Agni-I/SR: Strategic Implications (Thread 2)

Sahastra · Post by **Sahastra** » 28 Jan 2002 02:14

The old thread is here:

http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000069

Pakistan likely to test-fire missiles
http://deccanherald.com/deccanherald/jan28/ipak.htm

Agni-1 and National Security
http://www.idsa-india.org/agni-1-250102.htm

The strategic significance of this test has just started to sink in. I wonder though why a need for a nuclear-warhead capable missile in 700-800 km range was not discussed on BRF before (or was it discussed and i missed it?).

Post Away.

Div · Post by **Div** » 28 Jan 2002 02:26

If this Agni version is solid fueled and road mobile, then imo the Prithvi I & II become less relevant on the nuclear side and can possibly be looked at for a limited tactical role. Now I gotta catch up on all the info in the previous thread...

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 28 Jan 2002 04:55

IMO the "agni 1 sr" will be the strategic one and prithvi will become more conventional use or a "conventional silica melter".Possible deterrence option may be like sending 5 to 10 Agni 1 /SRs followed by 25 to 50 prithivis to ensure perfect destruction of paki land.<DONE>cnn video clip:
http://asia.cnn.com/video/world/2002/01/25/sb.india.missile.ap.med.html

anilK · Post by **anilK** » 28 Jan 2002 07:39

If prithvi is used in a conventional role, then what would be the blast radius and damage causing ability of a 1Ton onventional HE warhead.If puke tank columns are coming in at 100meter distance of each other, how much damage would a prithvi cause. Or would it be a waste of prithvi ?
Is it better to hit an artillery battery.
Or amassed infantry concentration ?I am not sure what people mean when conventional role for prithvi. Isn't the immobility and the extra long fueling time (of prithvi-150 atleast) a dead give away.

Aditya Vikram · Post by **Aditya Vikram** » 28 Jan 2002 07:53

This Agni-1 missile also validates the reports during Kargil of 5 prithvi's and 1 Agni-1 being mated with nuke warheads and we were all wondering about why agni-1 was being used at that time.
also one wonders why prithvis were being tested as late as last November..

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 28 Jan 2002 08:46

If, in theory, India were to test a cruise missile in a year's time - we may well be tempted to ask - OK - so why have we been fooling around with the Prithvi till last year?The answer, as mentioned by ramana in the old thread lies in history and may be read in detail in Raj Chengappa's book, "Weapons of Peace"When Abdul Kalam took over the DRDO and got the IGMDMP political sanction, he was working with a demoralised and fractured set of people who were not a team at all. Kalam's magic was his ability to lift these people's spirits and put them to work on a project that was well within their capability. Oh yes, even in those days ISRO was a separate set up and had higher levels of technology - but ISRO would have nothing to do with this bunch (never mind the reason - I don't know/remember)Kalam made these people use existing technology to quicky show results and produce a missile that could be shown to the nation as usable before the usual bunch of "subjugated for a millennium"- 'SFM') naysayers lost heart and choked off support. He made the IGDMP and DRDO people get together and work as a team, and made them feel success. The Prithvi, for all its drawbacks was all we had for a while, during which time other more long term projects could be fine-tuned.I would like to make rough parallels of technology in the UK and US in the 50s - when whatever was produced was adapted and fitted into the armed services even if it wasn't really as perfect as people may have wanted it to be. Many examples come to mind, (for me mainly aircraft - which I am familiar with) - like the Delta Dart and Dagger and the English Electric Lightning.The 800 Km Agni is a step forward. It gives Pakistan and any allies who may spy for Pakistan less of an oportunity to notice mobilization as they might for a Prithvi. I suspect that those Prithvis that are "earmarked" for a nuclear role will remain that way for some years now, but will gradually be phased out. Never mind - that is how the technology cookie crumbles.If one were to try and list the "fallout" and "effects" of this Agni test, then we would have a fairly long list:1)India has a usable back up retaliatory strike weapon that will be more difficult to take out than the current Prithvi2)An internal signal to Indians and the armed forces that we are not kidding.3)An external signal that says pretty much the same thing.

geeth · Post by **geeth** » 28 Jan 2002 08:57

IMO, This missile could be a precurser to the Indian SLBM. Why is it that there are no fins?There is a chance (slim, though) that it was launched from undersea near Wheeler Island - a reason for showing the standard Agni at lift-off and the actual one in flight - at the same time giving a clear message to those whom it was meant for (uncle?) If this is indeed the case, it is a slap across uncle's face for all the misdeeds they are doing in the name of Global war on terrorism. Look at the Russian spin on Indian "transparency"..VOW!

