4 ms·

Well, we certainly have seen an F-14 go against a MiG-23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e3Fu2zeido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e3Fu2zeido Anything mor

Well, we certainly have seen an F-14 go against a MiG-23. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e3Fu2zeido https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e3Fu2zeido Anything more modern would probably have led to WWIII. I think the rest of your comment is confirmation bias: this ethnic group/nationality is good/bad depending on where you sit on the old racism spectrum. Its also worth mentioning that a lot of the advances of the SU were due to subjugating 15 independent states, usually via military means, and suddenly having a lot of more talent on tap. Often, non-Russian slavs didn't get credit for Soviet innovations due to horrific politics of communism and the Soviets system in general. So crediting "Russians" for many of these innovations is ahistoric and propagandist. The constant applause surrounding the SU is fairly amusing. If they were so great, why aren't they around today? If Russia is so chock full of greatness why is it running a falling apart economy and have degenerated into a kleptocratic petrostate that makes most middle east dictatorships look progressive and economically sound? I get it, you don't like the US and the EU, but you'd have to be crazy to appreciate the SU and Russia if your complaints are focused on the US not being "Bernie Sanders" enough for you. >Every time Russian technology, in the hands of competent people, is put on display, it does very well Well, when your targets are Ukranian women and children, yes, the casualty rate is impressive, but that's far from a real military engagement against another nation state. We have yet to see these arms tested against a proper western foe, and for good reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_crisis#Total_deaths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_cr...

Mikeb85 11y ago
> Well, we certainly have seen an F-14 go against a MiG-23. Did the Libyan MiGs fire a single shot? Of course I know the answer, so not sure how this can be considered any sort of indicator of the gross inferiority of Russian tech. In fact, based on the engagement itself, and subsequent after-math, a reasonable assumption would be that they goaded the US into the confrontation, as an attempt to gain international support... > I think the rest of your comment is confirmation bias: this ethnic group/nationality is good/bad depending on where you sit on the old racism spectrum. Interesting that you equate my pointing out that Russians are generally well educated and that they produce good engineers with racism. Next if I say Russia produces plenty of good chess players you'll also call me racist? Fact is, their culture encourages people to pursue these activities, and they have fairly high educational standards. Same can be said for many countries who have a strong focus on education, who produce good engineers; witness the recent Indian space program, which is on a relatively modest budget, definitely 'punching above it's weight class'. > The constant applause surrounding the SU is fairly amusing What does my post have to do with the SU, and any economic or political elements of the SU? It's purely about technology. > If Russia is so chock full of greatness why is it running a falling apart economy and have degenerated into a kleptocratic petrostate that makes most middle east dictatorships look progressive and economically sound? I get it, you don't like the US and the EU, but you'd have to be crazy to appreciate the SU and Russia if your complaints are focused on the US not being "Bernie Sanders" enough for you. Again, where are you getting this? Pointing out that they produce relatively advanced technology for their current economic state? And it's the truth, from Sputnik to Mir to their current space program, their defence programs, etc... You're right, Russia's economic output is behind the US, and they somehow still have the ability to put people into space. The rest of it is off-topic, is not related to anything I said, and it's obvious you're trying to offend. > Well, when your targets are Ukranian women and children, yes, the casualty rate is impressive, but that's far from a real military engagement against another nation state. We have yet to see these arms tested against a proper western foe, and for good reason. First of all, the verdict is still out on the exact amount of Russian involvement in Ukraine (especially since the next Ukrainian Prime Minister used to work for the US State Dept, reinforcing the view that the US was involved in the overthrow of the previous government). Second, from a purely objective standpoint, they didn't use air power vs. Ukraine. Anyhow, Russia hasn't gone up against the west, nor vice versa. Russia did rout the Georgian military in a week. And they are the only effective power in Syria right now. Take that for what it is. US analysts have admitted Russian tech is more advanced than they thought, especially in the realm of electronic warfare. BTW, forgive me for having a nuanced view of the world. For not bringing political beliefs into a discussion about TECHNOLOGY. I have Russian friends too, and I'm of Ukrainian background. My wife is black (and an immigrant from a region where the inhabitants were once slaves from both Africa and India), I live in the west, and speak multiple languages. I know people from every corner of the world. Shoot me for not believing in a world where everything is black and white, where it's us vs. them.
- PerfectDlite 11y ago
  > the verdict is still out on the exact amount of Russian involvement in Ukraine Really? And you still believe that MH-17 was shot by Ukraine, right?
  - Mikeb85 11y ago
    Natalie Jaresko is likely going to be the next Ukrainian Prime Minister when Yatseniuk resigns. Mikheil Saakashvili is in their government. The government of Canada already admitted it's embassy was used for logistics purposes during the Kyiv 'protests'. And the Dutch are likely to vote against the EU association agreement with Ukraine coming up. I don't know how much you know concerning Ukrainian politics, or how closely you followed the whole 'revolution', let's just say it's all far from clear cut. And maybe my wording is too nuanced, but I said "the exact amount of Russian involvement". Obviously there weren't Russian Sukhoi bombers wreaking havoc on Kyiv...
    - PerfectDlite 11y ago
      > "the exact amount of Russian involvement" We can be sure that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea and keeping proxy war alive on Donbass, by sending troops and equipment. That amount of involvement is pretty clear.
vacri 11y ago
> this ethnic group/nationality is good/bad depending on where you sit on the old racism spectrum. ... which is then followed by the rest of your comment saying "this nationality is bad". And strangely, you seem to think that criticism of military aircraft is fundamentally tied to a person's desires for a sociopolitical system.
Grishnakh 11y ago
There's nothing racist about recognizing nations for their strengths. The reason some nationalities are better at some things is because their culture emphasizes it. US culture has traditionally been anti-intellectual and emphasizes sports, making money, etc. Really smart people in the US tend to avoid government work (because the pay is not as good and the bureaucracy stifling) and go to work in Silicon Valley or in a different field altogether like medicine or finance. In the USSR, mathematics and physics were strongly promoted by the government, so of course they did really well there. Smart engineers went to work making weapons and such because it was probably prestigious, and since all the industry was state-owned, there was no advantage in staying out of it like there is in the US. Why did the SU fail? Simple: the things that make a society good at producing leading physicists aren't necessarily the same things that result in a robust economy. Worse, spending most of your GNP on your military tends not to result in a strong economy either; just look at North Korea. The US spends a lot on its military too, but nothing like what the Soviet Union did, as a percentage of national output.

