India Says It Successfully Tests Nuclear-Capable Missile

"Agni 5 will give India complete coverage of targets in China," Gee, sounds like India and China are in a race to see who can be the new ass__les of the planet after we lose or give up the crown.

I guess now India has a viable MAD option against any Chinese aggression/first strike. For the past decade or so, the Chinese have stationed BM's on Tibet, targeting India. This is India's way of ensuring that China will not be tempted to carry out a first strike. Informed forces tell me that the main goal is for the Indian Nuclear Subs (2 operational and 3 being built)to eventually equip even longer ranged SLBM's and be stationed in mid pacific/Arctic/South East Asian oceans. MAD ensures that no one will try anything funny. India and China being responsible countries(unlike some of the religiously fanatical ones), there is no chance of these missiles getting fired due to rash actions of some deranged individuals.


Also as the article correctly points out, India and China are the only nuclear powers with the policy of "No first Use"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use


PS: On un-related news, today India overtook Japan to become the third largest economy in the world, in PPP terms.

India overtakes Japan to become third-largest economy in purchasing power parity
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/indicators/india-overtakes-japan-to-become-third-largest-economy-in-purchasing-power-parity/articleshow/12722921.cms

Nuclear armed and much more capable India does it and the world is quiet.

I trust India with ballistic missiles as much as I trust the US. Oh...wait...nevermind.

The reason the world is pissed at NK is that they are notorious for helping some of the world's most despotic regimes obtain WMDs.

are to be trusted even less.

I don't know how you can trust someone less.

wouldn't you think?

either you trust someone or you don't.

It's impossible to trust someone less then you already distrust them.

of course it is possible to trust someone less then you already distrust them - if an employee I trusted turned around and stole something from me I would immediately trust them less. On the other hand, if I hire a good employee over time I would learn to trust him more and would give them more responsibilities.

Trust is not static - of course it can be earned or lost.

You either trust someone or you don't.

You can't trust someone less nor can you trust them a little.

You either trust them or you don't.

There aren't shades of trust.

If someone is little trust worthy, it's only fair to say via logic, they they are without trust.

If someone loses ones trust, are they a little trust worthy? Or less trust worthy? It doesn't make sense. One can't trust them.

If you want to measure them in degrees, then you can try this: they steal something, are they a little trust worthy? If they lie to you about something they stole or something, does that make them still trust worthy to a degree? No, they no longer possess the ability of trust.

So to remit: either a person is trust worthy or they aren't. There isn't such a thing as a trusting them a little or them being less trust worthy.

I might trust you to drive my car but not if my kid was with you. I might trust you to run my cash register but not to make my bank deposits. I might trust you to pay back a $10 loan but not a $1000 loan. It is not a binary, black and white situation.

In the case of India, there are no know instances of them violating international laws on WMD proliferation - I would trust them more than NK, who is a serial violator of international law.

So they can't violate a treaty to which they aren't a party.

NK was also a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency until they withdrew in 1994 when they were found in non-compliance of nuclear safeguards agreement.

In 2001 they sold ballistic missiles to Iran in defiance of UN sanctions.

They have a long history of violating international treaties:

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron

no. I would think it would be more of a reason not to trust them.

But than again, I trust no nation that has nukes.

India should not have nukes. No question in my mind.

to different things.

You could postulate that trust is nothing more than a person living responsibly in a group of people.

if that group deems that person to live responsibly, then they will trust them.

However, if that person gets into car wrecks often or gets speeding tickets, will that same person exhibit responsibility with watching my kid? I wouldn't take that chance, because I can't be sure that the person is a responsible person if they are unable to take personal responsibility for their actions. So therefore, I don't trust them.

See how it works?

reads as if you didn't understand my reply.

You don't have degrees of trust, you have degrees of responcibility.

two different things.

We are at a cross roads and it appears as if we don't agree on the concept of trust.

Let's just leave it there.

Cheers!

No wait, never mind.

Bearing in mind that India basically purchased nuclear technology from the USA
for mangoes ... and selling for cash suddenly seems a lot more professional ...

India developed its nuclear technology completely indigenously with no help from abroad. There was an embargo against India after the nuclear test in 1974.

The mango deal was not a quid pro quo -- just a contemporaneous deal with the US India Nuclear Cooperation Treaty which was a great accomplishment for both the US and India. To make it sound like "nukes for mangoes" cheapens it and is downright insulting to the Indian scientists and engineers.

That was funny...

okay, broke my promise, this is really my last post to this thread.

on edit: I misread the post! my bad.
Apologies

My post was a joke at the expense of the supporters of the double-standards
applied by the self-appointed "guardians of freedom".

Whilst I really don't give a toss about irrational old "Pakistan is teh evul!!" getting
all indignant, I honestly didn't mean to cause offence to you (who I remember
for your help on other forum/group threads) and thought that my use of the evilgrin
smiley would have given the hint that humour rather than historical accuracy
was the goal.



Looks like I was wrong.

Namaste.

I missed the significance of the evil grin. My apologies.

<< I have to work on my sarcasm/humor detector

PS: on edit

I do remember you from other threads. my lackluster defense would be that I had just woken up after only a few hours of sleep and was typing from my bed.

with bigger, badder weapons to kill people. Great sense of priorities.

Awesome case of pot..or should I say Cauldron calling the kettle black

Oh and Btw thanks to 300 years of Colonial robbery, by the time It gained independence India was only 2% of the world GDP (from 25%! of the world GDP before the Brits took over). Yesterday India surpassed Japan to become to the world's 3rd largest economy in PPP terms.

Don't worry about the Indians, they will do fine. Maybe it's time to look at America's own sense of priorities no? like the 20% spent on the DOD. And let us not forget the large chunk from the discretionary spending spent on the military

If there's such a thing as karma and everything happens for a reason, people should consider that China and Japan favor Pakistan over India in cross-border disputes.

China and Pakistan even have a bilateral mutual defense pact.

I don't know which news-source you get your news from, but Japan is actively seeking(and conducting joint operations/conferences with) India as an Ally against a belligerent China. Most of the nations surrounding China(including Japan and India) (along with America) are now part of an unofficial-yet real block that seeks to contain China's aggressive designs on its neighbors.



What has this got to do with anything? It's a known fact that Pakistan considers China its protector now, and have even ceded about 10% of its land to China. China illegally occupies Tibet and claims parts of India as its own. India otoh does not have to do anything, but hold onto its land. Good luck for China and Pakistan on invading through the Himalayas and trying to take over parts of India.




Ps: If Karma does exist, its could be argued that Pakistan will do to China what it did to it's once erstwhile ally America. I pity any nation that Pakistan considers its Ally.

PS: on edit...seems like its happening already



Furthermore why would India want parts of Pakistan? the last thing they want is to take over a piece of land teeming with millions of religious fanatics!

for its own designs in Africa and the Indian ocean. China uses the "thorn in the side" doctrine and uses Pakistan against India just as it uses North Korea against the USA.

When Pakistan stops carrying baggage and water for a donor, it will get respect. Until then, it is just selling its body to feed itself.

The leaders of Pakistan (Who are the generals and the ISI) do this on the backs of their citizens; most of whom do not want to get involved with China..nor engage in hostile activities towards India.

Pakistan had spent more than half its life under military dictatorship, and a majority of the other half under proxy-military/ISI rule.
This can be easily evidenced by the Billions Musharraf accumulated as personal wealth...a tradition preceded by, and will also definitely be succeeded by his counterparts.

Thank you for pointing that out.

Yep, India spends about 2.3% of the GDP for defense as oppose to 4.7% by the US.

Those things can be a mother.

nt

Even if you consider India a 'responsible' country! We're into a new MAD regime now!

Tensions are rising between: India and China, India and Pakistan, China and the US!

This is an important accomplishment and support for Freedom.