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.

 

Russia ‘Had Laser Cannons Before U.S.’

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
K-5 or Kontakt-5 is battle proven , on the thunder run 2 T-70`s (not lions) were engaged outside the airport ; and as usual M829 rounds were loaded and used - to the utter horror to the tankers , the rounds bounced off the (what they thought) were the same tanks they had been killing for weeks - in fact they were ex-soviet army top of the line (and mobility killed an M1 at the same time) before secumbing to massive hits.


Hmm any actual proof of this, or is this " something you heard "
. According to you article -

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.


Seems that they would not have been using cold war era rounds, rather their new long rod penetrators. I highly doubt this little story you put forth is truthful.




posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:11 PM
link   
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[edit on 25-7-2008 by Lambo Rider]



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Harlequin
K-5 or Kontakt-5 is battle proven , on the thunder run 2 T-70`s (not lions) were engaged outside the airport ; and as usual M829 rounds were loaded and used - to the utter horror to the tankers , the rounds bounced off the (what they thought) were the same tanks they had been killing for weeks - in fact they were ex-soviet army top of the line (and mobility killed an M1 at the same time) before secumbing to massive hits.


Hmm any actual proof of this, or is this " something you heard "
. According to you article -

Newer KE penetrators have been designed since the Cold War to defeat the Kontakt-5 (although Kontakt-5 has been improved as well). As a response the Russian Army has produced a new type of ERA, “Relikt”, which is claimed to be two to three times as effective as Kontakt-5 and completely impenetrable against modern Western warheads.


Seems that they would not have been using cold war era rounds, rather their new long rod penetrators. I highly doubt this little story you put forth is truthful.
Jane's International Defence Review 7/1997, pg. 15:

"IMPENETRABLE RUSSIAN TANK ARMOUR STANDS UP TO EXAMINATION

"Claims that the armour of Russian tanks is effectively impenetrable, made on the basis of test carried out in Germany (see IDR 7/1996, p.15), have been supported by comments made following tests in the US.

"Speaking at a conference on Future Armoured Warfare in London in May, IDR's Pentagon correspondent Leland Ness explained that US tests involved firing trials of Russian-built T-72 tanks fitted with Kontakt-5 explosive reactive armour (ERA). In contrast to the original, or 'light', type of ERA which is effective only against shaped charge jets, the 'heavy' Kontakt-5 ERA is also effective against the long-rod penetrators of APFSDS tank gun projectiles.

"When fitted to T-72 tanks, the 'heavy' ERA made them immune to the DU penetrators of M829 APFSDS, fired by the 120 mm guns of the US M1 Abrams tanks, which are among the most formidable of current tank gun projectiles.

"Richard M. Ogorkiewicz"



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 07:39 PM
link   
Is it just me or is it Mason and the other guy who are still on topic about the LASER CANNONS.

Somewhere along the line, both sides entire militaries and most of their economy have been dragged into the debate.



posted on Jul, 25 2008 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
and you parrot american pentagon propaganda at best ....
if i was parroting propagnada , i would have not admitted that soviets were lacking computer,electronics and software
and by the way , you stopped responding to StellarX posts mostly .

so , stop making baseless allegations against Stellar


Stellar may be your hero, but he is not nearly as smart as he thinks (or you think).





quote of Goebells -
' the bigger the lie , the more it is believed

Which is far more sensible when referring to a discussion about Russia.




and you can neither prove nor disprove


As can no one prove or disprove the Claims of Gary McKinnon (And he has some interesting one's in regards to the US
).



Video no youtube , lol ....'reliiiable' evidence


Only if the Ret. colonel John Alexander (former program direcetor of LOS ALAMOS) is not "reliable" enough evidence for you...


yes USa is playing catch up ...


Please clarify?




s it possible to have an "inferior economy" yet have developed superior technology ??? Seems to me, you need a solid Strong Economy , to Afford that kind of weapons development? No seriously explain this to me, how is it possible?



it is possible , as soviet were spending 1/3 resources on military development


What is funny is, people like you are actually unaware of how screwed up the Soviet era military was (Along with their accounting practices).

It is not possible, as the soviet union collapsed as result of the 'illusion' they tried to attain/maintain.

The US could easily spend 5-6% of GDP and far out spend the soviet union, (The US had a GDP more then 10x that of the soviet union at the time. The Soviet defense budgets were less than half the size of the American ones.) let us not forget of the brain drain to the United States that occurred at that time period either.

The US had the brains, as well as the money to out compete the soviet union.

[edit on 25-7-2008 by West Coast]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lambo Rider
Your saying my sources have nothing "substatual" dude that youtube link does NOTHING but show some Iraqi's who got zapped, you called my links questionable, well some of those links were U.S. Gov/Military links so now your doubting your own socalled "supieriour" nations links, HAHAHAH,
anyways please provide some sort of eviedence those links are NOT telling the truth, here's more:


I noticed the dates all were in the mid to late 80's, now the reason why this is significant is: This does not indicate that the US is behind today, and, let us consider the fact that the soviet union collapsed in '89-'91, a time where the US was far outspending the USSR, and had alot of lobbyist in washington. The reason why I bring this up is because the CIA was accused of overestimating the Soviet threat to justify a higher military budget. (Note the date the article was published, 1990. The reason why this is significant contrast to your arguments which were published from the mid to late 80's is because it speaks of overestimating the Soviet Union on false pretense. The article below is a fair example of this, when confronted with the source I've provided, which I feel further scrutinizes your article which was published in 1986.)


We have right now, I believe, one weapons-grade laser operating in the United States. The Soviets have at least ten we have identified and there may be more. At Los Alamos right now our scientists are working on developing a very compact particle accelerator. This is vital work toward the development of something you have all heard about, a particle beam weapon of some kind. At the heart of that system is a Soviet invention dating back to the 1960s called a radio frequency quadrapole. Years ago, the Soviets mysteriously decided that there would be no more literature, open or semi-open, on this or any similar development. Such information suddenly disappeared from these vaunted scientific exchanges that we hear are so important. Of course, the Soviets exchange very little information that is vital to them in these so-called exchanges, anyway.


So, can you disprove rather or not this was a gross overestimation by the US Gov. considering the fact the CIA openly overestimated the USSR to extrapolate more funds from US taxpayers?

Heres another source which speaks of overestimation of the Soviet Union by the CIA.

Two years ago, the Central Intelligence Agency released reams of intelligence documents on the former Soviet Union that had been classified for nearly 30 years. The findings were damning: the CIA for more than 10 years greatly exaggerated the nuclear threat the communist country posed to the world.

The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Raymond Garthoff, a longtime CIA military analyst, admitted in 2001 "there were consistent overestimates of the threat every year from 1978 to 1985."

Source


The youtube video does not support your biased view, so it must be wrong, however, do proceed to tell me how and why you think the former program director of Los Alamos, Ret. Colonel John Alexander, is wrong.

(The youtube video was actually a documentary that was on BBC.)

[edit on 26-7-2008 by West Coast]

[edit on 26-7-2008 by West Coast]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 02:46 AM
link   
reply to post by rogue1
 


allready posted the link(s) on this forum about a dozen times - you yourself have replied to it as least once - the `source` is a US officer (named) who took the third shot against those tanks.

and the `new long rod penetrators` were not in service at that point - learn the facts before putting your boot in your mouth. again.

[edit on 26/7/08 by Harlequin]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 


there you go thanks Mason. Are you in the military you have quite the knowledge.



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 06:42 AM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 





Stellar may be your hero, but he is not nearly as smart as he thinks (or you think).


Prove it......, hes no hero, but yes, respected ..




Only if the Ret. colonel John Alexander (former program direcetor of LOS ALAMOS) is not "reliable" enough evidence for you...

a youtube video is not 'evidence'


Which is far more sensible when referring to a discussion about Russia.


and more applicable where USA is concerned ,WMd lies,Freedom,democracy bla bla




Please clarify?


