truth that angers
Since April 1961, the month Yuri Gagarin circled our planet in the Russian's Vostok 1, Russia has developed more sophisticated weapons systems and more sophisticated space launch systems than the USA. Some like to think that the US mainstream media has shed some credibility only recently, but the beneficial deceptions have been going on for a lot longer than most of us have even been alive. What I am about to shed light on may seem like illogical banter, but that is only because you most likely believe what you have always been taught from the earliest of ages. That Russian technology is inferior to the American's in all aspects of their science programs. The truth is that you have all been told some things that are just plain wrong and deceitful, and for the reasons we have to look closely at what it is the present administration doesn't want you to see, namely the covert under-cover-of-darkness return of your loved ones from all the theatres of the US war on terror, whether they be dead or grievously and permanently maimed.
This is where you have to employ some rational thinking, but not in terms of capabilities and hype.
What percentage of Americans would willingly support their loved ones going off to war and to not make a stink about it if they knew the enemy their loved ones will be facing was ill-equipped, ill-trained, and in possession of weapons you would find on the Antique Roadshow? High percentage, right?
What percentage of Americans would willingly support their loved ones going off to war and to not make a stink about if they knew the enemy their loved ones will be facing was equally-equipped, equally-trained, and in possession of technology that in certain cases even surpasses your own, making it clear you're going to have serious casualties which make people wonder if it's all worth whatever the bloodletting is all about. Low percentage, right?
The tilting of facts make things appear quite differently to the common unwitting citizen. Let's look at a couple of factual tidbits of useful (realistic) information. Look at the supposed space race and the world's two top space programs. The Russian and the American. I'll focus on the early space journeys of each country, in a comparison.
On April 12, 1961 Vostok 1 took off and made its first manned space flight into the earth's orbit. It was the most powerful launch rocket on earth. The US still hasn't been able to match it and in fact the US pays actually pay the Russians to launch their heaviest payloads into space. Yuri Gagarin was inside an armored capsule so well made the inside pressure of the capsule was 14.7 p.s.i, which is the same atmospheric pressure we have on the surface of our planet. What that means is Yuri Gregarin was able to sit safely inside a capsule while breathing the same air as we breathe on earth. No necessary sealed spacesuit to wear and no need for any oxygen which would have the potential to turn his pod into a flaming mass of burning wreck. Think about it for a second folks. An open visor. That's very significant when you consider when this was. 1961. When given the choice of disembarking from the capsule, Gregarin chose to eject, which was kept under wraps for years and for a good reason. The ejector seat, if in the hands of the US space agency, would have helped them to recalculate their own analysis' and there they would discover that they needed to multiply the launch power capability by at least 2, and there is no reason to give the enemy any reason to try any extracurricular snooping over any specific system capabilities. Enter stage left America's "Freedom 7", Webster's definition of 'sub-par space vehicle'.
On May 5, 1961, American Alan Shepard, probably the bravest American ever to wear a spacesuit, ever, took off as America's response to the affront of the Eastern Evil Empire. The record I had seen says it managed to get to about 115 miles but in a sub-orbital trajectory,then came back to earth after a 15 minute spaceflight. Remember, the Russians managed to reach 204 miles with a flight duration of 108 minutes. The totally inferior Freedom 7 had such poor lift capacity his capsule couldn't be pressurized to normal atmospheric pressure i.e. mandatory space suit and oxygen laden compartment, and a spark upon reentry would vaporize the pod in a second.
I don't recall ever learning about the superiority of the Soviets over the US when it concerned space programs, do any of you? The fact the Russian cosmonaut was sitting comfortably inside a fully sealed compartment equal to today's US space vehicles, and this was back in 1961. And it gets more informative.
In 1965 the Russians came out with their heavy payload rocket names the Proton. It remains the most powerful lauch system in the world, and like I mentioned earlier, the US pays the Russians to send up their heaviest loads. All are facts I teach my kids and urge others to teach their kids as well. It's not right because the Russians have some excellent world leading technology and have set several standards at the highest degrees, and the US space program seems to oversell their own exploits and have even been deceitful over certain events in the past. These things need to be known because it's important and I say that because it relates to day's events.
The United States create the indestructible Abrams Tank, millions and millions of dollars, I think like 80 million dollars, for each one. But they're unstoppable, right? Well, no they're not. The Russians, instead of trying to build the battlefield equivalent, simply created something to destroy it. They recreated the Abrams armor and tested new technology bent on destroying it. The result was the Kornet rocket, which is 1/50thish the cost of an Abrams. I have seen many and some dubious reports of at least 60 to 60 of these behemoths being taken out by sing Kornets. But that's not on CNN, so you likely won't know it. Russian technology is actually a lot better than we in the west have been taught from an early age. It's even worse now since the fall of the Russian empire. It's easy to believe Russia is as bad off as they say, but the opposite is true. This even figures well on the coming Iran or Syria conflict because of the following....
Russia has provided Syria and Iran (and a host of other nations which I will address in a future thread) with the S-300PMU-2 rocket, which is the efficient and workable Soviet version of the unreliable "Patriot" missile the US hyped during the first Gulf War. This is also the advanced version of the original Russian S-300, which has been proven to be very reliable as shooting drones moveing as fast as 5,800 feet per second has become routine by the Russians. Apparent they lay claim to targets moving as fast as 15,000 feet per second i.e. anything the US can launch at them. Also, their limited range (120 miles) makes them pretty much limited to defensive actions. So in all the fact of the matter is that Syria and Iran, whether they deploy them or not, are armed with top of the line better than the US Russian version of the Patriot missile, and they can knock out of the sky anything the US or Israel can aim at them. Understand this is all technical details involving technical superiorities. The ultimate factor is the human element and the implementation of workable tactics to counter any imminent attacks. This deals with missile defence. A later thread will deal with the offensive missiles Russia has provided to Iran and Syria as well as two other nations in South America. These advanced missile systems stay twenty feet above the water until impact, giving American warships absolutely no time, let alone three seconds, to counter the immediate impact. Time is not on my side at the moment.

Comments
on May 16, 2005
The Russians have always been experts at heavy lift vehicles.

The challenges for launching exteremely heavy payloads into orbit are both extreme and unique, and for at least two generations the Soviet Union devoted a huge portion of its smartest people and its struggling economy to mastering those problems.

That they successfully orbited the first satellite and the first human is a testament to Soviet perseverance, dedication, and consummate skill. The fact that we still rely on Russian heavy lift technology is more a testament to the expense of reinventing this very costly wheel, than it is a testament to Russian technological superiority.

But heavy lift rockets do not a comprehensive technology advantage make.

I served for several years as an Intelligence Analyst for the U.S. Army. I was trained not on bogus media lies, but on actual military appreciations of Soviet military technology. I'm here to tell you, Reiki, that the Soviet Union, while strong in some specific areas, most certainly did not have the kind of technological superiority you're talking about.

Without taking away anything from the very real and very impressive accomplishments of Soviet Russia, let me just say this: "Firefox" and "Hunt for Red October" are works of fiction.

Anyway, let's hear it for Russian heavy lift technology, which even today is the industry leader in effective heavy payload delivery systems! It seems like these days, it's one of the few things Russia can still be proud of.
on May 16, 2005
Oh, and let's not forget that one of the reasons the Soviets bothered to master heavy lift in the first place was because they were most definitely not able to compete in the area of miniaturization.

While the U.S. focused on doing more with less (in the long run, a much greater technological and economic achievement), the Soviet Union attempted to keep up by doing more with more (which, while impressive, was much less efficient--and much less economically sustainable, as history has clearly demonstrated).
on May 16, 2005
Oh, and another thing:

The reason the Soviets opposed our anti-ballistic-missile programs in the early 80s (e.g., "Star Wars"), was because they couldn't match the programs technologically or militarily, nor could they counter the programs.

If the Russians were able to build a missile defense system as good as ours, don't you think they would have done so, rather than fighting so hard for so many years to stop us from building ours?
on May 16, 2005
Thanks for responding fishman. If you have a background in military intelligence, you must have a professional opinion about the weapon systems the Russians have been exporting, free of charge from what I understand, to Syria and Iran and a few other nations as well. What is your knowledge about India's BrahMos system, the one created by the Russian-Indian coalition? Is it true what I read about their capabilities? What is the US's counter defense to a supersonic missile which can take out targets 290 miles away and moves at a rate of Mach 3 while staying only twenty feet above the waterline? As a military analyst, you'd probably know what your army is going to be going up against in Syria or Iran should the US decide to invade (something I deem unlikely under present conditions). Can you list what particular weapons systems the US would be facing? Details about specific systems would be the best I think. Also what kind of measures can the US take to counter these specific weapons systems.
on May 16, 2005
Reiki, where did you read about their capabilities?

I wouldn't presume to give you a professional opinion about them, since I've been out of the Intel analyst game for longer than I was in it. But I can give you an educated amateur's opinion, at least.

Honestly, I'd be surprised if Russia has anything truly ground-breaking in this field right now. And I'd like to point out that the devotion of a totalitarian regime will always outperform the complacency of a democracy in the short term. Soviet Russia's problem with heavy lift rockets wasn't that it couldn't be done--after all, they proved that it could be done, and done well. Soviet Russia's problem was that under their system, technological superiority of that nature wasn't ecnomomically sustainable, nor could it be achieved over the short term without significant acrifices in other important areas.

Soviet Russia got off to a great start in the Space Race, but only with Herculean effort and at great cost. They turned in a good sprint, but in the end the U.S. won the marathon, while devoting only a fraction of the economic resources Soviet Russia had to invest just trying (and failing to keep up).

The Patriot missile fails not because of U.S. technological incompetence, but because of the current U.S. complacency that is characteristic of a democracy that doesn't really like war and generally can't be bothered to make supreme efforts for apparently non-urgent goals. It's what you get when typcial politicians get their hands on some non-critical government project and use it to fill their barrels with pork, or whatever.

Finally, regarding performance claims by the Russian and Indian governments: You suspect that the U.S. government, with all its checks and balances, all its built-in controls and transparencies, sometimes lies for political reasons, correct? I hope that you treat the claims of other governments with at least as much suspicion.

I'm perfectly willing to accept some level of competitive technological parity between the U.S. and Russia, but if Russia is claiming that they have a system capable of shooting down anything the U.S. could throw at them... I'm just saying, take it with a grain of salt, Reiki.

The Indian program interests me more. If they've got a working antimissile system, good for them! I'm less inclined to doubt their claims than Russia's.