Strategic Implications of India's ABM Test

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 04 Dec 2006 13:22

joey wrote:Now look at Cuba/Vietnam etc etc who were under USSR influence.
.


Okay Joey, you really arent getting my message, one more try.

1) Israle is NOT in a position to go against US wishes. So if Israel does something US knows and okays.

2) There are ways to go around the MTCR in various ways.

3) I never said Israel helped massively, it helped and that is enough/okay. I am not the one making a big deal of the cooperation issue anyway it is others who are more flustered. Wonder why.

4) The ideologocial psoturing of cold war is over, there are different variables in the great great game now. Further please dont limit your thinking by comparing India with Vietnam/Cuba, please. This kind of thinking by comparions lowers your visions. We are independent power with different size, we should learn from others experience but to say India_US cooperation is same as Pak-US cooperation is freely gifiting away our potential. I therefore will not even attempt to debunk those myths.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 04 Dec 2006 13:26

negi wrote:IOW if at all an adversary has a BM/ICBM with MRV capability they would try to inflict max damage via each missile (for cost and economics arent an issue when any one is at war).


Yes expect if your number of nukes are limited and if the entire missile goes down you lose all your nukes. This could be a constraint.

However I agree, a MIRV does not come cheap either, if you have it you will probably load it up anyway. So no decoys. Anyway the defender has to take that assumption, the probablity of guessing otherwise and coming out wrong is too high. :twisted:

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 04 Dec 2006 13:33

saty wrote:
joey wrote:Now look at Cuba/Vietnam etc etc who were under USSR influence.
.


Okay Joey, you really arent getting my message, one more try.

1) Israle is NOT in a position to go against US wishes. So if Israel does something US knows and okays.

2) There are ways to go around the MTCR in various ways.

3) I never said Israel helped massively, it helped and that is enough/okay. I am not the one making a big deal of the cooperation issue anyway it is others who are more flustered. Wonder why.

4) The ideologocial psoturing of cold war is over, there are different variables in the great great game now. Further please dont limit your thinking by comparing India with Vietnam/Cuba, please. This kind of thinking by comparions lowers your visions. We are independent power with different size, we should learn from others experience but to say India_US cooperation is same as Pak-US cooperation is freely gifiting away our potential. I therefore will not even attempt to debunk those myths.

LOL your missing a very important point.
You mean whatever Israel does it asks Us permission first which is wrong....................

Israel if free to help in any front provided we have good relations with US , means Israel is providing us technology at their will not asking US, but "if" US asks them to stop cooperation "incase of china" They will.

As simple as that.
Israel doesnt has to take US permission to cooperate, but Israel will stop cooperating if US tells them to.
by then we will have the industry and spinoffs we needed.
total diplomacy.

So, Israel is definitely not in a position to go against US doesnt means They have not to take permission of US to colaborate "as" india and US has good relations.
Last edited by mandrake on 04 Dec 2006 13:50, edited 1 time in total.

Drevin
BRFite
Posts: 408
Joined: 21 Sep 2006 12:27

Postby Drevin » 04 Dec 2006 13:37

:( :( You both r saying the same thing.

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 04 Dec 2006 13:52

No were not and i edited my above post and changed have to have not

here is where he is wrong according to me
1) Israle is NOT in a position to go against US wishes. So if Israel does something US knows and okays.

Not necessary!!! at all.
Its israelis wish.

Just like it was their wish and they started trading with china without US knowing then when US knowed they said NOT TO and israel stopped.

so there you go even if US doesnt want Israel to colaborate, They cannot convey it clearly as we are maintaining a very good relation with US and US knows well it'll jeopardise its relationship if he tells israel.

Indian diplomacy at its best!!

but ofcourse If us says "NO dont colaborate" then they might consider not to.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 04 Dec 2006 14:22

joey wrote:Not necessary!!! at all.
Its israelis wish.

Just like it was their wish and they started trading with china without US knowing then when US knowed they said NOT TO and israel stopped.
.


Yes I am saying exactly that. Do you think US does would not know of Israels involvement before hand in this case? They dont need the free press to tell them whats going on you know!

Naak aage se pakdo ya peeche se, ant mein naak he paakdi.

Net sum, yes US coonivance exist, that is what I am saying, period. However IMHO this is a really tirivial statement. US knows, so what?

Barring some idiots who think US is the great satan and Ru the great god, In real world all major powers cooperate and compete and the same time. This is another example.

