India and Israel relationship

 On January 21, 2008 an Indian space launch vehicle lifted off from the Sriharikota spaceport on the Indian Ocean to put into space Israel’s most sophisticated spy satellite ever launched, the Polaris. The commercial launch of Polaris by the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) underscored the growing military and intelligence connections between Israel and India. The United States helped inspire this relationship and has a strong interest in its success. Though unique in the military cooperation realm, this is but one of several evolving relationships between Israel and great or emerging powers that deserves attention.

Israel and India only established formal diplomatic relations in 1991 with the Madrid Arab-Israeli peace process creating a favorable diplomatic context for New Delhi to move beyond informal contacts that existed before 1990. Then President Bush’s National Security Council staff worked closely behind the scenes with Prime Minister Rao’s embassy in Washington to make this happen. Military-to-military contacts and defense interaction followed.

In the 1990s, China was Israel’s most important arms export market. The signature weapons system in the relationship was the Phalcon airborne warning and control system (AWACs). This system used U.S. technology in its development and was thus subject to U.S. export oversight. As the 1990s developed and tensions rose in the Taiwan Strait, Washington pressed the Ministry of Defense in Tel Aviv to cut back on its ties to Beijing. The Phalcon became a bone of contention. Of course, this had serious economic costs for Israel.

In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak pressed President Clinton for relief. Clinton came back with an idea — if the United States did not like Israeli-Chinese arms deals, it had no objection to Israeli-Indian arms sales since they did not raise the potential issues Taiwan raised. More explicitly, selling the Phalcon to India would not meet objections in Washington. Clinton made clear the United States would not raise concerns about the arms balance with Pakistan since it has no commitment to the defense of Pakistan and the conventional balance of forces was already tipped in India’s favor in 2000. The two leaders talked the issues through on the margins of the Israeli-Palestinian summit at Camp David in mid-2000. They reached agreement and Israel got a green light from Washington to court India.

Now, almost eight years later, India is Israel’s largest arms export market in the world. Sales in 2006 were $1.5 billion, roughly the same as in each of the preceding three years as well. This from Israel’s total arms sales of $4.2 billion in 2006; the India market comprised more than one-third. Sales included upgrades for MIG 21 aircraft and T72 tanks originally purchased from Russia, the Barak anti-missile ship defense system, communications equipment, laser-guided munitions and the Phalcon. The first of five Phalcon AWACs were delivered in 2007. Co-partnerships are now developing between Indian and Israeli firms.

Israeli arms experts are also seeking to sell the Arrow II anti-tactical ballistic missile system to India, which would require U.S. approval due to shared technology in the ATBM system. This would give India a significant missile defense system. The Green Pine radar system has already been sold to India which is a critical component of the overall ATBM system.

The Polaris satellite is Israel’s first equipped with synthetic aperture radar that allows it to take high resolution imagery in all weather conditions. The radar looks through clouds or fog to see objects on the ground. Launched from south India into a polar orbit it offers new coverage of sites in Iran for Israeli defense planners. According to Indian press sources, two more such satellites will be launched by ISRO for Israel in the next few years. The Iranian nuclear program will probably be the principal collection target for these systems. Israel retains full operational control of the Polaris system including what targets are imaged. It is unknown if any intelligence derived from the imagery is shared with third parties.

Critics of the Indian-U.S. civilian nuclear deal negotiated by President Bush and Prime Minister Singh have complained about India’s ties to Iran. India does have important equities with Iran, not the least because India has the second largest population of Shia Muslims in the world after Iran. But there is no comparison between the sophisticated military relationship between India and Israel and the weak connections between India and Iran on security issues.

According to ISRO officials I talked to in Bangalore in February the launch of the Polaris produced a serious protest from Iran to India. But they were clear ISRO would stick with its Israeli commercial connection. They also said India will launch its own first radar-imaging satellite later this year. The Indian Army Chief of Staff, General Depak Kapoor, has said publicly that India’s imagery satellite capability is now critical to the nation’s early warning capability with regards to both Pakistan and China.

The Israeli-Indian connection in commercial military and space intelligence fields is good for both countries and for the United States. In less than two decades since diplomatic ties were upgraded, New Delhi and Jerusalem have come a long way. Camp David was a pivotal moment on the way. The cooperation between Israel and India, with U.S. blessing, provides important security to two democratic countries in a very unstable part of the world.

Russia warn, NATO will be reason of WORLD WAR 3

"At the International Security Conference (ISC) in Munich, 2007, Vladimir Putin warned western leaders, that the unprecedented aggressive expansion of NATO has brought the world more close to a third world war than it has ever been before. This stern warning came years before NATO´s aggression against Libya and it´s undeclared war in Syria and Pakistan. Following the recent deployment of US troops to Uganda, and military threats directed against Pakistan, the armed forces of NATO, Russia and China have never been as close to open and all out conflict as today. A recent and sobering report of the Russian Intelligence Service FSB, details the fact that the USA and NATO are currently planning and actively preparing for all out war on all continents. After the recent meeting between Russian P.M. Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Huan Jintao, both Russian and Chinese military forces have been placed on highest alert.

The speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin at the 43rd International Security Conference in Munich in 2007, and Putin´s statement, that the aggressive expansionism of NATO has brought the world more close to a third world war than it has ever been before, was sobering in 2007. That an all out conflict has been prevented until now however, is not based on the fact that NATO has changed it´s aggressive policy of military expansionism. Putin´s speech from 2007 was sobering then, and few understood it´s full implications. The developments of recent months, however, are eliciting the urgent need to stop a cycle of aggression that can only be described as megalomaniacs insanity.
Since the middle of September 2011 Russian politicians at Russia´s State Duma began discussing that NATO must significantly reduce it´s military footprint in the former Soviet Republics. By early October, those calls had developed into demands that Russia should assert it´s interests in the former Soviet republics, and especially in the South. Since the discontinuation of the USSR, and NATO´s war on Afghanistan, it has significantly increased it´s military footprint in Russian and Chinese neighbor states such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and not least in Georgia. The fact that Russian and NATO troops came into open armed conflict when Georgi attacked Ossetia, and not least the US backed armed insurgency in Chechnya are eliciting the fact that Russia is increasingly threatened. A clear response by Vladimir Putin to the State Duma´s demands for policy changes came on 3 October, after Putin had received the sobering Intelligence Report, that warned of US and NATO preparations of a global war. On 3 October, only days before his meeting with Jintao, Putin announced his plans for a Eurasian Union.
When Russia´s Prime Minister, and most likely winner of the next presidential elections, Vladimir Putin, met Chinese President Huan Jintao on 12 October, the official narrative elicited mutually beneficial friendship and treaties, trade and other relations. The most important reason for the sudden visit however, did not make the headlines. Before leaving for Beijing, Putin received a sobering report from the Russian Intelligence Service FSB. The FSB report to Vladimir Putin supported reports from the Chinese Intelligence Service and China´s Ministry of State Security, MSS, which were among other based on intelligence received via the former Blackwater operative Brian Underwood. Underwood is currently held in the US on charges of espionage. According to reliable sources, China has attempted to warn Russia of US and NATO plans to initiate a global armed conflict. This conflict has reportedly moved from the drawing board to an activation stage.
According to both Chinese and Russian Intelligence Sources, the US and NATO plans include among other, the deliberate implosion of the US- and EU Economies, destroying the worlds financial systems, and the launching of a massive conventional war throughout North America, Africa and Asia, as well as the Middle East. The war plans include the release of biological warfare agents designed to kill millions if not billions of people. The NATO strategists rely on their ability to sue for peace when the coming conflict is at it´s highest, to call for the establishment of a “New World Order” under the pretext of preventing the destruction of the planet and civilization as we know it. One of the preparatory stages was reportedly doctrinal and strategy changes wherein the training of it´s soldiers shifted from counter insurgency to more conventional warfare and tank on tank battles.
The FSB Report states that the activation of the conflict is to be expected sooner rather than later, since the US and NATO have pre-deployed 2000  M1 Abrams Battle Tanks in Iraq, and another 2000 in Afghanistan. In the area between the Middle East and Asia, tens of thousands of other armored vehicles are deployed. The FSB evaluates the situation as so threatening, that it explains in it´s report, that the only thing needed to activate the war plan is a call for the full mobilization of 1.5 Million US Reserves. Their activation can come at moments notice, and needs no further authorization by the US Congress.
The US plans for global dominance date back to as early as 1998 and the “Project for a New American Century, PNAC“. One of the think tanks members, former US Secretary of Defense,Donald Rumsfeld, warned in September 2001, that if the war fails to significantly alter the worlds geopolitical map, the US will not achieve it´s aim to become the worlds only ad dominant superpower.
The war on Iraq was not only based on co-opting it´s oil. One of the main driving factors behind the decision to topple the Iraqi government was, that Iraq had begun trading the nations oil inEuro and not US-Dollar. The driving factors behind the aggression against Libya was the fact that Libya blocked for the development of the Mediterranean Alliance, lobbied for the establishment of a Pan-African, gold backed currency, and that it had supported the now ousted Laurent Gbagbo in Ivory Coast in his attempt to get Ivory Coast out of the CFA agreement. The CFA is a French Controlled currency used in eight African states, and France´s control over the CFA is one of the major supports of the French economy. The only country that so far has succeeded to withdraw from the US Dollar is Iran, that ended all trade of oil in US-Dollars in 2009. One of the reasons why Iran has not yet been attacked may be the fact that it has acquired a number of X-55missiles with nuclear capabilities from the Ukraine. Russian Intelligence analysts how ever, generally perceive it as extremely unlikely that Ukraine did not deliver the nuclear warheads together with the missiles. Another reason why Iran has not yet been attacked may be it´s current support of NATO´s narrative of a popular revolution in Libya. Why precisely Iran is playing this dangerous diplomatic game is puzzling many analysts. It may be that Iran, knowing about the US and NATO war plans, would perceive the tying down of NATO forces in Northern Africa as a short lived insurance policy that can buy much needed time to prepare a defense against an anticipated attack.
Both China and Russia are outraged by NATO´s unprecedented abuse of UNSC Resolution 1973 and NATO´s war on Libya. Both the Russian and the Chinese veto of a resolution on Syria must be seen within the context of Russian and Chinese awareness of US and NATO plans to initiate a global war. The fact that the highest US Representative to the UN Susan Rice left the Security Counsel meeting in protest after the veto is not a sign of diplomacy being the modus for solving problems of global security either.
Recently the government of India agreed to let 20.000 Chinese troops to enter the Indian administrated part of Kashmir to counter the expected US and NATO aggression. Afghanistan has is signaling that it would be fighting along side Pakistan in case Pakistan would be attacked by the USA or NATO. Both China, Russia, Pakistan and Afghanistan discussed pressing security matters at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization on 15 October. Most likely, the US and NATO preparations of an all out confrontation with Russia and China have been a central point of consideration in meetings behind the scenes. When the Russian Military was ordered on high alert, Vladimir Putin reportedly instructed high ranking military personnel to “Prepare for Armageddon“.
If the clock was 5 minutes to midnight in 2007, what time is it today. And will the people live up to their responsibility as citizens, to stop criminal governments. Failure to do so, may be failure to save ones own life and civilization as we know it.It is in deed high time that peace loving people throughout the world begin protesting against the mass murder that is planned against them, and support initiatives like those of former Malaysian Prime Minister Dr. Tun Mahatir Muhammad, to criminalize war.
 source by wordpress

CHINA AND PAKISTAN BOTH WANT DESTROYED INDIA

After the resounding success of the China-Pak joint anti –LTTE enterprise, the two nations are doubly encouraged to besiege India from all corners. In fact Pakistan is alleged to have supplied to Sri Lanka the fighter jets while china is said to have supplied the fire arms and other logistical systems. China, apparently, in exchange of its help to rout the LTTE, has secured a port at Hambantota. The Pak-Sri Lanka military co-operation is growing. China’s aim to contain India’s march into the Indian Ocean as well as to encircle India has been fulfilled. Besides, the recent disclosure that Myanmar is about to test a nuclear device has taken India by surprise. Myanmar’s nuclearisation is also a joint China-Pak effort. Two Pak scientists are reported to have fled to Myanmar post 9/11 and North Korean collaboration in the Myanmar nuclear project is certain.

China is equipping Pakistan with its full weight. According to a recent revelation Pakistan is building two new types of N-capable cruise missiles. Another report suggests that Pakistan is building an ICBM. All these missiles must have the Chinese imprint. In fact, perhaps China can give the whole of its N-arsenal to Pak for use against India.

So the joint anti India operation which saw the effort of the so-called “coffee club’’ to debar India from being a permanent member of the UN Security Council and the effort to derail the Indo-US Nuclear agreement are on a new track.

