61–70 of 167 posts
On the one hand, its rather interesting to see the US, champion of free and open markets, enforce a policy so against that very principle. If I'm not mistaken, not only is US policy meant to assist the private space industry in the US, but to also avoid indirectly assisting the Indian missile/ballistic missile program. Although in India's defense the agency that develops/manages/deploys satellites (ISRO) is separate…
On the one hand, its rather interesting to see the US, champion of free and open markets, enforce a policy so against that very principle. If I'm not mistaken, not only is US policy meant to assist the private space industry in the US, but to also avoid indirectly assisting the Indian missile/ballistic missile program. Although in India's defense the agency that develops/manages/deploys satellites (ISRO) is separate…
The US, like Britain and much of Europe has a long history of practicing economic protectionism. I wouldn't say its wrong one way or the other, but it is kind of hypocritical to say "Do as we preach, not as we did".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> This is because any mature rocket technology can trivially be adjusted to be a nuclear weapons delivery platform. There is also the issue of maintaining the capability domestically. If someone else is too cheap it would destroy the local capability. Imagine the US losing the ability to launch it's own satellites - like it lost the ability to launch people. That said, there needs to be a way to make domestic launch…
On the other side, Lockheed Martin which already builds C-130J Super Hercules in India, now wants to manufacture F-16 too in India.
And in any case both of those are less sensitive technologies - a transport plane that other countries sell equivalents to, and a previous-generation fighter plane for which India is in any case the largest expected purchaser (the production lines in the US are being wound down, and the move to India would be part of a purchase by the IAF), and to etch the US has already approved sales.
We wouldn't sell India a Minuteman, so we're sure as hell not going to find their development of an equivalent.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a long time ago. Now there are many companies and many jobs that pay a 100K USD in India. Also Indian software engineers get promoted really fast into management with vastly higher salaries.
ISRO salaries straight from glassdoor: Scientist/Engineer ₹802,100 Scientist/Engineer ₹798,473 So, 800k rupee is about $12,000 USD. NASA's avg engineer salary is 10x that. edit: NASA employees also get generous government benefits like pensions and such. Federal employee benefits are the envy of the nation. Not sure why you people are arguing against basic facts here. Salaries, cost of living, etc are a fraction in I…
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...
That's a bit of rewriting of history right there.
I suppose you will claim that India's involvement in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Nagar_... was simply connivance and instigation by the government, not active participation by the Indian military? But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Portuguese_India was definitely the Indian military, not just random groups supported by the government.
You could argue that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War#Indi... was an instance of Pakistan attacking first, but note that India was actively arming and training insurgents inside what was at the time Pakistan. So it's hard to claim that this is an instance of Pakistani aggression without at the same time viewing the fairly symmetric https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965 as an instance of Indian aggression. Personally, I would consider the latter as Pakistani aggression, and the former as Indian aggression....
It's also hard to say who was the aggressor in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siachen_conflict because both sides were acting basically equivalently as far as I can tell.
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…
I don't think I will change your opinion ; I just want to point out to anyone who might take you seriously that you are full of shit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
> Also in all the wars in which India was involved, it was never the aggressor. That's a bit of rewriting of history right there. I suppose you will claim that India's involvement in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Dadra_and_Nagar_... was simply connivance and instigation by the government, not active participation by the Indian military? But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Portuguese_India wa…
On the one hand, its rather interesting to see the US, champion of free and open markets, enforce a policy so against that very principle. If I'm not mistaken, not only is US policy meant to assist the private space industry in the US, but to also avoid indirectly assisting the Indian missile/ballistic missile program. Although in India's defense the agency that develops/manages/deploys satellites (ISRO) is separate…
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.