Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Cold War Mentality: a new Definition?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


He selectively published is the part your missing.




posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


To answer your question i can only refer you to others who have tried to answer it.


Conspiracy Claims: The Soviets were well ahead of the Americans, setting many firsts, including the first satellite. This proved that their technology was better, but they couldn't get to the moon, how then could the US?

History Claims: Being first isn't always proof of technological advantage. Other factors have to be considered as to why the two players were where they were. In fact the US had the technology to successfully launch a satellite prior to the Sputnik 1 launch, but because of politics the team which finally went on to launch Explorer 1 had been banned from even attempting a launch before that.

In the race for space the Soviets well and truly fired the first shots. Many in the Western World greeted the news of Earth's first artificial satellite with fear rather than joy of the new space age world. The idea of the Soviets being able to launch a nuclear weapon into orbit was a resounding terror that was spoken of openly, even in the halls of power in Washington DC and other world capitals. All the US had in response to this launch was a rocket that exploded 2 seconds after launch. But was the US really so far behind the USSR in the early space race, or was there something other than technology holding them back, and what was the US technology state at the time of Sputnik 1?

the space race



A race isn’t a race without an opponent, and without the red menace pitted against us we surely would have leisurely ambled our way to the moon instead of run, just as we are now only leisurely ambling our way to mars. Ask anyone who worked the space program in these early days and they’ll tell you it was the greatest time in their professional lives, an entire lifetime of career fulfillment lived in just a decade. And it was what our country and perhaps the world so desperately needed in that instant, a way out from under all the cold war nuclear anxiety, a way to channel the tension into a more positive and contestable domain.

Not everyone believes it all happened the way it did by accident. Many within NASA felt and I suspect many continue to feel that the many frightening Soviet space firsts were the result of an intentional, passive collusion by the highest element(s) of our own government who saw the great advantage of a population and a congress initially horrified to find themselves in second place, willing to write the blankest of checks in the hopes that it would be enough to restore us to technological preeminence.

link



posted on Sep, 12 2012 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by talklikeapirat
 


That's a very interesting bit of information. It seems plausible.

But it is only conjecture. The quote only discusses personal opinion and does not explain how the US could have control over the SU in many aspects and still be beaten into space due to political gridlock.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by thesungod
 


He conclusively published information the State Department would only release when forced to do so. Congress didnt know about it and certainly not the american public.
It stirred up a huge controversy when the informartion he presented came to light. The facts have never been convincingly refuted, only dismissed or ignored, instead he was personally attacked and his career had been destroyed when he was forced out of the Hoover Institute.

Before this goes on back and forth any longer, please point me to the facts, where his selective publishing has underminded the premise of his findings.





posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


Your question was based on the notion that the SU was really that far ahead technologically, a fact that has been atleast questioned as historically correct.


As can be seen, though the US was second to launch a satellite, the reason for that was not technology. The Army had the ability to launch a satellite in 1955, but were repeatedly denied the opportunity to do it. Even as late as April 1957 the US could have beaten the Soviets to launching Earth's first satellite, but once more ABMA was refused the premission they required to act. It was purely because of political reasons that the US lost the race to launch a satellite, not, as the hoax proponents claim, because of any lack of technology.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
reply to post by thesungod
 

Before this goes on back and forth any longer, please point me to the facts, where his selective publishing has underminded the premise of his findings.


Fair enough request. Where would you like me to start?

ETA: Cite which State Department report you want me to pull up?
edit on 13-9-2012 by thesungod because: see eta



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by 11235813213455
Didn't this theory originate from the marajua & '___' soured brain of Noam Chomsky?

Hardly believable... definitely fantastic. By all means head down that rabbit hole if you have that kind of time to waste.


A little too much resonance there for sure but how else are we going to read the dictionary to find a definition?

Chomsky was on Theodore Kaczynski's hit list or the other way around...

"Leftism is a totalitarian force. Wherever leftism is in a position of power it tends to invade every private corner and force every thought into a leftist mold. In part this is because of the quasi-religious character of leftism; everything contrary to leftist beliefs represents Sin."



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by talklikeapirat
reply to post by thesungod
 


He conclusively published information the State Department would only release when forced to do so. Congress didnt know about it and certainly not the american public.
It stirred up a huge controversy when the informartion he presented came to light. The facts have never been convincingly refuted, only dismissed or ignored, instead he was personally attacked and his career had been destroyed when he was forced out of the Hoover Institute.