The joint China-Pak strategic co-operation in the field of missile and nuclear technologies is veering towards a new direction. Pakistan’s nuclear policy, as disclosed by the Federation of American Scientists, has changed. Pakistan is moving from uranium warheads to plutonium warheads for their smaller size and longer range. It is also developing an SLBM. The number of nuclear warheads has vastly increased. So the Pak nuclear policy is certainly being orchestrated and executed by Pak and China.

Pakistan’s attempt to destabilize the Indian economy by means of fake currency notes has the Chinese support & it certainly is helping Pakistan to destroy India’s economic fabric.

China is trying to outplace India from the Indian Ocean. It is getting the Pak support in this regard.

As the US pressure is increasing on Pakistan to hand over Dawood Ibrahim, a report confirms he may be getting shelter in China. So Dawood has become a joint asset.

Far more dangers are the Pak-China collaboration in weapon systems. While Pakistan hands over the US military technologies to China, China provides Pakistan with Russian technologies. Thus China reverse-engineered an unexploded Tomahawk secured from the Pak-Afghan border. Similarly China can acquire the UCAV technology from Pakistan if the alleged Pak-Italian collaboration in this field fructifies. Pakistan’s reported attempt to modify the US made Harpoon missiles may have the Chinese hand.

China has agreed to build a mammoth hydel power project in PoK. The 4500 megawatt project is likely to be built by the builders of the Three Gorges Dam. This Dam can have dangerous consequences for India’s ecology. Further more China wants to get the course of Brahmaputra deviated, thus making many parts of India desert areas.

So the effective China-Pak-North Korea- Myanmar quartet provides the anti-India mechanism a global reach.

We must remember that what India seems to think a Pakistani enterprise is actually a Chinese handiwork.

India warn china for POK

NEW DELHI: India has upped the ante against Chinese activities in Pakistan occupied Kashmir.
A few months ago, when China sent a diplomatic protest (demarche) to India regarding proposed oil and gas exploration in the South China Sea off Vietnam, India had refused to entertain it. Instead, in its reply, India told China that it should stop its activities in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (POK).

In fact, India has followed up its criticism with another strongly worded representation to China, issued a few weeks ago, asking it to stop its activities in PoK. India said Pakistan was in illegal occupation of that part of Kashmir and Chinese activities were in contravention of international norms. In Vietnam, India's ONGC and Petro Vietnam are in a joint venture in oil exploration in the South China Sea. India bought BP's assets in the project after it exited in 2006.
India has particular concerns on two infrastructure projects by China in PoK: the Diamer-Bhasha dam and upgradation of the Karakoram Highway. While China has insisted that these are all civilian in nature, India remains concerned that the Chinese presence here poses a security threat. In 2010, foreign minister SM Krishna told his Chinese counterpart that Kashmir was a "core" issue for India in the way that Tibet and Taiwan were "core" issues for China. This was in response to the stapled visas that China issues to Indian citizens from Jammu and Kashmir.
Answering questions in Rajya Sabha last month, the foreign ministry had said, "Government is aware that China is executing infrastructure projects in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Government has raised this issue with the Chinese side and has clearly conveyed India's consistent position that Pakistan has been in illegal occupation of parts of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir since 1947. Government has conveyed its concerns to China about their activities in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir, and asked them to cease such activities."
During a recent visit to China by Pakistan president Asif Zardari, he took along the PM and other notables from PoK even to Xinjiang. This was accepted without question by the Chinese authorities. Given that China issues stapled visas to Indians from J&K on the grounds that it was "disputed", the Chinese silence on the PoK presence in the Zardari delegation was interpreted as meaning that China considered PoK a legitimate part of Pakistan. This would be double standards, said Indian officials.
In April 2011, the Northern Army commander, Lt Gen KT Parnaik, had said at a seminar, "Chinese presence in Gilgit-Baltistan and the Northern Areas is increasing steadily... There are many people who are concerned about the fact that if there was to be hostility between us and Pakistan, what would be the complicity of Chinese. Not only they are in the neighbourhood but the fact is that they are actually present and stationed along the LoC."
It's unlikely that China will back off from its PoK presence, just as it will be difficult for India to do so in the South China Sea as well. China pushed matters there recently by harassing an Indian ship in the waters. This prompted India to clearly articulate its position that it considered South China Sea to be international waters and that India stood for freedom of navigation in these waters.

Japan PM Warns on Defense

 HYAKURI AIR BASE, Japan—Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda said on Sunday that China's military expansion and repeated military maneuvers by North Korea pose a growing challenge to Japan's national security, adding further weight to his reputation as a hawk on defense issues.
"The national-security environment that envelops our country has grown increasingly murky due to China's stepped-up activities in local waters and its rapid military expansion, along with North Korea's repeated militaristic provocations," Mr. Noda said in a speech at a Japanese Air Self-Defense Force base north of Tokyo.
The Japanese leader cited the threats posed by China and North Korea in a call for Japan's Self-Defense Forces to stand ready for future national emergencies.
While Mr. Noda, who became prime minister in early September, has emphasized the lack of transparency in China's burgeoning military budget before, these are his first remarks that bear directly on Japan's Self-Defense Forces and on the role he expects them to play during his tenure as premier.
The remarks come less than a year after Japan released a new set of strategic defense guidelines for the next decade calling for a more "dynamic" and less passive approach to security. The National Defense Program Guidelines, formally announced last December, signal a major shift away from a Cold War-era focus on Russia in the north to a new orientation aimed at China and at protecting sea lanes south of Japan.

