Slashdot Mirror
India's ICBM Will Carry Multiple Nuclear Warheads
An anonymous reader writes "India is equipping its longest range nuclear-capable missile, the Agni-V, with Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs), The Diplomat reports. A MIRVed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) carries multiple nuclear warheads on a single missile, which it dispenses towards numerous or a single target after the final stage of the ICBM boosts off. MIRVed missiles destabilized the Cold War nuclear balance and are likely to do so again: 'Because they give nations greater confidence in being able to destroy an adversary's hardened missile silo sites in a first strike by launching multiple, lower yield warheads at the sites.'"
Geee, I'm in awe...not.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
> MIRVed missiles destabilized the Cold War nuclear balance
Really? I thought it was the movie Star Wars the scared the Soviet Union into surrendering.
Nukes stopped the war, they should be able to stop rapists in India.
One vehicle per guy in a gangrape should do the job ; nuclear deterrence indeed.
Thats becuase we like idia, while Iran is filled with a bunch of hate filled nutters!
Pakistan will race to be the first muslim country to do the same thing.
Then they'll duke it out with the Indians in Kashmir and Cina finally takes over what's left of the Indian subcontinent that is
non radioactive.
India could launch unarmed missiles at a desert island and still destroy everything of value in Pakistan.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
No. It's because India already has them and has [barely] demonstrated restraint from using them.
I have something in common with Stephen Hawking...
We need to stop this madness. Even if we assume that fall-out outside of India/Pakistan's borders is not severe if they were to ever have a war that turned nuclear, the entire world will suffer the climatological consequences. See the following link (warning, PDF)
http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSAD.pdf
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Doesn't India have other priorities? http://www.wateraid.org/uk/where-we-work/page/india
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
Nuke em now !!
The resulting dry cleaning bills will bankrupt the enemy.
India already has them and has [barely] demonstrated restraint from using them.
India is, in other words, barely legal. On the other hand, Iran has not demonstrated the capability for us to judge their restraint on using the said capability.
Actually Iran has ratified the non-proliferation treaty and bounded itself with the related responsibilities while India isn't.
India is keeping its ennemies close. The nukes are foremost to keep Pakistan and China under control. Why the heck are they devellooping ICBM capability? Thy really just need to be able to lob them far enough over the border...
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
India should be working on improved stick technology so they can win WWIV.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
You are really saying that the world community must band together in order to take all of America's nuclear weapons? After all, America is the ONLY country in all of history to have ever used a nuclear device against another, not once, but twice.
You can make all the distinctions you wish about right or wrong, but one cannot argue it is untrue.
....because they're a militant theocracy ruled by fundamentalists determined to dominate their neighbours & force the region into a nuclear showdown? because they're already funding terrorist and insurgency in neighboring states? Because they're funding Assad , the Hizballah and Hamas? You can pick the reasons you want.
Yeah, so maybe the subject is flame bait, but self righteous ass clowns like you really grind my gears.
You have the balls to talk about India spending money on weapons when the 21% of US children live in poverty?
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/
When there an estimated 500k homeless people living in US cities?
America spends 4.5% on GDP on the military, NOT including the illegal wars being waged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
You sir, are a jackass.
Or maybe that's because India is the largest democracy in the world and has been mostly at peace since its independence in 1947 (minus border conflicts with China and Pakistan and some peacekeeping operations abroad). It's last conflict was in 1999 against Pakistan and the total death toll after 3 months of operations was less than 5000 victims. It's not a bad track record for such a large and populated country given the size of the societal issues it's dealing with.
The iranian democracy on the other side is today nothing more than an empty shell and while its population is highly educated, young and probably wouldn't mind a change in government, its government and associates have proven time and time again since the 70s to have a rather proactive agressive stance.
Indias new ICBM will sit in the ground and carry nothing, because its not going anywhere. So its incorrect to say it will cary multiple nuclear warheads. It will, at most, carry multiple dummy test warheads.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
There's plenty on Slashdot, most who live in America. any time there's a discussion of a foreign country, they feel the need to steer it back to America and do so by hating on America. Near as I can tell it is a combination of two things:
1) Trendiness in hating the US. For some reason, they feel that "cool" thing to do (so to speak) is to hate on the US. If anything is bad anywhere, they need to find a way it is worse in the US.
