Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Military

India's ICBM Will Carry Multiple Nuclear Warheads 351

Posted by samzenpus
from the multiple-heads-are-better-than-one dept.
An anonymous reader writes "India is equipping its longest range nuclear-capable missile, the Agni-V, with Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs), The Diplomat reports. A MIRVed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) carries multiple nuclear warheads on a single missile, which it dispenses towards numerous or a single target after the final stage of the ICBM boosts off. MIRVed missiles destabilized the Cold War nuclear balance and are likely to do so again: 'Because they give nations greater confidence in being able to destroy an adversary's hardened missile silo sites in a first strike by launching multiple, lower yield warheads at the sites.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

India's ICBM Will Carry Multiple Nuclear Warheads

Comments Filter:
  • Geee, I'm in awe...not.

    • by daem0n1x (748565) on Friday May 31, 2013 @06:10AM (#43870421)

      80% of the Indians don't have a toilet to shit in, but the government is more worried about expensive war toys with no purpose at all.

      Way to go, India. There's nothing like getting your priorities straight.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 31, 2013 @06:35AM (#43870499)

        So its ok if Indians are ruled by a Chinese-Pak-American invader force as long as they have a toilet to shit in?

        The foremost priority of any government is to protect the nations borders, otherwise whats the point of nationalism anyway?

        • The foremost priority of any government is to protect the nations citizens, otherwise whats the point of nationalism anyway?

          FTFY, though it doesn't change your argument ;)

      • What logic says that India should stop worrying about its defence till all Indians are shitting in toilets?

        Yours is just another predictable response that shows up whenever anything like this is reported on /.

        • by daem0n1x (748565)

          What logic says that India should stop worrying about its defence till all Indians are shitting in toilets?

          They should consider defence, maybe not that much.

          Yours is just another predictable response that shows up whenever anything like this is reported on /.

          I'm glad not to disappoint.

          • And who decides what "that much" is? Like I've noted elsewhere, different areas that a government spends on get their share of yearly budget and then the decision makes in those areas decide how the money is spent. Nobody is taking away money allocated to providing clean drinking water to make missiles. Indian defence spending is decreasing every year and projects like guaranteed employment and food-at-lower-than-market-cost to poor are getting a larger share of spending. So looks like they have their prior

            • by Cenan (1892902) on Friday May 31, 2013 @07:27AM (#43870711)

              Nobody is taking away money allocated to providing clean drinking water to make missiles

              As if the money didn't all come from the same bag? The Indian government is taking in money, allocating it to "defense" and building first strike weapons to bomb an imaginary enemy; all while ignoring that a large part of their population is living in poverty. The fact that there are reasonably well educated people here that are OK with this shit speaks volumes.

              • by stdarg (456557)

                India does not have "imaginary" enemies. Pakistan is a really shitty enemy to have, and they also have nuclear weapons.

                As for poverty India has seen a huge increase in wealth over the last few decades as they've become more Western friendly (instead of allied with the Soviets, vs. Pakistan and America) and more capitalist. I'm sure top-down programs like space programs and defense are good for their economy. It's better to have everybody get richer, yet maintain a rich-poor divide (like America's economy) t

                • by Cenan (1892902)

                  India does not have "imaginary" enemies. Pakistan is a really shitty enemy to have, and they also have nuclear weapons.

                  A hungry tiger in a confined space is a very real enemy, a pakistani not so much. The slights are imagined, the dispute is over some backwater mountain region none of the countries actually want, except because their neighbor does. No indian and no pakistani is born hating their neighbor, that hate is taught.

                  As for poverty India has seen a huge increase in wealth over the last few decades as they've become more Western friendly (instead of allied with the Soviets, vs. Pakistan and America) and more capitalist.

                  This block vs. block world view really has got to fucking go. It is a political diversion meant to take your mind of the very real problems at home. Stop buying into the hyperbole and start voting accor

            • by daem0n1x (748565)

              And who decides what "that much" is?

              India is a democracy, so the answer is "the Indian people".

      • by pablo_max (626328) on Friday May 31, 2013 @07:19AM (#43870669)

        Yeah, so maybe the subject is flame bait, but self righteous ass clowns like you really grind my gears.
        You have the balls to talk about India spending money on weapons when the 21% of US children live in poverty?
        http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/ [census.gov]
        When there an estimated 500k homeless people living in US cities?
        America spends 4.5% on GDP on the military, NOT including the illegal wars being waged.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures [wikipedia.org]
        You sir, are a jackass.

