« Anti-Gay Human Rights Prof Backs Out of Teaching NYU Course In The Fall
EDITORIAL: Travel To Moon and Stars is What Humanity Needs – NRC Handelsblad, The Netherlands »
India’s Nuclear Submarine Launch Gives Little Cause For Comfort
Jul 26th, 2009 | 41 responses
India launched a 6000-ton nuclear powered submarine a few hours ago joining a select group of countries– United States, Russia, France, Britain and China – with the knowhow to do so.
The 367-foot sub made with Russian help will become operational after trials lasting three to five years and will carry missiles with a range of about 450 miles. It will be able to fire nuclear warheads.
This is both good and bad news. India lives in a tough neighborhood and almost all of its territories are coastlines of the Indian Ocean and Arabian Sea. Faced with China’s rising power and long-standing Pakistani belligerence, having effective capabilities to patrol oceans and defend coastlines is essential.
Its 16 very old conventional submarines are almost useless for its modern defense needs. They have diesel power and must surface regularly to charge their batteries and refuel. Nuclear propulsion that allows the submarine to operate over many months is an asset.
The bad news is that the world will now have one more military power, like the current five, capable of launching a nuclear warhead from sea, land and air. Pakistan is likely to strive hard to match this capability adding a seventh undersea nuclear warrior, but a very unstable and neurotic one.
Potentially, this blows a bigger hole than Iran or North Korea in the nuclear non-proliferation regime that President Barack Obama is trying to impose. He is focusing on stifling the ability to make warheads but the skill of delivering them without detection is more dangerous for the world.
Iran and North Korea are novices. Iran is still mastering the nuclear fuel cycle and North Korea has weapons so crude that they are dirty nuclear devices rather than reliable warheads. Dirty devices cause radiation deaths through exposure but are not usable with missiles.
Among developing countries outside the big five, India is the most advanced in its warhead technologies and delivery capabilities using fairly accurate missiles. Now it is starting on the road to submarine launches using both conventional and nuclear missiles similar to cruise missiles.
Battery powered submarines fuelled by diesel motors are more effective as war machines because they are smaller and almost utterly silent. Nuclear subs are much larger and make detectable noise but can carry heavier missiles over long distances.
Discouraging India from perfecting nuclear propulsion would be unjust since its vast coastlines cannot be successfully defended without submarines capable of staying underwater for long periods of time. Its competitor is China, which is not known for predictability and is growing its military capabilities exponentially.
But in my book acquisition of the ability to launch a nuclear attack from a submarine is not a happy event for the world. Hopefully, India will never lose its moral compass sufficiently to use its technological prowess for catastrophic purposes.
Hopefully, it will also rethink its doctrines of military deterrence to figure out whether nuclear weapons actually deter the enemy knowing that they are unusable on a battlefield.
In any case, the current wars of insurgency and terrorism require completely different approaches, weapons and training. These are the wars that the US and India appear to be losing while they arm for nuclear Armageddon.
41 Responses to “India’s Nuclear Submarine Launch Gives Little Cause For Comfort”
Author conflates nuclear power with nuclear armament. of course a nuclear powered submarine can be equipped with conventional/guided torpedoes or cruise missiles. A conventionally powered submarine could be equipped with nuclear warheads on its weapons. If India already has nuclear warheads on land based missiles or bombs, adding survivable nuclear submarines as a basing mode makes a first strike less likely to be successful and is likely to prevent war.
“But in my book acquisition of the ability to launch a nuclear attack from a submarine is not a happy event for the world. Hopefully, India will never lose its moral compass sufficiently to use its technological prowess for catastrophic purposes.”
Did Hiroshima and nagasaki teach the world nothing about the value of such hubristic self-deception
The comments seem to based on the assumption that India is just another country.
India is an exception, like that other exception, China. Both are on the way to recovering their traditional position of supplying about 50% of world GNP and being bywords for wealth a high civilization.
They are both giants, and should be given the privilege of matching or exceeding the technologies anybody else has. They are simply too big not to be largely self-sufficient.
india is doing nothing but lighting a fire to the neuclar race in South Asia. I think Pakistan should also develop like these, more and better than the indian submarines or other weapons. Down with india….
India's GNP is not the point. It's India's moral authority the author
singles out for concern. But that's insufficient when one considers
government corruption and civilian-military relations, as well as the
diplomatic situation with both Iran and Pakistan.
