What's new

Indian ICBM program

chakra

BANNED

New Recruit

Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
75
Reaction score
0
One missile to rule them all

Developing intercontinental ballistic missiles is crucial if India is to have a credible deterrence and power-projection force as it aspires to become a global power
Brahma Chellaney


With China engaged in ambitious missile force modernization and the US building new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) as part of its “Prompt Global Strike” programme, the question we need to ask is: When will India develop its first ICBM? Without such capability, India has little hope of emerging as a major power.

802BDDC2-C5E4-4239-9AC1-1191D2865492ArtVPF.gif

ICBMs are the idiom of power in international relations. Even as economic might plays a greater role in shaping international power equations, hard power remains central both for national deterrence and for power-projection force capability. For example, all countries armed with intercontinental-range weaponry hold permanent seats in the United Nations Security Council, and all aspirants for new permanent seats have regionally confined military capabilities.

India has glaring deficiencies on both the deterrence and power-projection fronts. It urgently needs a delivery capability that can underpin its doctrine of minimum but credible nuclear deterrence. The current heavy reliance on long-range bomber aircraft is antithetical to a credible deterrence posture.

Such a posture bereft of long-range missile reach only helps typecast India as a subcontinental power. In fact, in the absence of “strategic” or long-range missile systems, India’s deterrent capability remains sub-strategic.

If India seriously desires to project power far beyond its shores in order to play an international role commensurate with its size, it cannot do without ICBMs. Indeed, the only way India can break out from the confines of its neighbourhood is to develop intercontinental-range weaponry. With its current type of military capabilities, India will continue to be seen as a regional power with great-power pretensions.

To embark on an ICBM programme, India needs to shed its strategic diffidence. The National Democratic Alliance government told Parliament: “India has the capability to design and develop ICBMs. However, in consonance with the threat perception, no ICBM development project has been undertaken.” That policy inexplicably remains unchanged under the United Progressive Alliance government, even as India faces a growing threat from the new ICBMs in China’s increasingly sophisticated missile armoury.

An ICBM has a range of 5,500km and more. Rather than aim for a technological leap through a crash ICBM programme, India remains stuck in the intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) arena, where its frog-like paces have taken it—more than two decades after the first Agni test—to Agni III, a sub-strategic missile still not deployed. Even the Agni V project, now on the drawing board, falls short of the ICBM range.

No nation can be a major power without three key attributes: (1) a high level of autonomous and innovative technological capability; (2) a capacity to meet basic defence needs indigenously; and (3) a capability to project power far beyond its borders, especially through intercontinental-range weaponry.

India is today the world’s largest importer of conventional weapons, ordering weapons worth at least $5 billion per year. Far from making the nation stronger, such large arms imports underscore the manner in which the country is depleting its meagre defence resources and eroding its conventional military edge. The Indian military today can achieve many missions, including repulsing an aggression and inflicting substantial losses on invaders. It can even carry out limited pre-emptive or punitive action and fend off counteraction. But it cannot do what any major military should be trained and equipped for—decisively win a war against an aggressor state.

The reason is not hard to find: Modernization outlays mainly go not to develop the country’s own armament production base, but to subsidize the military-industrial complex of others through import of weapons, some of questionable value. None of the weapon mega deals India has signed in recent years will arm its military with the leading edge it needs in an increasingly volatile and uncertain regional security environment.

Its military asymmetry with China has grown to the extent that it has fostered disturbing fecklessness in India’s China policy, best illustrated by external affairs minister S.M. Krishna’s recent Beijing visit. And in the absence of a reliable nuclear deterrent, India has become ever more dependent on conventional weapon imports. Among large states in the world, India is the only one that relies on imports to meet even basic defence needs.

Last year’s launch of the country’s first nuclear-powered submarine, INS Arihant, for underwater trials received a lot of media attention. A nuclear-powered, ballistic missile-carrying submarine (known as SSBN) is essential for India to bridge the yawning gap in its deterrent force against China. But even if everything goes well, India’s first SSBN will be deployed in the years ahead with a non-strategic weapon—a 700km submarine-launched ballistic missile now under development. That would further underpin the regional character of India’s deterrence.

Without hard power, India will continue to punch far below its weight and be mocked at by critics. One well-known India baiter, journalist Barbara Crossette, claims: “…today’s India is an international adolescent, a country of outsize ambition but anemic influence.” That India still does not have an ICBM project—even on the drawing board—is a troubling commentary about the lack of strategic prudence. China built its first ICBM even before Deng Xiaoping initiated economic modernization in 1978. A generation later, the Indian leadership has yet to grasp international power realities.

