North Korea had just signed a agreement not to test weapons – which specifically included not testing long range missiles for “scientific purposes” in exchange for food aid. The ink was not even dry when they 1. launched the missiles and 2. said there would be dire repercussions if the U.S. did not deliver on the food aid.

    The rationality and stability of the North Korea regime is very different then that of India.

    1. Re:Context is important by IAN · · Score: 4, Informative

      North Korea had just signed a agreement not to test weapons – which specifically included not testing long range missiles for “scientific purposes” in exchange for food aid.

      They didn't sign anything -- see this article. Missile launch ban is the consequence of the UNSC Resolution 1874, adopted after the North's second nuclear test. I don't think that the North is irrational -- just quite determined to preserve the regime and prepared to play provocative moves to that end.

    2. Re:Context is important by alexander_686 · · Score: 1

      Informative article – it’s given me something to think about.

      o.k. – so when is a “scientific” ballistic missile test not considered to be a nuclear missile test? I have read that for the most part they are indistinguishable e from each other because they are functionally the same (well, one is better at coming down, but).

      Or is this just a big loop hole that you can drive anything though? I am thinking about the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty were Iran can legally spin up low enriched uranium for their research reactor – which is exactly the same infrastructure they need to spin up the highly enriched uranium.

  19. Obligatory Leftist Rant by gelfling · · Score: 0

    North Korea and Iran Must be given nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them anywhere on earth they desire because we hate America, the West and of course Israel.

    1. Re:Obligatory Leftist Rant by Lehk228 · · Score: 2

      Why do you think Iran (a country which has not launched an offensive war in a very long time) does not have the right to defend themselves against The US and Israel (two countries with hardons for invading other countries and do so on a regular basis without even bothering to manufacture a credible pretense, especially muslim countries)

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:Obligatory Leftist Rant by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the US and Israel have been threatening to invade Iran for the last 20 years

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    3. Re:Obligatory Leftist Rant by gelfling · · Score: 1

      Yes yes nuke the Jews you make my point better than I ever could. Thanks.

    4. Re:Obligatory Leftist Rant by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I have no idea who you think "Leftists" are, but I hazard a guess that you pulled the definition from your ass.

    5. Re:Obligatory Leftist Rant by gelfling · · Score: 1

      You get a B+ for good effort as well. Kiss noise.

    6. Re:Obligatory Leftist Rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean the 28,000 Iranian Jews - that is Jews who live in Iran and who are free to leave and re-enter the country at will?

    7. Re:Obligatory Leftist Rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not if they've been to Israel. For this reason, Israel as a courtesy doesn't stamp the passports of visitors who would need to visit a Muslim country after their visit to Israel, just so that they don't get harassed once they're back home for visiting the 'Zionist enemy'. Iranian passports are among those the Israelis don't stamp, even while they allow Iranians in and out of the country.

  20. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    Hmm, the same can be said about parts of China and the USA too...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  21. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a huge poverty stricken country. It can't even provide food and clean water adequately (and don't get me started on the filth of their healthcare system). Yet they have enough funds to pay for this stuff. Great work and good priorities India!

    India is not what is shown in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, we don't eat monkey brains. We are not poor, some may be poor. We have largest gold in reserve. Stop telling that Indians are poor

  22. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by MMC+Monster · · Score: 1

    Absolutely good work on their priorities.

    Let India get technology for balistic flights, nuclear weapons, and (hopefully) set up a permanent colony on the moon.

    Knowledge should be shared, and India is a relatively stable democracy. Why not them?

    (If they spent all their money feeding the poor, they wouldn't have a major worldwide tech center in Bangalore.)

    --
    Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
  23. free tibet by ch-chuck · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I watch China tv on free satellite once in a while, CCTV4 English, and find it amusing when they refer to the 'Liberation of Tibet' - Liberation? From What? The iron fisted oppressive dictatorial rule of the Dalai Lama ???

    --
    try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    1. Re:free tibet by wiredog · · Score: 1

      The iron fisted oppressive dictatorial rule of the Dalai Lama ???
      That's exactly what they (claim) they liberated Tibet from. Not that it needed liberating, since it's part of China and always has been.

    2. Re:free tibet by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The monks would trade, torture, enslave and general abuse the people. People where starving.
      They where nasty.

      Don't buy this modern day Dalai Lama BS.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:free tibet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL.
      It is as much of China as Poland belongs to france or Russia. Just because China or Mongolia has invaded Tibet every so often, does NOT make it part of either of them. In fact, Tibet has mostly been a free standing kingdom. However, the longest control of Tibet by China was under the qing dynasty (200+ years).

    4. Re:free tibet by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Liberation? From What? The iron fisted oppressive dictatorial rule of the Dalai Lama ???