2) Arrogance/self centeredness. They can't deal with a discussion that isn't about them or their experiences, so they have to steer any discussion back to the US so it is. They mentally justify it to themselves as pointing out the US's flaws, but it is really about making the discussion about them and their world.
There's sadly a lot of it on Slashdot, it often gets moderated up, and it can make it difficult to have a real discussion about problems in the rest of the world.
Didn't anyone watch War Games?
Because I feel a lot better about Polar Bears going extinct quickly, all at once, rather than by slow starvation.
The iranian democracy on the other side is today nothing more than an empty shell and while its population is highly educated, young and probably wouldn't mind a change in government, its government and associates have proven time and time again since the 70s to have a rather proactive agressive stance.
As opposed to so many way more brutal dicatorships US government supports (far too many to list them all here) and sometimes even gives them technology to build nuclear weapons (Pakistan).
Regarding Iran, their current, rather precarious condition their citizenry suffers is direct result of US and Britain intervention. Regarding threat of Irans's nuclear capabilities, all we see and hear in western corporate media is crap and propaganda. Should they acquire some, they wouldn't be able to use them in other form than a deterrent. Their army contains of (mostly) defensive forces. Their defence strategy is to block Hormuz Strait and then look for diplomatic solution ("you stop invading us, we ublock your oil"). There was a publicly available Pentagon document describing it, yet I don't remember where I downloaded it. Use your favorite search engine to find it if you want.
Almost everything you see of hear about Iran in western media (maybe except of them being quite brutal theocracy) is a crap. The only reason western powers fear so much of iranian nukes is that since Iran acquires some nukes, US and friends won't be able to "bring democracy" to Iran as they brought it to Iraq or Libya.
http://controversialhistory.blogspot.co.uk/2007/10/myth-of-ancient-nuclear-war.html#.UaiVCKq8xwA
Also, they're close friends with Venezuela. That alone could be a threat to the entire western hemisphere.
Posting to undo moderation.
Like any country, or rather any unit that has multiple areas they need to work on, everything gets its fair share of resources. One doesn't "prioritise" one thing in neglect of other things. Defence gets its share.
There is no such thing as a 'fair share'. This is all about making (political) choices.
By choosing to spend money on nukes that could have been spent elsewhere, Indian politicians do prioritize. The Indian defence spending may be relatively low, but one may still have the point of view that a part of it should have been spent differently. Assuming there is a 'fair share' for defence is assuming that whatever the outcome of a political debate is, is inherently the right outcome.
"Money is a sign of poverty." - Iain Banks
Given what the USA did to them first and is STILL doing, can you fucking blame them?
The iranian democracy on the other side is today nothing more than an empty shell and while its population is highly educated, young and probably wouldn't mind a change in government, its government and associates have proven time and time again since the 70s to have a rather proactive agressive stance.
Since the 70s? The Iranian revolution was in 1979, with the new constitution coming into force in December. And in 1980 Iraq (under our then-ally Saddam Hussein) invaded Iran, leading to 8 years of war with somewhere between 500000 and 1 million Iranian victims (that's around 250 9/11s if you need a comparison). That looks more like a reactive and defensive stand to me...
Stephan
Obviously, you've never read an anti-abortion bill.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
As long as they do not get Deathheads, we're ok !
-- I played "Scorched earth" way to much ...
"and are likely to do so again: 'Because they give nations greater confidence in being able to destroy an adversary's hardened missile silo sites in a first strike by launching multiple, lower yield warheads at the sites.'"
Not true, here's why:
During the Cold War this was true because most missile silos were well, just that, ground-based. In nuclear scenarios, the idea was to have a powerful and overwhelming "first strike". The first strike would take out the enemy's ability to retaliate with nuclear weapons. This was why stealthy / high speed bombers were created, so they could penetrate enemy airspace and destroy his ability to counter-attack.