Before this goes on back and forth any longer, please point me to the facts, where his selective publishing has underminded the premise of his findings.



That's what I thought.

ETA: See my problem with Sutton now?
edit on 13-9-2012 by thesungod because: see eta



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I think an apology is in order. The thread should have been purely informational and regret now how some parts of the OP are worded and should be formulated more sensitively.

I had the idea for this thread in my 'mental pipeline' for quite a while, knowing the information exists. The cold war era is now over for more then 20 years, or so one would think.
There are for more interesting and important subjects to cover. But whenever i read remarks like russia might be "still our enemy No.1", i had to realize how vital and persistent the propaganda initiated over five decades ago still is today and i felt compelled to finally write this thread.
The basic premise still stands, a gigantic technology transfer of key 'military' equipment and-infrastructre took place, in complete contradiction to official state doctrine.

From this day forward, you should never take seriously any State Department official (and certainly not the Secretary of State) who announces to the press that this nation is now, and has always been, engaged in a worldwide struggle against Communism and Sovietaggression.
-Antony Sutton-



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by thesungod
 





Because we were Allies before we were enemies? The pulling of the curtain was largely brought on by my country, the USA.


But the contrary was true, this is exactly the point.




Cite which State Department report you want me to pull up?

-The Kama River Truck Plant-


The War Potential of the Kama Truck Plant

Up to 1968 American construction of Soviet military truck plants was presented as "peaceful trade." In the late 1960s Soviet planners decided to build the largest truck factory in the world. This plant, spread over 36 square miles situated on the Kama River, has an annual output of 100,000 multi-axle 10-ton trucks, trailers, and off-the-road vehicles. It was evident from the outset, given absence of Soviet technology in the automotive industry, that the design, engineering work, and key equipment for such a facility would have to come from the United States.

In 1972, under President Nixon and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger, the pretense of "peaceful trade" was abandoned and the Department of Commerce admitted (Human Events, Dec. 1971) that the proposed Kama plant had military potential. Not only that, but according to a department spokesman, the military capability was taken into account when the export licenses were issued for Kama.

Here are the corporations with major contracts at Kama River, listed with the name and address of the Chairman of the Board in 1972.

GULF & WESTERN INDUSTRIES, INC.
1 Gulf and Western Plaza, New York NY 10023
Tel. (212) 333-7000
Chairman of the Board: Charles G. Bluhdorn
Note: Charles Bluhdorn is also a Trustee of Freedoms Foundations
at Valley Forge and Chairman of Paramount Pictures Corp.

E. W. BLISS CO. (a subsidiary of Gulf & Western)
217 Second Street NW, Canton, Ohio 44702
Tel. (216) 453-7701
Chairman of the Board: Carl E. Anderson
Note: Carl E. Anderson is also Chairman of the American-Israel
Chamber of Commerce & Industry

COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC.
277 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Tel. (212) 826-7100
Chairman of the Board: Arthur J. Santry, Jr.

HOLCROFT AND COMPANY
12062 Market Street, Livonia, Mich. 48150
Tel. (313) 261-8410
Chairman of the Board: John A. McMann

HONEYWELL, INC.
2701 4th Avenue S., Minneapolis, Minn. 55408
Tel. (612) 332-5200
Chairman of the Board: James H. Binger

INGERSOLL MILLING MACHINE COMPANY
707 Fulton Street, Rockford, ILL 61101
Tel. (815) 963-6461
Chairman of the Board: Robert M. Gaylord

NATIONAL ENGINEERING CO.
20 N. Wacker Drive, Chicago, ILL 60606
Tel. (312) 782-6140
Chairman of the Board: Bruce L. Simpson

PULLMAN, INC.
200 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, ILL 60604
Tel. (312) 939-4262
Chairman of the Board: W. Irving Osborne, Jr.

SWINDELL-DRESSLER CO. (Division of Pullman, Inc.)
441 Smithfield Street, Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel. (412) 391-4800
Chairman of the Board: Donald J. Morfee

WARNER & SWAZEY
11000 Cedar Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44106
Tel. (216) 431-6014
Chairman of the Board: James C. Hodge

CHASE MANHATTAN BANK
Chairman of the Board: David Rockefeller

DeafMuteBlindmen


The information is documented in detail in the congressional records, i was unable to find the original State Department files, but maybe you know where to find them.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join