‘Pak-India group on nuclear-CBMs produced results’

LAHORE: Indian Foreign Secretary Shivshankar Menon has said that the Pakistan-India expert group on nuclear confidence-building measures (CBM) has produced good results, Geo News reported on Sunday. Speaking in an interactive session at the India Global Forum, Menon said both countries had been working on nuclear CBMs since 1999. He recalled that following the 1998 nuclear tests both countries had agreed to dialogue on their nuclear programmes. In 1999, India and Pakistan agreed on a series of nuclear CBMs, he added. He said Pakistan and India had informed each other before conducting ballistic missile tests, and had held a series of other engagements. Regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, he said it was not in India’s interest to have another nuclear state in its neighbourhood, adding that Iran had a right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. daily times monitor

In 1999, India and Pakistan agreed on a series of nuclear CBMs, he added. He said Pakistan and India had informed each other before conducting ballistic missile tests, and had held a series of other engagements

Yeah .. & on India insistence (thanks to their fan fare of Brahmos system) did not include cruise missile testings !

Now they are regretting it !

Regretting? I see no reason to do so.

QUOTE(must7 @ Apr 24 2008, 08:33 AM)
Yeah .. & on India insistence (thanks to their fan fare of Brahmos system) did not include cruise missile testings !

Now they are regretting it !


Regretting? I see no reason to do so.

..... one of the many prints from India ...

http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/2111.aspx

Babur Cruise Missile
Posted by vkthakur on Saturday, August 13, 2005 (EST)
Pakistan's remarkable success in testing a long range cruise missile has brought out weaknesses in our strategic intelligence and weapon development.

Pakistan's recent testing of the Babur cruise missile is sure to have rattled decision makers in New Delhi. Though there has been no official comment, reaction to the event in the Indian press is a good indicator that our government had no clue of what Pakistan was upto.

Initial press reports harped on the fact that the missile must have been developed with outside assistance, possibly from China. Big deal! Does that make the missile any less potent? Besides, the facade of joint production notwithstanding, our own Brahmos is really a derivative of the Russian Yakhont missile, tweaked to conform to the limitations of the MTCR regime. Incidentally, while our Brahmos is chained to 300 km range limit for ever the Babur is already 200kms ahead!

There can be no denying that Pakistan has achieved a remarkable success in developing a sophisticated weapon system. I think rather than grudging Pakistan its success we should focus on the strategic implications of that success for us. In addition we need to focus on

Our apparant dismal lack of strategic intelligence.
The poor performance of our own weapon development programs vis-a-vis Pakistan.
Intelligence Failure
There is good circumstancial evidence to suggest that the Babur is based on off the shelf components procured by Pakistan from abroad.

The fact that the development of the missile by Pakistan went undetected was because of the fact that it was never developed by Pakistan. An attempt to build a cruise or a ballistic missile from scratch is easy to detect, even for Indian intelligence! Testing of unproven rocket motors requires building of physical infrastructure that can be detected by commercially available high resolution satellites.

Another indicator is the confidence expressed by General Pervez Musharaf in the capabilities of the Babur missile after just its first test. If a complex system, such as a cruise missile, were to be developed from scratch it would take years if not decades of testing to acquire the confidence that General Prevez Musharaf expressed. India's own labored effort with developing ballistic and air defense missile development illustrates my point.

One could suggest that the General was boasting and that the missile is neither fully developed nor as potent as he would want us and his countrymen to believe. Indeed, there is no denying the proclivity of the Pakistani establishment to boast. The following statement attributed to a Pakistani army spokesperson illustrates the point.

"It is a terrain hugging missile, which has the most advanced and modern navigation and guidance and a high degree of maneuverability and its technology enables it to avoid radar detection and penetrate undetected through any hostile defence system."

Clearly the "most advanced" and "penetrate through any hostile defense system" bits are boasts. However, a boast is not a bluff. When General Pervez Musharraf stated :-

"In quality, it (Babur) is far better. Brahmos has a range of 290-300 kilometres while … Babur can hit a target up to 500 kilometres".

He was, in all probabilites, grounded in facts and if that is so like the Brahmos, Pakistan's Babur is based on a well tested weapon system.

Clearly the Babur is not a home grown missile. Pakistan must have acquired the missile, its engines and electronics, all from abroad.

Acquisition of critical missile components and technology from abroad by Pakistan should not have been difficult for our intelligence agencies to detect. Our country has good relations with western nations and Ukraine from where the electronics for the Babur were probably sourced. There are understandable difficulties in penetrating a closed society like China. However, Indian intelligence can compensate by better infiltrating Pakistan and maintaining closer liason with intelligence agencies of other friendly countries. I for one would be very surprised if the Mossad was not aware of it! Afterall, the Babur could easily find its way into Iranian and Palestinian hands!

I think our focus should be on fixing our strategic intelligence apparatus so that Pakistan's purchase of critical missile components and technology abroad does not go undetected. Only then will we have an opportunity to prevent the dangerous escalation that seems to be taking place in the sub continent.

One would imagine that the Kargil fiasco would have woken up India to the need for good intelligence. Apparantly, it has not.

Frankly, a nuclear weapon state with such a pathetic strategic intelligence gathering capability as India is a danger to the entire world.

Indigenous Weapon Development
Measured by any yardstick, India's own weapon development progams have performed very poorly. When compared with efforts in Pakistan our failings appear magnified.

If it has not so far dawned on our government that DRDO has been leading the nation up the garden path for decades now, it should now.

Pakistan with the success of its Khalid MBT, JF-17 Combat Fighter and Missile development programs has shown that it is more cost effective to build on existing technology procured from abroad rather than create it. Indeed, our own Brahmos program illustrates the same.

However, DRDO does not seem to have learnt any lessons. It continue to leverage its indigneous slogan, which has a compelling appeal to the sentiments of the uninformed masses, to grow in size and inefficiency. Its steady bloat is suckering the country out of its resources enfeebling, rather than strengthening it.

Conclusion
With the first test of the Babur cruise missile Pakistan has achieved a remarkable success. The missile itself poses little threat to India. The boasts of the Pakistani army spokesperson notwithstanding, cruise missiles can be detected and engaged. For example the F-18E/D with a AN/APG-79 AESA Radar and AIM-120 air to air missile can detect and engage a missile such as the Babur.

Enagagement of cruise missile will be greatly assisted by the acquisition and the integration of the Phalcon AWACS from Israel in the years to come.

Unlike ballistic missiles a subsonic cruise missile takes a significant amount of time to reach its target. This allows for a multiple layered defense.

The threat to India will continue to be from ballistic missile that Pakistan fields now and in the future.

The above perspective notwithstanding the Babur missile test does highlight the failures in Indian intelligence and defense production. These are serious failures considering that we are right in the middle of two nuclear armed and aggressive adversaries. The country's leadership should not only address these failures but assure the nation that they will not be repeated.

Copyright © Vijainder K Thakur. May not be reproduced without explicit written permission

The development of the Babur was certainly not a favourable event for India, but what does that have to do with prior declaration of testing. India could hardly have hampered or prevented the testing of Babur. Only difference was the Pakistan media informed India of the test, instead of the Pakistani MEA. Doesn't make a difference really.

The development of the Babur was certainly not a favourable event for India, but what does that have to do with prior declaration of testing. India could hardly have hampered or prevented the testing of Babur. Only difference was the Pakistan media informed India of the test, instead of the Pakistani MEA. Doesn't make a difference really.

You say that .. why the media of India said otherwise ... including the above posting !

Also since India specifically wanted the clause of Cruise missile advance testing notice to be abolished including India testing it's cruise missile without any information in the past ! Why should Pakistan inform India ! Any special reasons ?

Aoa



lolz, that was quiet accurate.

w/salaam

The author is talking about an intelligence failure with respect to Pakistan developing a cruise missile. Not that having an advance notification would have changed anything.



That's precisely my point. Informing India in advanced would have changed nothing. So, exclusion of cruise missile testings from the pact didn't make any difference.

That wasn't(and Col.Thakur would probably agree) supposed to be taken literally. India is a threat to Pakistan and to some extent China, but no one else really. That's one of the advantages of being a democracy I suppose.

And what does being democracy have to do with that, US is a democracy and has proven to be a threat to everyone:)

QUOTE
That wasn't(and Col.Thakur would probably agree) supposed to be taken literally. India is a threat to Pakistan and to some extent China, but no one else really. That's one of the advantages of being a democracy I suppose.


And what does being democracy have to do with that, US is a democracy and has proven to be a threat to everyone:)

Bilal well said .. in fact India being a democracy put up the full fighting force on our border on trumpt up charges which even in Indian court under Indian law under Indian judge with Indian witnesses could not be proven later after a year and an person from Indian held Kashmir was proved to be the architect of Indian parliament bombing which for information is up to now not hanged due to the sentiments of Kashmiris in India.

Now at that time had Pakistan been a democracy like India ... I am sure both the neighbour would have seen dooms day scenario.

QUOTE
Why should Pakistan inform India ! Any special reasons?

That's precisely my point. Informing India in advanced would have changed nothing. So, exclusion of cruise missile testings from the pact didn't make any difference.

Unlike Indian cruise missile, Pakistani cruise missile is a long range missile (suppose to get a much longer version shortly) and prior notice means countries are ready for not taking it as an act of war. Now just imagine Pakistan test fires 2 Babur simaltaneously to check it's own radar prepardness and on the other side India thinks the missiles are meant for her ! That is why missile testing notification is given.

Its got nothing to do with an act of war. An quick and decisive declaration of war achieves nothing.

The ostenible reason behind prior declaration of testing is to prevent a missile test from being mistaken for a pre-emptive nuclear strike by either country thereby nullifying(unlikely) or limiting the adversary's capacity to retaliate. In reality, this situation is extremely far-fetched since neither country's leadership will ever take such a big gamble.

In any case the Babur will not be the primary mode of delivery of a nuclear payload, so a declaration of a test isn't necessary.

The US isn't a threat to the existance of any country except perhaps North Korea. It is a military threat to Iran, Venezuala and perhaps a couple of Middle Eastern countries.

US enjoys cordial relation with most nations in North America, South America(excluding Venezuala), Australia, Europe, East Asia, South-East Asia, South Asia. That leaves out only the Middle East and Central Asia. Relations with Russia have been shaky recently, but are far from being a direct threat to Russia. In the Middle East, I think Iran and Syria are the only nations that are threatened by the US, even though the US is uniformly unpopular with Muslims globally.

Its got nothing to do with an act of war. An quick and decisive declaration of war achieves nothing.

The ostenible reason behind prior declaration of testing is to prevent a missile test from being mistaken for a pre-emptive nuclear strike by either country thereby nullifying(unlikely) or limiting the adversary's capacity to retaliate. In reality, this situation is extremely far-fetched since neither country's leadership will ever take such a big gamble.

In any case the Babur will not be the primary mode of delivery of a nuclear payload, so a declaration of a test isn't necessar

Unlike Indian cruise missile, Pakistani cruise missile is a long range missile (suppose to get a much longer version shortly) and prior notice means countries are ready for not taking it as an act of war. Now just imagine Pakistan test fires 2 Babur simaltaneously to check it's own radar prepardness and on the other side India thinks the missiles are meant for her ! That is why missile testing notification is given.

Namec .. thanks for partly saying exactly what I had said.

However, if both the countries should not be advising each other about CM tests than why even there is an agreement on notification of BM's ! I mean as per your way of thinking .. why are they wasting their time on BM notifications ! The CM are much more manouverable & stealthy (low level cruising) !

The US isn't a threat to the existance of any country except perhaps North Korea. It is a military threat to Iran, Venezuala and perhaps a couple of Middle Eastern countries.

US enjoys cordial relation with most nations in North America, South America(excluding Venezuala), Australia, Europe, East Asia, South-East Asia, South Asia. That leaves out only the Middle East and Central Asia. Relations with Russia have been shaky recently, but are far from being a direct threat to Russia. In the Middle East, I think Iran and Syria are the only nations that are threatened by the US, even though the US is uniformly unpopular with Muslims globally.

Namec : Bulls .. The South Americans call America is the imperialistic power. It is not only Venezuala but all of the countries which are facing the heat of it .. just earlier it was Haiti, than there was Nicaragua ...

US is similarly dispised in South America than in the Muslim world ... but yes attack & control of resources of Muslims is done by US not in it's own neighbourhood !

http://www.haitiaction.net/News/RA/10_18_17/10_18_7.html

Haiti: Randall Robinson on the US's kidnapping of President Aristide
By Roger Annis,
a member of Canada Haiti Action Network
Thursday, October 18, 2007

AN UNBROKEN AGONY

Haiti, From Revolution to the Kidnapping of a President
By Randall Robinson
Basic Civitas 280 pp. $26 US

Randall Robinson has written the story of a great tragedy of recent times--the violent overthrow of Haiti's elected president and government on February 29, 2004. An Unbroken Agony: Haiti, From Revolution to the Kidnapping of a President gives a blow by blow account of the events surrounding that tragedy.

The author brings impressive credentials to the task. He helped to found the Trans Africa Forum, one of the most established human rights and social justice advocacy organizations in the U.S., dedicated to improving the lot of people of African descent. The Forum has long fought for a fair and respectful U.S. economic and political relationship with Haiti. His work gave him an enduring respect for the ousted president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, and his wife Mildred.

Robinson writes with an unapologetic passion for the Haitian people's historic fight against slavery and colonialism. He situates the tragic events of 2004 on the broader canvas of the racism and imperial arrogance that has dominated the policies of the world's big powers towards Haiti, particularly those of the U.S. and France.

Why is Haiti so poor, the uninformed observer will ask. Surely, after 200 years of nominal independence the country could do better?

"As punishment for creating the first free republic in the Americas (when thirteen percent of the people living in the United States were slaves)," Robinson replies, "The new Republic of Haiti was met with a global economic embargo imposed by the United States and Europe."

"The Haitian economy has never recovered from the havoc France (and America) wreaked upon it, during and after slavery."

Robinson is not trying to write a comprehensive history of Haiti. (Paul Farmer's The Uses of Haiti fits that bill admirably.) He does, however, provide enough historical background to explain the present-day.

The author rushes the reader back and forth in time and place in an effort to recreate the drama and tragedy of February 2004. "It was Friday, February 27, 2004," he opens one chapter, "the evening before the last day of Haitian democracy."

The stage for the overthrow of February 29, 2004 was set in the national election in the year 2000. Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected president for a second time. The U.S., France and Canada, the three contemporary overseers of Haiti, threw up their hands in exasperation over the electorate's choice of a man and a political movement dedicated to lifting the burden of their crushing poverty.

Aristide promised improvements to the lot of the desperately poor Haitian majority, and he was a man of his word. The big powers would have none of it. They began an embargo of aid funds to the government, directing funds instead to parallel services operated by "non-governmental" or charitable organizations. Soon they would also block the government's requests to international financial institutions for loans to finance ambitious education and health care projects.

More ominously, money and arms flowed to paramilitary forces sponsored by the venal Haitian elite and drawn from the disbanded Haitian army or purged Haitian National Police. The paramilitaries were safely lodged in the neighbouring Dominican Republic. Robinson captures the gravity and drama of the periodic assaults they launched against the institutions of the Haitian government following the 2000 election.

When the paramilitaries launched what became a final incursion in early 2004, they were a small force, no more than 200. They were feared and hated by the majority of the Haitian people. By virtue of an overwhelming superiority of arms, they were able to wreck government rule in cities in the north of the country. But they didn't have a chance of taking the capital city. That task fell to their international sponsors, and this was done on February 28-29. The U.S., France, Canada and Chile landed troops at strategic locations in the country.

The Aristides were taken by U.S military forces to one of the most isolated countries in the world, the Central African Republic. An Unbroken Agony kicks into high gear as the author tells the story of the delegation he led on a harrowing flight to the Central African Republic on March 14 to rescue them from a quasi-imprisonment. The delegation included U.S. congresswoman Maxine Walters. It had no idea of the reception it would receive from the country's ruler, Francois Bozize, a client of French imperialism. After many tense hours, Bozize gave permission to the delegation to leave, its mission accomplished. The Aristides were granted political exile in South Africa, where they remain to this day.

One of the myths perpetrated by supporters of the foreign intervention in Haiti is that Jean-Bertrand Aristide was prepared to leave the presidency and the country in the face of the mounting political pressure against him. The Aristides accepted a U.S. offer to whisk them out of the country, so the story goes. Robinson presents extensive documentation to dispel the myth.

An Unbroken Agony prompted many questions in the mind of this reader. How did the paramilitaries achieve such a devastating impact? The Haitians who overthrew Haitian democracy in February 2004 were a tiny force-their principal leader, Guy Philippe, received less than two percent of the vote in the 2006 presidential election. Were there more decisive steps that the Aristide government could have taken to defend the country and minimize the havoc they caused following the 200 election?

And what has become of Latin American solidarity? Robinson describes the selfless measures of the early 19th century Haitian revolutionaries to aid the independence struggle of the South American peoples led by Simón Bolivar. Today, the majority of the 7,100 foot soldiers of the post-2004 UN-sponsored occupation force in Haiti are drawn from the countries of Latin America, with Brazil - whose president is the leader of the governing "Workers Party" - in the lead. The UN force is responsible for innumerable killings and jailings of pro-democracy fighters following February 2004. Thankfully, substantial aid and solidarity to Haiti from Venezuela and Cuba keeps the banner of Simón Bolivar flying high in Haiti.

Haiti is living an unprecedented economic and social calamity as a consequence of the coup d'etat of 2004. The violent overthrow of its government received little attention or concern from democratic opinion in the world. A shameful silence still reigns.

Roger Annis travelled to Haiti from August 5 to 20 as a participant in a human rights investigative delegation. He can be reached at rogerannis@hotmail.com. You can read his reports from Haiti at www.thac.ca/blog/9

Namec : Bulls .. The South Americans call America is the imperialistic power. It is not only Venezuala but all of the countries which are facing the heat of it .. just earlier it was Haiti, than there was Nicaragua ...

Oooh just wanted to tell you about the amount of interference of USA in the internal affairs of neighbour Latin American countries :-

http://www.zompist.com/latam.html

U.S. Interventions in Latin America
Just thought you should know about this.
© 1996 by Mark Rosenfelder
Key:
Military incursions
Covert or indirect operations
! Other events of note

[back to Metaverse]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1846
The U.S., fulfilling the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, goes to war with Mexico and ends up with a third of Mexico's territory.
1850, 1853, 1854, 1857
U.S. interventions in Nicaragua.
1855
Tennessee adventurer William Walker and his mercenaries take over Nicaragua, institute forced labor, and legalize slavery.
"Los yankis... have burst their way like a fertilizing torrent through the barriers of barbarism." --N.Y. Daily News
He's ousted two years later by a Central American coalition largely inspired by Cornelius Vanderbilt, whose trade Walker was infringing.
"The enemies of American civilization-- for such are the enemies of slavery-- seem to be more on the alert than its friends." --William Walker
1856
First of five U.S. interventions in Panama to protect the Atlantic-Pacific railroad from Panamanian nationalists.
1898
U.S. declares war on Spain, blaming it for destruction of the Maine. (In 1976, a U.S. Navy commission will conclude that the explosion was probably an accident.) The war enables the U.S. to occupy Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
1903
The Platt Amendment inserted into the Cuban constitution grants the U.S. the right to intervene when it sees fit.
1903
When negotiations with Colombia break down, the U.S. sends ten warships to back a rebellion in Panama in order to acquire the land for the Panama Canal. The Frenchman Philippe Bunau-Varilla negotiates the Canal Treaty and writes Panama's constitution.
1904
U.S. sends customs agents to take over finances of the Dominican Republic to assure payment of its external debt.
1905
U.S. Marines help Mexican dictator Porfirio Díaz crush a strike in Sonora.
1905
U.S. troops land in Honduras for the first of 5 times in next 20 years.
1906
Marines occupy Cuba for two years in order to prevent a civil war.
1907
Marines intervene in Honduras to settle a war with Nicaragua.
1908
U.S. troops intervene in Panama for first of 4 times in next decade.
1909
Liberal President José Santos Zelaya of Nicaragua proposes that American mining and banana companies pay taxes; he has also appropriated church lands and legalized divorce, done business with European firms, and executed two Americans for participating in a rebellion. Forced to resign through U.S. pressure. The new president, Adolfo Díaz, is the former treasurer of an American mining company.
1910
U.S. Marines occupy Nicaragua to help support the Díaz regime.
1911
The Liberal regime of Miguel Dávila in Honduras has irked the State Department by being too friendly with Zelaya and by getting into debt with Britain. He is overthrown by former president Manuel Bonilla, aided by American banana tycoon Sam Zemurray and American mercenary Lee Christmas, who becomes commander-in-chief of the Honduran army.
1912
U.S. Marines intervene in Cuba to put down a rebellion of sugar workers.
1912
Nicaragua occupied again by the U.S., to shore up the inept Díaz government. An election is called to resolve the crisis: there are 4000 eligible voters, and one candidate, Díaz. The U.S. maintains troops and advisors in the country until 1925.
1914
U.S. bombs and then occupies Vera Cruz, in a conflict arising out of a dispute with Mexico's new government. President Victoriano Huerta resigns.
1915
U.S. Marines occupy Haiti to restore order, and establish a protectorate which lasts till 1934. The president of Haiti is barred from the U.S. Officers' Club in Port-au-Prince, because he is black.
"Think of it-- niggers speaking French!" --secretary of State William Jennings Bryan, briefed on the Haitian situation
1916
Marines occupy the Dominican Republic, staying till 1924.
! 1916
Pancho Villa, in the sole act of Latin American aggression against the U.S, raids the city of Columbus, New Mexico, killing 17 Americans.
"Am sure Villa's attacks are made in Germany." --James Gerard, U.S. ambassador to Berlin
1917
U.S. troops enter Mexico to pursue Pancho Villa. They can't catch him.
1917
Marines intervene again in Cuba, to guarantee sugar exports during WWI.
1918
U.S. Marines occupy Panamanian province of Chiriqui for two years to maintain public order.
1921
President Coolidge strongly suggests the overthrow of Guatemalan President Carlos Herrera, in the interests of United Fruit. The Guatemalans comply.
1925
U.S. Army troops occupy Panama City to break a rent strike and keep order.
1926
Marines, out of Nicaragua for less than a year, occupy the country again, to settle a volatile political situation. Secretary of State Kellogg describes a "Nicaraguan-Mexican-Soviet" conspiracy to inspire a "Mexican-Bolshevist hegemony" within striking distance of the Canal.
"That intervention is not now, never was, and never will be a set policy of the United States is one of the most important facts President-elect Hoover has made clear." --NYT, 1928
1929
U.S. establishes a military academy in Nicaragua to train a National Guard as the country's army. Similar forces are trained in Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
"There is no room for any outside influence other than ours in this region. We could not tolerate such a thing without incurring grave risks... Until now Central America has always understood that governments which we recognize and support stay in power, while those which we do not recognize and support fall. Nicaragua has become a test case. It is difficult to see how we can afford to be defeated." --Undersecretary of State Robert Olds
1930
Rafael Leonidas Trujillo emerges from the U.S.-trained National Guard to become dictator of the Dominican Republic.
1932
The U.S. rushes warships to El Salvador in response to a communist-led uprising. President Martínez, however, prefers to put down the rebellion with his own forces, killing over 8000 people (the rebels had killed about 100).
! 1933
President Roosevelt announces the Good Neighbor policy.
1933
Marines finally leave Nicaragua, unable to suppress the guerrilla warfare of General Augusto César Sandino. Anastasio Somoza García becomes the first Nicaraguan commander of the National Guard.
"The Nicaraguans are better fighters than the Haitians, being of Indian blood, and as warriors similar to the aborigines who resisted the advance of civilization in this country." --NYT correspondent Harold Denny
1933
Roosevelt sends warships to Cuba to intimidate Gerardo Machado y Morales, who is massacring the people to put down nationwide strikes and riots. Machado resigns. The first provisional government lasts only 17 days; the second Roosevelt finds too left-wing and refuses to recognize. A pro-Machado counter-coup is put down by Fulgencio Batista, who with Roosevelt's blessing becomes Cuba's new strongman.
! 1934
Platt Amendment repealed.
1934
Sandino assassinated by agents of Somoza, with U.S. approval. Somoza assumes the presidency of Nicaragua two years later. To block his ascent, Secretary of State Cordell Hull explains, would be to intervene in the internal affairs of Nicaragua.
! 1936
U.S. relinquishes rights to unilateral intervention in Panama.
1941
Ricardo Adolfo de la Guardia deposes Panamanian president Arias in a military coup-- first clearing it with the U.S. Ambassador.
It was "a great relief to us, because Arias had been very troublesome and very pro-Nazi." --Secretary of War Henry Stimson
1943
The editor of the Honduran opposition paper El Cronista is summoned to the U.S. embassy and told that criticism of the dictator Tiburcio Carías Andino is damaging to the war effort. Shortly afterward, the paper is shut down by the government.
1944
The dictator Maximiliano Hernández Martínez of El Salvador is ousted by a revolution; the interim government is overthrown five months later by the dictator's former chief of police. The U.S.'s immediate recognition of the new dictator does much to tarnish Roosevelt's Good Neighbor policy in the eyes of Latin Americans.
1946
U.S. Army School of the Americas opens in Panama as a hemisphere-wide military academy. Its linchpin is the doctrine of National Security, by which the chief threat to a nation is internal subversion; this will be the guiding principle behind dictatorships in Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile, Central America, and elsewhere.
1948
José Figueres Ferrer wins a short civil war to become President of Costa Rica. Figueres is supported by the U.S., which has informed San José that its forces in the Panama Canal are ready to come to the capital to end "communist control" of Costa Rica.
1954
Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán, elected president of Guatemala, introduces land reform and seizes some idle lands of United Fruit-- proposing to pay for them the value United Fruit claimed on its tax returns. The CIA organizes a small force to overthrow him and begins training it in Honduras. When Arbenz naively asks for U.S. military help to meet this threat, he is refused; when he buys arms from Czechoslovakia it only proves he's a Red.
Guatemala is "openly and diligently toiling to create a Communist state in Central America... only two hours' bombing time from the Panama Canal." --Life
The CIA broadcasts reports detailing the imaginary advance of the "rebel army," and provides planes to strafe the capital. The army refuses to defend Arbenz, who resigns. The U.S.'s hand-picked dictator, Carlos Castillo Armas, outlaws political parties, reduces the franchise, and establishes the death penalty for strikers, as well as undoing Arbenz's land reform. Over 100,000 citizens are killed in the next 30 years of military rule.
"This is the first instance in history where a Communist government has been replaced by a free one." --Richard Nixon
1957
Eisenhower establishes Office of Public Safety to train Latin American police forces.
! 1959
Fidel Castro takes power in Cuba. Several months earlier he had undertaken a triumphal tour through the U.S., which included a CIA briefing on the Red menace.
"Castro's continued tawdry little melodrama of invasion." --Time, of Castro's warnings of an imminent U.S. invasion
1960
Eisenhower authorizes covert actions to get rid of Castro. Among other things, the CIA tries assassinating him with exploding cigars and poisoned milkshakes. Other covert actions against Cuba include burning sugar fields, blowing up boats in Cuban harbors, and sabotaging industrial equipment.
1960
The Canal Zone becomes the focus of U.S. counterinsurgency training.
1960
A new junta in El Salvador promises free elections; Eisenhower, fearing leftist tendencies, withholds recognition. A more attractive right-wing counter-coup comes along in three months.
"Governments of the civil-military type of El Salvador are the most effective in containing communist penetration in Latin America." --John F. Kennedy, after the coup
1960
Guatemalan officers attempt to overthrow the regime of Presidente Fuentes; Eisenhower stations warships and 2000 Marines offshore while Fuentes puts down the revolt. [Another source says that the U.S. provided air support for Fuentes.]
1960s
U.S. Green Berets train Guatemalan army in counterinsurgency techniques. Guatemalan efforts against its insurgents include aerial bombing, scorched-earth assaults on towns suspected of aiding the rebels, and death squads, which killed 20,000 people between 1966 and 1976. U.S. Army Col. John Webber claims that it was at his instigation that "the technique of counter-terror had been implemented by the army."
"If it is necessary to turn the country into a cemetary in order to pacify it, I will not hesitate to do so." --President Carlos Arana Osorio
1961
U.S. organizes force of 1400 anti-Castro Cubans, ships it to the Bahía de los Cochinos. Castro's army routs it.
1961
CIA-backed coup overthrows elected Pres. J. M. Velasco Ibarra of Ecuador, who has been too friendly with Cuba.
1962
CIA engages in campaign in Brazil to keep João Goulart from achieving control of Congress.
1963
CIA-backed coup overthrows elected social democrat Juan Bosch in the Dominican Republic.
1963
A far-right-wing coup in Guatemala, apparently U.S.-supported, forestalls elections in which "extreme leftist" Juan José Arévalo was favored to win.
"It is difficult to develop stable and democratic government [in Guatemala], because so many of the nation's Indians are illiterate and superstitious." --School textbook, 1964
1964
João Goulart of Brazil proposes agrarian reform, nationalization of oil. Ousted by U.S.-supported military coup.
! 1964
The free market in Nicaragua:
The Somoza family controls "about one-tenth of the cultivable land in Nicaragua, and just about everything else worth owning, the country's only airline, one television station, a newspaper, a cement plant, textile mill, several sugar refineries, half-a-dozen breweries and distilleries, and a Mercedes-Benz agency." --Life World Library
1965
A coup in the Dominican Republic attempts to restore Bosch's government. The U.S. invades and occupies the country to stop this "Communist rebellion," with the help of the dictators of Brazil, Paraguay, Honduras, and Nicaragua.
"Representative democracy cannot work in a country such as the Dominican Republic," Bosch declares later. Now why would he say that?
1966
U.S. sends arms, advisors, and Green Berets to Guatemala to implement a counterinsurgency campaign.
"To eliminate a few hundred guerrillas, the government killed perhaps 10,000 Guatemalan peasants." --State Dept. report on the program
1967
A team of Green Berets is sent to Bolivia to help find and assassinate Che Guevara.
1968
Gen. José Alberto Medrano, who is on the payroll of the CIA, organizes the ORDEN paramilitary force, considered the precursor of El Salvador's death squads.
! 1970
In this year (just as an example), U.S. investments in Latin America earn $1.3 billion; while new investments total $302 million.
1970
Salvador Allende Gossens elected in Chile. Suspends foreign loans, nationalizes foreign companies. For the phone system, pays ITT the company's minimized valuation for tax purposes. The CIA provides covert financial support for Allende's opponents, both during and after his election.
1972
U.S. stands by as military suspends an election in El Salvador in which centrist José Napoleón Duarte was favored to win. (Compare with the emphasis placed on the 1982 elections.)
1973
U.S.-supported military coup kills Allende and brings Augusto Pinochet Ugarte to power. Pinochet imprisons well over a hundred thousand Chileans (torture and rape are the usual methods of interrogation), terminates civil liberties, abolishes unions, extends the work week to 48 hours, and reverses Allende's land reforms.
1973
Military takes power in Uruguay, supported by U.S. The subsequent repression reportedly features the world's highest percentage of the population imprisoned for political reasons.
1974
Office of Public Safety is abolished when it is revealed that police are being taught torture techniques.
! 1976
Election of Jimmy Carter leads to a new emphasis on human rights in Central America. Carter cuts off aid to the Guatemalan military (or tries to; some slips through) and reduces aid to El Salvador.
! 1979
Ratification of the Panama Canal treaty which is to return the Canal to Panama by 1999.
"Once again, Uncle Sam put his tail between his legs and crept away rather than face trouble." --Ronald Reagan
1980
A right-wing junta takes over in El Salvador. U.S. begins massively supporting El Salvador, assisting the military in its fight against FMLN guerrillas. Death squads proliferate; Archbishop Romero is assassinated by right-wing terrorists; 35,000 civilians are killed in 1978-81. The rape and murder of four U.S. churchwomen results in the suspension of U.S. military aid for one month.
The U.S. demands that the junta undertake land reform. Within 3 years, however, the reform program is halted by the oligarchy.
"The Soviet Union underlies all the unrest that is going on." --Ronald Reagan
1980
U.S., seeking a stable base for its actions in El Salvador and Nicaragua, tells the Honduran military to clean up its act and hold elections. The U.S. starts pouring in $100 million of aid a year and basing the contras on Honduran territory.
Death squads are also active in Honduras, and the contras tend to act as a state within a state.
1981
The CIA steps in to organize the contras in Nicaragua, who started the previous year as a group of 60 ex-National Guardsmen; by 1985 there are about 12,000 of them. 46 of the 48 top military leaders are ex-Guardsmen. The U.S. also sets up an economic embargo of Nicaragua and pressures the IMF and the World Bank to limit or halt loans to Nicaragua.
1981
Gen. Torrijos of Panama is killed in a plane crash. There is a suspicion of CIA involvement, due to Torrijos' nationalism and friendly relations with Cuba.
1982
A coup brings Gen. Efraín Ríos Montt to power in Guatemala, and gives the Reagan administration the opportunity to increase military aid. Ríos Montt's evangelical beliefs do not prevent him from accelerating the counterinsurgency campaign.
1983
Another coup in Guatemala replaces Ríos Montt. The new President, Oscar Mejía Víctores, was trained by the U.S. and seems to have cleared his coup beforehand with U.S. authorities.
1983
U.S. troops take over tiny Granada. Rather oddly, it intervenes shortly after a coup has overthrown the previous, socialist leader. One of the justifications for the action is the building of a new airport with Cuban help, which Granada claimed was for tourism and Reagan argued was for Soviet use. Later the U.S. announces plans to finish the airport... to develop tourism.
1983
Boland Amendment prohibits CIA and Defense Dept. from spending money to overthrow the government of Nicaragua-- a law the Reagan administration cheerfully violates.
1984
CIA mines three Nicaraguan harbors. Nicaragua takes this action to the World Court, which brings an $18 billion judgment against the U.S. The U.S. refuses to recognize the Court's jurisdiction in the case.
1984
U.S. spends $10 million to orchestrate elections in El Salvador-- something of a farce, since left-wing parties are under heavy repression, and the military has already declared that it will not answer to the elected president.
1989
U.S. invades Panama to dislodge CIA boy gone wrong Manuel Noriega, an event which marks the evolution of the U.S.'s favorite excuse from Communism to drugs.
1996
The U.S. battles global Communism by extending most-favored-nation trading status for China, and tightening the trade embargo on Castro's Cuba.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where to go for more info
Black, George. The Good Neighbor. Pantheon Books, New York: 1988. Highly recommended. An often amusing history of U.S. attitudes toward its southern neighbors.
Burns, E. Bradford. Latin America: A concise interpretive history. 4th ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs: 1986. Not only what the U.S. does to Latin America, but what Europe and the Latin Americans do to Latin America.
Chomsky, Noam. Year 501: The Conquest Continues. South End Press, Boston: 1993. Packed with documentation.
Galeano, Eduardo. Century of the Wind and Faces & Masks. Pantheon Books, New York: 1988. (Originally published as Memoria del fuego II, III: El siglo del viento, Las caras y las mascaras.) Vignettes from history, from a master Latin American novelist. As history, take it with a grain of salt.
Gleijeses, Piero. Shattered Hope: The Guatemalan Revolution and the United States, 1944-1954. Princeton, Princeton NJ: 1991. The definitive study of the Arévalo/Arbenz administrations and the U.S. coup.
Kwitny, Jonathan. Endless Enemies: The Making of an Unfriendly World. Congdon & Weed, New York: 1984. By a former Wall Street Journal reporter.

Namec strange that my Colombian friend hated the US for no reason, even though you say its a threat to no one except North Korea.

I've never advocated that. I believe including cruise missile testing will be a good idea, even if its as a CBM if nothing else.



When compared to a ballistic missile, a cruise missile is simply slow giving your opponent time to react and retaliate. Also, a cruise missile carries a smaller payload when compared to a ballistic missile. If Pakistan launches an all out preemptive nuclear strike against India, it will be through ballistic missile barrages aimed at population centres and strategic command nodes.
Cruise missiles in general carry a conventional payload and are used tactically rather strategically(unless deployed in exceedingly large numbers).

BTW while we're on the topic, how stealthy is the Babur?

Popularity aside its not a threat to any country in South America except for Cuba(which will likely recede once Castro kicks the bucket).



The US is the biggest trading partner of both Nicaragua and Haiti. Since 1990, the United States has provided over $1.2 billion in assistance to Nicaragua.

With respect to Haiti, The U.S. has been Haiti's largest donor since 1973. Between FY 1995 and FY 2003, the U.S. contributed more than $850 million in assistance to Haiti. Since 2004, the U.S. has provided over $600 million for improving governance, security, the rule of law, economic recovery, and critical human needs.

The US has also been involved in training the counternarcotics division of the Haitian National Police, providing material assistance and training to the Haitian Coast Guard for drug and migrant interdiction, and obtaining the expulsion of several traffickers under indictment in the United States.

http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2006/77358.htm
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1850.htm#relations
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1982.htm



Communists are generally united in their hate of the US.

Being biggest trading partner or giving out a couple of billions doesnot do away killing (directly or indirectly) thousands and interfering in internal affairs.

read up:

Link

Aoa



I disagree, a nuclear state is a threat to the whole world. If India is a threat to Pakistan and China - what makes you think that when the sh!t is going down and India decides to nuke China - that China wouldn't nuke it's potential enemies (who in turn thiers and thus the virtually the whole world.)

Democracy or no democracy - if you have nukes you'd use them when it comes to that. Do you actually suppose that your generals would hold a poll to see if your population supports nuclear war?

w/salaam

If you're referring to every nuclear state, then yes there is a threat, however negligible it may be. No nuclear exchange will be thorough enough to completely wipe a nation off the map. There will almost always(atleast in India's case) be pieces to gather.

India will never nuke China. Tawang or Aksai Chin or even Tibet is too small an issue to justify a nuclear attack, which will lead to an avoidable retaliation. Similarily, if China gets nuked, rest assured that the US will be their biggest ally in rebuilding decades of progress, so nuking the US will be foolishness.



Absolutely. Which is why every country will try its level best to avoid a nuclear war. In India's case, nuclear launch authority lies with the nuclear command authority. The order to launch has to come from the PM. If that is not possible for whatever reason, I believe the NSA is given that task(though I'm not sure of that). Basically, there is a chain of command that with civilians and bureacrats at the top.


P.S. This is a metaphysical debate and like most metaphysical debates, its likely to go nowhere.

The events in Nicaragua that are referred to date back to the late eighties, during the Cold War. And back then, yes the US was a threat to every communist country in the world. But, then that was 20 years back, there's a new and IMO better world today.

QUOTE(Bilal @ May 7 2008, 10:15 PM)
Being biggest trading partner or giving out a couple of billions doesnot do away killing (directly or indirectly) thousands and interfering in internal affairs.

read up:

Link


The events in Nicaragua that are referred to date back to the late eighties, during the Cold War. And back then, yes the US was a threat to every communist country in the world. But, then that was 20 years back, there's a new and IMO better world today.

Says who ? Look at my postings earlier they are not 20 years old !

QUOTE(must7 @ May 6 2008, 12:09 AM)
However, if both the countries should not be advising each other about CM tests than why even there is an agreement on notification of BM's !


I've never advocated that. I believe including cruise missile testing will be a good idea, even if its as a CBM if nothing else.

Yeah yeah .. if it is nothing else .. it would be nice to remove it from the CBM ...

QUOTE
I mean as per your way of thinking .. why are they wasting their time on BM notifications ! The CM are much more manouverable & stealthy (low level cruising) !


When compared to a ballistic missile, a cruise missile is simply slow giving your opponent time to react and retaliate. Also, a cruise missile carries a smaller payload when compared to a ballistic missile. If Pakistan launches an all out preemptive nuclear strike against India, it will be through ballistic missile barrages aimed at population centres and strategic command nodes.
Cruise missiles in general carry a conventional payload and are used tactically rather strategically(unless deployed in exceedingly large numbers).

Beta CM missiles are suppose to be the top of the range missiles of the present era.

Ramjet technology is still in the offing.

Look at what the world says about cruise missie .. I know Hindustan times & Bharat Rak$hit says to the contrary, even USA is dead afraid of CM attacks against it's fixed bases . .. and you say to the contrary :-

QUOTE(must7 @ May 6 2008, 12:09 AM)
However, if both the countries should not be advising each other about CM tests than why even there is an agreement on notification of BM's !


I've never advocated that. I believe including cruise missile testing will be a good idea, even if its as a CBM if nothing else.


QUOTE
I mean as per your way of thinking .. why are they wasting their time on BM notifications ! The CM are much more manouverable & stealthy (low level cruising) !

QUOTE(must7 @ May 6 2008, 12:09 AM)
However, if both the countries should not be advising each other about CM tests than why even there is an agreement on notification of BM's !


I've never advocated that. I believe including cruise missile testing will be a good idea, even if its as a CBM if nothing else.


QUOTE
I mean as per your way of thinking .. why are they wasting their time on BM notifications ! The CM are much more manouverable & stealthy (low level cruising) !
http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml

The Low Cost Cruise Missile
A looming threat?

You Can Already Buy All The Bits
Cruise missiles such as the Raytheon Tomahawk have proven themselves as an extremely cost-effective method of delivering a wide range of ordinance with pin-point accuracy against targets that may be up to 1,000 miles from the launch point.
By using mil-spec GPS, highly sophisticated terrain recognition systems and a raft of other previously top-secret technologies, the cruise missile allows its owner to deliver a powerful offensive strike against an enemy with no risk to its own troops or vehicles.

However, during the past decade, huge strides have been made in commercializing much of the technology on which the cruise missile is based and it is my firm belief that building a low-cost, autonomous, self-guided, air-breathing missile with a significant payload capability is now well within the reach of almost any person or small group of persons with the necessary knowledge and skills.

Targeting/Guidance
As mentioned above, one of the key components of a cruise missile's guidance system is a mil-spec satellite-based GPS system.

Today, compact, high quality, high accuracy GPS receivers are readily available for just a few hundred dollars. The inclusion of an easily used computer interface in many of these units makes them well suited for use in a low-cost cruise missile (LCCM).

While the GPS provides information necessary for tracking waypoints and identifying the final destination, smaller course corrections (for stability) can be provided by the solid-state gyro systems now readily available for use in model helicopters and aircraft.

Instantaneous measurement of altitude and groundspeed can be provided by a semi-forward looking radar and doppler radar units (possibly built around components such as these and these. This allows a the LCCM to fly lower than would be possible if relying solely on GPS and offers a degree of contour-hugging even when the exact nature of the terrain is not available.

The gyroscopic and radar-based systems could also provide an inertial backup guidance facility in the event that the GPS system was lost, blocked or simply turned off when an attack by such LCCMs was imminent or underway.

Onboard Computing
As Moore's law continues to produce a rapid rise in the speed and fall in the cost of computer chips, we've already reached the point where obtaining sufficient number crunching capability is no longer difficult or expensive.

Single-board computer systems are another readily available off the shelf component that can be recruited for use in an LCCM. Even the sophisticated realitime operating systems necessary for supporting the type of software needed to interface the guidance/targeting systems to the control servos are just a download away.

Airframe
Since an LCCM would be designed to fly at subsonic speeds (probably around 450-500 mph) the aerodynamic design of such a craft is relatively simple and there is plenty of resource material available to assist in such an undertaking.

Indeed, the fact that so many very successful radio-controlled model aircraft have been designed and built from scratch by talented amateurs testifies to the viability of such an option.

LCCM-specific factors that need to be taken into account when designing and constructing the airframe include the need for a low heat signature and low radar profile.

The use of materials such as fiberglass and kevlar composites would go a long way towards reducing the radar profile of such a craft, as would the insight gained from a close inspection of the masking techniques used on the existing generation of stealth craft.

Experimentation with coatings containing finely ground ferrites may even offer some degree of radar absorbsion. The heat signature of a suitable engine could be significantly reduced by judicious entraining of slipstream air to dilute and cool the jet exhaust prior to ejection behind the craft. At the cost of some thrust, the jet efflux could also be channeled so that the engine itself is not visible even from a rear view.

Powerplant
The realization of just how practical an LCCM has become came to me when I was doing development on my pulsejet engines -- since they would make an ideal low-cost powerplant for such a vehicle.

The fact that the German V1 "flying bomb", perhaps the first practical implementation of the cruise missile concept, was also powered by a pulsejet speaks volumes for the practicality of using such a powerplant today.

Traditional pulsejets would not be the best choice for an LCCM however as their very hot exhaust would make them an easy target for even the most primitive heat-seeking missile and their astonishingly poor fuel-efficiency plus limited reliability would reduce the LCCM's practical range.

A small turbojet (or the XJet) engine with 100lb-500lb of thrust however, would be the perfect powerplant -- offering a high level of reliability and longer ranges without the need for an excessive fuel-load.

Launch Facilities
Most existing hi-tech cruise missiles are designed for launch by way of a solid-rocket booster to get them up to flying speed, or they're dropped from an aircraft already flying at speed and altitude.

The V1s of WW2 were launched using a catapult system powered by a mix of nitric acid and hydrogen peroxide.

None of these systems would be required for an LCCM. A simple launch attachment could be fitted to the roof of an SUV or truck that would allow the takeoff speed of around 70mph to be achieved. At that point the engine could be ignited and the craft released.

Using this method, a reasonable sized LCCM could be transported by road to a position within range of the desired target, unpacked, prep'd and then launched from a deserted stretch of roadway within a few minutes.

Payload
Cruise missiles can carry just about any payload required in the theater of war.

High explosives are the most common payload but probably the least attractive to a terrorist group -- since, to be effective, these explosives do require very accurate targeting and represent a higher level of risk during the transport and launch phase.

More attractive would probably be some form of biological agent (anthrax, nerve gas, poison, etc) or even some type of nuclear material. the LCCM could be programmed to disperse its payload over a large area of high population with massive potential for death and injury in a manner that would be very difficult to defend against.

At What Cost
The electronics (guidance/targeting, control systems, etc) could be purchased for less than $2,000. An airframe, built using the type of foam-composite construction found in a number of home-built light aircraft would cost between $1,000 and $5,000 depending on the size of the craft. The engine would cost between $500 and $150,000 depending on the type and size. Turbojets/turbofans are significantly more expensive than pulsejets and would be far more likely to ring "warning bells" if they were purchased in quantity by someone without an established track record or presence in the aviation marketplace so a simple pulsejet would be the most prudent option for a terrorist group.

The total component costs for an LCCM (less payload) could be as little as $6,000 for the smallest, simplest version, with a larger, more sophisticated design still requiring little more than $10,000 worth of parts and materials.

The real costs would come from the integration of all these components and the development of the software required to link the guidance/targeting systems to the aircraft's control systems. However, suitable resources are available in many eastern-bloc countries and doubtless could be purchased on a "no questions asked basis." This development cost is also a one-off expense that would be effectively amortized across the number of individual units constructed.

There is even a very good chance that the development costs could be quickly recouped by selling the resulting design to other parties interested in constructing similar LCCMs.

The cost of the payload carried by the LCCM would depend entirely on nature of that material -- but it would appear that those bent on terrorism have little difficulty in obtaining explosives or biological warfare agents.

Why Worry?
Personally, I'm more than a little worried at the prospect of terror groups or others constructing and launching their own LCCMs.

To date, the most effective method terrorist groups have had at striking against military or civilian targets has been the suicide bombing.

With the massively increased levels of security and surveillance that have been implemented in the September 11 attacks, the viability of such attacks are now in question.

June 10 Update:
The assertion that a heightened level of security in the wake of Sept 11 has effectively thwarted the traditional "suicide" attacks planned by terrorist groups has been effectively verified by recent events in which the US foiled a dirty nuke plan and Morocco stopped a planned attack against US and UK warships in the straights of Gibraltar.
Could the effectiveness of such security measures now force al Quaeda to resort to more hi-tech tactics? Tactics including the use of low-cost cruise missiles that allow them to launch their attacks several hundred miles from the intended target?

The very fact that so many people with known anti-USA affiliations were turning up to have flying lessons and simulator time was enough to ring alarm bells at the FBI -- when it comes to the LCCM we might not be quite so lucky.

An LCCM can be built with items that are so readily available that, even if a group decided to build hundreds of them, there would be no way of easily detecting their activities. Although purchasing a number of turbojet or turbofan jet engines might pose a problem, pulsejets (even a sophisticated design such as the X-Jet) could be easily built from stainless steel using readily available tooling and machinery.

As someone with over 20 years experience in the design and construction of electronic control systems, realtime systems software, large model aircraft, and most recently, high efficiency pulsejet engines, I consider the design and construction of a simple yet surprisingly effective LCCM to be well within my own capabilities. If I could do it then you can bet that there are many others who have the ability to do the same -- and not all will be friends of the West.

In fact, if I had the time and the money, I'd love to build such a vehicle (albeit without the lethal payload) simply as a proof of concept.

If the LCCM concept was implemented by a terrorist group, they would likely carry out the design, development and testing work in a relatively safe, secure location within the borders of a friendly nation and then send the plans electronically (probably using something as simple as encrypted email) to agents operating in relatively close proximity to the intended target.

From there it would be a very simple task to purchase the required components and materials then fabricate and assemble the actual LCCM. The completed units would be loaded onboard trucks hired or purchased for the purpose and transported to within striking distance (100-300 miles) of a major city or military target. From any number of widely dispersed locations within the launch radius, the LCCMs could be launched simultaneously so as to stretch the defense capabilities of the party being attacked.

Imagine the effect of just one such LCCM reaching central NYC on a warm summer's afternoon, and dispensing a hundred pounds or more of highly radioactive material or anthrax spores in a fine dust across an area of (say) a square mile.

What Can Be Done About This Threat?
Unfortunately there's probably very little that can be done to reduce the magnitude of this potential threat.
Doubtless a country such as the USA has the technology to shoot down an LCCM -- but there's a very good chance that multiple launches from dispersed points relatively close (say 100 miles -- representing a flight time of just 12 minutes) to the intended target would likely make it impossible for a defending force to deal with all the LCCMs launched.

A small (say 5-foot long) target travelling at 500 mph, less than 200 feet above the ground while following an unknown and deliberately erratic course becomes an extremely difficult target to hit -- even if you're ready and waiting for it.

Given that, with a radioactive or biological payload, it would only require a single LCCM to reach its intended target in order to inflict a damaging blow, the capability of defending against such a strike must be considered just modest at best.

While one could argue that driving a large truck to the intended target and then detonating whatever device was onboard remains a far simpler option for terrorists -- it must also be acknowledged that this is not a particularly effective way of dispersing a bio or nuclear agent. Such a blast, especially in an area containing many high-rise buildings, would only provide minimal dispersal. A air-drop could cover a much wider area with resultantly greater effect.

The fact that the September 11 terrorists were obviously considering just such an aerial dispersal through the use of crop-spraying aircraft is clear indication that they are very much aware of this.

In the 21st century, technology plays no favorites -- it is the slave of anyone who chooses to master it.

its been bearly 4-5 years since US invaded Iraq on false pretences and caused the death of thousands of people and the destruction of a nation, if it weren't for them getting tied up there Iran and Syria were surely next and you do know how its trying to encircle Russia and China, but I know you would still claim that US is no threat to any country

What do you mean 'remove it from the CBM'?




Pakistan primary option with regard to a pre-emptive nuclear strike will be the ballistic missiles in its arsenal, irrespective of how versatile cruise missiles are. They are limited by designation itself - 'cruise'.



I said isn't a threat to most countries. I mentioned Iran and Syria as exceptions. An military engagement between US and China(or Russia) isn't a possibility, encirclement or no encirclement. The price paid that will paid for any such action, isn't and will not be acceptable to either country. Their positions in the global economy are the biggest argument against it.

Man I think you took my metaphorical "everyone" in a very litral sense, it was supposed to tell you that even after being a democracy US is a big threat to so many countries, its history is filled with invasions and subversion. Secondly, you brought in the dynamics of what will happen if the big three clash, but thats a different story, be there any clash or not, the fact remains that US is active in its subvertive activities against the other two.

QUOTE(must7 @ May 10 2008, 05:15 AM)
Yeah yeah .. if it is nothing else .. it would be nice to remove it from the CBM ...


What do you mean 'remove it from the CBM'?

According to you pre-emptive test information CBM was worth nothing ! So why not remove any treaty related to it !


QUOTE
Cruise missiles in general carry a conventional payload and are used tactically rather strategically(unless deployed in exceedingly large numbers).

Beta CM missiles are suppose to be the top of the range missiles of the present era.


Pakistan primary option with regard to a pre-emptive nuclear strike will be the ballistic missiles in its arsenal, irrespective of how versatile cruise missiles are. They are limited by designation itself - 'cruise'.

Please suppose your claim by details from real defense anaylsts like Janes etc .. confirming the cruise was a word used for leisure missile attacks !

Pre-emptive test information CBM? I have no idea what you are referring to.



You don't need to go consult Jane's to know that a ballistic missile's flight time across the capitals(say) of India and Pakistan, is of the order of a few minutes, unlike a subsonic cruise missile. During reentry ballistic missiles reach speeds in excess of Mach 10.

QUOTE(must7 @ May 10 2008, 04:04 PM)
According to you pre-emptive test information CBM was worth nothing ! So why not remove any treaty related to it !


Pre-emptive test information CBM? I have no idea what you are referring to.

It goes without saying that you have no idea on it !

QUOTE
Please suppose your claim by details from real defense anaylsts like Janes etc .. confirming the cruise was a word used for leisure missile attacks !


You don't need to go consult Jane's to know that a ballistic missile's flight time across the capitals(say) of India and Pakistan, is of the order of a few minutes, unlike a subsonic cruise missile. During reentry ballistic missiles reach speeds in excess of Mach 10.

Dead right who needs to refer to Janes for CM's destruction .. we've got it all covered in Looney Toons !

That's because there is no such thing as a preemptive test information CBM.



I don't need to refer to Jane's to know the difference between the trajectories and speeds of a cruise missile and a ballistic missile.

Pre-emptive test information CBM? I have no idea what you are referring to.

QUOTE(must7 @ May 11 2008, 04:42 AM)
It goes without saying that you have no idea on it !


That's because there is no such thing as a preemptive test information CBM.

But when you don't have an idea than how can you know that there is "no such thing" !

QUOTE
Dead right who needs to refer to Janes for CM's destruction .. we've got it all covered in Looney Toons !


I don't need to refer to Jane's to know the difference between the trajectories and speeds of a cruise missile and a ballistic missile.

Look at the root word destruction caused by cruise missile not the speed. Suicide bombers go at hardly any speed but they are destructive and dangerous to deal with ! & here you have cruise missile which the whole world seem to be afraid of .. but yeah I agree Mickey mouse can send it back with his hands a CM ! .. No wonder I can imagine interest on Looney Toons for checking the effectiveness of a sub-sonic (yeah I forgot your root word) cruise missile !

Prove me wrong. Please explain what that means.



The concept behind a preemptive strike is to deny the enemy the crucial time to defend/counterattack/retaliate. A ballistic missile doesn't have the accuracy of a cruise missile, but with a nuclear tip high accuracy is meaningless. The root word is not destruction, which depends on the warhead employed(without going into payload issues).

Pre-emptive test information CBM? I have no idea what you are referring to.

QUOTE(must7 @ May 11 2008, 04:42 AM)
It goes without saying that you have no idea on it !


That's because there is no such thing as a preemptive test information CBM.

But when you don't have an idea than how can you know that there is "no such thing" !

Prove me wrong. Please explain what that means.

Read again the post .. you should be able to understand ! What you stated and what the reply was .. "It is called going in circles" !

The concept behind a preemptive strike is to deny the enemy the crucial time to defend/counterattack/retaliate. A ballistic missile doesn't have the accuracy of a cruise missile, but with a nuclear tip high accuracy is meaningless. The root word is not destruction, which depends on the warhead employed(without going into payload issues).

In any war nuclear option although is claimed & used but hardly ever exercised .. unless you are at the brink of destruction.

A CM is used quite oftenly and with it's surgical controlled damage including with conventional or DU warhead, it is very much a norm accepted by the world over a mass BM based nuclear attack.

Also conventional CM is extremely dangerous to air fields. See the report which I have posted earlier.

Q: What is a preemptive test information CBM?

A: ?

Awaiting your reply.



A pre-emptive conventional CM strike isn't that big a threat to India. Certainly not enough to regret, not including it in the testing agreement.

QUOTE(must7 @ May 13 2008, 12:44 AM)
Read again the post .. you should be able to understand ! What you stated and what the reply was .. "It is called going in circles" !


Q: What is a preemptive test information CBM?

A: ?

Awaiting your reply.

I suppose i need to translate it in another language too !

A pre-emptive conventional CM strike isn't that big a threat to India. Certainly not enough to regret, not including it in the testing agreement.

Sour grapes ? Who said it except you & your likes ?

Hey I have a question??

During the time of war (I pray there shud not be one) no doubt the nuclear forces of both the countries will be on full alert. In this situation when we launch our Babur cruise missile on lets say a bridge or any other strategic target without the nukes and if the Indians detect it soon after launch...will they think of this as a nuclear strike.. since they dont know if it carries a nuke warhead or where the missile is heading.

I simple 'I don't know' in English would have sufficed.



The fact remains that including cruise missile testings would have made no difference in course of a war breaking out thereafter.

Hey I have a question??

During the time of war (I pray there shud not be one) no doubt the nuclear forces of both the countries will be on full alert. In this situation when we launch our Babur cruise missile on lets say a bridge or any other strategic target without the nukes and if the Indians detect it soon after launch...will they think of this as a nuclear strike.. since they dont know if it carries a nuke warhead or where the missile is heading.

Musafir .. If in time of war, India will not know if the missiles are nuclear or conventional, let alone if they realize that cruise missile are coming in.

Of course it depends on the area of attack, as if it is a high priority target they might be able to know the incomming missile, however the problem remains that CM are very low flying missiles and quite effectively evade radar, especially when you realize that both countries will be fielding AEW platforms & there would be interference from all sides be it for the missile detecting system (PAC III - if ever India get's it's hands on) / S300 or for the CM itself.

However, for sure Pakistan would be send not just a single missile but a salo of CM and keeping in mind of the cost involved for CM it would be quite an effective tool (see the worry of US defense anaylsts regarding CM).

QUOTE(must7 @ May 15 2008, 09:38 AM)
I suppose i need to translate it in another language too !


I simple 'I don't know' in English would have sufficed.

Yeah surely we know all the fancy words which Indian writers use for ARJUN & LCA !


QUOTE
Sour grapes ? Who said it except you & your likes ?

The fact remains that including cruise missile testings would have made no difference in course of a war breaking out thereafter

When you use FACT .. i suppose you should refer to the dictionary, as up to now you have not backed up your FACT theory by any supporting defense anaylsts who say CM technology should be taken lightly !

How stealthy cruise missile's are is still open to debate. Contrary to what you stated, AEW allow for early detection of cruise missiles rather than hampering it(as you implied).



And I suppose they'd use the ballistic missiles in Pakistan's arsenal for surgical strikes.



Q: What is a preemptive test information CBM?

A: ?

Everytime you sidestep the question, you make even clearer that you had no idea what it meant, when you posted it.



That's because I have never claimed that CM technology should be taken lightly.

What I said was, cruise missiles aren't going to replace ballistic missiles any time in the near future. And ballistic missiles will remain the primary nuclear weapons. And none of your extensive posts on cruise missiles have contradicted this.

A preemptive conventional strike from Pakistan sits really low on India's list of worries.

How stealthy cruise missile's are is still open to debate. Contrary to what you stated, AEW allow for early detection of cruise missiles rather than hampering it(as you implied).

I still await any supporting professional words than yours. Yeah with all the AEW systems on on both sides you statement sounds like a true Bharak Rak$hit commentator ! The last time I saw live action .. the Israeli hightec Saar-5 corvetee was out by a sub-sonic CM & due to interferences their radar defense were at low level !

http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.htm...60,656,164,3652

Missiles such as the C-802/C-701 present an extreme challenge because of their high speed and small radar cross-section. According to press accounts, the Hanit’s crew did not detect the inbound missile prior to impact because they had failed to activate all of the ship’s defenses, a serious error considering that the ship was but 10 miles from the coast of a hostile state during wartime. For reasons not revealed, the Hanit’s electronic countermeasures and electronic support measures, as well as the last-chance Vulcan Phalanx close-in weapon system also was not engaged, Jane’s reported. The early accounts were validated by an IDF/Navy inquiry whose findings were released in early January 2007. R. Adm. Nir Maor, a reserve officer who led the probe, declined to discuss specifics with the media but “acknowledged that technical issues were negligible compared to conceptual, operational and command deficiencies surrounding the July 14 event,” Defense News reported, January 8, 2007.

And I suppose they'd use the ballistic missiles in Pakistan's arsenal for surgical strikes.

Surgical strike : BM ? Wow ...

Q: What is a preemptive test information CBM?

How can I teach you .. I am still learning how ARJUN is a best MBT platform available to mankind !

What I said was, cruise missiles aren't going to replace ballistic missiles any time in the near future. And ballistic missiles will remain the primary nuclear weapons. And none of your extensive posts on cruise missiles have contradicted this.

But the discussion was to show how deadly a sub-sonic cruise was and all along you have been trying to under rate this new eventuality which your mother India is faced with !

Just look down and & realize what you have been writing in this thread :-

Your words on CM’s ..:-

How stealthy cruise missile's are is still open to debate.

A pre-emptive conventional CM strike isn't that big a threat to India. Certainly not enough to regret, not including it in the testing agreement.

The concept behind a preemptive strike is to deny the enemy the crucial time to defend/counterattack/retaliate

When compared to a ballistic missile, a cruise missile is simply slow giving your opponent time to react and retaliate. Also, a cruise missile carries a smaller payload when compared to a ballistic missile. If Pakistan launches an all out preemptive nuclear strike against India, it will be through ballistic missile barrages aimed at population centres and strategic command nodes.

BTW while we're on the topic, how stealthy is the Babur?

irrespective of how versatile cruise missiles are. They are limited by designation itself - 'cruise'.

You don't need to go consult Jane's to know that a ballistic missile's flight time across the capitals(say) of India and Pakistan, is of the order of a few minutes, unlike a subsonic cruise missile. During reentry ballistic missiles reach speeds in excess of Mach 10

& to show the effective

Your words are just like that of Gandiji .. at one time you say one thing & in the same thread you say :-

That's because I have never claimed that CM technology should be taken lightly.


US made Meat burgers in India : I am just loving it !

Can you support your theory that CM's cannot be intercepted?



Your own article states that the crew did not detect the missile because they had failed to activate all of the ship's defences.



Apparently the sarcasm completely missed you.



No amount of rhetoric is going to change the fact that you had no idea what you were talking about, when you sang the 'premptive test info CBM' song.



No it wasn't. The discussion was to prove(or disprove in your case), the fact that prior declaration of CM testing will change nothing.



Which was simply to make my point that a cruise missile is primarily for tactical use and for strategic use only at a small scale.

Your words are just like that of Gandiji .. at one time you say one thing & in the same thread you say :-



You've been trying to prove that its the next big revolution in military technology, and claiming that I think of it, as a weapon of no consequence.

You're wrong on both counts. Despite their lethality, cruise missiles aren't going to change the course of modern warfare. Its a threat to India yes, as I've stated before, the Indian military can comfortably survive a preemptive CM barrage.

Can you support your theory that CM's cannot be intercepted?

Which was simply to make my point that a cruise missile is primarily for tactical use and for strategic use only at a small scale.

You've been trying to prove that its the next big revolution in military technology, and claiming that I think of it, as a weapon of no consequence.

Than why US uses Tomohawk so oftenly ! I mean why not BM 's ! Also CM technology leads to attack based from ships & subs ! Hence, how can the system not be of major consequences to India !

Your own article states that the crew did not detect the missile because they had failed to activate all of the ship's defences.

Exactly .. that's what I had in mind when I said ....

Of course it depends on the area of attack, as if it is a high priority target they might be able to know the incomming missile, however the problem remains that CM are very low flying missiles and quite effectively evade radar, especially when you realize that both countries will be fielding AEW platforms & there would be interference from all sides be it for the missile detecting system (PAC III - if ever India get's it's hands on) / S300 or for the CM itself.

You're wrong on both counts. Despite their lethality, cruise missiles aren't going to change the course of modern warfare. Its a threat to India yes, as I've stated before, the Indian military can comfortably survive a preemptive CM barrage.

It is not a threat but a major threat to India .. they would not be at all comfortable as it would easily take out the backbone of Indian defenses and will leave them exposed. Nut again your above statment is as usuall double edged story !

Again I supported this fear scenario through different supporting posting ! But I don't see a single place where you have supported your argument including prefering not to refer to Janes ! while all along taking into consideration ACNE technology which is being employed by Looney toones !

The also use planes, guns, helicopters, UAVs, tanks and APCs. Unlike cruise missiles, ballistic missiles can't used while aiming to minimize collateral damage. Also, ballistic missiles carry some very unfavourable political repercussions.



All military personell are placed on alert well before the outbreak of war. Whether a CM can penetrate an alert ship's defences remains to be seen.



Assuming ofcourse that they can't be intercepted. And if we agree that what you say is true, a natural rejoinder would be; the Brahmos can therefore easily take out the backbone of Pakistani defences and leave them exposed. Would you concur?



I don't see you supporting your theory that AEW's will hinder the detection of a cruise missile with excerpts from Jane's. And AFAIK none of my arguments or suppositions are opposed to any of the so called 'expert' opinions.

The also use planes, guns, helicopters, UAVs, tanks and APCs. Unlike cruise missiles, ballistic missiles can't used while aiming to minimize collateral damage. Also, ballistic missiles carry some very unfavourable political repercussions.

No when they took out the factory in Sudan without letting their foot on the soil they used CM's nothing else. They did not use a blastic missile either.

But yes you might be right as the last time DRDO official did mention that Indian BM's have single digit CEP ! Yeah one never knows that Indians might be specilizing in using BM in place of CM ! No wonder your argument !

All military personell are placed on alert well before the outbreak of war. Whether a CM can penetrate an alert ship's defences remains to be seen.

Yeah .. the Israeli corvette was on leisure cruise mode !! Hahaha .. Israel was at war with Hezbollah at the time.

Assuming ofcourse that they can't be intercepted. And if we agree that what you say is true, a natural rejoinder would be; the Brahmos can therefore easily take out the backbone of Pakistani defences and leave them exposed. Would you concur?

Look again at the article by US defense anaylsts what are his assumptions ! Brahmos .. yes of course but it is lagging in range & question would be how many does India have in it's inventory .. since it is a joint venture with Russia.

I don't see you supporting your theory that AEW's will hinder the detection of a cruise missile with excerpts from Jane's. And AFAIK none of my arguments or suppositions are opposed to any of the so called 'expert' opinions.

Firstly .. I still await your supporting links and here you are asking me to support an event which I provided as classic example of how the most hightec AEW corvette in IN was taken out due interferences

Namec...I know Must7 has limited knowledge about AEW's . I know it is used to detect low flying cruise missiles and fighters. India is also getting AWACS, which means they will have the capability to detect the cruise missile before it even enters Indian airspace coz the AWACS can look about 300 km into our territory...My question still remains "Can a tactical CM attack on India be interpreted as a Nuke attack ? " I know the Indian Brahmos is not nuclear capable..so there is no point in discussing about that but Babur is nuke capable...

Lets examine their alternatives. An airstrike would have been the cheapest option iff a CBG was within striking distance of the target(which probably wasn't). The only ballistic missile options available to the US are the $30 million Trident and $7 million Minuteman ICBMs. Also, the thought that Sudan would have been able to intercept the CM is ludicrous, while the scenario with respect to India is very different.



All said and done the lack a ballistic missile doesn't use a propulsion system during re-entry and after. Cruise missiles are in a completely different class as far as accuracy is concerned.



The skipper made an error, and paid for it. In any case, the fact that the ship wasn't at a high stage of readiness, can't be carried on to the subcontinental scenario.



I assume you're referring to your post on the last page.From what I garnered, the guy(he didn't sound like a defence analyst) was speculating about a LCAM developed by extremist terrorist groups. A conventional cruise missile strike will have an array ground and airborne surveillance equipment tracking it and some pretty lethals SAMs heading for it.



A 300km range is what's officially stated, since saying otherwise will lead to a breach of the MTCR to which Russia is a signatory. The actual range is speculated to be greater since its predecessor the Oniks had a range of around 320 kms. Even with the present range, most of Punjab is in range of the surface launched Brahmos. Sargodha for example is about 200km from the Indian border as the crow flies.



Which points would you like me to support with links?

The high tech AEW corvette had its high tech gadgets switched off. That's hardly a classic example. Sailing with the Phalanx and ECM turned off within 10km of hostile territory is a mistake not every ship's commander will make.