Why NO cry nor Sanction against Indian Missiles?

[Mohd_Ah_LEE]

Why the Nobel Peace Prize winer Obama don't KPKB and Sanction against India for test firing 2 nuke capable missiles, when they are doing so much against Iran & North Koreans? Is this Double-Standard and Hypocrisy and applying selfish political considerations to their own convenience?

So is Indian missiles for the better peace for the world? Will they not start nuclear wars with Pakistan? Don't tell us that just only North Koreans and Iranian nuclear missiles are bad for world peace.

We are not 3 year olds.

Don't hoodwink us!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-10-12-india-missile_N.htm?csp=34

Official: India test-fires nuclear-capable missile

NEW DELHI (AP) — India successfully test-fired a nuclear-capable missile Monday with a range of 220 miles, a defense ministry statement said.

Monday's test was considered routine and unlikely to aggravate tensions with longtime rival Pakistan.

The surface-to-surface missile, "Prithvi-II" (Earth), was fired twice from a range in Chandipur in the eastern state of Orissa, the statement added.

It can carry a warhead weighing up to 1,100 pounds, it said.

The Indian army already has inducted a shorter version of the missile, "Prithvi-I," with a range of 95 miles. It can carry both conventional and nuclear warheads.

India's current crop of missiles is mostly intended for confronting neighboring Pakistan.

The two countries routinely test-fire missiles, but usually notify each other ahead of the launches in keeping with an agreement.

They have been holding peace talks since 2004 aimed at resolving their differences, including their dispute over the Himalayan region of Kashmir, although the dialogue has been hindered by last year's Mumbai terror attacks by Pakistan-based militants. The two countries have fought three wars since their independence from Britain in 1947, two of them over control of Kashmir.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[Mohd_Ah_LEE]

North Korea fired test missiles on the same day, and missiles are of similar range as Indians. But the same act of this 2 nations will not receive the same response from the world. This is unfair & biased.

Why want North Korea to disarm while not asking India to do the same?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091012...5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNyZXBvcnRub3J0aGs-

Report: North Korea fires 5 short-range missiles

By HYUNG-JIN KIM, Associated Press Writer Hyung-jin Kim, Associated Press Writer – 4 mins ago

SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea fired five short-range missiles off its east coast on Monday, news reports said, even as South Korea proposed working-level talks with its communist neighbor.

South Korea's Yonhap news agency, citing an unidentified South Korean government official, said the North test-fired two short-range missiles on Monday morning and three others on Monday afternoon from mobile launch pads.

Yonhap said the missiles were surface-to-surface KN-02 rockets with a range of up to 75 miles (120 kilometers).

The reported launches were the first since the regime conducted a barrage of seven ballistic missile tests in early July, and come despite signs North Korea is reaching out to rival South Korea and the United States after months of heightened tensions over its missile and nuclear programs.

The South's conservative government has reciprocated by taking more steps to engage more with the North, but shows no signs of easing its pressure on the North to disarm.

 

[Watchman]

Then we have to ask our own leaders like Lee and Lee family why ?

Then we have to ask our way up !

 

[jimmyfallon]

because India is a democracy and N korea is led by a nutjob

 

[scroobal]

I was trying to answer the 3 yr old kid who started the thread but you have summed it up well.

because India is a democracy and N korea is led by a nutjob

 

[Jah_rastafar_I]

I was trying to answer the 3 yr old kid who started the thread but you have summed it up well.

Going on ur daily rounds of bjing and getting banged by m&ds and shit skins? U are a good dog.

 

[fox_hound_33]

because India is a democracy and N korea is led by a nutjob

Not the exact reason. India is open towards the west, has close relations to the west, allows western companies to make money in India, does not oppose foreign policies of the west, does not pose any competition to natural resources coveted by the west and most importantly does not have Oil.

There are plenty of countries (whether armed with missiles or not) that are under nutjobs. Rwanda, Uganda, Columbia etc etc. But of course all these nutjobs have pretty much sold their nations resources and people to the west. So they are 'friends' of the west.

Just imagine a India (with democaracy) filled with Oil. Do you think the states si going to nap around and let India fire a missile?

Btw, the missile reported in the article is a very old missile developed in 90s. Its most likely being fired for practice. The latest missile has a range of 3500Km and can carry a two tonne warhead (nuclear of course).

