# Nuclear India or Nuke Free India?



## Aberforth (Feb 17, 2007)

Taking a walk down my block I came across some Greenpeace activists who loaded me with pamphlets and asked me to join it. I came home and read the pamphlets and came across the WMD section where greenpeace is campaigning about India's WMDs aka Nuclear Weapons. They think India should denuclearise itself for the interests of humanity. I find that hard to accept, denuclearisation of India would put it at a severe disadvantage from hostile countries like Pakistan and China, both of which are nuclear powers. I discussed this with a friend of mine and looks likes she is in agreement with the greenpeace propaganda which made me rethink if it really is a problem if India is a nuclear power. To think she is a masters in Political Science from Delhi University. 

My point nuclear weapons are a cheaper means of defence in the long run then feeding a million strong army and we know it isn't going to be much danger to humanity as no country is likely to use it considering the present world political world situation. What it does it ensure a secure environment for the nation as other nations are unlikely to attack or considering attacking it if the country posesses nuclear weapons. I dislike nukes as a weapon and i think the world would have been better off if it didn't exist in the first place. But I also believe that once it came into existence and possession of countries hostile to us it is in our national interest we also become a nuclear power which India has been ensuring inspite of all sanctions and international pressure after tests in the 1970s.

And Greenpeace conveniently forgot Russian and US proliferation while bashing India and Europe for their nuclearisation. Double standards? 

Now the point of debate. Do you agree with nuclearisation of India's defence or do you think India would be better off going for conventional defence? Why do you agree and why not?


----------



## anandk (Feb 17, 2007)

its already nuclear; as it shud be


----------



## Aberforth (Feb 17, 2007)

anandk said:
			
		

> its already nuclear; as it shud be



We know it is. Debate is on whether you support it or not.


----------



## praka123 (Feb 17, 2007)

first US and China be nuke-free,then we can think of it


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Feb 17, 2007)

praka123 said:
			
		

> first US and China be nuke-free,then we can think of it



and how could you forget pakistan. They are just waiting for the time to nuke India.

They only country i know a nuclear free is Australia.
__________


			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> Taking a walk down my block I came across some Greenpeace activists who loaded me with pamphlets and asked me to join it. I came home and read the pamphlets and came across the WMD section where greenpeace is campaigning about India's WMDs aka Nuclear Weapons. They think India should denuclearise itself for the interests of humanity. I find that hard to accept, denuclearisation of India would put it at a severe disadvantage from hostile countries like Pakistan and China, both of which are nuclear powers. I discussed this with a friend of mine and looks likes she is in agreement with the greenpeace propaganda which made me rethink if it really is a problem if India is a nuclear power. To think she is a masters in Political Science from Delhi University.
> 
> My point nuclear weapons are a cheaper means of defence in the long run then feeding a million strong army and we know it isn't going to be much danger to humanity as no country is likely to use it considering the present world political world situation. What it does it ensure a secure environment for the nation as other nations are unlikely to attack or considering attacking it if the country posesses nuclear weapons. I dislike nukes as a weapon and i think the world would have been better off if it didn't exist in the first place. But I also believe that once it came into existence and possession of countries hostile to us it is in our national interest we also become a nuclear power which India has been ensuring inspite of all sanctions and international pressure after tests in the 1970s.
> 
> ...



US calls Greepeace a terrorist.


----------



## Aberforth (Feb 17, 2007)

thunderbird.117 said:
			
		

> US calls Greepeace a terrorist.



Everyone knows they aren't so either its misleading comment or sarcasm on part of US. If they really considered them terrorists as lot of Exon Mobil activists would have been in Guatanamo Bay. 



			
				thunderbird.117 said:
			
		

> They only country i know a nuclear free is Australia.



So are the other countries of the world except the nine nuclear powers. If North Korea joins it'll be ten.


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Feb 17, 2007)

Aberforth said:
			
		

> Everyone knows they aren't so either its misleading comment or sarcasm on part of US. If they really considered them terrorists as lot of Exon Mobil activists would have been in Guatanamo Bay.
> 
> 
> 
> So are the other countries of the world except the nine nuclear powers. If North Korea joins it'll be ten.



The other countries can not afford or they have the nuclear bomb in secret base.


----------



## Aberforth (Feb 17, 2007)

thunderbird.117 said:
			
		

> The other countries can not afford or they have the nuclear bomb in secret base.



