4 ms·

Does having more ICBM-capable countries make the world safer?

asto 14y ago
Having 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 14y ago
  The 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 14y ago
    My 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 14y ago
Potentially, 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 14y ago
  The 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 14y ago
    If 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 14y ago
      India 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 14y ago
        not 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 14y ago
      I'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 14y ago
hopefully for playing a defensive role...look whom it is surrounded by....any country with similar situation would do it. just my thought.
mooneater 14y ago
I 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 14y ago
  We'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 14y ago
    "We've had the capability to nuke Pakistan into oblivion for a long time now!" Is that something to be proud of?
    - fusiongyro 14y ago
      I would think it beats the capability of being nuked into oblivion by Pakistan. Ask 10 Indians and see which option they'd prefer.
    - rskn 14y ago
      Yes.
    - asto 14y ago
      Considering 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 14y ago
      We 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 14y ago
Missiles/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 14y ago
  Government 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 14y ago
I 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 14y ago
It'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 14y ago
Yes. A deterrent is a means to peace.

asto 14y ago

Having 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 14y ago
The 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 14y ago
  My 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 14y ago

Potentially, 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 14y ago
The 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 14y ago
  If 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 14y ago
    India 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 14y ago
      not 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 14y ago
    I'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 14y ago

hopefully for playing a defensive role...look whom it is surrounded by....any country with similar situation would do it. just my thought.

mooneater 14y ago

I 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 14y ago
We'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 14y ago
  "We've had the capability to nuke Pakistan into oblivion for a long time now!" Is that something to be proud of?
  - fusiongyro 14y ago
    I would think it beats the capability of being nuked into oblivion by Pakistan. Ask 10 Indians and see which option they'd prefer.
  - rskn 14y ago
    Yes.
  - asto 14y ago
    Considering 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 14y ago
    We 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 14y ago

Missiles/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 14y ago
Government 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 14y ago

I 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 14y ago

It'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 14y ago

Yes. A deterrent is a means to peace.