The statements of Edward Teller ,Samuel Cohen , Asinov , scientific journals like flug-revue ,Soviet Marshall Ogarkov,Academician A. Avramenko(developer of tactical soviet plasma weapon, theres a link on warfare.ru ) and now the Russian experts are more than enough to clarify ....





What is funny is, people like you are actually unaware of how screwed up the Soviet era military was


thank you for showing your ignorance and arrogance on the subject and avoid using insults , even today , CIA has not been able to estimate the soviet military expenditure accurately TILLDATE , and yes , USSR was resource based economy , not GDP based firstly , so don't use GDP figures ....

and yes , Andrei Sakharov , soviet scientist and dissident, himself believed that soviet spend more than 1/3 resources on military ....

also , another book to read , i suggest : Broken sword of the Empire By Maxim Kashalikov





The US had the brains, as well as the money to out compete the soviet union.




so, how many underground bases and cities does USA have , call me when it builds a underground city like Yamantau .....



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 06:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOracle
reply to post by manson_322
 


there you go thanks Mason. Are you in the military you have quite the knowledge.


My uncle served in the indian army(ground forces,artillery division) till 1995....



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
Chemical based laser tech is actually quite primitive laser tech.
As for the US "playing catch up".

Now there are three parts to that video. Does anyone honestly still think the US is playing "catch up" in regards to laser technology?


I will have the bandwidth to spare next month but for now i will just state that while i don't think the US were fundamentally behind the implementation must not have been quite effective as in the USSR. At least that's what US intelligence/defense specialist says and what the balance of power seem to indicate.


To the Orical (You are horribly uneducated on the matter) and Mr. Monsoon (Who parrots soviet propaganda so nicely, and stellar is a horrible source for you to use. When he is presented with facts that contradict his biased view, he simply stops responding).


If you can show me where i stopped responding to your claims/ideas i will do so now but as we both know you were the one that promptly left discussion when i started introducing sources from a WESTERN intelligence/defense perspective.


Soviet equipment has always come in a distantsecond when facing superior American made equipment, History does not lie, but rather reinforces this fact.


Soviet equipment were almost always a generation or two behind ( which is why the USSR exported it; surplus) when they found some use against US national security state invasion and interventions and considering the overwhelming numbers and resources the US could always deploy i am not sure how soviet equipment can be said to be so inferior. A closer inspection of most wars in the last fifty years should easily indicate that American technology rarely turned out to be so overwhelmingly superior as was supposed and since mostly employed against outdated Soviet export models the historic record does not prove the superiority you have presumed.


As for military dominance, the US holds a clear distinct advantage over anyone in the world (currently)


The US have no clear or distinct advantage of the Russian federation when it comes to self defense. If the Russian federation has weaknesses it's in the unwillingness of it's citizens to support wars of aggression against nations on the other side of the planet. The fact that the Russian federation mostly still lacks the means to project conventional force should hardly be taken as inferiority as they never planned to attack invade third world nations as standard. 'Communism' were never a serious threat to the world because capitalism had already spread trough Western European imperialism taking hold trough terror and oppression against the will of native populations everywhere.


. It is my believe, amongst many others who share the same view, that the US forces of 2015-2020 will make the worlds militarys obsolete against avastly superior US forces. Instead of parroting what I have said in the past (I lack the patience), I will post the video of the superiority I speak of
In the end, it will be "Full Spectrum Dominance" over any adversary, both now, and in the future.


What can you say to such a blatant disregard for history? Have you learned nothing by the recent disaster in Iraq or the inability of the USAF to prosecute the air war against Serbia( Vietnam?Korea?)? The Superiority you speak of is not in evidence today and no amount of applied technology is going to fundamentally change the balance of power with the Russian Federation in ten years time. What we should really learn from this is that the US national security state can afford fewer and fewer casualties in their wars of oppression and terrorism and they are desperately seeking ways to employ technology so as to best intimidate into submission without suffering casualties. Since this has been the aim trough the ages , without much success, only fools believe that dominance can be achieved without displaying a willingness to incur whatever losses ultimate victory requires. In essence i am a strong believer that terror ( as implemented in the military field with technology) works unless you push too far in which case technology alone wont do anything but diminish your casualties while your slowly losing. The true enabler of success if public opinion and support and that is something the US national security apparatus just does not have.


