Slashdot Mirror


75% of Russia's Satellite Electronics Come From US

schwit1 writes: One Russian aerospace industry expert noted today that three-quarters of all their satellite electronics comes from the United States: "According to [Nikolay Testoyedov], up to 75 percent of the electronic components for Russian satellites come from the US. Consequently, if it retaliates should Moscow refuse to sell RD-180 rocket motors to Washington — which Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin has threatened — Russia's satellite program would be frozen for at least two years. "The imported electronic components in our satellites represent 25 to 75 percent of the total in communications; in military ones, somewhat less; in commercial ones, more," Testoyedov says. Of these imported components, approximately 83-87 percent come from the United States thus giving Washington the whip hand." If we stop providing these electronics he estimates that after their present stock runs out in about a year it would take at least two years before Russia could replace these American-made parts. As the above linked article at The Interpreter mentions, this is relevant in part because of recent talks about U.S. sanctions which could affect this kind of commerce.

127 comments

  1. uh, so? by ihtoit · · Score: 0

    They'll just find another French shell company to source from. Piece of piss.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    1. Re:uh, so? by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or buy it direct from China, where it's actually made.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:uh, so? by ihtoit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Texas Instruments fabrications are done in China?

      Who knew?

      (actually they do have one plant under construction in Chengdu. but most of their fabs are done in Maine, Texas, and Japan).

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    3. Re:uh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can find the electronics components in many shops around the world. Will the US prohibit the sell of basic electronic componets to the entire world?

      At least that I am mistaken, you can't buy a RD-180 in any shop.

      This article is very few professional.

    4. Re:uh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is TX Instruments somehow related to this story?

    5. Re:uh, so? by ihtoit · · Score: 4, Informative

      well, yes, considering TI/NS supply most of the space hardened electronics for the entire planet...

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    6. Re:uh, so? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Informative

      Is TX Instruments somehow related to this story?

      Yep.

      Who do you think builds radiation resistant electronics? Radio Shack?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    7. Re:uh, so? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      You can find the electronics components in many shops around the world. Will the US prohibit the sell of basic electronic componets to the entire world?

      Really? Space rated parts? What planet are you from?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    8. Re:uh, so? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      I'm kind of shocked there are still chip fabs in the USA.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    9. Re:uh, so? by frovingslosh · · Score: 1

      There is no way that Russia could ever figure out how to have someone in the U.S.A. (maybe even someone who works that the Russian embassy) just order this stuff from Digi-Key and then send it back to Russia, maybe even in a diplomatic pouch.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    10. Re:uh, so? by ihtoit · · Score: 1

      Aren't ULA building engines to the RD-180 design in Alabama? The only real issue is the prohibition by the Russians of the US using their RD-180s for military payloads. They're looking for local contractors, Boeing just aren't interested at the moment.

      --
      Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
    11. Re:uh, so? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      No, no they're not. They had the option to build them and they decided it would be too expensive to tool up. Instead, they continue to purchase the engines from NPO Energomash. What you might be thinking of is the NK-33's being refurbished into AJ-26 engines for the Antares rocket used by Orbital; at least until one blew up a few seconds after launch in Virginia in 2013.

    12. Re:uh, so? by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why? Manufacturing goes overseas because it's cheaper, but when you automate the process or require skilled labor it's not really any cheaper to offshore it. In fact, according to Wikipedia the US has more chip fabs than any other country. Significantly so. In fact in general the US is third in the world (behind China and the EU) in total manufacturing output. It just doesn't have very many manufacturing jobs anymore, because most of the plants went hi-tech.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    13. Re:uh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I haven't tried, but can you just go to Digi-Key and order radhard, satellite qualified electronics? If you want to use just any old parts, yeah they can get them, but Russia's record lately on launcher and spacecraft reliability hasn't been so good lately anyway.

    14. Re:uh, so? by frovingslosh · · Score: 2

      Amsat can get the stuff. Elon can get the stuff. It might have to be special ordered, but I can't find any law or regulation keeping it out of the hands of Americans. So yes, I expect it can be bought in this country and then it will wander across our notoriously open boarders.

      --
      I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    15. Re:uh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right? Let's not pretend America produces anything of quality because I think we all know America is made in China at the moment. I'm sure it's cheaper for Russian manufacturers to source SE Asian electronics through American suppliers but were Russia to be put to it I'm sure they could hold their own.

      It occurs to me that if "America" were to put half as much energy into joining the international community as a partner as it does trying to get the "whip hand" over other nations we'd have a lot more friends and a lot fewer reasons for sanctions.

    16. Re:uh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kind of a crap website, tho..

    17. Re:uh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever considered eating your own turds?

    18. Re:uh, so? by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Yes. radiation hardened and MIL spec is used in a lot more places than just space. A lot of medical equipment or even just stuff that needs to last uses those specifications. If you're building something and you want to make sure it works when purchased and lasts for 20 years after that, that's what you buy.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    19. Re:uh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck the Russians. Lets just drop all pretense and revert back to the cold war methodology. In terms of wealth and influence Russia is not even in the same class as the US or China. Their GDP is about 1/8 of the US GDP and the gap increases every year. Their military might be able to threaten the countries on their immediate borders but their force projection is practically nil. Their nuclear weapons are nullified by MAD. And the sanctions against Russia has decimated their currency reserves and low oil prices are not helping things. If the US really wanted to stick it to them they could modify the laws governing the export of natural gas and oil and start supplying all of Russia's customers in Europe. After all the US is slated to over take Saudi Arabia in oil bpd and natural gas production.