Brahma Chellaney is professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi. Comment at theirview@livemint.com

I want to get views from our members. Please avoid posting BS like "poors in india, toilets," etc
 
I think india should move ahead with its plans to develop ICBMs.

They will provide flexibility to be deployed anywhere in india. Right now india requires to place its missiles right at the eastern borders to cover entire china which makes it vulnerable to any chinese attack.

But with ICBMs india can deploy its missiles in the southern parts of india and even then cover entire china.

India doesn't want to develop ICBMs to cover the entire world but to get flexibility to deploy missiles at much secure location.
 
I totally disagree with the author. It is ridiculous to think that ICBMs will make India a global power. India can become a global power if it becomes a knowledge economy and becomes an essential and indispensable part of the global economy. The security of a country should be done based on known sources of threat and it should not be based on jingoistic and poorly thought out strategic agenda.
 
One missile to rule them all

Developing intercontinental ballistic missiles is crucial if India is to have a credible deterrence and power-projection force as it aspires to become a global power
Brahma Chellaney


With China engaged in ambitious missile force modernization and the US building new intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) as part of its “Prompt Global Strike” programme, the question we need to ask is: When will India develop its first ICBM? Without such capability, India has little hope of emerging as a major power.

802BDDC2-C5E4-4239-9AC1-1191D2865492ArtVPF.gif

ICBMs are the idiom of power in international relations. Even as economic might plays a greater role in shaping international power equations, hard power remains central both for national deterrence and for power-projection force capability. For example, all countries armed with intercontinental-range weaponry hold permanent seats in the United Nations Security Council, and all aspirants for new permanent seats have regionally confined military capabilities.

India has glaring deficiencies on both the deterrence and power-projection fronts. It urgently needs a delivery capability that can underpin its doctrine of minimum but credible nuclear deterrence. The current heavy reliance on long-range bomber aircraft is antithetical to a credible deterrence posture.

Such a posture bereft of long-range missile reach only helps typecast India as a subcontinental power. In fact, in the absence of “strategic” or long-range missile systems, India’s deterrent capability remains sub-strategic.

If India seriously desires to project power far beyond its shores in order to play an international role commensurate with its size, it cannot do without ICBMs. Indeed, the only way India can break out from the confines of its neighbourhood is to develop intercontinental-range weaponry. With its current type of military capabilities, India will continue to be seen as a regional power with great-power pretensions.

To embark on an ICBM programme, India needs to shed its strategic diffidence. The National Democratic Alliance government told Parliament: “India has the capability to design and develop ICBMs. However, in consonance with the threat perception, no ICBM development project has been undertaken.” That policy inexplicably remains unchanged under the United Progressive Alliance government, even as India faces a growing threat from the new ICBMs in China’s increasingly sophisticated missile armoury.

An ICBM has a range of 5,500km and more. Rather than aim for a technological leap through a crash ICBM programme, India remains stuck in the intermediate-range ballistic missile (IRBM) arena, where its frog-like paces have taken it—more than two decades after the first Agni test—to Agni III, a sub-strategic missile still not deployed. Even the Agni V project, now on the drawing board, falls short of the ICBM range.

No nation can be a major power without three key attributes: (1) a high level of autonomous and innovative technological capability; (2) a capacity to meet basic defence needs indigenously; and (3) a capability to project power far beyond its borders, especially through intercontinental-range weaponry.

India is today the world’s largest importer of conventional weapons, ordering weapons worth at least $5 billion per year. Far from making the nation stronger, such large arms imports underscore the manner in which the country is depleting its meagre defence resources and eroding its conventional military edge. The Indian military today can achieve many missions, including repulsing an aggression and inflicting substantial losses on invaders. It can even carry out limited pre-emptive or punitive action and fend off counteraction. But it cannot do what any major military should be trained and equipped for—decisively win a war against an aggressor state.

The reason is not hard to find: Modernization outlays mainly go not to develop the country’s own armament production base, but to subsidize the military-industrial complex of others through import of weapons, some of questionable value. None of the weapon mega deals India has signed in recent years will arm its military with the leading edge it needs in an increasingly volatile and uncertain regional security environment.

Its military asymmetry with China has grown to the extent that it has fostered disturbing fecklessness in India’s China policy, best illustrated by external affairs minister S.M. Krishna’s recent Beijing visit. And in the absence of a reliable nuclear deterrent, India has become ever more dependent on conventional weapon imports. Among large states in the world, India is the only one that relies on imports to meet even basic defence needs.

