4 ms·

I am relaying my direct experiences with the Soviet system for whose propaganda I have a near-lethal dose of skepticism. The mid-80s military spending figures

I am relaying my direct experiences with the Soviet system for whose propaganda I have a near-lethal dose of skepticism. The mid-80s military spending figures represent a state that knows it is in a struggle and may soon start to destabilize. The US never had to use military presence to keep the states together - the USSR did do so for its constituent republics. I am referring to the mid-50s to late 70s. Certainly where a technology had a military application it received greater funding, the technological milestones were not made in personal home creature comforts. But Soviet mathematical and scientific prowess was world-renown. The educational system greatly succeeded in that regard, as I can attest. A few examples are having achieved the only unmanned landing of Venus, and the only unmanned traversal of the Lunar surface whose distance record still stands. These engineering breakthroughs were done in the name of science, yes, but they were milked for all their propaganda value. I am proposing that such a directive with something like renewables should be tantalizing to a country like China.

nickff 5y ago
Well, Venera 4 was the first successful landing on Venus, but not the only one, being followed by NASA's Pioneer Venus 2. Leaving that aside, The Soviets failed in their main objective of landing on the moon, at least partially due to resource constraints, which forced them to use unconventional approaches in their development program. In addition to that, their Mars program was a total failure. Regardless of those details, Soviet state funding of science and technology failed to give them a technological edge in the cold war, or greater scientific prestige than the USA. Both the USA and USSR spent a lot of money on satellite states and allies, but the Soviets put a larger proportion of their money into these sorts of power plays than the Americans did, largely because the US government does not command as large a share of the economy.
- datameta 5y ago
  Granted, I was incorrect about Venus. I'm not sure you're fully seeing what I'm trying to get across, because the discussion turned into a compare and contrast against the US. All of the USSR's failings notwithstanding, I am using them as an example of effectively garnering national pride in technological progress. I propose that China values that outcome greatly, and perhaps to increase adoption of renewables is one way of achieving it.

nickff 5y ago

Well, Venera 4 was the first successful landing on Venus, but not the only one, being followed by NASA's Pioneer Venus 2. Leaving that aside, The Soviets failed in their main objective of landing on the moon, at least partially due to resource constraints, which forced them to use unconventional approaches in their development program. In addition to that, their Mars program was a total failure. Regardless of those details, Soviet state funding of science and technology failed to give them a technological edge in the cold war, or greater scientific prestige than the USA. Both the USA and USSR spent a lot of money on satellite states and allies, but the Soviets put a larger proportion of their money into these sorts of power plays than the Americans did, largely because the US government does not command as large a share of the economy.

datameta 5y ago
Granted, I was incorrect about Venus. I'm not sure you're fully seeing what I'm trying to get across, because the discussion turned into a compare and contrast against the US. All of the USSR's failings notwithstanding, I am using them as an example of effectively garnering national pride in technological progress. I propose that China values that outcome greatly, and perhaps to increase adoption of renewables is one way of achieving it.