    20. Re: uh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FUCK YOU ASSHOLE

    21. Re:uh, so? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Unless all of NSA is busy sifting through Facebook status updates, I would expect any such purchase to receive some very special attention. As it should be.

    22. Re: uh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NO, FUCK YOU

    23. Re:uh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't find? You didn't look hard enough then.
      US-made radiation-hardened components (which are the only option for many component types) are on the US "munitions list" and thus are covered by the infamous ITAR (this stuff is managed by the Department of State, not Commerce). Each and every chip must have complete traceability from its fab (in the US) during its entire life. You cooked one during testing? You don't just throw it away, no no, you put it back in its box and bring it back to the stock where they'll do the paperwork so that DoS knows why it didn't go into the intended satellite. I'm not sure they don't actually have to keep the dead chip for so-many-years just in case there's an investigation on a leak.

      This is a hell of a mess for non-US satellite equipment manufacturers, some of which have long-standing relationships with Russian satellite manufacturers / operators. ESA and JAXA are working hard on being independent from US component sources.

    24. Re:uh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would have to order through third parties like how the US got the Russian Titanium for the SR-71.

    25. Re:uh, so? by matfud · · Score: 1

      Or if you want to buy something that will be supported and available for 20 more years. I will have to track down the video of the storage vaults that TI(?) use to maintain older parts to enable some of the military requirements.

    26. Re:uh, so? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Manufacturing goes overseas because it's cheaper, but when you automate the process or require skilled labor it's not really any cheaper to offshore it.

      I suspect skilled labour over there is still cheaper than skilled labour over here (for suitably Western values of here). And if your assertion is correct why is any electronics production offshored?

      Plus there's more to it than labour. It's always good for business being able dump toxic effluent anywhere you goddam want.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    27. Re: uh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you mean companies like Harris Corp don't supply electronics? They aren't TI

    28. Re: uh, so? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man, you've got serious anger problems. Calm down and take it easy, the much hated federal government has much less influence on your life than you apparently think, and if you get a Republican president again essentially nothing will change except that you won't have any health care any more whatsoever.

      Everything is produced in Asia so you can continue to get things at ridiculously low prices. You should be happy about that. Do you want your fellow US citizens working in slave sweat shops for 30 cents an hour like people in Pakistan and Bangladesh? Or do you want to pay 10 times more for all clothes and electronics you buy? There is not much choice between these options.

  2. 75% of Russia satellite electronics come from USA by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    And 75% of electronics in USA satellites come from Taiwan. - Lev Andropov

  3. American in Decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fuck you Obama

    1. Re: American in Decline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? It was Bush and you fucking GOP that are destroying America.

  4. Re:75% of Russia satellite electronics come from U by ihtoit · · Score: 1

    uh... a movie quote presented as fact??

    This is about as believable as the rest of the movie.

    --
    Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
  5. 'Comes from' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does 'comes from' mean in this case? Are they made in the USA? Designed and marketed by an American company? Or just sold through American resalers.

    I find it hard to believe that it would be hard to find suppliers from other countries for most of these components.

    1. Re:'Comes from' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Creating radiation resistant computer components is not as easy as fabricating a consumer video card. It is extremely expensive and time consuming. In industries that deal with specialty military hardware, you'll tend to see that there are only a handful of those companies in existence and they are concentrated in America (in this case, Texas Instruments has that particular market). You cannot export that sort of fabrication to another country without also exporting the people, R&D, and military secrets along with it.

      So yes, it would be very difficult for Russia to find another supplier for a lot of these components or to start manufacturing all of them locally. This is not consumer technology.

    2. Re:'Comes from' by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

      Most of the time the 'rad hard whatever' is just an old chip manufactured at a lower density factor that is less susceptible to radiation. Like those i486 they put in the Hubble. At one time they did use sapphire substracts, gallium arsenide, and weird shit like that but I doubt they do anymore.

      The Chinese have plenty of obsolete chip plants they could use to manufacture something like that. Heck even the Russians probably could manufacture some old SPARC CPU clones in their even more obsolete plants like they already do.

      Or they could just do what SpaceX does. Use off-the-shelf consumer electronics and use software to make it resilient. Although I'm unsure of how well that would work on something that needs more lifetime than a rocket launch.

  6. Re:75% of Russia satellite electronics come from U by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not the electronics that go in space satellites. Almost all of that fabrication is done in the USA. Hell, almost the entire industry is in the USA.

    We aren't talking about video cards and motherboards.

  7. Russia can't win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is why Putin cannot afford to retaliate with their own economic sanctions. Economically, they are about the same size as Italy. Putin and his cronies can talk as much as they want to about shunning the West economically (or not cooperating with America in space), but if it really came to a trade war, Russian society and their military would suffer far more than America and the rest of the West. Aside from oil/gas exports, Russia makes nothing of use for the West.

    If I were an official in Russia, I would just keep my mouth shut about sanctions and just hope everything blows over in a year.

    1. Re:Russia can't win by guacamole · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why can't Russia just switch to Chinese-made electronics? Certain, components may be inferior to what Russia gets from the west, but it's not like Russian space or military programs would grind to halt only because of Chinese-made components.

      In terms of economic and trade wars, I suspect Russia could in theory afford to shut down all of trade with USA, all of it completely, because USA is a relatively minor partner for Russia. The EU on the other hand is much more important. Lots of Russian manufactured good imports could from EU, while Russian gas and oil are exported there.

    2. Re:Russia can't win by Pentium100 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Also, Russia probably could shut down all trade and be self-sufficient. It has pretty much all naturally occurring elements and energy sources (oil, gas, coal, nuclear), so if they really wanted, they could just manufacture everything locally.

