5 ms·
Agni-V, India's first ICBM test-fired successfully
- rollypolly 15y agoDoes having more ICBM-capable countries make the world safer?
- asto 15y agoHaving an ICBM makes India safer. ( Considering the fact that China is a militarily aggressive neighbour and we previously didn't have the capability to strike them )
- caf 15y agoThe reported range of even the MRBM-class Agni II can reach most of China from eastern India. The Agni III and Agni IV IRBMs were easily sufficient for holding China at risk.
- asto 15y agoMy mistake. I believe you are right. AGNI missile range : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agni_missile_range.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agni_missile_range.png
- radicaldreamer 15y agoPotentially, if you think that countries are rational actors and the mutually assured destruction doctrine. I think this makes the chance of an Indian/Chinese non-localized war much less likely.
- caf 15y agoThe prospect of a major Indian/Chinese land war was already quite remote. A rather large, high mountain range separates the two, and neither has the the ability to fight an extended war at the end of supply lines running over that mountain range.
- hooeezit 15y agoIf you didn't know, India and China HAVE fought a war in that region, and you always fight wars 'at the end of supply lines' by definition, so not sure what you mean by that. In fact, both countries have the ability to fight extended wars. India has been fighting a war for decades on its western frontier with Pakistan which is as rugged as the eastern frontier with China. India maintains the highest battleground presence in the world on the Siachen Glacier. So no, the prospect of a land battle on the Indo-China border is neither unlikely, nor unprecedented. That said, modern China is a pragmatic country whose primary focus is to keep its own population happy. China has a lot of hurdles in the path to the realization of that goal, and needs the economy of the region to stay stable for that. If China attacks India (or vice versa), global supply chains and economies will get severly affected and in turn will have an avalanche effect on the economies of both the countries. Hence, practically speaking, neither countries would wage war on each other unless taken over by a whimsical, dicatatorial leader (and which dictator isn't whimsical?).
- kamaal 15y agoIndia and China have better work than fighting wars at this time. Our time, money and resources are better utilized spending on development activities than pointless wars. Besides we(Indian civilization) have never attacked any country in several thousand years and never will. There is no bigger a peace loving nation in the world than India. But if some one attacks us, we need to defend ourselves. Historically India is impenetrable through the northern and eastern sides because of the natural defense Himalayas provide. Nothing has changed in the modern times.
- whosthr 15y agonot sure if being the "peace loving" nation has been good thing for india... India has had too much of that and looks to be a spine less country now which is not willing to take any kind of position or action...
- caf 15y agoI'm aware of the Sino-Indian border war, but fighting skirmishes in the border region is not at all the same thing as long-running, high intensity combat deep into the opponent's territory. There's a reason why China unilaterally withdrew back to the pre-war line of control afterwards - it's just not feasible for them to take and indefinitely hold large chunks of Indian territory. The same applies to India in reverse. This is important in the context of strategic nuclear weapons, because the only situation that would justify using such weapons is when national survival is at stake - the risks are just too high otherwise. National survival isn't threatened by short-lived border skirmishes.
- hashfold 15y agohopefully for playing a defensive role...look whom it is surrounded by....any country with similar situation would do it. just my thought.
- mooneater 15y agoI wonder if this might be a good counterbalance to Pakistan, resulting in higher chance for "peace" in that region. (Though I really hate nukes.)
- asto 15y agoWe've had the capability to nuke Pakistan into oblivion for a long time now! This development does not affect them at all. Also, the AGNI V is just a missile - the warhead need not be nuclear.
- maslam 15y ago"We've had the capability to nuke Pakistan into oblivion for a long time now!" Is that something to be proud of?
- fusiongyro 15y agoI would think it beats the capability of being nuked into oblivion by Pakistan. Ask 10 Indians and see which option they'd prefer.
- rskn 15y agoYes.
- asto 15y agoConsidering that most of the technology on a missile is general use (the rockets, fuel, electronics) and not only for weapons, yes I am indeed proud that my country has the capability to R&D and create such equipment without outside help. As for the military might, Pakistan's past actions speak for themselves. Indians sleep better knowing that Pakistan has a lot to lose should they try anything.
- kamaal 15y agoWe are proud of the technology achievements. Don't forget that we are the only nation which hasn't invaded any other nation in a millennium. If any thing we have nukes only as deterrents. We have never started a war alone and never will, because we don't want to kill innocent civilians. But God forbid if we are attacked then we are human beings and we need to defend ourselves.
- 47 15y agoMissiles/Nukes are like Software Patents. Most reasonable people will agree that they are bad but will still continue on filling patents for counter suing and deterrence.
- runningdogx 15y agoGovernment doesn't create the principles of nuclear physics that allow fission and fusion to occur. We can't get rid of the nuclear threat as long as the knowledge of nuclear physics exists and someone somewhere wants to conquer the world (or merely a continent in some cases). Software patents are a legal construct. Get rid of that, and writing up software patents accomplishes nothing.
