
Agni-V, India's first ICBM test-fired successfully - Garbage
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Agni-V-Indias-first-ICBM-test-fired-successfully/articleshow/12726732.cms
======
rollypolly
Does having more ICBM-capable countries make the world safer?

~~~
radicaldreamer
Potentially, if you think that countries are rational actors and the mutually
assured destruction doctrine.

I think this makes the chance of an Indian/Chinese non-localized war much less
likely.

~~~
caf
The prospect of a major Indian/Chinese land war was already quite remote. A
rather large, high mountain range separates the two, and neither has the the
ability to fight an extended war at the end of supply lines running over that
mountain range.

~~~
hooeezit
If you didn't know, India and China HAVE fought a war in that region, and you
always fight wars 'at the end of supply lines' by definition, so not sure what
you mean by that. In fact, both countries have the ability to fight extended
wars. India has been fighting a war for decades on its western frontier with
Pakistan which is as rugged as the eastern frontier with China. India
maintains the highest battleground presence in the world on the Siachen
Glacier. So no, the prospect of a land battle on the Indo-China border is
neither unlikely, nor unprecedented.

That said, modern China is a pragmatic country whose primary focus is to keep
its own population happy. China has a lot of hurdles in the path to the
realization of that goal, and needs the economy of the region to stay stable
for that. If China attacks India (or vice versa), global supply chains and
economies will get severly affected and in turn will have an avalanche effect
on the economies of both the countries. Hence, practically speaking, neither
countries would wage war on each other unless taken over by a whimsical,
dicatatorial leader (and which dictator isn't whimsical?).

~~~
kamaal
India and China have better work than fighting wars at this time.

Our time, money and resources are better utilized spending on development
activities than pointless wars.

Besides we(Indian civilization) have never attacked any country in several
thousand years and never will. There is no bigger a peace loving nation in the
world than India. But if some one attacks us, we need to defend ourselves.

Historically India is impenetrable through the northern and eastern sides
because of the natural defense Himalayas provide. Nothing has changed in the
modern times.

~~~
whosthr
not sure if being the "peace loving" nation has been good thing for india...
India has had too much of that and looks to be a spine less country now which
is not willing to take any kind of position or action...

------
suyash
How does this makes to #1 news on HN?

~~~
jbarham
It's 10 pm in SV and 10:30 am in India...

------
startupsdesigns
Last I checked India was over 1 billion in population with sky rocketing
political corruption stats. How does these missiles benefits majority who go
without a proper meal everyday.

~~~
hooeezit
Pride. To tackle the political corruption issue will require a massive
movement and a big consensus. If you visit India, you will realize that
nothing gets done through consensus. Only individual actors achieve large
successes. India still lives in a kingdom mindset where people draw pride from
the acts of their superiors and are thankful for such acts. If you try to do
something radically different, you will get a lot of resistance from everyone
around you because "that doesn't work here". But if you do succeed, everyone
around will claim to be part of it and will talk of you proudly.

So, in that environment, building an ICBM (which is btw a very hard
engineering challenge and took India 30 years) is an achievable goal for an
individual actor (the defence organization DRDO) and because it was an Indian
success, brings pride to a nation of 1.2 billion. Getting rid of corruption
will make our lives significantly better (there are many other much more
modest goals that will have a similar effect), but it won't bring close to as
much pride. In a country where you'd die before driving a Tata Nano if you had
any semblance of money (Tata Nano is seen as a cheap car - something not to be
proud of) and an iPhone is a must have, such sources of pride as an ICBM count
for a lot.

Yes, we are flawed, but as we say, "what to do, we are like this only"

~~~
ippisl
One of the main strengths of india is it's ability to create very low cost
products of reasonable quality in many fields.it's probably the greatest thing
modern india can offer the world.

For example the tata nano has created the whole mini car segment, that has
significantly reduced the cost of low end cars around the world. now many
people globally can afford to buy new car. Such effect is much harder to
achieve than building an ICBM(which is a pretty old technology).

And indians don't take pride in it(if not at a level of buying it, but at
least as a national innovation) ? that's a shame.

------
anujmehta
bravo!!

------
monsterix
Congratulations to the techies and engineers who worked on this project,
however no donuts for those who sponsored it. Here is why:

1\. The objective to make a destructive missile is probably not a priority for
a country with a billion bare-footed men. Apart from ego-massage you get
nothing out of it.

2\. The missile doesn't add any value to safety of the country, because -
believe it or not - wars are always suicidal. It doesn't matter who is more
powerful. Damage is equal on both the sides. Death is equally sad on both the
sides of war. Loss is only public, while media and stupid politicians make
meat out of it.

3\. The most important reason why this missile is a complete waste of tax
payers money is that India should focus on widespread poverty, education and
corruption at this hour. Not some retard idea to be able to attack the world.

Otherwise, engineers like many out there working under stupid management,
you've done a great job!

~~~
rskn
India doesn't have a billion barefooted men.

War isn't suicidal. Damage is NOT equal on both sides. There have been
engagements where one of the two sides have had no casualties yet met the
objectives of the conflict.

A missile helps india focus on just that - poverty. Instead of spending its
resources on fighting wars that WILL come to be at the absence of nukes and
ICBMs. Indo-Pak war of 1965 was based on the misguided pakistani notion that
the Indian army was severely crippled following the war with china. This
prevents incidents like that.

~~~
pm90
exactly. It is extremely unlikely that there will be a full scale war between
India and China; perhaps only border skirmishes. A ballistic missile
deterrence can only help to "balance" the stakes and make the region more
stable. I also wonder whether the OP and others who post suggestions for
getting rid of poverty really mean? These are rocket-scientists, not social
scientists. The resources allocated for poverty reduction programs is already
quite staggering....pouring more money cannot solve the problem; it is a
social and economic change that will occur eventually. Meanwhile, one can
secure the territorial integrity of India and build expertise in missile
systems, among other things...which surely can't be a bad thing, especially
since it looks like there is gonna be a space race sooner than anybody thought
about.

------
hashfold
this makes Asia a safer place to live by neutralizing the forces. India
follows 'no first use' policy.

so India is helping make a safer place.