    3. Re:Russia can't win by Tailhook · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Russia probably could shut down all trade and be self-sufficient

      They tried that. They couldn't feed themselves reliably.

      After 70 years of misery and decline they stopped and embarked on a new era of misery and decline, eased substantially by limited trade with the West.

      They have the resources to be self sufficient. They even have the knowledge. Unfortunately, that's not enough.

      To close the loop you need a functioning market of industry and ideas where property rights are respected and investors and entrepreneurs can flourish. Russians don't do that. Their culture is rotten right to the core with corruption. It's been that way since the czars, it was that way right through the commie era and it remains that way today, and any honest Russian will tell you exactly that.

      So no, they can't be self sufficient. They'd be starving again inside 10 years. The grain haulers would be corralled in the switch yard of some apparatchik gang while Russians boil grass in the dark.

      The best thing we can do for ourselves and the rest of the species is keep our foot firmly on their neck until they stop using force in Europe. Or until they end up under China's thumb. Which ever comes first.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    4. Re:Russia can't win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 Internets

    5. Re:Russia can't win by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Russia can be a pure autarky if absolutely necessary in a sense that it has all the resources and enough manpower... but it would be subsistence living. Not quite as bad as DPRK, but much closer to it, as opposed to the standard of living that currently has (which is above many Eastern European countries). I very much doubt the populace would be supportive of such policies for long. And right now, at least, it's essentially a populist dictatorship - there's a certain degree of political oppressiveness, but by and large, it is maintained by genuine public support.

    6. Re:Russia can't win by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      If China finds itself in, essentially, a monopoly position, they might ask for a very hefty price (as already happened with Russian gas).

    7. Re: Russia can't win by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not necessary. china and india need russia for top end weapons so they can keep america in check.

      so the busywork will be done by the chinese while russia can stil afford milions of drinkers and gangsters.

      almaz antey, mig, sukhoi wil make sure.

    8. Re: Russia can't win by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      India is not a country that is seriously in the same league, sorry. It can barely afford to pay its own bills.

      As for China, they don't really need Russia for top end weapons anymore. If you look at their newest military tech, it's pretty much all in-house. Sure, it's based on older Soviet tech that they had - and why not? they would be stupid to start from scratch where they didn't have to. But now they have both the manufacturing capacity to make those themselves, and the expertise to develop it all further. The only thing that they are still interested in from Russia is buying some of the most advanced Soviet tech, and that not to use, but to disassemble and study - and even that interest is fading as the tech in question is aging.

    9. Re:Russia can't win by guacamole · · Score: 1

      Why necessarily subsistence living? Yes, the living and economic standards would go down. People who have to go back to driving Russian cars, fly on Russian airplanes, and use Russian consumer electronics, which in the 1980s were a subject of many jokes in the west. Russian cars, washing machines, televisions, home computers, and VHS players of the 80s were indeed joke compared to what existed in the West at that time, but they all existed.

    10. Re:Russia can't win by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I don't think you fully appreciate the difference between the USSR in 80s, and Russia today. USSR got to that point literally through decades of economic hardship, and even then it could offer a lifestyle at best close to American one from 20 years before that. Russia, on the other hand, had its economy pretty much ruined in the 90s, and only very slowly recovered since then - and said recovery involved making the country a part of the worldwide economy. A lot of the things that enabled relative autarky in the 80s simply don't exist, because when you have free trade with other countries, they don't make any economic sense whatsoever to maintain.

      Heck, forget about consumer electronics; the country can't even manufacture its own CPU for military tech (they can design it, but it's still fabricated in China) - and this is something that has been an ongoing, priority project for the Russian military for several years now.

      The other aspect of it is that it's not just the convenience / luxury things, but the very basics, like food. Russian agriculture is in the shitter compared even to Soviet times, and to remind, they had to buy grain from Canada even back then to feed themselves. With all trade shut down, I find it very doubtful that Russia could actually feed itself well.

    11. Re:Russia can't win by guacamole · · Score: 1

      Regarding the agricultural sector, I think it could respond well and quickly to the economic incentives. Soviet agriculture was a mess because the collective farmers were being paid a tiny fraction of the real market price of their produce. Why work hard when you get pennies on a dollar for all your work? Russian farmers of the last two decades had a different kind of problem.. the imports of cheap, western food, often the result of western food subsidies. I have no doubt that if the Russian state allowed Russian farmers to keep what they have earned, and to sell their products at market prices, Russia could certainly feed itself.

      In fact, in an autarky, the same market forces would also make sure a domestic fabrication of electronics chips will be built. I am sure, the first Russian smartphone would look really goofy, but they can certainly make one. They have the brains and natural resources, but no economic incentives right now.

    12. Re:Russia can't win by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Russian farmers of the last two decades had a different kind of problem.. the imports of cheap, western food, often the result of western food subsidies. I have no doubt that if the Russian state allowed Russian farmers to keep what they have earned, and to sell their products at market prices, Russia could certainly feed itself.

      As it happens, I do know some people directly involved in it, and it's not actually the main problems. The main problems are the lack of a qualified labor force. The collectivist mentality is still quite alive and well in the countryside, and so a farmer who does well has to deal with rampant theft and even vandalism of his property, often from the very same people he has hired.

      The other problem is that a lot of agricultural techniques and machinery in use are not very modern. They're literally getting a yield several times less than a Western farmer would from the same area, and that's in the regions of the country that are most conductive to agriculture (chernozem).

