4um: Putin Trolls Trump, Offers to Sell Technology Which Has Made Most of US Military Obsolete

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Science/Tech
See other Science/Tech Articles
Title: Putin Trolls Trump, Offers to Sell Technology Which Has Made Most of US Military Obsolete
Source: [None]
URL Source: https://russia-insider.com/en/milit ... t-us-military-obsolete/ri27577
Published: Sep 6, 2019
Author: Moon of Alabama
Post Date: 2019-09-06 09:16:40 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 1163
Comments: 32

This is some high class trolling by Russia's President Vladimir Putin:
Putin said he offered U.S. President Donald Trump in a recent phone call the chance to buy one of the hypersonic nuclear weapons Moscow is developing. He said Trump spurned the offer and replied that Washington was making its own.
Hypersonic weapons fly faster than Mach 5 or five times the speed of sound. Their high speed leaves little warning time for the target. There are currently no practical defenses against them.
While the U.S. spent an enormous amount on developing large aircraft carriers, 'stealth' airplanes and useless missile defenses, Russia spent much less to developed weapons that can defeat all three. Carriers are today, at least for Russia, India and China, not threats but large and juicy targets. Kh-47M2 Kinzhal Mach 12 capable missile carried by a MIG-31
Trump is wrong in claiming that the U.S. makes its own hypersonic weapons. While the U.S. has some in development none will be ready before 2022 and likely only much later. Hypersonic weapons are a Soviet/Russian invention. The ones Russia now puts into service are already the third generation. U.S. development of such missiles is at least two generations behind Russia's.
Support Russia Insider - Go Ad-Free!
That Russian radar can 'see' stealth aircraft has been known since 1999 when a Yugoslav army unit shot down a U.S. F-117 Nighthawk stealth aircraft. Russian air and missile defense proved in Syria that it can defeat mass attacks by drones as well as by cruise missiles. U.S.-made air and missile defense in Saudi Arabia fails to take down even the primitive missiles Houthi forces fire against it.
The new weapons Russia announced in March 2018 make strategic missile defense useless.
The U.S. military and its weapons are regularly hyped in 'western' media. But it has long been clear to (non-U.S.) experts that U.S. military technology is not superior to that of other countries. In several important fields Russian, Chinese and even Indian weapons have much better capabilities. The reason is simple. U.S. weapons are not developed or built with a real strategic need in mind. They don't get developed for achieving the most effect in an existential war against a capable enemy but to create profit.
The last is probably the only thing Trump knows about them.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
The problem for the US is that you can't be a world's policemen or empire by creating missiles because you can't point strategic missiles at other countries and tell them what to do. That requires actual military presence in the form of bases and naval fleets, which probably do more to bribe these other countries through money spent on these bases and fleets than do the threat of military action.
Russia has far less money to spend and has been on the defensive since the fall of the USSR. So for them, imposing their will on the world has not been a realistic goal since the USSR fell. Instead, they've gone frugal, out of necessity, and that means focusing on tech that is largely defensive, and that means anti-aircraft systems like the S-400 & S-500 series, nuclear powered strategic nukes, nuclear bomb submarine drones with a 3000 mile range and 200 MPH torpedoes.
The next hot war with Russia will show that US Naval task forces are obsolete, as much as or moreso than Pearl harbor proved battleships obsolete. The US is still figuring that out as the military industrial complex willingly turns a blind eye to this reality as they rake in enormous earnings and congressmen go along for the votes seeing jobs for their constituents.

Pinguinite posted on 2019-09-06 16:36:19 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#2. To: Pinguinite, Ada, 4 (#1)
In many ways we've become a paper tiger, a huge paper tiger, but a paper tiger nonetheless.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Lod posted on 2019-09-06 17:39:39 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#3. To: Pinguinite (#1)
submarine drones with a 3000 mile range and 200 MPH torpedoes.
The next hot war with Russia will show that US Naval task forces are obsolete, as much as or moreso than Pearl harbor proved battleships obsolete.

