India and the NMD-2

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

India and the NMD-2

Postby ramana » 16 May 2001 21:17

Please post all related topics and discussions in this thread. ramana<BR>------------------<BR>Author Topic: 'India jumped the gun ...' Major General (retd) Ashok K Mehta <BR>shyamala<BR>New Member posted 16-05-2001 10:19 <BR>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <BR> <A HREF="http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/16ashok.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/16ashok.htm</A> <P>what is the price tag for this? <BR>Your thoughts?<P>----------<BR>Should work now!<BR> <P><BR><p>[This message has been edited by shiv (edited 16-05-2001).]

GGanesh
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 01 Nov 2000 12:31

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby GGanesh » 16 May 2001 21:41

Ramana,<BR>The link provided gives the following message:<P>Sorry, the requested document is not there on the server. <P>Tanaji: gotcha<BR> <A HREF="http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/16ashok.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/may/16ashok.htm</A> <P><BR> <BR><p>[This message has been edited by GGanesh (edited 16-05-2001).]

Tanaji
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3251
Joined: 21 Jun 2000 11:31

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby Tanaji » 16 May 2001 21:49

GG:<BR>Cut and paste without the "." at the end<P>------------------<BR><I>Allakh Niranjan!</I>

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby ramana » 16 May 2001 21:51

More stories:<BR>Outlook India.<BR>1) From China- "India's Intention Suspect <BR>Is New Delhi blind to the US policy of interference? Why's it elated if US wants to use India as a counterpoise to China? <BR> <BR>DINGLI SHEN" <A HREF="http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20010521&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=3" TARGET=_blank>http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20010521&fname=Cover+Story+%28F%29&sid=3</A> <P>The same page has links to the following pages.<BR>2) China's response by Swaran singh<BR>3) The triangle- Catch 22 between American embrace and Chinese chill<BR>4) Constructive strategic partnership by Hua Han, Beijing Uty.

shyamala
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 May 2001 11:31

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby shyamala » 16 May 2001 22:09

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ramana:<BR><B>Please post all related topics and discussions in this thread. ramana</B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>My thoughts:<BR>1. Price tag is directly proportional to MND {minimum nuclear deterance} we liked to have.<BR>2. Supporting US-NMD helps us gain the well needed time to create our own NMD or CND -"Comprehensive National Defence" setup, because US-NMD will never share "complete data".<BR>3. Engages China with US that helps us keep Pakys at bay. Advantage India.<BR>4. Helps keep Indian economy grow since all that China does, India can and eat into their market and offset the CND cost. {only at keeping the interest of Indian economy at large}<BR>5. India can help US-NMD - for all software works and get the multi-billion dollar share - offset the price tag.<P>Infact the list can go on.. only thing is we need to think and act smart. Mt. Everest can be our Alaska!<P><BR>

Pathmarajah
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 21
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Contact:

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby Pathmarajah » 17 May 2001 01:43

CNN just reported 15 minutes ago that the THAAD system really does work. Bush is pushing this plan because he already knows that NMD can be made to work.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby ramana » 17 May 2001 01:59

Pioneer editorial- Keeping pace with NMD.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.dailypioneer.com/secon2.asp?cat=\edit4&d=Edits" TARGET=_blank>http://www.dailypioneer.com/secon2.asp?cat=\edit4&d=Edits</A> <P>regrading the authors last concern about need for upping the MND- Jaswant Singh has always stated to the US, that it is dependenton threat environment and also POK-II ensured that there is alternate materials available.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7030
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby JE Menon » 17 May 2001 02:13

>>CNN just reported 15 minutes ago that the THAAD system really does work. <P>Remember the words "strategic and technological inevitability" in the MEA response. In any case, the logic of Indian support is really very simple. With or without our support, it's going ahead. Might as well make the most of it. China should not complain any more than we did when Jiang stood side by side with Clinton and said India should stop its nuclear prog. Our intention is no more suspect than theirs in providing nuke/missile tech to Pak.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7030
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby JE Menon » 17 May 2001 02:37

>>Clearly, India jumped the gun and had to eat its words in endorsing BMD even before its minutiae is known or consultations are held. <P>Maj. Gen. Mehta is the one jumping the gun on this. Where exactly did "India" eat its words? Maybe he has not read the MEA document backing Bush's ideas. (In any case, the title is pure sensationalism - there's about a para or two dedicated to India in this). Then he goes on about messing up ties with China. Please. China needs good ties with us as much as we need it with them. Our security relations with the US has nothing to do with China as it is not aimed against them, any more than Chinese links with Pakistan is aimed against us.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby shiv » 17 May 2001 07:58

Could someone explain something to me please?<P>We have had endless discussions on the Akash and the radar that goes with it (Rajendra?) and the S 300 and Indian efforts to put up some form of rudimentary ABM shield.<P>In what way is this different in concept and intent from the US ABM plan? How does the basic concept of protection against missiles from rogue states differ in Indian and US eyes? There is nothing to oppose. When the US says it it makes international ripples. When India says it we all congregate, and laugh and dance and make a mockery of our intent, leave alone capability.

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

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby svinayak » 17 May 2001 08:04

<A HREF="http://www.the-hindu.com/stories/05172523.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.the-hindu.com/stories/05172523.htm</A> <BR>Missile defence & strategic stability <P> By V. R. Raghavan <P>The conclusion<BR> being drawn in knowledgeable circles is that Indian policy-makers<BR> have once again demonstrated a less than adequate understanding of<BR> both nuclear deterrence and strategic stability. Some go so far as to<BR> question if India's security interests are correctly perceived at all. <P> (The writer is currently Fellow, Center for International Studies &<BR> Cooperation, Stanford University.)

