This is India missile bus, whose passengers are nuclear bombs, its has range of …, capable of destroying…
This is India's 'missile bus', whose passengers are nuclear bombs, its has range of …, capable of destroying…
The range of this missile is more than 5800 km and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
By Joy Pillai Edited by Joy Pillai
Advertisement
This is India's 'missile bus', whose passengers are nuclear bombs, its has range of …, capable of destroying…
India shares its borders with neighbours like Pakistan and China. So it is very crucial to strengthen the air, water and air defence system. The world has witnessed how India took its revenge of the Pahalgam Terror attack that claimed the life of 26 tourists. The country launched Operation Sindoor and precisely targeted terror hideouts in Pakistan and Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. This military action stunned China and Pakistan both.
Western Defence Expert Brahmos Cruise Missile
The capability of the Indian air defence system has surprised everyone. Pakistan's China-made air defence system failed to detect Indian missiles and drones. However, New Delhi did not use its most dangerous missile in the military operation.
Advertisement ===
The range of this missile is more than 5800 km and is capable of carrying a nuclear warhead.
Because of its features, the Agni-5 missile comes into the intercontinental ballistic missile or ICBM category. The missile has also been loaded with MIRV (multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle) technology. MIRV is also compared to a missile bus.
Advertisement ===
On March 11, 2024, Prime Minister Modi announced the successful test of India's Agni-5 missile, incorporating Multiple Independently targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) technology. This achievement places India among a select group of nations possessing this advanced capability, bolstering its national security, particularly given its geopolitical context with neighbouring countries such as China and Pakistan. The successful test, a result of years of dedicated work by DRDO scientists, represents a significant milestone in India's missile defence program. The Agni-5 is the latest in a series of successful Agni missile tests.
MIRV Also Called Missile Bus
The question arises: Why is MIRV technology called missile bus?
MIRV is a technology through which many missiles can be fired from a single booster. These missiles can destroy different targets at the same time. This not only saves time, but there is also no need to fire missiles again and again.
Its ferocity increases further when it MissileIt should be capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Agni-5 has all these features, which make it extremely dangerous and lethal. Its importance increases even more due to its range of more than 5800 km. For example, if targets located at different locations have to be attacked and destroyed at the same time, then a missile equipped with MIRV technology is useful in this.
Enemies Did Not Even Get A Chance To Recover
The Agni-5 missile, with its Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) technology, can strike multiple targets simultaneously, overwhelming enemy air defences. Since air defence systems typically engage one projectile at a time, the Agni-5's ability to deploy multiple warheads makes interception extremely difficult, thus posing a significant threat to potential adversaries such as China and Pakistan.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
27 minutes ago
- Economic Times
US-bound scholars carry cares of the word on shoulders
Live Events Termination Biggest Fear An Indian researcher applying for a doctoral position in medicine at a leading US university earlier this year decided to drop any mention of LGBTQ+ health disparities from the grant project was reframed as a data-driven analysis of demographic trends in patient outcomes, instead of spotlighting gaps in healthcare access for sexual minorities. The core research remained the same, but the language was 'sanitised' to sidestep any political red flags in a shifting American research the Donald Trump administration's war on diversity, equity and inclusion ( DEI ), climate action and public health research intensifies, Indians seeking US grants and PhD positions are rethinking how to frame, and sometimes where they pursue, their academic ambitions, said consultants.'The concern, especially for those applying for PhD or post-doctoral positions, is two-fold — first, the fear that their proposed research might not receive funding and second, that even if funded, their work could be undermined or prematurely terminated if it falls out of favour politically,' said Vibha Kagzi, founder of our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates)Subject areas such as climate science, DEI and public health are increasingly being viewed as 'politically sensitive,' she said, prompting students to reassess whether their proposals are 'safe' to get through repurposed US funding February, more than 2,100 National Institutes of Health grants worth $9.5 billion have been cancelled. At Harvard University alone, $2.7-billion National Science Foundation grants have been including Brown, Cornell, Columbia, Princeton, Pennsylvania and Northwestern have faced funding freezes, affecting everything from Alzheimer's research to Kumar, regional director for South Asia, at IDP Education, said the ripple effects of the cancellations are evident. 'The recent adjustments to federal funding have impacted some top US institutions, especially those heavily reliant on government grants. This has affected a segment of students applying for Fall 2025 PhD intakes, with some reporting delays or pauses in research-related admissions due to funding constraints.'ForeignAdmits founder Nikhil Jain said anxiety levels among applicants are unprecedented. 'The biggest fear isn't about getting rejected: it's having funding pulled after you're already there,' he said. 'We've had students where NIH terminated their advisor's grant mid-PhD, and suddenly they're scrambling to find new funding or face visa issues.'Jain and his team are working closely with students to strip politically sensitive terminology from proposals. 'Any mention of DEI is toxic now, as is 'underrepresented communities'. Climate change has become 'extreme weather events'. We tell students to avoid 'structural racism', 'reproductive health equity' and 'environmental justice'. I've seen applications get flagged for using 'critical theory' or even 'gender' in the context of medical research. Students are self-censoring to an extreme degree,' he applicants are preparing two versions of their research statements—one for US funders, another for European bodies like the European Research Council (ERC). Interest in European destinations has surged, with enquiries for ERC grants up 13% since April, according to a 'tactical' shift in student applications, Kagzi said, 'While the core intellectual enquiry often remains intact, the language, framing and even methodology are being recalibrated.'Researchers are adding quantitative models, machine learning components or economic competitiveness angles to make their work more fundable, she Zaveri, founder of Career Mosaic, said many applicants are opting for 'topics with broader applicability that might not attract undue attention, or raise questions in sensitive areas'.
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
US-bound scholars carry cares of the word on shoulders
An Indian researcher applying for a doctoral position in medicine at a leading US university earlier this year decided to drop any mention of LGBTQ+ health disparities from the grant proposal. The project was reframed as a data-driven analysis of demographic trends in patient outcomes, instead of spotlighting gaps in healthcare access for sexual minorities. The core research remained the same, but the language was 'sanitised' to sidestep any political red flags in a shifting American research environment. As the Donald Trump administration's war on diversity, equity and inclusion ( DEI ), climate action and public health research intensifies, Indians seeking US grants and PhD positions are rethinking how to frame, and sometimes where they pursue, their academic ambitions, said consultants. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Struggling with Slow Internet? Read This First Search7 Learn More Undo 'The concern, especially for those applying for PhD or post-doctoral positions, is two-fold — first, the fear that their proposed research might not receive funding and second, that even if funded, their work could be undermined or prematurely terminated if it falls out of favour politically,' said Vibha Kagzi, founder of (Join our ETNRI WhatsApp channel for all the latest updates) Subject areas such as climate science, DEI and public health are increasingly being viewed as 'politically sensitive,' she said, prompting students to reassess whether their proposals are 'safe' to get through repurposed US funding filters. Live Events Since February, more than 2,100 National Institutes of Health grants worth $9.5 billion have been cancelled. At Harvard University alone, $2.7-billion National Science Foundation grants have been withheld. Termination Biggest Fear Universities including Brown, Cornell, Columbia, Princeton, Pennsylvania and Northwestern have faced funding freezes, affecting everything from Alzheimer's research to robotics. Piyush Kumar, regional director for South Asia, at IDP Education, said the ripple effects of the cancellations are evident. 'The recent adjustments to federal funding have impacted some top US institutions, especially those heavily reliant on government grants. This has affected a segment of students applying for Fall 2025 PhD intakes, with some reporting delays or pauses in research-related admissions due to funding constraints.' ForeignAdmits founder Nikhil Jain said anxiety levels among applicants are unprecedented. 'The biggest fear isn't about getting rejected: it's having funding pulled after you're already there,' he said. 'We've had students where NIH terminated their advisor's grant mid-PhD, and suddenly they're scrambling to find new funding or face visa issues.' Jain and his team are working closely with students to strip politically sensitive terminology from proposals. 'Any mention of DEI is toxic now, as is 'underrepresented communities'. Climate change has become 'extreme weather events'. We tell students to avoid 'structural racism', 'reproductive health equity' and 'environmental justice'. I've seen applications get flagged for using 'critical theory' or even 'gender' in the context of medical research. Students are self-censoring to an extreme degree,' he said. Many applicants are preparing two versions of their research statements—one for US funders, another for European bodies like the European Research Council (ERC). Interest in European destinations has surged, with enquiries for ERC grants up 13% since April, according to Jain. Acknowledging a 'tactical' shift in student applications, Kagzi said, 'While the core intellectual enquiry often remains intact, the language, framing and even methodology are being recalibrated.' Researchers are adding quantitative models, machine learning components or economic competitiveness angles to make their work more fundable, she said. Abhijit Zaveri, founder of Career Mosaic, said many applicants are opting for 'topics with broader applicability that might not attract undue attention, or raise questions in sensitive areas'.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
In battle of the delegations, real story lies in what went unsaid
In the aftermath of their recent military clash, rival delegations from Delhi and Islamabad converged on various global capitals, each aiming to shape elite opinion, win sympathy, and control the post-crisis narrative. Having witnessed some of the exchanges in London firsthand, the diplomatic duel across briefing rooms, think tanks, and diaspora events was as revealing for what was unsaid as for what was spoken. Messaging starts with messengers The difference in delegation profiles was notable. India's all-party parliamentary mission carried symbolic weight and cross-party legitimacy, including senior figures like Ravi Shankar Prasad and Pankaj Saran. Pakistan's team leaned more on technocrats and veteran advocates of global engagement, such as Sherry Rehman and Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. India's group projected cohesion and resolve; Pakistan's aimed to influence narratives and broaden appeal. India's cautious case India's delegation framed Operation Sindoor as part of a broader shift: limited cross-border retaliation to terrorist acts as policy, not aberration. They emphasized terrorism as a global threat whose response merits international understanding—not moral equivalence. The delegation linked India's counterterrorism struggle to challenges faced by Western democracies, with Pakistan as a common denominator. In my observation, Indian representatives appeared quietly frustrated that while many countries expressed sympathy after Pahalgam and tacitly accepted India's right to act, few explicitly condemned Pakistan. Though confident in their message, their delivery often felt restrained. In think tanks, the tone was formal, even stiff; diaspora engagements were reportedly more fiery. Though most accepted the delegation's basic premise, some observers noted the irony in Delhi resisting calls to frame Russia's invasion of Ukraine as a shared threat but now seeking solidarity on Pakistani-based terrorism. Crucially, the delegation faltered when pressed on domestic radicalization. Two of the Pahalgam suspects were reportedly Indian nationals. Asked how New Delhi planned to prevent disillusionment turning to violence, the only response was that 'things today are better than in the 1990s.' This was a missed chance to demonstrate nuanced understanding of the challenge. Other inconsistencies emerged. India's representatives rejected 're-hyphenation' with Pakistan, yet much of their messaging focused on Islamabad. While stressing the quarrel was with Pakistan's military, not its people, questions about suspending the Indus Waters Treaty complicated that briefings took place inside the High Commission, with diaspora members complaining to me that they thought too much political outreach was aimed at UK politicians of Indian heritage. Playing it safe has a certain logic, but may have limited engagement with new or skeptical audiences. Pak's polished—but problematic—pitch If India played it safe, Pakistan opted for smooth. Their delegation turned up at major think tanks eager to engage and keen to appear misunderstood. With assistance from lobbying professionals, their narrative was tightly crafted for European audiences: Pakistan sought peace through dialogue, emphasising Kashmir as the 'unfinished legacy of Partition,' terrorism, and water. Pakistan said it wanted talks, a neutral investigation into Pahalgam, and accused India of refusing cooperation or prove culpability. This narrative of peace sat uneasily beside claims of military success and personal attacks on Indian leaders. Critique of Indian media spin might have bolstered believability had it not been accompanied by other factual distortions: legal sleight-of-hand over Kashmir, misreadings of UN resolutions, and claims that India admitted culpability for terrorism in most convincing moment came on the Indus Waters Treaty, where the stark picture painted of the consequences struck a chord, even if significant action has yet to follow. A key question remains: what was the objective? If persuasion abroad was the objective, the reliance on longstanding misrepresentations made it a difficult sell to informed audiences. If the goal was domestic signaling, that focus likely came at the expense of deeper foreign engagement. Simpler sell, harder ask Ultimately, the Indian delegation framed all terrorism as emanating from Pakistan; Pakistan framed it as emerging from Kashmir. The narratives didn't just clash—they barely shared the same terms of reference. As performative exercises providing content for domestic media, both probably succeeded on their own terms. In the battle to move international opinion, outcomes were uneven. India may have achieved more, but it also had the easier task — framing terrorism as a universal threat aligns with European security narratives. Pakistan, by contrast, asked outside actors to invest political capital in corralling New Delhi back to the negotiating table — a much harder sell. Yet neither side escaped contradiction. India's claim to strategic clarity was weakened by deflection on domestic aspects of terrorism in Kashmir. Pakistan's message of peace was blunted by triumphalism and tired tropes. In diplomacy, silence often speaks louder than words. In London last week, the most telling signals were what each side omitted, ignored, or performed for the audience they believed mattered most. Ladwig III is a senior lecturer at the department of War Studies, King's College London