Japan's disputes with China over territory and wartime history have continued to strain relations between the two countries despite the deepening trade ties between Asia's two largest economies.
In March, China said it was boosting its military spending 13% over the next 12 months, adding to what is already the world's second-largest defense budget after the U.S.'s. By contrast, Japan's spending on defense has fallen each year for almost a decade.
Taking advantage of its growing military might, Beijing has shown a growing tendency to flex its muscles to further its territorial claims.
Japan and North Korea also have plenty of wartime history, while the long-running issue of Japanese nationals abducted by Pyongyang continues to smolder without resolution.
Perhaps of more concern on a military level are North Korea's refusal to rejoin six-party talks on its nuclear-weapons program, its repeated missile testing, including a long-range Taepodong-2 in April 2009, and last November's shelling of the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong, in which four people, including two civilians, were killed.
Tensions between Japan and China flared in September last year when a Chinese fishing boat crashed into Japan coast guard patrol boats in the potentially resource-rich waters near the Senkaku Islands. The islands are at the center of a territorial dispute between the two nations and also Taiwan.
When Japan detained the Chinese captain of the boat for more than two weeks after the collision, it sparked nationalist protests in China and Japan, straining diplomatic ties.
The tensions are also playing out in the skies of East Asia. On Thursday, Japan's defense ministry said the scrambling of Air Self-Defense Force jets to deal with Chinese aircraft flying through Japanese airspace had increased significantly in recent months.
Mr. Noda, the son of a career soldier in the Self-Defense Forces, has rubbed Beijing the wrong way by reiterating in August—during his campaign to become prime minister—his view that Japan's wartime leaders, convicted at the international tribunal at the end of World War II, weren't technically criminals.
The prime minister made his latest comments at an annual review of troops and military equipment, which is hosted on a rotating basis by each of Japan's three SDF branches.
He praised the SDF for their rescue and relief efforts after the March earthquake and tsunami that devastated hundreds of miles of coastline in northeast Japan. He also thanked the U.S. military for its supporting role in those aid activities, a mission dubbed Operation Tomodachi, which means friend in Japanese. "The importance of the U.S.-Japan security alliance remains unchanged" as a pillar of stability in the Asia-Pacific region, he said.
The prime minister singled out for special praise the Japanese military's efforts to deal with the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in the days immediately following the March disaster. He noted the forces' attempt to douse the reactors with sea water by helicopter and decontamination and civilian evacuation activities around the damaged plant.
This year, Japan's Air Self-Defense Force conducted the memorial event, the sixth time it has done so since the first review took place in 1953.
Among the aircraft on display were F-2 and F-4 fighter jets. Japan's contingent of F-15 fighters was grounded, however, because of an investigation into an F-15's dropping of a fuel tank during a training exercise earlier this month.
Last month, Japan moved a step closer to buying a new generation of jet fighters to replace the F-4, after it accepted bids by three of the world's biggest defense contractors for what is expected to be a deal valued at several billion dollars

NUCLEAR WAEPONS :problem or solution

At the dawn of the nuclear age, the United States hoped to maintain a monopoly on its new weapon, but the secrets for making nuclear weapons soon spread. Four years after the United States dropped atomic bombs on Japan in August 1945, the Soviet Union detonated its first nuclear device. The United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), and China (1964) followed. Seeking to prevent the nuclear weapon ranks from expanding further, the United States and other like-minded states negotiated the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1968. In the decades since, several states have abandoned nuclear weapons programs, but others have defied the NPT. India, Israel, and Pakistan have never signed the treaty and possess nuclear arsenals. Iraq initiated a secret nuclear program under Saddam Hussein before the 1991 Persian Gulf War. North Korea announced its withdrawal from the NPT in January 2003 and has tested nuclear devices since that time. Iran and Libya have pursued secret nuclear activities in violation of the treaty’s terms, and Syria is suspected of doing the same. Still, nuclear nonproliferation successes outnumber failures and dire forecasts decades ago that the world would be home to dozens of states armed with nuclear weapons have not come to pass.

India's first nuclear test image

Nuclear-Weapon States:
The nuclear-weapon states (NWS) are the five states—China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States—officially recognized as possessing nuclear weapons by the NPT. Although the treaty legitimizes these states’ nuclear arsenals, it also establishes that they are not supposed to build and maintain such weapons in perpetuity. Article VI of the treaty holds that each state-party is to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” In 2000, the five NWS committed themselves to an “unequivocal undertaking…to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.” But for now, the five continue to retain the bulk of their nuclear forces. Because of the secretive nature with which most governments treat information about their nuclear arsenals, most of the figures below are best estimates of each nuclear-weapon state’s nuclear holdings, including both strategic warheads and lower-yield devices referred to as tactical weapons.

China: About 240 total warheads.
France: Fewer than 300 operational warheads.
Russia: Approximately 2,400 operational strategic warheads , approximately 2,000 operational tactical warheads, and approximately 7,000 stockpiled strategic and tactical warheads.
United Kingdom: Fewer than 160 deployed strategic warheads, total stockpile of up to 225.
United States: 5,113 active and inactive nuclear warheads and approximately 3,500 warheads retired and awaiting dismantlement. The 5,113 active and inactive nuclear warhead stockpile includes 1,968 strategic warheads, approximately 500 operational tactical weapons, and approximately 2,645 inactive warheads.

Russia's first nuclear test image

---

Non-NPT Nuclear Weapons Possessors:
Three states—India, Israel, and Pakistan—never joined the NPT and are known to possess nuclear weapons. Claiming its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes, India first tested a nuclear explosive device in 1974. That test spurred Pakistan to ramp up work on its secret nuclear weapons program. India and Pakistan both publicly demonstrated their nuclear weapon capabilities with a round of tit-for-tat nuclear tests in May 1998. Israel has not publicly conducted a nuclear test, does not admit to or deny having nuclear weapons, and states that it will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Nevertheless, Israel is universally believed to possess nuclear arms. The following arsenal estimates are based on the amount of fissile material—highly enriched uranium and plutonium—that each of the states is estimated to have produced. Fissile material is the key element for making nuclear weapons. India and Israel are believed to use plutonium in their weapons, while Pakistan is thought to use highly enriched uranium.

India: Up to 100-150 nuclear warheads, self made .
Israel: Between 75 to 100 nuclear warheads, self made.

         Pakistan: Between 60 to 70 nuclear warheads, with full help of china.

US's first nuclear test images

---

States of Immediate Proliferation Concern:
Iran is pursuing an uranium enrichment program and other projects that could provide it with the capability to produce bomb-grade fissile material and develop nuclear weapons within the next several years. In contrast, North Korea has the material to produce a small number of nuclear weapons, announced its withdrawal from the NPT, and tested nuclear devices. Uncertainty persists about how many additional nuclear devices North Korea has assembled beyond those it has tested. In September 2005, Pyongyang “committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs.”
Iran: No known weapons or sufficient fissile material stockpiles to build weapons. However, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the institution charged with verifying that states are not illicitly building nuclear weapons, concluded in 2003 that Iran had undertaken covert nuclear activities to establish the capacity to indigenously produce fissile material. The IAEA is continuing its investigation and monitoring of Tehran’s nuclear program.
North Korea: Has separated enough plutonium for up to 12 nuclear warheads.
Syria: In September 2007, Israel conducted an airstrike on what U.S. officials have alleged was the construction site of a nuclear research reactor similar to North Korea’s Yongbyon reactor. Intelligence officials briefed members of congress on the airstrike eight months later in April 2008, discussing the evidence leading to their judgment that the site was an undeclared nuclear reactor. While the extent of Syrian-North Korean nuclear cooperation is unclear, it is believed to have begun in 1997. Subsequent IAEA investigations into the U.S. claims uncovered traces of undeclared man-made uranium particles at both the site of the destroyed facility and Syria’s declared research reactor. Syria has failed to provide adequate cooperation to the IAEA in order to clarify the nature of the destroyed facility and procurement efforts that could be related to a nuclear program.