Sagar
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 54
Joined: 21 Oct 2002 11:31

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby Sagar » 17 May 2001 08:58

I like the use of 'knowledgeable circles' by Raghavan - it means that all those who oppose his views are illiterates!!!? <P>Anyway, it is true that the basic premise of the NMD is still being intensely debated in the US. However, it is useless to rant and rave against India as we are not even peripherally going to influence it in anyway. <P>On the flip side the Govt. hasn't been able to present a cogent view of its intentions before the public. This gives the impression of something shady going on which is being up by the likes of Mehta and used by non-prolif people like Raghavan (BTW, Maj Gen Mehta is brother of Vindo Mehta, Ed. Outlook - not that it means anything). By going totally quiet the Govt. is being silly although I did notice that Natwarlal has gone quiet. Perhaps the Indian elite now understands why it is doing what it is doing. Do we at BR understand it? The quid pro quo has to be carefully monitored as Indians are not known to be good bargainers.

merlin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2153
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: NullPointerException

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby merlin » 17 May 2001 12:01

I'm really enjoying seeing so many people ****ing in their pants thinking of China's response. My list of chootias is growing day by day :-D<BR>

Tim
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: USA

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby Tim » 17 May 2001 21:44

The Indian acquisitions also are aimed at TMD - stopping relatively short-ranged missiles with a distinct interception envelope (re-entry angle and speed). S-300 will NOT intercept an MRBM or IRBM - it would have marginal intercept capability if you had a very advanced warning system and battle management links.<P>One quick and easy way to beat TMD is to build a lot more SRBMS and flood it. Since each incoming will probably need multiple missiles to intercept it, the defender has to pay much higher costs. A second way to beat it is to upgrade the missile force, and focus on MR/IRBMs, even for short-range work. <P>There are two different concepts here to talk about - the concept of NMD proper (the US system) and the concept of defense-based deterrence. Defense based deterrence is an interesting concept, but it is very costly and bears with it some high risks. It also includes the side-effect of possibly enabling use of nuclear counter-force in crisis - the side with defenses may launch first, trusting its defenses to take care of any surviving enemy forces. That could spur arms races and reduce crisis stability, as both sides would then perceive real advantages in launching first.<P>The US NMD concept would, theoretically, allow the US to manipulate that capability. Personally, I don't believe the US is in the business of launching counterforce strikes, but others might not be as sanguine. Also, the architecture associated with NMD will enable substantial anti-space capabilities, and will increase the US ability to interfere in regional conflicts. That may not be something all Indians think is a great idea.<P>Just some thoughts, <BR>Tim

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby ramana » 17 May 2001 22:25

In addition to what Tim has said the question is more about capabilities. The Indian concept has to deal with short response time due to the close proximity of the challengers. The time of flight gets reduced to about 10 mins. The US on the other hand has more time about 30 mins. However the saving grace is that due to the short ranges the re-entry velocity is also slower ie means India has to deal with slower bodies say 1-2km/sec. The US has to deal with almost orbital speeds say less than 7km/sec. So as you can see most of the Hatf/M series can be taken care of. However the IRBM Nodong derivatives which could go upto 4km/sec would be challenging when fired at extreme range. <BR>But the last gauri flight was around 800km and might never have left the atmosphere per SBM. In which case it means they mean to use it on nearby targets say Delhi or North India. Most probably they will kepp the stuff in Baluchistan far from the roving reach of IAF. All other areas are at risk.<BR>The problem for the experts is they are thinking in Cold war terms. Not to mention parroting the outside line. Recall that IAF had advised VP Singh that there was no fool proof way of interdicting an incoming TSP airborne payload and that deterrence was the only assured way. After the tests the experts have now come to terms and are now raising the bogey of arms race. Also one will notice most of them are those opposed to the test in the first place. On the other hand there are the maximalists who want a full blown NMD type system for India whether it is feasible or not.<BR>If I have confused everyone it is confusing. The idea is not 100% umbrella but make sure the attacker has second thoughts that his stuff will ever get through and that causes the restraint.<P>It is possible that the NMD will be extended to global reach as sort of umbrella to ensure bu-in. Components of it could be deployed regionally on say ships or land based based on nature of threat.<BR>The whole NMD thing is an attempt to break out of the balance of terror that dominated the Cold War.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby shiv » 17 May 2001 22:51

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tim:<BR><B>Also, the architecture associated with NMD will enable substantial anti-space capabilities, and will increase the US ability to interfere in regional conflicts. That may not be something all Indians think is a great idea.<BR></B><HR></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Great. Why not? I'm all for this. Sounds good to me. If the US wants to do all this there is unfortunately bugg*er-all we can do about dissuading the it and the whole issue becomes a series of virtual games on the lines of .. ohh - if the US does this, then China will do that and Russia will do this, and Korea will do that and Europe may want to do this or that and India will do that and Pakistan will want Kashmir more etc..<P>The US has not just interfered in regional conflicts in the past - but it has actually aided and abetted them - so that aspect will be nothing new. That is something every country will have to live with.<P>However, people - ie think tanks, diplomats, experts, armchair generals love cosy predictable scenarios. I move my knight, China moves its pawn (Pakistan?) , and the US moves its queen. All clear and predictable.<BR>The proposed NMD seems to upset these cosy "known" calculations and everyone is really really worried. Indians are whacking their foreheads and saying "Ohhhh! Aiyo Aiyo! We have no strategic thought. Yamerica is asking us to think about NMD. How to think about NMD?"<P>I don't see the big deal in NMD. It seems to me to be one more inevitable step in human history - steps marked in recorded history by the invention of guns, later aircraft, later nuclear weapons and then missiles for nukes. What's next? What is the US good at? How can the US keep its economy, science and tech going? Making cheapo plastic toys? No. China does that better. Making TV sets - no someone else does that? Aircraft? Well - things are getting tougher? What does the US do. It makes missiles and radars and an NMD that can then be sold to friends.<P>Big deal. The US will do that whether we are consulted or not and whether they can get into position to screw us or anyone else or not.<P>How big a priority is this for India? Not all that big. All we need to do is watch, and continue to develop our economy and continue to be in a postion to overwhelm local defences with missiles while also building up some degree of defence on our own. If the US helps - that's fine. If it doesn't - so what's new? We're not trying to fight the US. We're only trying to get a better life for our people - as is the US for that matter.<P>If the US thinks "We are getting NMD, and we are cutting back on nukes, so everyone else should cut back on nukes" then the US has another think coming. Nukes will be made by the hundred by many nations whether or not NMD is developed. The NMD had better be good.