Fast forward to nuclear missile submarines, when an enemy presented a threat, the subs were dispersed from their pens into the ocean and would go quiet. The hidden subs presented a new first-strike threat. A sub could have SRBMs loaded, and pop up off the coast of a country (read: Russia) and destroy their land-based nukes.
However, all this became completely irrelevant when the opposition also possessed nuclear subs. Basically, the nuclear arms race has been a constant battle of one-upmanship where MAD reigns as the only realistic deterrent in the event of a war.
In theory, if India had many MIRVs they could feasibly take out all of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. But that's a joke. All it takes is a couple of nukes to get through to ruin your country's day. Beyond that, China would *never* stand for a nuclear exchange near their borders. This is why they are distancing themselves from North Korea.
...Pakistan will simply block ICBM on their great firewall...
Like China was in the 1960's? Unstable whackjobs with their finger on the button?
The Soviet Union were close to launching a preemptive nuclear attack on China's nuclear infrastructure? Sounds familiar?
The only reason they did not was because China and the USA had their rapproachment, mostly because China felt very threatened by the Soviets. Who attacked China because they felt threatened by the Chinese.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
The US certainly did not give Pakistan nukes. The Chinese did help there.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
....because they're a militant theocracy ruled by fundamentalists determined to dominate their neighbours & force the region into a nuclear showdown? because they're already funding terrorist and insurgency in neighboring states? Because they're funding Assad , the Hizballah and Hamas? You can pick the reasons you want.
....because they're a militant _corporatocracy_ ruled by fundamentalists determined to dominate their neighbours & force the region into _an economic_ showdown? because they're already funding terrorist and insurgency in neighboring states _and everywhere else_? Because they're funding _Mossad, Jundullah, People's Majahedin of Iran, Boko Haram, etc_? You can pick the reasons you want.
Fixed that for you.
I can't tell if you're referring to Iran or Pakistan.
Having played a lot of Scorched Earth and ATanks in my time, I can assure you that MIRV nukes are REALLY bad and can easily end up killing your own tank if launched in haste.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I know but that was 25 years ago (finished in 1988).
Oh boy, 4 nukes that you only have to shoot down one time because they're all on the same missile. What a great tactical advantage...for the enemy. Sounds like a cost-saving measure to me, not an amazing advanced weapon.
There are 600 million Indians without access to toilets, but they are building ICBMs. At least they've got their priorities straight.
Proverbs 21:19
Because it's not a stable democracy. Stable democracies "are allowed" (whatever that means) to have nukes, unstable democracies and non-democracies are not. Ideally this eventually allows us to slowly inch back to a non-nuclear world, but that could take hundreds of years.
It takes three points to make a trend. Until the USA nukes someone else, you can consider the two previous bombings as irrelevant data.
Looking through the article and its links, it seems like this is a response to China, which is deploying MIRVs to counter US-deployed anti-ballistic missile systems. With the Agni-V's extended range, India will be able to strike every city in China. Both sides are also developing submarine-launched missiles, which should hopefully reduce the incentive for a first strike.
Visit the
Barring any massive stupidity, Venezuela will likely clean itself up once Chavez croaks - give it a decade or so at the most, rate his health has been.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
You may find the following information useful: Chavez is dead. Has been so, as I write this, for several weeks.
Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
Except india is a fucking shithole. They have a ridiculous caste system which is still in place to this day. Kind of ruins the whole democracy thing when a large section of your population is allowed to be treated like utter shit, and made to live in garbage filled shantytowns. There are whole towns where EVERY FEMALE IN THE TOWN IS A PROSTITUTE.
Hugo Chavez died 5th March this year. His named successor, Nicolas Maduro, has just been elected to the Presidency and has promised to stick closely to his policies. Change may come, but it is not insight yet.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
list India-Pakistan as the most likely place for nuclear war to erupt?
Anyway, MIRVs were my favorite weapon in Scorched Earth, so I wonder if Angry Birds has anything similar. Maybe in the next version.
Pakistan is also currently a Democracy, it has been an on and off thing but it still has a better democratic tradition than Iran.
This is Slashdot. "Current Events" means this Century. Unless it's a new Apple product, in which case we're right on it.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The iranian democracy on the other side is today nothing more than an empty shell and while its population is highly educated, young and probably wouldn't mind a change in government, its government and associates have proven time and time again since the 70s to have a rather proactive agressive stance.