        • by Gothmolly (148874) on Friday May 31, 2013 @08:07AM (#43870893)

          You really need to examine the definition of "poverty".

      • Indians got into this shit by not spending enough on defence anyway. So as an Indian I don't mind spending on defence. Had Indian rulers cared for defence, they would have not been invaded by Muslims first and then the British, turning them into a third world craphole.
      • by geekmux (1040042)

        80% of the Indians don't have a toilet to shit in, but the government is more worried about expensive war toys with no purpose at all.

        Way to go, India. There's nothing like getting your priorities straight.

        Plenty of homeless people in the US too, including Veterans of many wars.

        Don't make it sound like any other country anywhere is justified in even stockpiling these damn things, let alone developing them to make them more "effective" at total annihilation.

      • by usuallylost (2468686) on Friday May 31, 2013 @10:08AM (#43872111)
        No purpose at all? China attacked India in 1962. There have been border incursions, by Chinese forces, as recently as May of this year. They have fought several wars over disputed borders with Pakistan. Both China and Pakistan are nuclear powers. Before any government can do anything else, such as providing the plumbing mentioned in your post, they have to maintain the territorial integrity of the nation and assure the survival of the state. Frankly of all the recent nations that have gone for nuclear weapons India has the best argument for why they need them.
    • by hairyfeet (841228)

      Just goes to prove what I've been saying for years, the absolute best way to move humanity forward towards peace and brotherhood....would be to take every religious text on the planet and throw them in a massive bonfire that blots out the sun.

      What does the whole India/Pakistan hatred boil down to? "My God is better than your God Aie ie ie ie yee!" bullshit. Hutus and Tutsi, pretty much ALL of the middle east bullshit, now that the East/West ideology wars we can see how truly harmful religion is just by look

  • India could launch unarmed missiles at a desert island and still destroy everything of value in Pakistan.

  • by Alioth (221270) <no@spam> on Friday May 31, 2013 @06:16AM (#43870439) Journal

    We need to stop this madness. Even if we assume that fall-out outside of India/Pakistan's borders is not severe if they were to ever have a war that turned nuclear, the entire world will suffer the climatological consequences. See the following link (warning, PDF)

    http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/RobockToonSAD.pdf [rutgers.edu]

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by WoodenKnight (895480)

      There won't ever be a nuclear war with Pakistan. The real focus is China. And slowly but surely India is beginning to equalize the equation though it's still pretty far from doing so; at the moment it's advantage China. So these developments have to be read in context of China, not Pakistan.

      • by Alioth (221270)

        It's irrelevant who they have the nuclear war is, my point is we *all* will suffer the consequences due to the abrupt disruption of the climate. The developing world especially which will likely be pushed into famine.

      • India is more like Greece than China ...

    • by pinkushun (1467193) * on Friday May 31, 2013 @07:09AM (#43870623) Journal

      Undeniably so, but isn't it too late for that already, looking at this animated timeline of nuclear tests between 1945 and 1998 [ctbto.org]. One wonders how the planet is still alive.

      • by Nutria (679911)

        Since the planet is most assuredly still alive, maybe you should reassess your abject terror of the occasional nuclear detonation out in the middle of nowhere.

      • by Alioth (221270)

        Perhaps I didn't explain my point clearly enough.

        No nuclear tests don't count, because none of those tests were exploded over cities. None of those tests were injecting tens of millions of tonnes of soot into the stratosphere, where it could linger for years. It's the byproduct of the stuff the nukes set on fire that's the problem in terms of climate, not the actual bombs themselves. Densely populated cities (which are often in places where they would be ignited even with attacks against purely military tar

      • by baKanale (830108)
        Those tests were mostly performed in deserts and other remote areas, not "as air bursts in urban areas, [which] could produce so much smoke that temperatures would fall below those of the Little Ice Age of the fourteenth to nineteenth centuries, shortening the growing season around the world and threatening the global food supply.", to quote the paper. Also, I'm not sure what the size of the blips in that video signify. For example, the Trinity test near didn't produce a 40-mile wide fireball, as that video
    • by JTsyo (1338447)
      Everyone knows that nuclear winter is the counter to global warming. If there's a nuclear war then we burn more hydrocarbons, maybe release some methane from the oceans. If global warming gets out of control, we nuke a few cities.
  • by MrMickS (568778) on Friday May 31, 2013 @06:26AM (#43870469) Homepage Journal

    Doesn't India have other priorities? http://www.wateraid.org/uk/where-we-work/page/india [wateraid.org]

    • like overpopulation?
    • by WoodenKnight (895480) on Friday May 31, 2013 @06:44AM (#43870533)

      Like any country, or rather any unit that has multiple areas they need to work on, everything gets its fair share of resources. One doesn't "prioritise" one thing in neglect of other things. Defence gets its share. Social upliftment gets its share. Remember, Indian defence spending in GDP terms is pretty low given the kind of neighbours it has and the amount of terrorism and insurgent violence it bears generally.