Bharat
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 48
Joined: 08 Mar 1999 12:31

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby Bharat » 18 May 2001 00:52

One of the main reasons we responded to the NMD favourably was cause for the first time we were being considered in the strategic framework of the US.<BR>Unlike China we are a vibrant democracy and we can share a more harmonious relationship with the US in the economic sense.<BR>Also similar consititutional background and a deep sense of need of democracy and economic& human growth is also a binding factor in our relationship.<BR>In the past 2 yrs India and US have come closer than any time in the last century.<BR>There seems to be a deeper understanding of the other's policy making criteria in the mindset of each.In both countries the thinkers and politicians are having sympathy for each others need's for their strategic framework of security.<BR>This has lead to a pseudo acceptance of the other's stand on key issues.India has crossed the threshhold and welcomed in fact an American declaration to make US terror safe from few despots.<BR>We could have stuck to an old line criticising the NMD as US talks about our nuclear growth or stuck to a middle line where we just talk about a peacefull world without nukes.<BR>By going a line further we are trying to say to the US that we have similar interpretation of the politics of the world and also acknowledge the terror of missiles with nukes in the hands of few maniacal despots.<BR>To say that we welcomed the NMD as there is a share of the pie for us is very premature and highly doubtfull unless the only possible outcome of NMD is the Boost Phase Interception where US might need Indian Eastern bases, again I stress that this is purely hypothetical .<P><BR>Tim,<BR>what you are saying about space is correct.<BR>A Space based sat laser would enable the US to hit out at any targets without any personnel nearby.<BR>But the advent of this technology would definitely proliferate and many industrilaised nations would acquire it .<BR>This would be a blow to World security.<BR>I would say space based radar sats should be the only option as far as space militarization is concerned.<BR>Also what you are saying about the S-300 is that it may intercept a Hatf-1 class missile and maybe M-11 but it has very few chances against Ghauri and Shaheen unless in great nos. and total electronic coverage.<BR>

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby ramana » 18 May 2001 02:01

Another opinion articel in Pioneer endorsing the Indian stand. He makes some interesting points about how Congress is out of step with the events and how GOI might be correcting for the NFU pledge. His take is if MAD is out of step after end of Cold War athen the NFU is also. He then cites the Russian aquiesence and the low level consultations with China as vindications of Indian stance. <A HREF="http://www.dailypioneer.com/secon2.asp?cat=\edit4&d=Edits" TARGET=_blank>http://www.dailypioneer.com/secon2.asp?cat=\edit4&d=Edits</A> <P>What the world will see is move from the MAD doctrine and balance of terror. BRM was the first to explore this scenario in the Jan 2000 issue article by Tim Hoytt.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby ramana » 18 May 2001 03:30

While endorsing the GOI adrotiness in welcoming Bush's plans, K.P. Nayar urges "Tread softly on NMD". He seems worried about what will the NMD do to France and Russia. My take is already Russia is accepting the inevitable and France will find a way. In the balance the GOI was right in showing its support for parts of the plan.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.telegraphindia.com/editoria.htm#head3" TARGET=_blank>http://www.telegraphindia.com/editoria.htm#head3</A>

Tim
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: USA

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby Tim » 20 May 2001 20:46

The Bush administration may lift sanctions - but if it does, they will be to both India and Pakistan. <P>I'm not sure the administration really has a South Asia policy yet. They're in the process of rounding up people to come in and brief them about it. So a lot of what you hear is broad outlines and concepts, not serious policy commitments.<P>Tim

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

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby svinayak » 21 May 2001 02:23

<a href="http://asia.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/asia/afp/article.html?s=asia/headlines/010520/asia/afp/China_cautions_India_over_supporting_the_US_missile_defence_plan.html]http:// asia.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/asia/afp/article.html?s=asia/headlines/010520/asia/afp/China_cautions_India_over_supporting_the_US_missile_defence_plan.html">Click here</a> and damn these long urls<P>China cautions India over supporting the US missile<BR> defence plan<P> NEW DELHI, May 20 (AFP) - <P> China urged India to exercise extreme caution in backing the planned US National Missile<BR> Defence (NMD) system, the Statesman newspaper reported Sunday.<P><p>[This message has been edited by shiv (edited 20-05-2001).]

shyamala
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 20
Joined: 10 May 2001 11:31

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby shyamala » 21 May 2001 09:35

China urged India to exercise extreme caution in backing the planned US National Missile<P><BR>WHAT DO THEY ACTUALLY MEAN? <BR>advice/threat/gesture/war/?? anyone?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby shiv » 21 May 2001 09:57

What China probably means is pretty much what Tim Hoyt suggested in his post - i.e the sort of capability the US may acquire with its proposed NMD.<P>However, from the Indian viewpoint, getting reassurancs from the US that its NMD technology will not be used against us in any way is an essential but nevertheless totally meaningless exercise. We have had plenty of reassurances from the US in the past that arms supplies to Pakistan will not be used agaianst us. Even arms supplies to Afghanistan were not meant to be used against India. We have similar assurances from the trustworthy Chinese that assistance to Pakistan is not directed against us. <P>The NMD will go ahead hampered only by politcal expediency in the US, technology and funding constraints.<P>We, like China, only need to factor in how NMD can be used to help either or Pakistan against us. Looking at history as a precedent, China will steal the tech and Pakistan may get cover in exchange for some future sleeping with the US.<P>We need to continue working on our own plans for a khadi gramodyog missile defence, means to overwhelm an adversary's NMD and possible anti satellite weapons of our own. Either way it means continued funding and research on space/missiles - which will continue to be a subject for US sanctions and the butt of jokes by "patriotic" Indians.