(The above video was made using quotes entirely from DARPA, which ironically have since been taken down. All in all a good video that speaks incredible volumes as to the absolute power the US forces will command in the coming decade.


Sure it was.... All this talk of 'dominance' might get some all hot but if recent history is anything to go by it's still as much fantasy as fact.

Stellar

[edit on 26-7-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
The technological infrastructure did not exist during the 80's (mere tests, does not make an effective deployable weapon system), making your claims of deployable 'soviet lasers' highly suspect to further scrutiny.


Please stop denying what can't be.


U.S. Fears Satellites Damaged
Peter G. Neumann
Sun 24 Jan 88 14:10:34-PST

Subtitle -- Soviets used lasers to cripple equipment, sources contend.

Washington, by Richard Sale (UPI, 24 January 1988).

U.S. intelligence agencies are convinced Soviet laser attacks have damaged
supersophisticated U.S. spy satellites deployed to monitor missile and
spacecraft launches, administration sources said. These sources said they
believe the Soviets fired ground-based lasers to cripple optical equipment
attempting to scan launches at Tyuratam, the major Soviet space center, to
obtain a variety of sensitive military information. Administration
intelligence sources said they fear that other vital U.S. reconnaissance
satellites will soon be endangered because six new Soviet laser battle stations
are under construction... "There is no way you can protect the optical sensors
on satellites" from laser attacks, an Air Force official said. ...

Intelligence sources acknowledged that the Pentagon also has trained
ground-based lasers on Soviet spacecraft, sometimes in attempts to disrupt
their sensors. ...

catless.ncl.ac.uk...



One effect of the panic was the strengthening of U.S. satellites against
radiation that in the end would help shield them from ground-based laser
attacks. According to U.S. intelligence sources, who asked not to be named,
such attacks damaged super-sophisticated American spy satellites deployed to
monitor missile and spacecraft launches at the major Russian space center.

In 1976, a KH-11 or Code 1010 satellite was "painted" by a Soviet laser
and sustained "permanent damage," according to a senior Air Force official.
This source said that such paintings continued into the late 1980s.

Air Force officials told UPI that for years the Soviets had a
"battle-ready" ground-based laser at Saryshagan that they said they believed
had been involved in past blindings of U.S. spacecraft.

But the result of the "hosings" of U.S. equipment was positive. The United
States moved quickly to install laser warning receivers on its newest
generation of low-orbit spacecraft, U.S. intelligence sources said. The
receivers have allowed time for evasive action and have assisted ground
controllers seeking to prove the Soviets had inflicted the damage.

One State Dept. analyst said that the whole Star Wars system of the Reagan
presidency was the result of Soviets "messing around with our satellites."

www.g2mil.com...



This passage was published before Edward Gerry announced his invention of the gas-dynamic laser, which opened the door for high-energy laser (HEL) technology. Public disclosures about rapidly advancing HEL technology, which now includes electric discharge lasers and chemical lasers, suggest that the U.S-Soviet competition to weaponize these technologies is well under way.

Following the advent of gas-dynamic laser technology in the late 1960s, various news reports have been published regarding the military potential of high-energy laser weapons. For example, in 1973 an Associated Press story stated that:

The British government is exchanging information with the United States on a laser "death ray" both nations are developing to destroy aircraft and missiles at long range, the Defense Ministry said today. A spokesman said work on a powerful, long-range laser gun has been going on for some time.3

More recently, an article appearing in the New York Times boasted a headline implying that high-energy laser weapons would become part of American and Soviet arsenals in the not-too-distant future.4 What formerly had been considered an exotic weapon possibility has now become a conventional topic of popularized articles appearing in news stories and in science-oriented magazines.