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 04 Dec 2006 14:42

saty wrote:
joey wrote:Not necessary!!! at all.
Its israelis wish.

Just like it was their wish and they started trading with china without US knowing then when US knowed they said NOT TO and israel stopped.
.


Yes I am saying exactly that. Do you think US does would not know of Israels involvement before hand in this case? They dont need the free press to tell them whats going on you know!

Naak aage se pakdo ya peeche se, ant mein naak he paakdi.

Net sum, yes US coonivance exist, that is what I am saying, period. However IMHO this is a really tirivial statement. US knows, so what?

Barring some idiots who think US is the great satan and Ru the great god, In real world all major powers cooperate and compete and the same time. This is another example.

Your still not getting the small string what I'm saying,

US need not know what Israel is doing with India as long as we have good relation with US.

Israel need not inform US about what it is doing with India as long as we have good relations with us.

lol what do exactly mean by that before hand? your making US seem like a dada which isnt the case IMHO.

We all know Japan is involved in SM3 with US, exactly in the same manner US knows Israel is involved in Indian project, not that some classified way as your portraying.

US also knows Russia and we developed brahmos, the same Way US knows Israel is involved with India, and US doesnt have any problem as long as we have good relation.
after a decade or so we'll have self sufficient industry..... :evil:

Bolasani
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 50
Joined: 22 Sep 2005 10:43
Location: Hyderabad
Contact:

My Two paise:

Postby Bolasani » 04 Dec 2006 15:59

Considering just India and Pakistan, the Nuclear threat to India comes from Pakistan's first Use. India has a NFU and there wont be much of Pakistan left after the first use for a second co-ordinated attack.

This theoretical Pakistan first attack would be on high profile targets, political and pconomical. If the ABM system, once operationalized , can reduce the probability of successful missile attack by say 50%, I would say its more than worth its cost.

Of course this is going to lead to an arms race between India, Pakistan and China with all its potential economical and political implications and a race which could bring in the US more actively in the region.

The real question is, Is India ready for this.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 04 Dec 2006 16:45

The strategic implications of this demonstration ( I don't call it a "test") have not been grasped on this thread, with all respect to the fine postors here.

1. Accuracy of Indian missiles:
I think the point is made, clear enough even for Pakis to see, though not, of course for the desi dork media. If u can hit a thingy in the exosphere with a ground-launched missile, that says quite a lot about both spatial and temporal accuracy.

2. The fact that the demo was pre-announced. Yeah, it was delayed for this first demo, but that's OK. The sheer confidence of that announcement is stunning.

3. The revelation that there are things in the DRDO development stream, that are waaaaay beyond what was advertised before.

4. The rumors of Israeli collaboration have several implications. So one intended observer of the demo was no doubt Teheran (or Quom, depending on ur perspective).

5. With one shot, the dork reports in the Indian media have been blown out of the water. If DRDO can fire a Prithvi with such precision, and guide another, fast-burning thingy to hit it in the exosphere with a kinetic kill vehicle, how can you doubt any more that the same Prithvi can be armed with a terminal stage cruise unit that can fly straight up the musharraf of Pervez musharraf?

6. If this sort of capability exists (and hey, it's been demonstrated) then why is it so tough to field a ship-based anti-missile system? Obviously it is not. Also, the life expectancy of the Pakistan Navy is now reduced down to the T+15 minutes level, where T is the start of any hostilities. One missile for each ship, dhow, whatever. Expect a surge of orders for Ejection Seats with Zero-Zero capability, for the Pakistan Navy Senior Staff.

7. Most :rotfl: :rotfl: of all was that "99.8 % kill probability" calculation. Just sit back and think about that from the perspective of a Paki Jarnail, and from the management of Fauji Enterprises and Al Rashid Trust. Downtown Islamabad will see some pin-point building demolitions at T+15.

I have to call this
ASAL UTTAR 2006


If they have any sense of humor over at "Indian Express" or "Bootlick", those pompous dorks who wrote such "exposes" about the incompetence of Indian defense R&D must be the hottest topics of :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: at the watercoolers and the urinals.

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 04 Dec 2006 17:12

joey wrote:after a decade or so we'll have self sufficient industry..... :evil:



Yes you are right I really dont know what you are saying, the only saving grace is I am absolutely confident that neither do you.

Cheers...

saty
BRFite
Posts: 126
Joined: 20 Jan 2005 17:07
Location: Delhi, India

Postby saty » 04 Dec 2006 17:17

enqyoob wrote:The strategic implications of this demonstration ( I don't call it a "test") have not been grasped on this thread, with all respect to the fine postors here.