JE Menon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7030
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby JE Menon » 21 May 2001 12:04

Acharya, can you post the exact quotes by the Chinese. I can't get the Yahoo link. The story in 'The Statesman' is twisted to project a pov. In fact, from the quotes in that paper there is nothing to suggest a warning for "extreme caution".

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby shiv » 23 May 2001 12:27

A must read from Nalapat!<P>OCRed from TOI 23 May 2001<P>WHY NMD SHOULD COME AS GOOD NEWS FOR INDIA<BR>M.D. Nalapat<BR>The Nuclear Nonproliferation 'Ireaty (NpT), recently extended "into eternity", resembles a mansion with five wings, containing China Russia, France, the UK and the US. Each of the five share their space with allies.<P>India, which lacked the foresight to explode a device when the NPT window had been kept open till 1968, is located on the pavement outside. While - as yet - China does not have the technology to tear down the NPT mansion and erect a new edifice, and Russia lacks the funds, the US has both in abundance. Hence President Bush's eagerness to tear down the NPT and erect a new strategic superstructure, one that would enshrine US dominance firmly.<P>While the Cinton administration joined hands with China in refusing to allow India formal entry. into the "nuclear haves" club that its 1974 Pobran explosion should have secured, the Bush team appears to have a less closed mind. While it repudiated the CTBT (another India-hostile treaty favoured by the two partners Jiang Zernin and Bill Clinton during the 2000 election campaign itelf, the Bush admInistration has virtually torn up tne NPT by going in for the National Missile Defense (NMD) system<P>Unlike China, outsider India has no reason to mourn the demise of the NPT. The "threshold" level for entry into the NMD is high, calling for top of the-line skills in simulation and fabrlcation India, with its mix of First and tenth world, has the capability of signing on as a partner in the develop ment of a Missile Defense System. Indeed, its software skills and consequent fluency in simulation, as well as its geostrategic loeation and skills in tracking, make it almost mandatory for the US to have India on hoard in order to create a system that can be Asia-effective.<BR>if New Delhi were to drive a hard bargain as the price for such co-operation, the flow of technology from the US that had been halted since 1974 (but which have been supplied to Cluna in abundance) can resume. This would result in a quantum leap in the nuclear energy programme as well as in satellite carriers<BR>It is 33 years since NFT' got signed, and 29 years since the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ARM) treaty was signed between the USSR and the US. Since then, the strategic landscape has changed considerably The USSR has got replaced by Russia, no longer a Competitor to the US. India has emerged as a software giant capable of manufacturing supereomputers.<P>The Bush drive for a system better than a flawed NPT regime makes for good logic, at least for its allies. Only the fear of losing exports to China can cxplain the bleats of hos-tility that have greeted the Bush proposals from its European partners.<P>As India does not have much in the way of exports to china, this can hardly be a factor. As for "provoking" China into further assis-tance to Pakistan by India sUpporting MAD. Beijing is enthusiastically propping up the Musharraf junta without any provocation.<BR>The advantage of the NMD is that it kills a treaty that grossly discriminated against India. It offers a chance of becoming part of the new security architecture that the creation of a full-fledged missile defense system will entail.<P>Indeed, together with tile EU, Japan and the US (in case China and Russia do not sign on), India can form one leg of the new svstem, in exchange for equality at the nuclear table. A far cry from Resolution 1172 of the UN Security Council. which implied that India had about the same level of security interests as Botswana.<P>By its inaction New Delhi missed the NPT bus In 1968. Hopefully, it will not repeat this debacle by refusing to get aboard the NMD train that has crashed through the existing India-negative "nonproliferation" structures.<BR>

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby ramana » 23 May 2001 20:40

Interesting polemic from Nalapat. He does not explain how NMD tears the NPT. The latter limits the number of nuclear powers to those which conducted a test explosion by 1968- even though certain technology path does not require such tests- eg. Hiroshima.<BR>It got extended in perpetuity in 1995 enshrining the P-5. SAnctions on India flow from the London Club group, the NSG and natioanl policies. NPT does allow PNEs.<P>The NMD on the other hand supplements the deterrence doctrine against rogue states. And thus moves the world away from the 'balance of terror' approach of MAD. It also reduces the fear of accidental strikes, limited strikes by rogues and secondary arsenals. In conceptual terms its like the shield to supplemnt the sword. Till now there was the sword only. And for a good reason for the there were two equally powerful adversaries. Now the main challenger has faded away while a lot of little munchkins with nukes have sprung up. One of the P-5 sees proliferation as a policy to keep the US tied up like Gulliver. The shield is to make sure the munchkins dont stab. To reassure the successor state of the former challenger the number of swords are being reduced to assure them of their well being.<P>So how does NMD effect NPT? Is it his arguement that there will be breakout by the existing signatories? Not clear. If his arguement is that there is an oppurtunity to get beyond the sanctions, then he is mistaken for those are a consequnce of national policy- the NPT Act etc.<BR>Also he is appears to have not read or understood WOP by Chengappa. India was in no way ready to do anything in 1968. In fact it could not follow up the 74 PNE with deployment. MDN is nice to read but has little substance.<BR>His arguement should be that India should join the NMD bandwagon as it has the oppurtunity to be on the frontlines of a new security architecture for the brave new world as we move to the era of single power dominance.<p>[This message has been edited by ramana (edited 23-05-2001).]