This being a truism, what is the explanation for Britain, China and India also building aircraft carriers at a fast pace???

Cynicom posted on 2019-09-06 17:54:22 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#4. To: Lod (#2)
It's a classic case of pride and overconfidence leading to one's downfall to a perceived inferior opponent.

Pinguinite posted on 2019-09-06 17:59:58 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#5. To: Cynicom (#3)
This being a truism, what is the explanation for Britain, China and India also building aircraft carriers at a fast pace???

I'm unaware of Britain and India's schedule, but I know China is expanding it's economic influence in South American and Africa so they aren't really in defensive mode like Russia is.
I'm just calling it as I see it. Naval task forces are very expensive, very big and being a surface fleet, very slow. Missiles are relatively cheap, quite small and very fast.
Surface fleets will need to rely on staying out of range of known missile batteries, destroying inbound missiles with automated defensive weaponry and detecting underwater threats. That's a tall order, especially if anti-ship missiles and other weaponry can be constructed more and more cheaply, which translates to larger numbers of them.

Pinguinite posted on 2019-09-06 18:12:00 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#6. To: Pinguinite (#5)
The days of projecting might by sailing our warships around the globe has long passed.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
Lod posted on 2019-09-06 18:25:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#7. To: Pinguinite (#1)
Russia has far less money to spend

But they seem to be building a better product than the military junk our contractors have been saddling us with.

Ada posted on 2019-09-06 18:45:08 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#8. To: Pinguinite (#5)
Surface fleets will need to rely on staying out of range of known missile batteries,
I'm unaware of Britain and India's schedule,

Recall the battleships were sent to Pearl Harbor??? For what reason?

Cynicom posted on 2019-09-06 18:47:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#9. To: Cynicom (#8)

Recall the battleships were sent to Pearl Harbor??? For what reason?

The only reason I've heard advocated was because FDR, being aware the Japanese would attack, wanted to give them a juicy target to hit so the American people would be enraged and get behind the war effort.
But that seems immaterial to this discussion. Granted harbored ships are easier targets for aircraft to hit but there are numerous other examples of the effectiveness of aircraft vs ships, such as the Battle of Midway.

Pinguinite posted on 2019-09-06 18:55:29 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#10. To: Pinguinite (#9)
But that seems immaterial to this discussion.

Quite the contrary. Machinations of war never change.
Plan Orange in 1920 said Japan was coming, Gen. Billy Mitchell in 1920s said Japan was coming, Col. George Patton in 1938 said Japan was coming. US military did not know WHERE but suspected it was Pearl Harbor. Japans DESIRE was to eliminate aircraft carriers. Battleships were expendable, carriers were not.
Now carriers are very useful and expendable. They project power which must be dealt with FIRST if one is to start a conflict.
A British naval officer spy was selling the Japanese torpedo technology. From this the US Navy knew Pearl Harbor was the target. Want to know how the Navy knew???

Cynicom posted on 2019-09-06 19:30:15 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#11. To: Cynicom (#10)
A British naval officer spy was selling the Japanese torpedo technology. From this the US Navy knew Pearl Harbor was the target. Want to know how the Navy knew???

I would guess because the tech allowed torps to be dropped from torpedo planes in shallow water, as torps normally descended to some 30 feet in those cases before rising back toward the surface, which was too deep for Pearl Harbor. (I'm somewhat knowledgeable, I think, of the events surrounding the PH attack).
It's one thing to strategically predict a war. Someone has done so predicting a war between China and the USA. But it's quite another to predict the location and day.
It's a controversial subject but IMO, the best info is that yes, FDR and his closest high ranking military personnel did indeed know at least 1 week in advance with further confirmation even hours before. The Japanese code was already broken and US Intelligence was monitoring communications with the Japanese Embassy in DC. That is not in dispute, so naysayers have an uphill argument in suggesting the attack was truly a surprise.
FDR also had motive, perhaps somewhat noble, as he was watching the war unfold in Europe for the previous 2 years and had, with little doubt, already decided that the US would have to enter the war. At the same time, he was dealing with a strong "America First" political movement that did not want to repeat the US entry into WWI, the cost of which was still within living memory, which many probably viewed in hindsight as unnecessary. So a "sneak attack" by Japan would certainly have been a good move to allow to happen as it would have terminated domestic political resistance to entering the war. So... FDR had means to know what was going to happen at PH, as well as motive to allow it to happen without any warning being issued to Kimmel. I would add that, at the time, the power of the aircraft was appreciated only by a few like General Mitchell, and there's no reason to believe that FDR suspected any differently, so it's possible that FDR expected the airborne attack to cause only a fraction of the death and destruction that it did. That would give further argument in support that FDR might not have felt so bad about keeping his knowledge of the attack a secret.