 

[Ramseth]

Perhaps because nobody takes India seriously for 1. if the missile could actually work in times of war, and 2. India is obviously only interested in whacking Pakistan, which nobody gives a damn if they're nuked. In the case of N. Korea, the prime target is Japan, and beyond that, Alaska, Oregon and California.

 

[scroobal]

You got your Indian politics and its leanings all wrong. They consider themselves non-aligned but leaned towards the soviets rather than the west. much of their armament and tactics are soviet based. To balance it, the americans have been providing Pakistan with arms and funds for the military. India does not get anything from the west military wise except those purchased from european manufacturers in the open market. Its the only commonwealth country that went the opposite direction early after indepedence because, its size allows it to be regional power.

The reality is that Iran, Iraq and N.Korea are unstable ie nutjobs. There are many other countries that are either nuclear capable or believed to be nuclear ready such as South Africa but nothing much happens in terms of control.

Sometimes the simplest answer is the best. N Korea is indeed a nutjob and has been for decades.

ps. the oil thing is a different equation applied for another purpose.

Not the exact reason. India is open towards the west, has close relations to the west, allows western companies to make money in India, does not oppose foreign policies of the west, does not pose any competition to natural resources coveted by the west and most importantly does not have Oil.

 

[Ramseth]

Sometimes the simplest answer is the best. N Korea is indeed a nutjob and has been for decades.

They qualified for the FIFA World Cup according to internationally accepted rules. Even the losers at their feet can't complain. "Nutjob"?

 

[fox_hound_33]

You got your Indian politics and its leanings all wrong. They consider themselves non-aligned but leaned towards the soviets rather than the west. much of their armament and tactics are soviet based. To balance it, the americans have been providing Pakistan with arms and funds for the military. India does not get anything from the west military wise except those purchased from european manufacturers in the open market. Its the only commonwealth country that went the opposite direction early after indepedence because, its size allows it to be regional power.

The reality is that Iran, Iraq and N.Korea are unstable ie nutjobs. There are many other countries that are either nuclear capable or believed to be nuclear ready such as South Africa but nothing much happens in terms of control.

Sometimes the simplest answer is the best. N Korea is indeed a nutjob and has been for decades.

ps. the oil thing is a different equation applied for another purpose.

What you are saying was true during the cold war era. In the past decade for so India has warmed up well towards the west. Yes, most of its military hardware is Russian but thats slowly changing. Some recent 'provocative' strategic deals between india and Us:

1. A comprehensive civilian (supposedly) Nuclear program agreement. The details are not out but i know half of the world is against it but the US has been pushing for it hard.

2. India has a multi-billion dollar tender for some 150+ fighter jets. Interestingly for the first time US is taking part in this tender. Block 60 F-16s, super hornets and some say even the JSF is on offer.

3. P8 Orion(cant seem to recall the exact name) a futuristic platform, to be supplied to the Indian navy. Heck the P8 is the next generation maritime patrol aircraft is to be inducted into the US navy in the future.

4. Open sales of a variety of arms(missiles, UAVs, assault rifles, Radars, AWACS etc) from Israel. Of course everyone knows Israel needs to get permission from uncle Sam if it wants to sell its wares.

5. Bell helis for transport of military personnel and equipment.

6. C130 aircraft, once again for military transportation.

Many other deals are in the pipelines. Of course India still maintains a good relationship with Russian. The arms contract with Russia dwarfs the one with US. But things are changing.

Regarding your comment that Iran, N.K: Yes they are perhaps ruled by Nutjobs.

I will digress from the thread topic here cos i want to clarify a few things.

N.K frankly speaking does not posses any credible threat to the states. They have some rag tag missiles that do not even successfully fire during exercises. Their nuclear arsenal is tiny and puny compared to the states. NK is like a tiny ant trying to bite the arse of a lion. Seriously, the US is hyping up NK in its typical war mongering stance. For example there was this recent article posted all over the media that NK fired 5 missiles. Well, the five 'missiles' turned out to be 5 unguided rockets which cant carry a kitchen sink across even 150km. The US as usual kicked up a rhetoric as if the end of the world is upon us.

Iran is slightly complicated. I believe Iran is so antagonistic towards the states because the US has a long and well documented tradition of meddling in the internal affairs of Iran. Assassination of president Mossadeh, installation of the puppet Shah are examples of such affairs. Given the treatment the Iranians have been subjected too i think any leader who is not a puppet of the west would be against the states and would be willing to develop weapons as a means of deterrence.

