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.'"

43 of 336 comments (clear)

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

    Its a wonderful day in the neighborhood....

  2. 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 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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).

    13. 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?

    14. 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.
    15. 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!
    16. 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.

    17. 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.
    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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.
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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
  12. 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!

  13. 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
  14. 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

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

    Have you ever been to Baltimore?

  16. 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.
  17. 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!

  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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.
  21. 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."
  22. 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