      Sort of like that, yes. Tibet was a dictatorship at that time - a theocracy, to be precise. Its economic system was feudalism, with bonded serfs, and it had slavery, too. It also had some pretty gruesome punishments on its law books, like chopping off arms and legs, though there's some debate over whether, and to what extent, those were actually practiced during independence.

      Why don't you read about it on Wikipedia?

    5. Re:free tibet by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It is as much of China as Poland belongs to france or Russia.

      You should have picked a better example. The border between Poland and Russia (and Ukraine and Belarus, which were at times either Russian heartland - during the times of Kievan Rus - then later either borderlands or independent states) has been very unstable historically, with both countries making sweeping claims on the other side, and occasionally executing them.

      Generally, Imperial Russia was more successful in the last few centuries; but even then there was the Soviet-Polish war of 1920, where Poland managed to seize huge chunks on the other side early on. If you look at earlier events, quite a bit of what is today Russia were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

      This all isn't really any different from any other European border between two major powers - the present shape of those is the result of countless confrontations and concessions, and can easily be argued as "unjust" by either side if it's willing to find excuses. In case of Poland specifically, the present border between Poland and Ukraine & Belarus is more or less the Curzon line - i.e. going along ethnic lines - so hopefully it'll remain in place for more than a few decades without further bloodshed over who owns what.

    6. Re:free tibet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the chinese "liberated" the Tibetians from their own religion!!!! You must be fucking joking. They continue to "liberate" the people there by killing/imprisoning those who don't toe the party line.

      Also, If the Dalai Lama was such a hated figure how come every tibetian worships him?

      Taking over a country and then calling it liberation. Its only the fucking chinese who can be so callous.

    7. Re:free tibet by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      and the chinese "liberated" the Tibetians from their own religion!!!! You must be fucking joking. They continue to "liberate" the people there by killing/imprisoning those who don't toe the party line.

      Calm down. I didn't say anything about Chinese "liberating" Tibet. OP asked a question about whether Tibet was oppressive and fucked up under lamas before Chinese took over. The answer to that is a resounding "yes". I mean, what, are you going to excuse slavery as tolerable because it was part of the native Tibetan culture?

      Whether Chinese takeover was beneficial overall is another matter. For some - like the former slaves - it most certainly was. But they were pretty heavy-handed in other areas. It's the kind of math that's hard to deal with.

      Also, If the Dalai Lama was such a hated figure how come every tibetian worships him?

      Before the takeover, it was part of the obligatory brainwashing in the society, same as any other religion co-opted by the state (you might recall "divine right of kings" and similar concepts in medieval Europe, too). Even then there were quite a few Tibetans collaborating with Chinese, especially early on - it's not like all serfs and slaves liked the status quo, and Chinese did at least promise to be better, even if they didn't quite deliver on many oissues.

      Today, most Tibetans don't remember what Tibet was like before the occupation. It was 60 years ago, after all, most weren't even born back then. So all they know is how things are today, and stories of what things were. When things that are under Chinese, aren't all that good, there's a tendency to exalt the "good old ways" and forget or deny or outright ignore all the nastiness that was there.

      So, for most modern Tibetans, Dalai Lama is purely a symbol of the forthcoming liberation of their country from Chinese; they don't really see him in the context of the system that was in place before. Should it be re-instituted, that would doubtlessly change.

      Taking over a country and then calling it liberation. Its only the fucking chinese who can be so callous.

      Most armed conflicts in 20th century were "liberations", if you ask the right people. For example, in 1919 Poland decided to "liberate" its newly found eastern regions, before that known as Western Ukraine and Belarus. In 1937, Japanese "liberated" China from "Western domination". In 1939, Soviet Union "liberated" Western Ukraine and Belarus back from Poland, and then in 1940 it "liberated" a hefty chunk of Karelia from Finland. In 1941, Germany embarked on a quest to "liberate" Soviet Union from Bolsheviks, which in 1943 in turn "liberated" Baltic countries (which were "liberated" by Germany before) and a good half of Europe. In 1945, the Allies "liberated" Austria. While they were at it, they also "liberated" some parts of eastern Germany - sorry, that's western Poland now. In 1964, U.S. tried to "liberate" Cuba, and a year later it did the same in Vietnam. And so on, and so forth...

  24. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by mrops · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I have read this bullshit before. India had a GDP of 1.73 trillion dollars last year, of this it spend 36 billion on R&D including this one. So you are saying its wrong to spend less than 2 cents of every dollar you make on protecting yourself. Not only that, this tech also is related to satellite launch market, which is quite lucrative. India also launches and makes money on that.