Aniruddha N · Post by **Aniruddha N** » 28 Jan 2002 09:50

If we were testing an SLBM, why not just show the undersea launch and not the land launch. Surely this would send a stronger signal. Also what would be the speculated platform for sucha launch? A static launcher? A Russian SSBN? or what else?Uncle Sam may come and go, but Russia will always stand by us.

anilK · Post by **anilK** » 28 Jan 2002 11:27

Are we going to turn this thread too into a guess sheet about fins/no-fins, 2 or 1, same or different ?
come on guys, please let us stick to the topic. strategic implications of agni-I assuming it is a 700-800 km missile..

Sridhar · Post by **Sridhar** » 28 Jan 2002 11:39

anilk:The strategic implications of the missile have been discussed on the earlier thread and have been summarized best in the Santhanam article (the idsa link in the first post). Coming from him, it is also as credible as it can get.Therefore, this thread is bound to digress to general missile-related issues and as a repository of news, unless some new strategic perspective is brought up by somebody. Any perspective you could share with us other than the following (which have been already discussed)?
a. solid fuelled missile (=> quick reaction, fewer support equipment, easier maintenance)
b. strategic depth (=> survivability, raises nuclear threshold)
c. road mobile (=> survivability, raises n threshold)
d. lower cost than Agni II (=> more missiles)
e. new guidance systems (=> greater accuracy)
f. shared motor with Agni II (=> ease in production, induction, maintenance)

jaikiran · Post by **jaikiran** » 28 Jan 2002 12:34

Shiv ji,you are absolutely right about the relevance of Prithvi to the IGDMP & the indian missile programme.in Kalaam's authorised biography by arun tiwari (books name is "wings of fire"),kallam mentions in depth about how he first convinces raja ramanna,and than they both in tandom convince venkat raman (former president,but defence minister at that time),who was very crucial in convincing Indira Gandhi.another aspect that people forget is a few years ago... precisely betweenn 1991-1194 & than again for a few years between agni-1 & agni-2 was because the government was worried about the financial repurcussions of the missile test.today we just do it as and when we please,agni,prithvi,brahmos.. whatever we want.lastly we have given advance notice to US,UK,Russia,France & China plus TSP.which means you can bet US Satellites would have been scouring the area too know India's real capabilities.unless we were sure about our capabilities we would not have dared such a test.also note no one from US,UK,the so called missile experts ever said that they were fake or that they were not working.what are the implications?1)we have a reliable solid fuel,road/rail mobile... short/medium & intermediate range ballastic missiles,which are reliably accurate.2)our economy is reasonably strong in that we are not worried about financial fall out of a missile test.3)our resolve is strong and we are relatively autonomic in our thinking,vis-a-vis the US.4)there are whiners/whingers in our country who will not be satisfied with anything India does,unless it is certified by a gora.Surya.......

)Jai.

Kersi D · Post by **Kersi D** » 28 Jan 2002 15:15

What is the diffreence between the AGNI I/II/III and this new cub ?If the range is halved, does it carry a bigger warhead e.g. 1 MT and above ?Can it be used to replace strike / supplement the strike aircraft of the IAF ?Who's going to use IA or IAFAnyway
KUDOS TO THE DRDOKersi

Nikhil Shah · Post by **Nikhil Shah** » 28 Jan 2002 16:55

What a fun way to start Monday morning: Now think like a paki about the strategic implications of testing WETF it was.People who have followed Indian technology tests will tell you that most of the time we don't test things unless we are absolutely sure that it is going to work (unless it is a test to create the platform itself) - I know its a reverse logic but this is the benefit of having technology platforms that DRDO kids can play with like LAGO and come up with interesting stuff.Ji-o DRDO!!

jaikiran · Post by **jaikiran** » 28 Jan 2002 17:41

as per kesri's post:-"if the range is halved,can the agni carry a bigger war head?"That leads me to believe that (i could be wrong,i do not have evidence from open source nor have a cousin.. in the forces...)1)india has a thermonuclear warhead,which is big but we might have not been successful in miniaturising it(hence the need to design a missile,which is smaller range and can carry heavy war head).2)also the recent reparts of the KLUB being possibly nuclear armed... (also the new naval chief refusing to confirm or deny as to if any naval ships/subs carry nukes),makes me to believe that the KLUB may be armed with a fission war head.to summarise my guess work:-1)Prithvi:- conventional war head(possibly as a tactical weapon)2)agni(short range):- thermonuclear warhead(ayaz ahmed in news night,PTV also mentions 200kt warhead... plus at the time of Shakthi tests i remember the thermonuclear warhead for the agni was mentioned at 200Kt)..can some one correct me if i am wrong.3)Agni-2:-boosted fission warhead.4)Klub & (possibly)Brahmos:-fission war head.all these are pure guess work.i could be right or wrong.any guestimates on my post???Jai.

