Full Version: Return of Soviet Empire
well here's to keeping CURRENT, kimov 
even China is adopting capitalism (lite) in order to "keep up." maybe it's your leaders who sent Russia into the dire situations. quit looking to blame everyone else.
even China is adopting capitalism (lite) in order to "keep up." maybe it's your leaders who sent Russia into the dire situations. quit looking to blame everyone else.
Kimov there is no reason to imply someone is ignorant to history because they disagree with you. Debate the issues without attacking members.
Kimov, according to www.cia.gov the current Russian economy's GDP is $ 1.35 trillion. The U.S.'s is eight times that. Russia's labor force is 71.8 million people. The U.S. is twice that. The Russian government’s revenue is $70 billion. The U.S. is 25 times that. So do you really think that the sudden fall of democracy and capitalism in Russia and the return of the U.S.S.R. would change things? When, in history, has a coup resulted in the rapid increase of GDP to 800% of what it was before?
Kimov, these are the engines of power. I'm sorry, but Russia is no longer a super power.
Some calculations for your consideration:
The CIA lists the U.S.'s GDP growth rate at about 3% (which is much lower than usual because of recession).
This year: Russia's GDP = $1,350 Billion and the U.S.'s GDP = $10,400 Billion.
Now let's assume that the Russian economy grows at a rate of 30% EVERY year. (This is even stronger than you suggest by saying that it grew 30% in SOME years.)
Under these outlandish circumstances, it would take 10 years for the Soviet economy to out grow the American one.
Now if we assume more realistic numbers like the U.S. growth rate is 6%, and cut your gross overestimate of the growth of the Russian economy in half (15%), we can see that it would take more like 30 years for Russia to catch up.
Kimov, I'm just stating the facts. The way armyies are built and wars are waged and space programs are fueled is through the work of a nation's people. GDP is a measure of the ability of a people to work and produce. It is clear that even if you think Communism leads to a stronger economy Russia is too far behind to catch up any time soon.
Like I said:
The Russian economy is not strong enough to pose a threat to the U.S. even if the U.S.S.R. returns.
All of my statements here gloss over the fact that Capitalism is far supperior to Communism. I will discus this in another thread, if you wish, because I do not want to use up space here.
Kimov, these are the engines of power. I'm sorry, but Russia is no longer a super power.
Some calculations for your consideration:
The CIA lists the U.S.'s GDP growth rate at about 3% (which is much lower than usual because of recession).
This year: Russia's GDP = $1,350 Billion and the U.S.'s GDP = $10,400 Billion.
Now let's assume that the Russian economy grows at a rate of 30% EVERY year. (This is even stronger than you suggest by saying that it grew 30% in SOME years.)
Under these outlandish circumstances, it would take 10 years for the Soviet economy to out grow the American one.
Now if we assume more realistic numbers like the U.S. growth rate is 6%, and cut your gross overestimate of the growth of the Russian economy in half (15%), we can see that it would take more like 30 years for Russia to catch up.
Kimov, I'm just stating the facts. The way armyies are built and wars are waged and space programs are fueled is through the work of a nation's people. GDP is a measure of the ability of a people to work and produce. It is clear that even if you think Communism leads to a stronger economy Russia is too far behind to catch up any time soon.
Like I said:
The Russian economy is not strong enough to pose a threat to the U.S. even if the U.S.S.R. returns.
All of my statements here gloss over the fact that Capitalism is far supperior to Communism. I will discus this in another thread, if you wish, because I do not want to use up space here.
QUOTE(campbejm @ Oct 15 2003, 10:00 PM)
Kimov, according to www.cia.gov the current Russian economy's GDP is $ 1.35 trillion. The U.S.'s is eight times that. Russia's labor force is 71.8 million people. The U.S. is twice that. The Russian government’s revenue is $70 billion. The U.S. is 25 times that. So do you really think that the sudden fall of democracy and capitalism in Russia and the return of the U.S.S.R. would change things? When, in history, has a coup resulted in the rapid increase of GDP to 800% of what it was before?
Kimov, these are the engines of power. I'm sorry, but Russia is no longer a super power.
Some calculations for your consideration:
The CIA lists the U.S.'s GDP growth rate at about 3% (which is much lower than usual because of recession).
This year: Russia's GDP = $1,350 Billion and the U.S.'s GDP = $10,400 Billion.
Now let's assume that the Russian economy grows at a rate of 30% EVERY year. (This is even stronger than you suggest by saying that it grew 30% in SOME years.)
Under these outlandish circumstances, it would take 10 years for the Soviet economy to out grow the American one.
Now if we assume more realistic numbers like the U.S. growth rate is 6%, and cut your gross overestimate of the growth of the Russian economy in half (15%), we can see that it would take more like 30 years for Russia to catch up.
Kimov, I'm just stating the facts. The way armyies are built and wars are waged and space programs are fueled is through the work of a nation's people. GDP is a measure of the ability of a people to work and produce. It is clear that even if you think Communism leads to a stronger economy Russia is too far behind to catch up any time soon.
Like I said:
The Russian economy is not strong enough to pose a threat to the U.S. even if the U.S.S.R. returns.
All of my statements here gloss over the fact that Capitalism is far supperior to Communism. I will discus this in another thread, if you wish, because I do not want to use up space here.
Kimov, these are the engines of power. I'm sorry, but Russia is no longer a super power.
Some calculations for your consideration:
The CIA lists the U.S.'s GDP growth rate at about 3% (which is much lower than usual because of recession).
This year: Russia's GDP = $1,350 Billion and the U.S.'s GDP = $10,400 Billion.
Now let's assume that the Russian economy grows at a rate of 30% EVERY year. (This is even stronger than you suggest by saying that it grew 30% in SOME years.)
Under these outlandish circumstances, it would take 10 years for the Soviet economy to out grow the American one.
Now if we assume more realistic numbers like the U.S. growth rate is 6%, and cut your gross overestimate of the growth of the Russian economy in half (15%), we can see that it would take more like 30 years for Russia to catch up.
Kimov, I'm just stating the facts. The way armyies are built and wars are waged and space programs are fueled is through the work of a nation's people. GDP is a measure of the ability of a people to work and produce. It is clear that even if you think Communism leads to a stronger economy Russia is too far behind to catch up any time soon.
Like I said:
The Russian economy is not strong enough to pose a threat to the U.S. even if the U.S.S.R. returns.
All of my statements here gloss over the fact that Capitalism is far supperior to Communism. I will discus this in another thread, if you wish, because I do not want to use up space here.
The REAL engine of power is TECHNOLOGY. Here's lesson of history. During Cuban Missile Crisis, Americans gave up not because they were peace-loving people (they were NOT - they planned to destroy nukes on Cuba and start WW3), but because Soviet superiority in military technology gave capitalists zero chances of winning nuke war. In summer of 1962, Soviets accomplished their operation called "Anadyr" (super-cold Russian city where chukchas live). Soviet Union can be proud of it. Even though Soviets didn't have sea superiority, they managed to secretly install nuclear missiles on Cuba. 36 R-12 nuclear missiles, 42 Il-28 bombers, 40 MiG-21s (these excellent machines burned American fighters like matchboxes in skies of Vietnam), 144 S-75 anti-aircraft defence systems (if my numbers are wrong, please, correct them). Russian nukes were aiming at America's most important regions. That was quite fair, since Americans already placed their "Jupiter"-class nukes in Turkey, targeting european part of USSR. 14 of october American U-2 detected Soviet nukes on Cuba (that was quite easy, since it is hard to hide something in Cuban terrain). Americans demanded Soviets to remove nukes. Soviets demanded Americans to remove nukes from Turkey first. Americans declined, preparing for operation "Mangoose". In their fear of death from Soviet nukes, they blockaded Cuba with REALLY HUGE force: 117 destroyers, 8 aircraft carriers, 2 cruisers, 30 submarines and 65 dropships, they prepared 40 airstrips with B-47s, armed with nuclear charges (again, correct the numbers if I am mistaken). Americans wanted to launch 430 military aircrafts, destroying Soviet nukes before they start (R-12 required fueling before start). But great Soviet technologies once again ruined all American plans. 27 of october Soviet S-75 missile blasted U-2, piloted by Robert Anderson. Americans re-examined their plans. They understood that they will NEVER destroy Soviet nukes before they start, because Soviets will intercept most of pathetic American aircrafts. American cruise missiles? What they cost if "Shkwal" systems will destroy all of them? American bombers? S-75 blasts them without problems. TOTAL American superiority in NUMBERS of nuclear warheads gave them NOTHING. Their stupid aircraft carriers and heavy bombers were simply EXPENSIVE TOYS, useless in real war. They understood that Soviets would win nuke war once it started. Americans would have to spend trillions of dollars on ICBMs and strategic submarines. Even having nuclear superiority, Americans gave up. Wars cannot be won with economy. Tech beats numbers, so Americans were forced to removed nukes from Turkey and Soviets removed nukes from Cuba. Flawless victory of Soviet Union, don't you think?
Look, we don't ever PLAN to overcome you in matters of GDP or in matters of population. We need just to finish our projects, started in Soviet Union.
We have x-ray pollycappilari lens technology to make nanocomputers for almost free. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.
We have ToKaMaK - the key to fusion reactor to produce energy for almost free. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.
We have prototypes of "Molniya" shuttle, which will decrease costs of space travel by 40 (forty) TIMES. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.
We have MGD-drive and prototype of "AYaKS" hypersonic vehicle. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.
We have aquasine - cheap and efficient fuel that consists mostly of water. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.
We have "EKIP" - UFO-shaped hybrid of skimmer and aircraft, which is fast, have long range, can land on any sort of terrain and can be fueled by aquasine alone. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.
We have "Teleskop/Bochonok" - device that control weather on global scale. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.
We have land-based anti-aircraft mines, that are extra-cheap and can intercept helicopters, aircrafts and cruise missiles. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.
We have FAR-based plasma weapons. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.
We have "Marabu" (integrated part of new MiG-MFI, by the way), the device that generates plasma field and renders aircraft or missile invisible for radar. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.
This is documented information.
When we put our technolgies to series production, GDP won't save you. 15 aircraft carriers won't save you. National Anti-Ballistic Defence won't save you.
Functional technology is THE ONLY REAL instrument of power. Everything else is toys of petty politicians.
A quick lesson in economics:
People perform tasks. They do things like farm or invent things or build things. It takes a certain amount of production to support a population (i.e. you have to grow enough food). The more efficient labor is, less number of laborers will have to be devoted to these ‘survival’ tasks. Thus, the more of that labor can be freed up and used for other things, like scientific research.
We can measure the efficiency of both nations by looking at the about of production produced by each laborer in a year. (Total GDP divided by Total Number of Laborers).
- Each member of Russia's labor force produces $18,802 worth of production per year.
- Each member of the U.S.'s labor force produces $73,342 worth of production per year.
Now, what this means is that the more efficient labor in the U.S. frees up more laborers to do scientific research. So instead of listing what the U.S. has that the Russian Federation (or coming U.S.S.R.) doesn't have in a contest of who can look up the most of beat websites, I will conclude that by looking at efficacy we can see that the U.S.'s capability for technological research far out weighs that of Russia.
So, Kimov, you see GDP and labor force and government revenue are all measures that can show a nations strengths and weaknesses. These are real facts. This is concrete logic stemming for only a few undisputed numbers. This is the way the world really is.
Further, regardless of national strength, you have failed to provide any evidence that Communist's will take over Russia. You have not provided any logical explanation why these Communists will suddenly make an enemy of the sole super power in the world. You have provided no credible evidence supporting any statement you make. In short, I think you’re just making things up to stir up the pot. Don’t waste our time with half baked websites in Russian that are clearly posted by some goof working out of his basement, designing facts to support his presumed conclusions. Until you provide some logic and credible evidence, I can no longer respond to your posts.
People perform tasks. They do things like farm or invent things or build things. It takes a certain amount of production to support a population (i.e. you have to grow enough food). The more efficient labor is, less number of laborers will have to be devoted to these ‘survival’ tasks. Thus, the more of that labor can be freed up and used for other things, like scientific research.
We can measure the efficiency of both nations by looking at the about of production produced by each laborer in a year. (Total GDP divided by Total Number of Laborers).
- Each member of Russia's labor force produces $18,802 worth of production per year.
- Each member of the U.S.'s labor force produces $73,342 worth of production per year.
Now, what this means is that the more efficient labor in the U.S. frees up more laborers to do scientific research. So instead of listing what the U.S. has that the Russian Federation (or coming U.S.S.R.) doesn't have in a contest of who can look up the most of beat websites, I will conclude that by looking at efficacy we can see that the U.S.'s capability for technological research far out weighs that of Russia.
So, Kimov, you see GDP and labor force and government revenue are all measures that can show a nations strengths and weaknesses. These are real facts. This is concrete logic stemming for only a few undisputed numbers. This is the way the world really is.
Further, regardless of national strength, you have failed to provide any evidence that Communist's will take over Russia. You have not provided any logical explanation why these Communists will suddenly make an enemy of the sole super power in the world. You have provided no credible evidence supporting any statement you make. In short, I think you’re just making things up to stir up the pot. Don’t waste our time with half baked websites in Russian that are clearly posted by some goof working out of his basement, designing facts to support his presumed conclusions. Until you provide some logic and credible evidence, I can no longer respond to your posts.
QUOTE
Now, what this means is that the more efficient labor in the U.S. frees up more laborers to do scientific research
I wouldn't discount the Soviet capabilities in science. This has always been a key strength of theirs--perhaps because of American economic superiority (the only way to leap ahead of a bigger economy is with better technology).
Kimov--your versions of history, while interesting, seem a bit slanted. It was the Soviet convoy that gave up and turned around, not the American fleet. Granted, they did get the missles removed from Turkey, which was probably their primary goal all along. But to say that America gave up in the face of Soviet military might is twisting the facts fairly significantly. Also, I am still looking for the scenario in which America back-stabbed the Soviets at the end of WWII. I believe the facts indicate that it was in fact the Soviets who took advantage of the West's tiring of the war effort by usurping the Eastern bloc, setting them up as puppet governments. This would show it was in fact Russia that held the knife, not the reverse. If you have anything to contradict this series of events, please illuminate us.
Also, if the Soviet economy was growing so quickly (30% or more), why did it end up collapsing economically? It was this collapse that lead to perestroika, not the reverse. I would put forth that it was economic inefficiency that led to excessive focus of the economy on various industrial segments, as this was the only way to keep up with the West in those key areas. However, the segments neglected then led to the downfall of the economy.
QUOTE
Functional technology is THE ONLY REAL instrument of power. Everything else is toys of petty politicians.
Well, when I see this functional technology, I'll believe in it. Until then, I will continue to set my faith in the successful western world and its technological superiority.
x-ray pollycappilari lens technology
ToKaMak
"Molniya" shuttle
"AYaKS" hypersonic vehicle
aquasine
"EKIP" - UFO shaped hybrid of skimmer and aircraft
Teleskop/Bochonok
land-based anti aircraft mines
FAR-based plasma weapons
"Marabu" ...and renders aircraft and missile invisible for radar.
Nothing in this list is new except for the aquasine fuel. All of the others are old idea's most of which have long since been public knowledge.
Here is a few more links for you to brood upon.
http://www.abqtrib.com/archives/news03/072...ws_lasers.shtml
http://www.metalstorm.com/
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/unmanned-combat-03f.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/unmanned-combat-03d.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-03zn.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/laser-03l.html
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rlv-03k.html
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?Do..._page=index.cfm
QUOTE(campbejm @ Oct 15 2003, 08:10 AM)
Communism on a vast scale is not capable of keeping pace with capitalism.
When Communism was in its Hay-Day, it was often argued as the best economic system for a very simple reason.
In communism, money is spent only on things that are important. Where capitalists would waste millions on movies, toys, basket-balls, etc communist can put that money into technology. Remember Sputnik? When the americans gave their response, it flew up a couple of feet in the air and died. The media called it "Flopnik," and then the US puts billions into science programs.
Russia eventually had its problems, but I don't believe that communism was totally to blame.
If what Kimov says is true, couple that with the rise of neo-nazism in Germany and the last French election in which the racist party headed by Le Pen (?) did better than expected...and if allowed to head in those directions this Franco-German-Russian Alliance will become...VERY scary.
things that make you go....hmmmmmmmmm
things that make you go....hmmmmmmmmm
[quote]We have x-ray pollycappilari lens technology to make nanocomputers for almost free. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]Oh yes we do. In fact, Muradin Kumakhov was a friend of Professor Charles Gibson at the University of Albany (NY). He formed a joint company here in the US, to exploit this technology:
[quote]At the heart of the instrument is a new type of optics for X-rays called "capillary optics."
The new instrument is based on technology first conceived by Russian physicist Muradin Kumakhov. Five years ago, Kumakhov and Gibson, who had collaborated on various research projects for 20 years, unveiled the technology in this country and formed a partnership to further develop it.
The University established the Center for X-Ray Optics to conduct research related to the new technology and David Gibson, son of Walter Gibson, established X-Ray Optical Systems, Inc. to develop commercial applications.
Last year, X-Ray Optical Systems was the winner of a 1995 R&D 100 Award, an honor bestowed by R&D Magazine on the 100 most technologically significant new products of the year. Sharing the award was the University for the contributions of physicist Raymond Benenson, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The honored product was a neutron-focusing optical device that enables scientists to better analyze small samples of materials such as semiconductors, polymers and ceramics.[/quote]
[quote]We have ToKaMaK - the key to fusion reactor to produce energy for almost free. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]Sorry, but as a matter of fact we have over a dozen of these facilities right here in the good 'ol US of A. Again, most of these are or were, joint Russian/American startups at universities, and a few private companies here.
[quote]We have prototypes of "Molniya" shuttle, which will decrease costs of space travel by 40 (forty) TIMES. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]
Umm, no you don't. Funding was cut so badly in 1999 that Molniya didn't complete the prototype, much less get into production.
[quote]We have MGD-drive and prototype of "AYaKS" hypersonic vehicle. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]I don't know what this MGD drive is, but you don't have a hypersonic vehicle, either. You have one full scale mock-up. Funding has been much less than adequate for anything else. From the russianspaceweb.com site:
[quote]In 2001, at the MAKS air and space show in Moscow, the Flight Research Institute, LII, based in Zhukovskiy, displayed a full-scale mockup of the winged HFL-VK experimental vehicle designed for test flights at hypersonic speeds.The program is partially financed by the Russian Aviation and Space Agency, Rosaviacosmos, however, according to LII representatives, the funds were insufficient for active development.[/quote]
[quote]We have aquasine - cheap and efficient fuel that consists mostly of water. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]Sure we do, it was another joint project of the US/Soviets.
[quote]At the first Soviet-American commercial exhibition (1989), Eduard Isayev and his disciples demonstrated three products -the Aquasine aqueous-hydrocarbon fuel; a highly efficient heavy petroleum extractant; and a liquefaction agent capable of reducing heavy petroleum to a consistence fit for piping. Once skeptical, his colleagues got interested.[/quote]
[quote]We have "EKIP" - UFO-shaped hybrid of skimmer and aircraft, which is fast, have long range, can land on any sort of terrain and can be fueled by aquasine alone. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]
Absolutely true. But you don't have it in production yet. You have two half scale prototypes and one full scale, that hasn't been in flight since 2001, again because of lack of funding.
[quote]We have land-based anti-aircraft mines, that are extra-cheap and can intercept helicopters, aircrafts and cruise missiles. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]
Sure we do. Just because you haven't seen them in action doesn't mean they don't exist.
[quote]We have FAR-based plasma weapons. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]
Actually I'd be pretty amazed if you had them either.
[quote]We have "Marabu" (integrated part of new MiG-MFI, by the way), the device that generates plasma field and renders aircraft or missile invisible for radar. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]
Actually, we don't need it. Our own stealth technology seems to work pretty well. And I've actually read about this plasma field generator. It doesn't completely mask the vehicle, just makes it harder to see. It's still breakable.
[quote]We have "Teleskop/Bochonok" - device that control weather on global scale. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]
Never heard of it. Don't need it. We have Pat Robertson.
Seriously, I doubt whether anyone has the power to actually control global weather patterns. The HAARP systems (developed in the US, by the way), may be able to make regional weather problems, but the power needed even for that is going to be prohibitive vs the effects.
[quote]When we put our technolgies to series production, GDP won't save you. 15 aircraft carriers won't save you. National Anti-Ballistic Defence won't save you.[/quote]
Here's the point you seem to keep missing, Kimov. Russia can't get these technologies off of the ground without a healthy GDP, and it doesn't have it. Hell Russia's GDP right now would be almost non-existant, if it weren't for their oil production. And if you think that it would be any better under Socialist order, think again. The same thing will happen that happened in the late 80s, early 90s. You may be able to fund the military at that point, but the rest of the economy will collapse. Again. And then things will be worse there than they are now.
[quote]At the heart of the instrument is a new type of optics for X-rays called "capillary optics."
The new instrument is based on technology first conceived by Russian physicist Muradin Kumakhov. Five years ago, Kumakhov and Gibson, who had collaborated on various research projects for 20 years, unveiled the technology in this country and formed a partnership to further develop it.
The University established the Center for X-Ray Optics to conduct research related to the new technology and David Gibson, son of Walter Gibson, established X-Ray Optical Systems, Inc. to develop commercial applications.
Last year, X-Ray Optical Systems was the winner of a 1995 R&D 100 Award, an honor bestowed by R&D Magazine on the 100 most technologically significant new products of the year. Sharing the award was the University for the contributions of physicist Raymond Benenson, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The honored product was a neutron-focusing optical device that enables scientists to better analyze small samples of materials such as semiconductors, polymers and ceramics.[/quote]
[quote]We have ToKaMaK - the key to fusion reactor to produce energy for almost free. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]Sorry, but as a matter of fact we have over a dozen of these facilities right here in the good 'ol US of A. Again, most of these are or were, joint Russian/American startups at universities, and a few private companies here.
[quote]We have prototypes of "Molniya" shuttle, which will decrease costs of space travel by 40 (forty) TIMES. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]
Umm, no you don't. Funding was cut so badly in 1999 that Molniya didn't complete the prototype, much less get into production.
[quote]We have MGD-drive and prototype of "AYaKS" hypersonic vehicle. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]I don't know what this MGD drive is, but you don't have a hypersonic vehicle, either. You have one full scale mock-up. Funding has been much less than adequate for anything else. From the russianspaceweb.com site:
[quote]In 2001, at the MAKS air and space show in Moscow, the Flight Research Institute, LII, based in Zhukovskiy, displayed a full-scale mockup of the winged HFL-VK experimental vehicle designed for test flights at hypersonic speeds.The program is partially financed by the Russian Aviation and Space Agency, Rosaviacosmos, however, according to LII representatives, the funds were insufficient for active development.[/quote]
[quote]We have aquasine - cheap and efficient fuel that consists mostly of water. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]Sure we do, it was another joint project of the US/Soviets.
[quote]At the first Soviet-American commercial exhibition (1989), Eduard Isayev and his disciples demonstrated three products -the Aquasine aqueous-hydrocarbon fuel; a highly efficient heavy petroleum extractant; and a liquefaction agent capable of reducing heavy petroleum to a consistence fit for piping. Once skeptical, his colleagues got interested.[/quote]
[quote]We have "EKIP" - UFO-shaped hybrid of skimmer and aircraft, which is fast, have long range, can land on any sort of terrain and can be fueled by aquasine alone. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]
Absolutely true. But you don't have it in production yet. You have two half scale prototypes and one full scale, that hasn't been in flight since 2001, again because of lack of funding.
[quote]We have land-based anti-aircraft mines, that are extra-cheap and can intercept helicopters, aircrafts and cruise missiles. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]
Sure we do. Just because you haven't seen them in action doesn't mean they don't exist.
[quote]We have FAR-based plasma weapons. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]
Actually I'd be pretty amazed if you had them either.
[quote]We have "Marabu" (integrated part of new MiG-MFI, by the way), the device that generates plasma field and renders aircraft or missile invisible for radar. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]
Actually, we don't need it. Our own stealth technology seems to work pretty well. And I've actually read about this plasma field generator. It doesn't completely mask the vehicle, just makes it harder to see. It's still breakable.
[quote]We have "Teleskop/Bochonok" - device that control weather on global scale. YOU DON'T HAVE IT.[/quote]
Never heard of it. Don't need it. We have Pat Robertson.
Seriously, I doubt whether anyone has the power to actually control global weather patterns. The HAARP systems (developed in the US, by the way), may be able to make regional weather problems, but the power needed even for that is going to be prohibitive vs the effects. [quote]When we put our technolgies to series production, GDP won't save you. 15 aircraft carriers won't save you. National Anti-Ballistic Defence won't save you.[/quote]
Here's the point you seem to keep missing, Kimov. Russia can't get these technologies off of the ground without a healthy GDP, and it doesn't have it. Hell Russia's GDP right now would be almost non-existant, if it weren't for their oil production. And if you think that it would be any better under Socialist order, think again. The same thing will happen that happened in the late 80s, early 90s. You may be able to fund the military at that point, but the rest of the economy will collapse. Again. And then things will be worse there than they are now.
Niteguy, you are a riot!!! 
I loved your
Engineer Kimov, I've heard that the Russian military is in such disarray that their soldiers had to boil grass to eat at one point after the fall of Communism because the government couldn't afford to feed them. AND that some soldiers even steal equipment and sell it to terrorists and third world countries. If this is true, how could the government afford to fund all those projects?
I loved your
QUOTE
Never heard of it. Don't need it. We have Pat Robertson.
response! Engineer Kimov, I've heard that the Russian military is in such disarray that their soldiers had to boil grass to eat at one point after the fall of Communism because the government couldn't afford to feed them. AND that some soldiers even steal equipment and sell it to terrorists and third world countries. If this is true, how could the government afford to fund all those projects?
QUOTE(Billy Jean @ Oct 15 2003, 06:54 PM)
Engineer Kimov, I've heard that the Russian military is in such disarray that their soldiers had to boil grass to eat at one point after the fall of Communism because the government couldn't afford to feed them. AND that some soldiers even steal equipment and sell it to terrorists and third world countries. If this is true, how could the government afford to fund all those projects?
A little money from Iraq when they sold them GPS jammers to jam our GPS guided bombs (which didn't work by the way)
It's amazing how corrupt the Russian Government is. It's more corrupt then it was during the USSR era. It's citzens are dirt poor and soldiers eat grass for food.
QUOTE(BecomingHuman @ Oct 15 2003, 11:23 PM)
When Communism was in its Hay-Day, it was often argued as the best economic system for a very simple reason.
In communism, money is spent only on things that are important. Where capitalists would waste millions on movies, toys, basket-balls, etc communist can put that money into technology. Remember Sputnik? When the americans gave their response, it flew up a couple of feet in the air and died. The media called it "Flopnik," and then the US puts billions into science programs.
Russia eventually had its problems, but I don't believe that communism was totally to blame.
In communism, money is spent only on things that are important. Where capitalists would waste millions on movies, toys, basket-balls, etc communist can put that money into technology. Remember Sputnik? When the americans gave their response, it flew up a couple of feet in the air and died. The media called it "Flopnik," and then the US puts billions into science programs.
Russia eventually had its problems, but I don't believe that communism was totally to blame.
This is a typical Communist argument. Usually it is coupled my allegation that capitalism creates redundancy by having more than one entity doing the same task. This may be true. However, a Russian-type Communist economy that is administered by the government is fundamentally flawed in two ways that give capitalism an enormous edge.
1) Communism robs the public of incentive to work hard, thus steeply decreasing the efficiency of labor. This decreased efficiency snow balls into a slow growth rate of capital stock. Production (and I use that word in the broadest sense, i.e. stuff, services, technology, etc.) is capital + labor. A Communist economy is flawed because labor efficiency is lower and capital stock is harder to build. So regardless of what a capitalistic society is producing in a snap shot picture like your example, when a capitalistic society puts it will to something, it can make it happen very quickly. (Sputnik happened and then the U.S. was on the moon within 12 years.)
2) The administrative expense of planning a national economy is HUGE. In Communism this is a drag on the economy because it has to be done by a centralized authority (i.e. the government bears these costs as non-productive expenses, which do not count towards GDP). In Capitalism this task is done by entrepreneurial participants in the economy for their own benefit, thereby transferring this cost from the public to those willing to bear it.
So what I am saying is that yes the Communist economy of Russia did in fact lead to the economic collapse and fall of the U.S.S.R.
campbejm
Agreed.
SoCaliente
I would not worry to much about the return of the nazi's in Germany if I were you. Their 'advances' are extremely marginal at best.
Becoming Human
So? The communists were lucky in that they had a genius working for them; SP Korolev.
Without him, they would not have had the R7 rocket, and since that rocket carried both Sputnik and Gagarin, whilst also doubling as the worlds first ICBM, then all their initial successes in the field of space exploration stem back to the work of just one individual.
Alas, being in a communist state, Korolev himself was denied any acclaim or credit, and was never even mentioned in public except as the 'chief designer'. In the west he would have been afforded great prestige and honour but in the USSR he lived in a freezing hovel (that is after he was released from the labour camp) and was eventually killed during a routine operation by a drunk surgeon.
In a capitalist society, like the USA Korolev would have lived in comfort, had excellent medical care and had great honours bestowed him as a sign of the gratitude of his people.
In Russia, Korolev received a monument.
After his death, the Soviets turned to other skilled engineers, but the heart of adventure had gone out of their program. With Korolev's passing the Soviets became very technical and less daring.
It has to be said though, that they still made some of the finest rockets ever, but they scrapped going to the moon, and concentrated on space station technology (which in my opinion is far more important any way) instead.
This can be seen today in the ISS which, although largely paid for by America and her western allies, could not function at all without Russian know how and Russian rockets.
I don't mean to portray the Soviet space industry in a bad light, but I feel that it succeeded mostly because of the individuals and not because of the system within which they lived.
Imagine what Korolev might have acheived if he had lived in an open society.
Your right. The natural human propensity to evolve caused communism to fail. In nature (and mirrored in capitalism) it is competition and play that gets result. Through competituion we get evolution, and through play we learn new things.
Agreed.
SoCaliente
QUOTE
If what Kimov says is true, couple that with the rise of neo-nazism in Germany and the last French election in which the racist party headed by Le Pen (?) did better than expected...and if allowed to head in those directions this Franco-German-Russian Alliance will become...VERY scary.
I would not worry to much about the return of the nazi's in Germany if I were you. Their 'advances' are extremely marginal at best.
Becoming Human
QUOTE
In communism, money is spent only on things that are important. Where capitalists would waste millions on movies, toys, basket-balls, etc communist can put that money into technology. Remember Sputnik? When the americans gave their response, it flew up a couple of feet in the air and died. The media called it "Flopnik," and then the US puts billions into science programs.
So? The communists were lucky in that they had a genius working for them; SP Korolev.
Without him, they would not have had the R7 rocket, and since that rocket carried both Sputnik and Gagarin, whilst also doubling as the worlds first ICBM, then all their initial successes in the field of space exploration stem back to the work of just one individual.
Alas, being in a communist state, Korolev himself was denied any acclaim or credit, and was never even mentioned in public except as the 'chief designer'. In the west he would have been afforded great prestige and honour but in the USSR he lived in a freezing hovel (that is after he was released from the labour camp) and was eventually killed during a routine operation by a drunk surgeon.
In a capitalist society, like the USA Korolev would have lived in comfort, had excellent medical care and had great honours bestowed him as a sign of the gratitude of his people.
In Russia, Korolev received a monument.
After his death, the Soviets turned to other skilled engineers, but the heart of adventure had gone out of their program. With Korolev's passing the Soviets became very technical and less daring.
It has to be said though, that they still made some of the finest rockets ever, but they scrapped going to the moon, and concentrated on space station technology (which in my opinion is far more important any way) instead.
This can be seen today in the ISS which, although largely paid for by America and her western allies, could not function at all without Russian know how and Russian rockets.
I don't mean to portray the Soviet space industry in a bad light, but I feel that it succeeded mostly because of the individuals and not because of the system within which they lived.
Imagine what Korolev might have acheived if he had lived in an open society.
QUOTE
Russia eventually had its problems, but I don't believe that communism was totally to blame.
Your right. The natural human propensity to evolve caused communism to fail. In nature (and mirrored in capitalism) it is competition and play that gets result. Through competituion we get evolution, and through play we learn new things.
Don't touch Korolyov with your dirty hands, capitalist! Korolyov is product of Soviet System. He was the man from below, driven by ideas Bolsheviks brought to Russia. He didn't even get enough education when he started to build his gliders. Under capitalism, even if such character would be formed by capitalist system, which is unlikely, he would be serving as a sailor and never be able to fully develop his abilities, because he didn't have "sponsors" and didn't have enough skill when he started. Genius has nothing to do with genetics, it is years of work. Soviet system provided him with everything he needed, even in prison he received everything to develop his ideas. By the end of his life, he received all he deserved, he even had personal large jet plane at his personal disposal (in 50-60ies! Let me remind you that Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945 totally devastated the country).
MAKE IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD: Chief Designers are products of the Soviet System. Their worldview, their skills and their deeds would be impossible without Bolshevik Revolution. The only society I know of that was able to create such people, was Nazi Germany.
PS: And Korolyov wasn't perfect. The concept of his N-1 was flawed.
PPS: I will try to answer other questions soon, there are too many of them.
MAKE IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD: Chief Designers are products of the Soviet System. Their worldview, their skills and their deeds would be impossible without Bolshevik Revolution. The only society I know of that was able to create such people, was Nazi Germany.
PS: And Korolyov wasn't perfect. The concept of his N-1 was flawed.
PPS: I will try to answer other questions soon, there are too many of them.
Yeah? Then why was he in prison?
QUOTE(Engineer Kimov @ Oct 16 2003, 05:45 PM)
Under capitalism, even if such character would be formed by capitalist system, which is unlikely, he would be serving as a sailor and never be able to fully develop his abilities, because he didn't have "sponsors" and didn't have enough skill when he started. Genius has nothing to do with genetics, it is years of work.
I don't understand. Do you think that American people who are smart yet poor get put on sail boats? What are you trying to imply. What is a "sponser"? And why do you have to have one to be smart in America? Why am I an intelligent American, with a bright future, but have never heard of my need of a "sponser"?
On the contrarty, genius does have something to do with genetics. There are people born with more natural ability than others. Hard work is what this ability needs to flourish, but you have to have the bilding blocks to get there.
And why was he in prison?
QUOTE
SoCaliente
If what Kimov says is true, couple that with the rise of neo-nazism in Germany and the last French election in which the racist party headed by Le Pen (?) did better than expected...and if allowed to head in those directions this Franco-German-Russian Alliance will become...VERY scary.
If what Kimov says is true, couple that with the rise of neo-nazism in Germany and the last French election in which the racist party headed by Le Pen (?) did better than expected...and if allowed to head in those directions this Franco-German-Russian Alliance will become...VERY scary.
SoCal, you don't need to worry about the coming back of fascism to Germany and France. I do not know about Germany, but here is what I can say about France.
For some years now, There has been a big problem of mistrust between the population and the politicians in the country. People think that politicians are corrupt and that they care mostly about their own piece of the pie.
During the presidential election of 2002, many traditional voters decided to send a negative note to president Chirac (right-wing) and the socialist government of Mr Jospin (left-wing). Their only way to be heard was to vote for someone who would be the focus of all their frustrations... so in the end, le Pen made it to the second round. The Revolutionary Communist League also scored significant points.
What I mean to say is that French voters don't have a fascist or anarchist heart, but they are really tired of the promises that French politicians didn't keep.
I'm going to hit several diverse points here:
First, people have been saying that if the Russians or whoever want to instate Communism, Socialism, or whatever, that it is their right. This is false. It is not their right. Individuals have rights. Groups do not have rights except for those rights that derive from the fact that groups are constituted of individuals. But the group can never have a right that the individual does not. In fact, groups will have fewer rights than individuals because the group can only do those things that do not impose on the rights of each individaul.
If a group of people UNANIMOUSLY decide to have a commune, then so be it. But the instant one of them decides they want to do something else, that individual has a RIGHT to leave and do something else. And they shouldn't have to leave the country to do it.
In a free society, capitalism can exist side-by-side with voluntary communism. The only thing that cannot exist in a free society is COMPULSORY communism or socialism. When something is compulsory or non-voluntary, by definition it ceases to be free and becomes oppressive.
So if you want your communism, then you, as an individual cooperating VOLUNTARILY with other individuals, can have it to your heart's content. But you NEVER have a right to impose that system on someone else - not even if you are in the vast majority. Brute majority rule without limits to respect the fundamental rights of others amounts to the concept of "might makes right". Just because the majority thinks a thing does not make it right. If the majority wants to lynch a person, that does not make it a right thing to do. The majority of the Nazis wanted all the Jews dead, but that didn't make it right. The Jews still had rights to life as individuals just like everyone else.
For a better explanation of these concepts, see my articles with special attention to "Do 'We' have more rights than 'I'?":
Click Here
As for the productivity and economic growth of a particular system... I would argue that Stalin did NOT have the most economic growth of all time. I think that award would probably have to go to Hitler. Before Hitler came to power, Germany was in ABJECT POVERTY! It was in TERRIBLE shape. After Hitler, the German economy grew at an AMAZING rate in only a few years to become the world leader in industry and technology. But does that make Hitler's rule the best ever? Of course not! The rightness and justice of a political system cannot be measured solely by its economy. Slavery in the American South was very efficient in terms of production, but that didn't make it right. Using economic performance as a sole justification of a political system is absurd.
First, people have been saying that if the Russians or whoever want to instate Communism, Socialism, or whatever, that it is their right. This is false. It is not their right. Individuals have rights. Groups do not have rights except for those rights that derive from the fact that groups are constituted of individuals. But the group can never have a right that the individual does not. In fact, groups will have fewer rights than individuals because the group can only do those things that do not impose on the rights of each individaul.
If a group of people UNANIMOUSLY decide to have a commune, then so be it. But the instant one of them decides they want to do something else, that individual has a RIGHT to leave and do something else. And they shouldn't have to leave the country to do it.
In a free society, capitalism can exist side-by-side with voluntary communism. The only thing that cannot exist in a free society is COMPULSORY communism or socialism. When something is compulsory or non-voluntary, by definition it ceases to be free and becomes oppressive.
So if you want your communism, then you, as an individual cooperating VOLUNTARILY with other individuals, can have it to your heart's content. But you NEVER have a right to impose that system on someone else - not even if you are in the vast majority. Brute majority rule without limits to respect the fundamental rights of others amounts to the concept of "might makes right". Just because the majority thinks a thing does not make it right. If the majority wants to lynch a person, that does not make it a right thing to do. The majority of the Nazis wanted all the Jews dead, but that didn't make it right. The Jews still had rights to life as individuals just like everyone else.
For a better explanation of these concepts, see my articles with special attention to "Do 'We' have more rights than 'I'?":
Click Here
As for the productivity and economic growth of a particular system... I would argue that Stalin did NOT have the most economic growth of all time. I think that award would probably have to go to Hitler. Before Hitler came to power, Germany was in ABJECT POVERTY! It was in TERRIBLE shape. After Hitler, the German economy grew at an AMAZING rate in only a few years to become the world leader in industry and technology. But does that make Hitler's rule the best ever? Of course not! The rightness and justice of a political system cannot be measured solely by its economy. Slavery in the American South was very efficient in terms of production, but that didn't make it right. Using economic performance as a sole justification of a political system is absurd.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.