      And yes, market forces in an autarky would obviously stimulate local production... but it still doesn't appear out of thin air. It takes years and years of development and engineering effort, and the thing is, the rest of the world doesn't stand still while that's happening. Autarky inevitably translates to severe technological lag.

      Internally, before the economy can catch up, there will inevitably be a significant slump, as well. Just how much of a slump depends on how much the existing economy depends on foreign trade, especially import - and for Russia this is quite significant. Whether the populace would actually be willing to tolerate that for long enough for economy to rebound is doubtful.

      Unless, of course, such economic policies are also combined with sociopolitical totalitarianism, Soviet-style. That can last for longer - especially as it doesn't need to spend resources on "luxuries" such as civilian cell phones, and can instead just explain the populace that such things are wasteful and unnecessary.

    13. Re:Russia can't win by guacamole · · Score: 1

      "As it happens, I do know some people directly involved in it, and it's not actually the main problems. The main problems are the lack of a qualified labor force. The collectivist mentality is still quite alive and well in the countryside, and so a farmer who does well has to deal with rampant theft and even vandalism of his property, often from the very same people he has hired."

      I read about the same problems in the Russian countryside in the 1990s. But if you're correct, what comes as surprise is that the collectivist mentality is still apparently alive and strong. I have read recently that the mentality and habits of people almost certainly have influenced the paths of different post-Soviet states. For example, I recall someone arguing that Poland did better than the countries to the east of it because in Poland in 1990s there were still many people alive who recalled how market based economy should operate. After all, Poland was a free country until the Fall of 1939.

      In USSR, on the other hand, there was a crackdown on the small private business at least a decade earlier. Not only the last entrepreneurs of USSR had to live longer lives to see the 1990s, but they also had to survive a massive amount of purges, natural and unnatural famines, as well as the WWII. And you can be sure that people who operated a small business in USSR were the ones who were most likely to perish in the purges. Ask any middle-class Russian about this question, and then will probably recall that they had some relative who was a small business owner who ended up being sent into gulags solely because of his entrepreneurial activity (or that of his parents).

    14. Re:Russia can't win by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      As it happens, I am a middle-class Russian :) By the time the purges happened in the USSR, most small businesses were already dead. They were going after people primarily based on their espoused ideology (if public - religion also falls under this), or else ancestry. Basically, if you were nobility by birth, or your daddy was a factory owner, tough shit. Of course, by 30s it all devolved into a random free-for-all - tag a man and they would find a reason. My grandmother's first husband perished like that.

      And yes, the "business is evil" popular attitude is alive and well even today, and is applied pretty broadly. My mother used to be a small business owner in Russia, and she got sick and tired of it and sold everything off partly because of that, and partly because of bureaucrats soliciting bribes (though in many cases it would overlap - a bureaucrat would, for example, justify the bribe as "wealth transfer from you greedy leeches" on one occasion).

      I think part of it was because of the association between business, capitalism and democracy that happened in the 90s. Basically, from 1994 onwards, there was a lot of hate directed at Yeltsin's government because of how shitty the economy grew, and how low the quality of life sank. Yet that very same government consistently emphasized its commitment to democracy and capitalism as part of its official propaganda. As a result, both concepts were tainted by association, and even today, for many, "democracy" is a swear word.

  8. Why is math so hard? by ustolemyname · · Score: 5, Informative

    That title is terrible, and not supported by the article.

    The article presents some numbers, quoting Nikolay Testoyedov:

    • Some Russian satellites are 25% imported components, some are made of 75% imported components.
    • Of these imported components, at most 7/8 (87%) come from America
    • So, at MOST, 65% (75% * 87%) of Russian satellite components are from the US.
    • However, this is just an upper bound from what few numbers we have. Taken in context, it seems likely that the average Russian satellite is only 1/3 to 1/2 American components. Still high, but less shocking than the title number.

    Now, I think Slashdot gets off the hook for the misleading title, because the firggin article attributes the 75% from the US number to Nikolay Testoyedov and used the same number in its title. But the article title demonstrates some terrible critical math and reading comprehension skills.

    1. Re:Why is math so hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the article title demonstrates some terrible critical math and reading comprehension skills.

      This is space tech we're talking about here. We don't need no fancy maths.

    2. Re:Why is math so hard? by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      To be fair though, missing just one component might be enough to make the satellite nothing more than an expensive paperweight. It's not really a question of what percentage of components come from the US, only whether any necessary components come only from the US.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    3. Re:Why is math so hard? by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it is not like it is rocket surgery.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    4. Re:Why is math so hard? by matfud · · Score: 1

      And Russia does launch a lot more commercial satellites then anyone else on our planet. If you can not use the hardware you have in your orbiter or it can not be launched, as the US says NO, you are years into development and pretty screwed.

      So yes it could cause many problems

  9. unfortunate no matter how it goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Having lived through the cold war, and then not the cold war, and now a little miniature cold war again, I liked not the cold war better.

    1. Re:unfortunate no matter how it goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having lived through the cold war, and then not the cold war, and now a little miniature cold war again, I liked not the cold war better.

      One dick measuring contest is much like another, the only thing that varies is the units of measurement. What I'd like to see is politicians going to die rather than them sending everybody else to die in a war. We could stage gladiatorial games where politicians of different political persuasions duel to the death armed with ironclad books containing the political theories of Karl Mars, Mao, Ayn Rand, Adolf Hitler et. al.

    2. Re:unfortunate no matter how it goes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Karl Mars.

  10. No US source [Re:uh, so?] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't ULA building engines to the RD-180 design in Alabama?

    No.

    Early in the program there was a plan to co-produce RD-180 in the US, as a backup to the Russian RD-180, but this was never implemented.

  11. HobbyKing? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    They should just get their stuff from HobbyKing and save a bundle of cash

  12. I wonder where they'll go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only there was another country that sells cheap, knock-off electronics...

    1. Re: I wonder where they'll go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      their scientists will rediscover that one can build the greatest nukes of mankind with a computer of the size of an avr processor.

      russia has millions of basically unempoyed but very well educated people. they can do what computers do in america. at least until china can supplant u.s. technology.

      also they will certainly beed up chinas brains.

  13. Americans ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, they launched it. Regardless of the origin of the tech, someone outside the US did it -- get used to it, we're catching up with you, and I'm not just talking about Russia!

    1. Re:Americans ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! You only think you're catching up, wait til you get a load of all the cool shit we are keeping secret from you.

  14. Shuttles anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Russia has the shuttles though, which might help when it comes to space related stuff.

  15. They don't have 3D printers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was told in no uncertain terms that 3D printing is *THE* game-changing anti-Luddite post-engineering digital reality revolution.

    Can't the Russians just download all the parts they need? Or better yet, put the printer in orbit and 3D print everything needed already in space?

  16. Ruskies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can't expect a bunch of IGNORANT PEONS to understand a plane the way somma our boys can!

  17. The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 0

    They've got little more than rusting cold war hand-me-downs that are horribly obsolete and few Potemkin village weapons platforms that look cool but don't actually work.

    Half of it is about as scary as the death star from the star wars movie "actually" is... aka not at all because it isn't real. It's a model with some special effects.

    I'd worry about most of their shit about as much as I'd worry about dinosaurs eating people in my city.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet they beat you into space many times, *and* terrified you into a decades-long Cold War.

      Sort of shows that these "space spinoffs and benefits" are a load of horseshit, hey you Space Nutter?

    2. Re:The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      Well they beat us into space with the first satellite because we weren't really trying at the time. We were more focused on things with some actual practical value.

      As to them beating us multiple times, once our program got going, we left them in the dust.

      As to terrifying us with nuclear weapons. Even a chimp with a shotgun is menacing.

      And what did their brief moment profit them?

      Imagine what would have happened to Russia if they had adopted a friendly posture to the US instead of an anatongistic one. Look at what China has achieved and they weren't even that friendly to us. They were just willing to hold up their end of contracts.

      And in return for that they've profited greatly.

      Russia could have been a modern first world country. With wealth and power that would be the envy of the world.

      They have enormous territory and huge natural resources. They have a relatively skilled population and a reasonable industrial base. They stand between east asia and europe.

      All trade between those powers could flow through Russia.

      Instead it goes by container ship bypassing russian territory by sea.

      Their natural resources are poorly exploited. Their industrial base has been squandered on military production for obsolete weapons for a war that will never happen.

      They were given everything and they pissed it all away because their country is run by idiots and has almost always been run by idiots.

      They have the occasional bright spark... the Peter the Great or the Gorbachev... but then they go right back to being morons. And for that they lose everything.

      I often think of them as the new Byzantines because they make the same sorts of mistakes. The great Eastern Roman empire had every advantage. And they pissed it all away by fucking over their only people that could NOT fuck over. Their western allies. And for that, Constantinople fell to the Turk. The Eastern empire could have controlled much of the meditaranian and certainly the black sea. They could have been infused with endless hordes of Western armies that would crush their foes under foot.

      They pissed it all away and were devoured by Muslim world.

      As the song goes:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Putin is a fool. We forgave the Russians after the end of the Cold war. We wanted to build profitable mutual relationships. The Russians played along until they thought they had leverage, then they betrayed us.

      They tried to use their role in the oil supply to leverage political concessions. This is a betrayal. Then they used their position in our shared space operations to get political concessions.

      The Russians didn't realize they were being tested. We let them participate in something that didn't really matter to see if they would betray us. They did. Now no one trusts them again.

      They talk about a freight line from Alaska, across the Aleutian islands, and into Siberia creating a transcontinental rail network. Comical. No one is trusting them with an investment like that. We know that once we build and depend on it, the Russians will threaten to cut it off if we don't give them something.

      Does France or England threaten each other to close the chunnel if they have a political dispute? No, they don't. Because they know that would destroy trust between the countries.

      Russia is not that clever. They betrayed Germany with the oil and they betrayed the US with the space program. The comments like "if the americans want to get back into space perhaps they should use a trampoline" showed it was a mistake for us to rely on them or trust them with anything.

      And if you can't trust a trade partner, then it limits the sort of trade you can do the least profitable kinds. Things where quality isn't important or where you count on people to hold up their end of contracts.

      The Chinese broke with the Russians largely because they realized the Russians were bad allies and could not be relied upon for

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA at the time was trying to figure out if a US satellite flying over USSR territory would be considered an act of war. The president at the time hamstrung the launching of the first US satellite because he didn't want scientists creating an international incident that could lead to nuclear war.

      Once Sputnik flew over the USA without a treaty or permission first THEN it was ok to send up satellites over any country. It was a political decision not a technical one.

      Launching the first human was a technical win for the USSR. Landing on the moon first was the USA taking too many risks. The USSR couldn't figure out how to do it safely so they didn't get to it yet, the USA launched guys to the moon when their estimated chance of safe return was less than 50%.

    4. Re:The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that behind the scenes on things that matter the US and China aren't as antagonistic as people think.

    5. Re:The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Germans were the first to pass the Kármán line. So technically they were the first to space The Soviet Union was first to orbit.

