[walrus01]

The first, second and third stages all being solid rockets also means India now has a global-range ICBM, with only a little bit of modification needed to make it storable in a silo. Privately developed, but I would be astonished if the Indian military isn't well aware of this new capability.

[nirav72]

India has had the ability to reach LEO and beyond for a while now. So bringing down a nuke anywhere on the planet wouldn't be that difficult for them. That goes for any country that has LEO launch capabilities. Of course miniaturization of the nuclear payload is another matter.

[walrus01]

Liquid fueled launch vehicles aren't storable/able to be made ready at a moment's notice, unlike solids. Liquid fueled historical artifact:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SM-65_Atlas

There's a reason all modern silo based (and submarine) ICBMs are solids.

[stickfigure]

> There's a reason all modern silo based (and submarine) ICBMs are solids.

Believe it or not, here in 2026, this is incorrect!

Those crazy Russians:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-29RMU_Sineva

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-29RMU2_Lajner

UDMH + nitrogen tetroxide.

I would not want to be a Russian submariner. For all sorts of reasons.

[laughing_man]

To be fair, while these missiles are still in service they're obsolete and are slated for retirement the coming decade.

[stickfigure]

The most recent started service in 2014. They may in fact be obsolete but not because they are old by soviet standards.

[dmurray]

Do you need to be able to strike at a moment's notice?

For a proper MAD-based nuclear deterrence, yes, you want to be able to launch a massive retaliation while your enemies' missiles are still in the air. Submarine-launched missiles also require stable storage. But having first-strike capabilities, the ability to wipe out any city in the world in return for a few weeks' planning, seems like something militaries would find valuable.

[ghm2199]

The mil have had solid propulsion for a while https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agni-VI

[walrus01]

Right, but see the details for estimated range and the map. Not that India has any foreseeable need to nuke Argentina but it's not in range. It's entirely possible the public data is wrong and the Agni VI has a global range.

But by definition if you can put something into a 350x350 km low earth orbit (something like 7800m/s total delta V) you could also deliver a re-entering payload from your launch site to any other spot on earth, within the limitations of the inclination you're launching to.

[rrrazdan]

Multiple sources think that the real range is an ICBM level. And the Indian government purposely limits it's range. No strategic reason to communicate a larger range than needed and why have an headline that reads, "India develops capability to nuke Europe or US"?

[londons_explore]

I was under the impression long range missiles aren't much use in global warfare anymore, because they are easy targets for missile defence systems.

Even if your target doesn't have missile defence systems, any ally of theirs along the route can intercept too.

[nirav72]

Ballistic intercepts are still very difficult and not always certain to work. Interception is only possible within a specific trajectory window with limited number of shots.

The missile defense we commonly hear about these days is used against lower speed , shorter range and altitude missiles:

[seatac76]

I think it has had latent ICBM capability for over a decade now but the government hasn't allowed one to be created. Their pacing threat is China and to a lesser extent Pakistan, those are adequately covered by their current inventory.

[delta_p_delta_x]

India has had ICBMs for decades now.[1]

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agni-V?wprov=sfla1

[mayama]

India has developed ASAT, which is arguably more complicated that ICBM, agni series, they developed. India routinely understates ranges and appear non threatening. Agni5 and 6 are genuine ICBM, and with little tuning could reach anywhere in the world. India's bureaucracy and MEA is beset with gandhian mindset who try to avoid confrontations and minimise belligerence, opposite of PRC wolf warriors I guess.

[alephnerd]

> India's bureaucracy and MEA is beset with gandhian mindset who try to avoid confrontations and minimise belligerence, opposite of PRC wolf warriors I guess.

It isn't because of some purported Gandhian mindset. It's becuase India is in a pacing conflict with China and Pakistan, whereas China is in one with the US and historically the USSR. Assuming the Chagos Archipelago dispute gets resolved in the next decade (India and France backs it's return to Mauritius because Mauritius' police and military leadership are under direct Indian control [0] but the US prefers Chagos remaining under British control because we are closer aligned), India has no need to explicitly publicize ICBM capabilities that extend beyond China or Turkiye.

Additionally, publicly stating India has ICBM capabilities makes it harder to land transnational mining deals [1] because then discussions with Australia, Brazil, Canada, etc adopt a nuclear proliferation dimension as well as placing a target on India's private sector because of SpaceTech and DefenseTech's dual use implications.

[0] - https://thesecretariat.in/article/inside-raisina-hill-nsa-to...

[1] - https://www.ft.com/content/c5868e2f-8d19-4393-93be-2ad726a63...

[walrus01]

I presume they're thinking any potential adversaries have functioning intelligence agencies, so something as public as a launch is sufficient. No need to come out and explicitly state it.

If I, some rando on the internet, can theorize "that sure looks like it could be turned into a storable icbm that could deliver a nuke to hawaii or Tierra del Fuego or anywhere else on the globe" can make that guess, then any other major world power is likely far ahead of me in analysis.

Also well known that having the institutional knowledge and technical capability to build or adapt something in a fairly short time frame is almost as good as having the thing ready to go.

[alephnerd]

> I presume they're thinking any potential adversaries have functioning intelligence agencies, so something as public as a launch is sufficient. No need to come out and explicitly state it.

Exactly. This is the norm.

[rayiner]

> Also well known that having the institutional knowledge and technical capability to build or adapt something in a fairly short time frame is almost as good as having the thing ready to go.

This is similar to how Japan doesn't have nuclear weapons.