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...


I am just not sure why you have to argue given the fact that it seems to be admitted in very open sources?


We have right now, I believe, one weapons-grade laser operating in the United States. The Soviets have at least ten we have identified and there may be more. At Los Alamos right now our scientists are working on developing a very compact particle accelerator. This is vital work toward the development of something you have all heard about, a particle beam weapon of some kind. At the heart of that system is a Soviet invention dating back to the 1960s called a radio frequency quadrapole. Years ago, the Soviets mys@eriously decided that there would be no more literature, open or semi-open, on this or any similar development. Such information suddenly disappeared from these vaunted scientific exchanges that we hear are so important. Of course, the Soviets exchange very little information that is vital to them in these so-called exchanges, anyway.

www.heritage.org...



The Soviets built high-energy laser devices in the 1980s and generally placed more emphasis on the weapons applications of lasers than did the West. The tactical laser program had progressed to the point that by the mid-1980s, U.S. analysts anticipated that laser weapons would be deployed with future Soviet forces.

www.dia.mil...



Hydrogen Fluoride Laser. The hydrogen fluoride laser operates much like a rocket engine. In the laser cavity, atomic fluorine reacts with molecular hydrogen to produce excited hydrogen fluorine molecules. The resulting laser produces several simultaneous wavelengths in the range of 2.7 microns and 2.9 microns. The laser beam, at these wavelengths, is mostly absorbed by the earth's atmosphere and can only be used above the earth's atmosphere.47 This laser is the leading contender for the Space-Based Laser (SBL) program.

The Ballistic Missile Defense Organization continues to support the hydrogen fluoride laser for space-based defenses.48 The Alpha program, originally funded by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the 1980s, then the Strategic Defense Initiative Office (SDIO), and now BMDO, has successfully demonstrated a megawatt power laser in a low-pressure, simulated space environment.49 The design is compatible with a space environment, is directly scalable to the size required for a space-based laser, and produces the power and beam quality specified in the SDIO plan in 1984.50 This laser has been integrated with optical systems from the Large Advanced Mirror Program, described later, and has been test fired at the TRW San Juan Capistrano test facility in California.

The Mid-Infrared Advanced Chemical Laser (MIRACL), built by TRW Inc., is a deuterium fluoride laser that is capable of power in excess of one megawatt.53 The system was first operational in 1980 and since then has accumulated over 3,600 seconds of lasing time.54 This laser system has been integrated with a system called the SEALITE Beam Director, which is a large pointing telescope for high-energy lasers, and in 1996 successfully shot down a rocket at the U.S. Army's High-Energy Laser Systems Test Facility at the White Sands Missile Range.55

www.au.af.mil...


So direct energy weapons are in operation and have been for a long time at that.


Without delving to much into your questionable links, they state that the soviets "blinded" US satellites, (damaging censors, etc), something the US and Soviets were known to be doing to one another at that time (something the Chinese have been accused of doing today. etc).


And causing 'permanent damage' ( whatever that may mean; Challenger anyone?) while in the process.


In regards to your initial claim, (I would add a rather ignorant claim) the questionably links state nothing of the sort. Or need I remind you of your claim which was rather outrageous. You were the one who said the US was "behind". So do proceed to clarify why you think the US is behind?


One does not have to be behind in terms of research to fail to properly implement technology in a timely manner thus yielding the 'ground' so to speak to your enemy. No one here doubts that the US could do the same research and develop the same weapons but did the same US politicians who otherwise attempted to disarm the US managed to do the same for laser weapon developments?


Also, in regards to your sources, they are not very substantial either, so you should help yourself out by providing better data that is substantiated proof to what you claim.
so what was that your saying.


They are by no means less substantial than yours and if you wish to make specific counter points please do so. A transcript of the Videos might be nice too...


I am sure that those four "lol" smiley's helped to reinforce your "solid" argument. /sarcasm

tee hee


And we will see how long you keep up the posts before you once again disappear from the scene.