Pinguinite posted on 2019-09-06 21:43:29 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#12. To: Pinguinite, Cynicom (#11)
FDR had means to know what was going to happen at PH

Why do you think the aircraft carriers were at sea on December 7, 1941? Because they were ordered to sea to save them from the "sneak attack".
They knew the carriers were the only way to win the war with Japan. They had the ability to project American air power many times over. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
BTP Holdings posted on 2019-09-06 21:59:01 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#13. To: BTP Holdings (#12)
Why do you think the aircraft carriers were at sea on December 7, 1941? Because they were ordered to sea to save them from the "sneak attack".

They knew the carriers were the only way to win the war with Japan. They had the ability to project American air power many times over. ;)

That argument I don't buy for 2 reasons. First, again, there wasn't widespread understanding in 1941 of exactly how powerful aircraft carriers were. If you had asked most military people back then, who didn't have the benefit of hindsight as we have, whether battleships or aircraft carriers were more powerful, I'm guessing most would have said battleships. They had the major 15" guns or bigger which carriers simply don't have, and the advantage of range offered by planes, was, I don't think, appreciated. Carriers were probably viewed as more of holding a support role in naval warfare.
Second, any decision to "allow" the US to be drawn into the war via a "sneak attack" was a strategic decision. What Yamamoto did correctly understand is that the US was a sleeping tiger and could out-manufacture Japan, which hardly has any domestic iron resources (the reason they were importing scrap iron from the US before the war). In the long run it made no real difference in the war's outcome if the carriers had been destroyed at Pearl Harbor. Granted the Doolittle raid may not have happened, and the Japanese would probably have won at Midway against fewer carriers, but in the long run, there's no way the US would have surrendered thanks to the outrage of the American public, and US industrial might would have kicked into gear and the final outcome would have been the same.
So the importance of the carriers escaping destruction at PH easily attracts patriotic emotions of fortune and given it allowed both the Doolittle raid and the US victory at Midway some poetic nationalistic sense of divine justice, in the long run, it would not have made a difference in the war's outcome other than delaying the ending by maybe 3-6 months. Something like that.
But in deciding if the carriers were purposely removed from PH because of the impending attack, we have to judge based on what the PTB's knew and believed at the time, as well as their motivations, both good and bad.

Pinguinite posted on 2019-09-06 22:21:41 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#14. To: Pinguinite (#11)
Plan Orange originated in 1920, long before WWII actors were ever chosen.
When did the common folk realize that what we saw was not real???
Thousands of Americans died around the Pacific and we invaded North Africa.

Cynicom posted on 2019-09-06 22:34:31 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#15. To: Pinguinite (#13)
They knew the carriers were the only way to win the war with Japan. They had the ability to project American air power many times over. ;)
That argument I don't buy for 2 reasons.

Well, that is exactly what happened.
Carriers then and now have two crucial reasons for being used. They project power at an enemys doorstep, plus...like Pearl Harbor...they are sitting ducks that MUST BE TAKEN OUT FIRST.
That is how wars are fought.

Cynicom posted on 2019-09-06 22:43:49 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#16. To: Pinguinite (#13)
it would not have made a difference in the war's outcome other than delaying the ending by maybe 3-6 months

One thing that is overlooked is after Japan surrendered, Americans found the Japs had been working on the jet fighter (Me-282) in a cave in the mountains.
The plans had been given to Japan by Germany. Apparently, the Japs were very close to getting it operational. If they had done so before the nukes were dropped it might have changed the outcome of the war.
The jet fighter had an altitude range greater than propeller driven planes and would have been a threat to the B-29s. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
BTP Holdings posted on 2019-09-06 22:50:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#17. To: BTP Holdings (#16)
The jet fighter had an altitude range greater than propeller driven planes and would have been a threat to the B-29s. ;)

I lost many friends during Korean thing, being shot down in B 29s by Russian jets copied from the Germans.
We were given B 29s to fly that had been sitting in the Arizona desert for six years. So much for a war mongering US.

Cynicom posted on 2019-09-06 23:00:33 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#18. To: BTP Holdings (#16)
If they had done so before the nukes were dropped it might have changed the outcome of the war.

If it didn't make a difference to Germany, why would that late development made a difference for Japan?
Okay, so at best, it would have prevented us from risking dropping the atom bombs. Then what?
Japan still loses.

Pinguinite posted on 2019-09-06 23:02:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#19. To: Pinguinite (#18) (Edited)
[OOPS -- meant to aim this at 'ALL'!]
I'd like to suggest that since I definitively smashed the pro-war, pro-military arguments in the other thread that we just have a cease fire :-]
I'm always right -- makes things so simple :-D
_____________________________________________________________
USA! USA! USA! Bringing you democracy, or else! there were strains of VD that were incurable, and they were first found in the Philippines and then transmitted to the Korean working girls via US military. The 'incurables' we were told were first taken back to a military hospital in the Philippines to quietly die. – 4um
NeoconsNailed posted on 2019-09-06 23:08:20 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#20. To: Pinguinite (#18)
at best, it would have prevented us from risking dropping the atom bombs. Then what?

Are you aware that the guns for an invasion of Japan were in storage on Okinawa?
When the invasion did not go off, those guns were sent to Hanoi (Haiphong).
Col. Fletcher Prouty was on Okinawa and witnessed the weapons stacked 4 and 5 pallets high. He asked about what would be done with the weapons since the invasion was cancelled. He was told they did not want them back in the U.S., so they were scheduled to be sent to Hanoi.
The French were defeated at Dien Bien Phu by American weapons. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
BTP Holdings posted on 2019-09-06 23:28:52 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#21. To: Pinguinite (#13)
Carriers were probably viewed as more of holding a support role in naval warfare.

The Japs knew well in advance of Pearl Harbor that aircraft carriers were an offensive weapon and proved it on December 7, 1941.
Yamamoto was correct that he feared all that was done was to awaken a sleeping giant. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
BTP Holdings posted on 2019-09-06 23:34:49 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#22. To: Ada (#0)
The ones Russia now puts into service are already the third generation. U.S. development of such missiles is at least two generations behind Russia's.

If I were 20 or 25 years younger I might take up Putin on his offer of free land like the 150 Boer farmers did. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
BTP Holdings posted on 2019-09-06 23:43:32 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#23. To: BTP Holdings (#21)
Doolittle flew off the carrier Hornet 600 miles off Japan. Projecting power as the Japanese had done.

Cynicom posted on 2019-09-06 23:54:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#24. To: Cynicom (#23)
Doolittle flew off the carrier Hornet 600 miles off Japan. Projecting power as the Japanese had done.

I am aware of that Col. Doolittle was promoted to General after the first raid went off successfully.
The U.S.S. Hornet was sunk off the Solomon Islands.
Hornet was sunk during the brutal battle of the Santa Cruz Islands that raged from Oct. 25 to Oct. 27, 1942. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
BTP Holdings posted on 2019-09-07 0:06:39 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#25. To: Cynicom (#17)
We were given B 29s to fly that had been sitting in the Arizona desert for six years. So much for a war mongering US.