Nuclear bombs aren't that expensive once you get the plans and project in order. In fact the overall cost of developing nuclear weapons is much cheaper than maintaining a armed millitary in an economic and millitary strength terms. But if as you said, they can't afford it in the first place they can't. 

Second, you could hide nukes in scret bases or underground but you always need to test them to make sure they are working and the project is successful. Testing them releases a lot of radiations, causes a lot of disturbances which could be picked up by any of the reconaissance satellites. Sooner or later a country with nuclear capabilities or reseach will come to international notice like N Korea and Iran, however you try to hide. 

After the testing is done and you have produced extra warheads you can hide them that wouldn't be a problem. In simple way, the world will know you have nukes but won't know where you kept them. It would be difficult to keep the world in belief that you don't have them at all if you actually have them (unless you buy them in black from other countries which practically is possible only in Hollywood movies ). Even if you test them in the seas or third countries, there are intelligence methods which can trace it to the country doing the testing.


----------



## kumarmohit (Feb 17, 2007)

I have no problems with any country having nukes as long as they do not use it for killing people.


----------



## hailgautam (Feb 18, 2007)

Green Peace is a responsible and a good organization I support them on all matters but i have to differ on this matter. Like All who have voted till now i have voted for the Nuclear India. Irrespective of whether we can afford it or not it is a must that we should possess them.

1. It acts as a deterant to our "Goody"-goody  neighbors.
2. Helps to develop the technology that can be used for Rocket Science and Civil Nuclear Power Plants. Nuclear Power -one must understand is the future of the energy sources.
3. We have show again and again that we are a responsible nation when it comes to Nuclear Power (did I say that - we have blasted a couple though) - ok having said that still we are a responsible lot, so we can have.


----------



## Sykora (Feb 18, 2007)

I don't think _any_ country should have a nuclear arsenal, including India, US, Pakistan and what have you. We've already seen what kind of loss there is to mankind when one of these is used, there can only be chaos if it happens again.



			
				kumarmohit said:
			
		

> I have no problems with any country having nukes as long as they do not use it for killing people.



For what possible other reason can they be used for? There are much better places to put that extra funding as well as the nuclear fuel. I think the government's prioriies should to keep one of their own alive, rather than nuke a million of the enemy.


----------



## Simple_Graduate (Feb 18, 2007)

If the choice was between "Nuclear India" or "Nuke Free WORLD", I would choose the latter.

But until that happens I choose a Nuclear India.


----------



## ssdivisiongermany1933 (Feb 18, 2007)

We want 1000+ nuclear warheads , anything less than that will not be good


----------



## Aberforth (Feb 18, 2007)

ssdivisiongermany1933 said:
			
		

> We want 1000+ nuclear warheads , anything less than that will not be good



Why such a huge number?


----------



## kumarmohit (Feb 18, 2007)

Sykora said:
			
		

> For what possible other reason can they be used for? There are much better places to put that extra funding as well as the nuclear fuel. I think the government's prioriies should to keep one of their own alive, rather than nuke a million of the enemy.



Nukes seem to be a very good deterrent. They can be made and left put. No one would want to use them because of their effect and No one will make their possessor use use them as they know the effects too. (This excludes terrorists who are hell bent on destruction  )


----------



## goobimama (Feb 18, 2007)

I don't believe it. So many people want a India to be a nuclear power.


----------



## Sykora (Feb 18, 2007)

kumarmohit said:
			
		

> Nukes seem to be a very good deterrent. They can be made and left put. No one would want to use them because of their effect and No one will make their possessor use use them as they know the effects too. (This excludes terrorists who are hell bent on destruction  )



True. But if nobody had them, the extra resources could be put in better places. I have no objection to missile defense. It is the offensive power I find unnecessary.

On the other hand, if any country used a nuke against another country, whether their target had them or not, the rest of the world would be forced to guard their interests. That in itself would be a sufficient deterrent for most countries.


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Feb 18, 2007)

Aberforth said:
			
		

> Why such a huge number?



To bomb each cities,villages,tiny part of the land. .


----------



## Aberforth (Feb 18, 2007)

Sykora said:
			
		

> True. But if nobody had them, the extra resources could be put in better places. I have no objection to missile defense. It is the offensive power I find unnecessary.