Last year’s launch of the country’s first nuclear-powered submarine, INS Arihant, for underwater trials received a lot of media attention. A nuclear-powered, ballistic missile-carrying submarine (known as SSBN) is essential for India to bridge the yawning gap in its deterrent force against China. But even if everything goes well, India’s first SSBN will be deployed in the years ahead with a non-strategic weapon—a 700km submarine-launched ballistic missile now under development. That would further underpin the regional character of India’s deterrence.

Without hard power, India will continue to punch far below its weight and be mocked at by critics. One well-known India baiter, journalist Barbara Crossette, claims: “…today’s India is an international adolescent, a country of outsize ambition but anemic influence.” That India still does not have an ICBM project—even on the drawing board—is a troubling commentary about the lack of strategic prudence. China built its first ICBM even before Deng Xiaoping initiated economic modernization in 1978. A generation later, the Indian leadership has yet to grasp international power realities.

Brahma Chellaney is professor of strategic studies at the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi. Comment at theirview@livemint.com

I want to get views from our members. Please avoid posting BS like "poors in india, toilets," etc

What's the big deal ? India should be proud of herself as long as she can protect her homeland. No point killing yourself to get the title "World Power".
 
I'm with ramu on this one. Brahma Chellaney used to make some sense once upon a time but now he seems stuck like an old record. If missiles made a country a global power, North Korea would have been a superpower by now.
 
I'm with ramu on this one. Brahma Chellaney used to make some sense once upon a time but now he seems stuck like an old record. If missiles made a country a global power, North Korea would have been a superpower by now.

Its not like we have become a pacifist coutntry who does not arm itself.On the contrary we have one the largest standing army in the world.

Secondly we are spending loads of $$$ on projects like MRCA,buying Shokoies,Mig 29,Tanks,Navy Boats,Submaries ...etc etc.

On the missile front too, we are investing from projects like Brohmos to small air to air missile system likes Astra apart from Ballistic missiles.

So why not ICBM??
I mean its ridiculous that we build nuke subs to put a low range Prithivi on top of it.:cheesy:

Bottom line is we are too afraid how big powers will react to our ICBM.But lets face it ICBMs are best deterrent against any power and much better bang for bucks.
 
ICBM Exist coz of the need...
US Aimed USSR
USSR Aimed USA ... Both need 7000km+ Range to Reach eachother's strategic assets.

For India, China and Pakistan both are within the reach of Agni V which can go upto 6500KM+ with Lighter Payload.

Whats the point of getting a Missile to hit the Moon when u dont need it ?

Besides, If REACH is a Matter, by reaching the Moon using our Own Rocket we have CLEARLY demonstrated our Capabilities.
 
Last edited:
Its not like we have become a pacifist coutntry who does not arm itself.On the contrary we have one the largest standing army in the world.

Secondly we are spending loads of $$$ on projects like MRCA,buying Shokoies,Mig 29,Tanks,Navy Boats,Submaries ...etc etc.

On the missile front too, we are investing from projects like Brohmos to small air to air missile system likes Astra apart from Ballistic missiles.

So why not ICBM??
I mean its ridiculous that we build nuke subs to put a low range Prithivi on top of it.:cheesy:

Bottom line is we are too afraid how big powers will react to our ICBM.But lets face it ICBMs are best deterrent against any power and much better bang for bucks.
One other thing related to Pakistan might be is that India is not faced with threats from far and distant places. The same argument of not stoking the foreign powers is multiplied heavily for Pakistan.

A lot of western journalists casually talk about taking out Pakistan's nukes, dismembering Pakistan. If Pakistan gets an ICBM they'll be all the more freaked out. If India doesn't launch an ICBM test, Pakistan probably never will since we always justify that these things are meant only for India and that sort of calms the rest of the world down.

India needs to cover China which it already has, going any further would just help out Pakistan and India sees no enemy across continents.
 
If you have ICBM, you earn respect among G's contries. We had Panchsheel program which failed in 1962. History says "war is worshiped". Heros are are those who fought great battles. ICBM is todays need. It will encourage scientists and engineers to work harder in space industry.
 
But lets face it ICBMs are best deterrent against any power and much better bang for bucks.

I agree with you.