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

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby svinayak » 24 May 2001 02:39

Ramana, You should read the previous issue of The Economist to understand the connection between NPT club and NMD club( I had posted it in the earlier NMD thread). <BR>If you look at the P-5, it gives them credibility for the security of their respective theater but one among them is a trojan horse who is not playing by the rules.<BR>This bandit in disguise is actually helping nations of concern( rougue nations) and indirectly helping non-state actors to acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems.<BR>By creating a coalition of nations for NMD to track and maybe to hunt the delivery system and the weapons itself, US is trying to isolate the bandit from the non-state actors and tin-pot countries such as Pakistan.<BR>Read the Rand report and the future capability of USAF and connect it with NMD and then look at the India's PV ex. You will see that PV may be the first step in building India's capability that will be needed long term to where India may have to sweep upto Chechnya to hunt for bandits with suitcases. USAF may also be part of the posse.<BR>By subscribing to NMD India will get a legitamacy on an equal footing to the lone bandit in Asia. India will be out of NPT but in NMD and hence will be part of the security framework which existed before through NPT. India has the most to gain from NMD and China has the least to gain from this. Russia is actually a non-player and China is trying to woo Russia to oppose NMD and not the other way if you have noticed. <P>[This message has been edited by acharya (edited 23-05-2001).]<p>[This message has been edited by acharya (edited 23-05-2001).]

Tim
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: USA

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby Tim » 24 May 2001 08:07

Acharya, <P>No offense, but Indian forces sweeping up to Chechnya? I really don't anticipate that happening in my lifetime.<P>BTW, Defense News has an article stating that one of the key lessons of PV was that they needed more NBC suits. It may be that the objective of the exercise was much more of a tactical and operational field test, rather than a confirmation of an existing capability or doctrine - which seems to be the way a lot of the discussion on it has been drifting.<P>Just a thought, <BR>Tim

vram
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 24
Joined: 08 May 2004 11:31
Location: Netherlands

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby vram » 24 May 2001 08:49

Tim,<P>how difficult is it to scale-up a division-level exercise/operation to Corps level? As long as the concepts are validated and operationalized, it is only a question of time and how soon DRDO can crank out those NBC suits and equipment.<P>Capability may not exist at the intended level, but from the PV exercises it is clear that some capability does exist.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby ramana » 24 May 2001 22:38

Looks like some movement in creating a strike force for the CIS states to deal with Talibanazis. Part of Tashkent pact of which India is not a member. <BR> <A HREF="http://www.the-hindu.com/holnus/03242004.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.the-hindu.com/holnus/03242004.htm</A> <P>Second item about Russian conditions to talk to Taliban. Shut down Chechen terrorist camps first. Note who is in charge of the joint commission on Russain side and who visited India in the NMD matter. the implication of the language skills and his other job shows that there is some cooperation in this matter. <P> <A HREF="http://www.the-hindu.com/holnus/03242005.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.the-hindu.com/holnus/03242005.htm</A> <P>The reason these are posted here is to draw attention to the new developments which go beyond traditional solutions. Nothing prevents India from participating in Chechen out of area as advisers with first hand experience against such terrorists. Or lending non-combat support ot the strike forces being raised. There is some intel co-ordination regarding the terrorists already. The point is if the terrorists dont recognize national boundaries it is suicidal for the victims to respect such barriers for effective remedies.<BR>-----------------------------<BR>Do we need a new thread? If so post all the above threads from acharya's onwards. And delete them from here.<BR><p>[This message has been edited by ramana (edited 24-05-2001).]

Tim
BRFite
Posts: 136
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: USA

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby Tim » 24 May 2001 22:57

Ramana, <P>I think it needs a new thread.<P>Vram, <P>It can be very difficult to upgrade from division to corps-level. The logistics and C2 demands are quite different, as is the frontage and depth of the battlefield. Corps-level ops in NBC protective gear are extraoridinarily difficult to carry out and sustain.<P>DRDO's track record on turning things around quickly is not stellar. <P>Tim

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

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby svinayak » 26 May 2001 22:54

