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 .

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.

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.

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

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.

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'

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.

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.

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 !

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.

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!