    6. Re:The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      hmmm... they are and are not. It is complicated.

      We have strong business interests and the chinese NEED the western markets. The chinese also have ZERO experience with modern warfare so they don't want to fight the sole remaining super power even in limited engagements. Anything capable of firing back won't be touched.

      The US of course doesn't want a problem with china either. Our concern is the sea lanes. The free movement of trade goods by sea is a center piece of US strategic policy. What US strategic policy even is often not understood by most people. Most people don't understand that there is a design in the US's over all agenda.

      Free trade is critical. It cannot be allowed to be threatened. The exception obviously being if it serves our interests but it rarely does.

      We're generally okay with whatever china wants to do so long as they don't invade any country we're allied with, invade a country that changes our strategic posture via our allies, or interferes with trade.

      If China doesn't do these things then we're going to just do business with them.

      Their actions in the South China sea have been troubling because it threatens trade, upsets maritime law, and makes the US and her allies by proxy appear weak. The US is therefore going to be interested in shutting that down to protect trade lanes, preserve the maritime status quo that has existed since the Victorians, and because to not act would cost the US "face" which is quite important in diplomacy.

      If you respect me and I tell you "do that and there is going to be trouble" this has a different effect than if you don't respect me and I say "there will be trouble." Do you see? A lack of respect means the US will have to prove itself by force more often. But if the US is respected then this is not necessary. The US can simply say "stop doing that" and the situation is resolved.

      The dynamics of US, Chinese, and the various pacific partners of the US is complicated. The US is currently engaging in a "shift to china" policy where we're stepping down involvement in the middle east and focusing on East Asia.

      Our allies in the region are asking for this change and China does not want it. So you see... there will be trouble. But China's policy has been thus far to do what it can get away with and to not do what it cannot get away with.

      The problem China is going to run into is that the US is a very complex culture. We are like an onion of personalities and interests. And in different contexts, different layers of our cultural onion are preeminent. Most cultures that try to best us in something get used to the way we act in one context and then get surprised when we act a very different way in what is to us a very different context.

      Take for example the attack on US embassies. Osama bin ladin believed that because the US reacted one way to attacks on their embassies that the US would act the same way if he blew up a building in Manhattan. Now from the outside, this seems logical. The US had many attacks against it by terrorists and generally didn't do anything. In one case we fired some cruise missiles at a terrorist camp which could have been abandoned for all we knew. But the attack on the trade center buildings triggered a massive response.

      This is typical of American interactions with various powers that try to anticipate our reactions without understanding our culture.

      Another example was the attack on Pearl Harbor by the imperial japanese. The imperial japanese had been doing things to US shipping and interests in the pacific for years. We ignored it. The japanese assumed that because we didn't react to those provocations that they could sink our pacific fleet in a surprise attack and the worst that would happen is we'd send them a strongly worded letter. Yamamoto who had gone to college in the US and had a better grasp of US culture knew that the attack would trigger a massive response. He tried to tell his peers this but they didn't believe him. So instead he did his best to make the atta

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is equality, if not more complex than USA. So what makes you think that the Americans will get it right. I think China is more willing to sacrifice the world economy than USA as they have less to lose than the Americans and its allies. And If anything happens, China will be operating in its own backyard. USA will have to move thousand of miles. Chineses people are traditionally nationalistic so they are likely to support their government, especially for a lot of Chinese who has been overseas and understand how USA handling their overseas affairs.

    8. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      China is not as complex. China has a highly centralized autocratic power structure. Their commander of their military is largely the head of the country. Not the president. You can tell because in times of crisis such as TIanaman Square, the people in charge of different branches will start changing hats. And person ultimately in control will be the commander of the military. Which is again, not the president.

      The ways in which china is actually simplified via its power structure are many.

      In the US, the political gestalt is relevant. In china it something to be controlled but which does not impose itself on the politicians or bureaucrats.

      A simplified way of thinking about the US would be to imagine a group of high school students in a stereotypical horror movie. This is useful because the stereotypes can stand in as abstractions of the political mass.

      Now, watch that group of teenagers in various situations. Depending on the situation, different teenagers will be in control of the situation. The brain nerd is going to be queried for his opinion when brainy nerd stuff comes up. The macho jock guy is going to be the most relevant when there is some kind of physical threat to the group. One or some collective of the girls might be relevant in various other situation.

      And so on. The point is that the people that make decisions changes based on the circumstances.

      Your violent alcoholic uncle is usually a joke. But if someone in your family needs to charge into melee or risk getting a bottle cracked off his head... he's probably going to be the guy that steps up. And no one in the group is going to suppress him in that situation.

      In the context of the US, the economic and business people are relevant if there is money to be made. They care about that and will buy access... and on top of that, most people appreciate that they're the best people to send into that situation because they'll know what matters and what doesn't for business.

      But the way they think and their priorities are specific to their subculture.

      Now if you destroy the economic interests in that situation then the business people will abandon it and you'll probably get some faction of the diplomatic wing showing up to make nice with people.

      If that all goes to hell and people start getting killed, then diplomats are going to get suppressed and you'll swing over to the hawks. And the hawks naturally have a very different way of looking at the world than do the other groups. Scare the country or present some sort of credible threat to the nation and these sorts of people that normally don't get a lot of attention or authority... are suddenly the most powerful people in the society.

      This rapid shift in mentality confuses other powers because they get used to dealing with one faction and they assume that faction is the whole country or will regardless call the shots in any situation.

      As such, the peace and diplomacy crew are often assumed to be the only faction in the US of relevance. Enemy powers get used to the dithering of this group when there are minor hostilities. But what happens when a major incursion happens is that these people lose all power. Literally all. They're dog food. And the often irrelevant hawks step into place... and basically do this:
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      If you don't understand American culture, then you don't grasp that the diplomatic core is the softly spoken words. And confusing that for weakness is a mistake.

