Why America Needs India’s Rockets • Hacker News Board

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#51

Post by gnipgnip » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 4:18 PM UTC

pm90 wrote: post #40

gnipgnip wrote: post #16

Indian PSU research centers are well-known for being incompetent (including DRDO, CSIR, HAL...) [1]; in this ISRO is something of an oasis (or so I've heard). These orgs are generally neither nimble, nor particularly interested in acquiring talent, unlike their American competitors (or even NASA). Hiring is often one large nationwide JEE-like exam held once a year to recruit new engineers. Not surprisingly few Engine…

The assertions of incompetence of Indian PSU's are not without merit, although I think you are taking a rather pessimistic view of institutions. First of all, there are a whole lot of talented engineers in India, simply because of the population itself. Few go to the top colleges that you speak of and graduating from there doesn't necessarily mean they are the "best". So you can't take a lack of graduates from those…

That's true; indeed, the fact that ISRO does so well supports what you claim.

That however does not contradict the fact that India's exam system also filters out a lot of smart people, and trains them really well... most of whom have historically have left for the US.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#52

Post by wcarron » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 4:22 PM UTC

hyperbovine wrote: post #48

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> India is now part of MCTR (Missile Control Technology Regime) that limits ICBM development. So that's no longer a valid concern. That's regime sounds like a great intent, but the simple fact is that taking a satellite launching rocket, replacing the satellite with a nuke, and aiming it back at the ground somewhere is trivial.

It's doable, not trivial. Tying your shoe laces is trivial.

I think he meant that relative to the difficulty of actually creating a platform for accurate delivery of payloads to space, changing out the payload is, in fact, trivial

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#53

Post by sqeaky » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 4:24 PM UTC

hyperbovine wrote: post #48

LeifCarrotson wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> India is now part of MCTR (Missile Control Technology Regime) that limits ICBM development. So that's no longer a valid concern. That's regime sounds like a great intent, but the simple fact is that taking a satellite launching rocket, replacing the satellite with a nuke, and aiming it back at the ground somewhere is trivial.

It's doable, not trivial. Tying your shoe laces is trivial.

You are mixing perspectives.

Trivial for a nation-state is different than trivial for a person. A nation like India could accidentally lose the amount of money required to hire a team of 20 to do the engineering to mount a working nuke to a working rocket.

Intentionally paying and assembling that same team would be trivial for a nation like India, USA, China or Russia. It could be as simple as a single line item on some military spending bill.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#54

Post by sqeaky » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 4:27 PM UTC

rajathagasthya wrote: post #22

avar wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is because any mature rocket technology can trivially be adjusted to be a nuclear weapons delivery platform. By assisting India you're paying for their ICBM development. Maybe the line shouldn't be drawn at rockets, but unless you think we should have free & open markets for nuclear weapons I daresay you think the line should be drawn somewhere.

> By assisting India you're paying for their ICBM development India is now part of MCTR (Missile Control Technology Regime) that limits ICBM development. So that's no longer a valid concern. Also, India has done well without the assistance of the US in space technology and will continue to do so. So if the US doesn't want to assist in technology, it's not going to be a show stopper for India. It will continue to eat…

A treaty will not save the city erased in such and attack.

A treaty does provide a way for bureaucrats and ambassadors to meddle with, discuss and possibly prevent that attack in advance... if they know about it.

Mounting a working nuke to a working rocket can easily be done in secret by a small team.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#55

Post by golergka » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 4:27 PM UTC

actuator wrote: post #20

rqebmm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India is less a security threat than a destabilization threat. I'm sure the US is more worried about them firing nukes at Pakistan than California.

I don't know on what you are basing the destabilization threat on. India has a no first usage policy on nuclear weapons [1] and has shown no intent of using the weapons. Also in all the wars in which India was involved, it was never the aggressor. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_and_weapons_of_mass_dest...

Have you seen Dr Strangelove?

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#56

Post by hyperbovine » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 4:29 PM UTC

wcarron wrote: post #52

hyperbovine wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's doable, not trivial. Tying your shoe laces is trivial.

I think he meant that relative to the difficulty of actually creating a platform for accurate delivery of payloads to space, changing out the payload is, in fact, trivial

Thanks, I'm well aware of what he meant. Rockets have very specific requirements in terms of payload weight and shape. So do nukes. Matching the two would take actual engineering effort. Enough that I may not be possible to do so in total secrecy. Which is what this thread was originally talking about.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#57

Post by sqeaky » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 4:31 PM UTC

simula67 wrote: post #33

rqebmm wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

India is less a security threat than a destabilization threat. I'm sure the US is more worried about them firing nukes at Pakistan than California.

Why is this concern not valid for China or Russia ?

India is a cat still in the bag.

China and Russia are already cats out of the bag. Other more sophisticated means are required where they are concerned

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#58

Post by gnipgnip » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 4:37 PM UTC

sremani wrote: post #35

mmmBacon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first strike policy is irrelevant in this context. What matters is capability and parity. If a country develops a nuclear capability that they didn't have before, in his case weapon delivery, this is proliferation. This puts pressure on other states to come to parity with that new capability. In this case that pressure would be likely on Pakistan.

This western view of Pakistani "parity" is mother of all nuisance. US literally funded Pakistani proliferation with billions of aid, which every one knew was being diverted, while those guys were hiding Osama in their cantonment. Yes, Pakistan would be eating grass if it were not Saudi and American aid.

There is also reason to believe that the CIA snuffed out Bhabha.

It's admirable that while the China obtained its tech from USSR, India led by Homi Bhabha used a civilian Canadian reactor to do it all by themselves.

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#59

Post by renger » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

Why is United Launch Alliance always ignored in these discussions?

Re: Why America Needs India’s Rockets

#60

Post by jwtadvice » Thu, Nov 03, 2016, 4:43 PM UTC

Another reason is that, with respect to the rise of China, the United States is committing to investing in a rising India to challenge China economically, politically, and militarily.

Somehow the article fails to mention the burgeoning defense relationship between India and the United States, and the US imperatives to build out regional challengers and opposition to a China that is growing in power.