I agree with this part, if the whole world didn't have nuclear weapons it would have been a better place. Nuclear weapon is a defensive power too, no offensive. It has the power of being a deterrant for other countries from attacking a nuclear power. US was close to attacking Russia during cold war tensions but confirmed successful nuclear testings made USS Missouri and other warships turn back. Similar is the case with US and China conflict of interests decades ago.




			
				Sykora said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if any country used a nuke against another country, whether their target had them or not, the rest of the world would be forced to guard their interests. That in itself would be a sufficient deterrent for most countries.



If a nuclear country drop a few nukes on a non-nuclear enemy the whole world is going to look the other way and try to show their displeasures through million dollar meetings and protests. When US used dioxin on Vietnamese which are hazardrous chemicals and cause genetic aberration, where was the world with their morality? Of course they protested but did it change the fact, millions of people were poisoned to death and survivors genetically altered?

If Vietnam was a nuclear power lives of 2 million people and their future generations would have been saved. US would have thought, "Oh no, not nuclear, let us try talks instead". If Pakistan and China drop nukes on India it is unlikely any country will try to stop them or take any action till the whole of India is a large car parking space.


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Feb 18, 2007)

Aberforth said:
			
		

> I agree with this part, if the whole world didn't have nuclear weapons it would have been a better place. Nuclear weapon is a defensive power too, no offensive. It has the power of being a deterrant for other countries from attacking a nuclear power. US was close to attacking Russia during cold war tensions but confirmed successful nuclear testings made USS Missouri and other warships turn back. Similar is the case with US and China conflict of interests decades ago.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why blame of US for it. Blame on world war 2. Did not nazi use Posion gas on Jews people?. And then later coming iran and iraq war. Saddam Hussein miliary use posion gas on iranians and the kurds. Then why blame only US for this things. 

War is necessary when this world is filled with hatred,sins and power. War is only options. How many people have been killed and how many people have been born.


More over bangalore itself is a warzone when they are protests. Let us see other place for instance. Gujarat,Kerala and etc and now we have Terrorist Warfare.


When a real war happens India should not sit dumb or blind. They will be scenorio when india is going to attacked by nukes and india got to use when the times comes. 

All i say is india is standing dumb when pakistan is freely attacking india in indirected way.


----------



## kumarmohit (Feb 18, 2007)

Sykora said:
			
		

> True. But if nobody had them, the extra resources could be put in better places. I have no objection to missile defense. It is the offensive power I find unnecessary.



Frankly Dear, the world already has enough extra resources to take care of people in trouble, What is lacking is the will of politicians.

The politicians are as unwilling to invest in development as they are unwilling to fire nukes. I am not saying that they are totally idiots, they do strike on good ideas, like the Palna scheme where the govt is going to adopt girl child if parents are unwilling to keep it but frankly this is going to make more people leave their children to govt care. If they can mount such a thing they have more than enough resources, also the scheme is good but what if some one leaves a boy? They cant leave the kid alone as that would be barbarianism but the boy cant be financed because of the law. 

The problem is not lack of resources, but vested interests and lack of will and complications which occur from case to case and time to time which can both be good and bad.



			
				Sykora said:
			
		

> On the other hand, if any country used a nuke against another country, whether their target had them or not, the rest of the world would be forced to guard their interests. That in itself would be a sufficient deterrent for most countries.



I already mentioned terrorists are excluded


----------



## lalam (Feb 18, 2007)

I guess this has become a matter of importance for we don't wanna feel left behind do we...All other countries has it so why should not india in fact we'll feel small if we do this...The future don't look so good with all this nuclear but we have no choice but to get in the pack for fear of elimination.


----------



## NIGHTMARE (Feb 18, 2007)

Nuke Free India? no way


----------



## planetcall (Feb 18, 2007)

This world is preparing for war on warfooting. Having a deterrance is of no use until you have an edge over your enemy. This is a blind race and we are very much part of it. Nuclear technology has given us a new dimension of growth and an ultimate power to our militia. We have two big enemies eyeing for the very opportunity so we also have to prepare. Development is essential but also essential is to have the WMDs so that the message goes clear that India is not what it used to be in 1961.