Stellar

[edit on 26-7-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by August Sonereal
I fully beleive that the Soviets were TESTING laser weapons, but by no means capable of using them with any real effect.


What you believe is not pertinent to the discussion unless it can be supported.


The US was rapidly superior in technology than the Soviets.
That's why they relied on quanity and size.


Where were the US so 'rapidly' ( ? ) superior in technology? The USSR relied on quantity for sure but after their second world war experience they had taken to the lesson that simply having more is never enough and were doing what they could to produce comparable weapon systems in far greater numbers. The mythology that 'superiority' on the battlefield can gained by deploying a few superior systems, with inferior systems elsewhere, led in good part to the destruction of the Wehrmacht in the Soviet Union.


Their bombs were big and their army huge, but they weren't "advanced".


Their tanks were better armored ( as were their IFV's ), their tank guns were bigger they great artillery and as Korea and Vietnam proved their was nothing wrong with their planes either. A weapon system may or may not become more lethal/efficient with added complexity and unless you wish to train every fifth man as engineer of some sort you may very well so negatively affect the operational effectiveness of your weapon system that it wont function often enough to make it worth the expenditure.


Of course, the Space Race is another story, but we "won" that anyway after a decade or so.


Where and when? What did the US achieve in space beside landing on the moon? Why have so many decided that such was the ultimate achievement when the USSR achieved nearly everything else first? Do we often worship one hit wonder artists?

Stellar



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by West Coast
Once the F117 was revealed, the soviets knew they could no longer compete with the United States, the US won the cold war due to superior technology.


So the USSR surrendered because of 40 stealth aircraft that carried small bombs and could be seen on 1960 era radars? What's next? The Americans went to the moon first to get all the cheese?


Another reason why the soviets collapsed was because there military was to big.


As sometimes admitted by even senior officials that were in office at that time there is nothing the US could have done by the mid to late 80's that could have bankrupted the USSR. Soviet spending were not known and since it did not interact with the western markets in any normal fashion such manipulation were beyond the scope of NATO or US capabilities.


The soviets favored a rather primitive military mind set, in that, they had a vast standing army, and vast armored carriers. This mindset proved to be expensive, and obsolete.


According to who besides yourself? Sure they maintained many weapon systems after they had become outdated but since they expected the US national security state to make a last desperate grab for world domination in the 80's they kept everything they could in service. This did not bankrupt them but it did greatly hamper the economic developments that were so longed planned.

Ive always said Russia was a partial superpower. And thus, was not a true one.

And while i respect the fact that people should have opinions it does somewhat bother me when they are so ill founded and generally uninformed. GDP is not a good way to measure a market economy , such as the USA, and the soviet 'marketplace' is hardly the place to try implement such a analysis. GDP most strongly values the movement of capital around a economy and as there were far less movement in the USSR estimations of soviet GDP will even in purely economics result in nonsense. As to how it measures up the military sphere the achievements made should serve as some example of just how meaningless GDP numbers would be even if there were a accurate way to measure them there.



The soviets were ahead at first, but this all ended when the US decided to put a man on the moon.


And as we all know the US won the cold war by landing men on the Moon and promptly setting up particle beam weapon bases so as to best attack the USSR. What on earth does having men on the moon prove short of being quite the propaganda feat?

Stellar



posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by manson_322
a youtube video is not 'evidence'


What a pathetic excuse of an argument you have provided. The words of Colonel John Alexander (former Program Director of Los Alamos Lab.) should be enough evidence.


and more applicable where USA is concerned ,WMd lies,Freedom,democracy bla bla


Russia lied about WMD's in Iraq as did the french, the british, etc. apply equal standards, if you are capable..

I question relativeness of your comment in regards to freedom, as US citizens enjoy the most freedoms of any nation.


The statements of Edward Teller ,Samuel Cohen , Asinov , scientific journals like flug-revue ,Soviet Marshall Ogarkov,Academician A. Avramenko(developer of tactical soviet plasma weapon, theres a link on warfare.ru ) and now the Russian experts are more than enough to clarify.