<a href="http://asia.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/asia/afp/article.html?s=asia/headlines/010526/asia/afp/US_seeks_closer_military_ties_with_India_to_counter_China__nuclear_dangers__o fficia]http://asia.dailynews.yahoo.com/headlines/asia/afp/article.html?s=asia/headlines/010526/asia/afp/US_seeks_closer_military_ties_with_India_to_counter_China__nuclear_dangers__ o fficial.html">Click here</a><P>US seeks closer military ties with India to counter<BR> China, nuclear dangers: official<P> WASHINGTON, May 26 (AFP) - <P> In a major geopolitical shift, the United States is looking to forge closer military ties<BR> with India as a counter to China and to help stabilize the world's most dangerous<BR> nuclear flashpoint, a senior US defense official said.<BR><B>The administration also sees opportunities for political cooperation with India on<BR> making the case internationally for missile defense, and possibly technological<BR> cooperation down the road, he said.</B><P><BR> WASHINGTON, May 26 (AFP) - <P> In a major geopolitical shift, the United States is looking to forge closer military ties<BR> with India as a counter to China and to help stabilize the world's most dangerous<BR> nuclear flashpoint, a senior US defense official said.<P> General Henry Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, next week will make<BR> the highest level US military visit to India since the 1998 underground nuclear tests<BR> that set off an overt nuclear arms race between India and Pakistan and prompted US<BR> sanctions, the official said.<P> India signaled its readiness for a closer security relationship with Washington earlier<BR> this month by responding positively to President George Bush's US missile defense<BR> initiative, the official said.<P> "It reflects kind of a diplomatic revolution," the official told AFP, speaking on<BR> condition of anonymity in an interview Friday.<P> Never close, the two countries had testy relations during the Cold War when<BR> non-aligned India looked to the Soviet Union for military supplies and Washington<BR> allied with Pakistan to thwart the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.<P> Now, prompted by US concerns about China and the belief that sanctions have<BR> allowed nuclear instability to fester on the subcontinent, the administration wants to<BR> waive the sanctions and substantively upgrade its military relations with India, the<BR> official said.<P> Lifting the sanctions would allow India to receive military assistance and buy<BR> US-made weaponry and military equipment.<P> "People see us and them having a common concern in Chinese power in the Far<BR> East," he said.<P> Some in the administration see India as a strategic partner in the containment of<BR> China, he said, while others regard it as a coming power that has interests in common<BR> with Washington.<P> "In the abstract you could go down the list of common interests, common threats and<BR> you could easily conclude that we and the Indians should be strategic allies<BR> cooperating to contain the Chinese threat," he said.<P> But, he cautioned, "a good part of the Indian establishment probably mistrust us more<BR> than they mistrust the Chinese."<P> The official said it would take at least several months to lift the sanctions but "there is<BR> a disposition to get beyond sanctions."<P> Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage informed members of Congress several<BR> days ago that the State Department supported a presidential waiver to lift sanctions<BR> against India, and US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also supports a waiver,<BR> the official said.<P> The debate now centers on whether sanctions should be lifted at once or in phases<BR> and whether concessions should be required of India, he said.<P> A presidential waiver would not help Pakistan because it is subject to yet another<BR> layer of sanctions imposed in response to a 1999 military coup.<P> The official said US military cooperation would likely be aimed initially at building<BR> relationships that would be crucial if the United States is to gain influence over the<BR> nuclear standoff between India and Pakistan.<P> "It's not a big stretch to spin scenarios that end up in nuclear exchanges between<BR> India and Pakistan," he said.<P> A key question is how far to go in helping them reduce the chance of a nuclear<BR> exchange, since even benign nuclear cooperation is viewed by arms control<BR> advocates within the administration as undermining the non-proliferation treaty, he<BR> said.<P> Some ideas under discussion is to focus on missile launchers, rather than on nuclear<BR> warheads and provide advice on ways to prevent accidental launches, he said.<P> Shared missile early warning also has been discussed conceptually with both sides,<BR> but he said it was too soon to consider anything concrete.<P> The administration also sees opportunities for political cooperation with India on<BR> making the case internationally for missile defense, and possibly technological<BR> cooperation down the road, he said.<P><BR>[This message has been edited by acharya (edited 26-05-2001).]<p>[This message has been edited by shiv (edited 26-05-2001).]

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby ramana » 30 May 2001 01:12

Brijesh Jayal, writes in Telegraph on the NMD stance.<BR> <A HREF="http://www.telegraphindia.com/editoria.htm#head3" TARGET=_blank>http://www.telegraphindia.com/editoria.htm#head3</A>

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby ramana » 30 May 2001 21:50

Report on IDSA seminar on India and the NMD. Looks like the expert opinion is that it was the right choice but be wary of blowback from Chinese response. <BR> <A HREF="http://www.expressindia.com/news/may30/nation4.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.expressindia.com/news/may30/nation4.html</A> <P>Conventional wisdom is that China would increase its posture as a response. I disagree on this. China is already on amodernization drive and will either up its inventory or change the mix that is has. Currently it has about 400 warheads a vast majority of them ~95% are useful in a regional context. So any increase in its numbers will not add much ot the threat to India. In other words it will be only quantitative and not qualitative.<BR>Besides China is clever and can learn from others mistakes. It was the unsustainable arms race that bankrupted FSU leading to the collapse and disbandment. It is easy to think the Chinese will follow the same path like lemmings. On the contrary they will change their deployment pattern to more land mobile, survivable force with long reach. This would ensure that it can provide assured retaliation posture.<BR>------------<BR>Folks is the interest in this topic already dead? I see no responses here. A lot of opinion on this subject is emerging but not getting the attention. For example ABV's visit to Malaysia, he was quizzed on this issue bu Mahathir. Maybe speculating on non existent programs is more fun!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby ramana » 01 Jun 2001 03:22

Jack Mendelshon wonders if the unilateral reductions will undermine formal arms control process. Also lays out a scenario for resurrection of CTBT.<BR> <A HREF="http://stills.nap.edu/issues/17.3/mendelsohn.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://stills.nap.edu/issues/17.3/mendelsohn.htm</A>

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

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby svinayak » 01 Jun 2001 03:36

<A HREF="http://www.timesofindia.com/today/01worl1.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.timesofindia.com/today/01worl1.htm</A> <P><B>Russia wants talks with US, India on NMD</B> <P> MINSK: Russia called on Thursday for a dialogue with<BR> the US, India and China to "neutralise" the threat of<BR> missile attacks by so-called "rogue states."<P><BR>Now Russia wants to rope in China and India into the discussion of ABP treaty. THis is good for India because the coalition could isolate the big Bandit in Asia from all the rogue nations.<BR>

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

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby svinayak » 13 Jun 2001 12:31