----------



## Aberforth (Feb 18, 2007)

@ thunderbird.117 - Nazis committed crime against humanity and the perpretors have been broght to book for it. Same is the case with Saddam and his Baath regime. What about Ronald Regan and George Bush? Did we see them brought to book for genocide in Iraq, Vietnam, Guyana, Libya, Somalia, etc? No and not likely too soon. Remember the Swiss bank's proofing from political influence survived Hitelr but not the Bush regime. Who is worse?

What if for some weird chain of reasoning US, Pakistan or China decides to bomb the hell out of Delhi and Mumbai? The whole world is more likely than not to look and talk political ideologies while people die. Which isn't likely to happen so long as India is nuclear. It will be akin to tiger feeding on a poisonous toad.

China's history is a proof how the world kicks around a weak country for their own interests. Today everyone likes to keep a wide smiley face in front of China inspite of their domestic market getting rollered by the Chinese. It wouldn't have happened and China would have been under US occupation if USS Missouri went ahead and China had no nukes in the 1960s.

@ planetcall - Well said. India needs to show the world it is no longer a potential colonial destination for anyone and India dictates the terms in today's political scenario in its own interests rather than others quoting their greedy 'wants'. A strong millitary and defence system is a strong 'self esteem boost' for such to happen.


----------



## ssdivisiongermany1933 (Feb 19, 2007)

No chance of  denuclearizing ,it's a rubbish idea


----------



## gxsaurav (Feb 19, 2007)

I don't want to see a "Nuclear Bomb" India, rather I want to see a "cheap nuclear power plant for 10 years " India.

Having nuclear bombs alone does nothing to make a country. It's methods & ideology does. We can & will progress even if we do not have nuclear bombs


----------



## premsharma (Feb 19, 2007)

No way without Nuclearisation. Thanks Vajpayee for parading Guts. It was public demand.


----------



## Stick (Feb 19, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> I don't want to see a "Nuclear Bomb" India, rather I want to see a "cheap nuclear power plant for 10 years " India.
> 
> Having nuclear bombs alone does nothing to make a country. It's methods & ideology does. We can & will progress even if we do not have nuclear bombs



Dada,

The day India has no Nuclear Bomb, first Pakistan will attack with support of China.

We experience same situation with we didn't have Nuclear Bomb in 1965, 1972 and 1975.

I didn't forget about Kargil but it was not Open War.


----------



## gxsaurav (Feb 19, 2007)

war means money. pakistan & China are making money through india. No way they are gonna attack india.


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Feb 19, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> war means money. pakistan & China are making money through india. No way they are gonna attack india.



Oh really. I do not believe that crap. Have you learnt that you should never trust your neighbours?. Have you learnt that both this countries who said they are friends and will backstab you once you believe them. This two countries have attacked India in the past and occupied indian terrority.


----------



## Stick (Feb 19, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> war means money. pakistan & China are making money through india. No way they are gonna attack india.



They can make billion times more if GRAB India.


----------



## gxsaurav (Feb 19, 2007)

ok ok....i don't know much about polytics. I said it cos right now i don't think india needs nuclear bomb, it needs electricity, food, & water...along with jobs

(slides in the shadow)


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Feb 19, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> ok ok....i don't know much about polytics. I said it cos right now i don't think india needs nuclear bomb, it needs electricity, food, & water...along with jobs
> 
> (slides in the shadow)



Who said that was politics?. It was a basic knowlege and a common sense.


----------



## gxsaurav (Feb 19, 2007)

In my prespective, common sence means giving the people of a country better way of living, removing poverty, developing bussiness & lifestyle, cuting taxes & subsidies...


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Feb 19, 2007)

gx_saurav said:
			
		

> In my prespective, common sence means giving the people of a country better way of living, removing poverty, developing bussiness & lifestyle, cuting taxes & subsidies...



I doubt if that is going to happen because :-

country better way of living :- For me a better living should be like this. Tell this people to stop cutting the trees and destroying ecosystem. It happens due to People Greed and selfish. That is increase the price of private vehicles  or limit the number of vehicles and decrease price of public transport. Bangalore is getting crowded and it is stinking due to pollution.

removing poverty :- Name one country which does not have poverty?.

developing bussiness & lifestyle :- That is happening slowly.

cuting taxes & subsidies:- Say that to indian government. They are planning to increase all the tax for everything.


----------



## Aberforth (Feb 19, 2007)

Stick said:
			
		

> Dada,
> 
> The day India has no Nuclear Bomb, first Pakistan will attack with support of China.
> 
> ...



