Jump to content

Talk:India and weapons of mass destruction/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Completely Bogus and Retarded Claim

The claim that India is developing an ICBM to counter Europe, the United States and China and that it is a first strike weapon is highly controversial (not to mention, complete nonsense). This goes against India's 'no first strike' nuclear doctrine. Also, India is esentially a status quo state which does not view the EU and the US as military threats and is not in competition with them. Could you state the source of this statement.

It's true that India did not consider U.S and E.U as a threat because of democracy. India also has a no first strike and no-use against non-nuclear countries policy. The article is complete nonsense. I agree. Instead of Weapons of Mass destruction all weapon systems of India has been listed in this article. This can be renamed as weapon system of India.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm moving the following addition by an IP editor. I'm not sure if the editor was being serious or ironic, suggesting this as an example of a "bogus and retarded" claim. I would agree with the ironic view. NPguy (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
India may actually have the third largest nucler arsenal on this globe. see data by albright. Also India has sophisticated ICBM capability since 1992.

India allied itself with USSR during the cold war?

How is it then that we helped found the Non-aligned movement? As far as I remember, Russia started helping us after the USA started helping Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistan wars...

The Non-Aggression Pact signed between the Soviet Union and India before the 1971 war, required each country to treat a war on one country as war other one too. Though India never officially went against NAM, many policies were distinctly pro-Soviet. Apoorv020 (talk) 07:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

USA only helped Pakistan to acquired civilian nuclear technology, however, when PM Bhutto announced Pakistan would go for nuclear weapons. USA didn't help instead USA and others (EU) pressured Pakistan not too. Not only Rurssians are helping India to make nuclear weapon more compact but isreal have joined India's nuclear program to make help India to make better chemical-bio weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.138.179 (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

PSLV and GSLV

PSLV ( polar satellite Launch Vehicle ) and GSLV ( Geo synchronous satellite launch vehicle ) are not missiles but Space Vehicles that Carry the Indian IRS and INSAT class artificial satillites. Though there have been talks that these technologies could be used to build ICBMS , India surely doesnt aim towards using these well tested work horses of ISRO for defence purposes.

How sure? Are you representing the top leader of the Indian government or capable of reading his mind? --Friend2008 (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

when did PSLV & GSLV became Missiles?

India is one of the only nations who can claim to develop Rockets first for Space research & development, Then for Military purpose. Then why are we considering PSLV & GSLV as missiles? when did they start having warheads & RVs? Why should we look PSLV & GSLV from a militaristic angle? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.162.215.107 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

I agree. The PSLV and GSLV are not compliant with India's no first use policy. Both contain liquid "Vikas" engines that need to be fueled prior to liftoff and the GSLV needs a Cyrogenic engine. Most launches need atleast a month to prepare for launch at SDHC. I doubt the Ares or the Saturn V was ever classed as a heavy ICBM although their infrastructure does benefit the pentagon. It must be pointed out that the first stage of the Agni-TD did contain the solid rocket booster of the SLV. The best indication of non collaboration between DRDO and ISRO on rocket engines are the pictures of the small and thick Agni III unlike the long and thin PSLV and GSLV. DRDO now uses different technology focusing on canisterisation of missiles.Andy anno (talk) 19:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Tagging the article for clean up

I am tagging the article for clean up. The articles is clearly a mess and contains too much irrelvant information. I volunteer to do the clean up myself and any help would be appreciated. apurv1980 16:10, 2 Janurary 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous Entries at the Top

Is there any source available to the statement that India and Russia are the only two countries with a small-pox virus culture? The article on small-pox claims that Russia and USA are the two. Abathla 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is severely outdated. Anyone mind if I update this.

--138.88.177.70 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That would be most appreciated. ~Vivek 2006-08-10 0817hrs

Some problems with this page :

  • If only Prithvi, Agni and Danush are nuclear capable, why are the rest of the missile types (Akash,Nag,Trishul) also included ?.
  • nag is an antitank missile which is of 2 variants and Akash is a recon bot.
    • Akash is not a UAV. It is a medium range SAM. ~Vivek 2006-08-10 0816hrs

- Narasimhan India 9:32

Hindu Scriptures/Bhagavad Gita?

Hey, shouldn't we include that Indian dude's claim that some Hindu scriptures talked about nuclear explosions and stuff? :) -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

While there is talk about ancient wars in hindu scriptures using weapons that could be regarded as nuclear, it is as believable and as easy to prove that the Bible's "Let there be light" is an allusion to the big bang. I doubt it would fit in an encyclopedic article. Pdinc 09:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

homi bhaba?

hey, where's homi bhaba? founder of india's programme? Sohrab Irani 02:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


General Signing Request

Perhaps it would be a good idea for all who contribute to this article, and also to the discussions associated to it to signed there comments?

There were a couple of "Miscellaneous Entries at the Top" of the discussions, and I thought that it would be a good idea to move them so as to ensure that discussions appear in a chronological format. This may or may not make discussions easier to follow, and I apologise in advance for any confusion or 'ruffled feathers' that I might cause. Perhaps, in future, other contributors might put their comments at the bottom of the discussions?

I have also taken *slight* liberties in terms of re-organising the page layout so as to make it easier for future contributors to navigate the discussions for this article. I was surprised by the fact that so many people seemed to ignore etiquette extended for this article - though it is quite possible that, for those who do not speak English as their first language, this is probably inevitable.

A final comment - many comments do stick to the 'official' or 'popular' dating and timing format. This is something that would save a significant amount of having to search under the 'history' records if, say, arguments were to arise as to the exact nature of comments made.

--Nukemason4 22:58, 26 Feb 2007 (UTC)

Good idea! I put the template up Vishnuchakra 22:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

India has Russian Supplied IRBMs?.

wow, great news, I didn't knew that Russians have developed new IRBMs and also supplied them to India. Seems like Pakistani trollers cannot stand their missiles tagged as Chinese copies.

Yea, really, wtf?! That's bogus. We don't have Russian and Israeli ballistic missiles, we really need to block some of these Pakis. 74.226.103.119 18:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Russia cannot supply or collaborate with India on missiles with ranges greater than 300km as they have signed the MTCR. Sections might need to be semi- protectedAndy anno (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Facts?