I some what disagree, a whole bunch of posters here might not know their No Dong from Ghauri (me included) however there are some folks here, who grasp what is happening here real well.... in fact some did say some did see the geo pol of Israel India etc together much before it was an accepted fact.

So do give some of us "some" credit N^3 saar, preeety please!?!

kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 264
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby kgoan » 04 Dec 2006 18:48

Oh, N can say whatever he wants because he also adds little gems like these:

why is it so tough to field a ship-based anti-missile system? Obviously it is not.

Which should be enough for everyone to remember those photos of the ship based Prithvis being test fired.

Now why would we still be spending a small fortune on developing a ship based BM with a *range* of 250 or 350 Km *when* the Brahmos is already available, operational and being inducted?

Makes much more sense to think that there are plans to have this ABM system eventually fielded on naval platforms. Which makes things so much more interesting . . .

Perhaps someone could comment on the possibility of this?

BTW: Thinking about it, I think I tend to agree with TSJs point about the cruise missile aspect.

Anoop
BRFite
Posts: 460
Joined: 16 May 2002 11:31

Postby Anoop » 04 Dec 2006 18:59

kgoan wrote: BTW: Thinking about it, I think I tend to agree with TSJs point about the cruise missile aspect.


Kgoan, but has Pakistan shown the ability to mate nuclear warheads with cruise missiles? I think not.

vsudhir
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2173
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 03:44
Location: Dark side of the moon

Postby vsudhir » 04 Dec 2006 19:21

Anoop wrote:
kgoan wrote: BTW: Thinking about it, I think I tend to agree with TSJs point about the cruise missile aspect.


Kgoan, but has Pakistan shown the ability to mate nuclear warheads with cruise missiles? I think not.


No, but its principal, unprincipled patron has.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 04 Dec 2006 19:33

Hi kgoan! 8)

The main points of the demo are

1) the ability to launch fast-burning missiles without blowing up the launch pad area

2) pin-point terminal guidance and path error correction, computed on-the-fly, at EXTREME rates and with total success.

All issues of ship-based launch are seen to be minor in comparison to these.

kgoan
BRFite
Posts: 264
Joined: 30 Jul 2001 11:31

Postby kgoan » 04 Dec 2006 19:35

Anoop, as vsudhir says, its China I'm thinking about.

I'm currently not entirely sure that we can continue to view Pak-China as a single strategic space.

The strategic quadrangle of our region, Pak-China-US-India, is undergoing some massive changes - even without the ABM impact.

I don't think China will be handing as many toys to the Pakees as they used to - note that instead of a nuke agreement all the Pakees got were some fancy words for which they had to hand over most of their industry in payment for.

Still . . . Alok once made the point that it would be dangerously foolish for us to consider Pak-China as anything else other than a single strategic continuum.

So I'd say the "safe" option is to keep Chinese *capabilities* in mind regardless of the ups and downs of the Pak-China side of the quadrangle.

N: Yeah. The chant of:

what-are-the-Yindoos-DSP**-capabilities-like
what-are-the-Yindoos-DSP**-capabilities-like


and variations on that theme are going up in some hallowed halls.

**Digital Signal Processing - or as folks say these days with COTS and pervasive global technological osmosis: One way or another, everything comes down to the software.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 04 Dec 2006 20:11

saty wrote:However I agree, a MIRV does not come cheap either, if you have it you will probably load it up anyway. So no decoys.


arre saty bhai, thoda socho ... a decoy is not a full warhead ... it can weigh as little as 1 Kg ... so you can load decoys on a rocket but you can't arbitrarily load extra warheads ...

a simplistic decoy proposed was aluminum foils balloons that are inflated and released by the RV ... because it is Al, it will have a similar RF signature ... this decoy was one reason that the KV had to engage in IR based homing ... of course, there is the wavelength advantage with IR as well ... the drawback is the existence of large background radiation ...

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 04 Dec 2006 20:14

kgoan wrote: One way or another, everything comes down to the software.


amen ... these days, one can complete an entire electronics project via email ... schematic design, parts list, pcb layout, assembly instruction, test-vectors ... you just send the files out and a working device arrives in the mail ... :)

what-are-the-Yindoos-DSP**-capabilities-like


things come full-circle with this ... the Indo-US deal will allow imports that will take front-end capabilities forward by a decade ...