Pakistan may not laungh a full frontal attack against India but seeing their chargin today we can well imagine the diplomatic edge they would have had in any discussion had India no nuclear weapons. Now when there are talks its more like, "Hey boy (Pakistan), don't be too demanding. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.". If India had no nuclear bombs and Pakistan and China had the situation would have been, "Hey boy (India), don't be too oversmart, we have big balls and big guns, give us way." It would have been a diplomatic weakness and defeat for India in most talk because of the nuclear scare. As we all know US does and did nothing to keep Pakistan in check despite all its war and agression against India we can never trust UN or US to do anything about diplomatic defeat.

What India's edge in Nuclear technology does is teach other countries who are hostile that India is not far behind and not worth messing with. Of course that also ensures no country will attack India due to fear India could equally hit back or at least cause them substantial damage if they do. India, as we know is responsible and unless grave threats won't go for wanton destruction of even hostile countries, forget others. In world politics power plays a big role and ethics and humanity gets a backseat (some say its meant for the weak).


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Feb 19, 2007)

Aberforth said:
			
		

> Pakistan may not laungh a full frontal attack against India but seeing their chargin today we can well imagine the diplomatic edge they would have had in any discussion had India no nuclear weapons. Now when there are talks its more like, "Hey boy (Pakistan), don't be too demanding. I'll show you mine if you show me yours.". If India had no nuclear bombs and Pakistan and China had the situation would have been, "Hey boy (India), don't be too oversmart, we have big balls and big guns, give us way." It would have been a diplomatic weakness and defeat for India in most talk because of the nuclear scare.* As we all know US does and did nothing to keep Pakistan in check despite all its war and agression against India we can never trust UN or US to do anything about diplomatic defeat.*
> 
> What India's edge in Nuclear technology does is teach other countries who are hostile that India is not far behind and not worth messing with. Of course that also ensures no country will attack India due to fear India could equally hit back or at least cause them substantial damage if they do. India, as we know is responsible and unless grave threats won't go for wanton destruction of even hostile countries, forget others. In world politics power plays a big role and ethics and humanity gets a backseat (some say its meant for the weak).



True. I heard that USA gave weapons to Pakistan when they were fighting a war with india. They are now given billons of dollars to pakistan for every terrorist they catch and give them to USA. It is like USA is the one who is sponsoring terror and helping this extermist and saying that USA is making the world safer. They are making it more dangerous everyday.


----------



## Aberforth (Feb 19, 2007)

thunderbird.117 said:
			
		

> It is like USA is the one who is sponsoring terror and helping this extermist and saying that USA is making the world safer. They are making it more dangerous everyday.



From a political standpoint US dislikes terrorism and extremism in its homeland but its foreign policy is entirely different. Destabilising governments of stable democracies or republics is its favourite pastime. Panama, North Korea, China, Guyana, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba anyone? Same is the story with US-Pak relations. Because India was self sufficient and decided not to join any blocs during the cold war gave US a complex and they decided to keep check on India's independence and neutral stance from world politics. If there is constant political/millitary conflict between countries, development is hampered as resources and energy is spent on millitarisation and conflict resolutions. Millitary and political stability are the first steps to ensure economic stablity and social empowerment. Correct me if I am wrong, I'm open to logical alternative ideas.


----------



## Ganeshkumar (Feb 19, 2007)

Ya it is USA Who r sponsoring Terrorism by giving Billions of dollars to Pakistan which is having main EXPORT of only TERRORISTS.
But I think soon US n Pakistan will be in cold war...


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Feb 19, 2007)

Ganeshkumar said:
			
		

> Ya it is USA Who r sponsoring Terrorism by giving Billions of dollars to Pakistan which is having main EXPORT of only TERRORISTS.
> But I think soon US n Pakistan will be in cold war...



They already in verge of certain war. Almost a whole world is at war. A world War 3 is inevitable.

USA Military are getting ready to attack Iran. All the plans are ready. They are waiting for a GO sign.


----------



## planetcall (Feb 19, 2007)

^^^ oops ! Leaked !!!


----------



## Aberforth (Feb 19, 2007)

^^ Expect a B2 bomber with Peacekeeper missiles to arrive over Digit forum anytime now.