Kaushal · Post by **Kaushal** » 28 Jan 2002 17:46

It is my understanding that India has made great strides in miniaturizing and is on par with the advanced thermonuclear designs elsewhere. The rationale for a short range missile is not therefore driven by payload considerations but because it is needed against our western neighbor.Kaushal

Vick · Post by **Vick** » 28 Jan 2002 17:48

I don't think the A-1-SR can carry more than the A-2 in load. Sure the distance is shorter but the amount of fuel is also less because there is no second stage.The A-1-SR is a natural development of the A-1 and A-2 and quite a useful one at that. Nothing in this missle is "new" except maybe the guidance system. The warhead/RV has been proven before, the solid fuel and the first stage has been proven. This test was mainly to see if the total package worked together. This missle, I suspect, will be in production faster than either the earlier Pritvi or the Agni cuz most of the equipment is already certified by the forces and the production line for the parts already exists from the earlier Agni line.Edit: Arun, I am not sure I follow your simulation so please for a layman like me explain what it all means. Also, If this A-1-SR can go 700km with a 1000kg wh, how far can it go with a 500kg wh?

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 28 Jan 2002 17:56

Prithvi with Liquid fuel was only a stop gap measure, against TSP who was buying off the shelf
M-9, M-11, etc Walmart HQ in Bejing.Keseri"If the range is halved, does it carry a bigger warhead e.g. 1 MT and above ?"I think you are mixing up yield (size in T) vs physical size (in T). While there may be a slight corelation between yield and physical size, it may not be linear.ramana garu>> Is there any study between yield vs physical size, is there a standard coeficient value between them. I think WD-11 Van Lee Hoe design

was pretty small compared to its yield IIRC.

member_3725 · Post by **member_3725** » 28 Jan 2002 19:57

It is my understanding that India has made great strides in miniaturizing and is on par with the advanced thermonuclear designs elsewhere. Actually, the major advancement to miniaturized H-bombs is to employ "two-point" detonation. Here the primary uses an oval-shaped core with just two HE charges to squeeze the core. In a more conventional design, there is a spherical core (round shape) which requires a number of explosives to compress it to critical mass. The Americans discovered this secret in 1956, which is why the devices in Operation Redwing suddenly become so light. During Operation Teapot the weight of thermonuclear designs were above 2000 lbs. but during Op Redwing H-bombs weighing less than a thousand pounds started appearing.In the end this resulted in the low-weight but problematic W-47 (600lbs/~285 kg for a yield of up to 800kt.). This, co-incidentally is late 1950s American technology. About 5 years earlier their devices weighed way over a 100,000 lbs. (Ivy Mike). The Indian Shakti-1 design did not use this apparently - writer Chengappa describes the shapes of the cores to be akin to tennis balls. That would be a safe strategy as well since a lack of test experience (due to self-imposed moratorium) would make trying out two-point detonation risky - particularly since there was just one shaft to test the H-bomb.The weight of Shakti-1's primary would probably be closer to 160-200 kg - presumably a 5kt-yield design boosted by a factor of four to 20kt. In all likelihood, the Shakti-1 weighed closer to half a ton. Due to the short development cycle the bomb could be heavier but still less than 1000 kg. More advanced designs can weigh less than 250 kg by employing tricks such as two-point detonation.In any event, it is doubtful if scientists tested a hydrogen bomb for the Agni SR, because the H-bomb would be more useful against China. It is likely the Agni SR was simply intended to fill the "gap" between the limited Prithvi system and the Agni Plus, and have the capability to carry the H-bomb at shorter distances. Plus, its solid fuel makes it a "ready-to-fire" system for quick lauches. There was at least one person in the establishment who stated that the H-bomb was developed for the Agni, not the Prithvi. Is this because the Shakti-1 was not well-adapted for the weapons bay of the Prithvi? More likely due to the Prithvi's short range with larger payloads -- the fallout would be too close for comfort.

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 28 Jan 2002 20:33

Is this because the Shakti-1 was not well-adapted for the weapons bay of the Prithvi? More likely due to the Prithvi's short range with larger payloads -- the fallout would be too close for comfort. mmmm... to dangerous to discuss this! I mean at a time we keep saying our deterrance is at place.. "Prithvi" definitely is ruled out per your analyses. I think I will buy your idea, but feeling butterflies having our troops still at the borders. How long will it take to produce say 10 A1-SRs?===or, may somone analyse the fallout and the area of radiation that a prithvi can inflict, for example: Karachi being target, with the max possible nuke yield prithvi can carry.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 28 Jan 2002 20:37

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by k r sai:
I think I will buy your idea, but feeling butterflies having our troops still at the borders. How long will it take to produce say 10 A1-SRs?<hr></blockquote>All it takes is a shout "Chotu Zarra Dus Gera pana lau"

Phil · Post by **Phil** » 28 Jan 2002 22:04

Kargil compelled shorter-range Agni http://www.hindustantimes.com/nonfram/270102/detNAT03.asp

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 28 Jan 2002 22:49

<blockquote>quote:<hr>If the range is halved, does it carry a bigger warhead e.g. 1 MT and above ? <hr></blockquote>May I ask why the purpose/need for 1MT warhead ? Is it for prestige ? or an operational/doctrine requirement ?FYI, in eary days of Cold War, when missile accuracy was very poor (CEP of few kilometers) it demanded weapon yield with a area of destruction sufficuent to overwhelm CEP error. Those numbers usuelly fell in to the MT range. And of course some nukes were developed to show that our FATAKA is bigger then your, most of the big FATAKA were of air dropped variety.In the last few dacades with fantastic improvement of missile accuracy, all percieved heavy duty yield requirement are meet by between 200KT & 450KT. In fact with missile CEP of few meters a 1KT weapon can vaporize/defeat any conceiveable silo door.Disclaimer: Now what I say in following paragraph is drawn from many Indian books(including Weapons Of Peace- Raj Changappa, Wings of Fire -Dr Abdul Kalam), as well as gleaned from other open sources, and some from words of defense savvy people:Indian nukes planners were/are aware of these development and thus in early 80's the IGMP missiles were designed for 1 ton payload, since the Indian nuke design for 200KT yield those days were built around Boosted-Fission design. In early 90's India were able to crack the TN design fron first principle with extensive High Energy physics experience as well as home grown computing resources. Current Indian nukes are developed from first principle and have been mastered & cross validated by extensive technical infrastructure in India. The Shakti series test were even of later gener, and it is belived that Indian nuke capability is pretty close to that of US. Given the Indian weapons are outcome of First Principle , there is no need for experimental discovery of various modal parmaters, the route taken by all nuclear powers from 1945 to 1990, which involved thousands of nuclear tests. It appears that the US finally was able to unravell the nuke design by first principle in the last 15 years, and that accounted for significant decrease in nuclear testing for fishing out modal parameters. Instead all their testing were apparently based on verifying/showing for the comfort of the end user Generals.The people who matter in US & Russian's nuke establishment were/are very-very impressed with Indian mastary as proven by the scientific material coming from the exchange visits, as well as by the TN as well as Boosted Nuke tests of SHAKTI.Now India does find it convenient to specify the missile range for 1 ton since that is the right sized payload for useful conventional munition, as well it hides the longer range for lighter payload which can make some westerm policticians agitated.The Shakti-1 TN test yielded the right yield for the crucial Fisison-Fusion stage. And the weapon scales up to 200KT when used in Fission-Fusion-Fission configuration, by replacing the passive casing with depleted Uranium. These weapons supposedly have tuneable yield for field selection. IMHO to know the weight/performnce one only has to look at the FAS web for US weapons and slightly derate it for corresponding Indian weapon.To answer:
<blockquote>quote:<hr>Also, If this A-1-SR can go 700km with a 1000kg wh, how far can it go with a 500kg wh? <hr></blockquote> Firstly the A-1SR if based on 9 ton first stage instead of 10 ton first stage of AGni-2, is expectd to go at least 1200Km with 1000Kg payload.
OTOH for the sake of discussion if a Agni-1 type missile has a range of 700Km with 1T payload the missile will go 865 Km with 500Kg payload.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 28 Jan 2002 22:59