Mikeb85 11y ago

> Well, we certainly have seen an F-14 go against a MiG-23. Did the Libyan MiGs fire a single shot? Of course I know the answer, so not sure how this can be considered any sort of indicator of the gross inferiority of Russian tech. In fact, based on the engagement itself, and subsequent after-math, a reasonable assumption would be that they goaded the US into the confrontation, as an attempt to gain international support... > I think the rest of your comment is confirmation bias: this ethnic group/nationality is good/bad depending on where you sit on the old racism spectrum. Interesting that you equate my pointing out that Russians are generally well educated and that they produce good engineers with racism. Next if I say Russia produces plenty of good chess players you'll also call me racist? Fact is, their culture encourages people to pursue these activities, and they have fairly high educational standards. Same can be said for many countries who have a strong focus on education, who produce good engineers; witness the recent Indian space program, which is on a relatively modest budget, definitely 'punching above it's weight class'. > The constant applause surrounding the SU is fairly amusing What does my post have to do with the SU, and any economic or political elements of the SU? It's purely about technology. > If Russia is so chock full of greatness why is it running a falling apart economy and have degenerated into a kleptocratic petrostate that makes most middle east dictatorships look progressive and economically sound? I get it, you don't like the US and the EU, but you'd have to be crazy to appreciate the SU and Russia if your complaints are focused on the US not being "Bernie Sanders" enough for you. Again, where are you getting this? Pointing out that they produce relatively advanced technology for their current economic state? And it's the truth, from Sputnik to Mir to their current space program, their defence programs, etc... You're right, Russia's economic output is behind the US, and they somehow still have the ability to put people into space. The rest of it is off-topic, is not related to anything I said, and it's obvious you're trying to offend. > Well, when your targets are Ukranian women and children, yes, the casualty rate is impressive, but that's far from a real military engagement against another nation state. We have yet to see these arms tested against a proper western foe, and for good reason. First of all, the verdict is still out on the exact amount of Russian involvement in Ukraine (especially since the next Ukrainian Prime Minister used to work for the US State Dept, reinforcing the view that the US was involved in the overthrow of the previous government). Second, from a purely objective standpoint, they didn't use air power vs. Ukraine. Anyhow, Russia hasn't gone up against the west, nor vice versa. Russia did rout the Georgian military in a week. And they are the only effective power in Syria right now. Take that for what it is. US analysts have admitted Russian tech is more advanced than they thought, especially in the realm of electronic warfare. BTW, forgive me for having a nuanced view of the world. For not bringing political beliefs into a discussion about TECHNOLOGY. I have Russian friends too, and I'm of Ukrainian background. My wife is black (and an immigrant from a region where the inhabitants were once slaves from both Africa and India), I live in the west, and speak multiple languages. I know people from every corner of the world. Shoot me for not believing in a world where everything is black and white, where it's us vs. them.

PerfectDlite 11y ago
> the verdict is still out on the exact amount of Russian involvement in Ukraine Really? And you still believe that MH-17 was shot by Ukraine, right?
- Mikeb85 11y ago
  Natalie Jaresko is likely going to be the next Ukrainian Prime Minister when Yatseniuk resigns. Mikheil Saakashvili is in their government. The government of Canada already admitted it's embassy was used for logistics purposes during the Kyiv 'protests'. And the Dutch are likely to vote against the EU association agreement with Ukraine coming up. I don't know how much you know concerning Ukrainian politics, or how closely you followed the whole 'revolution', let's just say it's all far from clear cut. And maybe my wording is too nuanced, but I said "the exact amount of Russian involvement". Obviously there weren't Russian Sukhoi bombers wreaking havoc on Kyiv...
  - PerfectDlite 11y ago
    > "the exact amount of Russian involvement" We can be sure that Russia invaded and annexed Crimea and keeping proxy war alive on Donbass, by sending troops and equipment. That amount of involvement is pretty clear.

vacri 11y ago

> this ethnic group/nationality is good/bad depending on where you sit on the old racism spectrum. ... which is then followed by the rest of your comment saying "this nationality is bad". And strangely, you seem to think that criticism of military aircraft is fundamentally tied to a person's desires for a sociopolitical system.

Grishnakh 11y ago

There's nothing racist about recognizing nations for their strengths. The reason some nationalities are better at some things is because their culture emphasizes it. US culture has traditionally been anti-intellectual and emphasizes sports, making money, etc. Really smart people in the US tend to avoid government work (because the pay is not as good and the bureaucracy stifling) and go to work in Silicon Valley or in a different field altogether like medicine or finance. In the USSR, mathematics and physics were strongly promoted by the government, so of course they did really well there. Smart engineers went to work making weapons and such because it was probably prestigious, and since all the industry was state-owned, there was no advantage in staying out of it like there is in the US. Why did the SU fail? Simple: the things that make a society good at producing leading physicists aren't necessarily the same things that result in a robust economy. Worse, spending most of your GNP on your military tends not to result in a strong economy either; just look at North Korea. The US spends a lot on its military too, but nothing like what the Soviet Union did, as a percentage of national output.