India tests new nuke missle

[Totenkopf]

http://news.yahoo.com/india-tests-nuke-capable-missile-able-hit-china-034308390.html

 

 

While 3500 mile range doesn't exactly make you think ICBM, it does now allow India to strike major Chinese cities. Sort of surprised this wasn't already the case (missle range wise), but it does help bolster India's ambitions to be a regional power as well as give it some ability to stand up against a burgeoning PRC w/seemingly limitless regional ambitions of its own. Given NK's obsession w/nukes and China's desire to dominate the Pacific, I won't be surprised if other major countries in region start to turn toward nukes (SK, Japan, etc..), despite current ambivalences.

[purifier]

Hell, I thought South Korea already had a few in stock, specifically because of North Korea's past behavior. And that suprised me too, I thought India had already passed that point concerning the range of their missles.

[mur'phon]

India's nukes have always been pointed at Pakistan (and vice versa), not much need for range then. As for South Korea, it has little reason to suffer the reputation cost of obtaining nuclear weapons, especially with its alliance with the US (and, no, it doesn't need to match NK's nukes, the threat from the north is still a conventional artillery pointed at Seoul).

 

And I'm not sure if this'll spark a race, as I don't see many countries actually needing them. As an example, while Japan might lack nukes vs China, China can't credibly threaten to nuke Japan in any likely future disagreements/conflicts between the two.

[Sabretooth]

While 3500 mile range doesn't exactly make you think ICBM, it does now allow India to strike major Chinese cities.

Chinese experts suspect that the Indian government is actually downplaying the range and it may reach upto 8000 km

 

And that suprised me too, I thought India had already passed that point concerning the range of their missles.

According to reports, India had the capability in the 90s, but deliberately stalled development to avoid attracting sanctions from the West, especially with the added attention during the 1998 nuclear tests.

 

India's nukes have always been pointed at Pakistan (and vice versa)' date=' not much need for range then.[/quote']

 

Somewhat true but, China is also considered a serious threat due to regional hostility, unresolved border disputes and because they're Pakistan's other sugar daddy. Pretty much the only reason for having a missile with this kind of range is China, which is why China's newspapers are downplaying the missile and pointing out that China beats India pound-for-pound.

[Totenkopf]

India's nukes have always been pointed at Pakistan (and vice versa)' date=' not much need for range then. As for South Korea, it has little reason to suffer the reputation cost of obtaining nuclear weapons, especially with its alliance with the US (and, no, it doesn't need to match NK's nukes, the threat from the north is still a conventional artillery pointed at Seoul).[/quote']

 

Actually, I wasn't thinking NK here. They don't need nukes b/c it was never the case that the US (or anyone else, really) was going to invade them due to their proximity to and status as pretty much a client state of the PRC.

 

And I'm not sure if this'll spark a race, as I don't see many countries actually needing them. As an example, while Japan might lack nukes vs China, China can't credibly threaten to nuke Japan in any likely future disagreements/conflicts between the two.

 

Don't know if it'll be a race, so much, as a perceived deterrence factor if/when US influence wanes sufficiently in the region. Even using NK as an example again, there is little reason to believe that even the US will have reason to use nukes vs them accept as a retaliatory measure in the very unlikely event that the NKs nuked a US asset/territory. This obvious lack of need hasn't gotten in the way of their ambitions.

[mur'phon]

@:Sabre: Agreed, should have written "historically/traditionally"

 

@:Tot: Woops, that one was directed at purifier. Anyway, NK "need" nukes in case one of their provocation escalates enough to restart the war, a war they'll probably loose (unless China backs them, which is something they'd rather not rely on). So I wouldn't say NK is comparable to the rest of the region. Also, I'd not call them a client state, the PRC isn't too fond of the Kims and their antics, but as long as keeping them in power avoids A: NK collapse and refuge flood into China, B: American forces stationed at their border, and C: A strong Korea at their border. If they thought reunification could happen without A and B happening at the same time, they'd be unlikely to oppose it.

[Sabretooth]

Given NK's obsession w/nukes and China's desire to dominate the Pacific, I won't be surprised if other major countries in region start to turn toward nukes (SK, Japan, etc..), despite current ambivalences.

 

Now this I'd like to see.

[Totenkopf]

@:Tot: Woops, that one was directed at purifier. Anyway, NK "need" nukes in case one of their provocation escalates enough to restart the war, a war they'll probably loose (unless China backs them, which is something they'd rather not rely on). So I wouldn't say NK is comparable to the rest of the region. Also, I'd not call them a client state, the PRC isn't too fond of the Kims and their antics, but as long as keeping them in power avoids A: NK collapse and refuge flood into China, B: American forces stationed at their border, and C: A strong Korea at their border. If they thought reunification could happen without A and B happening at the same time, they'd be unlikely to oppose it.

 

Well, I say client state in the sense that much of what they do likely wouldn't go on w/o the tacit approval of the PRC. NK isn't going to ever really do more than cause the occasionl high profile incident (occasionally ending in deaths) vs actually start a war and they are an irritant to the "west" which serves the PRC's interests in terms of keeping things off balance. No one is going to invade NK b/c of its proximity to the PRC and thus they don't "need" nukes to protect them from anything (not even really themselves ).

[mur'phon]

The problem is that those high profile incidents can spiral out of control, and suddenly shells are raining over Seoul and the SK/US army is swarming across the border. If that happens, it's nice to be able to still threaten. I'm not saying it's likely, just that NK is not crazy to want nukes.

Also, I don't see China benefiting from NKs belligerence, it's more a price they are willing to pay for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.

[urluckyday]

Nice, more non-superpowers getting armed. What's the worst that could happen?!

[purifier]

As for South Korea' date=' it has little reason to suffer the reputation cost of obtaining nuclear weapons, especially with its alliance with the US (and, no, it doesn't need to match NK's nukes, the threat from the north is still a conventional artillery pointed at Seoul).[/quote']

 

Yeah I thought about this a little more after your post, but I can't see SK not having nukes for just the simple reason of losing their good reputation as it is for a lot of other major reasons. Like for instance: SK doesn't believe NK would nuke them because NK would stand to totally lose in what they're trying to gain out of all of it, for the biggest part, than what NK would possibly gain with a simple military invasion (although that didn't really work the first time). I think both sides realize this, plus, not to mention SK has got the U.S. backing them. So yeah, SK probably doesn't need any nukes, at the moment. But that dosen't mean things couldn't change and suddenly something could put SK in a unforeseen position to haft to acquire nukes for some other reason, you never know.

 

 

According to reports, India had the capability in the 90s, but deliberately stalled development to avoid attracting sanctions from the West, especially with the added attention during the 1998 nuclear tests.

 

Yeah your right Saber, I had actually forgotton all about that. Thanks for jogging my memory.

[Totenkopf]

The problem is that those high profile incidents can spiral out of control, and suddenly shells are raining over Seoul and the SK/US army is swarming across the border. If that happens, it's nice to be able to still threaten. I'm not saying it's likely, just that NK is not crazy to want nukes.

Also, I don't see China benefiting from NKs belligerence, it's more a price they are willing to pay for the reasons I mentioned in my previous post.

 

I'd say that short of NK actually launching a full scale attack on SK, that's unlikely. Afterall, despite NK attacking SK ships (sort of par for the course around there when one of the Kim's gets irresponsibly fiesty) or an island (Yeonpyeong Island), there ends up being nothing but heightened tensions. If you were to remove the bigger countries of the US and PRC from the equation (say, merely SK vs NK), perhaps the NK might have scant (given their own pehchant for trouble making) justification for needing nukes for self protection. As to why the PRC tolerates NK activity at the expense of others, I'd argue there's an element of schadenfreude involved. But the problem still remains that in NK's case it's one of wants vs needs. Afterall, by that kind of rationale.....Taiwan should be a key nuke player in the region.

[Sabretooth]

Nice, more non-superpowers getting armed. What's the worst that could happen?!

 

Upset the status quo that has a monopolistic superpower, oh my!

[mur'phon]

@:urluckyday: While I think proliferation is to be avoided India already had the nukes, so I don't see the big deal.

 

@:Purifier: When one of those you end up upsetting is your chief ally, it's kind of a big deal. Also nukes are costly (just ask NK), risks proliferation (just ask Pakistan), and could at worst lead to sanctions and making it illegal for other countries to help you with your civilian nuclear program (just ask Iran).

 

@:Tot: I'm not saying it is likely, or that such a war would be on purpose, but when two countries lob shells/missiles at each other, things can spiral out of control. Also, NK doesn't want to rely on China, because in the long term, China's interests could change.

As for China, I doubt there is much schadenfreude involved, as they allready have to deal with north Koreans fleeing across their border, in addition to the other joys of having a dirt poor neighbor.

 

As for Taiwan (why not ROC? since you use PRC ), the difference between it and NK is that NK didn't risk being invaded by going nuclear.

[Totenkopf]

I think that the real issue w/NK has nothing to do with needs (it doesn't even really risk being invaded over going nuclear as events have shown) and everything to do with wants (missle tech sales, foreign aid extortion, etc..). Whether, as you say, NK doesn't want to rely on the PRC or not is irrelevant b/c that's likely a key reason no one's going to invade them. China tolerates NK behavior b/c it keeps the region and the US slightly off-balance. I don't believe they're truly that worried about a mass exodus from NK flooding across the border (what? China can just shoot them like it does its own citizens ) or any of the other "joys of having a dirt poor neighbor". As to your point about the ROC vs NK, I'd say that's the irony. The ROC, with a better claim to worry about invasion, can't have them precisely b/c the PRC would likely see that as grounds for an actual attack. Meanwhile, NK arms up while the rest of the world watches and effectively does nothing.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

On Topic: Noticing how messed up things are internationally on south Asia, India is completely entitled to defend itself against the non-friendly (or neutral) nuclear players on the region. I don't even need to remind you of the Parkistani issue that's been dragging for decades (which was already brought up, anyway) and a huge and powerful China sitting beside it.

 

Off-topicish: No one is starting a nuclear war on Asia, or anywhere else in the world, any time soon. There probably never be a Fallout-esque scenario because the winter war scenario is there exactly to warn people in power about it. No one is "crazy" as the media make it seems. Nuclear Deterrence is exactly what it seems to be and if it's the only way that NK can remain a relevant player/threat on the region and thus acquire what it needs to keep going (food supplies for the starving).

 

Upset the status quo that has a monopolistic superpower, oh my!

Took the words from my mouth.

[mur'phon]

Never claimed NK risked invasion over getting nukes (kinda why I contrasted them with Taiwan ). When it comes to aid and missile tech, neither of those requires nuclear weapons, sure exporting nuclear tech itself does, but that's because it's so expensive to develop nukes in the first place.

 

Whether, as you say, NK doesn't want to rely on the PRC or not is irrelevant b/c that's likely a key reason no one's going to invade them.

 

It's relevant because it's a major incentive for developing nukes, Israel could do like South Africa and simply rely on the US, yet for some reason it doesn't.

 

I don't believe they're truly that worried about a mass exodus from NK flooding across the border (what? China can just shoot them like it does its own citizens ) or any of the other "joys of having a dirt poor neighbor".

 

You mean like how the US just need to intercept all the South American immigrants at the border? Oh wait. That aside, shooting them requires soldiers willing to massacre civilians, and I doubt China wants to test that. And the joys include lots of illegal immigration, and smuggling.

Again, while some Politburo members probably enjoys seeing the US frustrated, that's nothing compared to the big 3 reasons for keeping NK stable.