Wings of Fire

Wings of Fire

"How can a country with nuclear technology be considered a developing nation".

Wings of fire traces the research and development of the aerospace industry for defence as well as civilian applications of an indigenous launch vehicle. It spans roughly 30 years (1963 - 1991) of the history of rocketry and research and development of missiles in India.

From reading this memoir, you get a sense of what a giant achievement it has been for India to develop indigenously the hi-technology, the infrastructure, the R & D labs which have culminated into such successful projects. The accomplishment is all the more inspiring when one considers the nonexistent aerospace sector and limited R & D in the 60s whey they started working towards a collective goal. It also requires an enormous amount of money, and yet again a poor country like India, has managed to establish itself amongst the small group of developed nations with a successful space program.

APJ Abdul Kalam will be remembered as one of the great men in the field of Aerospace Engineering. In reading his recollections, you are inspired by his unfaltering dedication, perseverance, determination and hard work towards achieving India's independence from foreign technology in the defence and space industry. In this industry, the projects are big: in terms of what you're actually building (ie launch vehicle), the money involved, the time frame required; plus the number of people, organisations, systems and subsystems that must function together in order to achieve success. The development of a space launch vehicle and a multitude of missile technology achieved by successfully building upon a strong foundation illustrates the vision and determination of the pioneers in realising their dream.

Building these complex systems requires sophisticated state of the art technology for subsystems, like guidance and control algorithms, navigation systems, structures, and most importantly visionaries to successfully bring these pieces together.

First come up with a bold plan, then see it through over the long term in implementation.

As the saying goes, those of us who say it can't be done should stop disturbing those of us who are doing it. They did it!

The larger and more subtle accomplishment is the foundation of research labs, fostering research in academia, creating an indigenous industry from which to procure parts, develop algorithms etc. This has the long term impact of having in house knowledge, creating good job opportunities in the hi-tech industry, and building an environment for finding creative solutions to the problems faced by our ever changing world. That is vision!

==============================

Ethics .. Defence Applications
-------------------------------
After reading this book, I found myself excited and very hopeful about ISRO (Indian Space Research Organisation). The more people working towards making space more accessible the better. Given my background in aerospace engineering, I often find myself wondering about the ethics of working on defence applications, primarily weapon systems.

Having had this conversation many times in my head and with others and also having amended this thought process after reading `Wings of fire', here's how things break down for me:

point:
weapons have the express purpose of destruction and killing. If you don't want to work on destructive technology, then don't work on weapons systems.

counterpoint:
ICBMs are intended as weapons, but are used for launching satellites into space, primarily for peaceful purposes.

point:
anything you work on can be used for destruction. A person can kill with a hammer.

counterpoint:
yes, but a hammer is not created for the purpose of killing.

point:
war is inevitable. If we require our soldiers to fight for us, then they should have the best technology at their disposal.

counterpoint:
I have none, which is one reason I'm happy to pay taxes, some of which go to defence contractors. However, I think fighting poverty is a much more effective way of decreasing conflict; although, since it does not make a small number of people very wealthy it's not considered viable. It also does not directly effect ideological conflicts: meaning, the power struggle between different groups resulting from each of them believing their vision of society or their vision of a more peaceful, prosperous world, is ultimately correct.

While I don't know how one fights such ideological battles, I do think if most people are satisfied with the status quo, then it is hard for such elements to gain support. As an example, in the US, there is a socially conservative base, generally called the religious right, they believe in a more conservative culture. However, since most people, especially in cosmopolitan areas are happier with a freer society, the more socially conservative ideas don't generally take hold.

point:
in developing and supporting hi-technology for military purposes, countries (like India) achieve technological independence. Therefore, the military and diplomatic decisions of a sovereign nation are no longer dependant on other nations from whom you obtain hi-technology.

counterpoint:
since the country does not rely on anyone else for strengthening itself, the world does not exert any control over the actions of this nation.

REMARK: The end effect of becoming independent in this area is that the country becomes an equal partner on the world stage. This requires the nation to be strong economically and militarily. In the end, the destructive power of our latest and greatest weapons is equally (un)safe in the hands of politicians in the East or the West.

Most people you meet in this country will openly tell you that our politicians are dishonest, self-serving, corrupt, and most are criminals. There is an inherent distrust of government here. While one can question the implementation of democracy in India, and wonder whether we want such corrupt politicians wielding so much power - the fact remains that till date the US is the only country that has used a nuclear weapon of mass destruction against another nation (in WWII against Japan). Why is this relevant? Because, given the unilateral decisions made by our politicians under President Bush, would it be better to have more independent nations on the world stage - even at the cost of the world having more weapons?