<A HREF="http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jun/13us2.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jun/13us2.htm</A> <P>Mutual back-scratching unites India, US<P> Aziz Haniffa<BR> India Abroad correspondent in Washington <P> The nonproliferation center of the Carnegie<BR> Endowment for International Peace (CEIP) -- the<BR> most influential private think tank in the U.S --<BR> believes there is a strong vested interest behind<BR> India's enthusiastic endorsement of President George<BR> W.Bush's proposed national missile defense (NMD)<BR> system. <P> In an analysis titled, "New Delhi: Searching for an 'Alliance of Interests'<BR> with Washington," the Carnegie center said, "The Indian government had<BR> calculated that a Bush administration in search of missile defenses to<BR> secure its homeland will be more understanding of the BJP's nuclear<BR> weapons-related efforts to secure its homeland." <P> It said that "Three years after the nadir in US-India relations, the<BR> turnaround is striking. India, still under US post-nuclear tests sanctions,<BR> has been virtually alone in its unprecedented and enthusiastic endorsement<BR> of the Bush Administration's push for missile defenses." <P> The analysis points to the quid pro quo New Delhi is angling for -- namely,<BR> that India's support for Bush's NMD will be met by a Washington more<BR> open to India's acquisition of a nuclear deterrent -- and says that mindset<BR> was apparent in Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee's statement<BR> responding to the proposed NMD system. <P> On May 11, Vajpayee said India welcomes "every move towards<BR> lightening the shadow of the nuclear terror under which we live today. It is<BR> in this context that we have welcomed President Bush's suggestions for<BR> steep reductions in nuclear arsenals and a move away from further<BR> development of offensive nuclear technologies." <P> But, the Canegie analysis points out, "he also reiterated his government's<BR> commitment to a credible minimum nuclear deterrent," which Vajpayee<BR> had declared was "a basic security umbrella which we owe to our people,"<BR> and also reflected that the world had "a much better appreciation now of<BR> (India's) perceptions of (its) security environment, which had guided that<BR> decision (to test)." <P> In other words, as the analysis points out, Vajpayee was using Bush's<BR> NMD proposal to justify India's own nuclear tests. <P> The analysis points out that China and Islamabad had strongly criticized<BR> the Bush NMD plan and voiced what they said was "international concern<BR> at the development and deployment of ballistic missile defense," which they<BR> said could jeopardize strategic stability and trigger a new arms race. <P> The Indian government had described President Bush's May 1 speech,<BR> wherein he outlined his vision for an NMD system, as "highly significant<BR> and far-reaching". The Indian viewpoint has been that "there is a strategic<BR> and technological inevitability in stepping away from a world that is held<BR> hostage by the doctrine of MAD (mutually assured destruction) to a<BR> cooperative, defensive transition that is underpinned by further cuts and a<BR> de-alert of nuclear forces." <P> Carnegie said India's enthusiasm had been tempered only slightly when<BR> Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov visited India on May 3. In course of<BR> his reciprocal visit to Moscow, Minister for Defense and External Affairs<BR> Jaswant Singh tempered the Indian enthusiasm down only slightly, when he<BR> remarked that the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty "should not be<BR> abrogated unilaterally." <P> According to the Carnegie analysis, this was just to mollify Moscow, since<BR> India buys most of its military hardware from Russia. <P> The analysis also points out that Bush's expression of willingness to reach<BR> out to Russia on the issue of missile defenses "has given India the space for<BR> endorsing the administration's position." <P> Carnegie credited former President Clinton's highly successful visit to India<BR> in March 2000 for the change in Indo-US relations. <P> "Consequently, in the waning days of the last administration, New Delhi<BR> and Washington discovered each other as 'natural allies' and the ruling BJP<BR> now anticipates that the Bush administration will take ties where they have<BR> never been before," the analysis says. <P> The Carnegie analysis points out that given the administration's open<BR> antipathy towards the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), it is<BR> unlikely that Washington will push a nonproliferation agenda that is<BR> unpopular with India. <P> It argued that "the taste of a growing importance in Washington with the<BR> expectation that sanctions will be removed and high-level defense ties<BR> restored, the prospect of emerging as Washington's preferred ally in its<BR> effort to 'balance' China in the region, a sense of inevitability of the US<BR> direction on missile defense and the opportunity to isolate Pakistan have all<BR> contributed to the BJP's shift in strategy." <P> The analysis argues that Jaswant Singh's remarks, after a visit to<BR> Washington in April in course of which he met with President Bush,<BR> Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleeza<BR> Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, lent credence to this<BR> contention. <P> Singh said at the time that today's reality requires "a re-evaluation of all the<BR> fixed points of assessment... There is now a very interesting coincidence of<BR> India's national interest and the security of the United States." <BR><B> The task ahead now,Singh declared, is "how to convert this reality of<BR> interests into an alliance of interests." <BR></B>

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

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby svinayak » 13 Jun 2001 13:16

<A HREF="http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jun/13us2.htm" TARGET=_blank>http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jun/13us2.htm</A> <P>Developments within Japan illustrate how these two dynamics interact in new<BR> and dangerous ways. In 1998, Japan was caught by surprise when the<BR> Indian-Pakistani tit-for-tat nuclear tests suddenly doubled the number of Asian<BR> nuclear-weapon states. Many Japanese were then disturbed by how quickly<BR> the world accepted India and Pakistan’s de facto status as new nuclear<BR> powers. This was not the bargain the Japanese had agreed to when-after a<BR> lengthy internal debate-they joined the NPT in 1976. North Korea’s launch of<BR> a long-range Taepo Dong missile further agitated the Japanese public and<BR> political leaders, stirring new debates about Japan’s military and nuclear<BR> policies. "Japan must be like nato countries," declared then Vice Defense<BR> Minister Shingo Nishimura. "We ought to have aircraft carriers, long-range<BR> missiles, long-range bombers. We should even have the atomic bomb."<BR> Nishimura was forced to resign over his comments, but he is not alone in his<BR> sentiment, nor is South Asia the only concern in Japan. "If North Korea<BR> obtains nuclear weapons," warned Yoshifuni Okamura, the former deputy<BR> director of the Nuclear Division of the Foreign Ministry of Japan, "this could<BR> weaken our commitment to the NPT." <P><BR>The Chain Grows<P> The United States, already worried by Chinese threats to Taiwan and (in some<BR> quarters) about the rise of a potentially powerful Asian competitor, is<BR> advancing what seems to many a perfectly reasonable response: missile<BR> defense systems. Pushed by domestic politics and new proliferation threat<BR> assessments, the United States both promotes such deployments and seeks<BR> Japanese and Taiwanese cooperation. <B>"Only effective missile defenses, not<BR> unenforceable arms control treaties," Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott said<BR> after the South Asian nuclear tests, "will break the offensive arms race in Asia<BR> and provide incentives to address security concerns without a nuclear<BR> response." </B>Missile defenses, however, have a dual nature. Although they<BR> promise an alluring technological solution to one type of mass destruction<BR> delivery system, mere talk of their introduction stimulates the very arsenals<BR> they hope to deter.<p>[This message has been edited by acharya (edited 13-06-2001).]