CNC machines are fine ... but the real maal is in that Newark catalog ...
Last edited by Alok_N on 04 Dec 2006 20:18, edited 1 time in total.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55259
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 04 Dec 2006 20:17

Alok Those kind of decoys(chaff) work for aircraft type radars. Re-entry vehicles have unique signature and the decoy must have same signature. So unless the radar is primitive then chaff type decoys wont work.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 04 Dec 2006 20:23

ramana,

yes, that is true ... however, the point that was made by UCS folks was that it is much cheaper to build decoys that fake a signature than to build front-end electronics that differentiate the signatures ...

things may have changed quite a bit now (that report was around 2001) ... IR will certainly change things ...

perhaps, my understanding is flawed ... the way I visualize it is that a ground-based beacon illuminates the RV with RF and the KV detects reflections ... is this not true? ... is the KV, for example, detecting RF that is generated by the guidance system of the RV?

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 04 Dec 2006 20:30

off topic, but john bolton has resigned ...

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5871
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 04 Dec 2006 20:44

Alokji, hitting a decoy falls into the binary class aka failure mode (not the fuzzy class, aka miss mode). And unless detected and removed seperately, the guidance loop WILL converge onto the decoy.

And the seeker in PAD is an active seeker, ie it is a mini radar. It transmits RF and detects reflections.

The major problem with decoys is that they rapidly fall behind the RV. The only way to avoid falling behind is to let them have essentially the same mass. That gives its own problems. The active seeker can distinguish the slow moving decoy easily. Just look at the doppler, and take the fastest blip.

ldev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2007
Joined: 06 Nov 2002 12:31

Postby ldev » 04 Dec 2006 20:47

In India's equation vis a vis Pakistani BM launches, the MIRV equation is superflous. Given the range to any launch site in Pakistani, detection will occur seconds after lift off even without any space based sensors. This will result in ABM launch and intercept before the release of decoys/warheads. The MIRV issue is valid for longer range BMs e.g. say Chinese launches from central/northern China.

Alok_N
BRFite
Posts: 608
Joined: 30 Jul 2004 19:32
Location: Hidden Gauge Sector

Postby Alok_N » 04 Dec 2006 20:50

Dileep wrote:And the seeker in PAD is an active seeker, ie it is a mini radar. It transmits RF and detects reflections.


ok, that makes more sense ... :oops:

The major problem with decoys is that they rapidly fall behind the RV. The only way to avoid falling behind is to let them have essentially the same mass. That gives its own problems. The active seeker can distinguish the slow moving decoy easily. Just look at the doppler, and take the fastest blip.


is this true even for the exo-atmospheric case? ... if there is no air resistance, why does the decoy slow down? ... is the warhead accelerating? ... doppler should work, but what is the differential velocity?
Last edited by Alok_N on 04 Dec 2006 20:53, edited 1 time in total.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 04 Dec 2006 20:51

off topic, but john bolton has resigned ...


Completes the Rice takeover of Foggy Bottom, with a deterrent example made of ppl who stand in the riceway. Ayatollah Bolton has gone from SoS-to-b to UNAmby-goosely-ignored-to-exit.

A sad day for the NP Ayatollahs and the Holy Crusaders at the same time.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 04 Dec 2006 21:00

Hello JCage,

Because of the spread of the media and the diffuse manner in which it operates, we can't correct thing when they happen yet, we have to undertake corrective measures after things have happened.

The media is reading too much into the statements of Dr. Saraswat, yes the Green Pine was modified to suit our requirements, but it is incorrect to say that Dr. Saraswat suggested that it was used in actually guiding the missile. The PADE test was a demonstration of totally indigenous capabilities only and not a test of our skill at hybridising imported systems.

It is another matter that anyone who knows the first thing about India's defence forces will tell you that the Indians are unusually adept at making things work together even when they have not been explicitly designed to work together. That much can be left to the enemy's skill of inference. There is no need to make that explicit in this context.

I know DRDO fans are upset with what those CSWs in the media are doing, and they are jumping on to every chance to show DRDO is far ahead of its detractors, but it is crucial that people don't get carried away.

Neither Dr. Kalam, nor Dr. Singh have said anything about the PADE tests that indicates that this represents anything other than the success of indigenous R&D and frankly that is the only thing that matters.

At the end of the day, the PADE test accurately reflects our ability to control the launch environment and trajectory of the Prithvi system. This speaks volumes for what we can and cannot do.