Remember, right after our freedom from British rule, we chose to be a self-respecting nation. We were a rag-tag nation. We were dependent even for food grains on other nations, but did not approach any nation for protection and chose to be "friends" and not allies. We have examples of many nations, stronger than us, getting some kind of "umbrella" agreements with big powers. India stood its ground. It has been india's declared policy that as far as security and defence is concerned, we must build our own capacity, either indigenously or through procurement from friendly nations.

I really appreciate Pokhran-1 and Pokhran-2 and salute the bravest leaders during whose tenure these tests were conducted, Shrimati Indira Gandhi and Shri Atal Bihari Vajpayee.

During both of these tests, we faced same criticism about the "need" of india's nuclear weapons program. We faced severe aftermaths and sailed through them thanks to our strong leadership at those times.

Does the present leadership has the guts to do that? No. So, we are nuclear powered and we have nuclear pacts with United States of America. Please remember, rising sun is always worshipped.

So, now is the time to go for ICBM. We should not only keep all the building blocks of ICBM ready, but also, in fact, lay all the framework and command structure out only stopping short of deployment.

International diplomacy is ruthless. Today's world is multipolar and you do not always get a prior notice of an impending danger. We should make the most of india's position today and go for a "quiet" ICBM program and anti-satellite weapons program. We need not bring them to the open strategic landscape, but rather proceed mutely and I am sure we are doing exactly the same.
 
If you have ICBM, you earn respect among G's contries. We had Panchsheel program which failed in 1962. History says "war is worshiped". Heros are are those who fought great battles. ICBM is todays need. It will encourage scientists and engineers to work harder in space industry.
I personally don't think we should get into the grand standing business. I think we should have technologies for everything but not put ourselves under pressure to field anything unless it makes strategic sense.

The reason why I want to have an ICBM is because it will give us the maximum out of our nuclear subs allowing them to operate at extreme ranges and still guarantee safefty (provided we develop SLICBM versions too).
Remember that ATV 4 & 5 will have TWO nuclear reactors, indicating a 10 K or more displacemenet- those are really big ships comparable . So why limit their capabilities? It'll be ridiculous to equip them with limited missile capability.
 
ICBM's cannot be made in a day or two.. If we start now it will take minimum of 5-6 years so by the time India will grow much bigger and may face threats even from the west. if such a scenario occurs what is our deterrence against them??? nobody can predict the future. it is always better build our own defence... on the defence front we should research and develop the most modern thing as long as we exist. most importantly it will give a lot of know how...
 
One other thing related to Pakistan might be is that India is not faced with threats from far and distant places. The same argument of not stoking the foreign powers is multiplied heavily for Pakistan.

A lot of western journalists casually talk about taking out Pakistan's nukes, dismembering Pakistan. If Pakistan gets an ICBM they'll be all the more freaked out. If India doesn't launch an ICBM test, Pakistan probably never will since we always justify that these things are meant only for India and that sort of calms the rest of the world down.

India needs to cover China which it already has, going any further would just help out Pakistan and India sees no enemy across continents.

Good analysis!:tup:

But just consider a hypothetical scenario of nuclear war between India and Pakistan(or any adversary who has nukes).
Lets say in the 1st strike Pakistan renders India's land based nuclear retaliation capabilities nonoperational.
So the other way India can retaliate is by sea.And supposing Pak navy on hunting mode for any Indian nuclear subs in the Arabian seas or maybe even in the Bay of Bengal.But Pakistan will be the last to expect an ICBM launched from a nuke sub off the coast of Antarctica.

I know the above situation seems highly unlikely,but still there is a chance however.

So in short,ICBMs give us a higher probability and success chances in second strike nuclear retaliation because they will not perish in the 1st strike due their remote location.
 
If you have ICBM, you earn respect among G's contries. We had Panchsheel program which failed in 1962. History says "war is worshiped". Heros are are those who fought great battles. ICBM is todays need. It will encourage scientists and engineers to work harder in space industry.

According to your logic then N. Korea, Iran, Cuba , Libya, Zimbabwe etc should all get ICBMs in order for G's countries to respect them ????
 
According to your logic then N. Korea, Iran, Cuba , Libya, Zimbabwe etc should all get ICBMs in order for G's countries to respect them ????

U have to be a good boy with those tech in your pocket to use it at appropriate time. Sensible use of everything is benificial and brings respect. If you know how ICBM works, you would know that you have to design a capcule with capability of re-entry in the atmosphere. Read between the lines. buying toys do earn respect. I can buy it:chilli:. I am talking about developing :confused:
 

Back
Top Bottom