There's been a bit of talk on the blogosphere on ICBMs, fuelled by an rather ridiculous article* by a NPA(Non-Proliferation Ayotollah) on using a PSLV as a ICBM. To summarise the blog-talk:
1. Is India developing an ICBM?
2. (if yes) The PSLV can/cant just be tipped with nukes and used as first strike weapon.
3. consequences of developing an ICBM.
Here's my take on it.
Do we need an ICBM?
We dont need an ICBM. Not even for 'prestige' or boy toys - if you will.
An ICBM does not serve any of our security needs - in fact can add to more expense if developed in the next decade, secretly.
Our security needs can be more than adequately met by IRBM Agni3, albeit with a slightly increased range. Unlike other countries, all our adversaries are our neighbours - fortunately or unfortunately. Why would need an ICBM for that?
Are we developing an ICBM?
I would say no - and I'm not part of the defence establishment, so its an educated guess. Here's why:
Our current/near-term primary goal is to build a nuclear triad - and we miss a land based missile capable of hitting all of China(the Agni3 when produced should be able to do that), we miss an SLBM, and we miss an SLCM/Land based cruise (medium/long range) missile. And we dont have a SSBN or SSN yet - some of them are ongoing projects sucking enough money from the defence budget, why divert money into an ICBM?
An ICBM development would also serve to create a hostile relationship with both Russia and USA, after all who would we want to target an ICBM with? Timbuctoo? So an ICBM we develop would antagonise both our major weapon supplier and the world's sole superpower/our major trade partner. What do we gain? A PSLV with attitude?
Like Moscow's missile defence, it may even lead to our cities being targeted by either/both of those countries - depending on whether we use our own or their tech. I know our politicians are stupid, but not THAT stupid.
Strategic reasons maybe?
Unless India ties up into a NATO like stance against say, Russia, or against the USA - both about as possible as China letting use Dong Fengs - what would the strategic reason be, for fielding an ICBM - in the absence of a cold war?
An arguement could be made that an ICBM could be built for the same reasons the Agni 1 was - Speed & Ease of usage. But thats patently ridiculous. The Agni 1 is a specific second-strike weapon against Pakistan, even though its range might extend to parts of China.
The Agnis are all solid-fueled, and hence can be fired within minutes. So "replacing" them with a solid-fueled behemoth missile for speed doesnt make sense - more so when reliability might be compromised. The TOPOL-M has made a case for making existing missiles very fast, indeed. Making similar improvements to the Agni is more than adequate.
*One of the article's sources, is the DH report I posted about earlier.
Tag: India, ICBMs, Agni, Non-Proliferation Ayatollah.
Monday, March 27, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
A well-written post. I have been intending to do a post on SSN/SSBN but no time. Will try to do it soon.
Thanks, CN.
lookin forward to the post. Why was your blog inaccessible for a couple of days btw?
I am already dreaming of an orbiting missile (banned by the biggies) and you are saying no need for ICs!
An excellent post. When Sputnik was launched, it immediately pitted the US & Russia in a race to develop ICBM's. India should not have such ambitions. A couple of reasons, one, our grinding poverty and the need to use tax revenues to lift people above the povertly line, and build infrastructure. Second, we don't have the stomach to build a superpower (read imperial state). India's immediate security concerns are Pak & China. So if we can have them covered with the next gen cruise missiles (brahmos), with a range of 7 or 8K, there is no need for an ICBM. It will send a lot of confusing signals to the rest of the world. We need to earn the respect of the world, not their sanctions.
Post a Comment