The rest of what we might have done, is best left to our apparent adversaries imagination.

The Green Pine system was not critical to the outcome of the recent PADE test.

Dileep
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5871
Joined: 04 Apr 2005 08:17
Location: Dera Mahab Ali धरा महाबलिस्याः درا مهاب الي

Postby Dileep » 04 Dec 2006 21:01

Alok_N wrote:is this true even for the exo-atmospheric case? ... if there is no air resistance, why does the decoy slow down? ... is the warhead accelerating? ... doppler should work, but what is the differential velocity?

Even at the altitudes we are talking about (50-80km), there is considerable drag. The seeker should be able to distinguish a velocity differential of a few tens of metres/second IMO.

The point here is, the factor that affects PK due to decoys is calculatable.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 04 Dec 2006 21:01

enqyoob wrote:
off topic, but john bolton has resigned ...


Completes the Rice takeover of Foggy Bottom, with a deterrent example made of ppl who stand in the riceway. Ayatollah Bolton has gone from SoS-to-b to UNAmby-goosely-ignored-to-exit.

A sad day for the NP Ayatollahs and the Holy Crusaders at the same time.


His tenure was hastely bolted on to UN not a appointment.

But he has screwed US credibility with other Arab nations while at the wheel.

The only wicket he got was that of Sashi Taroor with a long hop. If only Sashi manged to plat couple of more overs of Bolton......

Oh well its all like Indian teams performance in SA right now. heavy weights in their own right but collectively bantam weight

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3060
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 04 Dec 2006 21:06

Threads are growing at faster rate nowadays :)

Ok, AAD missile can be used as backup for PAD but it is not exist purely as backup to PAD. Its like saying SM2 is a backup for SM3. Why there are two missiles is becoz, these two are optimized for two different purposes. One is optimized for ~30km altitude(endo region) and another for higher altitude. Same like SM2/SM3. If Aegis system has to intercept a SRBM which doesnt reach the altitude in which SM3 is optimized for then SM2 is used. Or in other way every categ missile is used according to the threat and time envelope to react.

Assuming that 6 PADE ABMs achieve 99% kill, then the probability of each comes to 50%. That is from the above eqn. probability of miss = (0.50)**6 = 1% => prob of kill with 6 = 99%.

If our only problem is in arriving at Pk of 99.8 as reported then,

6 missiles with indiv rate @ 65% can give Pk of 99.8%
5 missiles with indiv rate @ 71% can give Pk of 99.8%
4 missiles with indiv rate @ 79% can give Pk of 99.8%

I am doubtful of both type of missiles(Exo/Edo) having same Pk in same scenario. Its like saying Boot-phase interceptor is having Pk equal to terminal-phase interceptor.

So, instead of using combo of Exo/Endo missiles in arriving at Pk 99.8, this makes sense to me appeared in IHT
The tests will involve firing five intercepting missiles two seconds apart to guarantee that an incoming missile is destroyed. Saraswat expected the success rate in intercepting a missile would be 99.8 percent.
(Anyway Pk for a system can also be calculated with exo/edo combo but not with same indiv hit rate)

Can anyone share how the hit rate of indiv missile is arrived at ?

Just my thoughts on this..

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55259
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 04 Dec 2006 21:09

ramana wrote:The cold gas thruster could be same as the error correcting package on Agni RV. That makes the chotus also strategic.


N^3, I said this on page 3. Bolsters your arguement.

Vijay J
BRFite
Posts: 130
Joined: 19 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: India

Postby Vijay J » 04 Dec 2006 21:21

Hi,

Technical issues aside.

The biggest implication which I stress again.

The Kidwai Line is obsolete.

The Kidwai Line sets the criteria under which Pakistan will treat Indian activities as a pretext to launch a nuclear strike on India. The Kidwai Line relies on the logic that after a single successful nuclear strike by Pakistan, India's cowardly Hindu leadership will surrender the keys to Red Fort to Pakistan's General Musharraf. The Kidwai Line also posits that a successful Pakistani nuclear strike will be sufficient to prevent an Indian retaliation.

The Kidwai Line allowed Pakistan to completely dominate the field of rhetorical escaltion. This was used to full effect by Pervez Musharraf in 2002 to secure a strong foothold in media coverage. He used the Kidwai line to publicly put India in a bind. Irrespective of whether India actually wanted to kick him out of power, by drawing the Kidwai line, Musharraf dared India to cross it. When India didn't Musharraf claimed that he had scored a victory over India and that enabled him to dominate the psychological space of the Pakistani Army officers and that is how he remained king despite persistent rumours of Pakistan Army's failure to resist an Indian military aggression in POK and northern parts of Pak Punjab. Despite grevious losses to Indian artillery attacks in Op Parakram, Musharraf clung to power solely on the idea that he had somehow made the Indians back down.