As opposed to so many way more brutal dicatorships US government supports (far too many to list them all here) and sometimes even gives them technology to build nuclear weapons (Pakistan).
This is something I have been wondering lately.
It's bad that the US supports dictators rather than helping democracies around the world. But it seems that many places don't want a peaceful democracy. They want violence and tribal warfare. So is it wrong for the US to support a strong leader that ends the violence, but who does it by being a dictator, if the alternative is years of tribal wars that kill thousands annully?
I'm not saying it is always right, but maybe it isn't entirely wrong either.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
meanwhile, a lot of volcanic DUMB bust0ring.
Regarding Iran, their current, rather precarious condition their citizenry suffers is direct result of US and Britain intervention [wikipedia.org].
Iran's current state is an indirect result of the 1953 coup. It's a direct result of the 1979 revolution and the idiocy of leftists teaming up with Muslim groups. They used the Muslim groups as the muscle and assumed they would step aside and let the leftist intellectuals rule when the dirty work was done. Quite a tragic miscalculation, though obvious in hindsight.
The only reason western powers fear so much of iranian nukes is that since Iran acquires some nukes, US and friends won't be able to "bring democracy" to Iran as they brought it to Iraq or Libya.
That's a common theory but it doesn't make sense.. if anybody wanted to invade Iran, why wouldn't they do so RIGHT NOW before Iran has nukes? And yet it doesn't happen...
This is merely a summary. Before man travels into space, it should sort out the poverty issue, on a global level, in every country. For every living being. To build globally applied and designed food/water/energy grid seems the most reasonable solution. About weaponry -- especially those "producing" radioactivity. In regards to energy/power supply as well.. nuklear power is the most expensive power on this planet, roughly. Since, in the long term aftermath, concerning this energy carrier and its storage, disposal, processing, etc. it is almost unaffordable. In economic terms. Nukes are simply impracticable, since when used, they would pretty much destroy the only habitat man has yet "developed", truthfully it was "given" to man.. If someone believes in deterrence, he clearly didn't understand the premise that these weapons shall never be used. Whether a person would still justify the use of it. He is to me a raving lunatic not fit to handle this kind of weaponry. About America, don't get me wrong, I have quite many American friends who I hold in high esteem. But some individuals within the US border constantly talk about the land of the free, then what comes to mind? 4.000.000 humans led into slavery? Or help me get my data straigjht. How was this country founded? By almost entirely eradicating an entire Culture/people, namely the Native Americans. On the other hand, I do like Americans for their technological drive, inventions (not patents, and their way of exploiting the entire world) , IT, literature, some films, etc, still this .. "we do everything wrong once, but in the end we will do the right thing" philosophy simply does not fly. Not one bit. It's just not good enough. Yes, what else is there to say? Certainly no country (whatever that really is) is perfect. But America is seemingly not one the right way (That's a very subject opinion), but to me, people who are seemingly unable to admit fault or mistakes, are somewhat fishy. What I'd love to see is a America living by its own rules. Other than that, please America, give me some good advice, if it's a wise advice I shall certainly take it into consideration or live by it. But get your act together. You're sitting on a really large pile of skeletons. Have a decent day. And change what must be changed. Change it or live thru the consequences. Since most Americans might believe in causality, this could be a valid argument.
s/grid/grids/ , straight* etc..
He died on March 5, which is a tad over 13 weeks ago. It seems that your news feed is also running a few months behind. ;)
I still love space, and technology, and NASA/ESA... :P
If you re-examine the Cuban Missile Crisis and then Vietnam, I would humbly suggest that -- rightly or wrongly -- the USA was considered by many to be "the unstable whackjob with their finger on the button" in the 1960s.
Indians are morally corrupt by birth (Caste system) for the past 3000 years.
http://www.firstpost.com/world/painting-india-red-why-the-global-racism-map-is-wrong-789019.html
Anti-Pakistan is a cheap tool/trick used by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_caste people to promote their hegemony over https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_caste people in India.
People in Bhutan(17), Sri Lanka(22), Pakistan(24) are happier than India(35).
http://www.rediff.com/business/slide-show/slide-show-1-worlds-10-happiest-countries/20110610.htm
Casteism
Due to Caste system in India it is difficult to govern more than 2 million citizens.
Government must reorganize all DISTRICTS into CANTONS.
http://polldaddy.com/p/209736
Casteism
Thats becuase we like idia, while Iran is filled with a bunch of hate filled nutters!
And you think there is no reason for that hate (if any)? I was talking to an Iranian friend a few days ago who was saying US and western countries have stopped selling medicine (cancer, MS, AIDS, ...) and create problems for them even if they want to buy from other countries.
The irrational financial sanctions (Swift network) is harming ordinary people in Iran. Do you expect love from them?
The Nuclear doomsday has been outsourced at half the intial cost and three times cost in the long run post nuclear catastrophy....
Regarding Iran, their current, rather precarious condition their citizenry suffers is direct result of US and Britain intervention [wikipedia.org].
Iran's current state is an indirect result of the 1953 coup. It's a direct result of the 1979 revolution and the idiocy of leftists teaming up with Muslim groups. They used the Muslim groups as the muscle and assumed they would step aside and let the leftist intellectuals rule when the dirty work was done. Quite a tragic miscalculation, though obvious in hindsight.
So, you don't think a decade of war with US backed Iraq had anything to do with the current state of affairs in Iran?
The only reason western powers fear so much of iranian nukes is that since Iran acquires some nukes, US and friends won't be able to "bring democracy" to Iran as they brought it to Iraq or Libya.
That's a common theory but it doesn't make sense.. if anybody wanted to invade Iran, why wouldn't they do so RIGHT NOW before Iran has nukes? And yet it doesn't happen...
As I remember it, Bush was actually warming up to a war on Iran after winning in Iraq. One of the main reasons that it did not happen was that Iraq turned out to be a lot more unruly than the US government had expected. If Iran was going for nuclear weapons, one of the best times to do so would be when their adversaries had their militaries tied up in expensive conflicts that they did not dare to lose. And after a decade of war and occupation and facing serious economic problems, it is quite difficult for the current US government to get funding for an expensive war, even if they wanted to. It could also prove to be quite a challenge for them as it could cause the civil war to flare up in Iraq and, possibly, light the powder keg that is brewing in that area.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
LMAO, india is involving in alot of war since independence. It is just that India does it slowly that nobody notice.
Suddenly all these genetically incompetent monkeys are carrying scary weapons.
Time too leave.
Those are perceptions, not legal reasons. If Iran is breaking their commitments to the international community by violating the treaties they have ratified, the community has the right to respond as is appropriate and legal. Assassinations and bombings are not an appropriate response to a technical treaty violation.
Wow, you are funny.
Cuban Missile Crisis: Nuclear missiles being brought close to the US shore in the power of a third world government that hated the US.
Vietnam: The US backed a government in a civil war, China and the Soviet Union backed the other government.
If you consider that wackjob, than every country in the world is just as guilty, each country backs countries they are allied with.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Except india is a fucking shithole. They have a ridiculous caste system which is still in place to this day. Kind of ruins the whole democracy thing when a large section of your population is allowed to be treated like utter shit, and made to live in garbage filled shantytowns. There are whole towns where EVERY FEMALE IN THE TOWN IS A PROSTITUTE.
Wow, you are misinformed will be an understatement. India does have issues you mentioned, but not to an extent you exaggerate. Take some X no of parameters to see how India does as a whole and I am sure data will indicate that India has been making steady progress in giving it's citizens a decent standard of living. Can it do better? A big YES, but to make India sound like Hell can only come from a highly prejudiced mind.
Document dumps from the former USSR show that it was Fidel Castro who was the unstable whackjob.
The missiles were more potent and numerous than believed by the USA, and Castro was demanding access to launch them, and was willing to blow up his island in order to strike the capitalist enemy. USSR, wisely, never let the cubans have them. Kennedy also stopped the crazier warmongering parts of his own administration.
A technical treaty violation is imposing excess tariffs on the the wrong kind of shoes.
Iran's current state is an indirect result of the 1953 coup. It's a direct result of the 1979 revolution and the idiocy of leftists teaming up with Muslim groups. They used the Muslim groups as the muscle and assumed they would step aside and let the leftist intellectuals rule when the dirty work was done. Quite a tragic miscalculation, though obvious in hindsight.
Quite tragic for iranian citizenry under shah regime. Britality of this regime caused 1979 revolution. Even more tragic during Iraq-Iran war, procured by US and western powers, led by Saddam Hussein, supported and armed by US right through hist worst atrocities. Still suffering due to harsh sanctions and surrounded by dozens of US military bases.
That's a common theory but it doesn't make sense.. if anybody wanted to invade Iran, why wouldn't they do so RIGHT NOW before Iran has nukes? And yet it doesn't happen...
The problem is that Iran is not so easy to invade. That's why Pentagon generals block every attempt of US politicians to invade Iran: this might end up in disaster for US even if they manage to wipe out iranian army. Economic consequences of blocking Hormuz Straits are just too severe. Risk of overstretching and losing control over Middle East is also great and IF it happens, you can kiss goodbye to US dollar as a reserve currency.
Just skimming quickly around your post I see that you still believe in 'right' vs 'left' dualism. This tells me you're being deluded. Our media and politicians like us to think in terms of 'left' vs 'right' and identify with either of these sides, so they can see us fighting each other and not paying attentions to their dirty games. It is also easy way to manipulate public: just tag someone (something) as 'leftist', 'rightist' or 'terrorist' and certain parts of society will hate this person (object, process, whatever). I'd urge you to educate yourself. Starting with developments in Iran since II WW might be a good start. Even wikipedia is a good start. Careful reading (with your noisy TV [FoxNews/CNN/whatever] turned off) is a key.
>US and friends won't be able to "bring democracy" to Iran as they brought it to Iraq or Libya.
Note, the US and friends did, in fact, end tyranny which was precluding democracy in Iraq and Libya. And so far, no oil stolen.
So you say. But Theocratic Iran never launched a military invasion of its neighbors while it has been invaded a couple of times.
A war in Iran would never be as easy as a war on Iraq. The country is larger and the geography is totally different. Iran is a mountain country for the most part so not exactly prime tank terrain.
You can always convert to Christianity like a lot of the poorer people in Southern India have been doing.
they're close friends with Venezuela
The headline reads "Iran-Venezuela ties deep-seated: Iran FM". Are you going to take the word of an Iranian politician? Do they speak more truthfully than American politicians? This is not like the USSR-Cuba relationship. There's nothing more to it than Venezuela giving the US the finger.
India is the US's ally.. Iran is almost nobody's ally.
While I certainly do trust India more that Iran or North Korea.. I think that letting India implement ICBMs is hipocritical and exposes how corrupt and biased the whole "non-proliferation" thing is.
Now that the Soviet Union is no longer hovering over people's minds politicians are complacent about ICBMs unless it is their enemy's ICBMs. But India should no more have an ICBM than Iran..
Of course, the US shouldn't have them either.. But I guess the US is allowed to harbor WMDs because they have the bigger stick.
While such disparities exist in the World there will be no justice and weak people will continue to turn to violence and there will be no unity to stop them.
He's just pining for the Venezuelan fjords.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Distraction.
Get the sunnis fighting the shia and 1000 years of tradition will just take over. It will spread from Iraq; Syria then Iran. The more fanatic the people are the more likely they are to go to war with each other. Same old weaknesses.
Of course if this has been the plan all along then not even Bush would have been dumb enough to say it out loud.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Chavez is dead. Long live Chavez!!!
Large cities were completely burned in World War II. Global temperatures didn't change.
Well, it has been shown that missiles actually got set up and were operational, why did he not try and launch them?
Perhaps it is because what you say is false, and while he did want a lump of power thrown his way (as most similar
small nations despot leaders want) he was not nearly stupid enough to use it?
Remember so far only one country has used nuclear weapons in anger, twice, without warning, and with no opportunity between
for discussions (after all, there were 2 designs to test!), the same country that built, and still maintains the largest destructive
capability using the same weapons, has been involved in more wars since than anyone else, has invaded more countries since
than anyone else, and currently is trying harder and harder to enforce their own political/legal worldview over the rest of the
world?
Just saying...
So is denying scheduled inspections. Then again, sometimes wars over a pair of Manolo Blahniks are absolutely necessary.
So let me just check if i understand you..
As might i apparently right, if for example someone found a way of terrifying an entire populace through small actions well within
their capability, relatively easily repeatable, inexpensive, that however create a very large effect on both the economics and social
structure of the victim then they are on to a winner as that is a very effective way of creating might?
How does it feel to support terrorism?
Personally I like to consider morality somewhat important..
India is country with a deep rooted bureaucratic system in place. Also there is massive amounts of corruption in all spheres. in all probability, the MIRV missile story is mere eyewash. The media in India is cowardly and it cannot be depended upon to bring out the true facts whenever the government or the military is concerned and merely print the official press releases.
Aren't all of India's enemies on the same continent? Why does it need an intercontinental-range missile?
....and the weapon's race continues...
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Like China was in the 1960's? Unstable whackjobs with their finger on the button?
The Chinese communists demonstrated their whackjob bona fides by killing and terrorizing other Chinese in The Great Leap Forward and The Cultural Revolution.
Cartoonish dystopian totalitarian crazy was all the rage in the 20th century, and people would do well not to forget it. Always fun to bitch about the US, but let's have a little perspective and not forget the true horror of the fascist and communist alternatives.
What part did i exaggerate? The caste system is there. Half the population doesnt have access to a toilet. Tha ganges river is polluted as all hell. The prostitution? Look up Bharatpur. "The Bedia caste in the Bharatpur region of Rajasthan traditionally sees its women enter the sex trade at the age of thirteen or fourteen. Caste-based prostitution has meant that there are no girls for the men to marry, for they can only marry virgins. To add to their problems, unemployment is rife. So the girls buy brides for their brothers and support the whole family by selling themselves 20 or 30 times a day until they are too old to attract custom. " http://felixfeatures.photoshelter.com/gallery/G0000oG.kvBZBcHM So how am i misinformed again?
....because they're a militant theocracy ruled by fundamentalists determined to dominate their neighbours & force the region into a nuclear showdown? because they're already funding terrorist and insurgency in neighboring states? Because they're funding Assad , the Hizballah and Hamas? You can pick the reasons you want.
Change the names and you've got the US.
4 people living in a house HATE each other 24x7 for the past 3000 years (Caste system).
What will Congress party do?
BRIBE them (Reservations/NREGA/Aadhaar)
What will BJP do?
BULLY them (religious bigotry/Babri/Godhra riots)
What will an Intellectual (Gorbachev) do?
Give them their share of land/Independence and tell them to go and build their own nation (Perestroika/Communal Award)
"Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." --George Santayana
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perestroika
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communal_Award
Casteism
Quite tragic for iranian citizenry under shah regime [wikipedia.org]. Britality of this regime caused 1979 revolution.
I disagree. While the Shah did engage in brutality, he had reason to -- perhaps brutality was a legitimate response to the rising power of leftist and Muslim religious groups. I mean take a look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leftist_guerrilla_groups_of_Iran When you have such a list of guerrilla groups operating in your country, trying to undermine the government and the economy, what are you supposed to do? Look at their ideology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Iranian_Revolution You have people who want to fight you simply because you are too Western, as if being Western is bad. Those kinds of people are irrational and impossible to deal with or negotiate with.
I've never lived in Iran and I didn't live through the times in question but from what I've read Pahlavi also brought about many positive (I mean Western of course) advances in Iran -- women's rights, education and literacy, land reform, health initiatives. This list is quite impressive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Revolution
Now of course I'm not saying Pahlavi was perfect, but I will say that he was better than what came after the revolution!
ya those tribal dravidian south indian fucktards, they are the fucking dumbfucks who don't mind even selling their religion. i have seen many such converts.
To get its priorities right
https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/prime-minister-of-india-each-state-in-india-should-have-different-currency
Casteism