      The rage, ferocity, and merciless of the American people when this line is crossed is frequently a surprise to rival powers. They don't see it coming.

      They get used to in some cases decades of inaction, tolerance, and unconditional forgiveness for various slights or transgressions. But the line is crossed... and things change completely.

      We have far more factions than that. Different groups have more credibility in different situations. If you change the conditi

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    9. Re:The point is that Russia's tech is crap by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      USSR did that. But today's Russia is not USSR, even though it tries pretty hard to cosplay that.

    10. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When the Soviet Union collapsed you Americans were the first to loot the corpse. You basically privatized everything and stole the rest with the oligarks. You kept treating Russia with no respect untill Putin started to show some muscle. You could have really fixed the relationship between the two countries but you chose to humiliate and neglect.

      Keep watching the History Channel and writing your history essays. Nobody cares for the guy who loves his own voice as much as you do.

    11. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 2

      We did no such thing. If we had, we'd own Russia.

      Do we own Russia or are you wrong?

      Because... one of the two is true.

      If we "looted" russia, what did we loot and where did that loot go? Did we steal Lenin's mummified corpse and put it in the white house as a hat stand?

      Nope.

      As to your oligarchs looting the country... how is that our fault? First the soviets had been looting the country for years. They were living high on the misery of millions. And when it fell, did the country really change? Not really. Some people that ARE Russian looted the country as they always had so they could live high.

      And point of order, a lot of them are Putin supporters. Who do you think keeps Putin in power? The oligarchs.

      If the US were in control, would we keep Putin in power? No. He's a meanie beanie. Why would we support someone that doesn't like us?

      Basically you're doing the same thing that all failed states do... blame an external power for your own failures.

      Typical of banana republics, war torn african shitstorms, and of course... Russia has decided to join that club.

      Congrats. Do you know how many successful countries blame their problems on the US?

      Zero. Not fucking one of them does well.

      So by all means, blame the US instead of your own resident cleptocrats. That way your people will never escape poverty and domination.

      You're basically pushing a belief system that is believed exclusively by ignorant peasants. So good work there. ;)

      I'm not a peasant. I take responsibility for the shitshow my country is on occasion. That is because I am a citizen. And citizens take responsibility. Peasants are taught that they are powerless and so take responsibility for nothing.

      *Kiss Kiss*

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    12. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "oligarchs". You know, like anar*chy* or monar*chy*.

    13. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      As such, the peace and diplomacy crew are often assumed to be the only faction in the US of relevance. Enemy powers get used to the dithering of this group when there are minor hostilities. But what happens when a major incursion happens is that these people lose all power. Literally all. They're dog food. And the often irrelevant hawks step into place...

      I think of it less as "lose all power", than "authorizing a temporary grant of power" to the "General Ripper" and "The Blood Knights".

      Think of the US as "The Federation", who is quite willing to be the Picard most of the time, but if they think you're a credible threat, then you discover that those "exploration cruisers" are actually heavily armed battleships.

    14. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      And another thing, Russia could have made it work, they had plenty of examples of making it work, but no, mafiya, kleptocracy and oligarchs. And they did it to themselves.

      The USA is not perfect, as you said "shitshow", but we put people in federal prison for stuff that is considered expected and penny-ante in Russia and the Third World.

    15. Re:The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Karmashock" you're a moron.

    16. Re:The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Well thank you for a typically illuminating comment from another gifted AC. It is because of minds like yours that most people have such a high regard for the common ACs on this site.

      Keep up the good work.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    17. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point in an attempt to gain some sort of illusory high ground.

      The point I'm making is that when certain thresholds are crossed, the US is prone to rapid changes in nature and character.

      This is not the case for Russia. Putin for example would remain in power regardless of the situation and the various people that advise him would remain largely static.

      This means there is no sudden change in character.

      The US is different. When the thresholds are crossed, different groups of people gain and lose power in the system. This causes a sudden change in the nature of the nation.

      Again... you can look at Pearl Harbor and 9/11 as examples. Other world powers don't change like that.

      They start out more prepared to engage in hostility and then make a relatively subtle transition in posture.

      The US changes are not subtle. They are sudden and extreme.

      This was my point.

      Your point is what? That the US isn't full of nice people? Compared to whom? We're nicer than anyone else of similar power levels and responsibilities.

      I love the fuckwits that try to compare the US to Sweden or Mexico or something when it comes to geopolitics. Those powers have no international responsibilities. No one stops and says "the Swedish will save us!"... and because of that, they're not comparable.

      Powers you can compare the US to?

      The old British Empire.
      The Soviet Union.
      Ancient China
      Imperial Japan
      Nazi Germany
      The Holy Roman Empire
      The Turkish Empire
      The Mongol Empire

      Etc. And if you limit your comparison to nations and peoples that actually had REAL power, you'll find the US is pretty much the nicest hegemonic empire EVER in the history of the world.

      Here I presume you're going to find my point inconvenient because you really wanted to compare the US to Sweden or something. Tough shit. Its an unreasonable comparison.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    18. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how nicely you regurgitate the new york gospel.

      from the russian p.o.v. gorbi first believed the american propaganda and then the ex soviet union descended into the economic crapper. jelzin gave everything to new york international for a guaranteed supply of booze.

      so they figured they needed a god loving patriot. a man trained to ferret out the bullshit.

      it worked excellently compared to the traitor jelzin.