Now the Kidwai line will not work. If Musharraf claims he will use a nuke, he has to publicly explain how the nuclear missile will not be shot down, or how India's capabilties will not survive once the vaunted Pakistani first strike fails. The Pakistanis are smart enough to know that India will simply take the failed Pakistani nuclear strike as an excuse to nuke Pakistan to glass. Musharraf will have to explain how the leadership of Pakistan will survive an Indian counterstrike without a similar system.

This means that Musharraf's dominance of the narrow confines of the mind of the Pakistani general staff is now abridged. Without a nuclear card to hold over his comrades, Musharraf will have to devise new ways of political survival quite possibly consider a democratic process that paves the way for a smooth exit next year.

I strongly recommend that the new generation of Pakistani leaders in the Army and its Jihadi groups, consider the prospects of a true democracy in Pakistan as an alternative to a dictatorship. Syed Adnan Kakakhail has a point, all Pakistanis should take a note of it.

enqyoobOLD
BRFite
Posts: 690
Joined: 09 Sep 2004 05:16
Location: KhemKaran, Shomali Plain

Postby enqyoobOLD » 04 Dec 2006 22:07

8) IOW, demand for jade-gleen grass is about to come down, since whole Bakistan will be coveled with it.

parsuram
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 31 May 2002 11:31

Postby parsuram » 04 Dec 2006 22:08

Re: the technical aspects. I attended a very interesting NATO conf. in '00 [NATO Adv. Res. Workshop on Multisensor Data Fusion] covering a lot of this stuff. Those wishing to peruse such topics can find rel. info in: NATO Science Series Vol. 70 "Multisensor Fusion". Kluwer Academic Publishers (2002). [wkap.nl]. fwiw.

Kanson
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3060
Joined: 20 Oct 2006 21:00

Postby Kanson » 04 Dec 2006 22:08

So, no rhetroic, So, no anti-india relic ? If so how will Pak Army function ? Its existance is justified based on anti-india stance. If its truly democratic, then what will happen to Army or will it accept a dormant role ?

parsuram
BRFite
Posts: 366
Joined: 31 May 2002 11:31

Postby parsuram » 04 Dec 2006 22:11

If its truly democratic.....



:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55259
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 04 Dec 2006 22:31

Folks a few ABM tests wont work with TSP Army. Akhal mand ko ishara kafi hain. But one has to be akhal mand first.

TSP Army has to be defeated and their center of power destroyed. Dont know how but it has to happen. Might have to be a 'French Revolution' or Najibulah type of event in TSP by the people.

The Center of power is not Pindi a geographical place but the attitude and hearts and minds of the core group.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 04 Dec 2006 22:42

joey wrote:
I dont think GOI trusts US as much as Israel by any means, IMHO also Israel covertly spies on US..............


India and Israel is more like US-UK where both can share a lot of R&D if they need to and work jointly.

DO you think Israel spies for US

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 04 Dec 2006 23:17

Acharya wrote:
joey wrote:
I dont think GOI trusts US as much as Israel by any means, IMHO also Israel covertly spies on US..............


India and Israel is more like US-UK where both can share a lot of R&D if they need to and work jointly.

DO you think Israel spies for US

Very very critical question, I dont really know but i hope not.
You have raised a very faint but valid question..............

Also they are not in "core" software integration etc etc hopefully.
We buy stuffs from them, doesnt means we give away things of our national interests.
Hopefully we are taking help on whats needed and not going overboard as typical way india treats guests.

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6917
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Postby shyamd » 04 Dec 2006 23:21

joey wrote:
I dont think GOI trusts US as much as Israel by any means, IMHO also Israel covertly spies on US..............


India and Israel is more like US-UK where both can share a lot of R&D if they need to and work jointly.

Actually Israel is more reluctant to give info out to india.

mandrake
BRFite
Posts: 279
Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Location: India

Postby mandrake » 04 Dec 2006 23:31

Can you guys comment on what archer raised the question, which is IMHO very very crucial thing and leaves behind a slight blood stain.

Hopefully we are asking exactly for what we need.


Return to “Mil-Tech Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests