India Test Fires Long-Range, Nuke-Capable Missile 336
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.'"
Good morning! (Score:4, Funny)
Wait, hang on (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:Wait, hang on (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.
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or that's just what he /wants/ you to think. Crazy like a crazy fox, they are.
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:5, 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.
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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".
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:5, 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.
Re:Wait, hang on (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.
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Wait, hang on (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.
Re:Wait, hang on (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.
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 "doali
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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 dictat
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_U.S._involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe not that unprecedented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_the_U.S._involvement_in_the_Vietnam_War [wikipedia.org] 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.
Re: (Score:3, 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
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:4, 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.
Re:Wait, hang on (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:4, 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).
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:4)
It's not an autocratic dictatorship, it's an oligarchical dictatorship.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Wait, hang on (Score:4, Informative)
Corruption high nope [transparency.org], try again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 respect
Re: (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 some
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Serious Differences There (Score:5, Insightful)
Pakistan is close to being a failed state.
India, on the other hand, is the world's largest democracy.
Re: (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.
Re:We broke the NPT with India (Score:5, 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 [wikipedia.org] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Military_expenditure_by_GDP_2008.png [wikipedia.org]
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
Re:We broke the NPT with India (Score:5, 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 gap is about 35 years (Score:2)
Not competitors? (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
And let's hope they all remain emasculated in that way.
Can't feed nor provide clean water for population (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!
Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you ever been to Baltimore?
If only things were that simple. (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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati (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!
Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Can't feed nor provide clean water for populati (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you are wrong
No, you have poor reading comprehension. Try again.
Re: (Score:3)
Why don't you move to Somalia?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
We are not poor, some may be poor. Stop telling that Indians are poor
340 Million [ophi.org.uk] 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
How Long? (Score:2)
Re:How Long? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Stop (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why no Indians (or Chinese?) in Star Trek? (Score:4, 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!
Re: (Score:3)
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".
Agni vs Agni (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org] - 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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)
Re:India invents the "V2"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Context is important (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.
Re:Context is important (Score:5, 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 [armscontrolwonk.com]. Missile launch ban is the consequence of the UNSC Resolution 1874 [wikipedia.org], 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.
Re:India invents the "V2"? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
"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.
Re:India invents the "V2"? (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!
Re:India invents the "V2"? (Score:4, Funny)
"For all we know cpu6502 could in fact be Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."
But there are no gays in Iran!
Re: (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 [wikipedia.org] (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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I like your enthusiasm XD
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)