Agni V Discussions

[Manas]

---

---

Stephen Yates and Christian Whiton: India Blows Past China's Smokescreen - WSJ.com

By STEPHEN YATES
AND CHRISTIAN WHITON

Smart people and smart nations judge governments more on what they do than on what they say. India's successful test of an Agni-V long-range, nuclear-capable missile shows the shrewdness of the world's largest democracy. Delhi has looked past smokescreens from Beijing and Washington to judge hard realities.

In response to India's improved ability to deter China's own nuclear arsenal, a Foreign Ministry spokesman in Beijing said "India and China are not rivals but cooperative partners. We believe the two countries should cherish the hard-won momentum of sound bilateral relations."

But Delhi increasingly knows from Beijing's conduct that this is not so. China cooperates in Kashmir with Pakistan, which uses terrorists as instruments of statecraft against India. Many Indians are knowledgeable about the nature of China's government, having heard about it from some 150,000 Tibetans who have fled oppression to arrive in India, and who no longer have a country of their own.

Elsewhere, Beijing's conduct is hardly more comforting. Earlier this month, a Chinese general said the Philippines was facing its "final chance" to resolve territorial disputes in the South China Sea—presumably on terms favorable to China. Beijing then initiated a standoff with the Philippine Navy, which had tried to evict Chinese fishing boats operating illegally in Manila's exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Last May, Chinese patrol boats damaged a Vietnamese oil survey ship in Hanoi's EEZ. Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan have also recently been in the crosshairs of Beijing's diplomats and warriors.

Prudence dictates that Delhi be prepared for similar Chinese treatment of India's interests. Ordinarily, a strong U.S. counterforce in the Pacific and Indian Oceans would allay some Indian concerns about Beijing. That has been a key to relative peace in the postwar era. But India's missile launch is another sign Delhi perceives this could be changing.

Indeed, Delhi can judge President Obama's claim of a strategic "pivot to Asia" to be mendacious. True, Mr. Obama announced the new intermittent stationing of up to 2,500 U.S. Marines in northern Australia as part of the "pivot." They augment U.S. troops in Japan and South Korea. But deterring Chinese aggression and altering Beijing's behavior depend on friendly naval, aviation and nuclear assets—and increasingly on missile defense and cyber capabilities. Both Beijing and Delhi can see the U.S. Navy and Air Force steadily shrinking, and now set to be frog-marched off a cliff through imminent budget cuts and mismanaged procurement.

India and China also know that the dispatch of a tiny contingent of Marines 3,700 miles from Beijing is nearly irrelevant. It is arguably worse than doing nothing. The force and its location are suspiciously configured not to upset Beijing. It reinforces the perception that Washington is unable to confront Beijing seriously or coherently. President Obama's decision last year not to sell Taiwan new F-16s—three levels of quality below America's top fighter jet—confirms Washington's inability to identify and treat accordingly those who are its friends, and those who are not its friends. Both groups have in common the realization that Mr. Obama's "pivot" is more about rhetorical cover for American withdrawal from the Middle East and Central Asia than deterring China.

Delhi presumably sees little help on the horizon. A second Obama term would likely resemble his first. Mr. Obama's all-but-certain opponent in the November presidential election, Mitt Romney, has used tougher language on China and called for a larger U.S. Navy and Air Force. But he declares on his website: "Our objective is not to build an anti-China coalition." He furthermore has reserved most of his ire at Beijing for its trade and currency policies. These are telltale signs of politicians who are willing to shadowbox Beijing when it is useful with voters, but who are unwilling to push back seriously against Beijing's security offenses.

An improved military is not the only tool Indians are using to grapple with China. While remaining open to expanded investment and commerce, Indians have been treating China's officials to a degree of candor seldom heard from senior Obama administration officials. Narendra Modi, the popular center-right chief minister of the prosperous Indian state Gujarat, was blunt on a trade-focused mission he undertook to China last November. Despite India's "look east" economic policy, Mr. Modi nonetheless condemned Chinese military cooperation with Pakistan, claims Beijing makes on Indian territory and Chinese detention of Indians from his state without trial—allegedly for running a ring to smuggle diamonds from Hong Kong.

Indians will increasingly judge Beijing by its actions rather than its words. They hold Washington to the same standard. Delhi has the means and motivation for a stronger diplomatic and military posture to deal with China. Other governments should too.