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 20187
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby Philip » 13 Jun 2001 20:28

Except for Agarwal's last idiotic line,that India should have a "modest" foreign policy,he in my opinion is justified in his views on our reaction to NMD.I have been from the outset a critic of our sycophantic and grovelling response to Bush's NMD gambit.There was no reflection or analysis of the repercussions of it at all.later,we tried to beat the retreat when Russia old us off,in a manner of speaking.With the meshing of Indo-Russian defence cooperation ,just revealed with the joint testing of the BrahMos/PJ-10 missile and with many more projects to come,there is scant chance that we will eventually endorse NMD in the present format envisaged by Bush.In fact,the chances of NMD getting off the ground is miniscule.AWST in it's latest issue has an article on the subject-the scepticism that exists in the scientific community in the US.The FEER has this interesting article on india's response in it's latest issue.read on.<P> <BR> <BR> NMD: India's Curious Response<P>By Subhash Agrawal<P>Issue cover-dated June 14, 2001<P><BR>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<P>New Delhi's quick and positive reaction to the National Missile Defence proposal by George W. Bush has simply delighted and even amazed United States diplomats, especially since India is long habituated to ambiguity and knee-jerk opposition to any American-inspired global order. Domestic criticism has lately forced the Indian Foreign Ministry to backtrack and offer spin, but officials and analysts continue to privately rave about how NMD will usher in new and favourable geopolitical realities. Even steadfast allies of America, including Japan, have been more sceptical, if not critical. "Bush Flunks Logic 101"--the headline from a major Western newspaper perhaps best sums up the mix of incredulity and angst over an untested system that might never work, but may instead redraw international security equations. <P>So what gives with India's response? Indian hopes lie on two assumptions: That NMD will lead to a de-facto abandonment of the existing nuclear order that so far has kept India out of the "big boys" club, and that it will contain China. Furthermore, the argument goes, since the U.S. is so adamant and NMD so inevitable, why not join the winning team rather than sit on the sidelines? In short, India wants to be part of a new order, one that will provide it some sort of missile umbrella and greater strategic space at little cost.<P>However, these hopes are misplaced. Global concern over nuclear proliferation will remain--whatever the future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty--and neither will India earn international acquiescence for further nuclearization. In fact, India's response already has stoked barely hidden suspicions abroad. From the Swedish foreign minister to Australian newspapers, international opinion was quick to lament that NMD might give "an excuse to countries like India and Pakistan to renew their nuclear programmes." Even in the U.S., India's nuclear ambitions remain a matter of deep concern that is voiced frequently by leading think-tanks.<P>India's reaction also stems from an exaggerated view of recent improvements in India-U.S. ties, views that are heavily layered with rhetoric and vague notions. The Clinton and Vajpayee visits were important symbolic milestones and India's image in the U.S. is surely changing--from one of a nation in poverty to one of talent and an essentially cooperative spirit--but these improvements are set against a low base. India remains at best a net-neutral nation--no longer an irritant but neither a sure ally. With the renewed risk of anti-Western postures and instability in key Islamic nations, from the Middle East to Indonesia, Washington is not about to jettison Pakistan for better links with New Delhi, a point emphasized in a recent report sponsored by the U.S. Air Force.<P>Within Asia, most countries are publicly circumspect about India as a regional power. Certainly, they worry about China. But propping up India is not the answer, at least not yet. To underscore this point, note that Asean has time and again refused to place India at par with China in its relationship hierarchy. Malaysia nixed just such an Indian request in May; India should have known better than to ask. In plain terms, India speaks loudly on the world stage, but lacks economic muscle or depth in linkages. China runs up an annual $60 billion trade surplus with the U.S. and one of about $30 billion with Japan. Given current rates of savings, investment and growth, India will still be playing a distant second to most Southeast Asian economies for the next half-century. These facts are sometimes pointed out when Indians get carried away at international seminars.<P>There may be some gains for India from NMD or the resulting rift between the U.S. and China-- such as winning over the Pentagon, which has historically favoured Pakistan and viewed India with wariness. But India is a lesser actor in this debate than it imagines. Its hasty response and eagerness to engage in big-power geopolitics is a risky gamble and costly distraction that the country can ill afford. The tendency to focus on the grand and fuzzy, rather than on the immediate and concrete, is a common Indian failing. India's quest for a larger global role can best be achieved by focusing on the essentials: steady economic reforms, investment in infrastructure and education and improvements in its relation with neighbours. Until all that happens, it should adopt a modest foreign-policy agenda. And perhaps a more relevant "NMD" policy: No More Declarations.<BR> <BR> <P>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR> <BR>

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: India and the NMD-2

Postby ramana » 13 Jun 2001 22:14

Philip dont count on all the sckeptical reports. A version of NMD will come up no matter what. The experts are questioning a leakproof umbrella for a storm. Not feasible yet. But some sort of umbrella for a drizzle is possible and that what the Bush Admin is talking about. This will add to the deterrent posture for it creates doubts on an aggressor with limited resources that his stuff might not go through. <P>Again read Tim's article in the BRM Jan 2000 issue about alternate scenarios. The world is moving in that direction. Read Mendelshon's lament of how unilateral cuts will relegate arms control to the back seat and reduces the role of diplomacy. <P>If you see how the new debate is being conducted, some of the P-5 are irrelevant and that is how the new security for new century is shaping about. So you see the Indian tests ended the old P-5 formulation for security. That is the significant fallout of the tests. The debate is with India at the high table and some of those already there are not pulling their weight especially the former Colonials. In a historical sense the end of colonialism which started with Indian Independence is coming about with the tests.<BR>The French scholar Focault said, to paraphrase -of all the powers one should have it is the power to conduct discourse which is the most important. So by being able to discourse about the NMD India has arrived at the table. This is being lost by the Indian experts.


Return to “Nuclear Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest