It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unstoppable - Russian next gen stealth hypersonic ramjet/scramjet cruise/anti-ship missiles.

page: 8
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Goddamn... Stellar is certainly entitled to his own opinion, but when his argument comes down to "ifs" and "buts" then there is no argument. Just theory. his theorys. I can respect that.. I read about 2/3 of his post and then got bored...

"If, 'Ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts, wed all have a merry christmas." Remember that.



Typed up my normal type respond but the internet gremlins intervened on your behalf and i don't have the time or energy to waste any more time on a post that did not address even one specific issue with factual source content that even begins to dispute what i have presented in such detail.

The reason i include the ifs and the buts is sadly due to my understanding of the falibility of a human such as myself and while i realise that people like you see any admission of fallibility as failure itself i will keep doing so while i wait for you to raise proper objections in a proper format that addresses my claims and sources in detail.

Stellar.




posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
You know stellar's credibility was completely shot when he claimed that the New Orleans hurricane was the work of the French and Russians using weather weapons


Luckily i do not consider your opinion of me to be in any way meaningful or representative of intelligent people anywhere.


Lord knows you sure are a sucker for punishment. Thanks for giving me another chance to spam in the hopes that you may one day read it.


"Q: Let me ask you specifically about last week's scare here in Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we are to deal with that (inaudible), at B'nai Brith.

A: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned out to be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we've learned in the intelligence community, we had something called -- and we have James Woolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles. The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chain reaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze the agency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thing is true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of a chemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, for example, that some countries have been trying to construct something like an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, to say the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of some scientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could just eliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designing some sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroy specific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves."

So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important.

DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen



Again, my attitude is, if it's not going exactly right, we're going to make it go exactly right. If there's problems, we're going to address the problems. And that's what I've come down to assure people of. And again, I want to thank everybody.

And I'm not looking forward to this trip. I got a feel for it when I flew over before. It -- for those who have not -- trying to conceive what we're talking about, it's as if the entire Gulf Coast were obliterated by a -- the worst kind of weapon you can imagine. And now we're going to go try to comfort people in that part of the world.

Thank you. (Applause.)

END 10:39 A.M. CDT

www.whitehouse.gov...


So does he simply have weapons on the brain or is once again saying more than his handlers intended?


NEWS BRIEF: "Malaysia to Battle Smog With Cyclones"
by Chen May Yee,
Staff Reporter of the Wall Street Journal
Thursday, November 13, 1997, page A19.

"KULA LUMPUR -- Malaysia's war on smog is about to get a new twist. The government wants to create man-made cyclones to scrub away the haze that has plagued Malaysia since July. 'We will use special technology to create an artificial cyclone to clean the air', said Datuk Law Hieng Ding, minister for science, technology and the environment. The plan calls for the use of new Russian technology to create cyclones -- the giant storms also known as typhoons and hurricanes -- to cause torrential rains, washing the smoke out of the air. The Malaysian cabinet and the finance minister have approved the plan, Datuk Law said. A Malaysian company, BioCure Sdn. Bhd., will sign a memorandum of understanding soon with a government-owned Russian party to produce the cyclone."

"Datuk Law declined to disclose the size of the cyclone to be generated, or the mechanism. 'The details I don't have', he said. He did say, though, that the cyclone generated would be 'quite strong'. Datuk Law also declined to disclose the price of creating the cyclone. But, he said, Malaysia doesn't have to pay if the project doesn't work."

WSJ-Malaysia to Battle Smog With Cyclones



Malaysia is to use Russian rain-making equipment to clear the haze which has covered parts of south-east Asia for many months.

The rain machine is designed to produce high winds, creating the conditions which cause clouds and rain. The Russians say the winds will not damage property or the environment - and the Malaysian authorities will only have to pay if the rain machine works.

Russia has a long record of attempts to control climate. The latest, in September of this year, involved Moscow's mayor, Yuri Luzhkov. He paid the equivalent of £500,000 to stop rain falling during the day of the capital's 850th anniversary celebrations.

The rain held off, but scientists say it is impossible to assess if the mayor got value for money, or was just lucky, without detailed measurements.

BBC-Malaysia calls in Russian rainmakers



Those who doubt that Katrina, or any other hurricane, could be stopped—or created—can find substantiation in a long-forgotten article by Chen May Yee in the Nov. 13, 1997, issue of The Wall Street Journal.

The article recounts an offer by the Russians to aid Malaysia to create a typhoon to dissipate a pall of smoke that hung over the country—and still does—caused by the burning of large sections of the rain forests in Indonesia and Sumatra.

To quote from the article: Datuk Law Hieng Ding, Malaysia’s minister for science, technology and the environment at the time, said his country “would use special technology to create an artificial cyclone to clean the air.”

The article went on to say that a Malaysian company, BicCure Sdn. Bhd., would sign a memorandum of understanding with a government-owned Russian company to create a cyclone that would cause torrential rains and thus cleanse the air over Malaysia of the smoke and ash.

www.americanfreepress.net...



FBIS Transcribed Text] MOSCOW. Aug 8 (Interfax) - The Russian State
Duma has expressed concern about the United States' program to develop a
qualitatively new type of weapon.
"Under the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP), the
U.S. is creating new integral geophysical weapons that may influence the
near-Earth medium with high-frequency radio waves," the State Duma said
in an appeal circulated on Thursday.
"The significance of this qualitative leap could be compared to the
transition from cold steel to fire arms, or from conventional weapons to
nuclear weapons. This new type of weapons differs from previous types in
that the near-Earth medium becomes at once an object of direct influence
and its component.

FAS-Russian parliament concerned about US plans to develop new weapon.


So the Russians and American policy makers both know what's going on even if you do not.


"Pick up any text book on hurricanes and it will tell you that the one place where hurricanes do not occur is the South Atlantic Ocean. The atmosphere does not provide enough spin near the surface to get them started and winds higher in the atmosphere tend to shear off any that do make a start. Hence, it was with some amazement that meteorologists watched the first ever recorded hurricane develop off the coast of Brazil in the last week of March."

Catarina hits Brazil


So if it 'can't' happen why does it?


The director of the Russian geophysical observatory of the Russian Meteorological Service, A.Voyeikov, says that the process of making a weather forecast for Russia, the USA, Europe and Canada is much more complicated in comparison with other states. "Atmospheric processes are not stable on these territories, and cyclones may occur absolutely incidentally," Voyeikov said."

Modern technologies unable to predict weather changes


Absolutely incidentally? Since when?


Callers flooded the newsroom of Local 6 News partner Florida Today after they saw the object over the Space Coast Tuesday night.

"Starting at about 7:30 last night, we started receiving calls here in the newsroom," Florida Today online news editor Dave Larimer said. "In fact, the Coast Guard station in Port Canaveral got more than two dozen reports of people seeing a bright light in the sky over the ocean."

www.local6.com...


The mystery of the eye

Their even numbering the hurricanes now....



posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Although hurricane forecasting is an inexact science, an investigative series by The Miami Herald suggests it could be considerably more accurate if the National Hurricane Center's equipment functioned better and its research efforts were bolstered.
The newspaper's study of 45 hurricanes that have struck land since 1992 indicated significant failures of buoys, weather balloons, radar, sensors and aircraft that hindered the tracking of nearly half of the storms. Forecasters are, in the words of one science officer, "forecasting blind'' because of inadequate funding and -- to a lesser extent -- misallocation of resources.
Budget constraints that grounded the center's uniquely equipped Gulfstream jet, coupled with critical data lost because of computer crashes, may have caused forecasters to fail to predict damage from Hurricane Katrina in South Florida and delayed evacuation warnings to New Orleans. Missing weather balloon readings, malfunctioning observation stations and a failure to fly planes equipped to measure wind speeds may have contributed to an inability to anticipate the power of Hurricane Charley when it shifted course and slammed into Punta Gorda, Fla., killing 35 people.
Hurricane researcher Mike Black told Herald reporter Debbie Cenziper that putting proper equipment in place could improve hurricane tracking by 20 percent and intensity forecasts by 50 percent. That could save lives and many times the needed outlay in economic losses, especially in an era of increased hurricane activity.
Congress needs to set aside more money for hurricane forecasting, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration needs to do a better of allocating resources.

Indystar-Forecasting trouble


So if the hurricane are supposedly getting worse why are the equipment that could given us proper information about them being abandoned? Possibly because they no longer form as they used to or behave as they should?


I see he still follow his usual tactics of trying to browbeat everyone to death by constantly copying and pasting the same stuff which must be for like the hundrendth time.


As long as keep repeating the same old lies i will post the same old corrections.


Much has been disproven in similar threadsm yet he still posts exactly the same stuff, for over a year.


Where? I have all the links and i actually read what you type so please just show me WHERE you have corrected me ( once in fifty is no grounds for such grand declarations btw) as you so persistently allude to...


Seems many more have his measure now


As one gets closer to the truth the resistance tends to increase so maybe a few deniers will finally rally around the flag and do some good old fashioned denying.


Stellar



posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Thanks for the info vk man. I skimmed some of your sources for the sake of brevity.

A few things I noticed in those pictures your provided. The plane being shot down is just that. A slow moving plane. And by the looks of it a remote controlled plane no less.

However, where are the pictures or videos of this shooting down high speed missiles, mortar rounds, and Artillery projectiles? Maybe in russia these are still in the early developmental stages due to lack of funds?

The video below is the US based laser turret defense system called MTHEL. Unlike your photos that "supposedly"show a laser shooting down an airplane, this video of a US laser defense system actually shows it shooting down missiles, mortars and artillery projectiles.
www.youtube.com...

Far more impressive if you ask me then shooting down slow moving remote controlled planes.
no offense (stellar) (If they actually shot it down with a laser to begin with) I have a hard time giving the soviets any creditability due to their history of smoke and mirrors.
Also the modified 747 airborne laser was said to be used back in gulf war 1 to destroy saddams missiles. So this technology has been out there for a while as stellar said.

[edit on 073030p://3104pm by semperfoo]



posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Typed up my normal type respond but the internet gremlins intervened on your behalf and i don't have the time or energy to waste any more time on a post that did not address even one specific issue with factual source content that even begins to dispute what i have presented in such detail.

The reason i include the ifs and the buts is sadly due to my understanding of the falibility of a human such as myself and while i realise that people like you see any admission of fallibility as failure itself i will keep doing so while i wait for you to raise proper objections in a proper format that addresses my claims and sources in detail.

Stellar.


Stellar you take yourself to seriously on this site. I can respect your "ifs" and "buts" as I said I do. But dont talk as if it is fact. After all we're only human. Making mistakes is in our very nature.

And these "internet gremlins", have the right to say what they want. just like you have the right to decide rather or not you want to respond to them. My problem with you is that you are saying that the richest, most powerful country is second fiddle to a former nation that collapsed due to their inability to keep pace with said weeny country (the US). It just seems to be full of the soviet propaganda that was used during the height of the cold war.


And the US is not spending 20,000 dollars on toilets with her military. We spend more on our military then the rest of the world combined. I believe we spend over 70B dollars on military R&D. Just a few weeks back our "black" budget was said to be back at cold war levels for the first time since the end of it. WE are so insanely ahead of russia militarily as well as economically it is not even funny. Only one side has stopped the cold war. And thats because the other side forced it into a collapse. The US hasnt stepped down since the coldwar like russia had to. In some cases we overkill on military spending. But thats what it takes to stay a mile and a half ahead of the closest competition.


[edit on 063030p://0804pm by semperfoo]

[edit on 073030p://3304pm by semperfoo]



posted on Apr, 11 2007 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Thanks for the info vk man. I skimmed some of your sources for the sake of brevity.

A few things I noticed in those pictures your provided. The plane being shot down is just that. A slow moving plane. And by the looks of it a remote controlled plane no less.

However, where are the pictures or videos of this shooting down high speed missiles, mortar rounds, and Artillery projectiles? Maybe in russia these are still in the early developmental stages due to lack of funds?

The video below is the US based laser turret defense system called MTHEL. Unlike your photos that "supposedly"show a laser shooting down an airplane, this video of a US laser defense system actually shows it shooting down missiles, mortars and artillery projectiles.
www.youtube.com...

Far more impressive if you ask me then shooting down slow moving remote controlled planes.
no offense (stellar) (If they actually shot it down with a laser to begin with) I have a hard time giving the soviets any creditability due to their history of smoke and mirrors.
Also the modified 747 airborne laser was said to be used back in gulf war 1 to destroy saddams missiles. So this technology has been out there for a while as stellar said.

[edit on 073030p://3104pm by semperfoo]





A few things I noticed in those pictures your provided. The plane being shot down is just that. A slow moving plane. And by the looks of it a remote controlled plane no less.


did you know in early 80's what was primary threat ????? cruise missiles .... mainly the truck based laser mltk was designed to shoot down cruise missiles and cruise missiles and low flying helipcopters and planes like a-10 or cruise missiles like tomahawk was subsonic and slow (though 1.5 times faster than a biplane), well it was designed for that in late 70 and early 80's for that purpose and the laser was a light one too




Unlike your photos that "supposedly"show a laser shooting down


what a bold statement ..... mind disaproving the photo with evidence ... this comes right from the almaz (russian manufacturer for industrial and military technologies)
www.raspletin.ru...
and





Also the modified 747 airborne laser was said to be used back in gulf war 1 to destroy saddams missiles. So this technology has been out there for a while as stellar said.

whcih i am doubtful of because abl concept in usa came into being because allied forces were not able to successfully stop TBMs and yes there was a less powerful american laser prototype that managed to destroy 4 sidewinder and a slow moving drone in 1981-1982 (not bad) ...
www.af.mil...


The program was initiated by the Air Force in 1996 with the awarding of a product definition risk reduction contract to Boeing's ABL team. [5][6] In 2001, the program was transferred to the MDA and converted to an acquisition program.[6]
In 2001, a retired, derelict Air India 747-200 was acquired by the Air Force, and trucked without its wings from the Mojave Airport to Edwards Air Force Base where the airframe was incorporated into a building, to be used to fit check and test the various components.[7] Boeing completed initial modifications to the 747-400F in 2002, culminating in its first flight on July 18, 2002 from Boeing's Wichita, Kansas facility. Ground testing of the COIL resulted in its successful firing in 2004.

en.wikipedia.org...-0

but if
and soviet abl report :


Prior to firing the main laser, the ABL engages the beacon laser. Wave-front
analysis of the return signal allows to determine the effect of atmospheric
conditions. This information is used to adjust the variable-geometry mirror
("rubber mirror") in the ABL's focusing assembly. This mirror has 200 to 341
high-speed actuators, that allow to change the mirror's shape hundreds of times per
second (up to a thousand times per second), providing for real-time compensation for atmospheric
distortions (mainly caused by fluctuation in temperature). If you are interested in the subject, please
check out the deformable mirror bibliography.
An ABL project was also developed by the USSR between 1983 and 1987. The "Skiff" laser combat
system was installed aboard an Il-76MD wide-body cargo plane. The 60 000-kg laser system was used
to test propagation of laser radiation in the atmosphere. The aircraft was equipped with two
turbocharged generators to power the laser and related systems. The focusing system for the laser was
installed in an retractable aerodynamic turret located between the trailing edge of the main wing and the
aircraft's tail section. In 1987 the "Skiff" system suffered a fire that destroyed much of the equipment
used in the experiment.
www.aeronautics.ru...

basically , soviets were working on a space based anti-ICBM system in 70-80's and not a anti-TBM system...skiff -dm laser was basically maent to be installed on polyus sateillite(ASAT and ABM purpose)

[edit on 11-4-2007 by vK_man]

[edit on 11-4-2007 by vK_man]



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Im not doubting it. Video evidence would be nice though. Thats a pretty good indicator on whether it works or not. thanks for the info anyway.



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Stellar you take yourself to seriously on this site.


And here i thought we were attemping to discuss important issues. This is not your personal play pen and if your not taking this all very seriously you should find a forum more suitable to your particular approach.


I can respect your "ifs" and "buts" as I said I do. But dont talk as if it is fact.


That is why i attempt to include my reservations and state , if possible not often enough, when it's just opinion or in fact what i believe i can show as fact. You of all people should not point fingers as all your opinions are sold as fact.


After all we're only human. Making mistakes is in our very nature.


By this defintion your certainly far more human than i am. Please dont start with the patronizing nonsense as i doubt your old enough to even look me in the eyes.


And these "internet gremlins", have the right to say what they want. just like you have the right to decide rather or not you want to respond to them.


I cut and copied from my a doc and when i realised the ATS server did not accept the post i had already cut and pasted some more thus losing the entire post. I am not in the habit of calling people gremlins...


My problem with you is that you are saying that the richest


It has certainly wealthy in natural resources and and a well educated and skilled citizenry but you wrongly assume that that must lead to a position of strategic preeminence. Being rich, in natural resources, may be a good foundation for power but it's not the complete story as i have attemped to explained in my posts in this forum I have described how American policy makers have eroded and destroyed the measures the US had to properly defend itself against foreign eocnomic predation and if you can not understand it just go back and actually READ it until you do.


most powerful country is second fiddle to a former nation that collapsed due to their inability to keep pace with said weeny country (the US).


Power comes trough resources and their manipulation ( in my opinion) and in looking at America's economic decline something horrible is quite clearly happending and have been for decades now. I have outlined , in part, why i think this is happening but since you can not even accept such a basic truth i can understand why you have trouble with these more complex 'ideas'.

I have in the past shown that the USSR did not 'fall' but simply changed form at the most opportune time for themselves with everything being predicted in detail years in advance by defectors.


It just seems to be full of the soviet propaganda that was used during the height of the cold war.


You call it propaganda but i have shown that it was largely accurate and in many instances underestimations of their true power.


And the US is not spending 20,000 dollars on toilets with her military. We spend more on our military then the rest of the world combined


And i have in previously outlined why spending more is not just irrelevent but absolutely no indication of ability or of strategic dominance. This is not the age of spears and shields and even back then numbers alone simply did not ensure victory. To suddenly suggest that the dollar value is of relevence when the Soviet tank/plane/gun/missiles/ICBM is not in your opinion ( because it is supposedly 'inferior' ) is not only 'odd' but counterintuitive and illogical as there is no direct connection between a dollar and the end product.


I believe we spend over 70B dollars on military R&D. Just a few weeks back our "black" budget was said to be back at cold war levels for the first time since the end of it.


Have you ever considered WHY the US is spending such massive amounts of dollars while they claim that the USSR is their friend? What can China do beside getting nuked back to the stone age? Who is the US spending itself into bankruptancy against? Once you can critically consider that question you may start seeing the relevence of the data i have provided...

That all being said feel free to source that claim while your at it...


WE are so insanely ahead of russia militarily as well as economically it is not even funny.


Which in your opinion explains while the American economy has been deteriorating the way it has while things are slowly getting better in Russia? Why do you deny what is right infront of you? Can not see the decline of America with such incidents as 9/11 and NO?


Only one side has stopped the cold war. And thats because the other side forced it into a collapse.


Simply not true as i have shown in the past.

Read the following as i wil just keep posting it until you do.

reformed-theology.org...

www.sierratimes.com...

www.thefinalphase.com...

www.markriebling.com...

www.stoptheftaa.org...

www.jbs.org...

www.jbs.org...

www.jbs.org...

www.jbs.org...

www.jbs.org...


The US hasnt stepped down since the coldwar like russia had to.


I think your looking at the wrong data set's and while you refuse to look at economic fundamentals and trends i'm not sure how i am going to get you any closer to the truth. ...


In some cases we overkill on military spending. But thats what it takes to stay a mile and a half ahead of the closest competition.


In truth i have little to offer against such childish, to say nothing of false, bravado and if that is all you can offer in defense of your fantasies we will both be here for a long time indeed!

Stellar



posted on Apr, 12 2007 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Stellar. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. honestly I just dont give a crap. Im not worried about russia becoming a threat to the US anytime soon. Actually, I wish the US would strengthen its ties with russia and visa versa. I think both could benefit greatly from one another. Maybe not? I dont think it could hurt though.

As far as money goes. Skys the limit my friend. If you have enough of it that it is. Its resources, funds and if you have enough of it the world can be yours. The US having a 500+ billion dollar military budget means they can invest that much more money into a plethora of different projects, big or small. thus getting these weapons systems out into the field quicker and repeat that process over and over again. You can invest in more research, you can pick the best and brightest scientist the world has to offer if the "price is right". You are naive in thinking money doesnt matter. Did money not matter in the days of the coldwar when the USSR was investing 200-300 billion dollars into its military? Sadly the thing that makes this world turn these days is money.. The more of it you have the better off you are, and the more you control.

As for the US economy. The index of the industrial production is up 30% over the past 10 years, its up 81% over the past 20 years.

Then we're told that china, japan and other countrys are stealing all of our high tech, well guess what? the index of production of high tech is up 735% over the past 10 years. its up 7000% over the past 20 years.

Then we're told that all of our jobs are being outsourced.... Well, guess what... Civilian employment in this country (which is at another record high at 4.4% now) increased by 17.6 million over the last 10years, and 34.7 million over the past 20 years. And then finally, real GDP is up 35% over the last 10 years, and 83% over the last 20 years..

Just to help you out here, our nations deficit is actually shrinking. The budget deficit now stands at about 1.4 percent of the nation's GDP, well below the 2.3 percent that's been the norm since 1970's. And in 2008, the US deficit as percentage of GDP is projected to be at 0.7%.. I see a strong rapidly expanding economy...

[edit on 073030p://0904pm by semperfoo]



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Stellar. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. honestly I just dont give a crap. Im not worried about russia becoming a threat to the US anytime soon. Actually, I wish the US would strengthen its ties with russia and visa versa. I think both could benefit greatly from one another. Maybe not? I dont think it could hurt though.

As far as money goes. Skys the limit my friend. If you have enough of it that it is. Its resources, funds and if you have enough of it the world can be yours. The US having a 500+ billion dollar military budget means they can invest that much more money into a plethora of different projects, big or small. thus getting these weapons systems out into the field quicker and repeat that process over and over again. You can invest in more research, you can pick the best and brightest scientist the world has to offer if the "price is right". You are naive in thinking money doesnt matter. Did money not matter in the days of the coldwar when the USSR was investing 200-300 billion dollars into its military? Sadly the thing that makes this world turn these days is money.. The more of it you have the better off you are, and the more you control.

As for the US economy. The index of the industrial production is up 30% over the past 10 years, its up 81% over the past 20 years.

Then we're told that china, japan and other countrys are stealing all of our high tech, well guess what? the index of production of high tech is up 735% over the past 10 years. its up 7000% over the past 20 years.

Then we're told that all of our jobs are being outsourced.... Well, guess what... Civilian employment in this country (which is at another record high at 4.4% now) increased by 17.6 million over the last 10years, and 34.7 million over the past 20 years. And then finally, real GDP is up 35% over the last 10 years, and 83% over the last 20 years..

Just to help you out here, our nations deficit is actually shrinking. The budget deficit now stands at about 1.4 percent of the nation's GDP, well below the 2.3 percent that's been the norm since 1970's. And in 2008, the US deficit as percentage of GDP is projected to be at 0.7%.. I see a strong rapidly expanding economy...

[edit on 073030p://0904pm by semperfoo]





Then we're told that china, japan and other countrys are stealing all of our high tech, well guess what?


what japan steals ???? that s silly , japan was first to introduce hybrid cars, the revolutionary JIT technique of production managment ( which american companies use todAY alongside e-commerce),it leads in development of robotics , supercomputers (USA is second in these two fields )

japan has maximum projects for making robotic androids and is working alongside other countries on ITER.....

also it is known as the most efficient user of resources....

don't tell things like japan steals high tech from america ,because the same can be said for america with concern tio japan



posted on Apr, 13 2007 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Would you just shut the (...) up already? I will say what ever i (...) well please.
Dont mess with my constitutional rights buddy. It was more in reference to all the ppl who think america is shipping everything off shore. And there are ppl that are concerned that certain technologys are leaving the US and going to other countrys (like japan but mainly china) and thriving there. Im not trying to take anything away from japan. Though they dont nearly contribute to society as much as the US does, especially in the technological findings and fields. They do lead in certain industrys. but same goes for the US. They live in a utopia where they can build funny things like little robots and japanese cartoons, etc. whatever... The point being that certain isolationist groups have a problem with the sligthest bit of technologys leaving the states and going offshore. Im simply disproving that 'worry'.

`````````````````````
Edited for vulgar language

T&C's

1b.) Profanity: You will not use profanity in our forums, and will neither post with language or content that is obscene, sexually oriented, or sexually suggestive nor link to sites that contain such content.


[edit on 13/4/07 by masqua]



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by semperfoo
Stellar. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. honestly I just dont give a crap.


The only type of 'disagreement' i stand very well is when those who are even more ignorant than myself stop typing what i time and time again show to be nonsense.


Im not worried about russia becoming a threat to the US anytime soon.


As if your opinion on this reality matters at all? Do you really think reality is changed by denying it?


Actually, I wish the US would strengthen its ties with russia and visa versa. I think both could benefit greatly from one another. Maybe not? I dont think it could hurt though.


What you wish is also quite irrelevant as world events should show you.
Why on Earth would you want 'strong ties' with a country that can destroy yours and also seemingly have the ability to force your country to disarm itself?


As far as money goes. Skys the limit my friend. If you have enough of it that it is.


If it is efficiently employed and spent in areas that can affect the strategy balance. Resources is a deciding factory when weapons are generally similar but when one side deploys geophysical weapons what use are F-22's and aircraft carriers good for beside further bankrupting your country?


Its resources, funds and if you have enough of it the world can be yours.


In theory that is obviously the case but how does one 'explain' the economic decline of the US if their 'control' of the world was the fact you suppose it to be?


The US having a 500+ billion dollar military budget means they can invest that much more money into a plethora of different projects, big or small.


But can it change the balance of forces?


thus getting these weapons systems out into the field quicker and repeat that process over and over again. You can invest in more research, you can pick the best and brightest scientist the world has to offer if the "price is right".


All true but does that logically lead to a defense force that can achieve all the aims you believe it has?


You are naive in thinking money doesnt matter. Did money not matter in the days of the coldwar when the USSR was investing 200-300 billion dollars into its military?


The dollar amount was just a CIA 'guess' devoid of any realistic way to 'check' the number beside assuming a 'cost' to the US to construct the same general type of weapon. Please look into how these estimates were achieved and how patently absurd the process in fact where.


Sadly the thing that makes this world turn these days is money.. The more of it you have the better off you are, and the more you control.


Money is quite irrelevant if inefficiently used and once again you are assuming a efficiency that is not in evidence. Please show that the Pentagon is anything but a massively wasteful organisation that have robbed the American public blind for decades. Do you have any comprehension of how well armed and defended the American public could have been had those billions been efficiency employed towards such ends?


As for the US economy. The index of the industrial production is up 30% over the past 10 years, its up 81% over the past 20 years.


Such vapid lies you tell. Please supply the sources and indicate why the average American household income has been static since the mid 70's despite the fact that the vast majority of households are now dual income.


Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households.

cia.gov...


"Idustrial production' can mean big Mac's depending on who you will believe and if your number is in fact loosely connected with reality it would be interesting to consider why the American public has not benefited by this 'vast' increase in productivity.

Then we're told that china, japan and other countries are stealing all of our high tech, well guess what? the index of production of high tech is up 735% over the past 10 years. its up 7000% over the past 20 years.


Then we're told that all of our jobs are being outsourced.... Well, guess what... Civilian employment in this country (which is at another record high at 4.4% now) increased by 17.6 million over the last 10years, and 34.7 million over the past 20 years. And then finally, real GDP is up 35% over the last 10 years, and 83% over the last 20 years..


The jobs are being outsourced and the job 'growth is more a recovery than anything else. If one takes a loot at the massive expansion in the prison population and look in which areas these jobs are created one quickly discovers the trickery that has fooled idle minds such as your own.


Job growth over the last five years is the weakest on record. The US economy came up more than 7 million jobs short of keeping up with population growth. That’s one good reason for controlling immigration. An economy that cannot keep up with population growth should not be boosting population with heavy rates of legal and illegal immigration.

Over the past five years the US economy experienced a net job loss in goods producing activities. The entire job growth was in service-providing activities--primarily credit inter mediation, health care and social assistance, waiters, waitresses and bartenders, and state and local government

S manufacturing lost 2.9 million jobs, almost 17% of the manufacturing work force. The wipeout is across the board. Not a single manufacturing payroll classification created a single new job.

The declines in some manufacturing sectors have more in common with a country undergoing saturation bombing during war than with a super-economy that is “the envy of the world.” Communications equipment lost 43% of its workforce. Semiconductors and electronic components lost 37% of its workforce. The workforce in computers and electronic products declined 30%. Electrical equipment and appliances lost 25% of its employees. The workforce in motor vehicles and parts declined 12%. Furniture and related products lost 17% of its jobs. Apparel manufacturers lost almost half of the work force. Employment in textile mills declined 43%. Paper and paper products lost one-fifth of its jobs. The work force in plastics and rubber products declined by 15%. Even manufacturers of beverages and tobacco products experienced a 7% shrinkage in jobs.

www.counterpunch.org...



Of the new jobs, 26,000 (about 13%) are tax-supported government jobs. That leaves 181,000 private sector jobs. Of these private sector jobs, 177,000, or 98%, are in the domestic service sector.

Here is the breakdown of the major categories:

• 30,000 food servers and bar tenders;
• 28,000 health care and social assistance:
• 12,000 real estate;
• 6,000 credit intermediation;
• 8,000 transit and ground passenger transportation;
• 50,000 retail trade; and
• 8,000 wholesale trade.

(There were 7,000 construction jobs, most of which were filled by Mexicans immigrants.)

Not a single one of these jobs produces a tradable good or service that can be exported or serve as an import substitute to help reduce the massive and growing US trade deficit. The US economy is employing people to sell things, to move people around, and to serve them fast food and alcoholic beverages. The items may have an American brand name, but they are mainly made off shore. For example, 70% of Wal-Mart’s goods are made in China.

Where are the jobs for the 65,000 engineers the US graduates each year? Where are the jobs for the physics, chemistry, and math majors? Who needs na university degree to wait tables and serve drinks, to build houses, to work as hospital orderlies, bus drivers, and sales clerks?

www.counterpunch.org...


www.chroniclesmagazine.org...


If you really want to understand what makes the U.S. economy tick these days, don't go to Silicon Valley, Wall Street, or Washington. Just take a short trip to your local hospital. Park where you don't block the ambulances, and watch the unending flow of doctors, nurses, technicians, and support personnel. You'll have a front-row seat at the health-care economy.

For years, everyone from politicians on both sides of the aisle to corporate execs to your Aunt Tilly have justifiably bemoaned American health care -- the out-of-control costs, the vast inefficiencies, the lack of access, and the often inexplicable blunders.

But the very real problems with the health-care system mask a simple fact: Without it the nation's labor market would be in a deep coma. Since 2001, 1.7 million new jobs have been added in the health-care sector, which includes related industries such as pharmaceuticals and health insurance. Meanwhile, the number of private-sector jobs outside of health care is no higher than it was five years ago.

www.businessweek.com...


Continued



posted on Apr, 15 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
As for the unemployment numbers...


To begin with, the prison system makes a direct contribution to regulating the lower segments of the labour market - and does so in infinitely more coercive fashion than any social charge or administrative rule. Its effect here is artificially to compress unemployment levels both by forcibly abstracting millions of males from the job-seeking population, and also by boosting employment in the prison goods and service sector. It is, for example, estimated that during the 1990s US prisons brought down US unemployment figures by two percentage points. According to Bruce Western and Katherine Beckett, taking into account the differences in levels of imprisonment in the two continents, and contrary to the idea commonly accepted and actively disseminated by the advocates of neoliberalism, for 18 of the past 20 years US unemployment rates have been higher than those of the European Union (12).

However, Western and Beckett show that the jump in the prison population is a two-edged weapon: while in the short term it makes the employment picture look rosier by cutting labour supply, in the longer term it will inevitably worsen the employment situation by making millions of people more or less unemployable. Although imprisonment has cut US unemployment levels, the prison system will have constantly to be abandoned to keep those levels down.

The fact that Blacks are massively and increasingly over-represented at all levels of the prison system highlights its second function in this new form of government by poverty: it is to replace the ghetto as a means of containing population groups considered deviant and dangerous, not to mention superfluous from both an economic and a political point of view - Mexican and Asian immigrants are far more docile. Poor Blacks hardly ever bother to vote and the country’s electoral centre of gravity has in any event shifted towards the White suburbs. To that extent, prison is merely the ultimate manifestation of a policy of exclusion of which the ghetto has been a means and an end since it first appeared in history.

mondediplo.com...



Jobs data don't count the down-and-out
Williams starts by discussing the headline economic data: "Real unemployment right now -- figured the way that the average person thinks of unemployment, meaning figured the way it was estimated back during the Great Depression -- is running about 12%. Real CPI right now is running at about 8%. And the real GDP probably is in contraction." (By "real," he means calculating the data the way they used to be calculated, not as inflation-adjusted.)

He then explains how the employment data are compiled, noting that 5 million chronically unemployed people are not included in the statistics. In fact, there are seven or eight different employment statistics. One called U-3 is the official one. The broadest one, U-6, currently shows unemployment as running around 8.4%. As he explains, the one that's the most historically consistent is running around 12%.

moneycentral.msn.com...


Table A-12. Alternative measures of labor underutilization


Just to help you out here, our nations deficit is actually shrinking.


You are clearly quite delusional and i wonder how you manage to be so badly informed with information so close at hand.


With the 1989 end of the Cold War, many proclaimed the "triumph of global capitalism," and by the late-1990s, the American people were enjoying what The Economist of London called the "longest-ever . . . economic expansion." Unemployment (about 4 percent) was the lowest in almost thirty years, wages were up for most American workers, and inflation was low; this was indeed an economic achievement. The performance of the stock market was extraordinary as the Dow Jones index broke through the 10,000 mark in the spring of 1999; the "wealth effect" of the high stock market, which encouraged Americans to spend freely, draw down their personal savings, and go deeply into debt, fueled rapid economic growth. With the rest of the world in recession or other dire economic straits, many Americans believed that the United States in the 1990s had fashioned a new type of capitalist economy and had escaped forever from ills historically associated with the capitalist system.

Enthusiastic supporters of the NAE even proclaimed that the American economy had transcended the "boom and bust" of the business cycle that has historically plagued capitalist economies. It seemed that the economic boom could continue forever. Most academic economists, on the other hand, were skeptical of such claims and warned that the American economy was experiencing a "speculative bubble." Like the Japanese bubble of the late 1980s and similar bubbles of the past, the American bubble would also necessarily burst one day.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, America's trade/payments deficits reached record highs. Since the early 1980s, in fact, Americans have borrowed approximately $5 trillion from the savers of the world, especially the Japanese, to finance their consumption and investment. In the mid-1980s, the United States went from its post-World War I position as the world's largest creditor nation to become its largest debtor. If one discounts American investment overseas, the net American international debt in the late 1990s stood at approximately $1 trillion; as a consequence, a sizable portion of the federal budget must be devoted to interest payments on this huge and increasing debt. Furthermore, throughout the 1990s, Americans had emptied their personal savings accounts to fuel "seven years of good times," leaving too little for the "seven years of bad times" that many and perhaps most economists believe loom ahead; the spending spree left 20 percent of American households net debtors. And the "good times" of the 1990s left many behind as the income of the least skilled lagged.1 Americans appeared to be unaware that one day the nation's huge accumulated debt will have to be repaid and serious adjustments in the American standard of living will be necessary.

press.princeton.edu...



In six years, the boomer vanguard
will start collecting Medicare. Our nation
has done nothing to prepare for this onslaught of
obligation. Instead, it has continued to focus on
a completely meaningless fiscal metric—“the”
federal deficit—censored and studiously ignored
long-term fiscal analyses that are scientifically
coherent, and dramatically expanded the benefit
levels being explicitly or implicitly promised to
the baby boomers.
Countries can and do go bankrupt. The United
States, with its $65.9 trillion fiscal gap, seems
clearly headed down that path. The country needs
to stop shooting itself in the foot. It needs to adopt
generational accounting as its standard method
of budgeting and fiscal analysis, and it needs to
adopt fundamental tax, Social Security, and
healthcare reforms that will redeem our children’s
future.

research.stlouisfed.org...



Interest payments on the debt amounted $352 Billion last year or nearly 12% of the entire budget. That’s more than the cost of the war in Iraq and roughly as much as the government will spend on Medicare in 2006. Eliminating the interest payment would go a long way to stabilizing the nations finances.

The growth of the 90s should not be considered a statistical aberration. Until the mid-1970s the United States posted productivity growth rates as high as in the 1990s. From the mid-1970s onwards a combination of oil shocks, inflation, and increasing debt slowed productivity growth. The 1990s were merely a recovery from that slow down. If we eliminate the debt burden we can expect those growth rates to return.

www.ncsu.edu...



The budget deficit now stands at about 1.4 percent of the nation's GDP, well below the 2.3 percent that's been the norm since 1970's.


I don't know where you get these numbers from but they certainly have no relation to the truth of it. The US federal deficit is about 9 trillion dollars and the GDP is about 12 trillion dollars meaning that the federal debt is will soon exceed the 'product' ( not that the two are really related anyways). Remember that the federal government only receives around 2.5 trillion dollars in revenue of which one in eighth is required to simply pay interest on federal debt. When one looks at state/fed and general debt the US is in a very bad position indeed as is evident by the selling of thousands of miles of roads , and a few harbours, to foreign owners.


And in 2008, the US deficit as percentage of GDP is projected to be at 0.7%.. I see a strong rapidly expanding economy...


You are clearly capable of seeing whatever you want while showing not the feintest interest in anything remotely objective or 'truth' related.

I find it fascinating that you believe you can stage a defense of your ignorance by such blatant lies. I guess your saying what they like as otherwise this type of post would have drawn a great deal of moderator attention.

Stellar



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Just to help you out here, our nations deficit is actually shrinking.


You are clearly quite delusional and i wonder how you manage to be so badly informed with information so close at hand.


The budget deficit now stands at about 1.4 percent of the nation's GDP, well below the 2.3 percent that's been the norm since 1970's.


I don't know where you get these numbers from but they certainly have no relation to the truth of it. The US federal deficit is about 9 trillion dollars and the GDP is about 12 trillion dollars meaning that the federal debt is will soon exceed the 'product' ( not that the two are really related anyways).

(snip)

I find it fascinating that you believe you can stage a defense of your ignorance by such blatant lies. I guess your saying what they like as otherwise this type of post would have drawn a great deal of moderator attention.

Stellar


Speaking of moderator attention...

This is a great case study in why it pays to be civil Stellarx. This guy you've been insulting... well I'm not saying I'm on his side, but technically he is right on one point.

The DEFICIT (the gap between what we spend and what we make) was 2.6% of GDP in 2005.

The NATIONAL DEBT (all of the money that our government owes) is what you were talking about. It is in the neighborhood of 9 trillion and was 64.7% of GDP in 2005.


So I'll make it short and sweet. I don't want to give anyone "moderator attention" as you put it, at least not in a negative way, so be courteous to one another, disagree to your hearts content but do so with respect and civility, because you never know when doing that might save you from making yourself look silly.

The mixup between what a debt is and what a deficit is would have been no big deal if you were being nice to eachother, but now, if I were in your shoes, I'd feel a little bit ridiculous because I'd have no real expectation of being let off the hook by my opponent.

So I'm asking you guys to take this as a lesson learned and treat eachother like neighbors in this online community, and not make me get into my least favorite part of my job.


Edit to add: Just to be clear, I realize this has not been a one way street between the two of you. But it still couldn't have hurt to take the high road.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by The Vagabond]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Mod note: Public forums are not the place to address concerns over thread moderation. Your post has been copied to a more appropriate, discrete venue so that this conversation can continue via U2U and/or use of the complaint feature. In the meantime, you and semperfoo will demonstrate the utmost respect for T&C or there will be consequences, period. If one of you does something wrong, the other is expected to maturely use the complain feature and not retaliate.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program and appologize for the interruption.



[edit on 16-4-2007 by The Vagabond]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   
It is a beautiful day outside. The birds are singing, the sun is out, not a cloud in the sky, and, what's that!
Ah, yes.
It's quiet for a change. :]

Hell hath frozen over.

Anyway!
Let us begin this thread anew.
Specifically, let us speak about Russia's next generation ramjet/scramjet cruise/anti-ship missiles, their expected performance, their listed performance, where they will be utilized, and how this may alter future plans.



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Stellar why not make your point short, sweet, and to the point? I qouted you so that I could respond to your points, as soon as I started typing it started deleting your post. So im going to addresse of few of your points.


What you wish is also quite irrelevant as world events should show you. Why on Earth would you want 'strong ties' with a country that can destroy yours and also seemingly have the ability to force your country to disarm itself?


Judging by what russian officials had to say after the US quick defeat of saddams conventional army in GW2 I would say the US is in a class of its own, militarily as well as economically speaking.


The Iraqi Army - which was cloned from the Red Army in the final decades of the Soviet Union - mounted only a feeble defense before falling apart.

"The key conclusion we must draw from the latest Gulf war is that the obsolete structure of the Russian armed forces has to be urgently changed," says Vladimir Dvorkin, head of the Russian Defense Ministry's official think tank on strategic nuclear policy. "The gap between our capabilities and those of the Americans has been revealed, and it is vast. We are very lucky that Russia has no major enemies at the moment, but the future is impossible to predict, and we must be ready."


Unlike you they paint a more realistic picture though grim it is. It goes on..


The swift victory by mobile, high-tech American forces over heavily armored Iraqi troops dug in to defend large cities like Baghdad has jolted many Russian military planners. "The Iraqi Army was a replica of the Russian Army, and its defeat was not predicted by our generals," says Vitaly Shlykov, a former deputy defense minister of Russia.

Like its Soviet prototype, Iraq's Army was huge but made up mainly of young, poorly trained conscripts. Its battle tactics called for broad frontal warfare, with massed armor and artillery, and a highly centralized command structure. But those forces were trounced in a few days by relatively small numbers of US and British forces, who punched holes in the Iraqi front using precision weapons and seized the country's power centers more rapidly than traditional military thinkers could have imagined. "The military paradigm has changed, and luckily we didn't have to learn that lesson firsthand," says Yevgeny Pashentsev, author of a book on Russian military reform. "The Americans have rewritten the textbook, and every country had better take note."



As the US prepared to invade Iraq, many Russian military experts warned that American forces would come to grief in the streets of Iraqi cities. Some predicted the battle of Baghdad would resemble the Russian Army's two assaults on the Chechen capital of Grozny - in 1995 and again in 2000 - each of which lasted more than a month and cost hundreds of Russian casualties.

Early in the Iraq war, the Russian online newspaper Gazeta.ru reported that two retired Soviet generals may have played a key role in designing Iraq's defenses. The paper published photos of Vladimir Achalov, an expert in urban warfare, and Igor Maltsev, a specialist in air defenses, receiving medals from Iraq's defense minister two weeks before the war began. Russian TV later quoted General Maltsev as saying "the American invaders will be buried in the streets of Baghdad."



Some in Russia's military establishment still appear reluctant to accept the sweeping military verdict in Iraq. "I think American dollars won the war, it was not a military victory," says Gen. Makhmut Gareyev, president of the official Academy of Military Sciences in Moscow. "The Americans bought the Iraqi military leadership with dollars. One can only envy a state that is so rich."


Can you believe that? HAH What a sorry excuse of a country russia has become today. As long as it makes them sleep better.. Just be glad that a war didnt break out before or after the fall of the USSR, alot of pride on the russian side would have been lost.


But others are obviously shaken. "Thank God our public has finally begun to discuss the state of the Army," General Vladimir Shamanov, who commanded Russian troops in two Chechnya wars, told a Moscow radio station after the extent of the US-led triumph in Iraq became clear last week. "Maybe our strategic nuclear forces will protect the country for another decade, but then what? A strong Russia is impossible without a strong army."
www.csmonitor.com...



If it is efficiently employed and spent in areas that can affect the strategy balance. Resources is a deciding factory when weapons are generally similar but when one side deploys geophysical weapons what use are F-22's and aircraft carriers good for beside further bankrupting your country?


And you yourself, know for a fact that it isn't efficiently spent? I am not saying it all is. But we are talking about $500B+. I think we can afford a little wiggle room. I doubt Russia itself could achieve what you speak of with such a massive budget.

And geophysical weapons? The only side that is being accused by the other side for having such weapons is russia whining to the UN that the US has these type of weapons you speak of. HAARP?


Money is quite irrelevant if inefficiently used and once again you are assuming a efficiency that is not in evidence. Please show that the Pentagon is anything but a massively wasteful organisation that have robbed the American public blind for decades. Do you have any comprehension of how well armed and defended the American public could have been had those billions been efficiency employed towards such ends?


What are you talking about? Somehow russia was/is more "efficient" with there spending then the US was/is? Do you have proof of this? Ive read biased russian leaders claims in the past too. About how they were smart and we werent. Its propaganda.. If the USSR was so smart then why did the lose the cold war? Why did they collapse letting the US rape and pillage them for all their "goodies" that were later found out to be nothing more then crap?


Such vapid lies you tell. Please supply the sources and indicate why the average American household income has been static since the mid 70's despite the fact that the vast majority of households are now dual income.


Vapid lies? I saw this on Larry Kudlow. And it was a study done by a Professor at UPenn. I dont care if you believe it or not. Either way I will still sleep fine at night.

And the US GDP per capita is $43,500 (per 2006 say). Compared to russias GDP per capita which is $12,100 which would be considered below the poverty level in the US. I assure you the US is better off in these regards then any other nation on the earth other then say Luxembourg which enjoys the highest GDP per capita in the world ($65,900.)

Moving along...



I don't know where you get these numbers from but they certainly have no relation to the truth of it. The US federal deficit is about 9 trillion dollars and the GDP is about 12 trillion dollars meaning that the federal debt is will soon exceed the 'product' ( not that the two are really related anyways).


It is if you only look at one side while not looking at the other side properly. Our GDP is growing faster then our debt is. Our debt is manageable, though we need to get a handle on our spending.
And the US GDP is actually $13.5 trillion and growing. As for the nations deficit, it is shrinking regardless of what you say.

Psst, the Deficit’s Shrinking

www.nationalreview.com...
US deficit shrinking for now
www.csmonitor.com...

Sorry If I have offended you with anything Ive said. Seriously though, you take yourself entirely way to serous on here.

mod note: minor personal jab removed. This thread doesn't need it.

[edit on 16-4-2007 by The Vagabond]



[edit on 113030p://0504pm by semperfoo]



posted on Apr, 16 2007 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
It is a beautiful day outside. The birds are singing, the sun is out, not a cloud in the sky, and, what's that!
Ah, yes.
It's quiet for a change. :]

Hell hath frozen over.


Im done.
It appears I was in the middle of writing my post after you posted yours. Good day indeed!



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 03:46 AM
link   


Judging by what russian officials had to say after the US quick defeat of saddams conventional army in GW2 I would say the US is in a class of its own, militarily as well as economically speaking.


what conventional army ???? that army was destroyed GW1 and never recovered.....




The Iraqi Army - which was cloned from the Red Army in the final decades of the Soviet Union

bASICALLY , iraq army was a monkey model
iraq army , only in terms of partial command structure was dreived from red army , not in terms of technology and recon in which they were heavily lacking and neither did they have a formidable airforce that US has , which enabled US a swift victory in GW1
read on iraqi tech:



Monkey model was the unofficial designation given by the Soviet Military to versions military equipment (armored vehicles, airplanes, missiles) of significantly inferior capability to the original designs and intended only for export.
The monkey model was exported with the same or a similar designation as the original Soviet design but in fact it lacked many of the advanced or expensive features of the original.

Performance and capabilities of monkey model equipment were so degraded from the original as not to be in any way representative of the original design capabilities.

The term was popularized in the West by Viktor Suvorov, in Inside the Soviet Army. Suvorov states that the simplified monkey model was designed for massive production in wartime, to replace front-line stocks if a war should last for several weeks. In peacetime, Soviet industry gained experience building both standard and monkey-model variants, the latter being for sale to "to the 'brothers' and 'friends' of the USSR as the very latest equipment available". He also cites the benefit of disinformation when an exported monkey model fell into the hands of Western intelligence, who "naturally gained a completely false impression of the true combat capabilities of the BMP-1 and of Soviet tanks" (Suvorov 1982:215).
en.wikipedia.org...




Aircraft

Monkey-model aircraft were downgraded in a manner similar to that of tanks. The MiG-23 MS 'Flogger-E' , for example, was an export variant the original Mig 23 developed because the Mig 23 was considered too advanced to be exported to Third World countries. The 'Flogger-E' lacked the most advanced features of the original. Infra-red search and track and Beyond Visual Range missile capabilities were removed and its avionics suite was very basic. This variant was widely sold during the 1970s to Soviet allies in the Middle East.

--
Monkey models and the effectiveness of Soviet military equipment
The fact that most Soviet-designed tanks and aircraft engaged by western forces during the last decades were actually monkey models must be kept in mind when trying to assess the capabilities of real Soviet-era equipment versus those of contemporary western designs.

A good example of this is the dismal performance of Iraqi T-72 models during the Gulf War and the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Iraqi T-72 failed to destroy a single M1 tank. On the other hand experts believe that the T-72's 125 mm 2A46 main gun is capable of destroying any modern main battle tank in the world today. This discrepancy can be explained by the fact that the Iraqi operated a mix of monkey models and their own locally produced version, the Lion of Babylon tank, and used substandard ammunition (it has been claimed that in some cases even training ammunition was used) for their guns
en.wikipedia.org...





"The gap between our capabilities and those of the Americans has been revealed, and it is vast.

nothing big ,former soviet colonel Ivan krutov had said this and he blames the currently poor recon capability of russian army for this,





Why did they collapse letting the US rape and pillage them for all their "goodies" that were later found out to be nothing more then crap?

hmmm...
the american culture of self -arrogance and belief of invulnerability
www.worldnetdaily.com...




And geophysical weapons? The only side that is being accused by the other side for having such weapons is russia whining to the UN that the US has these type of weapons you speak of. HAARP?

SURA ??? the american HAARP is rumoured to be based on SURA
and sura existed in 1981 , while HAARP came in 1991-1993
english.pravda.ru...
and reagan and keegan whined about monstrous soviet civil defence ,the plasma superweapon tested in saryashagan in 1979-1980 and ss-18 and soviets preparing for first strike, don't mind it but every nation whines over other's superiority ..




I am not saying it all is. But we are talking about $500B+. I think we can afford a little wiggle room. I doubt Russia itself could achieve what you speak of with such a massive budget.


i totally agree with you over this ... today USA is the most powerful nation on earth in least in military and imperialist domination , though in terms of economy i see China going to sooner or later take the economic power away




Ive read biased russian leaders claims in the past too


what nonsense ???? russikies never made such claims , in fact gorby in 1990 admitted that soviet economy is weakening and it needs AID



And the US GDP per capita is $43,500 (per 2006 say). Compared to russias GDP per capita which is $12,100 which would be considered below the poverty level in the US

the problem with this model that it does not take into consideration the cost of living ...the cost of living in russia is much lower than USA , unless we are considering moscow , which has a high cost of living



posted on Apr, 19 2007 @ 04:04 AM
link   


Early in the Iraq war, the Russian online newspaper Gazeta.ru reported that two retired Soviet generals may have played a key role in designing Iraq's defenses. The paper published photos of Vladimir Achalov, an expert in urban warfare, and Igor Maltsev, a specialist in air defenses, receiving medals from Iraq's defense minister two weeks before the war began. Russian TV later quoted General Maltsev as saying "the American invaders will be buried in the streets of Baghdad


Igor maltsev ????? good lord this guy was involved in operation sarindar along with primakov,DIDN'T YOU KNOW THIS :



Shaw said that this type GRU operation, known as "Sarandar," or "emergency exit," has long been familiar to U.S. intelligence officials from Soviet-bloc defectors as standard GRU practice.
In addition to the truck convoys, which carried Iraqi WMD to Syria and Lebanon in February and March 2003 "two Russian ships set sail from the (Iraqi) port of Umm Qasr headed for the Indian Ocean," where Shaw believes they "deep-sixed" additional stockpiles of Iraqi WMD from flooded bunkers in southern Iraq that were later discovered by U.S. military intelligence personnel.

The Russian "clean-up" operation was entrusted to a combination of GRU and Spetsnaz troops and Russian military and civilian personnel in Iraq "under the command of two experienced ex-Soviet generals, Colonel-General Vladislav Achatov and Colonel-General Igor Maltsev, both retired and posing as civilian commercial consultants."

Washington Times reporter Bill Gertz reported on Oct. 30, 2004, that Achatov and Maltsev had been photographed receiving medals from Iraqi Defense Minister Sultan Hashim Ahmed in a Baghdad building bombed by U.S. cruise missiles during the first U.S. air raids in early March 2003.
www.newsmax.com...



Allegations that the Russian GRU agency helped Saddam Hussein hide his weapons of mass destruction prior to American invasion of Iraq in 2003 were discussed in the mass media.[1][2][3] It is known that Iraq previously possessed a significant arsenal of chemical weapons and biological weapons (see Iraq and weapons of mass destruction)[4] However, these weapons were never found (see Post-Saddam WMD search).

Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw, a "top Pentagon official who was responsible for tracking Saddam Hussein's weapons programs before and after the 2003 liberation of Iraq," stated in October 2004, March 2005, and again in February 2006 that it was the Russians who helped Saddam Hussein to "clean up" his weapons of mass destruction stockpiles "to prevent the United States from discovering them."[5]
en.wikipedia.org...




Historian Yossef Bodansky, the Director of Research of the International Strategic Studies Association and author of The Secret History of the Iraq War [11] said that "The major case where the Russians were involved was the evacuation of the forces--the entire Iraqi arsenal." "...not just WMD, but also artillery pieces, tanks, troops, etc., that were arrayed for the defense of Baghdad, once Saddam Hussein realized that the game was all over." [10]

He wrote earlier that major WMD production facilities of Iraq were moved to Libya and Sudan between 1996 and 1998, whereas the residual chemical weapons production capabilities were shipped in Iran in 2002 (and on the eve of war transferred to Lavizan, near Tehran). [11] However, "on the eve of the war, Saddam did have a small but operational arsenal" of chemical weapons [11]. "And now, fear of another intelligence fiasco prevents Washington and London from addressing reports about Iraqi WMD stockpiles moved to other countries" [11]

Bodansky strongly criticized Bush administration and US intelligence, claiming that "the apparent absence of WMD munitions in Iraq demonstrates only one aspect of a comprehensive intelligence blinder, namely, the inability to account for the full extent of Saddam's arsenal, which was hidden both before and after the war" [11]


Other statements
Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a Fox News military analyst claimed that the story is real, and that Bush administration organized the cover-up because they wanted Russia's help in the war on terror [10]

Ariel Cohen from the Heritage Foundation was more careful. He said that "Russia’s ambassador to Iraq at that time, Vladimir Titorenko, provided Hussein with information on the timing of the U.S. attack on Baghdad", but noted that claims by Shaw "are based on classified information and have yet to be further substantiated."
en.wikipedia.org...








He explained that Sarindar (meaning "emergency exit") is a standard GRU operating procedure designed by Soviet intelligence to get rid of all traces of chemical weapons "if the Western imperialists ever got near them".
He said that "we wanted to make sure they would never be traced back to us, and we also wanted to frustrate the West by not giving them anything they could make propaganda with." He explained that Sarindar includes the following components [2]:
He explained that Sarindar includes the following components [2]:

"All chemical weapons were to be immediately burned or buried deep at sea." He explained that chemical weapons produced in Third World countries "often do not retain lethal properties after a few months on the shelf and are routinely dumped anyway."
"Technological documentation, however, would be preserved in microfiche buried in waterproof containers for future reconstruction."
An elaborate propaganda routine to deny the existence of WMD ("please come here and see").
Operation Sarindar has been initially developed for Libya. However, Ion Mihai Pacepa knew from Nicolae Ceauşescu, KGB chairman Yury Andropov, and General Yevgeny Primakov about the existence of a similar plan for Iraq [2].



en.wikipedia.org...





[edit on 19-4-2007 by vK_man]

[edit on 19-4-2007 by vK_man]

[edit on 19-4-2007 by vK_man]

[edit on 19-4-2007 by vK_man]



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join