Mr. Yates was deputy national security adviser to the vice president from 2001 to 2005. Mr. Whiton was a State Department senior adviser from 2003 to 2009. They are respectively the C.E.O. and principal of D.C. International Advisory.

[-1o1-]

Chinese expert said that India could not move its 50 tone Agni V because of its poor infrastructure of roads and raiways it must be launched from a fixed position

Then why we are buying C 17 Globe MAster from US to Airlift it

[IndianArmy]

Then why we are buying C 17 Globe MAster from US to Airlift it

You are going to airlift an ICBM??? Sounds Like a Plan to me

[angeldemon_007]

This is pretty strong language...I am sure Indians have nothing to do with this...Indians always try diplomacy first....war is always a self defence for India rather than aggression...

[Rig Vedic]

Who cares?

Agni 5 with 5000 kms can still hit the whole of China.

You ought to. Relations between nations can change. Capabilities are needed regardless of such changes. Not wise to label a weapons system like that.

[Bang Galore]

The friendly Indian intercontinental missile

April 23, 2012
Dmitry Kosyrev, RIA Novosti

There was a frenzy surrounding the failed launch of a ballistic missile by North Korea just a week ago. How to explain calm reaction on the Indian Agni-5 launch then?

Perusing the front pages of Delhi newspapers, one gets the impression that launching of the Agni-5 intercontinental missile with a striking range of 5,000 km by India was a prominent but by no means sensational event even for the Indians. There have been no overly emotional responses to it outside India, either. One can’t help drawing a parallel between this calm reaction and the media frenzy surrounding the failed launch of a ballistic missile by North Korea just a week ago. And when something of the kind happens in Iran, the reaction is even stronger.


People kill people



Former U.S. President Ronald Reagan once commented on the right to bear arms in America with the memorable phrase, “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” The international games surrounding nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles illustrate the point nicely.



On May 11, 1998, India held underground nuclear tests in an attempt to outdo Pakistan, which had also planned (and successfully conducted) such tests a few days later. And with that two more nuclear powers were born. Like many other countries, Russia condemned the new nuclear powers for ignoring the universally accepted ban on expanding the nuclear club. Back then, many commentators observing Russia’s harsh reaction to these developments rightly noted that no one feared France’s nuclear arsenal, because France is a country that gave the world Dumas, Moliere, cheese and wine. It simply has no reason to use its nuclear weapons against Russia or any other country for that matter. The same reasoning was applied to India: Our friend has become stronger, so it is good news not bad.



This is also why Moscow, Beijing and Tokyo react differently to missile tests in North Korea. The first two countries don’t want any trouble just because the Japanese and Americans are afraid of the North Koreans. However, Pyongyang is very unlikely to fire a missile at China or Russia.



In other words, the intentions and interests of superpowers are more important in strategic planning than their capabilities. What are the intentions of Russia’s friend India, which has increased the striking range of its nuclear arms delivery vehicles?



The source of the threat



The most obvious answer is that this is bad news primarily for China, which is, by the way, Russia’ friend, too. Indeed, there’s no reason for India to aim its nuclear weapons against Africa or the United States, all the more so since Agni can’t reach U.S. shores anyway. However, all of China’s territory is now within reach.



For several years now, various political forces in India have been saying officially (and especially in private) that Indians aren’t dumb enough to turn their country into a missile base against China just because, for example, the United States wants it to be this way. Both major Indian parties agree on that.



Pakistan, whose government either unwilling or unable to control the jihadist groups residing on its territory, remains India’s primary threat. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is not the only concern here. The philosophy underlying the establishment of Pakistan as a Muslim alternative to Hindu India is another major consideration. It’s not clear what this nation will become without this idea, and whether Pakistan will remain a nation without it.



This is not all there is to it. Jihadism is not only about Pakistan. Let’s not forget that in addition to nuclear tests in 1998, India stepped up its political involvement in the Middle East and became very close with Israel. Today, with the Gulf monarchies successfully promoting the jihad philosophy across all Arab nations, such as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya to name a few, it has become clear that India’s policy was quite reasonable and the expansion of its missile range won’t hurt, either.



Next comes Iran. The Indian opposition strongly criticizes its current government for its incoherent policy towards Iran. However, the real threat to India doesn’t come from Iran. Hypothetically, if the United States or the Gulf monarchies manage to sow the seeds of chaos in Iran as well, then, in the worst-case scenario, extremist regimes will spring up from neighboring Pakistan westward all the way to the shores of the Atlantic.



This is something that China would like to avoid as well, because it has more shared strategic interests with India than with its old friend Pakistan.



Who’s your friend?


It is assumed that India’s failed war against China in 1962 and the loss of an uninhabited glacier in the Himalayas is a major problem that makes these two key international partners of Russia bitter enemies. If this were the case, then the launch of the Agni would spell real drama for Russian foreign policy.



Let’s keep in mind that Russia is India’s key partner in the area of armaments. This month Russia supplied to India the nuclear submarine Nerpa aka Chakra for a long-term lease. By late 2012, India will at long last receive the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov aka Vikramaditya. There’s a whole list of armaments that Russia is either selling to India or designing together with India. If Beijing viewed India similar to the way Japan looks upon North Korea… And if India saw China – which, by the way, became Delhi’s first trading partner – as a source of permanent threat…



Things are different in reality, though. The foreign ministers of Russia, India and China (RIC) met this month. As it turns out, the original triangle of this group exists as a separate entity despite its expansion to include Brazil and South Africa (BRICS). And the three have more and more reasons for private meetings. Among other things, an important topic for discussion is coordinating efforts in Afghanistan once the U.S. and NATO forces withdraw. The problem is that the spread of jihad policies in Afghanistan represents a direct threat to northwestern China. As a result, Beijing and Delhi now have more reasons for rapprochement and Moscow has long been a willing intermediary.



As for nuclear arsenals and their delivery vehicles, even with an enhanced strike range, they do not interfere with such efforts. On the contrary, they are a source of calm for the partners in their complicated relations with each other.



First published in RIA Novosti
The friendly Indian intercontinental missile | Russia & India Report

[DARKY]

You are going to airlift an ICBM??? Sounds Like a Plan to me

C 17 can even launch an ICBM.. yes It has been done.

[IndianArmy]

C 17 can even launch an ICBM.. yes It has been done.

Why no one informed me????

[DARKY]

Why no one informed me????

Actually it was a C-5 and this is how it did this...
http://defensetech.org/2012/02/17/vi...-an-icbm-what/

[samantk]

Coming from WSJ this is quite a writeup! India is being percieved differently in the west now, even if we do not need this perception we are being recognised as an idependent entity, which is an achievement of its own!

[Executioner]

This was post one of our Indian member OrionHunter, can anyone provide me the source please on the bold part .

Low accracy??? Its guidance system consists of ring laser gyro-INS (inertial navigation system), optionally augmented by GPS terminal guidance with radar scene correlation that results in a CEP measured in yards! However, remember that it carries a strategic nuclear (15 KT to 250 KT) warhead, or fuel air explosives (FAE) and therefore a small CEP doesn't really matter.

GPS Terminal Guidance, Fuel Air Explosives, Radar Scene Correlation?

[Tshering22]

Coming from WSJ this is quite a writeup! India is being percieved differently in the west now, even if we do not need this perception we are being recognised as an idependent entity, which is an achievement of its own!

We have all that in ourself for quite sometime. Most unfortunately, we lack a government or head of the country to use that kind of capability. Soon that will be taken care of with the permanent exit of UPA in 2014.

Vietnamese are smart; they've played their foreign policy card well. We must ensure that we build a solid strategic partnership with southeast Asian countries and especially Vietnam.

[Splurgenxs]

Lol good job to the Author for stating the Obvious...haven't we been harping along these lines fr the past 2 or so years?

Apart from a certain neighbour we got,
i don't think any country gives an iota of free time to, Lip service , Claims or Warnings.

[samantk]

We have all that in ourself for quite sometime. Most unfortunately, we lack a government or head of the country to use that kind of capability. Soon that will be taken care of with the permanent exit of UPA in 2014.

Vietnamese are smart; they've played their foreign policy card well. We must ensure that we build a solid strategic partnership with southeast Asian countries and especially Vietnam.

Yes we need a more strategic relationship with Vietnam, also lets not forget Phillipines and other se countries who require a counter balance more than US against China, Japan can be a very good partner too. The capability is still lacking when a solid partnership and counter balance is required. All this is happening when an *** of a govt is ruling the country.. we lost so much time these 8 years, Congress tried sucking the nation dry.. I hope too UPA is gone for good but we need people like Modi to lead India.. Such men are not born everyday...

[JayAtl]

---

---

Pretty much a rubbish article full of political rethoric and common unimpressive assumptions really. The author is is known right wing hawk, the paper is an anti Obama publication and these are the rantings of such a crowd.