I hope your attitude is not indicative of every public figure on the
Subcontinent.
Obviously, this is best pakistan can do, repeat what india does, try to match india, try to ape india, follow india anywhere & everywhere. Good! Keep it up & God Bless.
It might be prudent to maintain a balance of power between India and
Pakistan. But, both you and hehoba miss the larger moral point: no nuclear
power, including the US -with its sale of civilian nuclear technology to
India – can resist spreading nukes. America's gift to Delhi is as execrable
as A.Q. Khan's gifts to Pyongyang. It might be prudent to sacrifice a better
life on the Subcontinent with hair-trigger nuclear terror. I just doubt
humans can keep putting themselves in this predicament without catastrophe
before long.
Well our financial alliances are now with China. I am seeing that China is greatly more important to us than India.
China has absolutely nothing militarily to worry about from India and they know it. One submarine taking 5 years for sea trials is quit indicative of India’s vastly inferior military capability. If India ever launched a nuclear weapon against China, it would be the end of India forever. So I really don’t understand the reasoning for India seeking nuclear sea power regarding China as an potential opponent. .
However this submarine may serve as a practical deterrent against Pakistan provided China decides not to enter into a military alliance with Pakistan against India. In such case India’s nuclear deterrent becomes moot. As well, Pakistan may find a nuclear benefactor (s) as India has done with the United States and Russia. In such case, India’s nuclear deterrent again becomes moot.
In my opinion, this submarine is a waste of time and money.
“If India ever launched a nuclear weapon against China, it would be the end of India forever.”
India's nuclear doctrine has been simple, no first use.
–War does not decide who is Right, but who is left
This only meant as a deterrent just in case – mainly to help China think long and hard before making any attempts on parts of India. US is never ever going to help India – India will be alone on this.
It's weird to discuss about who is going to win in war, India/china. We all know that most of the countries except some muslim countries are not stupid enough to waste them with wars.
These technologies are not wastage of time and money, these technologies give us the thrust to develop more better technologies. India is one other 6 countries who have capability to launch it's own Satellites.
US is never going to help India and someone is greatly mistaken here, US is going to provide India nuclear fuel not nuclear technology, we ourself have developed that.
Last but not the least, US is the only stupid country till now who has used nuclear bomb.
You're right – India has not developed nukes, as no nation has since the USSR and US did it. It has cribbed the answers in a process – as many such manufacturing processes have been simplified – that gets dumbed down every further for poorer, less responsible states like India and Pakistan that are immoral enough to believe nukes are a trophy.
The last time I checked Indians are human, as are the other dumb creatures in the world. Indians have yet to evolve into another wiser species.
I guess if that's the case then you need to read history again my friend. If you think US and USSR are father of all the science then you are mistaken. It was India who discovered number '0' and Pie…..It was Indian you first predicted that earth revolves around sun but west always steal the ideas and impose as their.
You are seriously mistaken to count India as immoral, this way you are cursing whole of the humanity because world knows that India had been attacked by many countries since thousand of years and India HAS NEVER attacked any other country for greed of land or OIL….like US attacked Iraq for oil and made it's own people to die there. People fighting for greedy motive, people using atom bombs to kill thousands of people are quite moral in this world of immoral countries like yours and you.
I pity people like you who are so much into dark though living in first world countires (as you call yourself).
May God bring some light of knowledge to you and your next generations.
Zero and pi are not relevant to this point. The details of any country's
history are also irrelevant to a discussion of the ethical use of weaponry,
whether it's a mortar or a thermonuclear device.
I don't think it's irrelevant. I told this because Mr joseph thinks that US and USSR are the only countries who can invent something…..History is relevant also because History was present someday. It shows the way any country will react and have reacted before to any attacks.
India is a country which will never use nuclear weapons first ever. We developed it because we are surrounded by hostile nations. China, Pakistan…..I don't know which country you belong to but I don't think even you would like to live in your country which is has history of being betrayed by its neighbors and those neighbors are nuclear now.
India had right to defend itself and no one in this damn world should have problems with that.
And, how will India defend itself? Self-defense and nukes are incompatible,
because the use of nuclear devices is adversely affects all states,
aggressor and non-combatant alike.
Ohhhhhh I think you must be great follower of Mr Gandhi…..So according to you, if someone attacks your country with nukes, you will just sit and ask UN to help you.
But I am sorry, this is not the way we think, we now believe in Punch for a slap. But not first though.
Alright, think of it this way, If US had no nukes and both Mexico and Canada had nukes…….How about that?
We have army for self-defence but if some other country attack us with nukes then we should have something to treat then with the same.
At the very least, YOU ashutosh1612 don't deserve nukes. What I say applies
to any state, regardless of my state of origin or residence. Don't
equivocate!
Radical I am not some one who wants wars in this damn world. I just don't like that imbalance in this world. No country is supreme here or has right to dictate others. And no one can judge about who can have nukes and who can't.
I will tell you a very old saying by a great priest in India.
baura jaao doKNa maOM calaa, baura na imalayaa kaoe
jaao mana Kaojaa AapNaa, tao mauJasao baura na kaoe
Translation
I searched for the crooked, met not a single one
When searched myself, “I” found the crooked one
So I think the people who argue about nuke problems like US must first look at themself and then talk about it.
I'm not the “US”. I'm a person who agrees with the statement “I just don't
like that imbalance in this world. No country is supreme here or has right
to dictate others.”
I am sorry if I termed you as US but by US I mean the govt. and I hate this international politics.
Any my point is simple that we all are free to do anything unless we are wise enough to use it in proper way.
And as far as history is concerned, I think India is quite a peaceful country which will never use nukes until they are attacked by nukes (which I seriuosly doubt because in this ear of development no country can afford to destroy itself, except few who have nothing to loose because they have nothing, like pakistan)
I hope peace persists in this volatile world!
And, I have scant hope any state run by humans can exercise that restraint.
I remember China militarily slapping India very decisively over a border dispute a couple of decades ago. That territory is now undisputed China. India was stunned and humiliated as I remember the outcome. China withdrew the “additional territory” they took when they felt good and ready to do so. I don’t think India should make the same mistake twice just because they have a few nukes.
china militarily slapped india only because it betrayed it. 1962 was a time when the chinese suffered due to the “great leap” and lost like 40 million people due to famines. how can china in that condition fight any meaningful war? just prior to the war, china assured visiting indian ministers that all problems can be solved through negotiation which indians naively trumpeted as “hindi chini bhai bhai” (indians/chinese brothers). only to be stabbed in the back by a surprise attack.
in the 1971 vivisection of pakistan, according to the kissinger papers the usa urged china to attack india. but china declined saying that they were no more capable of repeating 1962 – because the indians were prepared then.
Joseph J. Steinberg : Indians are dumb people ? hahahaha You seems some kid doing first grade is some community school!
To understand Indian need for Nuclear submarine , you need to be in India ! Nuclear submarine ,Nuclear reactor doesn't mean nuclear bomb ! You are such a dumb !
Before YOU in your infinite arrogance assign intelligence arbitrarily to
all your friends, I meant all humans are frail and erring. As for nuclear
submarines, the only purpose such budget busters serve is as permanent
platforms impervious to ballistic missiles and as bargaining chips in
negotiations. It furthers the same goals as any nuke.
I never understoood the moral hypocracy of some western people.They always lecture others about how nukes are bad ( about which everyone agrees), but they are either silent or impotent or both when their own govts invest billions of dollars and euros in designing more dangerous new generation nuclear warheads.Countries like India who are surrounded by failed states (all of India's neighbours except 1 are in top failed states list) or authoritarian states (like china) have at least valid reason to protect themselves.Why do Americans and Europeans need Nukes ? Its not like canada is going to invade america or Iceland is going to invade Britain .
“I never understood the moral hypocrisy of some western people.They always
lecture others about how nukes are bad ( about which everyone agrees), but
they are either silent or impotent or both when their own govts invest
billions of dollars and euros in designing more dangerous new generation
nuclear warheads.”
Firstly, blogging and commenting on blogs against nuclear proliferation was
- I no longer blog for unrelated reasons – was and is a major interest. I
cannot speak for anyone else, but I have written letters opposed to
legislation concerning the warheads and various defense authorization bills.
Furthermore, I don't understand why being a citizen of the only nation on
earth to use nuclear devices in war wouldn't qualify me MORE to advise
citizens in nations like India not to use nuclear weapons.
“Countries like India who are surrounded by failed states (all of India's
neighbours except 1 are in top failed states list) or authoritarian states
(like china) have at least valid reason to protect themselves.”
This kind of reasoning is even less ethical than the erroneous opinion in
1945, that the use of a nuclear device could shorten the war and limit
military and civilian casualties in both Japan and in the US invasion force.
An alternative perspective is not to mobilize military resources, which
might strengthen parties inimical to India, but engage with parties whose
interests are at least neutral. Or, more shrewdly, use private and public
funds to help develop Pakistan in a less hostile direction. Americans, those
who know about Washington's blunders and machinations contributing to the
current AfPak situation and those who don't, are completely tired of India's
and Pakistan's internecine feuding. Furthermore, nuclear weapons are not
conventional weapons: they do not just kill combatants or even innocent
civilians. Nuclear weapons contaminate territory and their effects on the
planet are still not entirely known, especially if used more pervasively.
Also, nuclear devices are a strain on a national budget, using resources
better employed domestically and regionally.
“Why do Americans and Europeans need Nukes ? Its not like canada is going to
invade america or Iceland is going to invade Britain .”
This is just an ignorant comment by someone whose perspective barely exceeds
his/her own prejudices. and barely encompasses the region. Again, nuclear
weapons are not just guns, but rather a waste of industrial and scientific
resources which lazy nationalists embrace to avoid serving their nations
peacefully or honorably. What's the next doomsday device Indians or
Pakistanis might concoct so that young boys can sit on their asses cheering
the destruction of their rivals instead of having to learn how to live like
good men.
\Firstly, blogging and commenting on blogs against nuclear proliferation was
- I no longer blog for unrelated reasons – was and is a major interest. I
cannot speak for anyone else, but I have written letters opposed to
legislation concerning the warheads and various defense authorization bills.\
My comment was not directed to you personally, but to those professional non-proliferation ayatollahs at the state department who issue condemn statements at the drop of a hat whenever a outside country does something based on its national security considerations even while they (the state department) consent to their own defense department (pentagon) developing new generation warheads. It was that hypocrisy I was trying to highlight.
———————————————————————-
\ I don't understand why being a citizen of the only nation on
earth to use nuclear devices in war wouldn't qualify me MORE to advise
citizens in nations like India not to use nuclear weapons.\
The probability of India actually using a nuclear weapon is less compared to the probability of a country like America (or china ) using it for a second time. India (inspite of being less technologically advanced compared to America and having lesser nuclear weapons compared to America) has a declared No-first-use policy on nuclear weapons. The Americans (as well as other p-5) refused to declare that pledge. India is in a higher plane compared to the p-5 when it comes to not using nuclear weapons.
Coming to Americans qualifying to lecture others on nukes because they are the only ones to actuallly use it, Its like if I cant control my son who turns out to be a bully and he becomes the only one in the town to use a knife on my neighbor, then I dont think i have a right to lecture my neighbor's sons not to use their knifes for self defence.For good or for worse, the American citizens are in that situation. The American citizens may hate or love nukes, but their govt certainly loves it and as long as their govt loves nukes, and the American people are impotent to change their govt's pro-nuke policies (inspite of living in democracy and all that), their (American citizens) lecturing to others will always be seen as hypocritical (even if its done in good faith).
———————————————————————————–
\ Or, more shrewdly, use private and public
funds to help develop Pakistan in a less hostile direction. Americans, those
who know about Washington's blunders and machinations contributing to the
current Afar situation and those who don't, are completely tired of India's
and Pakistan's internecine feuding.\
Again, why dont the American govt practise what they preach ? Your suggestion is more applicable to the Americans than to the Indians. Why dont the Americans give pakistan civilian aid instead of military aid as it is doing now ? If there is one country which is primarily responsible for the mess in Pakistan ,it is America.Pakistan is many times inferior to India in all matters.But it is obssessed with comparing itself with India and acheiving parity with India to the point of acheiving its own self destruction by diverting its small economy towards military.India spends less than 2% of GDP on its defence (one of the lowest in the world) while pakistan spends 4%.It is that obssession that drove it to sustain islamic terrorists as a irregular force to be used against India.Pakistan by itslef cannot afford this defence expenditure.Most of the pakistani military needs are catered by the Americans and Chinese.As a former pakistani dictator declared, as long as america and china are there, pakistan does not have to worry about Indian military dominance.It is that hope that is driving pakistan towards supporting terrorism against India without worrying about Indian retaliation.The correct strategy for pakistan problem is to remove that hope of american help and make it realise that its best interests are suited by comprimising with India.The americans gave pakistan billions of dollars to fight terrorists.But the pakistanis used them not against terrorists which they consider as their allies, but to buy more weapons to be used against India. The solution for pakistan problem is not in India, but in America which encouraged pakistani militarism in the first place.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/US/Pak…
Pak used US aid to fight India: Report
——————————————————————————————————–
\ nuclear weapons are not
conventional weapons: they do not just kill combatants or even innocent
civilians. Nuclear weapons contaminate territory and their effects on the
planet are still not entirely known, especially if used more pervasively.
Also, nuclear devices are a strain on a national budget, using resources
better employed domestically and regionally.\
No issues with that.But,the same thing applies as much to India as it appplies to the p-5.Then why are they not abolishing nukes ? The problem with your strategy is while its good in theory, its not practicle.We cant tell small fish not to hunt while the bigger fishes have no restrictions in hunting.Again it all comes down to 'practise what you preach before lecturing others'.
———————————————————————————————————————
\This is just an ignorant comment by someone whose perspective barely exceeds
his/her own prejudices. and barely encompasses the region. Again, nuclear
weapons are not just guns, but rather a waste of industrial and scientific
resources which lazy nationalists embrace to avoid serving their nations
peacefully or honorably. What's the next doomsday device Indians or
Pakistanis might concoct so that young boys can sit on their asses cheering
the destruction of their rivals instead of having to learn how to live like
good men. \
Its not a ignorant comment.If the Americans and Europeans who DONT HAVE any immediate threats to their security refuse to abolish nukes, why should India WHICH DOES HAVE immediate security threats should abolish it ? Replace India with America in your own paragraph and you will observe that your message is as much applicable to India as it is applicable to america or even more.
Developing a nuclear bomb and its proliferation is really good for this world. When each and every country in this world is armed with nuclear bombs, itself will obsolete the threat being added to 'nuclear' euphoria.
And one more good news it gives american diplomats some rest from condemning proliferation.
By the way this will decimate the two horns from the US govt monster.
No nation on this earth will ever try to use 'nukes' on other nation who has 'nuke'
There's one small problem with Waltz's argument – and if someone could wave
a wand tomorrow and give all countries the exact number of nukes
instantansously, I'd wake up happier – is, that every addition to the
nuclear roster increases the chance for instability and nuclear war. Those
odds are just too tall even to bet on.
“every addition to the nuclear roster increases the chance for instability and nuclear war.”
Statistically true – but only if the number of samples tends to infinity. We should not even think of using words like “chance” or “probability”, because we do not have enough samples.
If having less nuclear weapons reduced the chances of war, then there should have been no Hiroshima-Nagasaki. Today, there are many more countries that have nukes, yet no one uses them.
Hence, that analogy of “less nukes, less nuke usage” is fundamentally flawed. The US has failed to invade North Korea because they have nukes, while they invaded Iraq because they did not have nukes. I bet, the US would have never nuked Japan if they too had nukes.
Conclusion supported by historical facts and figures (1945-2009):
Myth: “every addition to the nuclear roster increases the chance for instability and nuclear war.”
Fact: “every addition to the nuclear roster has so far increased stability and helped prevent nuclear (and non-nuclear) war.”
As far as I am concerned, I'd rather die in nuke explosion than have some Jehadi slit my throat. Death is death, no matter how it happens. Moreover, mass murders have been committed in the past without the use of nukes, and much more painfully. Hence, we should stop vilifying nukes already.
I am a moderate too but still ballistic nuclear submarines have to be inducted. Our dear moderates need to understand that regardless of India's economy growing or not, we got to have a military. It is not a two sum game. India cannot just worry about China and Pakistan and forget rest of the threat.
It is the reason why India is not content with just two different land based missiles like Prithvi (I, II, III) and Agni (I, II). Sure, all these missiles can cover whole of China and Pakistan. Some moderates ask, then why do we need other missiles like Agni III, Agni III SLBM, Agni V, Agni V SLBM, Shourya, and K 15 SLBM.
Well, India does not want to be pushed around for wrong reasons like how the US navy's nuclear submarine USS Endeavour was sent to Bay of Bengal to threaten and stop India from attacking East and west Pakistan during 1971 war.
For all u moderates, this is just the beginning. India plans to induct 13 nuclear submarines by 2030.
4 SSBN (Ballistic missile submarines)
9 SSGN (Nuclear attack submarines).
For your information, India already has a full fledged land based Inter continental ballistic missiles – Agni III
which can reach as far as New York in the east to California in the west
It is under production since 2008.
Agni III range vs payload (3 stages) (Range depends on the payload).
4000 km @ 3000 kg
8000 km @ 1,500 kg
16,000 km @ 750 kg
(Source: Agni III ICBM by Arun vishvakarma)
2 stage missile is usually reported in the mainstream media to disguise the true range vs payload.So called Non-proliferation experts are watching
I am just a curious observer of all this, but can Radical Contra (Or anyone else) explain again, why its okay for US, Russia, England , France and China to have nuclear weapons, but not India?
I've never argued that countries should have nuclear weapons. And, before
any of the current nuclear weapon-possessing states consider relinquishing
their stockpiles, those states trying to possess them need to stop that
process. It's clear from many comments here that stability or the benefits
of nuclear energy have nothing to do with these commenters' calls for a more
robust, diversified Indian nuclear policy. It's all about nationalism, red
in tooth and claw, and revenge on India's perceived enemies. Judged by its
citizens' opinions, India is the last country that should have nukes.
“It's clear from many comments here that stability or the benefits
of nuclear energy have nothing to do with these commenters' calls for a more
robust, diversified Indian nuclear policy. It's all about nationalism, red
in tooth and claw, and revenge on India's perceived enemies”
—————————————————————————————————————
Everything is about “nationalism” – India would not have to be in the situation to develop nuclear weapons, had not the Britain ever come to India in the first place. India never asked for Britain to bring its clownish Euro culture to India's doorstep – But Britain did… for 200 years. India did not ask that Britain wage war on Germany or Japan and make Indians fight in that war to save Europe… But Britain did. India never asked that Britain/US support pouring billions of tax dollars into China (and Walmart) so China can buy nukes from Russia – But Britain/US did. India never asked that Britain/US pour billions of tax dollars into Pakistan so Pakistan can acquire the Chinese made Russian nukes – But Britain/US did. As mentioned, “Everything is about nationalism”. The fact that Europe plundered the wealth of India to become so called “first world”, is the essence of “nationalism”… And it would be rather moot for India to point to that fact now.
The fact that India will need to point is, without nuclear defense, India only looks at bringing back massive poverty and famine in India as was prevalent in 1800s when the Europeans invaded India, and will be again when the Euro backed China or someone else invades India.
If you were to argue that US and Britain (who have never had their shores invaded but made it amusement to invade others) should have nukes, I am curious to see what logic you can use to explain why India which was invaded by Britain (which has nukes) should not posses said defense as Britain.
Yes, An ally of america far last 60 years is still sending those bastards terrorist to kill innocent people in India !
I think America failed to stablise Pakistan as a good nation, instead it allowed Pakistan to act against India Till Indian Forces in 1971 killed pakistan's Moral to fight with it and then ISI started the terrorist method to bleed India from Multiple point Coz pakistan army can not fight with India.
hey people you might say U.S.A is best,but wait for another 20-25 years you will come to know who is the greatest of all.
U.S.A its the land of people who just wanna enjoy by hurting others,take the mmrca deal for the sake of money they are sending hillary clinton to indian visit so tht US can acquire this deal.we are clever enough to understand whts going on dude….
Those who are underestimating India or Indian are living in fools paradise , First India is the oldest civilisation on the earth – at that time even china was under influnce of India. India captured china without sending even one soldier across the border – Whole china Kneeled Before Buddha .
Regarding capability of Indian Just see around yourself – Pentium Chip – which runs your laptop or computer was invented by an Indian .
Almost all of the Mathematics and earliest science was discovered by Indian later shamefully copied by western mind ;
Check how many indians are running microsoft or NASA – or who is running the biggest Bank of world CITI BANK ……
India is lagging behind cause its got huge population to feed , hungry and poor – that was also done by british with 200 year rule .
India is now free country and will reclaim its position in the world – Dont worry in another 20 Year India will take over AMERICA as bigger economic power.
China would be a force to recon with – but China would face the fate similar to USSR – .
India is a peaceful country and will remain so – its has the highest moral authority in the world. Its was Called the JAGATGURU ( GURU , TEACHER OF THE WORLD) , its had the morality and science and education of highest order ,when west were living in caves .
India is most capable country in the world to take moral high position than any other country …….. cause India thrive on one principal – VASUDHAIV KUTUMBKAM ( Universal Brotherhood – no body is superior or inferior , love for all and progress for all)
But we have to defend our country from rouge nation like Paki , China and even trigger happy America .