The Korean war started during the American occupation of the South, and it was Rhee, with help from his American sponsors, who initiated a series of attacks that well preceded the North Korean offensive of 1950. From 1945-1948, American forces aided Rhee in a killing spree that claimed tens of thousands of victims.
IOW the Pentagon supplied the air force with B29s out of arrogance that they would be sufficient to defeat the gooks. Had nothing to do with supporting Rhee's warmongering.

Ada posted on 2019-09-07 0:28:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#26. To: BTP Holdings (#21)
The Japs knew well in advance of Pearl Harbor that aircraft carriers were an offensive weapon and proved it on December 7, 1941.

It's very possible that the Japanese military had a more accuarate appreciation for the power of the aircraft than did the US military brass. They had the midget subs too, so maybe that reflects an appreciating for the power of small but effective weapons.
Though they also had the battleship Yamoto with it's huge 18" guns, bigger than anything the US navy had, I think.

Pinguinite posted on 2019-09-07 0:50:34 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#27. To: Pinguinite (#26) (Edited)
the battleship Yamoto with it's huge 18" guns, bigger than anything the US navy had,

Armament of the Iowa-class battleship.
The USS Missouri had 16 inch guns. It was Iowa-class. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
BTP Holdings posted on 2019-09-07 1:19:53 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#28. To: Ada (#25)
IOW the Pentagon supplied the air force with B29s out of arrogance that they would be sufficient to defeat the gooks

No.
When one reads, studies history and perhaps was there at the time, such an assessment would never be worthy of consideration.
MacArthur wanted to end the war, Truman lost his nerve because his advisors were mostly of Communist influence. Consequently 50,000 young Americans died. That loss then and now is acceptable to many Americans that were not there.
I had many friends that would have lived had MacArthur ended the war.

Cynicom posted on 2019-09-07 1:29:08 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#29. To: BTP Holdings (#27)
The USS Missouri had 16 inch guns. It was Iowa-class. ;)

Given the cross section area of the shell increases exponentially with the radius of the gun, 18" are about 26% bigger than 16". If the length of the shell increases by the same proportion, then the shells as a whole would be around 42% bigger.

Pinguinite posted on 2019-09-07 6:53:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#30. To: Cynicom (#28)
Truman lost his nerve because his advisors were mostly of Communist influence

The US left wing supported Truman while the right wing isolationists found themselves with the American Communist Party. The Communist world was divided on the Korea question, with Stalin skeptical of Kim il Sung’s assurances that his forces would achieve victory in three days. Russian policy was: military aid, yes – Soviet intervention, no. China’s Mao, on the other hand, offered his support – which wasn’t actually forthcoming, however, until the US entered the war and advanced into North Korea itself.

Ada posted on 2019-09-07 14:25:09 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#31. To: Ada, Cynicom (#30)
with Stalin skeptical of Kim il Sung’s assurances that his forces would achieve victory in three days.

U.S. and South Korean troops were stuck at Pusan at the southern tip of Korean Peninsula.
MacArthur's invasion at Inchon cut into the north's supply lines.
When China found out about this they sent 300,000 troops across the border into North Korea. At that point MacArthur had his hands full.
The Korean War was the first U.N. war. It was the first, and last time, the Soviet Ambassador missed the Security Council meeting. ;)
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
BTP Holdings posted on 2019-09-07 15:42:11 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
#32. To: BTP Holdings (#31)
U.S. and South Korean troops were stuck at Pusan at the southern tip of Korean Peninsula.

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/98586
Eight B-29s from our wing were sent to Guam loaded with A-bombs
MacArthur wanted to end the war quick. Truman lost his nerve and MacArthur had to fight a conventional war. Thousands of American kids died.
The Koreans would have quit just like the Japs did, but Stalin was betting Truman and his communist advisors would sacrifice American lives, just as many friends here would have done.

Cynicom posted on 2019-09-07 18:19:17 ET Reply Trace Private Reply
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um