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Feb 19, 2007)

Aberforth said:
			
		

> ^^ Expect a *B2 bomber* with *Peacekeeper missiles* to arrive over Digit forum anytime now.



That would be me  , That would be my thread


----------



## Aberforth (Feb 19, 2007)

thunderbird.117 said:
			
		

> That would be me  , That would be my thread



Peacekeepers missiles aren't peaceful, they're ten nuclear warheads rolled into one to penetrate missile defence systems. Ironic way of naming by US Defence.


----------



## thunderbird.117 (Feb 19, 2007)

Aberforth said:
			
		

> Peacekeepers missiles aren't peaceful, they're ten nuclear warheads rolled into one to penetrate missile defence systems. Ironic way of naming by US Defence.



I know that. I spend lot of time reading all those stuff.


----------



## Aberforth (Feb 19, 2007)

thunderbird.117 said:
			
		

> I know that. I spend lot of time reading all those stuff.



Oh well good then. I've been doing some of my own reading on nukes since I had that disagreement with a friend.


----------



## neelakantankk (Feb 26, 2007)

As long as we don't use them, Nukes are needed.


----------



## chicha (Mar 23, 2007)

US is a big player and INDIA should not take back seat anymore we should have the power to stand gaurd or attack if attacked.

The world is slowly sliping away from the mankind.


----------



## Aberforth (Jul 10, 2007)

neelakantankk said:
			
		

> As long as we don't use them, Nukes are needed.



Exactly. I don't think India will use them, because of political and ethical reasons. It does help to have nukes in the international arena, as a credible deterrence against other countries considering attacking India.


----------



## indranilmaulik (Jul 10, 2007)

here is my suggestion-
any country or countries wishes to become nuclear arsenal free, please blast all your nukes on USA. this way the USA will be assured that all other countries have become nuke free, and on the other hand we will be sure that this world is now USA free.


----------



## slash_89 (Jul 10, 2007)

to keep india in the world map we definately require nukes to have some credible deterrence against others,

we should even go ahead and develop ICBMs, i came accross a report in cnn-ibn mentioning a temporary halt in the dvevlopment of the "Surya" ICBMs,
is this really true.


----------



## indranilmaulik (Jul 10, 2007)

slash_89 said:
			
		

> i came accross a report in cnn-ibn mentioning a temporary halt in the dvevlopment of the "Surya" ICBMs,
> is this really true.



Congress led UPA govt sucks . . . .


----------



## Aberforth (Jul 12, 2007)

slash_89 said:
			
		

> we should even go ahead and develop ICBMs, i came accross a report in cnn-ibn mentioning a temporary halt in the dvevlopment of the "Surya" ICBMs,
> is this really true.



Yes it is true. India has turned into a reluctant nuclear power since the inception of the US-India nuclear deal, in short we are slated to go the Australia and South Africa way where nuclear deals diminished their nuclear weapons development. I hope it does not happen with India today, without nuclear capability, India will become an easy target of blackmails by China or Pakistan.


----------



## Yamaraj (Jul 14, 2007)

Aberforth said:
			
		

> Yes it is true. India has turned into a reluctant nuclear power since the inception of the US-India nuclear deal, in short we are slated to go the Australia and South Africa way where nuclear deals diminished their nuclear weapons development. I hope it does not happen with India today, without nuclear capability, India will become an easy target of blackmails by China or Pakistan.


Agreed!


			
				Aberforth said:
			
		

> ^^ Expect a B2 bomber with Peacekeeper missiles to arrive over Digit forum anytime now.


A little correction, here. Peacekeeper missiles (ICBM) are stored inside and launched from missile silos. They aren't deployable using bombers.


----------



## Josan (Jul 14, 2007)

If neclear powers is the way to show that our country is better,than india must go ahead to this and develop some better technology,
more over we must use the neuclear power for elecricity production.


----------



## Aberforth (Aug 13, 2007)

Yamaraj said:
			
		

> A little correction, here. Peacekeeper missiles (ICBM) are stored inside and launched from missile silos. They aren't deployable using bombers.



Well, I know LGM Peacekeepers are USAF's ex-ICBMs. I was trying to make fun of American stupidity actually, as it reminded me of an American who threatened that US could destroy India with nuclear warheads mounted on Patriot missiles. I had to remind him Patriot was a non-strategic missile, an ABM to be precise...


----------