Iraq was complicated but truth has been revealed. We all now know that Saddam was nothing more than an instrument of the states. An instrument that finally went rouge. And of course we know how the US laid its dirty hands on Iraq's oil under the pretense of WMDs.

 

[Mohd_Ah_LEE]

because India is a democracy and N korea is led by a nutjob

Democracy has no significance and does not really count.

This is a sad fact. A nuke is a nuke.

Pakistan is also considered as a democracy but their army HQ fell into hands of militants last week. So will their nuke 1 day, just a matter of time.

Force is the only thing that count, and it is counted in blood.

Democracy my ass!



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091013...uX2hlYWRsaW5lX2xpc3QEc2xrA3J1c3NpYW5mbXRocg--


Russian FM: Threats of Iran sanctions won't work

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer – 1 hr 40 mins ago

MOSCOW – Russia pushed back Tuesday at U.S. efforts to threaten tough new sanctions if Iran fails to prove its nuclear program is peaceful, a setback to the Obama administration's desire to present a united front with Moscow.

After meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow believed that such threats would not persuade Iran to comply and that negotiations should continue to be pursued.

"At the current stage, all forces should be thrown at supporting the negotiating process," he told reporters at a joint news conference with Clinton. "Threats, sanctions and threats of pressure in the current situation, we are convinced, would be counterproductive."

Clinton, on her first visit to Moscow as secretary of state, had been looking to gauge Russia's willingness to join the United States in applying additional pressure on Iran to come clean about its nuclear intentions.

Russia, along with China, has traditionally balked at sanctions but there had been indications that that opposition might be softening after Tehran last month disclosed a previously secret uranium enrichment site near the holy city of Qom.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said then that while sanctions are rarely productive "in some cases they are inevitable." Lavrov stressed on Tuesday that Medvedev meant only that sanctions would be considered when all political and diplomatic efforts are exhausted.

Clinton, who met later with Medvedev, said she had not asked for Moscow's specific support for actually imposing sanctions. But U.S. officials said they were disappointed that Lavrov had come out against even the threat of new penalties.

One senior official traveling with Clinton said the U.S. continued to believe it is critical to get tangible signs of support from Moscow for at least considering new sanctions because the more united they are, the more likely pressure on Iran is to work. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal administration thinking.

Clinton agreed with Lavrov that the U.S. believed it was important to pursue diplomacy in the carrot-and-stick approach the international community is taking with Iran. But, she also said it was critical to let Iran know what will happen should it continue to rebuff the demands.

"At the same time that we are very vigorously pursuing this (diplomatic) track, we are aware that we might not be as successful as we need to be," she said.

"So we have always looked at the potential of sanctions in the event we are not successful and cannot assure ourselves and others that Iran has decided not to pursue nuclear weapons," Clinton said.

She said the United States did not believe it was time to impose new sanctions, noting that Iran has made pledges to take small steps that if fulfilled would serve as confidence-builders. Those include opening up a recently disclosed uranium enrichment plant to U.N. inspectors and sending existing stocks of low enriched uranium to Russia for reprocessing.

Iran insists it has the right to a full domestic nuclear enrichment program and maintains it is only for peaceful purposes, such as energy production. The U.S. and others believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Iran is already under three sets of U.N. sanctions for failing to address those.

President Barack Obama — who visited Russia in July — has vowed to "reset" U.S.-Russia relations and Clinton brought a wide range of issues to Moscow for discussion.

Clinton apologized for missing Obama's visit because of a broken elbow, but joked that that "now both my elbow and our relationships are reset and we're moving forward, which I greatly welcome," she said.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is traveling to Beijing on a trade mission and was not in Moscow for the talks with Clinton.

Beyond Iran, Lavrov said U.S. and Russia negotiators have made "considerable" progress toward reaching agreement on a new strategic arms treaty. The 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires in December and negotiators have been racing to reach agreement on a successor.

The two diplomats also discussed possible cooperation on missile defense following Obama's decision not to proceed with Bush-administration plans to base such a system in eastern Europe. Russia has welcomed Obama's new approach, but has said it was eager for more detailed information.

Clinton said the U.S. would be as transparent as possible.

"We want to ensure that every question that the Russian military or Russian government asks is answered," she said, calling missile defense "another area for deep cooperation between our countries."

Also on the agenda were Afghanistan, nuclear-armed North Korea, NATO expansion, the situation in Georgia after its conflict with Russia last year, human rights and arms control.

___

Associated Press writer Lynn Berry contributed to this report.

 

[Mohd_Ah_LEE]

I was trying to answer the 3 yr old kid who started the thread but you have summed it up well.

Only a 2 year old like you will believe in Democracy.

Crooks like Obama will sell them to 2 year old kids like you.

 

[longbow]

Nut job or not nuclear genie is out of the box. Given the progress of technology since 1940, developing/making a nuclear device is getting easier by the year. Sophisticated machine tools, computers can all be bought on the free market. And technical knowhow is not a barrier.

So Iran is going to have a bomb within the next 10 years whether we like it or not. If you look at it from that angle then only way is to deal with it.

And if we look at it from their angle, they have great fear that US would do an Iraq on them. Took US a few months to control Iraq. Remember that military wise, Iran and Iraq fought to a stand still after years of battle and thousands dead. But yet US could defeat Iraq in a few months! Any leader in their position would aim for nuclear deterrent. It is for self survival. And one cannot blame them.

Would Iran lob a nuclear weapon at its neighbor if it knows that the consequences is that Tehran would be destroyed as a retaliaiton? That is the question. Would the military go for that knowing that pretty much they and their families would be killed.

Anyway Iran will get the bomb within the next 10 years whether on likes it or not.

 

[scroobal]

The issue was why N.Korea and not India. Iran, Iraq and N.Korea is quite obvious. Osirak, Iraq was taken out by the Isrealis many moons ago. Generally the world will not wait when nutjobs are playing with lethal toys. That would be primary and key reason.

Nothing to do with with the explanations you provided.

What you are saying was true during the cold war era. In the past decade for so India has warmed up well towards the west. Yes, most of its military hardware is Russian but thats slowly changing. Some recent 'provocative' strategic deals between india and Us:

1. A comprehensive civilian (supposedly) Nuclear program agreement. The details are not out but i know half of the world is against it but the US has been pushing for it hard.

2. India has a multi-billion dollar tender for some 150+ fighter jets. Interestingly for the first time US is taking part in this tender. Block 60 F-16s, super hornets and some say even the JSF is on offer.

3. P8 Orion(cant seem to recall the exact name) a futuristic platform, to be supplied to the Indian navy. Heck the P8 is the next generation maritime patrol aircraft is to be inducted into the US navy in the future.

4. Open sales of a variety of arms(missiles, UAVs, assault rifles, Radars, AWACS etc) from Israel. Of course everyone knows Israel needs to get permission from uncle Sam if it wants to sell its wares.

5. Bell helis for transport of military personnel and equipment.

6. C130 aircraft, once again for military transportation.

Many other deals are in the pipelines. Of course India still maintains a good relationship with Russian. The arms contract with Russia dwarfs the one with US. But things are changing.

Regarding your comment that Iran, N.K: Yes they are perhaps ruled by Nutjobs.

I will digress from the thread topic here cos i want to clarify a few things.

N.K frankly speaking does not posses any credible threat to the states. They have some rag tag missiles that do not even successfully fire during exercises. Their nuclear arsenal is tiny and puny compared to the states. NK is like a tiny ant trying to bite the arse of a lion. Seriously, the US is hyping up NK in its typical war mongering stance. For example there was this recent article posted all over the media that NK fired 5 missiles. Well, the five 'missiles' turned out to be 5 unguided rockets which cant carry a kitchen sink across even 150km. The US as usual kicked up a rhetoric as if the end of the world is upon us.

Iran is slightly complicated. I believe Iran is so antagonistic towards the states because the US has a long and well documented tradition of meddling in the internal affairs of Iran. Assassination of president Mossadeh, installation of the puppet Shah are examples of such affairs. Given the treatment the Iranians have been subjected too i think any leader who is not a puppet of the west would be against the states and would be willing to develop weapons as a means of deterrence.

Iraq was complicated but truth has been revealed. We all now know that Saddam was nothing more than an instrument of the states. An instrument that finally went rouge. And of course we know how the US laid its dirty hands on Iraq's oil under the pretense of WMDs.

 

[longbow]

US is trying to counter Chinese military growth. China, with its growing GDP and strong manufacturing base is on its way to become regional military superpower.

Even with the list of armaments listed India is still no real match in the region. The reason is because Chinese have Pakistan as its attack dog. And to top iot off, US needs Pakistan in its fight against Taliban. So what they are offering to sell the Indians are negated by the 1.5B in aid (and other military aid)given to Pakistan to gain access in its war in Afghanistan.

Pakistani military has great influence over taliban. So if Us military wants cooperation what do you think Pakistani will ask for? More weapons to counter India threat right?

On the other border, China has NK as its attack dog. Chinese can shut down NK in a matter of weeks if it wants too.

 

[scroobal]

I think I will break it down to point form for clarity.

1) China is no longer a regional power especially after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Its now stands between super regional and superpower. It has after the US, the ability to project military power better than any other country.

2) There is no comparison between China and India. Its a different playing field since the Sino-Indian border war. The Indians know it. The fact that Burma accedes to China rather than India despite the latter having had centuries of links attest to that.

3) Right about Pakistan but for different reason. It straddles a geopolitical hotzone. Both the China and US have long standing links with Pakistan. The only country where both powers have a strong presence. What is even more interesting is that during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the US and Saudi provided the funds and the Chinese delivered arms and ammunition to undermine the Soviets. It is said that the only place where the Americans and Chinese military sit to drink tea and break bread is in Rawalpindi. As far as the US and China is concerned, Pakistan is their bitch.

4) N.Korea is best described as one one forummer put it - a nutjob. Just as the Chinese could not control the Vietnamese despite providing military support during the Vietnam, N.Korea is similar but worse. During the famine of the 90s, grains for its starving millions did not come from China but the free world. Its an illusion to think that China can control N. Korea when the Chinese had to go war with the Vietnamese and they paid a heavy price.

US is trying to counter Chinese military growth. China, with its growing GDP and strong manufacturing base is on its way to become regional military superpower.

Even with the list of armaments listed India is still no real match in the region. The reason is because Chinese have Pakistan as its attack dog. And to top iot off, US needs Pakistan in its fight against Taliban. So what they are offering to sell the Indians are negated by the 1.5B in aid (and other military aid)given to Pakistan to gain access in its war in Afghanistan.

Pakistani military has great influence over taliban. So if Us military wants cooperation what do you think Pakistani will ask for? More weapons to counter India threat right?

On the other border, China has NK as its attack dog. Chinese can shut down NK in a matter of weeks if it wants too.

 

[Ramseth]

China is no longer a regional power especially after the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Its now stands between super regional and superpower. It has after the US, the ability to project military power better than any other country.

I doubt so. Whether conventional or nuclear, China's ability to project power over distance can't exceed that of not only the US, but also Britain, Russia and France, with proven ability to strike at any point on earth. That's the maximum as far as warfare on earth is concerned. At best, can only be equaled, can't be exceeded. And as for China, quite a distance from equaling that capacity yet. Its conventional projection of power range is hardly equal to Japan during WW2. Its nuclear range is longer and wider with it's nuclear submarines, but that's for a nuclear war.

 

[scroobal]

In summary, you saying that UK, France and Russia are better than China militarily ie these 3 things countries can take on China individually?

I doubt so. Whether conventional or nuclear, China's ability to project power over distance can't exceed that of not only the US, but also Britain, Russia and France, with proven ability to strike at any point on earth. That's the maximum as far as warfare on earth is concerned. At best, can only be equaled, can't be exceeded. And as for China, quite a distance from equaling that capacity yet. Its conventional projection of power range is hardly equal to Japan during WW2. Its nuclear range is longer and wider with it's nuclear submarines, but that's for a nuclear war.

 

[Ramseth]

In summary, you saying that UK, France and Russia are better than China militarily ie these 3 things countries can take on China individually?

Russia by geography is within range of China. If there's a war between them, it's up to what happen during the war, may the best army of the day win. Britain and France? They can always land troops in China and fight the war in China. There's no sure victory, I agree, in fact high risk of defeat because of the vast area and number of soldiers on the Chinese side (same as what Japan experienced during WW2). However, can China land troops in Britain and France? That's the difference, when we're talking about conventional projection of power over distance. (Disclaimer: I'm talking about conventional warfare, it they start lauching nuclear ballistic missiles from submarines hiding underneath some oceans against each other, then anything goes. See who's missiles are more accurate.) In short, China can't even choose whether or not to take on Britain or France. But Britain or France can choose whether or not to take on China (but at a high risk of defeat).