To US or not to US - that's the question

[Carlo]

Originally Posted by pseudolife

Pavle you made it sound like russians could never be happy without the military capability to conquer the world.

Had you said that Russians can't be happy without a strong military force, I would agree with you. Perhaps you don't know, but Russia has been attacked and invaded a lot of times by a lot of different people, from the West and the East: Teutonic Knights, Mongols, Poles, Swedish, French (Napoleon), Germans (Hitler). It is only natural that Russians just feel insecure and suspicious in their foreign relations. And because of this, Russian military has been most of all defensive, and not offensive. You can tell this by seeing the priority that Russians have been giving to their air defense since the end of WWII: they have always had the best SAM systems in the world (and still do, with the S-300PMU2 and the brand new S-400), and developed heavily their interceptors force (Su-9, Su-11, Su-15, MiG-23, MiG-25, and the unique MiG-31).

[pseudolife]

interesting point of view, I never thought of it like that. However I would point out that the cuban missle crisis didnt seem very defensive. Also the Russian Navy relying mostly on a strong submarine force doesnt seem defensive either.

[Carlo]

Of course, the USSR had a strong offensive component, as Russia still has. But their strongest sector was the defensive.
Remember that, when the Soviet Union decided to install IRBMs in Cuba, the US had IRBMs in Turkey. The secret agreement between the two parties was that the USSR would take their missiles from Cuba, if the US made the same in Turkey. So it was not a direct aggression, they were trying to reach the same strategic advantage the US already had.
Also, a navy that relies strongly on submarine means a weak one. Germany, in WWI and WWII had also mostly submarines, because they couldn't compete with the Royal Navy. The same happened between the US and the USSR in the Cold War.
The USSR never had the capability the US had and has to launch military operations in faraway countries, to attack and occupy countries in other continents. In the height of their power, the USSR could only intervene in countries near their border (Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan), or support guerrillas in faraway countries (Angola, Vietnam).

[pseudolife]

good points both. As an american I suppose I don't know what to feel about other countries, (not just Russia) that have high military goals. In alot of ways I think it would be nice to be surpassed as a global power, maybe then we could focus on ourselves again and not so much on the rest of the world. But nationalistic pride, or maybe just paranoia causes some anxiety about not being #1 (at least militarily).

I remember when the wall came down thinking, "cool, now Russia can be our friend" I guess it makes me uneasy when so many nations (back to the topic of aviation) are trying to create platforms/aircraft that surpass the USAF. you know what i mean?

[Carlo]

You don't need to worry, because nor Russia nor any other country will surpass the US military power any time soon. No other country can spend 600 billion dollars a year in armed forces, as the US does. But the gap between the US and the rest of the world will decrease: in the mid 90's until now, the US has unsurpassed military machines, like the F-22 and the B-2. When the PAK FA becomes operational in around 5 years, at last another country will have something comparable to the F-22 and the F-35.
Anyway, a strong Russia is not a threat to the US, and even though there are many talks about the Cold War coming back, these are highly exaggerated: there are many disagreement points (missile shield in Europe and NATO expansion are the most important ones), but none considers the other an intrinsic enemy nor wants a new arms race. Like Condoleeza Rice said, in the Cold War all the US and the Soviet Union shared were their desire not to destroy the world; now they have many points and interests in common.

[sicsok]

On how much is a country's spending ("US spends about 600 gadzillion dollars etc") does not translate to military strength. Yet, the spending shows well on how important a country considers this industry and sector. But consider this example from 1982:
Quickie Aircraft produced the most popular home.builder kit aircraft of that time. The subcontractor, making the composite kit-parts (sans engine) did the work in workshops few steps away with locally hired (dezert-area) labor and the proprietor had to do most of the work because the 15 dollar hourly wage plus room and pizza and beer only motivated the workforce to fidget with their Harleys. Then came a group of Chinese visitors to Quickie, since the orders started to pile up. Today you may recognise some of these visitors VERY high in the Beiging leadership. Well, they did business:
The resin and fibers to be shipped to Shanghai with instructions and consultants. There manual labor will garanty about 1200-1500 packed kits monthly, ready for shipping back to Quickie at no other than materials-cost to Quickie.
All the customers' orders were fulfilled soon. China only needed the know-how and right to produce any amount of that kit for internal needs (above the contracted amount to be shipped to Quickie) and no patent/copyright disputes. Both the Chinese and Quickie won big time, let alone the customers getting their orders pronto just as they thought that another kit-plane goes down.... The cost of a kit (materials transport to China, manufacturing the kits and packaging, customs costs, shipping back the kits to the US West Coast) went down to half of that what the "good neighbour" US subcontractor could do. (He was not gauging Quickie, he was in partnership with them...yet this were his costs and limitations!)
So less spent money created a lot more...

[Carlo]

You are right. That is why, even though Russia spends much and much less that the US, and perhaps less than many Western European countries, they still have a respectable (and fastly improving) military. But anyway, when one country spends 547 billion dollars per year (as the US does, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute), and the second on the list (UK) "only" 59 billion, then you can be sure that the US is by far the stronguest military power. The difference is just too big to allow that any other country can really compete with the US.

[pseudolife]

for now anyway. With China's ever expanding economy and their military upgrades, i wonder how long before the us is equalled or surpassed. And then what? what will china do as a highly advanced military superpower? taiwan has reason to sweat but i wonder who else they might go after.

[hunter0f2]

Man is by his very nature a territorial animal!! We pee in each corner of our little gardens, & dare another animal to enter. Well I tried it ! It dont work, I still get Sparrows , Finches,Tits , Mice , Hedgehogs, Foxes, Bees Snails ETC in my garden.Its about time men stopped peeing in the corners & got on with Life!!

[sicsok]

I guess that launching a satellite by Venezuela did not get too much interested ears. But does anyone have any info, documentary, video.clip, technical and launch data about it? Political side exists too, but I am not as much after the opinions, but facts. This can lead to establishment of commercial spaceport in Venezuela (this one was not sent up from that site), as that location is extremely economical and energy-saving for such launches.