Ten Percent, by Robert Gore

Posted by straightlinelogic 4 months, 2 weeks ago to Technology
26 comments | Share | Flag

The US withdrew from the ABM Treaty in 2002. This was reportedly the impetus for Russia’s decision to develop the weapons that have, according to Putin, rendered US missile defense systems “useless.” George Bush and Dick Cheney thought American military and economic “superiority” would bury Russia. They were disastrously wrong. It’s too bad there are no pictures equivalent to Bush landing on the aircraft carrier with the Mission Accomplished banner to commemorate this folly, which far surpasses his Iraq misadventures.

This is an excerpt. For the complete article, please click the above link.
SOURCE URL: https://straightlinelogic.com/2018/03/08/ten-percent-by-robert-gore/

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by chad 4 months, 1 week ago
    I was in the Marine Air Wing from 1968-1972 and remember the MIG-21 when it was developed and could out speed, out turn, carry better weapons than anything we had and there was a fervor to develop new technology to stop the threat because as today " we could not afford to be wrong". Then a Russian pilot defected flying a MIG-21 to one of our bases in Japan and as we took apart the aircraft and examined its capabilities we realized none of the claims were true, the plane was far inferior to anything we had at the time.
    The claim Putin has made seems to be just another boast that cannot be proven and has not even been tracked by any observations by the American government. Russia still depends on America to get enough food. Wouldn't make sense to destroy your food supply.
    If the Russians have such weapons, will use the weapons or is just trying to get America to spend more money on its tools of war is an interesting question without much information to get an answer. If such weapons exist and the leader does intend to use them why declare your capabilities, simply use them and take over the world!!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  TomB666 4 months, 1 week ago
      I think you are thinking of the MIG 25. The F-15 was just entering service in that time frame. As I recall after our USAF examined the MIG-25 they knew it was not the equal of the F-15. Funny thing is the F-15 used a lot of titanium while the MIG used steel. We sourced the titanium from Russia!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 months, 1 week ago
    Is Putin bluffing? He's a product of the Soviet KGB, and misdirection and prevarication were standard tools used to keep the West off balance. I feel frustrated that I'm retired and without those high level clearances that made it possible to view and analyze the space based sensors and high resolution radar that showed the real capabilities of Soviet missiles. I've been out of the game for more than a decade, but even with the systems we had back then, I'd say that even if the Russians do have the hypersonic, maneuvering warheads he claims, they aren't as able to evade defenses as he thinks.

    A hypersonic body traveling in the atmosphere leaves an unmistakable, very bright glowing infrared trail easily detectable by the U.S. space based sensors. Because there are a number of these sensors with overlapping fields of view, a three dimensional track can be developed for targeting. The flaw in Putin's thinking is that his missile will be able to evade mid course defenses, where the hypersonic warhead can't maneuver.

    In any event, once a track shows a trajectory that is U.S. bound, a counterattack will immediately follow. The "Star Wars" ABM concept never was a commitment to hold fire, waiting to see if any ICBMs got through our defense. It was intended to help us survive by minimizing the damage from an enemy strike.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 4 months, 1 week ago
    As Russia developed new weapons, Obama's "Lead from behind" philosophy provided us with a handful of nothing. Behind is behind and there is no leadership at the back of the http://line.No matter how much we deny it, we can only lead through power. It is the most powerful nation that other nations listen to and respect. We must decide whether the world is better off being led by America or China. Because in the current geopolitics that'sway, that's the way it is. If our decision that we will make the better leader, then we must be powerful to wear that mantle.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  Dobrien 4 months, 1 week ago
      The tariff on steel imports will assist in rebuilding our capabilities. Bush/Obama/Clinton sold us out to the Russians who is a very big supplier of our steel imports. I have heard that it is defective and has made its way into our military hardware. Obama is toast and will be in a military tribunal.
      Same with McAin't a hero .That is my bet!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 4 months, 1 week ago
        I don't quite get the push back considering his explanation of the tariffs. If they charge a tariff on our export into russia and we charge the same tariff on their exports to America...isn't that even steven?

        What's all the fuss?

        I understand that tariffs are not a good thing economically but what Trump has done, in my mind, is leveled the playing field...Tit for Tat.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  blarman 4 months, 1 week ago
          I think that there are two other considerations which no one is mentioning:

          1. The US steel industry is hopelessly archaic. We used to have the best steel industry in the world - right after WW II. That's because everyone else's had been destroyed in the war! Then we helped everyone else build new, better mills - yet didn't upgrade our own. A large part of our inability to be competitive in the steel market is because of our antiquated milling technology. Before we start trying to create a trade war, we ought to make sure our own industry is capable of meeting our internal needs! (I would also add that union labor exacerbated the problems.)

          2. Trade negotiations are treaties. That the Executive Branch could issue an Executive Order effectively declaring a one-sided treaty is the same kind of dangerous abuse of power we criticized in the Obama Administration!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 4 months, 1 week ago
            Good points. Yes, with high corp. taxes, taxing a corp's. profits that would otherwise go to upgrades is a problem. And YES< YES< YES, (Communist) Unions are a really big part of the problem too!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by coaldigger 4 months, 1 week ago
    Perhaps I was over influenced by Orwell's 1984 but continuous, limited wars between superpowers for no purpose other than keeping their own citizens in check dominates my thinking on this. Posturing, bragging, threatening and fearmongering keep the public in a distracted state while a ruling class runs amok. This game is, of course, very dangerous because someone that believes the rhetoric may get antsy and push the button.

    I don't see the point of even trying to survive a nuclear holocaust for either the winner or loser. The war I would hate to see us lose and most want to see us win is the war of ideas. Regardless of the name of the "ism", the struggle for individual rights seems to be the only battle that is worth winning and our defensive and offensive preparations are scarily inept. Whoever wins the war of ideas will have all of the accomplishments of the ages at their disposal, not a burnt out, radioactive cinder.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  blarman 4 months, 1 week ago
    I'll retain a healthy dose of skepticism about many of the aerial vehicle claims, thank you. The simple fact is that anything going as fast as Putin is claiming (Mach 10 or above) can't maneuver at all - the stresses would literally rip the missile apart. The other problem is an engine that can actually generate that kind of thrust over such a short time frame - and not rip the missile apart from the inside. If Putin's Russia has in fact solved these two materials engineering problems, then why don't we see any of the derivative technologies in any of their military aircraft?

    With regards to the underwater vehicles, I read a separate story and the overall speed of these is only slightly faster than a standard torpedo. The more dangerous aspect - again if true - is the supposed depth of operation - significantly below where normal submarines operate. That being said, with the sonobuoy lines - literally laid along the ocean floor - which currently stretch from Great Britain to Iceland and Iceland to Greenland, Russia isn't going to be able to launch one of these without us knowing about it - if they even exist.

    Great article, but I'm going to say that until we have independent verification that these weapons actually exist, I'm not going to spend sleepless nights worrying about them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 4 months, 1 week ago
    Putin wants to make the Russian Federation into the same powerful force that the Soviet Union was. Its pretty simple. He is essentially a dictator who is concerned about his peresonal power, and those of his minions (sound familiar in the USA?). He learned that the ability to render the offensive weapons of the opposing forces impotent is what brought down the power of the Soviet system. He wants to do that today.

    The whole idea of having nuclear forces balanced between USA and Russia does in fact insure that they will never be used- Unless one side is able to negate the power of the other.

    This MADD idea is a constantly evolving thing, as each side tries to develop ways around it. Sounds like Russia has been working feverishly on this for awhile now, and we have not. Maybe the development of advanced EMP weapons would be the way to go and let Russia just implode as their civilization crumbles. We would have to make sure they didnt use those on us of course.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 4 months, 1 week ago
    Me dino read somewhere that Putin is up for reelection. The story was about a competing male candidate punching a competing female candidate in the face.
    Anyhoo, announcing all these nifty new high tech Let's Play World War Three toys strikes me dino as very well-timed.
    But does me dino think Putin has any chance of losing his yet another reelection? Nyet!
    Putin in the past has proven capable of doing more than just punching another Russian in the face.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 months, 2 weeks ago
    My possibly-wrong understanding: I thought it was nearly impossible to stop ICBM-carried weapons using existing technology and that fact made MAD possible. Russia or US have no incentive to relinquish their weapons because deterrent is their only "defense". Similarly, they have no incentive to produce more powerful weapons since the weapons are so devastating a single one can destroy and entire city.

    If my possibly-naive view is right, why does it matter if Russia has new nuclear weapons? They already have a very solid deterrent. I thought even if US initiated a first-strike without warning and were expecting a retaliatory strike, Russia could still kill millions of people, destroy infrastructure and assets on a massive scale, and have much of the US population scrambling for basic necessities.

    Does your post suggest I'm wrong about this? Do you think Russia thinks (possibly correctly) that US military technology has gotten to the point where some in the US might think a nuclear war is winnable?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 4 months, 2 weeks ago
      There are some in the US who have labored under the delusion of first strike, which this new technology clearly renders impossible. What's disturbing is that the new weapons may give Russia the ability to first strike and cripple enough of the US nuclear capability to stymie an effective counterstrike. I think Putin got tired of the US trying to push Russia around, and this new arsenal should put a stop to that. The underwater drones blow US naval "superiority" out of the water, pun intended. Aircraft carriers, a favorite element of US "force projection," are now dinosaurs, and probably so too are submarines.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 months, 1 week ago
        Are you saying some in US think US could hit Russia first and prevent large-scale retaliation from Russia? Are you saying you think that US could indeed do a devastating strike on Russia, but Russia could retaliate with its own devastating strike? Are you also saying that Russia possibly could hit US hard enough to prevent a large-scale retaliation against Russia.

        Sorry I got confused which side you were saying could hit which and with what level of retaliation.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 4 months, 1 week ago
          Yes, yes, and maybe. There are some people in US think tanks and government who have talked and written of the US being able to "win" a nuclear war with Russia. The latest Nuclear Posture Review (linked in my article) propounds a more aggressive doctrine of nuclear weapons use (see this link for a criticial summary: https://www.strategic-culture.org/new.... The thinking behind the Nuclear Posture Review is widespread. The NPR expands the conditions under which the US would use nuclear weapons. That's in black and white in a public document. Most of the talk of a "winnable" nuclear war centers on North Korea, but the establishment of US missile defenses in Eastern Europe and South Korea, (which can become offensive with the flip of the switch) greatly concern Russia and China and have spurred their development of advanced weapons.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo