[xzins]

"The only difference between India's satellite launch vehicles and a ballistic missile is a coat of paint," Pike said. "The only difference between a launch vehicle and a missile is the payload. The payload can be a satellite. Or it can be a nuclear bomb," agreed Banke.

As sukhoi points out, every state has the right to develop anything it wants for reasons of self-interest.

However, every other state has the "right" to stymie that progress for reasons of self-interest.

In the world of war, why permit another possible competitor on the street if you can prevent it? France/friendly -- "maybe" in the late 1700's.

[sukhoi-30mki]

Looking at the movement of things now India could be a partial competitor to the US in about 40-50 years(if everything else goes to plan)!!!!!!!!!.Well the US may see fit to stymie any nation's military progress but remember ur also giving a lot of very "friendly" regimes breathing space when u do that to some nations (read Taiwan,Japan,India).My point is countries like India &Israel are democracies which have never been anti-American-we have far more pressing issues on hand rather than to bash Bush&co like terrorism,2 really benevolent neighbours,poverty&a truckload of other problems which the people want to see fought-If India fanatically wanted ICBMS&thermonukes she could have had one in service by the 1990s given that its nuclear weapons programme was started in 1963(by Nehru after the 62 war)&its first test in '74.

Bout ur concerns on France-i think the real issue has never been French ambitions-id rather look at it as Europe trying to emerge as global force with France,Germany(&now Spain) as the engines.