Latest news with #ICBM
India.com
a day ago
- Politics
- India.com
Blaze of Agni: Missiles to Crush China and Pakistan's War Dreams
Blaze of Agni: Missiles to Crush China and Pakistan's War Dreams India's journey to becoming a global power is not just about economic growth or diplomatic ties; it's about ensuring our nation's safety in a challenging neighbourhood. With tensions along the borders with Pakistan and China, India's missile programme, particularly the Agni series, stands as a powerful symbol of resolve. The Agni V, already a game-changer, and the upcoming Agni VI, promise to strengthen India's deterrence against both adversaries. These missiles, armed with nuclear warheads, secure our nation and shape a formidable future. Agni V: The Fire That Reaches Far The Agni V, a nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), is India's pride with a range exceeding 7,000 km. It can deliver nuclear warheads to targets across Pakistan and deep into China, including cities like Beijing. Unlike earlier missiles like Agni I or II, tailored for Pakistan, Agni V's reach makes it a potent deterrent against China. Its canisterised design enables rapid launches from mobile platforms, leaving enemies little time to react. Agni V's Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicle (MIRV) technology, proven in the 2024 Mission Divyastra, allows one missile to carry multiple nuclear warheads, each striking a different target. For Pakistan's compact geography, a single Agni V could devastate multiple strategic sites, making aggression prohibitively costly. For China, MIRV complicates missile defence systems, as intercepting multiple warheads is a daunting challenge. India's no-first-use nuclear policy positions Agni V as a second-strike weapon, guaranteeing catastrophic retaliation. Agni V's precision and range outmatch Pakistan's shorter-range Shaheen III, which lacks comparable reach or nuclear payload capacity. Against China's advanced Dongfeng-41, Agni V levels the strategic field by threatening eastern cities, compelling caution in border disputes. Deployed from central India, Agni V's nuclear warheads ensure credible, far-reaching deterrence. Agni VI: The Future of India's Deterrence The Agni VI, under development, could elevate India's defence to unprecedented heights. With a range of 8,000–12,000 km and capacity for up to 10 nuclear MIRV warheads, it would be a global missile, capable of targeting China, Pakistan, and even parts of Europe or Africa. This strategic reach places India among an elite few nations. Agni VI's advanced features, including submarine-launch capability and Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicles (MaRV), enhance its ability to evade China's growing missile defences. Its four-stage design and 3-tonne payload capacity allow it to deliver devastating nuclear strikes, reinforcing India's second-strike capability. Once deployed, Agni VI would transform regional security. For Pakistan, it would render nuclear brinkmanship suicidal, as one missile could obliterate multiple military and economic hubs. For China, Agni VI counters their ICBM numerical edge, ensuring India's nuclear retaliation would be overwhelming, even against distant cities. It would also proclaim India's shift from regional to global strategic power. Challenges and the Road Ahead Agni V and VI, with their nuclear arsenals, fortify India's deterrence but face challenges. Pakistan claims MIRV capability with its Ababeel missile, though its effectiveness is uncertain. China may accelerate its missile programme, risking an arms race. India must balance deterrence with diplomacy to manage tensions. Agni VI's development requires government approval and technical advancements, such as seeker technology for long-range accuracy. Yet, India's Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has consistently overcome such hurdles, as demonstrated by Agni V's success. A Fiery Message of Peace The nuclear-armed Agni V and potential Agni VI are more than weapons; they are India's commitment to its people's safety. They warn Pakistan and China that misadventures will incur unbearable costs. Upholding India's no-first-use policy, these missiles promote peace through unmatched strength. As Agni VI nears reality, it will solidify India's place in the elite ICBM club, delivering a clear message: India is prepared to defend itself against any threat. In a world where power respects power, Agni V and VI, with their nuclear warheads, are India's fiery shield, safeguarding our dreams of a secure and prosperous future. May our neighbours choose peace, for the fire of Agni burns only for those who threaten us.
News18
2 days ago
- Politics
- News18
BrahMos Delivers A Sharp Message. Agni-V Sends A Stronger One
Last Updated: Agni-V, with advanced navigation, MIRV tech, and a range over 5,000 km, marks a major leap in India's strategic missile capabilities and global deterrence In the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack, India launched Operation Sindoor, deploying BrahMos cruise missiles as part of its strategic response. The BrahMos, a supersonic cruise missile jointly developed by India and Russia, has seen its range increase from 290 kilometres to 450 kilometres, with ongoing efforts to push it further to 800 kilometres. This makes it a potent tool in India's tactical arsenal. Yet, while the BrahMos exemplifies speed and precision on the battlefield, it is the Agni-V intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) that stands as the crown jewel of India's long-range deterrence strategy—capable of delivering a much larger payload over far greater distances. Range and Reach of Agni-V Developed by the DRDO, Agni-V represents a quantum leap in India's missile capabilities. With an estimated range of 5,000 to 5,800 kilometres—and some expert assessments suggesting it may exceed 7,000 kilometres—Agni-V places India in an exclusive group of nations with operational ICBM capabilities. Future variants are reportedly in development with ranges that could stretch between 10,000 and 12,000 kilometres. Game-Changing MIRV Technology A landmark moment came on March 11, 2024, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced the successful test of the Agni-V equipped with MIRV (Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicle) technology. This enables a single missile to carry multiple warheads—each capable of striking separate targets. Often described as a 'missile bus", MIRV technology significantly enhances both offensive capability and deterrence. Historically, the US pioneered this advancement in 1970 with the Minuteman III ICBM and later the Poseidon SLBM, which could carry up to 10 warheads. With the successful integration of MIRV technology, Agni-V cements India's place among a select group of technologically advanced nuclear powers. It's not just a missile—it's a message of strategic depth and cutting-edge capability. A Technological Leap The Agni-V is more than just a long-range missile—it's a symbol of India's rapid advancement in indigenous defence technology. Unlike its predecessors, Agni-V incorporates cutting-edge features such as ring laser gyroscope-based inertial navigation, micro-navigation systems, and highly accurate guidance mechanisms, ensuring it can strike targets with pinpoint precision across continents. Its three-stage solid-fuelled propulsion system allows it to cover vast distances while maintaining structural stability and speed. The missile is also canisterised, meaning it can be launched from a road-mobile launcher, significantly improving its readiness and survivability. This mobility gives India second-strike capability—an essential component of a credible nuclear deterrent. In terms of survivability and response, canisterised missiles can be moved and launched from hidden locations, making them harder to detect or pre-emptively neutralise. This flexibility adds another layer to India's strategic posture. Moreover, Agni-V's development and successful MIRV integration underscore India's move toward next-generation deterrence systems, combining survivability, mobility, and multi-target engagement. As geopolitical dynamics evolve, Agni-V ensures India is not just keeping pace but emerging as a self-reliant, tech-driven strategic power. Watch India Pakistan Breaking News on CNN-News18. Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! First Published: May 30, 2025, 12:37 IST
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
If NASA Had Blown Up This Many Rockets, The Government Would Have Cancelled the Space Program
As an institution, the Pentagon has come to be known for many things over the years — its transparency, its generosity, its cunning. Consistency is not one of them. SpaceX, a private company with a valuation of over $350 billion, is currently coasting off billions of dollars in Pentagon launch programs. Based on contracts in force in 2025, the company will now carry out the majority of US military space launches until at least 2036. But in the wake of SpaceX CEO Elon Musk's latest disastrous Starship failure — the company's third in a row — some are wondering if we weren't better off when space flight wasn't beholden to the whims of a few billionaires, but as a national project under NASA. "Weren't we NOT blowing up rockets, like, 50 years ago," asked The Verge features editor Sarah Jeong on social media. "Also weren't we like 'ah yeah that was a fail' when the rocket fell apart instead of calling it a 'partial success,'" she asked, referencing Musk's insistence that the latest explosion, as usual, was a "big improvement." "I understand the part about the 'cost-savings by outsourcing to theoretically nimbler private sector' and the 'cuts to NASA' but also," Jeong pondered, "the rockets keep exploding. Didn't they used to not explode." Both NASA and SpaceX have different objectives — NASA to investigate (and militarize) air and space, SpaceX to colonize Mars for the glory of corporate capitalism — making direct comparisons tricky. Still, there are some objective differences in the way both agencies pursue their goals that are worth looking into, especially as the US government maintains a financial obligation to both. As UChicago tech policy scholar Uchenna Andrew Offorjebe pined on Bluesky, "NASA was not allowed to fail in the same ways that SpaceX does." While failure can be the name of the game when it comes to spaceflight innovations, it's fair to say SpaceX would crumble under the immense pressure put on NASA by the US government throughout the Cold War. Contrary to popular belief, throughout the 1960s, the years of the famous Apollo program, polls fluctuated from 45-60 percent in favor of cutting of Congress's spending on NASA. Though cold warriors in Washington didn't always follow the will of the public, they still maintained intense scrutiny of NASA's budget, even as the agency put men on the Moon. In 1965, for example, NASA was forced to appeal to Congress for funding for projects like its solid-fuel rocket program — the propulsion system now undergirding the nation's ICBM arsenal — when Defense budget examiners gutted support for NASA's joint rocket programs. The reason wasn't some earth-shattering launch catastrophe, but NASA's inability to "quantify the noneconomic benefits of space exploration," according to NASA historian Arnold Levine. This Pentagon withdrawal was despite US President Lindon Johnson's congressional space report, where he called 1965 the "most successful year in our history." (This was the year of the US's first two-man spaceflight, the first American spacewalk, first orbital rendezvous, and a new record set for longest duration of a manned spaceflight, among other achievements.) SpaceX is under no such scrutiny by Pentagon budget hawks, even as it becomes integral to US Defense agencies. Judging by Musk's own metrics — not just reaching Mars, but building a million-person colony by 2044 — the private company is lagging way behind its childlike ambitions. In the meantime, it's burning through about $1.5 billion a year on the joint Starbase and Starship program alone, according to the Wall Street Journal. Though SpaceX is currently profitable thanks almost entirely to Starlink, a subscription-based satellite internet service, the company's future hinges on Starship. Without a viable Starship, the company's $1.6 billion in outstanding debt will only grow as the launch debris piles up. When that happens, the Pentagon's contracts will likely ensure that SpaceX is too big to fail — great news for Musk, bad news for US taxpayers, and a curious contradiction in a supposedly free-market system. More on SpaceX: Former NASA Astronaut Says Elon Musk Has No Idea What He's Talking About
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘Golden Dome' system is an expensive way to make America less safe
Last week, President Donald Trump boasted of the inclusion of the 'Golden Dome' missile defense program in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which the House narrowly passed Thursday. The funding, initially set at a staggering $175 billion, is for a long-standing Republican fantasy: total U.S. impunity to attacks from other nations. 'We will truly be completing the job that President Reagan started 40 years ago, forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,' said Trump, flanked by posters showcasing the contiguous 48 states projected under a transparent golden force field. In fact, this technological promise is impossible to deliver, expensive to pursue, and one whose very development guides other nations into deadlier countermeasures that make America and the world less safe. Missiles — primarily intercontinental ballistic missiles — have posed a threat to the United States ever since the Soviet Union successfully tested its first ICBM in August 1957. The USSR launched Sputnik, the first human-made satellite, two months later, making it impossible for U.S. officials to hide the fact that the USSR had weapons which could hurl objects into the heavens and, far more ominously, send nuclear warheads crashing back down. Every president since Dwight Eisenhower has had to contend with the challenge of a nuclear-armed ICBM, fired far beyond the reach of U.S. forces and moving too fast to be intercepted by planes, destroying entire cities and ports. The trajectory of an ICBM is a parabolic arc: The rocket launches upward toward space, then turns and arcs back down toward the Earth at tremendous speed, up to 15,000 mph. This downward trajectory and rapid descent mean any missile defense system must not only successfully track where the missile is in flight, but must accurately calculate where the missile is likely to be when an interceptor can reach it. An interception system built to stop ICBMs is likely to struggle with nuclear-armed cruise missiles, which fly at different speeds and trajectories than either submarine or land-based ballistic missiles. The fear is compounded by the scale of nuclear arsenals. Russia maintains the world's largest nuclear stockpile: about 870 nuclear warheads on ballistic missiles and 640 on submarine-launched missiles. The U.S. maintains 400 nuclear warheads on land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, and roughly 970 are on submarine-launched ballistic missiles. Both arsenals also include hundreds of nuclear weapons that can be carried by bombers, including nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. And then there are other nuclear powers like China, whose arsenal, while still markedly smaller than that of the U.S. or Russia, is nevertheless growing. The Jan. 27 executive order from the White House that set in motion the Golden Dome was called 'The Iron Dome for America,' a reference to Iron Dome, the Israeli rocket interception that was first field tested in 2011 and has received funding from the United States ever since. Iron Dome pairs sensors with missile interceptors that allow it to track the trajectory of simple rockets — typically launched by groups like Hezbollah and Hamas — and then target interceptions with missiles. The sensors allow the system to discriminate between rockets that are likely to hit buildings and ones that will miss and thus don't require interception. But Iron Dome's task is easier than what Golden Dome would face, as Iron Dome usually faces cheap rockets with simple trajectories and only small, conventional payloads. Even with that success, Iron Dome is an expensive tool for the targets it intercepts. The rockets it typically intercepts cost hundreds of dollars, while the interceptors it fires cost tens of thousands. Other kinds of battlefield missile defense, designed for everything from rockets to conventional missiles, have been used by Israel, the United States and other countries, like Saudi Arabia (against the Houthis) or Ukraine (against Russia). The continental United States does not face conventional missile threats from nearby enemies, and it would take a catastrophic turn in Mexican- or Canadian-U.S. relations for that to change. Missile defense on the scale of Golden Dome is especially confounded by the danger of a thermonuclear warhead, where even one warhead reaching ground can result in tens of thousands of deaths. The only nuclear weapons used so far in war, the fission bombs the United States dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killed an estimated 110,000 to 210,000 people. Modern warheads are typically at least one order of magnitude more powerful, and since the 1960s, nuclear weapon development has included missiles with multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles, warheads that can ride one missile to space and then go in different directions upon the return to Earth. Missiles can also release decoys, which only have to fool missile defense long enough for an interceptor to miss. An attacker can also build more weapons. ICBMs are expensive, but the rocketry is largely 1960s and 1970s technology, even as designs have been iterated on since. During the nuclear arms race of the Cold War, the United States and the USSR built staggeringly large arsenals that could overwhelm attempts at missile defense. We have already seen one country try to overwhelm the missile defenses of another. In April and October of 2024, Iran launched retaliatory missile attacks against Israel for, respectively, an attack on an Iranian Embassy in Syria and the assassination in Iran of a Hamas leader. The April attack involved 120 ballistic missiles, and the October attack 180, the increase in the latter seen as an attempt to overwhelm defenses through heavy saturation. After the attack, Israel claimed that it had intercepted the majority of attacks, while Iran claimed a 90% success rate. If missile defense works as promised, it creates an opportunity for the leadership of the protected country to launch nuclear strikes without fear of suffering nuclear retaliation in return. This is true even if missile defense does not actually work as a defense, because overcoming planned defenses means building a larger arsenal and possibly taking a gamble on launching a nuclear first strike, rather than forever losing that deterrent effect. Developing missile defense is expensive, and the United States has already appropriated $250 billion since 1985 attempting to make it work. Interception is harder than launching a missile: It requires an array of sensors to track the incoming threat and then infer the intercept trajectory, and often requires firing two or more interceptors per incoming missile. The cost of a successful interception is the full expense of developing the system, the interceptors, coordinating the sensors, and maintaining the defenses through constant upgrades to stay ahead of what is almost invariably an increasing arsenal to defend against. What compounds these dangers is the possibility that missile defense is pursued despite these calculations, and then the results are staged and yet presented as a success. This isn't speculation; this actually happened with 'Star Wars,' Ronald Reagan's missile defense initiative. 'Officials in the 'Star Wars' project rigged a crucial 1984 test and faked other data in a program of deception that misled Congress as well as the intended target, the Soviet Union,' four former Reagan administration officials told The New York Times in 1993. The rigging was apparently designed to spur Soviet expenditures countering missile defense, a dangerous gamble on all counts. If the USSR believed the system was likely to work, Soviet leaders may have more readily risked a pre-emptive strike. And if American presidents were told the system was a success, they might have been more willing to escalate, rather than back down, in a conflict, overconfident in the protection of a shield that functionally doesn't exist. The physics and engineering challenges of missile defense are real and hard, and it comes with a promise of safety on the other end. But the designers of defensive weapons are not the only ones who get a say in offense-defense development, and nuclear warheads make the stakes of failure that much greater. Pursuing Golden Dome makes the U.S. less safe, and for all the victories of systems like Iron Dome, none have reckoned with nuclear threats or interception-defeat tools. To borrow a phrase, missile defenses have to get lucky every time; nuclear weapons only have to get lucky once. This article was originally published on
Miami Herald
4 days ago
- Science
- Miami Herald
New Chinese Military Technology Could Defeat Trump's ‘Golden Dome'
Chinese scientists have developed a new material that could lead to stealthier missiles and combat aircraft. The technology could potentially compromise the effectiveness of U.S. missile defense systems, including President Donald Trump's much-hyped 'Golden Dome.' Newsweek reached out to the Pentagon and the Chinese Foreign Ministry via email for comment. The United States is concerned about the growing intercontinental missile (ICBM) stockpiles of nuclear-armed China and Russia, including faster-than-sound hypersonic missiles. These arsenals are expected to become even more capable in the coming years. Trump has ordered work to begin on the 'Golden Dome,' a satellite-based missile shield. Beijing has said it's 'gravely concerned' about the project, which draws inspiration from the Strategic Defense Initiative, or 'Star Wars,' proposed by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s during the Cold War. Aircraft and missiles emit strong thermal radiation, created by superheated components such as exhaust nozzles, which raises the risk of detection. These temperatures can also degrade and even destroy the structure of standard materials. A Chinese research team led by Professor Li Qiang of Zhejiang University detailed a possible solution to this problem in a study published in March. Their new material is designed to evade both microwave and infrared detection technologies widely used in modern military surveillance, even when exposed to extremely high temperatures, as reported by the South China Morning Post. To test its stealth potential, the team compared the material to a standard blackbody, or a surface that absorbs various types of radiation. Even when heated to 700 degrees Celsius (1,292 degrees Fahrenheit), the material emitted a far lower radiation temperature-422 degrees Celsius-than the blackbody's 690 degrees. The breakthrough lies in the material's layered structure, which includes a specialized 'metasurface'-a precisely engineered layer patterned to control how radar and infrared waves interact with it. The top layer shields against moisture, while the bottom ensures it stays fixed to the surface. Laser etching throughout the structure allows radar signals to pass through without compromising its heat-hiding abilities, according to SCMP. Li Qiang, professor at Zhejiang University's College of Optical Science and Engineering, wrote: 'Our device achieves a maximum operating temperature and heat dissipation capabilities that surpass the current state of the art for simultaneous high-temperature IR and microwave stealth.' Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning, at a press conference on May 21: 'The [Golden Dome] project will heighten the risk of turning the space into a war zone and creating a space arms race, and shake the international security and arms control system.' The U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency said in a threat assessment released earlier this month: 'Missile threats to the U.S. homeland will expand in scale and sophistication in the coming decade. 'China and Russia are developing an array of novel delivery systems to exploit gaps in current U.S. ballistic missile defenses, but traditional ballistic missiles-which are guided during powered flight and unguided during free flight-will remain the primary threat to the homeland.' It remains to be seen whether and how soon the new material will be integrated into Chinese weapons platforms. Trump has said the Golden Dome will be 'fully operational' by the end of his second term in 2029. Yet defense analysts have expressed doubts that the system can be completed within that timeline or under its projected $175 billion budget. Related Articles Chinese Aircraft Carrier Challenges US's Pacific War StrategyTrump's Greenland Bid Poses Global Dangers, Says the Woman Facing Him DownChina Responds to Trump Freeze on Student Visa InterviewsChina Reveals Laser Tech to Read Text From a Mile Away 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