      • by gl4ss (559668)

        they could use it for actual defense.

        you know, for getting rid of corrupt police for one. then building a toilet builder. but admittedly fixing those things is much harder than building a mirv.

      • Like any country, or rather any unit that has multiple areas they need to work on, everything gets its fair share of resources. One doesn't "prioritise" one thing in neglect of other things. Defence gets its share.

        There is no such thing as a 'fair share'. This is all about making (political) choices.

        By choosing to spend money on nukes that could have been spent elsewhere, Indian politicians do prioritize. The Indian defence spending may be relatively low, but one may still have the point of view that a part of it should have been spent differently. Assuming there is a 'fair share' for defence is assuming that whatever the outcome of a political debate is, is inherently the right outcome.

    • by JTsyo (1338447)
      The way to battle poverty is to have a successful economy and for that you need stability. Nuclear deterrent makes war more unlikely. Though according to the article MIRVs might actually reduce MAD. No point to make a successful economy if you're just going to be overrun by your neighbor.
  • by spectrokid (660550) on Friday May 31, 2013 @06:41AM (#43870521) Homepage
    India is keeping its ennemies close. The nukes are foremost to keep Pakistan and China under control. Why the heck are they devellooping ICBM capability? Thy really just need to be able to lob them far enough over the border...
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by WoodenKnight (895480)

      umm... because China is fairly big and the larger cities are pretty far away from where these ICBMs will be launched?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      Actually the reason for developing long range missiles is, as usual, the US. Remember that people were talking about a limited nuclear retaliation for 9/11 against parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan?

      The message is clear. If you can see any potential future where you might be at odds with the US you can't just rely on there being a Democrat in the White House at the time, you need Mutually Assured Destruction. Geography dictates that for most countries that means they need ICBMs to strike back.

      • The message is clear. If you can see any potential future where you might be at odds with the US you can't just rely on there being a Democrat in the White House at the time, you need Mutually Assured Destruction. Geography dictates that for most countries that means they need ICBMs to strike back.
        Yeah, that worked out real will for Gaddafi, hell the democrat in the White House didn't even get authorization for the use of force from Congress. So you may need to update your antiquated believe that only Repu
      • by Striikerr (798526)

        I guess that would be one way to move those off-shore jobs from India back to the US. We'd have a sudden increase in call-center jobs here and when speaking to "Jim" or "Tammy" on the phone trying to fix a problem, they'd have no hint of a foreign accent.. ;-)

    • by tgd (2822)

      India is keeping its ennemies close. The nukes are foremost to keep Pakistan and China under control. Why the heck are they devellooping ICBM capability? Thy really just need to be able to lob them far enough over the border...

      How do you know the "I" doesn't stand for "intra"?

    • by Xest (935314)

      Maybe one day they'd like to get revenge on Britain for the whole empire thing too?

  • by paiute (550198) on Friday May 31, 2013 @07:07AM (#43870613)
    India should be working on improved stick technology so they can win WWIV.
  • by cHiphead (17854) on Friday May 31, 2013 @09:03AM (#43871333)

    Having played a lot of Scorched Earth and ATanks in my time, I can assure you that MIRV nukes are REALLY bad and can easily end up killing your own tank if launched in haste.

  • Oh boy, 4 nukes that you only have to shoot down one time because they're all on the same missile. What a great tactical advantage...for the enemy. Sounds like a cost-saving measure to me, not an amazing advanced weapon.
  • There are 600 million Indians without access to toilets, but they are building ICBMs. At least they've got their priorities straight.

  • by AdamHaun (43173) on Friday May 31, 2013 @10:19AM (#43872269) Journal

    Looking through the article and its links, it seems like this is a response to China, which is deploying MIRVs to counter US-deployed anti-ballistic missile systems. With the Agni-V's extended range, India will be able to strike every city in China. Both sides are also developing submarine-launched missiles, which should hopefully reduce the incentive for a first strike.

There are running jobs. Why don't you go chase them?

Working...