    So don't buy your LED TV, smartphone, Laptop until you pay off your mortgage, that is wrong priorities by your logic. Furthermore, dare you get a gun or a security system in your house until your mortgage and debt are paid off.

    What rubbish!

  25. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by busyqth · · Score: 1

    India is not what is shown in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, we don't eat monkey brains

    Aigh! I've been looking forward to Indian monkey brains my whole life and now you go and let me down!

  26. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by cplusplus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They can thank about a hundred years of British rule for driving them in to poverty. India was among the wealthiest countries on earth until the British showed up and proceeded to siphon trillions of dollars (in today's terms) of raw wealth like gold, precious metals, and gems, from them. Want to see a small example of India's former wealth? Look no further than the crown that sat upon the late Queen Elizabeth's head. The world would look totally different today if Britain wasn't able to steal from India to help get them through two world wars.

    India's continued investment to prove that they can keep up with powerful western nations will only help prop up their nation as a whole, and help lift all out of poverty over time. Count the poor on the streets of Bangalore (a major IT hub), and compare it with other Indian cities that haven't see the same level of investment, like Calcutta, and you'll see what first hand what it can do.

    --
    "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
  27. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have you ever been to India?

  28. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Luckyo · · Score: 1

    Countering existential threat = "ridiculous pissing contest"?

    Well, I suppose Cold War was essentially a "ridiculous pissing contest" as well in a hindsight. Didn't stop it from almost wiping humanity from face of a planet a couple of times.

  29. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    it is not the governments job to feed you. you are responsible for yourself.

  30. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Have you ever been to Baltimore?

  31. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    We are not poor, some may be poor. Stop telling that Indians are poor

    340 Million Indians live in extreme poverty. There's a decent percent of population that doesn't live in extreme poverty but ignoring them doesn't help (or fool) anybody.

    We have largest gold in reserve

    Actually you still have to catch up to Germany, but this will serve you well in the future. At least the people who don't die of malnutrition in the meantime.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  32. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just look at the recession, stagnant economy, burst real estate bubble and massive youth unemployment. Oops, wrong country.

  33. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    utter rubbish blah blah ...trillions of dollars (in today's terms) ... blah blah

    I think you mean billions (in today's terms) rather than trillions.

  34. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    it is not the governments job to feed you. you are responsible for yourself.

    Some of us also think we're responsible for our fellow man. When the government takes money from the people to build weapons they don't need, that money is no longer available to either feed the poor directly or create jobs or infrastructure for them to feed themselves.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  35. Bush's Fault by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey why not?

  36. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    There's no denying India has a long way to go, but those who follow her history know that she has come a long way. Instead of turning into basket cases like Pakistan and Bangladesh, India has maintained a civil, democratic government even in the face of substantial hardship. Unlike so many other of the former British possessions India has not turned into a basket case, and has steadily been improving.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  37. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not like Indians can afford any of this stuff either.
    India has a huge trade and budget deficit (i.e. more money is leaving the country than coming in).

    And give me a break, almost none of these systems are "Indian" achievements.
    This is more like a Russian rocket than Indian. As are "Indian" nuclear submarines. "Indian" Sukhoi. "Indian" Rafale, ...
    Indians can't even build a satisfactory infantry rifle. See the soon to be scrapped INSAS rifle.

  38. after the launch by nimbius · · Score: 1

    newspapers reported that america redoubled its position against nuclear proliferation across the globe. A swift and decisively negative condemnation was issued from the global superpower.

    directed toward iran.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  39. Good for US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well I wonder why US government wouldn't condemn this country :
    Lets see....
    Country that borders and has fought wars with other country that you consider future rival or threat (China) : check
    Country that is rival to another country (Pakistan) that you've been trying to arm-twist into cooperation lately: check
    Country that is a potential customer for your weapons & planes, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars: check
    Country where a large number of your biggest companies have assets & customers : check
    Country which is one of the most lucrative and growing markets for some of your biggest consumer products : check
    Country far from your shore and so posing no real threat: check
    Country with real democracy and no history of military coups, civils wars, turbulent anarchy : check
    Country with generally sensible political leadership (well, within the limits of politics, anyway), who you can civilly talk to and negotiate with: check

    Yes, I think I can see why US government wouldn't give a shit about this missile launch ..

  40. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And people in the US will die from overeating crappy food...

  41. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    you are wrong. get your hand out of my pocket. I have a wife and children to take care of, those *are* my responsibility. parasites and thieves who think I owe them money can die.

  42. Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek? by wisebabo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know, I've always wondered why (in the original series at least) there seemed to be few, if any Indians or Chinese for that matter.

    Then I remembered a line that Spock once said that went something like "the 15 million dead from WWI, the 60 million in WWII or the 600 million in WWIII". (He was talking about the stupidity of mankind after Kirk's boasting).