- mc32 15y agoI don't think so. It adds another variable into the mix. So now each actor has to keep track of one more actor. Kind of like in the movies where people aim guns at each other. If two people are aiming at each other there's a stalemate. With three it's sill a stalemate, if you have guns in both hands. When you have four aiming at each other it becomes more chaotic and less predictable, I think, specially if one of the four, or five etc. is more disliked than the rest. It's a different scenario and the analogy isn't perfect, but it may illustrate how I see the danger increasing.
- fusiongyro 15y agoIt's tempting to say no, but unfortunately for our sanity, it looks like mutually-assured destruction and the concept of the nuclear deterrent actually work. As evidence I cite the fact that both the USA and Russia exist today and neither got nuked by the other, despite some scares. As long as Pakistan and India continue their pissing contest they're probably both going to need nukes just to keep things cordial.
- rskn 15y agoYes. A deterrent is a means to peace.
- anujmehta 15y agobravo!!
- hashfold 15y agothis makes Asia a safer place to live by neutralizing the forces. India follows 'no first use' policy. so India is helping make a safer place.
- suyash 15y agoHow does this makes to #1 news on HN?
- jbarham 15y agoIt's 10 pm in SV and 10:30 am in India...
- monsterix 15y agoCongratulations to the techies and engineers who worked on this project, however no donuts for those who sponsored it. Here is why: 1. The objective to make a destructive missile is probably not a priority for a country with a billion bare-footed men. Apart from ego-massage you get nothing out of it. 2. The missile doesn't add any value to safety of the country, because - believe it or not - wars are always suicidal. It doesn't matter who is more powerful. Damage is equal on both the sides. Death is equally sad on both the sides of war. Loss is only public, while media and stupid politicians make meat out of it. 3. The most important reason why this missile is a complete waste of tax payers money is that India should focus on widespread poverty, education and corruption at this hour. Not some retard idea to be able to attack the world. Otherwise, engineers like many out there working under stupid management, you've done a great job!
- rskn 15y agoIndia doesn't have a billion barefooted men. War isn't suicidal. Damage is NOT equal on both sides. There have been engagements where one of the two sides have had no casualties yet met the objectives of the conflict. A missile helps india focus on just that - poverty. Instead of spending its resources on fighting wars that WILL come to be at the absence of nukes and ICBMs. Indo-Pak war of 1965 was based on the misguided pakistani notion that the Indian army was severely crippled following the war with china. This prevents incidents like that.
- pm90 15y agoexactly. It is extremely unlikely that there will be a full scale war between India and China; perhaps only border skirmishes. A ballistic missile deterrence can only help to "balance" the stakes and make the region more stable. I also wonder whether the OP and others who post suggestions for getting rid of poverty really mean? These are rocket-scientists, not social scientists. The resources allocated for poverty reduction programs is already quite staggering....pouring more money cannot solve the problem; it is a social and economic change that will occur eventually. Meanwhile, one can secure the territorial integrity of India and build expertise in missile systems, among other things...which surely can't be a bad thing, especially since it looks like there is gonna be a space race sooner than anybody thought about.
- startupsdesigns 15y agoLast I checked India was over 1 billion in population with sky rocketing political corruption stats. How does these missiles benefits majority who go without a proper meal everyday.
- hooeezit 15y agoPride. To tackle the political corruption issue will require a massive movement and a big consensus. If you visit India, you will realize that nothing gets done through consensus. Only individual actors achieve large successes. India still lives in a kingdom mindset where people draw pride from the acts of their superiors and are thankful for such acts. If you try to do something radically different, you will get a lot of resistance from everyone around you because "that doesn't work here". But if you do succeed, everyone around will claim to be part of it and will talk of you proudly. So, in that environment, building an ICBM (which is btw a very hard engineering challenge and took India 30 years) is an achievable goal for an individual actor (the defence organization DRDO) and because it was an Indian success, brings pride to a nation of 1.2 billion. Getting rid of corruption will make our lives significantly better (there are many other much more modest goals that will have a similar effect), but it won't bring close to as much pride. In a country where you'd die before driving a Tata Nano if you had any semblance of money (Tata Nano is seen as a cheap car - something not to be proud of) and an iPhone is a must have, such sources of pride as an ICBM count for a lot. Yes, we are flawed, but as we say, "what to do, we are like this only"
- ippisl 15y agoOne of the main strengths of india is it's ability to create very low cost products of reasonable quality in many fields.it's probably the greatest thing modern india can offer the world. For example the tata nano has created the whole mini car segment, that has significantly reduced the cost of low end cars around the world. now many people globally can afford to buy new car. Such effect is much harder to achieve than building an ICBM(which is a pretty old technology). And indians don't take pride in it(if not at a level of buying it, but at least as a national innovation) ? that's a shame.
- 15y ago
- zwadia 15y ago$480M in RnD to get this bird off the ground. Zuck could have bought in over the weekend and then negotiated with Systrom.