Millon: I would only submit that the Indian TN weapons are close to US weapons in terms of weight to yield performance.

member_3725 · Post by **member_3725** » 28 Jan 2002 23:15

I mean at a time we keep saying our deterrance is at place.. "Prithvi" definitely is ruled out per your analyses. The Prithvi can be (and is) deployed as a nuclear system, but probably uses 12-13 kt. yield fission bomb. Another possibility is the 15-20 kt. yield boosted device tested as the first stage within the thermonuclear bomb. A higher yield variant could have been used(with a larger fusion boosting factor) but given the nature of the subkiloton yield tests that seems unlikely (even though India's cheap tritium production would make that an appealing option). Ideally, the larger amount of fusion boosting should be confirmed via technical tests.My analysis relates to the H-bomb only. A hydrogen bomb (fission-fusion-fission) would produce a much greater fallout, so its useability with the Prithvi is not all that good. In fact, a good part of Pakistan is not suitable for nuclear warfare because of its proximity to India. It depends on the way the wind blows in part.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 28 Jan 2002 23:20

WRT to TS Pakistan we need sub kilo ton Block busting bombs which can be delivered precisely to the point of interest. This will enable the effect of fall out to be minimum on Indian territory.Say a 3 to 4 Kt on Islamabad
Say a 1 to 2 Kt on Lahore (because of proximity)
Say a 10 to 12 Kt On Karachi,For firther away targets in Baluchistan etc may be 20 Kt.For the dragon its a different ball game.

member_3061 · Post by **member_3061** » 28 Jan 2002 23:28

Well it was with a sigh of releif that i greeted the latest Agni 1 / sr with. I always wondered why we had limited our main attack weapon to 150 kms. If the range is as some are guessing to be at around 800 to 900 km then we put our distant neighbours (Iran and Afganistan) at a bit of discomfort , which I feel is good.It also seems that after the agni test, a lot of people have been discounting the Prithvi. I would on the contrary like to disagree. In the new environment I would advise shifting all nuclear warheads to the new agni and keep Prithvi as a tactical battle field weapon, something like a herald to an attacking , advancing Indian Army. My thought is if these Prithvis could be armed with bombs like "daisy cutters" it would eliminate major obstacles for the advancing army force. (by the way, do we have anything like the daisy cutters in our inventory ???) I had also read a few months ago in the BR news section that a Prithvi was tested using solid fuel.This kind of technology would make the Prithvi even more potent. I would like to ask how difficult it is to change the fuel type from liquid to solid. Is it a major if not totally different technology?

member_3725 · Post by **member_3725** » 28 Jan 2002 23:33

Millon: I would only submit that the Indian TN weapons are close to US weapons in terms of weight to yield performance. It was thought that the Indian design weighed closer to 450 kg in some earlier BR forum. Read my part about 2-point detonation also.Do note that some of the early gerneration American weapons had better yield:weight ratios (such as the W-47). Even the new W-88 does not go so far. So this is not really an important factor after a point.India's designs are probably quite efficient but with just a single test there wasn't much ability to tune the performance (probably not much need to, either). Even the Americans have reported that they need about 4 tests to fine-tune their designs, despite computer simulations. The French wanted around 10 tests to confirm and develop their design in the 1990s (at least down from the 22 tests/design they used previously). These tests could involve changing minor parameters in order to extract some more joules here or there. Simulation models are helpful but they do have some limitations.The Indian feat was impressive in the sense that the simulation theoretics and software was designed without parameter fitting information acquired from other nuclear tests. The downside was that the design was not certified at full 200 kt. yield.

Rudra · Post by **Rudra** » 28 Jan 2002 23:45

the solid-fuel prithvi derivative was supposed
to be Dhanush. having never seen one photo of
this nor OPV Sukanya outfitted to launch it
and seeing how its been off the radar for a while.
...either the Brahmos made it redundant or it
was all along a cover for Brahmos.as we know, the first we knew of Brahmos was when
official leak was made in statesman? wtf was
Koral then ? the MOD dis-info machine in full swing.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Jan 2002 00:09

>>The French wanted around 10 tests to confirm and develop their design in the 1990s (at least down from the 22 tests/design they used previously). Talking about French:
1. All test of France were groping in the dark for modal parameter, around ONE design. French did not have the first-principle based knowhow all along their nuke test program.
Talking about French fine-tuning the nuke design is indeed a funny joke. 2. US induced French to abondon the wild-goose-chase (that is what weapons design is if it is not done with First Principle ) around their ONE design by, trading them the wisdom of the First Pricipel & design software for the purpose.3. After abondening the nuclear test in liu of the (hated) US software. Tell me why they have not seen the need of even ONE testing after getting the US software ? Before advising the Indian public that the Indian weapon design 4 or 10 or 20 tests to prove and/or fine-tune ?The French experience is the answer to those who ask for more Indian testing based on conventional/iron-age precendence.

Just some thoughts..BTW I was referring to comparable ~200KT US weapons for the weight/yield maturity.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 29 Jan 2002 00:58

deleted

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 29 Jan 2002 01:03

while on the subject, is it ever concieveble that a Indo Pak exchanges to follow the Missile barrages Iran and Iraq exchanged during the war in 1980's?Both sides fired lots of scuds in that war IIRC.Then Prithvi will have some functionality.

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 29 Jan 2002 01:17

Arun_S:This is very interesting. If I understand you right, you are saying that India's nuclear weapons program actually benefitted, in the long run, from the sanctions imposed by the West. Because our scientists didn't have access to the classified info from the West's weapons program, and because the country absolutely had to have a nuclear deterrent, they were forced to "go back to basics" and develop everything from first principles. This was a lengthy, painstaking and perhaps expensive process, but it paid off in the end, because what India now has is a theoretically-sound design that has been proven in one test (May 1998), and is equal to what the Best of the West has to offer. And all because the BARC guys went back to first principles and started from there. Have I summed it up correctly?

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jan 2002 01:24

Mohan RC said the same wrods in an interview with Frontline in Jan. 1999 ( 15th?). I mean about first principles. But no one pays attention to him any way. Perkovich has painted a Dr. Strangelove portrait of him.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 29 Jan 2002 01:24

mohan Raju>> Exactly that is what I understood.Everything was derived from first principles (like the way we were taught Calculus).Also one must understand that any late entrant into the game always benefits from the wisdom of others. (analogus to Indian Software developers did not have to shed the IBM mainframe menatlity, they directly went to later technology, ofcourse we did benefit from the non event of Y2K bug

).In this regard one must but admire the vision of Homi Bhaba and Chacha Nehru for starting institutions like TIFR and BARC where the first principles were rigourously followed understood ingrained before embarking on major projects. In contrast to our TSP neighbor who xeroxed the manuals and got the stuff through the gratis of Dragon, no wonder every now and then they run to Bejing.

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 29 Jan 2002 01:41

John Umrao: Infact thank-you for your principled stand on quality. Always room to improve.My Kendriya Vidyalaya englis was always good to speak but poorly written.Mohan: Summerizing such complex decision is almost impossible since it invariably oversimplifies what is by nature intricate, thus in some ways you are correct yet incorrect.
OTOH I do not think sanctions had any impact since such citical and sensitive objectives always require sweating on the long walk alone.

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 29 Jan 2002 01:44

My education was partly centralised too (i.e Kendriya, but it was then just called Bombay Naval Primary school)

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 29 Jan 2002 01:56

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-000006641jan26.story?coll=la-headlines-worldIndia was expected to deploy several dozen of the missiles, according to a report by the Federation of American Scientists, which added, "It is suggested that a 200-kiloton 'boosted-fission' warhead has been designed for the Agni system."

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jan 2002 02:05

A TOI editorial Trial by AgniArgues teh test should be seen from all aspects- strategic, political- domestic and international. Notes the curious lack of rhetoric from US an wonders why.

krsai · Post by **krsai** » 29 Jan 2002 02:34

from ramana's post(link) >>>
After all, the record of American involvement in South Asia is less one of fidelity and friendship and more a menage a trois centred around its own interests and pleasures. 

Umrao · Post by **Umrao** » 29 Jan 2002 06:15

<blockquote>quote:<hr>Originally posted by ramana:
A TOI editorial Trial by AgniArgues teh test should be seen from all aspects- strategic, political- domestic and international. Notes the curious lack of rhetoric from US an wonders why.<hr></blockquote>
Dr. Tim many a times was at pains to explain what the thinking is in the spin city,which essentially is that TSP missiles and nukes are ready to go where as Indian nukes and missiles "need miles to go"
before they could be "operationalised".Hence the muted response, as such this with the testing of Agni, Uncle is constrained to admit the right of India to deter against any attack from TSP.