I am sure you wish to believe there is some relativity to what a bunch of patriotic Ruskies say, however, this argument by you was lost a few days ago when I provided a source by the programs director of Los Alamos, Colonel John Alexander. I think he would have more information at his disposal in regards to this very subject...



so, how many underground bases and cities does USA have , call me when it builds a underground city like Yamantau .....


Another example of a poor argument. Lets stick to the subject. The US has the money, and brains, as the best wish to migrate to the US mainland for a better life, higher pay, and assured success.










[edit on 26-7-2008 by West Coast]



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
So the USSR surrendered because of 40 stealth aircraft that carried small bombs and could be seen on 1960 era radars? What's next? The Americans went to the moon first to get all the cheese?


That is a rather presumptuous argument. The F117 was not the sole cause for the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fact that communism could not compete with capitalism was, however, from a technological standpoint, the soviets could no longer compete in military terms with the United States.


And while i respect the fact that people should have opinions it does somewhat bother me when they are so ill founded and generally uninformed. GDP is not a good way to measure a market economy , such as the USA, and the soviet 'marketplace' is hardly the place to try implement such a analysis. GDP most strongly values the movement of capital around a economy and as there were far less movement in the USSR estimations of soviet GDP will even in purely economics result in nonsense. As to how it measures up the military sphere the achievements made should serve as some example of just how meaningless GDP numbers would be even if there were a accurate way to measure them there.


A genuine superpower does not merely have to have a military and political influence, but also must be at the top of the economic latter, scientific, and cultural pyramids. It is this very mold of superpowerdom, which the US has set.



And as we all know the US won the cold war by landing men on the Moon and promptly setting up particle beam weapon bases so as to best attack the USSR. What on earth does having men on the moon prove short of being quite the propaganda feat?


If landing on the moon were easy, the USSR would have done it, as would several other space fairing nations.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Stellar


Please stop denying what can't be.


That is an argument I have not made, or am not aware of making. I have already said both the US And USSR did "blind" each other, damaging censors etc.


One does not have to be behind in terms of research to fail to properly implement technology in a timely manner thus yielding the 'ground' so to speak to your enemy. No one here doubts that the US could do the same research and develop the same weapons but did the same US politicians who otherwise attempted to disarm the US managed to do the same for laser weapon developments?


Which was precisely what the Black budget was for.


And we will see how long you keep up the posts before you once again disappear from the scene.


Lets not pretend that you know any thing about my personal life. I am usually a rather busy person who has better things contrast to posting on a conspiracy site.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 01:08 AM
link   
Wow! It's really fun to watch the troglodyte pro-russian camp pull out all the stops just for an unsubstantiated "expert" from Russia commenting on laser cannons.
I am amazed by the amount of research poured in to try to further lift this anonymous expert's crap spewing to some semblance of authority and accuracy. The very same individuals who work SO hard to substantiate this with other unsubstantiated gossip, are the same one's who declare that a video interview of the director of Los Alamos National Labs is not evidence at all.
This is laughable.
Crawl back in your cave until you have something real to reveal. So far you've spent hours of your life proving nothing... except that you are hopelessly nationalistic and have no concept of factual debate.
Silly little people.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Yes the CIA was working a scientist who was giving them this data in 83-85. We have known about that for a long time. The agent working him and the foreign asset were caught. The scientist was executed.



posted on Jul, 27 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by manson_322
 



why not ??? what proof is there that they could not ....


You have to be kidding...

The Antonov-22 Cargo Plane in warfare? It wouldn't last a minute.

Top speed of 740km/h? Imagine that thing trying to evade SAM's or enemy fighters...

Mate you have to put things into perspective, the Russians wouldn't have doen that because it's not sound military thinking.

You don't put weapons onto civilian aircraft..
Name me one other Cargo/Fighter plane in the world.. lol



there is a major difference b/w chemical and nuclear lasers , don't mix up


Exactly my point.