---

States That Had Nuclear Weapons or Nuclear Weapons Programs at One Time:
Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine inherited nuclear weapons following the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse, but returned them to Russia and joined the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states. South Africa secretly developed and dismantled a small number of nuclear warheads and also joined the NPT in 1991. Iraq had an active nuclear weapons program prior to the 1991 Persian Gulf War, but was forced to verifiably dismantle it under the supervision of UN inspectors. The U.S.-led March 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent capture of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein definitively ended his regime’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Libya voluntarily renounced its secret nuclear weapons efforts in December 2003. Argentina, Brazil, South Korea, and Taiwan also shelved nuclear weapons programs.

Taiwan plans missile deployment in disputed islands

Taiwan's defence minister has backed a plan to deploy advanced missiles in the South China Sea over concerns that rival claimants to disputed islands are building up their arms, a legislator said Thursday.
Kao Hua-chu endorsed a proposal passed by the country's defence committee Wednesday demanding coastguard units in Taiping and the Pratas islands -- claimed by China -- be armed with Chaparral or Tien Chien I missiles.
"Minister Kao made it clear that he supports the proposal," he was quoted as saying in a statement released by Lin Yu-fang, the legislator from the ruling Kuomintang who pushed for the deployment.
Apparently mindful of rising regional tensions, Kao said the Taiwanese coastguards may need advanced weaponry rather than the Chaparral which Taiwan first acquired in the 1980s.
"Perhaps Tien Chien I or more advanced air defence missile systems should be given priority since the Chaparral is pretty old," Kao said.
The plan came following a report in July which found that Taiwan's coastguards in the contested waters were vulnerable amid mounting tensions.
Taiwan, Vietnam, Brunei, China, Malaysia, and the Philippines claim all or part of the Spratlys, which could lie on top of large oil reserves.
The Taiwanese coastguard currently has a 130-strong garrison on Taiping, the biggest island in the Spratlys archipelago.
Lin said the proposed ground-to-air missile deployment would be legitimate, citing the ministry's recent report on the military buildups by Vietnam and other neighbouring countries in the area.
Vietnam has deployed thousands of marines in the zone, backed Russia-made Su-27SK and Su-30MK2 fighter jets, Lin cited the report as saying.
"In stark contrast, the Taiwanese coastguards are only equipped with 20-mm air defence guns," he said in a statement.
The defence ministry added that in case of military conflicts, Taiwanese coastguards could hardly defend themselves against the Philippine forces equipped with naval gunboats, Lin added.

FUTURE OF INDIAN AIR FORCE

Planning for the future has always been a daunting task, especially when it concerns the military of a nation. As the military is a vital component and in fact the ultimate instrument of national security, improper assessment or gross miscalculation of its pattern of development can have catastrophic ramifications. The task of forward planning is rendered particularly difficult in a scenario where long term plans need to be evolved in a coordinated fashion amongst the three wings of the Armed Forces – the Army, Navy and the Air Force. Also, for any long term planning to be meaningful, two inputs are prerequisites for military planners – a clear long term strategic vision for the nation, and assured availability of resources commensurate with national security imperatives, in that order.

In the Indian context, the lofty and fiery rhetoric on both these aspects emanating from the highest levels of governance have rarely crystallized into reality. Over the last six decades since Independence, in the Indian Air Force (IAF) there has been piecemeal acquisition of hardware as cleared by the civilian bureaucracy to be sanctioned by the political leadership on the basis of stand alone case-by-case justification and not in conformity with any long term national plan. Possibly there has been none. The process of acquisition of new equipment has generally followed a pattern of one to one replacement with equipment procured from a source that is either the cheapest, politically expedient or both. Acquisition of hardware has often been contingent not on the availability of resources but on allocation of funds.

Obsolescence In The IAF

For decades the IAF had largely been tethered to one non-western source. Much of the inventory acquired through this route has now been overtaken by obsolescence. As a result, in recent years, there has been an alarming erosion in combat power and other capabilities. Even after prolonged and reportedly vigorous effort, the indigenous Research & Development Organisations and the Aerospace Industry have not been able to provide a respectable degree of self reliance to the IAF. The near total dependence on foreign sources for cutting edge technology and frontline equipment is potentially perhaps the most debilitating factor that often threatens to seriously undermine the capability of the IAF.
Despite the limitations, the IAF has managed to attain and project an image of a potent force capable to preserving the sovereignty of the Indian skies and in more recent times, to project power albeit limited in quantum and reach. And even in the future there appears to be no option but to procure advanced technology and hardware from abroad. There is however an attempt to indigenize products through co-development, co-production and the difficult, but innovative, concept of “Offsets”. Though not the best, this route is the most expedient under the circumstances to accord military hardware a semblance of Indian character.

Life of a modern weapon system is in the region of thirty years which is normally extendable by another 10 to 15 years after a mid-life upgrade. New equipment procured for the IAF over the next decade will remain operational up to 2050 at the very least, possibly up to 2060. As the nature of warfare itself is undergoing transformation, it is necessary to make a comprehensive reassessment of the contours of the operational scenario that the IAF will have to contend with and reconfigure its inventory accordingly. To do this at this point in time, the IAF needs to take note of India’s regional power status in the emerging world order and assess its possible role and responsibility in the new geopolitical and geostrategic environment.

Situation Change, China scared from India

China was very complacent when India was under the European and the U. S. sanctions after the Pokhran I and the Pokhran II nuclear explosions. All high-tech doors were shut on India. India was reeling under heavy technological suffocation. Post 9/11, the BJP- led India govt. supported the U. S war on terror. It also supported the U.S National Missile Defense program. Thus India strongly indicated a visible policy shift. Then the Bush administration displayed its sincerity by allowing Israel to sell India the most advanced AWACS, the Phalcon system. More secret Indo-Israeli joint projects in the military followed. India steadily advanced in the fields of electronic warfare and radar technology. In the fields of missiles and UAVs the two countries began to collaborate extensively. Israel swiftly began to outperform Russia in the defense market. China was worried. Besides the Green Pine radars landed in India. These are important components of missile defense system. Thus Israel with its own and borrowed American technology became a cause of headache for China.

Besides Indo-Israeli military space collaboration unnerved China. India launched the Israeli reconnaissance satellite Tecsar which is said to monitor Iran’s nuclear preparedness. Then India, perhaps bought the RISAT 2 from Israel which with its Synthetic Aperture Radar can function 24X7 through day and night, light and cloud.

Again India’s recent space success which has strong military connotation has sent china in a tizzy. India’s success in making the earth –imaging Indian version of the Google Earth, Bhuban, which might uncover the Chinese territory can expose Chinese military installations and hence endanger their existence. Besides India’s development of a GPS version for the sub-continent, Indian Regional Navigational Satellite system, could also be of military help. Besides India’s missile defense system could be linked with the Russian GLONASS which would help India hitting any target with pin-point accuracy. Again Indo-US space co-operation could lead India to use American GPS for military purposes. India’s own military space program seemed to have got a start with the Aerospace cell. Further, after the signing of the TSA, Indo-US space co-operation seemed to have got a right start. Besides the under-development GSLV Mark III could help India build space station. Again the Indian declaration that it has A-sat capability worries China.

Besides, India’s mega defense projects such as nuclear subs, aircraft carriers including the yet to be leased Gorshkov have worried China. With the launch of the first indigenous nuclear submarine, India already has displayed its capability. Besides Indian success in making the reactor for the nuclear sub has opened the possibility of a nuclear-propelled aircraft carrier which can cover a longer distance with a higher endurance. India’s plan of equipping at least five of its nuclear submarines with 5000KM SLBMs has pushed china to consider the effective counter-strategy.

India is reportedly going to test fire its 5000KM Agni V ballistic missile in the next year. This would cover all the important cities of China. This has increased the Chinese sense of insecurity a lot.

As China depends on its missile battery the most rather than on its inferior air force, India’s success in its homegrown missile defense program in both exospheric and endospheric tests has pushed China to reconsider the efficacy of its missiles.

India’s proposed buy of 126 multi-role fighters is seeing a world-wide competition and the US has proposed even to sell the F-18 Super Hornets, which if India buys, will increase the power of the Indian air force manifold.

The futuristic Indo-Russia joint 5th Gen Stealth Fighter has the potential to fox the Chinese air force. China cannot get such aircraft either from Russia or from the EU countries. This aircraft would be far more superior to the SU-30 aircraft which China possesses.

Besides the infallible Indo-Russian supersonic Brahmos cruise missile poses serious threat to China’s army, navy and air force. It has all the versions- air, land, water etc. Besides the Indian govt. has approved the R&D of the hypersonic Brahmos which would be perhaps of 1000KM range. The air force and naval of this missile can be dangerous. Hence China is seriously worried.

The US’ proposed help to India in its Super-Soldier program has worried China. Besides if India succeeds to build the Drones or UCAVs with either the US or the Israeli help, Chinese security can be endangered.

Finally, India’s defense relationship with Israel, France, Russia and the increasing Indo-US defense co-operation, post EUMA has cornered China. Furthermore India’s own efficacy in software and space technology could prove to be a lethal mix for China. So China wants to unleash a psychological warfare against India out of insecurity. India has to innovate its strategy, move forward and if the situation demands, give China a befitting reply.

IAF's 79 anniversary

Hindon, Oct 6 (ANI): Officers and air warriors of the Indian Air Force IAF) took part in a full dress rehearsal on Thursday ahead of the 79th Air Force Day celebrations to be held on October 8.

A breathtaking flying display by combat and transport aircraft as well as helicopters from the Sarang squadron enthralled the audience.

Among the aircraft, which participated in the spectacular air show, were MIG-21s, MIG-29s, Jaguars, Mirage 2000s, and Sukhoi-30 MkIs with the pilots displaying their unique skills of formation flights.

The entire air show was coordinated with precision from five different bases such as Ambala, Halwara and Adampur known as the No. 7 Wing, No.9 Wing and No.8 Wing of IAF functioning under the Western Air Command.

The IAF was formed on October 8, 1932 as an auxiliary Air Force of the British Indian Empire and the prefix Royal was added in 1945 in recognition of its services during the World War II.


IAF gears up for 79th Air Force Day with successful dress rehearsal

Since independence, the IAF has participated in three wars with neighbouring Pakistan as well as the Kargil conflict and one with China.

Other major operations undertaken by the IAF include Operation Vijay - the invasion of Goa, Operation Meghdoot and Operation Cactus.

Apart from these conflicts, the IAF has been an active participant in United Nations peacekeeping missions in Congo and several other places around the globe. (ANI)

Russia warn US for Iran

The Israeli govt has been hawking on this for a long time now and we now have warnings from Russia and China that Israel attacking Iran will lead to World War 3. There may be a nuclear attack on Iran and Iran will also respond to it. There are concerns that Iran may also attack Israel with nuclear weapon tipped missiles, although MSM says that Iran is still 6 months away from a Nuclear bomb.

If Iran is attacked then US may not step in to support Israel and this will be just a reigonal war, but if US steps in then Russia and China may not side with the US and infact the Russians and Chinese are saying that they will place an embargo on the oil coming from Middle East.

There are reports, as the article says that the Iranian head of Atomic energy resigned over the Israeli threat

Let us just hope that WW 3 does not start, but I would like to say here that Iran has the right to develop nuclear energy for civil and military purposes, like and sovereign nation, and it should be allowed to do so. Israel too has nuclear weapons, but did not openly admit it.
...................................................................................................................................................................

BISHKEK, Kyrgyzstan -- The leaders of Russia, China and Iran said Thursday that Central Asia should be left alone to manage its stability and security _ an apparent warning to the United States to avoid interfering in the strategic, resource-rich region.
The veiled warning came at a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and on the eve of major war games between Russia and China.
The SCO was created 11 years ago to address religious extremism and border security in Central Asia, but in recent years, with countries such as Iran signing on as observers, it has grown into a bloc aimed at defying U.S. interests in the region.
"Stability and security in Central Asia are best ensured primarily through efforts taken by the nations of the region on the basis of the existing regional associations," the leaders said in a statement at the end of the organization's summit in the Kyrgyz capital, Bishkek.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, attending the summit for the second consecutive year, criticized U.S. plans to put parts of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe as a threat to the entire region.

"These intentions go beyond just one country. They are of concern for much of the continent, Asia and SCO members," he said.
Washington has said the system would help protect against potential Iranian missiles.
Russian President Vladimir Putin didn't mention the United States in his speech, but he said that "any attempts to solve global and regional problems unilaterally are hopeless."
He also called for "strengthening a multi-polar international system that would ensure equal security and opportunities for all countries" _ comments echoing Russia's frequent complaints that the United States dominates world affairs.
Moscow has also bristled at Washington's plans to deploy the anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic, saying the system would threaten Russian security.
Putin and Hu Jintao of China were set to attend Friday's military exercises in the Chelyabinsk region in Russia's Ural Mountains. Some 6,000 Russian and Chinese troops, dozens of aircraft and hundreds of armored vehicles and other heavy weapons will participate _ the first such joint drills on Russia's territory.
China hosted the first-ever joint maneuvers in August 2005, which included a mock assault on the beaches of northern China and featured Russia's long-range bombers.
Moscow and Beijing have developed what they dubbed a "strategic partnership" after the Soviet collapse, cemented by their perceptions that the United States dominates global affairs.
In 2005, the SCO called for a timetable to be set for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from two member countries, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan. Uzbekistan evicted American forces later that year, but Kyrgyzstan still hosts a U.S. base, which supports operations in nearby Afghanistan.
Russia also maintains a military base in Kyrgyzstan.
The SCO, whose members are some of the world's biggest energy producers and consumers, also discussed ways to enhance energy cooperation. Washington has supported plans for new pipelines that would carry the region's oil and gas to the West and bypass Russia, while Moscow has pushed strongly to control the export flows.
A further sign of the group's intention to influence energy markets was the participation in the Bishkek summit of Turkmen President Gurbanguli Berdymukhamedov, whose country is the second-largest producer of natural gas in the former Soviet Union after Russia. Turkmenistan is not an SCO member; the president was attending as a guest.

Russia build sea-based 'missile shield,reply to NATO Shield

Russia is planning to develop its own sea-based missile defense system, a Foreign Ministry official said on Thursday.
"According to our analysis, this system will be very efficient and meet the norms of international maritime law," said Vladimir Kozin, a deputy director of the Russian Foreign Ministry's information and press department.
Kozin did not give any further details on the future missile defense system. He was speaking at a video conference between Moscow and Kiev on European security.
The move is almost certain to be interpreted as Russia's response to NATO's European missile shield, which it says it needs to counter potential missile attacks from "rogue states," such as Iran and North Korea.
The NATO "shield" includes U.S. warships equipped with Aegis ballistic missile defense systems capable of shooting down short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.
Russia has retained staunch opposition to the deployment of missile defense systems near its borders, claiming they would be a threat to its national security.
Moscow has repeatedly warned NATO it would create both defensive and offensive means to counter any missile threat and to penetrate any missile defense if the sides did not agree to cooperate on the issue.

NATO MISSLE SHILED side effect

ANKARA (Hurriyet)–If the U.S. forces Turkey to accept Iran as a specific threat within the agreement on a missile defense system for NATO, then the long-time allies could suffer another crisis like in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, according to a security politics expert.
“Turkey does not say there is no ballistic threat, but Ankara says the threat is not restricted to just one state; approximately 30 countries want to achieve this capability, thus this threat should be considered in a global dimension,” Professor Mustafa Kibaroglu from Bilkent University’s international relations department told the Hurriyet Daily News & Economic Review in an interview Tuesday.
“Turkey has achieved good relations with Iran. Ankara does not want to seem to be pointing to Iran as a threat and does not want to open its territory for a system pointing to Iran as a missile threat.”
According to Kibaroglu, the second and more important issue is not giving Tehran a rationale to develop its arms. He said Tehran might say, “NATO and even my neighbor Turkey see me as a threat and deploy a huge system against me; therefore I have no option other than to defend myself.” Kibaroglu recalled that Iran presented similar arguments on the nuclear issue regarding Israel’s nuclear capability.
He said Turkey would not step back from insisting on not specifying a country as a threat. “Turkey’s proposal does not affect the outcome of the system. If the U.S. insisted on showing Turkey as hard-nosed on this issue, a new March 1 syndrome [when Turkey denied the U.S. access to its territory as a land base during the 2003 invasion of Iraq] is possible for the relations.”
Turkey is in favor of a NATO missile defense system under the roof of NATO, but it demands that its concerns be addressed, the expert said.
“A missile defense system is what Turkey has wanted from day one. However, it’s a process and Ankara struggles to profit from it as much as possible,” Kibaroglu said.
While initial plans called for the deployment of a NATO missile defense system in the Czech Republic or Poland, new estimations of Iran’s ballistic missile capacity found that the country likely only had medium-range ballistic missiles, rather than long-range, and caused Turkey to emerge as the prime candidate to host a defense system.
Turkey has conditionally approved the deployment of the proposed U.S.-led anti-missile system on Turkish soil. The issue is planned to be concluded at a NATO meeting Nov. 19-20 in Lisbon.
Concerns of potential missile threats from Iran, unsecured missiles in the former Soviet republics, or long-term threats from a changing geopolitical climate underlie efforts to create a system to track and neutralize possible ballistic missiles.
“The system under discussion would deploy radar on Turkish territory that will track a missile in order to determine its route. The missile threat is expected to be eliminated by ballistic missiles, probably from Romania,” Kibaroglu said.
Turkey’s other reservations center on being included in the decision process for the system and sharing in its technological expertise – two issues Ankara has had problems with in the past, he said.
“When the system was first discussed with Turkey in the late ’90s, Ankara demanded that the defense system be established under the roof of NATO. Turkey didn’t want to be alone with the U.S., since it encountered problems with the U.S. on security and arms issues such as the Jupiter missiles in 1962, Johnson’s letter in 1965 and the embargo that Washington imposed on Turkey in 1975.”
Turkey insists the defense system should protect the entire territory of Turkey because the fifth article of the North Atlantic Treaty, guaranteeing the security of all members, has not always been implemented properly in the past, Kibaroglu said.
“European members of NATO told Ankara that the alliance would protect Turkey against a threat posed by the Soviet Union, but not from the Middle East. There was a possibility of Soviet Union intervention if Turkey faced any problems with Iraq or Syria, a situation that NATO would not prefer.”
Turkey wants a joint decision process, Kibaroglu said. “The function of the radar is when the missile is launched, it determines the route of the missile. Then anti-ballistic missiles engage the inbound projectile. The territory of the country where the radar is deployed should also be protected. If you push the button for the anti-ballistic missiles too late due to hesitation, the host country might face a threat.”
Kibaroglu said the history of missile defense systems goes to the 1980s, when former U.S. President Ronald Reagan launched the Strategic Defense Initiative project in order to develop missile defense systems as a tool to convince Gorbachev to quit the arms race.
In the wake of the collapse of Soviet Union, the 15 former Soviet republics found themselves in possession of weapons of mass destruction, technical expertise, materials and information on the production of a range of ballistic missiles. The roots of concerns in the U.S stem from fears that states such as Iran, Libya and North Korea may have access to these material and expertise as well as to the weapons.
The U.S. thought that in five-10 years these countries might pose a threat not only to Washington’s allies such as Israel, but also to the U.S. itself. “The project was on Turkey’s agenda and the U.S.’s agenda in 1997-1998 and during the George W. Bush administration; however, the Bush administration exaggerated Iran’s missile range and thus planned to deploy the system in Central or Eastern Europe. The Czech Republic and Poland were considered as options. But then the Obama administration admitted that Iran could not develop missiles with a range of 5,000 kilometers in the next decade.”
Since the threat of missiles from Iran is thought to cover just a 2,500-kilometer area, which does include Israel, Turkey and Eastern Europe, the U.S. decided to establish the system closer to Iran so that a potential missile threat could be countered, Kibaroglu said.
“The best option was Azerbaijan, but it is not a NATO member has close cooperation with Russia. Then Turkey became a good alternative for the missile defense radar again, since Ankara objected to installing ballistic missile launch batteries on its soil.”
Kibaroglu also indicated U.S. cooperation with Russia to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat as another reason to shift the defense system southward.
He said Russia warned the U.S. that it might not cooperate on Iran efforts if the defense system was deployed in Czech Republic or Poland.

NATO offer missle shield for India

According to Manpreet Sethi, NATO has reached out to India to share ballistic missile defense (BMD)
technology. And while India lives in a rough neighborhood, they may not be chomping at the bit:

BMD, therefore, has the potential to upset the deterrence stability in the two nuclear dyads of the region. In fact, the deployment of BMD will impel the adversary toward the development and deployment of countermeasures or advanced offensive capabilities against BMD. This will push the countries into an offence-defence spiral, leading to an arms race not just in earth-based systems, but also in space-based ISR and navigation capabilities as they try to increase the accuracy of their missiles, along with their manoeuvrability, in terminal stages to avoid interception. The automatic tendency, then, will be to develop ASAT capabilities and resort to pre-emption to degrade the space-based assets of the adversary. It therefore appears likely that uncertainties and insecurities will only grow rather than decrease with availability of BMD in all three countries.
As India grapples with finding the best response to its missile threats, the NATO offer to share the ‘technology of discovering and intercepting missiles’ is an interesting development. It comes at a time when the Indian BMD technology trajectory seems to be on an upswing, when the state of Pakistan’s stability is on a downswing, and ambiguities on China’s intentions are on the rise.

and what about Russia reaction????

Russia’s words bear little weight as long as there is no real strength behind them. You can bang your fist or shoe on the table if you like, giving vent to your fair indignation. You will be patted on the head and given a sweet but, in practical terms, your position and opinions will not be taken into account. So we should react by making India an offer it cannot refuse. More specifically, Russia should show its potential as India’s vital strategic, military and technical partner in creating India’s national air and missile defence systems, including transfer of the relevant systems and equipment (tracking radars and space surveillance systems) as part of the military and technical cooperation between the two countries. 

In this case, Russia will transfer all such equipment to India’s national military command. I think this proposal would be quite effective in keeping NATO away from what is not its obvious sphere of interests.
 

India one more AWACS received from Russia

Russia has completed its part of a contract on the delivery of A-50 Mainstay AWACS aircraft to India, a Russian aircraft industry official said.
India ordered three A-50EI variants, developed on the basis of the Russian Il-76MD military transport plane and fitted with the Israeli-made Phalcon radar system, in 2004. The first two aircraft are already in service with the Indian air force (IAF).
"We have finished retrofitting a [third] transport plane for special tasks, and sent it to Israel in October to be fitted with electronic equipment for future delivery to India," a spokesman for the Taganrog-based Beriyev aircraft center said on Wednesday.
In many aspects, the A-50 is comparable to the E-3 Sentry of the U.S. Air Force. It is fitted with an aerial refueling system and electronic warfare equipment, and can detect targets up to 400 km (250 miles) away.
According to the Indian media, the IAF could order two more A-50 planes from Russia and Israel in the future.
In addition to the Russian A-50 aircraft, India has purchased eight Boeing P-81 long-range maritime reconnaissance (LRMR) aircraft from the United States, and signed a deal with Brazil to jointly integrate domestically developed AWACS systems onto three Brazilian-made Embraer-145 aircraft to be later commissioned with the Indian air force.

India is working for Laser missile

NEW DELHI - Indian scientists are developing laser-based anti-ballistic missile systems called Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs).
Developed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), DEW weapons can kill incoming ballistic missiles by bombarding them with subatomic particles or electromagnetic waves. The weapons could intercept missiles soon after they were launched toward India.

Related Topics

 

A DRDO scientist said laser-based weapons have been tested. One of these weapons is the air defense dazzler, which can engage enemy aircraft and helicopters at a range of 10 kilometers. This weapon will be ready for induction in two years.
India's laser weapons can be deployed in the Navy's submarines and destroyers, and Air Force fighters and transport planes.
The DEW laser weapon is capable of producing 25-kilowatt pulses that can destroy a ballistic missile within seven kilometers, the scientist said.
In addition, Indian scientists are testing the Prithvi homemade anti-ballistic missile system, which can kill ballistic missiles at a height of up to 80 kilometers. The first-phase Prithvi is likely to be inducted by 2013, said the DRDO scientist.
Scientists are working on developing second-phase Prithvis capable of killing incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles.