This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The claim that India is developing an ICBM to counter Europe, the United States and China and that it is a first strike weapon is highly controversial (not to mention, complete nonsense). This goes against India's 'no first strike' nuclear doctrine. Also, India is esentially a status quo state which does not view the EU and the US as military threats and is not in competition with them. Could you state the source of this statement.
It's true that India did not consider U.S and E.U as a threat because of democracy. India also has a no first strike and no-use against non-nuclear countries policy. The article is complete nonsense. I agree. Instead of Weapons of Mass destruction all weapon systems of India has been listed in this article. This can be renamed as weapon system of India. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 15:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
How is it then that we helped found the Non-aligned movement? As far as I remember, Russia started helping us after the USA started helping Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistan wars...
The Non-Aggression Pact signed between the Soviet Union and India before the 1971 war, required each country to treat a war on one country as war other one too. Though India never officially went against NAM, many policies were distinctly pro-Soviet. Apoorv020 ( talk) 07:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
USA only helped Pakistan to acquired civilian nuclear technology, however, when PM Bhutto announced Pakistan would go for nuclear weapons. USA didn't help instead USA and others (EU) pressured Pakistan not too. Not only Rurssians are helping India to make nuclear weapon more compact but isreal have joined India's nuclear program to make help India to make better chemical-bio weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.138.179 ( talk) 01:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
PSLV ( polar satellite Launch Vehicle ) and GSLV ( Geo synchronous satellite launch vehicle ) are not missiles but Space Vehicles that Carry the Indian IRS and INSAT class artificial satillites. Though there have been talks that these technologies could be used to build ICBMS , India surely doesnt aim towards using these well tested work horses of ISRO for defence purposes.
India is one of the only nations who can claim to develop Rockets first for Space research & development, Then for Military purpose. Then why are we considering PSLV & GSLV as missiles? when did they start having warheads & RVs? Why should we look PSLV & GSLV from a militaristic angle? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.162.215.107 ( talk) 18:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
I am tagging the article for clean up. The articles is clearly a mess and contains too much irrelvant information. I volunteer to do the clean up myself and any help would be appreciated. apurv1980 16:10, 2 Janurary 2006 (UTC)
Is there any source available to the statement that India and Russia are the only two countries with a small-pox virus culture? The article on small-pox claims that Russia and USA are the two. Abathla 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is severely outdated. Anyone mind if I update this.
-- 138.88.177.70 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be most appreciated. ~Vivek 2006-08-10 0817hrs
Some problems with this page :
- Narasimhan India 9:32
Hey, shouldn't we include that Indian dude's claim that some Hindu scriptures talked about nuclear explosions and stuff? :) -- Миборовский U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai! 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
While there is talk about ancient wars in hindu scriptures using weapons that could be regarded as nuclear, it is as believable and as easy to prove that the Bible's "Let there be light" is an allusion to the big bang. I doubt it would fit in an encyclopedic article. Pdinc 09:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
hey, where's homi bhaba? founder of india's programme? Sohrab Irani 02:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea for all who contribute to this article, and also to the discussions associated to it to signed there comments?
There were a couple of "Miscellaneous Entries at the Top" of the discussions, and I thought that it would be a good idea to move them so as to ensure that discussions appear in a chronological format. This may or may not make discussions easier to follow, and I apologise in advance for any confusion or 'ruffled feathers' that I might cause. Perhaps, in future, other contributors might put their comments at the bottom of the discussions?
I have also taken *slight* liberties in terms of re-organising the page layout so as to make it easier for future contributors to navigate the discussions for this article. I was surprised by the fact that so many people seemed to ignore etiquette extended for this article - though it is quite possible that, for those who do not speak English as their first language, this is probably inevitable.
A final comment - many comments do stick to the 'official' or 'popular' dating and timing format. This is something that would save a significant amount of having to search under the 'history' records if, say, arguments were to arise as to the exact nature of comments made.
-- Nukemason4 22:58, 26 Feb 2007 (UTC)
wow, great news, I didn't knew that Russians have developed new IRBMs and also supplied them to India. Seems like Pakistani trollers cannot stand their missiles tagged as Chinese copies.
Yea, really, wtf?! That's bogus. We don't have Russian and Israeli ballistic missiles, we really need to block some of these Pakis. 74.226.103.119 18:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick question this page claims India has both 24000 and 70-120 warheads. I may be reading it wrong but i am inclined to belive the latter as 24000 is about the same as the USA. 137.222.226.63 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
very bad. this article is one of the most important in Indian Armed forces category and just not written well. Too much written about Surya which doesn't even exist. The Section which should be the most important i.e nuclear weapons receives little importance. Ballistic Missiles are nevethless delivery systems and they cannot regarded as weapons of mass destruction, should be given minimal importance in the article. Lot of editing can also be done in chemical weapons section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.161.52 ( talk) 13:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I just added a link I found recently covering the latest view on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. They're video interviews taken by students during the Non-Nuclear-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom 2008 (ended yesterday - Fri-09 May). Jossejonathan ( talk) 08:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
There have been only 3 single missile tests of Agni III so far and each of them with a gap of around 1 year. The missiles do not appear to be any variant of the Agni. The landscape in the picture appears foreign as well. Can the picture be verified from a credible source? Andy anno ( talk) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thats probably the pic of Iranian Missiles test which were conducted recently. Someone accidentally uploaded it. -- 60.243.161.52 ( talk) 12:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Seems some SRBM missile test. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 11:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is about Indias WMDs, Not Indian Missiles. WMDs include Nuclear, Biological & Chemical Weapon Systems. Ballistic Missiles are just delivery systems like an Bomber, Fighter or an Artillery Cannon. Anti-Ballistic, Surface to air Missiles are in no way related to WMDs unless they are carrying nuclear warheads.-- 60.243.161.52 ( talk) 12:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Second this point Apoorv020 ( talk) 11:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The third paragraph of this article asserts that India may have the third largest nuclear arsenal, after only Russia and the United States. An anonymous editor keeps inserting an assertion that many experts believe this, but without citing a single source, expert or otherwise. The stockpile estimates in the article List of states with nuclear weapons suggest that India may have the sixth or seventh largest nuclear arsenal, after France, China, the United Kingdom and possibly Israel. NPguy ( talk) 03:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the image at right was made simply by plotting circles with the radius of each missile's range. If so, it cannot possibly be correct; the map is a Robinson projection and does not reflect distance that way. (An azimuthal projection with India at the center might be closer.) Deltabeignet ( talk) 20:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed this because of a recent edit. Except for that edit (deleting "have or") the second paragraph of this article appears to be taken verbatim from the cited scondary source ( FAS):
According to a January 2001 U.S Department of Defense report, " India probably has a small stockpile of nuclear weapon components and could assemble and deploy a few nuclear weapons within a few days to a week." A 2001 RAND study by Ashley Tellis asserts that India does not [have or] seek to deploy a ready nuclear arsenal.
I presume it's better to cite and paraphrase the original sources rather than copy without quotation marks from a secondary source. NPguy ( talk) 01:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This article featured all the weapons in Indian inventory and need to be renamed as weapon system of India. Hence removing the weapons that are not weapons of mass destruction, missiles that are not fitted with nuclear weapon like the air to air missiles, anti-aircraft, anti-ballistic missiles. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 04:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I was joking about the renaming the article. Just wanted to mention that the non-WMD's need to be removed to make this article just a WMD article. The Weapon systems of India is going to be such a huge one that it will take a minimum of one minute for the page to load and will be difficult to maintain. Already the weapon systems are dispersed in many Indian military related article. Let us allow that to stay that way. But is you want a Weapon systems of India article, you can create it and I will be happy to contribute to it. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 14:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Is the Kilo class submarines nuclear armed? If not it need to be removed from the list. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 04:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been recent changes to remove and then add back descriptions of defensive systems (air defense; missile defense; radar). I tend to agree with their deletion - these are not weapons of mass destruction. Views? NPguy ( talk) 02:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Prithvi 02.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 23:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This article and List of states with nuclear weapons both cite the range 100-140 for the number of nuclear weapons India has. But the two references cited here (one of which is cited in the other article) give numbers of 40-50 and 45-95. In my view, we should either find a reference that supports the larger figure or change both to reflect what the citations actually say, i.e. 40-95. NPguy ( talk) 01:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
In many ways I agree with you NP but as I have underlined before most of these sources are at least 6-7 years old. So we can either mention that a study taken in 2001 or 2000 stated that India had between India had 45-95 weapons and that now there is sufficient evidence to predict that that number today in more near a 200 mark due to subsequent military ambitions of India. Or We can just wait a bit longer. Possibly more recent studies might show up after the unveiling of the ATV and possibly the testing of the Nirbhay. However I seriously doubt that any such study will take place keeping in mind that India tested the Agni 3 and Shaurya Missile in the recent past. Cheers Enthusiast10 ( talk) 14:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
"I would request you to rewrite the whole article with just WMD's. That's Nuclear weapons, Chemical weapons and Biological weapons. Just to see how such an article to be created, check this link [2]." Chanakya advised me to undo my recent change which were of the delivery mechanisms and only keep the description of the weapons. If others also share similar views I would gladly revert all of my changes and thus remove the subs, aircrafts sections. Thanks Enthusiast10 ( talk) 15:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
i have mentioned several times, that the figures are 2005 estimates not 2004. there was never any accurate estimates because the amount of nuclear weapons that india has is a tight secret. there are no clear numbers for the estimates of indias nuclear arsenal we all know that it is definitely above 100. there are some estimates that say 95-120 or 40-95 or 60-95 or 100-110 or 95-250. take your pick. the only thing we know is that the estimate in 2003-2004 was 95 therefore i have put in the conservative 2005 estimate of 100-140.
i dont know why you took out the reference that showed the indian defence ministry talking in 2004 about the estimates for the amount of nuclear weapons that india would have in 4 years time. the reference clearly mentioned 300-400.
you have removed the quote by ashley tellis as well. yet you have kept the reference above it???
the quote is taken from the EXACT SAME reference. the reference is there at the end of the quote.
ahsley tellis is one of the most respected members of the nuclear sector of the american administration. the reference is his detailed report to the united states administration on the current capabilities and estimates of the indian nuclear weapons sector.
he has clearly stated the amount of plutonium that has ALREADY, i repeat ALREADY been produced. in addition in his report he has explained the current reserves of nuclear material in india which will be enriched by the existing 8 reactors of india.
he has NOT said that india will make 2,228 bombs and neither has the indian government ever said that it would ever want to make that many nuclear bombs.
he has only explained that if the need arises india is MORE than capable and has ENOUGH reserves for making that many nuclear bombs.
i dont know what is your purpose of trying to "downplay" the amount of nuclear weapons that india has.
anyway i have saved both the nuclear weapons page and my current topic on the discussion page. Zoomzoom316 ( talk) 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
please note that i use capital letters sometimes to emphasize the word and it is not meant to be rude. ok now on with the discussion:
why did you put a citation tag and remove the reference that clearly stated the 300-400 quote that the indian defence ministry made??
the indian defence ministry made that remark in 2004 and now it is 2009. the indian government has not released any number to the public, so your quote of 40-95 is quite an outdated number.
ashley tellis has produced the MOST upto date report on indian nuclear capabilities to the american administration. this report was for the american-indian nuclear deal.
he has personally visited indian nuclear reactors and has SEEN them functioning.
HIS quotations and HIS report has much much MUCH more validity than anybody else.
how are you supposed to know what is indias production capabilities??? have i ever said anything against china???
for the last time i am saying this again:
this is plutonium that has ALREADY been produced, i repeat ALREADY been produced and which can and is being used to make the nuclear weapons.
it is not going to be produced, it is ALREADY produced.
it is not even considering the uranium that india is now getting from both america and france.
and the 2nd largest reserves of thorium that india has, which after a few minor modifications and getting u-233 can also easily be used for power generation and to make nuclear weapons.
please do not remove referenced material from people who have made indepth reports on indian nuclear production. Zoomzoom316 ( talk) 12:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
i know that you dont get plutonium by enrichment and that it is produced as a byproduct. i made a mistake in the previous comment. i was trying to say that they already have the stockpiles of plutonium instead i ended up using the word "enriched"
did you actually read the link? please READ THE LINK. it says in there 300-400
you did not READ THE LINK. i have already put the reference. why did you remove it???
heck i even moved the reference up to where the numbers are. you can click on it.
also what do you mean by "unlikely scenario"???
ashley tellis is much more knowledgeble than you on indias nuclear stockpiles. i would definitely use a detailed report written by a nuclear expert, who has visited and seen the nuclear reactors functioning first hand. Zoomzoom316 ( talk) 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
This is tiresome. You have removed several reputable estimates of India's stockpile, all of them below the range you assert, without reference (100-140). You have included a secondhand reference to an Indian defense official boasting to Defense News. And the extended Ashley Tellis quote is really not relevant to estimating India's actual stockpile - it's about a hypothetical situation that Tellis does not believe will take place. You also confuse estimates of India's plutonium stockpile with those for its weapons stockpile. I am not aware of any concrete indication that India has used its power reactors to produce plutonium for weapons. At some point I may find the time to fix some of this damage, but I'm too busy now. NPguy ( talk) 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Russian delivery of Tu-142 and Il-38 (or the future lease of Tu-22M)to Indian Navy are maritime reconnaissance versions of both aircraft and are not capable of delivering nuclear payloads. Please protect this article from vandalism (blatant misinformation), as POV commnets like "the indian Tu-142 or Il-38 can easily be converted into nuclear capable aircrafts" are totally baseless and has no credible online or paper-based military resource.
Also, Russia, as signatory of the NPT, cannot export its nuclear-capable versions of Tu-95 or Tu-22M -- Ash sul ( talk) 14:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This section is mostly unsubstantiated speculation and doesn’t even make clear that no Indian aircraft is confirmed to have been modified to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. In fact, it is unknown whether India has managed to develop a nuclear warhead that could be delivered by a modern fighter. It needs to be kept in mind that there is a tremendous amount of research and development into “weaponizing” nukes, particularly in reducing them in size and weight so they can be carried by fighters. Those fighters also have to be appropriately modified to carry and deliver them – and a Russian or French aircraft would naturally be designed to carry Russian or French nukes, neither of which might resemble an Indian tactical nuclear weapon. This section needs to be rewritten to capture what is known and not known, rather than speculate on what might be possible. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Well mark these are normal heavy bombers capable of flying long distance and dropping a large amount of ordinance and thus charaterised strategic bombers. I have made some changes to the section and realise that the earlier writter portion which now has been deleted was misleading. For that reason, I have mentioned in regarding section that the bombers role is primitive and similar to that of the bombers used by the american to bomb Japan. Im sure u must have seen that famous documentary on the bombing and if these bombers are used they bombs would be dropped in the similar simple fashion.
Coming to the fighter jets, bharat rakshak or some site i dont remember says that modification were made to mirage 2000 and it was customised during kargil. I dont have time rite now bt hopefully during the weekend i'll manage to solve the mystery of the missing link that comfirms this fact =) totally agree that the russian fighter jets would incorportate russian techonoly but then jane and atomic society have repeatedly mentioned the Su-30, Mig-27 as well as tu-142 as a means to drop nuclear weapons im sure they have done some pretty good research if they have mentioned it cz im sure uncle sam wouldnt like that, another mistake is made and there is another iraq, another iraq would be bad fr uncle sam especially lookin at the current economic situation Enthusiast10 ( talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The article currently makes great claims that the Klub and BrahMos cruise missiles are nuclear capable and therefore large portions of the Indian Navy, both surface ships and submarines are also nuclear capable - are there any reliable sources that back up this assertion? or even discuss sensibly whether these systems are nuclear capable? If not, claims made for these missiles need to be drastically toned down or removed altogether. Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Brahmos is nuclear capable, sure you can look at the brahmos corporation's website and promo brochures in Aero India events...
But this entire article is downright rotten, what the heck is Nag and Aakash missile doing, besides this section was supposed to be on WMD not on WMD delivery methods...
require major rework..
Swraj ( talk) 16:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The link to a map of India in the first infobox is broken. Could someone fix this? I don't know how. NPguy ( talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is about all forms of WMD, but it says Israel has only nuclear weapons -- not chemical or biological weapons. In general the term WMD blurs the distinction among the different types, and in my view it is better off to make the distinctions clearly. That's why I think the first sentence should say that India has nuclear weapons, not that it has WMD. NPguy ( talk) 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Due to the ongoing content dispute edit war I've protected the article to encourage discussion on this page. All editors are reminded that even where WP:3RR has not been broken, edit warring (defined as "when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion") can still attract sanctions on their accounts. Please see the cycle recommended at WP:BRD and, if necessary, make use of the dispute resolution measures outlined at WP:DR. If consensus is reached, you can request that protection be removed or that an administrator make whatever edits are agreed by using the {{ editprotected}} template. Thanks, EyeSerene talk 09:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
first of all India's longest range missile is Agni III which has a range of 3,500km at the least but it can go as far as 5,500km why does it say the longest missile is Agni II 2,500km? when clearly it isn't —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.51.236 ( talk) 03:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It is reported that a missile group is now being raised with Agni-III missiles. See: Ajai Shukla (2012-09-04).
"Military to buy DRDO missiles worth Rs 1 lakh cr in 10 yrs". Hyderabad, India: Business Standard. {{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rkb76in (
talk •
contribs) 14:37 04 Sept 2012 (IST)
The article body has (as per the referenced source) the Agni-II as 3,000 km, not 2,500 km. Shouldn't the infobox say 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi)? Allens ( talk | contribs) 11:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I propose a section on India's nuclear weapons program and development history prior to it's 1974 and 1998 tests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources with information (or even reasonable speculations) as to why India's wanting something that will (as far as I can tell from the map; correct me if I'm wrong, please!) reach much further than Pakistan, China, and North Korea, the three local nuclear powers? Do they figure that bigger range is more reliable for even reaching shorter range, are they wanting to put them aboard nuclear submarines located a significant distance away, or do they want to be able to strike countries other than Pakistan, China, and North Korea (Russia? No criticism of them if Russia is the intended target...) Thanks! Allens ( talk | contribs) 16:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
It has been proposed by Anurag2k12 that using this reference, the entry of the field "Maximum missile range" in the infobox be changed to Agni III. An official of the Govt of India says that the missile has already been inducted into the army. He goes on to say that the missile is under production. I would have preferred to keep this to Agni II till we could find a source that says that Agni III has been operationally deployed, like the sources which say so for Agni II. However, I am open to community consensus on this, and will not be reverting to the earlier article state, primarily because both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionary give the definition induct: to formally accept someone into an organisation or group. I would however re-introduce the existing hidden comment as numerous editors change the value to Agni-V, which is not supported. I would ask all editors to form a consensus here before reverting/changing that particular infobox field. Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If someone sees the Wikipedia article on India and Weapons of Mass Destruction and reads the article on Delivery systems, it says that the Agni 3 Missile is fully operational. So I feel we can change the maximum range to 5000 km on the Article (for Agni 3). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.247.153 ( talk • contribs) 06:28, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
It is reported that a missile group is now being raised with Agni-III missiles. See: Ajai Shukla (2012-09-04). "Military to buy DRDO missiles worth Rs 1 lakh cr in 10 yrs". Hyderabad, India: Business Standard. 14:37 04 Sept 2012 (IST)
Well it is being raised, doesn't that mean that it isn't fully operational and is only gonna be operational after a small while? Or does a near future order qualify as a missile being operational? -- Anurag2k12 ( talk) 15:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's get to basics here. All we need is a single reliable source saying Agni III is operationally deployed. Anyone? NPguy ( talk) 01:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Please discuss before removing any sourced material or else it's considered vandalism.- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 06:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with NPguy that the deleted edit was largely irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, it is not sourced as you claim. I think you are relying on another wikipedia article as the basis of your assertion. However this does not appear sourced either. Please see WP:NOTSOURCE. Jschnur ( talk) 03:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. NPguy has been removing cited content frequently on pages. NPguy, you can avoid vandalizing articles by modifying content and conducting research, as the person that posts information does often provide a source to prove they did additional work to obtain the information. It is unjust and immoral to dismiss these efforts by simply highlighting work and pressing the backspace or delete key. In which case, the word "vandalism" is a proper word. It is no different than a child spray painting the side of a building, in which the owner may have worked tirelessly to develop it in the first place. Please take my remarks into consideration and I look forward to seeing your improvements in the future. Twillisjr ( talk) 05:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The material is clearly sourced and and linked, so you have no basis to remove them (at least without discussion). Please leave it alone or I will lodge a complaint- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 01:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You are not going to remove sourced material. It is about India's arms stockpile in general and clearly referenced and by no means outside the scope of the article.- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 23:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not about conventional weapons. It's about weapons purchases and India stands at the top of importing them. That is a an important fact to be added in the article. Do not remove it. India's nuclear power was used to produce nuke. 'Nuke' is short for nuclear weapons not for civilian nuclear programs which the Americans are currently helping with. The Soviet Union DID provide technology and other assistance to build the Indian bomb.- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 21:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
No they do not. Much of India's WMDs are imported from Israel and the Russian Federation, including ballistic missiles and cluster bombs, not to mention nuclear program. The source make it quite clear so do not remove facts in favor personal opinions. Thank you.- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 01:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
As I wrote, your personal speculation is not a valid source. Please review Wikipedia guidelines. The external links and references are clearly provided. I will request this page be protected in preventing constant vandalism and further edit wars.- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
One editor just rearranged and changed the titles on various sections of this article. The original structure was not great, but the revision is if anything even worse. I'd like to give the editor a chance to explain and hopefully rethink those changes. NPguy ( talk) 03:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
NPguy is a serial vandal and does not use buttons on his/her keyboard if they do not contain "delete" or "backspace." It is necessary for editors to consider themselves contributors and to avoid abusing the sharing of knowledge. [1] Twillisjr ( talk) 04:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
You are not welcome in removing sourced material. You have to convince others that your edits are relevant and not just your own personal speculation.- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 01:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I have requested discussion several times and sources to support opposing claims, but the editor does not seem co-opertive and keeps removing content without discussion first, hence it is not a violation of WP:AGF- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 23:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
1) I have requested the page be protected to prevent constant vandalism by all users, not just IPs. 2) I'm the one who pushed for discussion, not your side 3) I have provided sources, you have provided no sources at all. Other users also object to your constant vandalism. 4) If these edits belong in another article, link them here.- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 05:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
A PIB released report titled Achievements of Ministry of Defence during the Year 2012 says that With Agni-I, Agni-II, Agni-III and Prithvi P-II surface to surface missile and also its naval version Dhanush already in the arsenal of the Indian Armed Forces, the missile from the production lots were flight tested by the Armed Forces as part of training exercises to ensure defence preparedness.
So is this good enough to update the page? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the sidebar says the nuclear program started in 1967, but the article says it started in 1944 (under Nuclear Weapons). Is one of them wrong, or is there something interesting about 1967? "1967" does not appear anywhere else in the article. 70.112.198.77 ( talk) 08:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, this is the dumbest thing im coming across in a while.
Agni III inducted but not operationally deployed? India is moving on to Agni 4 and Agni 5 now, so no new reports of Agni 3 will come up, so i think it will be so called "not operational, but indcuted(lol)" even when Agni 5 enter service around 2014-15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.189.16 ( talk) 16:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
India conducts regular trials of all it's missiles to check the operational capability as part of user trials. Very recently Agni 2 was test fired. Does India reveal the exact numer of Ballistic missiles it has? All we know that it has been under production since 2011.
HAL Tejas has been granted the Initial Operational Clearance. But we know that,according to media reports, HAL is having some problems in manufacturing the Series Production Aircrafts at the desired rate.
No such thing is reported of the Agni-3. It seems that, this "non operational" term is simply being cooked up. I have gone through various reports. All use the term either "Inducted" or "Operational". Are there any reports saying that the missile is "Not Operational"? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
120.62.179.103 (
talk •
contribs •
WHOIS) 07:00, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
The current entry says, as I quote, "India's loss of territory to China in a brief Himilayan border war in October 1962, provided the New Delhi government impetus for developing nuclear weapons as a means of deterring potential Chinese aggression." I have two questions: first of all, it is generally known that during the 1962 Indo-Chinese conflict China withdrew from the occupied area. It seems India didn't lose any territory in the war. Even if China "won" (which is under dispute), did India need nuclear weapon to defend its boarder? I am skeptical of this "Chinese aggression" argument. Secondly, China detonated her first nuclear bomb on 1964, only 2 years after the conflict with India. It seem very plausible that New Delhi saw Beijing's nuclear program as a security threat. So there follows the 1974 Indian nuclear test. But Beijing's nuclear program is not an "aggression". Nor did China declare to use nuclear weapon on resolving the boarder dispute. (There is an article on this piece of history. But I couldn't find it now ). Can someone please clarify on this issue? Thank you. 173.28.252.161 ( talk) 05:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept under wraps so far, it is now known that the Indian Navy successfully test-fired the indigenously developed ship launched ballistic missile Dhanush on Nov 14 last year for the first time during the night from a warship INS Subhadra anchored about 45 km off the coast of Puri and Paradip in Odisha..... Project Dhanush was sanctioned by the Indian Navy to integrate and demonstrate the feasibility of launching variant of Prithvi from a ship. The translation from the technology demonstrator to weaponisation configuration, and induction of the Dhanush weapon system was completed with the successful 'Acceptance Test Firing' conducted by the navy, and after achieving all the planned mission objectives. The salient features and achievements under the project include. [2]
Rkb76in ( talk) 17:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
India and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
India and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Kashmir is part of India ,Why there is slight color difference in India map for Kashmir Gunti Pandu ( talk) 18:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on India and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Indian map should be change to a neutral version, one that is recognized by international community rather than just by Indian government. Currently displayed Indian map includes many areas of Pakistan which are not in fact controlled by India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.64.212 ( talk) 03:45, April 17, 2017 (UTC)
Please provide proof! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.64.212 ( talk) 02:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Under
Chemical weapons, the first sentence makes it sound as if India said in 1992 that they hadn't any chemical weapons. It wasn't until 2009 that they had destroyed their stockpile. If corrected as 2009, the
citation needed tag can be replaced by
this link.
Additionally, I've modified the dead link supporting the sentence following it. —
Vignyana
talk
13:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on India and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The largest yield test of India was Shatki-I, not Shakti-II. Also, a source for the 200 kiloton claim has not been provided. I provide it here. [3]
The Shakti-I thermonuclear test, notwithstanding all the disputes about its yield, was a 200 kiloton device scaled down to 45 kt to avoid civilian damage and radioactivity leaks. The latter since India couldn’t dig a new, stronger shaft due to secrecy concerns; old shafts from 1980s were used.
I corrected this information in the InfoBox. If you dispute my correction, please talk. Vaibhavafro ( talk) 03:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The claim that India is developing an ICBM to counter Europe, the United States and China and that it is a first strike weapon is highly controversial (not to mention, complete nonsense). This goes against India's 'no first strike' nuclear doctrine. Also, India is esentially a status quo state which does not view the EU and the US as military threats and is not in competition with them. Could you state the source of this statement.
It's true that India did not consider U.S and E.U as a threat because of democracy. India also has a no first strike and no-use against non-nuclear countries policy. The article is complete nonsense. I agree. Instead of Weapons of Mass destruction all weapon systems of India has been listed in this article. This can be renamed as weapon system of India. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 15:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
How is it then that we helped found the Non-aligned movement? As far as I remember, Russia started helping us after the USA started helping Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistan wars...
The Non-Aggression Pact signed between the Soviet Union and India before the 1971 war, required each country to treat a war on one country as war other one too. Though India never officially went against NAM, many policies were distinctly pro-Soviet. Apoorv020 ( talk) 07:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
USA only helped Pakistan to acquired civilian nuclear technology, however, when PM Bhutto announced Pakistan would go for nuclear weapons. USA didn't help instead USA and others (EU) pressured Pakistan not too. Not only Rurssians are helping India to make nuclear weapon more compact but isreal have joined India's nuclear program to make help India to make better chemical-bio weapons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.232.138.179 ( talk) 01:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
PSLV ( polar satellite Launch Vehicle ) and GSLV ( Geo synchronous satellite launch vehicle ) are not missiles but Space Vehicles that Carry the Indian IRS and INSAT class artificial satillites. Though there have been talks that these technologies could be used to build ICBMS , India surely doesnt aim towards using these well tested work horses of ISRO for defence purposes.
India is one of the only nations who can claim to develop Rockets first for Space research & development, Then for Military purpose. Then why are we considering PSLV & GSLV as missiles? when did they start having warheads & RVs? Why should we look PSLV & GSLV from a militaristic angle? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.162.215.107 ( talk) 18:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC).
I am tagging the article for clean up. The articles is clearly a mess and contains too much irrelvant information. I volunteer to do the clean up myself and any help would be appreciated. apurv1980 16:10, 2 Janurary 2006 (UTC)
Is there any source available to the statement that India and Russia are the only two countries with a small-pox virus culture? The article on small-pox claims that Russia and USA are the two. Abathla 19:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
This article is severely outdated. Anyone mind if I update this.
-- 138.88.177.70 19:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That would be most appreciated. ~Vivek 2006-08-10 0817hrs
Some problems with this page :
- Narasimhan India 9:32
Hey, shouldn't we include that Indian dude's claim that some Hindu scriptures talked about nuclear explosions and stuff? :) -- Миборовский U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai! 03:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
While there is talk about ancient wars in hindu scriptures using weapons that could be regarded as nuclear, it is as believable and as easy to prove that the Bible's "Let there be light" is an allusion to the big bang. I doubt it would fit in an encyclopedic article. Pdinc 09:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
hey, where's homi bhaba? founder of india's programme? Sohrab Irani 02:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be a good idea for all who contribute to this article, and also to the discussions associated to it to signed there comments?
There were a couple of "Miscellaneous Entries at the Top" of the discussions, and I thought that it would be a good idea to move them so as to ensure that discussions appear in a chronological format. This may or may not make discussions easier to follow, and I apologise in advance for any confusion or 'ruffled feathers' that I might cause. Perhaps, in future, other contributors might put their comments at the bottom of the discussions?
I have also taken *slight* liberties in terms of re-organising the page layout so as to make it easier for future contributors to navigate the discussions for this article. I was surprised by the fact that so many people seemed to ignore etiquette extended for this article - though it is quite possible that, for those who do not speak English as their first language, this is probably inevitable.
A final comment - many comments do stick to the 'official' or 'popular' dating and timing format. This is something that would save a significant amount of having to search under the 'history' records if, say, arguments were to arise as to the exact nature of comments made.
-- Nukemason4 22:58, 26 Feb 2007 (UTC)
wow, great news, I didn't knew that Russians have developed new IRBMs and also supplied them to India. Seems like Pakistani trollers cannot stand their missiles tagged as Chinese copies.
Yea, really, wtf?! That's bogus. We don't have Russian and Israeli ballistic missiles, we really need to block some of these Pakis. 74.226.103.119 18:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick question this page claims India has both 24000 and 70-120 warheads. I may be reading it wrong but i am inclined to belive the latter as 24000 is about the same as the USA. 137.222.226.63 22:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
very bad. this article is one of the most important in Indian Armed forces category and just not written well. Too much written about Surya which doesn't even exist. The Section which should be the most important i.e nuclear weapons receives little importance. Ballistic Missiles are nevethless delivery systems and they cannot regarded as weapons of mass destruction, should be given minimal importance in the article. Lot of editing can also be done in chemical weapons section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.243.161.52 ( talk) 13:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I just added a link I found recently covering the latest view on the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act. They're video interviews taken by students during the Non-Nuclear-Proliferation Treaty PrepCom 2008 (ended yesterday - Fri-09 May). Jossejonathan ( talk) 08:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
There have been only 3 single missile tests of Agni III so far and each of them with a gap of around 1 year. The missiles do not appear to be any variant of the Agni. The landscape in the picture appears foreign as well. Can the picture be verified from a credible source? Andy anno ( talk) 17:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thats probably the pic of Iranian Missiles test which were conducted recently. Someone accidentally uploaded it. -- 60.243.161.52 ( talk) 12:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Seems some SRBM missile test. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 11:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is about Indias WMDs, Not Indian Missiles. WMDs include Nuclear, Biological & Chemical Weapon Systems. Ballistic Missiles are just delivery systems like an Bomber, Fighter or an Artillery Cannon. Anti-Ballistic, Surface to air Missiles are in no way related to WMDs unless they are carrying nuclear warheads.-- 60.243.161.52 ( talk) 12:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Second this point Apoorv020 ( talk) 11:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
The third paragraph of this article asserts that India may have the third largest nuclear arsenal, after only Russia and the United States. An anonymous editor keeps inserting an assertion that many experts believe this, but without citing a single source, expert or otherwise. The stockpile estimates in the article List of states with nuclear weapons suggest that India may have the sixth or seventh largest nuclear arsenal, after France, China, the United Kingdom and possibly Israel. NPguy ( talk) 03:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It appears that the image at right was made simply by plotting circles with the radius of each missile's range. If so, it cannot possibly be correct; the map is a Robinson projection and does not reflect distance that way. (An azimuthal projection with India at the center might be closer.) Deltabeignet ( talk) 20:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed this because of a recent edit. Except for that edit (deleting "have or") the second paragraph of this article appears to be taken verbatim from the cited scondary source ( FAS):
According to a January 2001 U.S Department of Defense report, " India probably has a small stockpile of nuclear weapon components and could assemble and deploy a few nuclear weapons within a few days to a week." A 2001 RAND study by Ashley Tellis asserts that India does not [have or] seek to deploy a ready nuclear arsenal.
I presume it's better to cite and paraphrase the original sources rather than copy without quotation marks from a secondary source. NPguy ( talk) 01:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This article featured all the weapons in Indian inventory and need to be renamed as weapon system of India. Hence removing the weapons that are not weapons of mass destruction, missiles that are not fitted with nuclear weapon like the air to air missiles, anti-aircraft, anti-ballistic missiles. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 04:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I was joking about the renaming the article. Just wanted to mention that the non-WMD's need to be removed to make this article just a WMD article. The Weapon systems of India is going to be such a huge one that it will take a minimum of one minute for the page to load and will be difficult to maintain. Already the weapon systems are dispersed in many Indian military related article. Let us allow that to stay that way. But is you want a Weapon systems of India article, you can create it and I will be happy to contribute to it. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 14:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Is the Kilo class submarines nuclear armed? If not it need to be removed from the list. Chanakyathegreat ( talk) 04:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
There have been recent changes to remove and then add back descriptions of defensive systems (air defense; missile defense; radar). I tend to agree with their deletion - these are not weapons of mass destruction. Views? NPguy ( talk) 02:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The image Image:Prithvi 02.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 23:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
This article and List of states with nuclear weapons both cite the range 100-140 for the number of nuclear weapons India has. But the two references cited here (one of which is cited in the other article) give numbers of 40-50 and 45-95. In my view, we should either find a reference that supports the larger figure or change both to reflect what the citations actually say, i.e. 40-95. NPguy ( talk) 01:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
In many ways I agree with you NP but as I have underlined before most of these sources are at least 6-7 years old. So we can either mention that a study taken in 2001 or 2000 stated that India had between India had 45-95 weapons and that now there is sufficient evidence to predict that that number today in more near a 200 mark due to subsequent military ambitions of India. Or We can just wait a bit longer. Possibly more recent studies might show up after the unveiling of the ATV and possibly the testing of the Nirbhay. However I seriously doubt that any such study will take place keeping in mind that India tested the Agni 3 and Shaurya Missile in the recent past. Cheers Enthusiast10 ( talk) 14:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
"I would request you to rewrite the whole article with just WMD's. That's Nuclear weapons, Chemical weapons and Biological weapons. Just to see how such an article to be created, check this link [2]." Chanakya advised me to undo my recent change which were of the delivery mechanisms and only keep the description of the weapons. If others also share similar views I would gladly revert all of my changes and thus remove the subs, aircrafts sections. Thanks Enthusiast10 ( talk) 15:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
i have mentioned several times, that the figures are 2005 estimates not 2004. there was never any accurate estimates because the amount of nuclear weapons that india has is a tight secret. there are no clear numbers for the estimates of indias nuclear arsenal we all know that it is definitely above 100. there are some estimates that say 95-120 or 40-95 or 60-95 or 100-110 or 95-250. take your pick. the only thing we know is that the estimate in 2003-2004 was 95 therefore i have put in the conservative 2005 estimate of 100-140.
i dont know why you took out the reference that showed the indian defence ministry talking in 2004 about the estimates for the amount of nuclear weapons that india would have in 4 years time. the reference clearly mentioned 300-400.
you have removed the quote by ashley tellis as well. yet you have kept the reference above it???
the quote is taken from the EXACT SAME reference. the reference is there at the end of the quote.
ahsley tellis is one of the most respected members of the nuclear sector of the american administration. the reference is his detailed report to the united states administration on the current capabilities and estimates of the indian nuclear weapons sector.
he has clearly stated the amount of plutonium that has ALREADY, i repeat ALREADY been produced. in addition in his report he has explained the current reserves of nuclear material in india which will be enriched by the existing 8 reactors of india.
he has NOT said that india will make 2,228 bombs and neither has the indian government ever said that it would ever want to make that many nuclear bombs.
he has only explained that if the need arises india is MORE than capable and has ENOUGH reserves for making that many nuclear bombs.
i dont know what is your purpose of trying to "downplay" the amount of nuclear weapons that india has.
anyway i have saved both the nuclear weapons page and my current topic on the discussion page. Zoomzoom316 ( talk) 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
please note that i use capital letters sometimes to emphasize the word and it is not meant to be rude. ok now on with the discussion:
why did you put a citation tag and remove the reference that clearly stated the 300-400 quote that the indian defence ministry made??
the indian defence ministry made that remark in 2004 and now it is 2009. the indian government has not released any number to the public, so your quote of 40-95 is quite an outdated number.
ashley tellis has produced the MOST upto date report on indian nuclear capabilities to the american administration. this report was for the american-indian nuclear deal.
he has personally visited indian nuclear reactors and has SEEN them functioning.
HIS quotations and HIS report has much much MUCH more validity than anybody else.
how are you supposed to know what is indias production capabilities??? have i ever said anything against china???
for the last time i am saying this again:
this is plutonium that has ALREADY been produced, i repeat ALREADY been produced and which can and is being used to make the nuclear weapons.
it is not going to be produced, it is ALREADY produced.
it is not even considering the uranium that india is now getting from both america and france.
and the 2nd largest reserves of thorium that india has, which after a few minor modifications and getting u-233 can also easily be used for power generation and to make nuclear weapons.
please do not remove referenced material from people who have made indepth reports on indian nuclear production. Zoomzoom316 ( talk) 12:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
i know that you dont get plutonium by enrichment and that it is produced as a byproduct. i made a mistake in the previous comment. i was trying to say that they already have the stockpiles of plutonium instead i ended up using the word "enriched"
did you actually read the link? please READ THE LINK. it says in there 300-400
you did not READ THE LINK. i have already put the reference. why did you remove it???
heck i even moved the reference up to where the numbers are. you can click on it.
also what do you mean by "unlikely scenario"???
ashley tellis is much more knowledgeble than you on indias nuclear stockpiles. i would definitely use a detailed report written by a nuclear expert, who has visited and seen the nuclear reactors functioning first hand. Zoomzoom316 ( talk) 00:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
This is tiresome. You have removed several reputable estimates of India's stockpile, all of them below the range you assert, without reference (100-140). You have included a secondhand reference to an Indian defense official boasting to Defense News. And the extended Ashley Tellis quote is really not relevant to estimating India's actual stockpile - it's about a hypothetical situation that Tellis does not believe will take place. You also confuse estimates of India's plutonium stockpile with those for its weapons stockpile. I am not aware of any concrete indication that India has used its power reactors to produce plutonium for weapons. At some point I may find the time to fix some of this damage, but I'm too busy now. NPguy ( talk) 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Russian delivery of Tu-142 and Il-38 (or the future lease of Tu-22M)to Indian Navy are maritime reconnaissance versions of both aircraft and are not capable of delivering nuclear payloads. Please protect this article from vandalism (blatant misinformation), as POV commnets like "the indian Tu-142 or Il-38 can easily be converted into nuclear capable aircrafts" are totally baseless and has no credible online or paper-based military resource.
Also, Russia, as signatory of the NPT, cannot export its nuclear-capable versions of Tu-95 or Tu-22M -- Ash sul ( talk) 14:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
This section is mostly unsubstantiated speculation and doesn’t even make clear that no Indian aircraft is confirmed to have been modified to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. In fact, it is unknown whether India has managed to develop a nuclear warhead that could be delivered by a modern fighter. It needs to be kept in mind that there is a tremendous amount of research and development into “weaponizing” nukes, particularly in reducing them in size and weight so they can be carried by fighters. Those fighters also have to be appropriately modified to carry and deliver them – and a Russian or French aircraft would naturally be designed to carry Russian or French nukes, neither of which might resemble an Indian tactical nuclear weapon. This section needs to be rewritten to capture what is known and not known, rather than speculate on what might be possible. Askari Mark (Talk) 02:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Well mark these are normal heavy bombers capable of flying long distance and dropping a large amount of ordinance and thus charaterised strategic bombers. I have made some changes to the section and realise that the earlier writter portion which now has been deleted was misleading. For that reason, I have mentioned in regarding section that the bombers role is primitive and similar to that of the bombers used by the american to bomb Japan. Im sure u must have seen that famous documentary on the bombing and if these bombers are used they bombs would be dropped in the similar simple fashion.
Coming to the fighter jets, bharat rakshak or some site i dont remember says that modification were made to mirage 2000 and it was customised during kargil. I dont have time rite now bt hopefully during the weekend i'll manage to solve the mystery of the missing link that comfirms this fact =) totally agree that the russian fighter jets would incorportate russian techonoly but then jane and atomic society have repeatedly mentioned the Su-30, Mig-27 as well as tu-142 as a means to drop nuclear weapons im sure they have done some pretty good research if they have mentioned it cz im sure uncle sam wouldnt like that, another mistake is made and there is another iraq, another iraq would be bad fr uncle sam especially lookin at the current economic situation Enthusiast10 ( talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
The article currently makes great claims that the Klub and BrahMos cruise missiles are nuclear capable and therefore large portions of the Indian Navy, both surface ships and submarines are also nuclear capable - are there any reliable sources that back up this assertion? or even discuss sensibly whether these systems are nuclear capable? If not, claims made for these missiles need to be drastically toned down or removed altogether. Nigel Ish ( talk) 19:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Brahmos is nuclear capable, sure you can look at the brahmos corporation's website and promo brochures in Aero India events...
But this entire article is downright rotten, what the heck is Nag and Aakash missile doing, besides this section was supposed to be on WMD not on WMD delivery methods...
require major rework..
Swraj ( talk) 16:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
The link to a map of India in the first infobox is broken. Could someone fix this? I don't know how. NPguy ( talk) 16:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is about all forms of WMD, but it says Israel has only nuclear weapons -- not chemical or biological weapons. In general the term WMD blurs the distinction among the different types, and in my view it is better off to make the distinctions clearly. That's why I think the first sentence should say that India has nuclear weapons, not that it has WMD. NPguy ( talk) 02:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Due to the ongoing content dispute edit war I've protected the article to encourage discussion on this page. All editors are reminded that even where WP:3RR has not been broken, edit warring (defined as "when editors who disagree about some aspect of the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion") can still attract sanctions on their accounts. Please see the cycle recommended at WP:BRD and, if necessary, make use of the dispute resolution measures outlined at WP:DR. If consensus is reached, you can request that protection be removed or that an administrator make whatever edits are agreed by using the {{ editprotected}} template. Thanks, EyeSerene talk 09:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
first of all India's longest range missile is Agni III which has a range of 3,500km at the least but it can go as far as 5,500km why does it say the longest missile is Agni II 2,500km? when clearly it isn't —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.19.51.236 ( talk) 03:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It is reported that a missile group is now being raised with Agni-III missiles. See: Ajai Shukla (2012-09-04).
"Military to buy DRDO missiles worth Rs 1 lakh cr in 10 yrs". Hyderabad, India: Business Standard. {{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Rkb76in (
talk •
contribs) 14:37 04 Sept 2012 (IST)
The article body has (as per the referenced source) the Agni-II as 3,000 km, not 2,500 km. Shouldn't the infobox say 3,000 kilometres (1,900 mi)? Allens ( talk | contribs) 11:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I propose a section on India's nuclear weapons program and development history prior to it's 1974 and 1998 tests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doyna Yar ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources with information (or even reasonable speculations) as to why India's wanting something that will (as far as I can tell from the map; correct me if I'm wrong, please!) reach much further than Pakistan, China, and North Korea, the three local nuclear powers? Do they figure that bigger range is more reliable for even reaching shorter range, are they wanting to put them aboard nuclear submarines located a significant distance away, or do they want to be able to strike countries other than Pakistan, China, and North Korea (Russia? No criticism of them if Russia is the intended target...) Thanks! Allens ( talk | contribs) 16:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
It has been proposed by Anurag2k12 that using this reference, the entry of the field "Maximum missile range" in the infobox be changed to Agni III. An official of the Govt of India says that the missile has already been inducted into the army. He goes on to say that the missile is under production. I would have preferred to keep this to Agni II till we could find a source that says that Agni III has been operationally deployed, like the sources which say so for Agni II. However, I am open to community consensus on this, and will not be reverting to the earlier article state, primarily because both the Oxford and Cambridge dictionary give the definition induct: to formally accept someone into an organisation or group. I would however re-introduce the existing hidden comment as numerous editors change the value to Agni-V, which is not supported. I would ask all editors to form a consensus here before reverting/changing that particular infobox field. Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If someone sees the Wikipedia article on India and Weapons of Mass Destruction and reads the article on Delivery systems, it says that the Agni 3 Missile is fully operational. So I feel we can change the maximum range to 5000 km on the Article (for Agni 3). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.188.247.153 ( talk • contribs) 06:28, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
It is reported that a missile group is now being raised with Agni-III missiles. See: Ajai Shukla (2012-09-04). "Military to buy DRDO missiles worth Rs 1 lakh cr in 10 yrs". Hyderabad, India: Business Standard. 14:37 04 Sept 2012 (IST)
Well it is being raised, doesn't that mean that it isn't fully operational and is only gonna be operational after a small while? Or does a near future order qualify as a missile being operational? -- Anurag2k12 ( talk) 15:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Let's get to basics here. All we need is a single reliable source saying Agni III is operationally deployed. Anyone? NPguy ( talk) 01:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Please discuss before removing any sourced material or else it's considered vandalism.- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 06:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with NPguy that the deleted edit was largely irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, it is not sourced as you claim. I think you are relying on another wikipedia article as the basis of your assertion. However this does not appear sourced either. Please see WP:NOTSOURCE. Jschnur ( talk) 03:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. NPguy has been removing cited content frequently on pages. NPguy, you can avoid vandalizing articles by modifying content and conducting research, as the person that posts information does often provide a source to prove they did additional work to obtain the information. It is unjust and immoral to dismiss these efforts by simply highlighting work and pressing the backspace or delete key. In which case, the word "vandalism" is a proper word. It is no different than a child spray painting the side of a building, in which the owner may have worked tirelessly to develop it in the first place. Please take my remarks into consideration and I look forward to seeing your improvements in the future. Twillisjr ( talk) 05:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The material is clearly sourced and and linked, so you have no basis to remove them (at least without discussion). Please leave it alone or I will lodge a complaint- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 01:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You are not going to remove sourced material. It is about India's arms stockpile in general and clearly referenced and by no means outside the scope of the article.- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 23:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
This is not about conventional weapons. It's about weapons purchases and India stands at the top of importing them. That is a an important fact to be added in the article. Do not remove it. India's nuclear power was used to produce nuke. 'Nuke' is short for nuclear weapons not for civilian nuclear programs which the Americans are currently helping with. The Soviet Union DID provide technology and other assistance to build the Indian bomb.- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 21:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
No they do not. Much of India's WMDs are imported from Israel and the Russian Federation, including ballistic missiles and cluster bombs, not to mention nuclear program. The source make it quite clear so do not remove facts in favor personal opinions. Thank you.- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 01:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
As I wrote, your personal speculation is not a valid source. Please review Wikipedia guidelines. The external links and references are clearly provided. I will request this page be protected in preventing constant vandalism and further edit wars.- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 23:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
One editor just rearranged and changed the titles on various sections of this article. The original structure was not great, but the revision is if anything even worse. I'd like to give the editor a chance to explain and hopefully rethink those changes. NPguy ( talk) 03:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
NPguy is a serial vandal and does not use buttons on his/her keyboard if they do not contain "delete" or "backspace." It is necessary for editors to consider themselves contributors and to avoid abusing the sharing of knowledge. [1] Twillisjr ( talk) 04:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
You are not welcome in removing sourced material. You have to convince others that your edits are relevant and not just your own personal speculation.- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 01:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I have requested discussion several times and sources to support opposing claims, but the editor does not seem co-opertive and keeps removing content without discussion first, hence it is not a violation of WP:AGF- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 23:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
1) I have requested the page be protected to prevent constant vandalism by all users, not just IPs. 2) I'm the one who pushed for discussion, not your side 3) I have provided sources, you have provided no sources at all. Other users also object to your constant vandalism. 4) If these edits belong in another article, link them here.- 99.226.203.145 ( talk) 05:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
A PIB released report titled Achievements of Ministry of Defence during the Year 2012 says that With Agni-I, Agni-II, Agni-III and Prithvi P-II surface to surface missile and also its naval version Dhanush already in the arsenal of the Indian Armed Forces, the missile from the production lots were flight tested by the Armed Forces as part of training exercises to ensure defence preparedness.
So is this good enough to update the page? Anir1uph | talk | contrib 23:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that the sidebar says the nuclear program started in 1967, but the article says it started in 1944 (under Nuclear Weapons). Is one of them wrong, or is there something interesting about 1967? "1967" does not appear anywhere else in the article. 70.112.198.77 ( talk) 08:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, this is the dumbest thing im coming across in a while.
Agni III inducted but not operationally deployed? India is moving on to Agni 4 and Agni 5 now, so no new reports of Agni 3 will come up, so i think it will be so called "not operational, but indcuted(lol)" even when Agni 5 enter service around 2014-15. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.189.16 ( talk) 16:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
India conducts regular trials of all it's missiles to check the operational capability as part of user trials. Very recently Agni 2 was test fired. Does India reveal the exact numer of Ballistic missiles it has? All we know that it has been under production since 2011.
HAL Tejas has been granted the Initial Operational Clearance. But we know that,according to media reports, HAL is having some problems in manufacturing the Series Production Aircrafts at the desired rate.
No such thing is reported of the Agni-3. It seems that, this "non operational" term is simply being cooked up. I have gone through various reports. All use the term either "Inducted" or "Operational". Are there any reports saying that the missile is "Not Operational"? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
120.62.179.103 (
talk •
contribs •
WHOIS) 07:00, April 16, 2013 (UTC)
The current entry says, as I quote, "India's loss of territory to China in a brief Himilayan border war in October 1962, provided the New Delhi government impetus for developing nuclear weapons as a means of deterring potential Chinese aggression." I have two questions: first of all, it is generally known that during the 1962 Indo-Chinese conflict China withdrew from the occupied area. It seems India didn't lose any territory in the war. Even if China "won" (which is under dispute), did India need nuclear weapon to defend its boarder? I am skeptical of this "Chinese aggression" argument. Secondly, China detonated her first nuclear bomb on 1964, only 2 years after the conflict with India. It seem very plausible that New Delhi saw Beijing's nuclear program as a security threat. So there follows the 1974 Indian nuclear test. But Beijing's nuclear program is not an "aggression". Nor did China declare to use nuclear weapon on resolving the boarder dispute. (There is an article on this piece of history. But I couldn't find it now ). Can someone please clarify on this issue? Thank you. 173.28.252.161 ( talk) 05:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept under wraps so far, it is now known that the Indian Navy successfully test-fired the indigenously developed ship launched ballistic missile Dhanush on Nov 14 last year for the first time during the night from a warship INS Subhadra anchored about 45 km off the coast of Puri and Paradip in Odisha..... Project Dhanush was sanctioned by the Indian Navy to integrate and demonstrate the feasibility of launching variant of Prithvi from a ship. The translation from the technology demonstrator to weaponisation configuration, and induction of the Dhanush weapon system was completed with the successful 'Acceptance Test Firing' conducted by the navy, and after achieving all the planned mission objectives. The salient features and achievements under the project include. [2]
Rkb76in ( talk) 17:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
India and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 23:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
India and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 04:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Kashmir is part of India ,Why there is slight color difference in India map for Kashmir Gunti Pandu ( talk) 18:43, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on India and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Indian map should be change to a neutral version, one that is recognized by international community rather than just by Indian government. Currently displayed Indian map includes many areas of Pakistan which are not in fact controlled by India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.64.212 ( talk) 03:45, April 17, 2017 (UTC)
Please provide proof! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.64.212 ( talk) 02:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Under
Chemical weapons, the first sentence makes it sound as if India said in 1992 that they hadn't any chemical weapons. It wasn't until 2009 that they had destroyed their stockpile. If corrected as 2009, the
citation needed tag can be replaced by
this link.
Additionally, I've modified the dead link supporting the sentence following it. —
Vignyana
talk
13:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on India and weapons of mass destruction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:08, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The largest yield test of India was Shatki-I, not Shakti-II. Also, a source for the 200 kiloton claim has not been provided. I provide it here. [3]
The Shakti-I thermonuclear test, notwithstanding all the disputes about its yield, was a 200 kiloton device scaled down to 45 kt to avoid civilian damage and radioactivity leaks. The latter since India couldn’t dig a new, stronger shaft due to secrecy concerns; old shafts from 1980s were used.
I corrected this information in the InfoBox. If you dispute my correction, please talk. Vaibhavafro ( talk) 03:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)