    Then the movie "Star Trek: First Contact" came out which was supposedly set in North America after a big war(?) had impoverished the populace but hadn't reduced the country to radioactive cinders.

    I never read any of the "official" (or unofficial) histories but I was wondering; was a nuclear war supposed to have taken place, not between the U.S. and USSR but in Asia? Between India and China perhaps?

    (I'm glad to have gone to see the Taj Mahal last year; I've always thought that if Pakistan and India went to all out war, it would be the first to go.)

    Ok, ok I realize that probably the real reason for the dearth of these nationalities was probably due to the script choices of Gene Roddenberry or some casting decisions but I was wondering if there was any justification after the fact. Anyway, if so I hope life DOESN'T follow art!

    1. Re:Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek?

      Because they're all in IT, and Star Trek doesn't depict actual IT shops of the future - it's all about the in house/on board staff and users doing their own IT ... and you wonder why the holodeck goes crazy every once in a while.

    2. Re:Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek? by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      You know, I've always wondered why (in the original series at least) there seemed to be few, if any Indians or Chinese for that matter.

      Well there was "Space Seed", which lead to the film "The Wrath of Kahn".

    3. Re:Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek? by Chrisq · · Score: 1

      Whoops - I forgot the link to Space Seed.

    4. Re:Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek? by poity · · Score: 1

      probably more due to availability of actors

      Available Asian-American actors in 1960's: not many
      Available White or Black-American actors in 1960's: many

      still true today, since Asians mostly pursue technical/scientific careers and regard the arts as an unreliable way to provide for one's self or family.

      --
      your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
    5. Re:Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek? by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

      I have always thought exactly the same thing.

      There was ONE Indian guy in an early episode of TNG -- I remember because it stood out for me as, wow, there's a non-white, non-black guy! But no Chinese at all. Sulu, Japanese. Hoshi, Japanese. Kim, Korean.

      If a Trek ship was truly representative of their ideals, then 1/4 of the ship's population would be Chinese.

      Which is why I wrote this: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B006RZNR3Y/

      A sci-fi with almost all Chinese nationals, with some EU and Iranians thrown in (and a single Australian). The original draft of the story had the Indian Space Agency taking a much bigger role but it got cut for length and story flow reasons.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    6. Re:Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek? by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      You know, I've always wondered why (in the original series at least) there seemed to be few, if any Indians or Chinese for that matter.

      You're overanalyzing it. Maybe you're too young to remember, but Asians were essentially absent from all American television until the last 10-15 years. Other than the few obligatory stereotypical characters (restaurant worker, geishas, lab rat, etc.), you may be able to catch a few moving around in the background in an episode of MASH or something. Remember how David Carradine starred in Kung Fu? Bruce Lee was originally cast for that part, but was replaced because he looked "too Oriental". As an Asian growing up in 70s and 80s America, seeing an Asian with a speaking part on TV was quite extraordinary.

      To be frank, only small bits of progress has been made even up to the year 2012. See the local news today - you will never see an Asian male news anchor paired up with a white female news anchor. (Though an Asian female anchor will always be paired up with a white male anchor).

      (I'm glad to have gone to see the Taj Mahal last year; I've always thought that if Pakistan and India went to all out war, it would be the first to go.)

      I'm not a big subcontinent history buff, but I thought the Taj Mahal was built by a Muslim Mughal emperor, so maybe it'll be left alone?

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
    7. Re:Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the Taj is safe, is a Muslim mausoleum. Pakistan is unlikely to annihilate one of the finest monuments in their predominant religion.

    8. Re:Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek? by dissy · · Score: 1

      I never read any of the "official" (or unofficial) histories but I was wondering; was a nuclear war supposed to have taken place, not between the U.S. and USSR but in Asia? Between India and China perhaps?

      Memory Alpha is the closest thing to an official wiki of the star trek universe history.

      http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/WWIII

      Basically WW3 was between the USA and the "Eastern Coalition".
      A small foot note on the Eastern Coalition page states it was:
      A coalition of nations in the Far East and/or Middle East would seem to be suggested by the name of this combatant. It was later explained by Brannon Braga, in the film's audio commentary, that the ECON was at one time simply "China," but that it was changed in favor of political correctness.

      So basically you are correct, it was mainly the USA and China.

    9. Re:Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek? by tokul · · Score: 1

      You know, I've always wondered why (in the original series at least) there seemed to be few, if any Indians or Chinese for that matter.

      http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Eastern_Coalition

    10. Re:Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Senor Chang!!!!

      A korean with a PhD who's lifelong goal was comedy!

    11. Re:Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will purchase the book. Read the preview you plugged a few months ago and thought it was good.

    12. Re:Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek? by tokul · · Score: 1

      I think the Taj is safe, is a Muslim mausoleum

      Buddhas of Bamiyan are safe too. What kind of idiot would destroy 1500 year historical heritage.

  43. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by cplusplus · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, I meant trillions. It was over two billion British pounds of raw wealth goods before the 1920's, cumulative over 150+ years, with a lot of the wealth drain coming early on, which works out to well over a trillion dollars if you normalize over that period and adjust for inflation. And that's just for trade deficit to Britain for raw goods and precious metals. It does not include the fact that up to 40% of India's entire budget was spent on their military, which was under British control at the time, and was "the backbone of the power of the British empire". Yes, Britain did some good things in India, but it was a huge net loss for them. You can start reading about it here, and work your way out from there. An AC using a term like "utter rubbish".. heh... I don't know many people outside the UK who use terms like that ;-)

    --
    "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
  44. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

    you are wrong

    No, you have poor reading comprehension. Try again.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  45. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by PPH · · Score: 1

    Detroitistan?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  46. Agni vs Agni by bayankaran · · Score: 5, Informative

    AGNI means fire in many Indian languages. The word also refers to the god of fire "Agni". Slashdot description "Named after Hindu God of fire Agni" - is misleading and insinuates some type of religious weaponry. It is like saying Saree is a Hindu dress...Saree is an Indian dress.
    Hinduism is more of a way of life than a religion. And India has the largest number of Muslims after Indonesia. The 2% of Christians will be more than 20 million - much more than many European nations. This plurality one should not forget.
    In fact the chief scientist of AGNI mission - Tessy Thomas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessy_Thomas - is from my state Kerala. She is a Christian and she named her son Tejas - a Hindu name. I am a Christian, but my name is Hindu.
    Try to understand the complexity...generalizing a complex country is the basic mistake Western journalists make about India.

    --
    Tat Tvam Asi
    1. Re:Agni vs Agni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saree is very much a Hindu dress - you don't see too many non-Hindu women normally wear it. And Agni very much is the Hindu god of fire - there are words in various Indian languages derived from Agni that mean fire, but not Agni itself.

      Indian Muslims may like to claim it, but India is either 3rd or 4th in the list of Muslims - after both Indonesia and Pakistan (and maybe even Bangladesh).

    2. Re:Agni vs Agni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saree is very much a Hindu dress - you don't see too many non-Hindu women normally wear it.

      Let me guess, you're American?

      Of course most of people you'll see wearing it are Hindu. Indians who don't have a religious reason to preserve their Indian culture just go ahead and adapt to American culture. Wearing the same clothes, etc.

      Go to a part of the world where the culture just normally wears those clothes and you'll get a different picture.

    3. Re:Agni vs Agni by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Try to understand the complexity...generalizing a complex country is the basic mistake Western journalists make about India.

      When non-American's stop indulging in the same habit, then we'll talk.

    4. Re:Agni vs Agni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very much an Indian Hindu - and was talking about India. These days, sarees are something Hindu women often wear after marriage. Unmarried Hindu women sometimes wear them on special, religious occasions. Twenty years ago or more, it was something most Hindu women wore once they were in their 20s. But Sikhs, Christians and Muslims don't normally wear them - be it before or after marriage.

      Have lived in the US as well - and again, Indian women here don't normally wear saris, except again on similar occasions,. There are no religious reasons to preserve Indian culture - Hindus who don't live in India are under no obligation to prefer India to countries that they are citizens of.

    5. Re:Agni vs Agni by eyenot · · Score: 1

      Wow, so in all this enlightenment (Christian, Hindu, Muslim, who cares -- you all claim direct knowledge of God's existence and guidance and use that claim to attribute inherent righteousness to your actions and opinions) you STILL all just HAVE to go through your own Cold War? You can't just look back at the one that JUST went past, and say "Yeah, America, Russia, Cuba, everybody looked like a bunch of idiots", you just have to have the feeling of having gone through it yourselves?

      Only this time, instead of a bunch of countries where religion is historically somewhat of a yoked bull, in the nations of India and of India's "enemies" (very enlightened, very spiritual) religiosity is the stamp of approval on every government transaction. If governances are not done at the behest of Muslim, Hindu, or Jewish appraisers, they are not performed at all.

      And while you all claim so much enlightenment and spirituality, goodwill and peacefulness, you are all the craziest and stupidest, most superstitious and violent people in the world. And since the grand majority of religious people *ARE* barbaric, *ARE* murderous and *ARE* hellbent on killing each other even when the only thing they have handy are rocks and machetes -- and apparently especially when victories against ancient sworn enemies may be gained even if it means firing rockets on unarmed civilians (Jews), raping and murdering refugees in their sleep (Christians), blowing up anything and everything you can in the most gruesome fashion possible (Muslims), or just barbarically swarming city streets to target known Muslims while screaming nationalist battle cries and wielding swords and tridents and killing en masse in cold blood in broad daylight (Hindus), you all do the exact same thing and you all justify it by saying that you're right about God, that God is with you and that you are different and better than everyone else.

      A second cold war will be even worse and will likely see actual launches and strikes. There are more people alive now, so those people are easy to project as being worth considerably less in order to appease the common sense of one's own people that obliterating millions of people in a flash and simultaneously ruining the entire world's natural environment in the process is not a good thing. So the chances of facing as much backlash and public disapproval is not as high as it was during the idealistic 60's through the 80's. But that's not the only way things could be worse.

      There are also long-standing alliances between religions that have nothing to do with national alliances, and with so many purely religious and purely hateful nations now coming into their nuclear powers, these religious alliances will be called into account. And because religion is nothing more than an ideology of shared delusion, other ideologies will also be called into play against one another. So once again Communism will have its stance against what it sees as the tumult of unfettered capitalism running amuck. Christians will have to side with Israelis because of their shared delusion concerning "Armageddon" and shared ambitions for the Temple Mount. Muslim nations everywhere will have to side with each other rather than be considered "apostate" and be rent like a beard. Jews everywhere will have to respond to the Muslim surge in self defense.

      Every nation in every continent will have reasons to pick up nuclear weapons once you've made it a religion instead of a strategy.

      This makes it highly obvious, of course, what you religious people really worship: death, the threat of death, and the obsolescence of sense in any way you can force it to occur. Rape, murder, pillaging, genocide, mass insanity and mass destruction are the only legacies you religious people bring to the Earth.

      Not only should you not have a nuclear weapon, you should be tranquilize en masse and gradually cajoled into mass suicides. Next time you feel a frenzy of religious fervor and wish to demonstrate it via arrows that explode with the power of a thousand suns, point them at yourself, please.

      --
      "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
    6. Re:Agni vs Agni by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      AGNI means fire in many Indian languages. The word also refers to the god of fire "Agni"

      On an unrelated note, the root itself is more widespread than that - it goes all the way back to Proto-Indo-European, and still means "fire" or something fire-related in many other languages. For example, English "ignite" is cognate, and so is Russian "ogon" (fire).

      (I find these things sorta fascinating, and it never hurts to get another reminder that our cultures are all related in some way or another, and not completely alien)

    7. Re:Agni vs Agni by NewYork · · Score: 1

      Caste = Religion
      There is no Hinduism in Globalization

    8. Re:Agni vs Agni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AGNI means fire in many Indian languages. The word also refers to the god of fire "Agni"

      On an unrelated note, the root itself is more widespread than that - it goes all the way back to Proto-Indo-European, and still means "fire" or something fire-related in many other languages. For example, English "ignite" is cognate, and so is Russian "ogon" (fire).

      (I find these things sorta fascinating, and it never hurts to get another reminder that our cultures are all related in some way or another, and not completely alien)

      Sanskit "Agni" = Latin "Ignis" = English "Fire". "Agni" stands for not only the God of Fire, but also the word "fire" in its common, everyday sense.

    9. Re:Agni vs Agni by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saree is very much a Hindu dress - you don't see too many non-Hindu women normally wear it.

      This is absolute rubbish! Many Christians in the south wear sarees. Do get your facts straight before shooting your mouth off on public forums.

  47. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are broke / poor. But you have some money left. And you have a family.

    Given these choices, what would you do?

    1. Spend all the money to feed your family, it will be sufficient for a few years.
    2. Or Start a business with that money, so your family can be rich forever.

  48. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is not the governments job to feed you. you are responsible for yourself.

    Does that still hold true when you have 1.5+ billion people? You know what? The government's "job" is whatever the people decide it's job is. There is no absolute truth written in stone about what a government should or shouldn't do. Governments are the creations of humans, and humans decide what a government does.

  49. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

    2. Or Start a business with that money, while conveniently ignoring things like business risk, ROI analyses, opportunity costs, and expecting to immediately reach breakeven point in your business, all while the magic unicorn feeds your family, so your family can be rich forever.

    FTFY.

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  50. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    Yes and compared to most of the world, Baltimore feeds and waters the vast majority of our population. OTOH, in India, you will find that most infant death is from diarrhea caused by unsanitary water. Likewise, you have ppl eating their own fecal matter just because they are so hungry. In NK and even in India, they strip the bark from trees to make soups so as to put something in their stomach. So, what issues do you see similar in USA?

    Or are you just an asshole that has never been outside of the west and have absolutely NO idea of how bad things really can get?

  51. Why? by WOOFYGOOFY · · Score: 1

    "India has successfully test fired a long-range, nuke-capable missile. Named after Hindu God of fire 'Agni',

    Why does this worry me?

    1. Re:Why? by unixisc · · Score: 2

      The US navy, at various times in war, had 2 warships named after Hindu gods - one was USS Indra, the god of thunder, lightning and rain (and ruler of the demi gods) and the other was USS Krishna. Both saw action during the Vietnam war. Does that worry you?

    2. Re:Why? by Xolve · · Score: 1

      If you are worried because of the name, I do not understand why?

  52. Am I the only one... by Red_Chaos1 · · Score: 1

    ...who is getting tired of everyone wanting/having to have nukes, or the capability of launching nuclear payloads? Did nobody learn from the cold war?

  53. Re:nice thought's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank's for bringing this up.. war with 2 most peaceful nation's of world pakist* n chin*a ..u sure joke alot

  54. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you an idiot or what? Before the British came, Indians were in the medieval age. Most people were dirt poor and only the kings and nawabs were rich. Babur the first Mughal emperor of India in his book the Baburnama wrote about how poor the common people in India were. India's per capita income actually increased during British rule. Sati, child marriage, the Thugees, slavery etc... were eradicated by the Brits. Modern hygiene and medicine were brought by the British too. India also got a lot of money from the U.K. during independence and after the 2nd world war.

  55. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2

    Nice sentiment. Too bad it has been proven time and time again that it only works for those who are wealthy enough to hide behind walled gardens and personal security while the rest of society goes to hell.

    I for one am glad to live in a nation where even if my neighbor is the most useless sack of shit ever, his children won't have to go out and steal from my children but will instead have access to education and healthcare so as to be able to carve out a life for themselves.

    --

    People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  56. WARNING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Warning: war is approaching in the east

  57. Billions/Trillions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Depends on whether you are using the Billion = 10E9 or the Billion = 10E12/Billiard=10E9 system.

  58. I don't know about your eyelids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but mine are batting 1000 right now

  59. Western Democracy by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    If by that you mean horribly horribly corrupt, then yes you are correct.

    Oh well it has worked for the US so far I suppose. I guess it isn't in the megawealthy corporate thieves best interest to have a nuclear war either...

  60. Named after Hindu God of fire by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Don't worry about it, its just for launching satellites!

  61. Well Technically by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    They did try to surrender peacefully, sort of, however it was not agreed to. They sued for conditional surrender, which would keep the Emperor as the figurehead leader of Japan. The US wanted an unconditional surrender, politically they could accept nothing less. I think the bombs convinced the Emperor that he would be the leader of ashes if they didn't relent (however even after bomb #1 they refused).

  62. Cuba, part 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'The BBC's Andrew North in Delhi says Indian officials deny it, but everyone believes the missile is mainly aimed at deterring China.

    Obviously this greenlights Cuba to acquire it's own nuke and ICBM aimed at deterring America.

  63. HAHA YEAH WHAT A FAG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you're using 'gay' as a pejorative? what is this, middle school?

  64. Cold War II by eyenot · · Score: 1

    Uh, okay, this is some bullshit.

    North Korea is a piece of shit, granted, and they don't have any realistic purpose for an orbiting satellite, so their recent (failed) launch test was more than likely a cover for ICBM capabilities and nobody on Earth besides Jong-Il and maybe China wants North Korea to have an ICBM.

    But we can't just (rightly) condemn the shit out of North Korea for their launch and then just go "ooohh, aahhh, how Leet tis this venture today, ooohh, silver spoon up my ass with a stick of butter, aahhh."

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  65. Obvious by phorm · · Score: 1

    I'm going to go way out on a limb and predict that he will leave office either in January of 2013 or 2017

    Uhh. Given the two-term limit, I'd say that's a fairly safe bet...

    1. Re:Obvious by phorm · · Score: 1

      ...oops, clipped my post

      No leader is going to make an amendment to abolish the limit. The closest that may come in the future is some suspension of the 2-term limit under a war-act. Given that the current hostilities are ramping down near term-end, I'd say that the chance of that any time soon is 0.0001%

      That doesn't mean he'll quite politics though. Just that he won't be sitting in the same chair.

      No, it's not a dictatorship. But that that doesn't mean that the "style" of government isn't sometimes dictatorial. The problem is that the dictator these days isn't the politicians, it's the corporations that control the politicians. They've become increasingly bold these days. Bold enough to basically stand up and say how "disappointed" they are that the politicians they've been lobbying didn't bow to their draconian wishes.

      No, the government isn't quite the same as that in dictatorships in other countries. The treatment of the citizens is definitely going down that route, though.

  66. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by vivtho · · Score: 1

    ... and every combat rifle designed by every Western country worked perfectly from the first attempt right?
    * XM29 OICW (USA)
    * XM8 (USA)
    * Steyr ACR (Austria)
    * H&K G11 (Germany)
    * Armtech C30R (Austria)

    Every manufacturer has to go through a learning curve before the products can compete against the best of the world. The only way to fail is to not try at all.

  67. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by eyenot · · Score: 1

    Oh, come on, yes you dooooo.... you all eat monkey brains and human hearts all the time. You all live in either deserts or in jungle mudpits, or temples and treasure-laden skyscrapers. You speak English with English accents and maintain archaic English terms like "by jove". Somewhere in your country is an ancient Masonic cult guarding a substantial amount of gold, and somewhere else in your country is an ancient Kali-worshipping cult that sends people to the lava. Just admit it.

    --
    "Stratigraphically the origin of agriculture and thermonuclear destruction will appear essentially simultaneous" -- Lee
  68. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An AC using a term like "utter rubbish".. heh... I don't know many people outside the UK who use terms like that ;-)

    Awesome, now I know how to sound like I'm from the UK.

  69. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude you are enforcing my point.
    The difference being everyone of (USA, Germany, Austria, ...) never deployed in large numbers any of their investigative experimental forays you indicated.
    The INSAS rifle however is NOT an experiment, but a mass produced and deployed decades long failure, soon to be scrapped.

    It also doesn't take away the fact almost every key technology in the "Indian" arsenal is foreign in design-manufacture.

  70. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Threni · · Score: 1

    And don't beg for money for food and medicine etc when you've pissed it all away on nuclear weapons and long distance rockets that you're never going to use. If any of these shitty little countries who've scraped together enough money for a handful of nuclear weapons ever uses them they're going to get every single city destroyed by the end of the same day so what's the point?

  71. Outsource to India! by cowdung · · Score: 1

    Time to outsource our WMDs to India!!

  72. To paraphrase Mr. Miyagi by Dave+Emami · · Score: 1

    Rule #1: Nuclear weapons for democracies only.
    Rule #2: Fast learn rule #1.

    Unfortunately there's not much that can be done about non-democracies that already have nukes, but that should be the general rule. I have zero concern about the arsenals of India, or France, or the UK. It would have been fine with me if post-apartheid South Africa had kept theirs. I wouldn't bat an eye if, say, Sweden or Taiwan or Chile decided to develop some. North Korea and Iran are in a completely-different category.

    Yes, I realize this is a missile we're talking about, but the reason we're talking about them is that they can carry warheads.

    --

    "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
  73. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

    Why don't you move to Somalia?

  74. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    raw wealth like gold, precious metals, and gems

    Those aren't wealth: they're trinkets, with no practical value.

  75. Indian diaspora by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forget about all these pointless expenditures.
    Every fucken Indian wants to move to the west cuz their own country is a third world shithole.
    Pretty soon there will be nobody left in India to defend.

  76. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Zeromous · · Score: 1

    I didn't realize India required much foreign aid.

    --
    ---Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A START
  77. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

    progress happens in every field parallely. its a whole fucking country. do you think we need to work on only one thing at a time? because that would be stupid.

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  78. term not literal, but otherwise agree with you by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

    http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fire_in_anger
    "Fire in anger" is a military term that uses the word 'anger' non-literally.

    1 is the standard argument why using the A-bombs made sense. (along with deterring Russia and the fact that we were leveling cities conventionally anyway)
    2 is new to me.
    3 is an example of WWII Japan's suicidal stubbornness.

    Yeah, I can see how the nuke decision made sense at least at the time.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:term not literal, but otherwise agree with you by Digicaf · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that! I'm pretty well versed in military jargon, but I've never heard that one before. I appreciate it.

  79. Choose by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    Either threaten India with total nuclear destruction or STFU about North Korea and Iran.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  80. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by NewYork · · Score: 1
  81. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Portuguese/French/British "created" India in 1505 by integrating 500+ Independent Kingdoms aka Princely States.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Indian_history

  82. India ranks 135. Ranks worse than Bangladesh 83. by NewYork · · Score: 1
  83. Lets see by luk3Z · · Score: 0

    India Test Missile, North Korea Test Missile, almost everyone Test Missile but Iran DON'T Test any Missile and US want their oil fields.

    --
    Recipes for USA bankrupt - http://tinypaste.com/0d66f dd = dollar deluge (printed in the infinity)
  84. Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL - what a moron you are! People eating their own fecal matter - where the fuck did you pick that up from, dickwad?