Friday, 23 September 2016

Rafale Fighter Jets Can Carry Nuclear Weapons


Why India Wants France's Dassault Rafale Fighter Jet: They Can Carry Nuclear Weapons

Robert Beckhusen
September 21, 2016

India is on the verge of signing a deal with France for 36 Dassault Rafale fighter jets, likely when French defense minister Jean-Yves le Drian arrives in New Delhi later this week.

The jets may end up lugging nuclear bombs, as officials told The Indian Express this month that the jets are “to be used as an airborne strategic delivery system.”

That’s a polite way of saying India’s jets could drop nukes — one mission which Dassault specifically designed the multi-role Rafale to do. There’s also precedent here, as France previously sold and supplied spare parts for India’s Mirage 2000s, which are the most important delivery platform for New Delhi’s nuclear weapons.

“We expect the same degree of cooperation from France when we modify and use the Rafales for that role,” a second military official told the Express.

But if you’re from Pakistan or China and you’re worried — don’t sweat. Thirty-six Rafales are not enough to give India an advantage over its nuclear-armed neighbors. India’s upcoming ballistic missiles pack significantly greater range and are far more difficult to stop.

When India detonated five nuclear bombs in two days in 1998, the South Asian power emerged as a fully-declared nuclear armed state. A few weeks later, Pakistan blew up five nukes at an underground testing site.

The United States imposed sanctions on both countries, but France didn’t.

India weaponizing its nukes proved to be a different story, largely owing to extreme secrecy and compartmentalization within the government and military. Since the Indian Air Force barely knew the specifications of the country’s nukes, it could hardly design appropriate delivery systems.

India had no experience mating nuclear warheads to ballistic missiles, and its launchers in the 1990s were either too slow to fire — veritable suicide during a nuclear war — or too unreliable to depend upon.

This left India’s 1970s-era Mirage 2000s to take on much of the job. But the warheads were an awkward fit, and only highly skilled pilots could take off with the cumbersome payloads attached underneath their planes’ bellies — making the jets aerodynamically tricky to fly.

Nor did Dassault initially design the Mirage 2000 with nuclear weapons in mind. As a result, the Indian Air Force feared its planes’ fly-by-wire systems could be knocked out by the electromagnetic pulses from the detonating bombs.

“In the early 1990s, the air force was thinking of one-way missions,” a senior Indian Air Force officer told the Atlantic Council’s Guarav Kampani writing in International Security. [I]t was unlikely that the pilot deployed on a nuclear attack mission would have made it back.”

“The modification of aircraft for safe and reliable delivery of a nuclear weapon turned out to be a huge technical and managerial challenge that consumed the [state-owned Defense Research and Development Organization’s] attention for six years and perhaps more,” Kampani wrote.

“There was a major problem integrating the nuclear weapon with the Mirage.”

India has come a long way since. It has upgraded its Mirages, possesses up to 120 nuclear warheads, has completed its first ballistic missile submarine and has three different (and more modern) kinds of Agni ballistic missile launchers already deployed, with longer-range iterations on the way.

But the submarine Arihant is more of a test-bed than a credible weapon system. India’s land-based launchers lack rigorous testing regimens and still suffer from reliability issues. The most advanced operational launcher, the Agni-3, numbers fewer than 10 in service, according to the Federation of American Scientists.

Most Indian launchers are older Prithvis, which are short range and slow to prepare. New Delhi does not possess MIRVs — devastating clusters of nuclear warheads which ride together aboard a single missile, break apart and rain down on their targets. Nor is it likely that India has the will or expertise to develop them.

“Despite India’s considerable progress in developing credible ballistic missiles, its fighter-bombers still constitute the backbone of India’s operational nuclear strike force,” FAS analysts Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris wrote in a 2015 review.

India also possesses dozens of 1960s-era Jaguar attack jets — developed by France and Britain — which serves in a secondary nuclear attack role.

But you can see why India prefers aircraft. They’re technologically simple compared to missiles, can be recalled and are highly visible to an adversary, creating a deterrent effect. That’s good for keeping the peace, but during a war, they’re more easily spotted and shot down.

And the same is true for the canard delta wing Rafale. To be sure, the plane has a longer range, a lot more thrust and a greater payload capacity than the older Mirage 2000.

SL Muslim women demand repeal of the Article 16 (1)

Sri Lankan Muslim women demand repeal of the highly discriminatory Article 16 (1) of the constitution

By P.K.Balachandran Published: 22nd September 2016 03:19 PM Last Updated: 22nd September 2016 05:27 PM


COLOMBO: Sri Lankan Muslim women are demanding the repeal of Article 16 (1) of the constitution because it allows discrimination against them negating recent advances in the
concept of women’s rights.

Art 16 allows about 600 existing laws to continue irrespective of changes in the constitutional structure of the country. This may be necessary to ensure stability and continuity in the social order.But giving a further lease of life to Article 16(1) in this process will be greatly injurious to the interest of Muslim women in a rapidly changing social order, progressive Muslim women feel.

Sri Lanka is currently in the process of re-writing its constitution to suit the emerging social and political trends and widespread consultations are on. And Muslim women’s organizations have made their representations in regard to various issues including Article 16(1).

According to the Muslim Personal Law Reforms Action Group (MPLRAG), keeping Article 16(1) in its current state means keeping the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA) in toto.

And if the MMDA is kept intact, it will mean:

* Legally allowing child marriage by not stipulating the minimum age of marriage for Muslims as 18 years (A Quazi can permit even the marriage of a child under the age of 12).

* No requirement of mandatory (and written) consent from the bride.

* Different conditions of divorce for men and women

* Only husbands are granted the right to unilateral divorce without reason

* Process of divorce for wives lengthy, requiring reasons and evidence, witnesses and case hearings.

* Arbitrary provision for wife and child maintenance depending on the Quazi.

* Practice of polygamy without requirement of consent from the wife/s or wife to be (and without their knowledge).

* Qualified women not allowed to be marriage registrars, Quazis, Jurors or Quazi Board members.

* The position of Quazi is a state-salaried and tax-funded position that is allowed to discriminate against women simply on the basis of sex, but yet again due to Article 16(1), this State discrimination is ‘legalized’.

* No mandatory requirement of qualifications or mandatory training for Quazis Flawed Quazi Courts

* Muslim women’s access to justice is severely restricted in Quazi courts. Affected women have articulate in many forum that they are discriminated against by the below par Quazi court system, which is significantly different from the civil court system and doesn’t allow clients to have legal representation.

* Women are often mistreated by incompetent Quazis and the jurors of the courts; not given equal treatment as their husbands; are unable to express their side without fear of being verbally abused, threatened and humiliated in courts throughout their case processes. More often than not the all-male jurors (with no qualifications) are selected by Quazis arbitrarily.

For over 25 years, Muslim women’s groups in Sri Lanka have been trying to get the government’s to take responsibility in addressing  issues facing women with regard to the MMDA and the Quazi court system that is set up under this Act, to no avail, the MPLRG said.

John Kerry re-assures fullest support to Sri Lanka

John Kerry re-assures fullest support to Sri Lanka
Samanmali Karunanayake  Wednesday September 21st, 2016

John Kerry re-assures fullest support to Sri Lanka

US Secretary of State John Kerry says the government of the United States highly appreciates and admires the direction of the new government of Sri Lanka, and extended every possible assistance towards the country.

He said so when he called on President Maithripala Sirisena at the sidelines of the UNGA, being held in UN Head Quarters in New York today (Sep. 21).

President Sirisena said that the current government of Sri Lanka continues the path towards economic progress and reconciliation.

He further stated that the government is facing lot of challenges from the destabilizing forces in the North as well as the South, who want to deter the reconciliation process. “For example, some of the small minority of the people in the North refused to go back to their lands due to pressure from the extremist groups”, he said.

“Similarly, some Southern groups are engaged in decrying the reconciliation process. But the unity government is determined to implement the intended programs despite such oppositions”, he said.

He clarified that although there are differences among the policies of the unity government they have agreed upon a broad policy formula and continue to implement it. “Therefore, the strengthening the stability of the government remains uncompromised as it is committed to fulfilling aspirations of the people who elected this government on January 08, 2015”, he said.

The US Secretary of State congratulated the President on the achievements of the government during past 15 months and reassured US support to the Sri Lankan government.

Movie Review: ‘Snowden’











Oliver Stone

Review: ‘Snowden,’ Oliver Stone’s Restrained Portrait of a Whistle-Blower


SNOWDEN Directed by Oliver Stone  
Biography, Drama, Thriller  R  2h 14m





Oliver Stone’s “Snowden,” a quiet, crisply drawn portrait of the world’s most celebrated whistle-blower, belongs to a curious subgenre of movies about very recent historical events. Reversing the usual pattern, it could be described as a fictional “making of” feature about “Citizenfour,” Laura Poitras’s Oscar-winning documentary on the former National Security Agency contractor Edward J. Snowden. That film seems to me more likely to last — it is deeper journalism and more haunting cinema — but Mr. Stone has made an honorable and absorbing contribution to the imaginative record of our confusing times. He tells a story torn from slightly faded headlines, filling in some details you may have forgotten, and discreetly embellishing the record in the service of drama and suspense.



In the context of this director’s career, “Snowden” is both a return to form and something of a departure. Mr. Stone circles back to the grand questions of power, war and secrecy that have propelled his most ambitious work, and finds a hero who fits a familiar Oliver Stone mold. Edward (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, leaning hard on a vocal imitation) is presented as a disillusioned idealist, a serious young man whose experiences lead him to doubt accepted truths and question the wisdom of authority. He has something in common with Jim Garrison in “J.F.K.” and Ron Kovic in “Born on the Fourth of July,” and also with Chris Taylor and Bud Fox, the characters played by Charlie Sheen in “Platoon” and “Wall Street.”



By Meg Felling and AINARA TIEFENTHÄLER 1:15

The Times critic A. O. Scott reviews “Snowden” By Meg Felling and AINARA TIEFENTHÄLER on Publish Date September 15, 2016. Photo by JüRgen Olczyk/Open Road Films, via Associated Press...

Like those young men in a hurry, Edward falls under the sway of two antithetical father figures, a silky apparatchik played by Rhys Ifans, and an unbuttoned renegade played by Nicolas Cage. Drawn to intelligence work out of a sincere desire to serve his country, Edward is not immune to other attractions of the job. He likes the intrigue, the money (especially after he becomes a private contractor) and the feeling of being part of a select group of insiders who know how things really work.

But he is not a figure of operatic, tragic ambition in the mold of Richard M. Nixon, Jim Morrison or Alexander the Great (at least as Mr. Stone imagined them). Nerdy in aspect and phlegmatic in manner, Edward never takes a drink or chases a skirt. (His girlfriend, Lindsay Mills, is played by Shailene Woodley.) And “Snowden” is, by Mr. Stone’s standards, a strikingly sober film. Restraint shows in both the filmmaking and the politics. There are very few wild, bravura visual flights and not much in the way of wild conspiracymongering. Edward is a rational, ethical creature — “responsibility” is one of his favorite words — and the movie takes pains to be reasonable. Its basic argument about government data-collection would not be out of place on the Op-Ed page of this or any other newspaper. And its dialogue and pacing would work just fine on television.


By OPEN ROAD FILMS 2:31

By OPEN ROAD FILMS on Publish Date September 15, 2016. Image courtesy of Internet Video Archive. Watch in Times Video »
Maybe Mr. Stone has mellowed, or maybe the world has caught up with him. What used to be paranoia — the idea, say, that your electronic appliances are spying on you — looks nowadays like blunt realism. It can also seem as if the physical world, that bloody, sex-infused battleground of the self where previous Stone heroes have raged and fought, had been displaced by a more abstract zone of codes and algorithms. Edward passes from one realm to the other when an injury ends his career as a United States Army Ranger. “There are lots of ways to serve your country,” the doctor tells him, and soon enough, his bosses at the C.I.A. and the N.S.A. are explaining that the real war is being waged on computer and cellular networks.

Mr. Stone, well served by his cinematographer, the digital wizard Anthony Dod Mantle, and the composers Craig Armstrong and Adam Peters, evokes the chilly colorations and spooky undertones of our technological reality. The Hong Kong hotel room where Edward meets with Ms. Poitras (Melissa Leo) and the journalists Glenn Greenwald (Zachary Quinto) and Ewen MacAskill (Tom Wilkinson) is an eerie futuristic box. Snowden’s workplaces in Geneva, Tokyo and Oahu are hives full of glowing screens and whispered jargon.




Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Shailene Woodley in “Snowden.” Credit Open Road Films
But while the script, which the director wrote with Kieran Fitzgerald, dutifully footnotes the more abstruse references — and explains the mechanics of surveillance with admirable clarity — Mr. Stone remains an old-school humanist, a poet of flesh and blood rather than a deep thinker about technology or politics. Nearly all of his films are ultimately about taking the measure of a man, and “Snowden” is most effective as a character study. As ever, Mr. Stone’s interest in women is limited. They provide pictorial variety and emotional complication, challenging and humanizing the heroes as the story requires. Ms. Woodley has more screen time than Sissy Spacek in “J.F.K.” or Joan Allen in “Nixon,” but she is, in effect, portraying an updated version of the loyal, long-suffering, uncomprehending wife.

Still, the relationship between Lindsay and Edward is the key to the film, since it establishes what is at stake for the hero as he faces the conflicting demands of love and duty. It also affirms that he is a nice, normal, humble guy, neither a zealot nor an egomaniac. Not everyone will agree with this — Donald J. Trump, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are all prominent nonmembers of the Edward Snowden fan club — but “Snowden” makes its case with skill and discretion.

At times, I found myself wishing that it would go further — that it would feel angrier, crazier, more frightening. But that would have made it easier to shake, and perhaps also to dismiss. This movie won’t necessarily dazzle or enrage you, and I’m not sure that it wants to. What it wants — what Mr. Snowden himself always claims to have wanted — is to bother you, to fill you with doubt about the good intentions of those who gather your data and tell you it’s for your own protection.

“Snowden” is rated R (Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian). Dark secrets, strong language and a trip to a strip club in the interests of national security. Running time: 2 hours 18 minutes.

Source:Agencies & ENB

ஜனாதிபதியின் கொள்கை பிரகடன உரை! -ஆங்கிலக் குறிப்புடன் தமிழ் சிங்கள வீடியோக்கள்.

அநுரவின் உரையின் முக்கிய பகுதி தமிழில் LINK அநுரவின் உரையின் முழுப்பகுதி சிங்களத்தில்                                                       ...