Just a quick question this page claims India has both 24000 and 70-120 warheads. I may be reading it wrong but i am inclined to belive the latter as 24000 is about the same as the USA.137.222.226.63 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

article not well written

very bad. this article is one of the most important in Indian Armed forces category and just not written well. Too much written about Surya which doesn't even exist. The Section which should be the most important i.e nuclear weapons receives little importance. Ballistic Missiles are nevethless delivery systems and they cannot regarded as weapons of mass destruction, should be given minimal importance in the article. Lot of editing can also be done in chemical weapons section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.161.52 (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I just added a link I found recently covering the latest view on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. They're video interviews taken by students during the Non-Nuclear-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom 2008 (ended yesterday - Fri-09 May). Jossejonathan (talk) 08:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect pic of Agni III launch

There have been only 3 single missile tests of Agni III so far and each of them with a gap of around 1 year. The missiles do not appear to be any variant of the Agni. The landscape in the picture appears foreign as well. Can the picture be verified from a credible source?Andy anno (talk) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

thats probably the pic of Iranian Missiles test which were conducted recently. Someone accidentally uploaded it. --60.243.161.52 (talk) 12:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Seems some SRBM missile test.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No need to write so much about missiles

This article is about Indias WMDs, Not Indian Missiles. WMDs include Nuclear, Biological & Chemical Weapon Systems. Ballistic Missiles are just delivery systems like an Bomber, Fighter or an Artillery Cannon. Anti-Ballistic, Surface to air Missiles are in no way related to WMDs unless they are carrying nuclear warheads.--60.243.161.52 (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Second this point Apoorv020 (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfounded assertion of the size of India's nuclear arsenal

The third paragraph of this article asserts that India may have the third largest nuclear arsenal, after only Russia and the United States. An anonymous editor keeps inserting an assertion that many experts believe this, but without citing a single source, expert or otherwise. The stockpile estimates in the article List of states with nuclear weapons suggest that India may have the sixth or seventh largest nuclear arsenal, after France, China, the United Kingdom and possibly Israel. NPguy (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

*click* Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Missile range map

It appears that the image at right was made simply by plotting circles with the radius of each missile's range. If so, it cannot possibly be correct; the map is a Robinson projection and does not reflect distance that way. (An azimuthal projection with India at the center might be closer.) Deltabeignet (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the image is to show the range of the missile, that is all. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
And Beignet seems to have a reasonable objection that it does not accurately do what it is meant to. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have self-reverted. But an image properly showing the range is necessary. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Perhaps Sniperz will make a new one, responding to Beignet's objections. Carl.bunderson (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I just noticed this because of a recent edit. Except for that edit (deleting "have or") the second paragraph of this article appears to be taken verbatim from the cited scondary source (FAS):

According to a January 2001 U.S Department of Defense report, "India probably has a small stockpile of nuclear weapon components and could assemble and deploy a few nuclear weapons within a few days to a week." A 2001 RAND study by Ashley Tellis asserts that India does not [have or] seek to deploy a ready nuclear arsenal.

I presume it's better to cite and paraphrase the original sources rather than copy without quotation marks from a secondary source. NPguy (talk) 01:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed sections that are not Weapons of mass destuction

This article featured all the weapons in Indian inventory and need to be renamed as weapon system of India. Hence removing the weapons that are not weapons of mass destruction, missiles that are not fitted with nuclear weapon like the air to air missiles, anti-aircraft, anti-ballistic missiles. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Instead of having all that sourced content remain deleted, we could just move the article from where it is, to Weapon systems of India. Any reason not to? Carl.bunderson (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I was joking about the renaming the article. Just wanted to mention that the non-WMD's need to be removed to make this article just a WMD article. The Weapon systems of India is going to be such a huge one that it will take a minimum of one minute for the page to load and will be difficult to maintain. Already the weapon systems are dispersed in many Indian military related article. Let us allow that to stay that way. But is you want a Weapon systems of India article, you can create it and I will be happy to contribute to it.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well does the information that was removed from this article exist in other locations? It just seems a shame to me to lose all that information if it isn't retained at least somewhere. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of submarines from the list

Is the Kilo class submarines nuclear armed? If not it need to be removed from the list.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Defensive systems

There have been recent changes to remove and then add back descriptions of defensive systems (air defense; missile defense; radar). I tend to agree with their deletion - these are not weapons of mass destruction. Views? NPguy (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ya, the defensive systems are definitely not WMDs and hence should be removed. Shovon (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the opinion on WMD delivery systems. Is that standard in all WMD articles. Need to keep or need to be removed?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Prithvi 02.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How Many Weapons

This article and List of states with nuclear weapons both cite the range 100-140 for the number of nuclear weapons India has. But the two references cited here (one of which is cited in the other article) give numbers of 40-50 and 45-95. In my view, we should either find a reference that supports the larger figure or change both to reflect what the citations actually say, i.e. 40-95. NPguy (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I found a link that says 60-250. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/733162.stm Also most of the refs are really old. I'm looking up some more reliable ones. but the thing is that all these studies were taken in early 2000. India has developed a lot of weapons conventional and nuclear since then Enthusiast10 (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
There are good references and there are bad references. Normally I would be inclined to think highly of a BBC article, but the estimates for India (too high), Israel (too low) and Pakistan (much too low) are all out of line with most other analysis. I have never seen a stockpile estimate as high as 250 for India from a reputable source. The other cited sources are from organizations that do careful, independent research. When you have a choice between solid analysis and a press article that lacks any references, pick the analysis. NPguy (talk) 03:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In many ways I agree with you NP but as I have underlined before most of these sources are at least 6-7 years old. So we can either mention that a study taken in 2001 or 2000 stated that India had between India had 45-95 weapons and that now there is sufficient evidence to predict that that number today in more near a 200 mark due to subsequent military ambitions of India. Or We can just wait a bit longer. Possibly more recent studies might show up after the unveiling of the ATV and possibly the testing of the Nirbhay. However I seriously doubt that any such study will take place keeping in mind that India tested the Agni 3 and Shaurya Missile in the recent past. Cheers Enthusiast10 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not so fast. The most recent reference from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists is fairly recent (three years old) and India's plutonium production capacity is not very high. India's two production reactors, CIRUS and Dhruva, have thermal power ratings of 40 and 100 MW, respectively, indicating a capacity to produce perhaps five weapons a year if they operated at full power. However, Dhruva is reported to operate at about 70% of capacity, reducing this figure to perhaps four weapons per year. There are other unknown factors that could reduce this figure further. A 2006 reference [1] estimates that India has enough plutonium for about 100 weapons. That might extrapolate to 110 now. NPguy (talk) 03:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
A new editor (Zoomzoom316 - not a registered userid) has completely rewritten the intro to this article - probably not a bad thing in principle - but has also modified the stockpile estimates. As far as I can tell, the new estimates are grossly inflated and not supported by the cited sources. I've fixed the numbers to match the main citation - which actually has a lowball estimate of 40-50. I think the original text on the range of estimates was better than what has replaced it. NPguy (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove non WMD stuff

"I would request you to rewrite the whole article with just WMD's. That's Nuclear weapons, Chemical weapons and Biological weapons. Just to see how such an article to be created, check this link[2]." Chanakya advised me to undo my recent change which were of the delivery mechanisms and only keep the description of the weapons. If others also share similar views I would gladly revert all of my changes and thus remove the subs, aircrafts sections. Thanks Enthusiast10 (talk) 15:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a simple follow up after i visited the US page and went over it. The layout is similar, however description of each component is limited. It also outlines US' nuclear bombers but fails to outline its submarine and ships that can launch nuclear weapons. However, it does characterize weapons in terms of their launch for example- land based and sea based. The Indian article however categorises delivery systems on the bases of Ballistic or Cruise. Also to note is that the American article is rated as a B class so one shouldn't take too much inspiration from there. However I do in many ways agree with Chanakya that there is much scope for improvement.Enthusiast10 (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The NUMBER of NUCLEAR weapons

i have mentioned several times, that the figures are 2005 estimates not 2004. there was never any accurate estimates because the amount of nuclear weapons that india has is a tight secret. there are no clear numbers for the estimates of indias nuclear arsenal we all know that it is definitely above 100. there are some estimates that say 95-120 or 40-95 or 60-95 or 100-110 or 95-250. take your pick. the only thing we know is that the estimate in 2003-2004 was 95 therefore i have put in the conservative 2005 estimate of 100-140.

i dont know why you took out the reference that showed the indian defence ministry talking in 2004 about the estimates for the amount of nuclear weapons that india would have in 4 years time. the reference clearly mentioned 300-400.

you have removed the quote by ashley tellis as well. yet you have kept the reference above it???

the quote is taken from the EXACT SAME reference. the reference is there at the end of the quote.

ahsley tellis is one of the most respected members of the nuclear sector of the american administration. the reference is his detailed report to the united states administration on the current capabilities and estimates of the indian nuclear weapons sector.

he has clearly stated the amount of plutonium that has ALREADY, i repeat ALREADY been produced. in addition in his report he has explained the current reserves of nuclear material in india which will be enriched by the existing 8 reactors of india.

he has NOT said that india will make 2,228 bombs and neither has the indian government ever said that it would ever want to make that many nuclear bombs.

he has only explained that if the need arises india is MORE than capable and has ENOUGH reserves for making that many nuclear bombs.

i dont know what is your purpose of trying to "downplay" the amount of nuclear weapons that india has.

anyway i have saved both the nuclear weapons page and my current topic on the discussion page.Zoomzoom316 (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Before you started editing this page, the article said estimates ranged from 40-95. But you deleted the references that had higher numbers. Put them back and use the range 40-95. I have not seen a single credible citation containing the estimate 100-140. India's Pu production rate is not that high, so these numbers are not terribly out of date.
Ashley Tellis's scenario is not meant to be realistic. Rather, it is an implausible and extreme extrapolation intended to demonstrate that India's aims are really more modest. It doesn't belong in an overview of India's stockpile. Put it later in the article and it's fine.
I'm not trying to downplay India's stockpile - only to impose quality control by insisting on reliable citations for the figures used. Wikipedia is not a place for Original Research. NPguy (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


please note that i use capital letters sometimes to emphasize the word and it is not meant to be rude. ok now on with the discussion:

why did you put a citation tag and remove the reference that clearly stated the 300-400 quote that the indian defence ministry made??

the indian defence ministry made that remark in 2004 and now it is 2009. the indian government has not released any number to the public, so your quote of 40-95 is quite an outdated number.

ashley tellis has produced the MOST upto date report on indian nuclear capabilities to the american administration. this report was for the american-indian nuclear deal.

he has personally visited indian nuclear reactors and has SEEN them functioning.

HIS quotations and HIS report has much much MUCH more validity than anybody else.

how are you supposed to know what is indias production capabilities??? have i ever said anything against china???

for the last time i am saying this again:

this is plutonium that has ALREADY been produced, i repeat ALREADY been produced and which can and is being used to make the nuclear weapons.

it is not going to be produced, it is ALREADY produced.

it is not even considering the uranium that india is now getting from both america and france.

and the 2nd largest reserves of thorium that india has, which after a few minor modifications and getting u-233 can also easily be used for power generation and to make nuclear weapons.

please do not remove referenced material from people who have made indepth reports on indian nuclear production. Zoomzoom316 (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

To respond, you have not provided a verifiable citation for the 300-400 figure. Where is this information published? Until you provide a specific citation, this assertion is unverifiable. In any case, you should not delete a "citation needed" tag without providing a verifiable citation.
On Wikipedia, you can't just make assertions. You need verifiable citations. You have provided none. Until you find citations to suppot your claims, you should not be editing this article.
As for Ashley Tellis, he is not god. In any case, the number you wish to use is not for India's nuclear stockpile, but a hypothetical speculation of what India could produce in a very unlikely scenario. It does not belong in the introduction to this article. I have already suggested that you put it elsewhere in the article.
By the way, you don't produce plutonium by enriching it. Your use of the term "enriched" suggests that you don't know what you're talking about. NPguy (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

i know that you dont get plutonium by enrichment and that it is produced as a byproduct. i made a mistake in the previous comment. i was trying to say that they already have the stockpiles of plutonium instead i ended up using the word "enriched"

did you actually read the link? please READ THE LINK. it says in there 300-400

you did not READ THE LINK. i have already put the reference. why did you remove it???

heck i even moved the reference up to where the numbers are. you can click on it.

also what do you mean by "unlikely scenario"???

ashley tellis is much more knowledgeble than you on indias nuclear stockpiles. i would definitely use a detailed report written by a nuclear expert, who has visited and seen the nuclear reactors functioning first hand. Zoomzoom316 (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is tiresome. You have removed several reputable estimates of India's stockpile, all of them below the range you assert, without reference (100-140). You have included a secondhand reference to an Indian defense official boasting to Defense News. And the extended Ashley Tellis quote is really not relevant to estimating India's actual stockpile - it's about a hypothetical situation that Tellis does not believe will take place. You also confuse estimates of India's plutonium stockpile with those for its weapons stockpile. I am not aware of any concrete indication that India has used its power reactors to produce plutonium for weapons. At some point I may find the time to fix some of this damage, but I'm too busy now. NPguy (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Strategic Bombers

Russian delivery of Tu-142 and Il-38 (or the future lease of Tu-22M)to Indian Navy are maritime reconnaissance versions of both aircraft and are not capable of delivering nuclear payloads. Please protect this article from vandalism (blatant misinformation), as POV commnets like "the indian Tu-142 or Il-38 can easily be converted into nuclear capable aircrafts" are totally baseless and has no credible online or paper-based military resource.

Also, Russia, as signatory of the NPT, cannot export its nuclear-capable versions of Tu-95 or Tu-22M -- Ash sul (talk) 14:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear-capable aircraft

This section is mostly unsubstantiated speculation and doesn’t even make clear that no Indian aircraft is confirmed to have been modified to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. In fact, it is unknown whether India has managed to develop a nuclear warhead that could be delivered by a modern fighter. It needs to be kept in mind that there is a tremendous amount of research and development into “weaponizing” nukes, particularly in reducing them in size and weight so they can be carried by fighters. Those fighters also have to be appropriately modified to carry and deliver them – and a Russian or French aircraft would naturally be designed to carry Russian or French nukes, neither of which might resemble an Indian tactical nuclear weapon. This section needs to be rewritten to capture what is known and not known, rather than speculate on what might be possible. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)



Well mark these are normal heavy bombers capable of flying long distance and dropping a large amount of ordinance and thus charaterised strategic bombers. I have made some changes to the section and realise that the earlier writter portion which now has been deleted was misleading. For that reason, I have mentioned in regarding section that the bombers role is primitive and similar to that of the bombers used by the american to bomb Japan. Im sure u must have seen that famous documentary on the bombing and if these bombers are used they bombs would be dropped in the similar simple fashion.

Coming to the fighter jets, bharat rakshak or some site i dont remember says that modification were made to mirage 2000 and it was customised during kargil. I dont have time rite now bt hopefully during the weekend i'll manage to solve the mystery of the missing link that comfirms this fact =) totally agree that the russian fighter jets would incorportate russian techonoly but then jane and atomic society have repeatedly mentioned the Su-30, Mig-27 as well as tu-142 as a means to drop nuclear weapons im sure they have done some pretty good research if they have mentioned it cz im sure uncle sam wouldnt like that, another mistake is made and there is another iraq, another iraq would be bad fr uncle sam especially lookin at the current economic situation Enthusiast10 (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Hello, Enthusiast10 and thank you for posting here. The general problem with the whole “Nuclear-capable aircraft” section is that it is a synthesis of original research that is sometimes derived from unreliable sources (such as blogs, forums, etc.) and often unsourced altogether. The subject of this article is about what capabilities India is known or reported to have. The fact that India operates types of aircraft that in other air forces are known to be able to carry strategic or tactical nuclear weapons does not mean that India’s aircraft themselves have such capabilities. Simply saying that India has all these “nuclear-capable” aircraft assumes two unproven matters: that 1) India’s aircraft indeed have been modified to carry such weapons, and 2) that India has developed nuclear weapons suitable for launch from such aircraft. Miniaturizing nuclear devices is complex, expensive and requires further nuclear weapons testing to ensure that the devices work as intended. To date, India has not tested an example of a small-sized tactical nuke suitable for carriage on fighters.
The only aircraft in Indian inventory seriously discussed as possibly having been modified for delivering tactical nukes is the Mirage 2000. These underwent unspecified modifications during the Kargil War that some speculated might have included adding a (crude) capability to deliver a nuclear weapon. That has never been verified, but is as much as we can say based on reliable sources. That any version of the Tejas will carry a nuclear weapon is also based on speculation, and frankly, lightweight fighters are poor platforms for nuclear weapons carriage. While the MCA or FGFA would be better candidates, I am aware of no such requirements for them to do so being published; projecting that they might, much less what missiles may be so equipped is relying on a crystal ball.
In reviewing your revised write-up on Indian strategic bombers, but there remain a number of problems. The very first sentence is itself incorrect as India does not operate strategic bombers and has not since the obsolete Canberras were withdrawn from service (as target tugs) in 2007. The Il-38 and Tu-142 are not “normal bombers”; in fact, both are maritime patrol/anti-submarine warfare aircraft. (The P-8 Poseidon is also an MP/ASW aircraft, not a bomber – and is being developed from an airliner.) The Il-38, which was developed from the Il-18 turboprop transport, is also used for search and rescue; it has never served as a “strategic bomber”. It was able to carry a single Ryu-2 nuclear depth bomb, but the Indian examples were not provided with this capability and there are no reports to the effect that India has or plans to develop a nuclear depth bomb; since India has not conducted underwater nuclear testing, it’s highly improbable. The Tu-142 is a dedicated MP/ASW variant of the Tu-95 strategic bomber; because of strategic arms control agreements between the U.S. and U.S.S.R., it is not configured to deliver nuclear weapons. According to Jane’s, the anti-ship missiles employed by the Tu-142 and Il-38 are only known to have been equipped with conventional warheads. The Indian government is reliably reported to have sought Tu-22M ‘Backfire’ and at one time a lease of four (originally 4-6) to India was reportedly close to being signed, but this never occurred and the option has long since expired. Accordingly, all that can be reliably said is that India has no strategic bombers and that while it has sought to acquire such, these efforts have proven fruitless.
In short, all Wikipedia can say is that India is not yet confirmed to have any capability to deliver nuclear weapons from aircraft it currently operates. We can add (reliably sourced) notes regarding the Mirage 2000 and Backfire, but must admit that the former is unconfirmed and the latter fell through. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


Oh obviously you are much better informed than me and thanks for the rather long explanation. Im really sorry if i wasted any of your precious time. --Enthusiast10 (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
It was not a waste of time. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is education. You learned something, didn't you? Learning what we don't know about a topic is a good incentive for making further efforts to learn more about it. The reason I know more about the subject is that I've spent over 30 years professionally learning about it; that said, there are lots of things I know little or nothing about because I haven't (yet) pursued educating myself more about them. Cheers, Askari Mark (Talk) 23:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
This from nuclearweaponsarchive.org (I don't know whether it counts as a WP:RS, but it is a lot better than no source at all) suggests that India has developed a free-fall bomb capabity, at least from the Mirage 2000 (after first attempting integration onto the Jaguar and failing)

Klub and BrahMos nuclear capable? Any WP:RS to confirm this?

The article currently makes great claims that the Klub and BrahMos cruise missiles are nuclear capable and therefore large portions of the Indian Navy, both surface ships and submarines are also nuclear capable - are there any reliable sources that back up this assertion? or even discuss sensibly whether these systems are nuclear capable? If not, claims made for these missiles need to be drastically toned down or removed altogether.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

This page is Rotten..

Brahmos is nuclear capable, sure you can look at the brahmos corporation's website and promo brochures in Aero India events...

But this entire article is downright rotten, what the heck is Nag and Aakash missile doing, besides this section was supposed to be on WMD not on WMD delivery methods...

require major rework..

Swraj (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Map of India

The link to a map of India in the first infobox is broken. Could someone fix this? I don't know how. NPguy (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Why not use the term WMD in the lede

This article is about all forms of WMD, but it says Israel has only nuclear weapons -- not chemical or biological weapons. In general the term WMD blurs the distinction among the different types, and in my view it is better off to make the distinctions clearly. That's why I think the first sentence should say that India has nuclear weapons, not that it has WMD. NPguy (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Article protected for one week

Due to the ongoing content dispute edit war I've protected the article to encourage discussion on this page. All editors are reminded that even where WP:3RR has not been broken, edit warring (defined as "when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion") can still attract sanctions on their accounts. Please see the cycle recommended at WP:BRD and, if necessary, make use of the dispute resolution measures outlined at WP:DR. If consensus is reached, you can request that protection be removed or that an administrator make whatever edits are agreed by using the {{editprotected}} template. Thanks, EyeSerenetalk 09:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been trying to redirect editors to the discussion page for some time. NPguy (talk) 03:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Agni 3 IRBM

first of all India's longest range missile is Agni III which has a range of 3,500km at the least but it can go as far as 5,500km why does it say the longest missile is Agni II 2,500km? when clearly it isn't —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.51.236 (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Agni II is the longest-range missile that has been operationally deployed. The infobox should be updated to refer to Agni-III once that missile is operationally deployed, but not until then. NPguy (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Several editors persist in asserting that Agni III is operational and is India's longest-range deployed missile. That could be true, but to date no one has produced a citation that supports this claim. Until then, the claim is original research and should not be included. NPguy (talk) 02:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Umm... Might I suggest taking a look at the Agni III article, which gives a reference from 2011 that it's in operation, unless I'm misinterpreting the rather confused English used in the referenced source? See: PTI (2011-06-03). "Sci-Tech / Science : India to test fire Agni-V by year-end". Chennai, India: The Hindu. Retrieved 2011-07-15. Allens (talk | contribs) 15:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
This and other sources say "inducted," which is not synonymous with "operational" or "deployed." NPguy (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
What does "inducted" mean in this case, then? Allens (talk | contribs) 16:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
It is not clear. There is a clear difference for troops between being "inducted" and "deployed." By analogy I suspect it means the missiles are being produced for military use but not yet operationally deployed. NPguy (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Agree with NPguy. Anir1uph (talk) 05:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

It is reported that a missile group is now being raised with Agni-III missiles. See: Ajai Shukla (2012-09-04). "Military to buy DRDO missiles worth Rs 1 lakh cr in 10 yrs". Hyderabad, India: Business Standard. {{cite news}}: Check |url= value (help) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkb76in (talk • contribs) 14:37 04 Sept 2012 (IST)

Agni-II Range

The article body has (as per the referenced source) the Agni-II as 3,000 km, not 2,500 km. Shouldn't the infobox say 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi)? Allens (talk | contribs) 11:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons development program

I propose a section on India's nuclear weapons program and development history prior to it's 1974 and 1998 tests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar (talk • contribs) 17:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a definite weakness in this article. Aside from a couple of sentences in the intro, it doesn't even talk about the well-known elements of India's nuclear production complex. NPguy (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Any RS on Indian motivations for Agni V-range missiles?

Are there any reliable sources with information (or even reasonable speculations) as to why India's wanting something that will (as far as I can tell from the map; correct me if I'm wrong, please!) reach much further than Pakistan, China, and North Korea, the three local nuclear powers? Do they figure that bigger range is more reliable for even reaching shorter range, are they wanting to put them aboard nuclear submarines located a significant distance away, or do they want to be able to strike countries other than Pakistan, China, and North Korea (Russia? No criticism of them if Russia is the intended target...) Thanks! Allens (talk | contribs) 16:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to the Agni V page. Agni V is the only missile which can deliver a 1 ton nuclear warhead to even the northest parts of China (and the capital city of Beijing), and with high accuracy. Agni III is not as accurate, is not solid-fueled, is not road mobile. Similar technology problems for Agni II. There are reports of Agni-V being modified for use as a SLBM. Russia is not the indented target of any Indian missile, nor is North Korea (as far as open sourced info goes!) You can find the refs in the Agni V page. Thanks! Btw, i do not understand why you asked this question. Anir1uph (talk) 15:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll take a look at the Agni V page. Why? Curiosity, mostly; it also seemed to be something that should perhaps be at least mentioned in this article. Allens (talk | contribs) 16:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Maximum missile range of India

It has been proposed by Anurag2k12 that using this reference, the entry of the field "Maximum missile range" in the infobox be changed to Agni III. An official of the Govt of India says that the missile has already been inducted into the army. He goes on to say that the missile is under production. I would have preferred to keep this to Agni II till we could find a source that says that Agni III has been operationally deployed, like the sources which say so for Agni II. However, I am open to community consensus on this, and will not be reverting to the earlier article state, primarily because both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionary give the definition induct: to formally accept someone into an organisation or group. I would however re-introduce the existing hidden comment as numerous editors change the value to Agni-V, which is not supported. I would ask all editors to form a consensus here before reverting/changing that particular infobox field. Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus to use Agni III. In fact, I have repeatedly made the same point you are making, that the maximum missile range should be based on an operationally deployed missile, and there is no source claiming Agni III has been operationally deployed. They say "inducted." None of the proponents of using Agni III has been willing to respond on the talk page. The consensus on the discussion page, therefore, is to revert to Agni II. NPguy (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you, as i too have been reverting to Agni II for about 6 months :) But has any such discussion taken place in the past, where consensus to display Agni II was achieved? If it has, then kindly post its link here and end the matter. If it has not, then let us wait for one week for comment of other editors. Perhaps someone can suggest a new way. Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 15:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The editors who insist on referring to Agni III or V have not engaged in discussion. Until they do, or until they come up with a citation that says "deployed" or "operational," we should continue to revert to Agni II. NPguy (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I've semiprotected the page at the consensus version. Please mind, though, that in content disputes (which this is), even if it's editing against consensus WP:3RR applies. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and noted. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 16:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Oops late to join the discussion. Anyway, after reading these comments, I assume that Agni III can be added in if someone can get a reliable source that says it is fully operational? Anurag2k12 (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
EDIT: I just looked it up, sorry about the misunderstanding, I just realised that it's still not completely operational. Anurag2k12 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, of course then it can be added then! Due to the constant additions by various ips for the last 6 months, i have been on a constant look out for sources that say so. Cudnt find any :) Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 17:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, what? Is it just me, or did an anon add his view in a way so that it looks like Anir1uph has said "yes it can be added"? -- Anurag2k12 (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any malicious misrepresentation here. It appears that Anir1uph was responding to the first paragraph of the previous comment by Anurag2k12 - agreeing that Agni III can be added if someone can get a reliable source that says it's operational. I think we can all agree with that. NPguy (talk) 19:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
To the anon: if it wasn't malicious or purposeful, terribly sorry about the accusation. -- Anurag2k12 (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If someone sees the Wikipedia article on India and Weapons of Mass Destruction and reads the article on Delivery systems, it says that the Agni 3 Missile is fully operational. So I feel we can change the maximum range to 5000 km on the Article (for Agni 3). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.247.153 (talk • contribs) 06:28, August 25, 2012 (UTC)

This has been fixed - changed from "operational" to "inducted" consistent with the cited sources. In any case, an unsourced assertion in a wikipedia article is not a reliable source for citation purposes. NPguy (talk) 19:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It is reported that a missile group is now being raised with Agni-III missiles. See: Ajai Shukla (2012-09-04). "Military to buy DRDO missiles worth Rs 1 lakh cr in 10 yrs". Hyderabad, India: Business Standard. 14:37 04 Sept 2012 (IST)

Well it is being raised, doesn't that mean that it isn't fully operational and is only gonna be operational after a small while? Or does a near future order qualify as a missile being operational? -- Anurag2k12 (talk) 15:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

An article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists questions whether Agni I and II are fully operation and describes Agni III as "under development." NPguy (talk) 02:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The article states the five missile groups already in service and a fifth now being raised with Agni-III missiles. As per my understanding even if a single missile is with missile group, it is operational. At the end, these are to increases deterrence (which is enhanced even with single digit missile numbers). It is a free world, there is a report today that Agni-I and II are not operational. So India has maximum range anywhere between 150 - 5000 KM. It is always good to have ambiguity. (Rkb76in (talk) 10:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC))
I am not sure. It will require consensus of other users though. -- Anurag2k12 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The language in the Business Standard article is still future oriented. It's about plans, not actualities. What is needed is an unambiguous statement from a reliable source that Agni III is operationally deployed. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article casts significant doubt on its status. NPguy (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
This news is coming from a reporter who is visiting a institute, which is directly responsible for it. As far Atomic Scientists article is concerned, it is gas stuck in stomach for half a decade (more or less). (Rkb76in (talk) 07:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC))
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is just about the most reputable source on nuclear arsenals worldwide. It cannot be dismissed as digestive gas. Neither the Business Standard article nor any of the other sources cited say unambiguously that Agni III is now operationally deployed. If this were a well-known fact, it should not be so hard to find a reliable source that says so. NPguy (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
HYDERABAD, September 21, 2012 Personnel of the Strategic Forces Command fired Agni-III from a rail mobile launcher at 1.20 a.m. after it was randomly picked up from the production lot. The trial was conducted as part of regular user-training. What do The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists think of it? Agni-III test-fired successfully Rkb76in (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Assuming this unsourced statement is correct, what point does it prove? It does not say that Agni III is operationally deployed. NPguy (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
hats off to you for calling this unsourced statement... there are more then one major news papers covering this launch by the SFC, which is responsible for using it in case of any unfortunate event. Some expect a certificate from state department :-) With biased vision is difficult to see reality. Rkb76in (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's get to basics here. All we need is a single reliable source saying Agni III is operationally deployed. Anyone? NPguy (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that with strategic or semi-strategic systems like IRBMs, operators tend to be very coy about operational status for obvious reasons, while what counts as operational may not be clear. because of the uncertainty, its probably best to not state a maximum range in the infobox, and instead point the reader at the main body of the text where the subtleties can be explained properly.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss before removing any sourced material or else it's considered vandalism.-99.226.203.145 (talk) 06:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

You miss the point. This article is about weapons of mass destruction. The deleted information was not. It was about conventional arms. NPguy (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with NPguy that the deleted edit was largely irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, it is not sourced as you claim. I think you are relying on another wikipedia article as the basis of your assertion. However this does not appear sourced either. Please see WP:NOTSOURCE. Jschnur (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. NPguy has been removing cited content frequently on pages. NPguy, you can avoid vandalizing articles by modifying content and conducting research, as the person that posts information does often provide a source to prove they did additional work to obtain the information. It is unjust and immoral to dismiss these efforts by simply highlighting work and pressing the backspace or delete key. In which case, the word "vandalism" is a proper word. It is no different than a child spray painting the side of a building, in which the owner may have worked tirelessly to develop it in the first place. Please take my remarks into consideration and I look forward to seeing your improvements in the future. Twillisjr (talk) 05:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you (Twillsjr) understand that the previous comment agreed with me, not you? It's not vandalism to remove irrelevant material. On the contrary, it could be considered vandalism to repeatedly add such material. NPguy (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The material is clearly sourced and and linked, so you have no basis to remove them (at least without discussion). Please leave it alone or I will lodge a complaint-99.226.203.145 (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stop adding information on India's conventional arms purchases to this article on weapons of mass destruction. It does not matter whether it is sourced if it is outside the scope of this article. NPguy (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

You are not going to remove sourced material. It is about India's arms stockpile in general and clearly referenced and by no means outside the scope of the article.-99.226.203.145 (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In general conventional weapons are outside the scope of the article, and certainly do not deserve mention in the lead. The claim that Russia supported India's nuclear weapons development is a misreading of the sources. Russia provided assistance to India's nuclear power program and leased nuclear powered submarines. Only the latter (submarines) is directly relevant to this article, but it is addressed earlier. NPguy (talk) 18:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not about conventional weapons. It's about weapons purchases and India stands at the top of importing them. That is a an important fact to be added in the article. Do not remove it. India's nuclear power was used to produce nuke. 'Nuke' is short for nuclear weapons not for civilian nuclear programs which the Americans are currently helping with. The Soviet Union DID provide technology and other assistance to build the Indian bomb.- 99.226.203.145 (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

The cited references on India's arms purchases refer to the purchase of conventional arms, which is not relevant to this article. I am not aware of any evidence that India received Soviet assistance in production of nuclear weapons. There is a real difference between assistance to civil nuclear power and to nuclear weapons. The former takes place under international safeguards to verify that it is not diverted for weapons. All Soviet (and Russian) assistance was of that type. None of the citations in the disputed text provide evidence to the contrary. NPguy (talk) 02:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No they do not. Much of India's WMDs are imported from Israel and the Russian Federation, including ballistic missiles and cluster bombs, not to mention nuclear program. The source make it quite clear so do not remove facts in favor personal opinions. Thank you.-99.226.203.145 (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what claim is being made. If the claim is that India imported nuclear weapons or ballistic from Israel and Russia, that is NOT TRUE, and none of your citations support the claim. I don't know whether India has imported cluster bombs, but those are not generally considered WMD. If you persist in reverting I will ask that this page be semi-protected, so that IP editors are unable to make changes. NPguy (talk) 03:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote, your personal speculation is not a valid source. Please review Wikipedia guidelines. The external links and references are clearly provided. I will request this page be protected in preventing constant vandalism and further edit wars.-99.226.203.145 (talk) 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Umm, if this page is protected, you will not be able to edit as an ip-user, but will be forced to create an account. Secondly, please provide the reference to your claims of India importing WMD here on the talk page, so they can be examined! Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Reorganization

One editor just rearranged and changed the titles on various sections of this article. The original structure was not great, but the revision is if anything even worse. I'd like to give the editor a chance to explain and hopefully rethink those changes.NPguy (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

NPguy is a serial vandal and does not use buttons on his/her keyboard if they do not contain "delete" or "backspace." It is necessary for editors to consider themselves contributors and to avoid abusing the sharing of knowledge.[1] Twillisjr (talk) 04:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that substantive response. Please be civil. NPguy (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You are not welcome in removing sourced material. You have to convince others that your edits are relevant and not just your own personal speculation.-99.226.203.145 (talk) 01:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not about citations here. The fact is that the info you are presenting here is not relevant to this page. It is relevant to say Indian armed forces, but IMO, not here. Also, accusing another editor of bad faith, or being a vandal, when they clearly are not, will not help your case, or endear you to anyone. See WP:AOBF. Please try to change the established a consensus on the talk page before reverting edits on article space. Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 22:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have requested discussion several times and sources to support opposing claims, but the editor does not seem co-opertive and keeps removing content without discussion first, hence it is not a violation of WP:AGF-99.226.203.145 (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Alas, you have failed to engage in discussion requested by others, and persist in making arguments no one else supports and edits against the consensus on the discussion page. Cut it out. NPguy (talk)
You changed the article - then your change was reverted. Wikipedia conduct states that it is now your responsibility to start discussion on the talk page and establish consensus. You are not to go back to the article to revert that. If you continue to persist reverting changes to the article, you will be warned, and ultimately blocked, or the article protected. Please do not engage in such behavior. There are too many editors who have seen the change you want to make, but have decided that it is not required. So kindly find a new way to improve Wikipedia - there are a lot of defence-related article that need attention and we need your help in improving them! Thanks! Anir1uph | talk | contrib 14:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

1) I have requested the page be protected to prevent constant vandalism by all users, not just IPs. 2) I'm the one who pushed for discussion, not your side 3) I have provided sources, you have provided no sources at all. Other users also object to your constant vandalism. 4) If these edits belong in another article, link them here.-99.226.203.145 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

New source for induction of Agni III

A PIB released report titled Achievements of Ministry of Defence during the Year 2012 says that With Agni-I, Agni-II, Agni-III and Prithvi P-II surface to surface missile and also its naval version Dhanush already in the arsenal of the Indian Armed Forces, the missile from the production lots were flight tested by the Armed Forces as part of training exercises to ensure defence preparedness.

So is this good enough to update the page? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The general standard in these "County X and WMD" articles seems to be whether a missile system is "operationally deployed." "Already in the arsenal" is not the same thing. Like previous citations saying it was "inducted," This implies that Agni III has been procured, but not necessarily operationally ready and deployed. Perhaps I'm naive, but it seems to me that if it were operationally deployed it should not be hard to find a source that says so. NPguy (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I will defer to your judgement on this. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 03:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, Agni-III is currently not operationally deployed in its role, but only just recently being introduced to the Armed Forces. I have made several significant edits to this article as it was packed with paragraph after paragraph of "nuclear capable" weapon systems. However none of them were actually operationally deployed in a nuclear deterrent role. For example, there was a whole section devoted to a Surface-to-air missile (SAM) system with a single sentence dumped in the paragraph saying the surface-to-air missiles are capable of being armed with a nuclear warhead. Ridiculous! Yes, while many missile systems can theoretically be armed with a nuclear warhead, it doesn't mean any benefit would result in doing do. When and why would India ever deploy nuclear warheads on a SAM system?! In future, lets only include systems which are actually operationally deployed in a nuclear deterrent role from now on. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Just for the sake of personal edification, what is the difference between "operationally deployed" and "already in the arsenal" or "inducted" or "operationally prepared" beyond the semantics? Apart Aniruph's source, [3] [4] These sources corroborate the induction of this missile into Indian military. Well I understand that although it is inducted it is not fully operational. But it doesn't make any sense so help me fathom the crux of the situation. In 2012, a senior expert commented on the missile that "two years more will be required for its operational deployment."
P.S. I do not wish to argue against NPguy or anybody, don't get me wrong, I am in no hurry. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
In other country-specific WMD pages the missile ranges seem to refer consistently to weapons that are deployed and operational. That seems like a reasonable standard to use here, though I don't particularly care so long as the standards are consistent from country to country so the figures for different countries are comparable. I don't I don't know what "inducted" means in Indian military lingo, but it seems to mean something less that operationally deployed. Troops are normally inducted long before they are deployed. I would be happy if someone could explain the usage. NPguy (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Are you telling me you don't know? Doesn't it make sense that a country like India with hostile nuke-armed neighbors will try to keep its nuclear deployment secret and use some phrases like "already in the arsenal" or "inducted"?
"so the figures for different countries are comparable" - Okay, but where does it say that these articles have to pass a comparability test based solely on semantics? Not getting stuck on "inducted", where does it say that "already in the arsenal" nullifies the idea of missile being operationally deployed? "operational deployment" will have unaffordable adversarial repercussions for India. My past experiences have taught me that logic or common sense doesn't matter here in Wikipedia. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 04:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Program Start Date

I noticed that the sidebar says the nuclear program started in 1967, but the article says it started in 1944 (under Nuclear Weapons). Is one of them wrong, or is there something interesting about 1967? "1967" does not appear anywhere else in the article. 70.112.198.77 (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agni III

Okay, this is the dumbest thing im coming across in a while.

Agni III inducted but not operationally deployed? India is moving on to Agni 4 and Agni 5 now, so no new reports of Agni 3 will come up, so i think it will be so called "not operational, but indcuted(lol)" even when Agni 5 enter service around 2014-15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.189.16 (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

There will be new reports, please be patient. Yes the Agni III has been introduced, however, you have to understand that at present India is still conducting trials and test with the new missile before it is fully deployed in operational formations. Also, how many Agni III does India have? Probably not very many as the orders are still being delivered. So currently, my guess is that there are not enough Agni III missiles to even fully equip operational formations yet. Compare it to the HAL Tejas, HAL Tejas has been delivered to the Indian Air Force, but it it still undergoing trials and testing and currently there are only very few Tejas delivered. Therefore Tejas is not "operationally deployed". Same with Agni III.Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


India conducts regular trials of all it's missiles to check the operational capability as part of user trials. Very recently Agni 2 was test fired. Does India reveal the exact numer of Ballistic missiles it has? All we know that it has been under production since 2011. HAL Tejas has been granted the Initial Operational Clearance. But we know that,according to media reports, HAL is having some problems in manufacturing the Series Production Aircrafts at the desired rate. No such thing is reported of the Agni-3. It seems that, this "non operational" term is simply being cooked up. I have gone through various reports. All use the term either "Inducted" or "Operational". Are there any reports saying that the missile is "Not Operational"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.179.103 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) 07:00, April 16, 2013 (UTC)

Can you share with me any report that says the Agni III is operational? If you can then I would be very happy to invite some other editors here to discuss the report and where we go from here. Thank you. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
A part of statement given by Mr. Shyam Saran (Chairman of India's National Security Advisory Board) on 25 April 2013. This rest this debate which is going on for quite some time. If we look at the current status of India’s nuclear deterrent and its command and control system, it is clear that at least two legs of the triad referred to in our nuclear doctrine are already in place. These include a modest arsenal, nuclear capable aircraft and missiles both in fixed underground silos as well as those which are mounted on mobile rail and road-based platforms. These land-based missiles include both Agni-II (1500 km) as well as Agni-III (2500 km) missiles. [5] Rkb76in (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Go ahead and make the edits, that citation satisfies me.. good job! Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Made relevant changes. Rkb76in (talk) 21:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Original of the Indian nuclear program: the Chinese factor

The current entry says, as I quote, "India's loss of territory to China in a brief Himilayan border war in October 1962, provided the New Delhi government impetus for developing nuclear weapons as a means of deterring potential Chinese aggression." I have two questions: first of all, it is generally known that during the 1962 Indo-Chinese conflict China withdrew from the occupied area. It seems India didn't lose any territory in the war. Even if China "won" (which is under dispute), did India need nuclear weapon to defend its boarder? I am skeptical of this "Chinese aggression" argument. Secondly, China detonated her first nuclear bomb on 1964, only 2 years after the conflict with India. It seem very plausible that New Delhi saw Beijing's nuclear program as a security threat. So there follows the 1974 Indian nuclear test. But Beijing's nuclear program is not an "aggression". Nor did China declare to use nuclear weapon on resolving the boarder dispute. (There is an article on this piece of history. But I couldn't find it now ). Can someone please clarify on this issue? Thank you. 173.28.252.161 (talk) 05:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a source cited for this claim. You may want to look that up (it's behind a pay wall online). NPguy (talk) 01:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Indian sea-based nuclear-armed ballistic missiles

Kept under wraps so far, it is now known that the Indian Navy successfully test-fired the indigenously developed ship launched ballistic missile Dhanush on Nov 14 last year for the first time during the night from a warship INS Subhadra anchored about 45 km off the coast of Puri and Paradip in Odisha..... Project Dhanush was sanctioned by the Indian Navy to integrate and demonstrate the feasibility of launching variant of Prithvi from a ship. The translation from the technology demonstrator to weaponisation configuration, and induction of the Dhanush weapon system was completed with the successful 'Acceptance Test Firing' conducted by the navy, and after achieving all the planned mission objectives. The salient features and achievements under the project include.[2]

Rkb76in (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on India and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on India and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Color of Kashmir in India Map

Kashmir is part of India ,Why there is slight color difference in India map for Kashmir Gunti Pandu (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The different color is applied to the parts of Kashmir that are controlled by Pakistan and China. This does not seem inappropriate. NPguy (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on India and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Map

Indian map should be change to a neutral version, one that is recognized by international community rather than just by Indian government. Currently displayed Indian map includes many areas of Pakistan which are not in fact controlled by India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.64.212 (talk) 03:45, April 17, 2017 (UTC)

 Not done. Sorry that is the internationally recognized map and the one we are going to stick with unless there is clear consensus otherwise. Wikipedia isn't the place to hash out your nationalistic issues. --Majora (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please provide proof! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.64.212 (talk) 02:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies for my rude response. We get so many issues with the whole India/Pakistan border dispute that I brushed off your request without even thinking twice about it. And for that I am sorry. I have changed the map to the NPOV version that is displayed on India. Again, I am sorry that I did not do this to begin with. --Majora's Incarnation (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Chemical weapons

Under Chemical weapons, the first sentence makes it sound as if India said in 1992 that they hadn't any chemical weapons. It wasn't until 2009 that they had destroyed their stockpile. If corrected as 2009, the [citation needed] tag can be replaced by this link. Additionally, I've modified the dead link supporting the sentence following it. —Vignyanatalk 13:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on India and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Wrong information in InfoBox

The largest yield test of India was Shatki-I, not Shakti-II. Also, a source for the 200 kiloton claim has not been provided. I provide it here.[3]

The Shakti-I thermonuclear test, notwithstanding all the disputes about its yield, was a 200 kiloton device scaled down to 45 kt to avoid civilian damage and radioactivity leaks. The latter since India couldn’t dig a new, stronger shaft due to secrecy concerns; old shafts from 1980s were used.

I corrected this information in the InfoBox. If you dispute my correction, please talk. Vaibhavafro (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Please write me a Hello email at okbro1ok18@gmail.com . I want to discuss with you about this article. There is an incorrect info in this article. 2409:4043:4D8C:5DB3:E01C:DCD:1967:3CDA (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia depends on the use of reliable sources. If you have a proposed change based reliable source, feel free to edit the article accordingly and cite that source. If you don't have a reliable source, feel free to explain the nature of the inaccuracy and we can discuss whether there is a reliable source for that information. In the meantime, I will revert the recent unsourced edits. NPguy (talk) 18:53, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NPguy
  2. ^ India's Dhanush Undergoes 1st Night Test
  3. ^ http://pib.gov.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=52814
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:India_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction/Archive_1&oldid=1181132763"