How do we know which ones the Russians were developing?

And Nuclear Lasers, that would be even more complex to try to make mobile weapons platforms from.


now this statement has me laughing , USA has only 3-5 underground facilites


That's a bit ignorant.
I would read this before making that call: www.think-aboutit.com...

The US has huge installations dotting the landscape, most you've probably never even heard of.


while Russians have 200 underground bases , with 27 of them the size of cities , the largest being Yamantau and Uragan Defence ,


Yeah and look at the strain that put on their economy:


It's very disquieting that the Russians are doing this when they don't have $200 million to build the service module on the international space station and can't pay housing for their own military people," he said.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

I seriously doubt they have 27 of any type of installation, let alone massive underground complexes the size of cities.

It would break their economy even more. Where are you getting this from?


Tsar bomba was a bomb tested for political showoff and had no military value , so this is a very poor example ,


That's only one example. The Russians have had this mindset since their Imperial Empire:

Tsar Tank
Tsar Cannon
Tsar Bell


Quantitative superiority (a requisite for preemption and because the war may last for some time, even though the initial hours are decisive).


Exactly my point. Numbers. More. More.

The bigger the better, that kind of thing. That's why Russia had the most tanks, APC's and vehicles during the Cold War.

They knew the US developed counterparts were far superior so they relied on strength through NUMBERS.

Look at the AK-47, the symbol of Soviet-era weaponry:


The AK is simple, inexpensive to manufacture, and easy to clean and maintain.
Reflecting Soviet infantry doctrine of its time, the rifle is meant to be part of massed infantry fire, not long range engagements.

www.csae.ox.ac.uk...

It's cheap.
It's low quality.
It's inaccurate.

Why? Because the Russians would mass infantry together in large numbers to overwhelm enemy forces with enough firepower to the point where accuracy would not matter.

As opposed to the M-16, which is incredibly accurate, and quite expensive. It was designed to achieve superiority through superior accuracy and firepower.

The Soviets relied on numbers, mass and size. Quite a simple doctrine, effective but very simple.


it was the soviet military doctrine to fight and win a nuclear war AT ANY COST , AND ENSURE SURVIVAL OF 75% POPULACE ,


Haha I'm sorry but that's not true.

The Russians wouldn't care if 75% of their peasants died in a Nuclear War, what mattered is that they could hit back at the US.

You think they really valued their huge working class?
They were practically slaves... they had no rights, no power, no influence.

Why do you think Russians threw their soldiers into war with the Germans with NO ammunition sometimes in WW2:


The Red Army was dispersed and unprepared, and units were often separated and without transportation to concentrate prior to combat. Although the Red Army had numerous, well-designed artillery pieces, most of the guns had no ammunition.

en.wikipedia.org...

They don't care.
Your forgetting the founding principle of Communism: COLLECTIVE GOOD.

The greater good. None of the people mattered (except those at the top), what mattered is that Russia as a whole could overcome their enemies, even if it meant loosing millions of soldiers and civilians, a la World War 2.


silly statement as T-98 top end version weighing 5.5 ton can withstand attack from anti-tank weapons like RPG-7 ,


Irrelevent. Russia is not using the T-98 because:


The Combat T-98 is the fastest armoured 4WD in the world, and was built from the ground up to be the most capable non-military armoured luxury vehicle in the world.

www.gizmag.com...

It's not designed for the military. Hence why Russia uses the Vodnik.


The statements of Edward Teller ,Samuel Cohen , Asinov , scientific journals like flug-revue


They may know quite a lot about Directed Energy Weapons true.

But they have NO clue about what Russia was developing during the Cold War.

Their scientists not military analysts, their views are irrelevant.




and why were reputed physicists like teller,Cohen ,Asinov, and scientific journals like fas,revue stating that Russia had more R & D in lasers


Right and how the hell could American scientists know what Russia was spending it's money on?

Did Teller or Asimov work for the CIA too?
Your generalising again.



[edit on 27/7/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join