    19. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the problem with you americans is that you believe your own propaganda lies.

      just admit that only ss men could launch satellites. americas failed. russians used the ss guys more aggressively.

    20. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The Russians are fed so much propaganda that their opinions aren't worth a lot.

      You believe what you're told. Like good little peasants.

      As to the Soviets descending into the economic crapper, they were in the crapper before that. Your standard of living has been much lower than ours since always. Your people are poor and have been poor for a very long time.

      And that is despite having great resources, great industrial capability, and a relatively well educated technical population that could have made Russia very rich. You stand between east asia and europe.

      The trade between those countries could flow THOUGH you. And along the way you'd get manufacturing jobs and service jobs to manage that trade or do assembly or manufacture things or something.

      But what happens? The trade bypasses you. You profit NOTHING from the trade between Europe and East Asia.

      And why is that? Because you're untrustworthy. We believe you'll steal the good or hold them hostage for political concessions. Look at what you did to Germany with your oil? Germany doesn't trust you now. They trusted you enough to depend on you but they don't want to rely on you anymore because you're an extremely foolish people. You don't know how to conduct business.

      And you did the same thing to the US with our shared space program. Do you honestly think the US needed your help to maintain a space program? You are meaningless to us. It was a test. We wanted to see if you'd betray us. And you did. Its what your people do. And as a result, the US is going to break off its space program with yours. Which means you'll have to fund it entirely on your own. Good luck with that.

      Our goal at this point is to make you poor and primitive enough that you aren't even a chimp with a shotgun. Your people already have a per person economy worse than Slovaks. It is going to get a lot worse.

      And then your neighbors in the south and the east are going to start nibbling at your territory. Eating your rotting society alive.

      And America will watch and smile.

      Your one chance as prosperity was maintaining good relations with the West. We're the only people that could have been your friends. We could have injected capital and given business contracts to your people. We could have helped you build up your infrastructure. We could have made you rich and powerful. Not our slave any more than Australia is our slave.

      And you pissed it all away for NOTHING.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    21. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Karmashock,
      Who has 18 Trillion in debt and can not balance a budget ?
      Who is creating all the derivatives fraud ?
      Does the USA have a trade imbalance of 10 billion per month ?
      What is Four trillion of money printing QE by the FED to rescue wall st ?
      What is ZIRP zero interest rates looting the savers and elderly in USA? How many lost pensions ?
      Shall we talk about TOO BIG TO FAIL ? 700 Billion TARP half truth....no trilions of free money.

      I am not defending RuUssia. I am saying how can this be sustainable in the USA ? We make policy and laws. Should be interesting with the BRICS which is nearly 3,000 million est. (3 trillion approx) vs 318 million in the USA.

    22. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      Is the US debt load increasingly unsustainable? Yep. Comes from having an out of control welfare system pushed by idiot socialists.

      Are you a socialist? Then it is people like you that create this sort of problem. If not, then welcome to the few that aren't responsible for fucking it all up.

      That said, we have a 12 trillion dollar economy and our debt's interest rates are very low. So really it isn't so bad.

      As to Wallstreet being out of control, yep. But again how does this grant Russia any superiority? Russia couldn't create an economic problem if it wanted to because it is irrelevant. The US creates global economic problems when it fucks up because it is the most relevant economy in the world.

      As to trade imbalances, that is actually not quite true. You have to keep in mind that a lot of things are not tracked in those trade statistics. For example, if I sell or license my intellectual property to you and in return you sell me steel... my IP is not counted as trade and your steel is. The US has a larger portion of its economy in IP than any other economy in the world. So it is natural that we'd have a big trade imbalance because the statistics do not count all trade.

      As to the Fed being a slimy organization... yep. I don't see how this proves Russia is better though. You're poorer than us by an extreme degree. We're about four times more wealthy than you per person. That is, you're paid about 25 percent what we're paid. Think about that. So yeah... we have problems and we're not perfect. But that's life. Russia is still a joke.

      As to too big to fail... yep again, though is Russia any better there? Do you let your core institutions fail and die when they fuck up? The only difference is that ours are larger than yours and require proportionally larger bail outs when they collapse.

      Look, I'm a libertarian, buddy. I don't like the fed. I'd like it abolished entirely. It was only brought into law through trickery in the first place. The law that brought the Fed into existence was passed on a Christmas.

      But we at least have rule of law. Enemies of Putin are murdered in the streets. Media outlets critical of the regime are thrown in jail on trumped up charges.

      Your people are mushrooms. You're kept in the dark and fed shit.

      We at least know what our problems are... you don't even know what yours are.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    23. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is the US debt load increasingly unsustainable? Yep. Comes from having an out of control welfare system pushed by idiot socialists.

      That is an idiotic oversimplification. The primary cost of the "welfare system" is actually social security and related pensions, which could pay for themselves, if politicians would stop raiding those coffers for pet projects.

      If you want to know what really doesn't pay for itself, look to the military. They get carte blanche on pretty much whatever they ask for, and they've really been getting fat since 9/11.
       
       

      Are you a socialist? Then it is people like you that create this sort of problem. If not, then welcome to the few that aren't responsible for fucking it all up.

      The way you phrase that suggests you don't have the slightest idea what socialism is actually about. But go ahead and pin it on your favorite boogey man if it makes you feel better about yourself.
       
       

    24. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Welfare spending has been increasing radically over the last 50 years.

      Medicare, medicaid, EBT, disability insurance, etc etc etc.

      You add it up and it is about 60-70 percent of the US federal budget... and growing.

      To cite anything but the welfare as the problem with the budget is to declare your personal ignorance or deceit.

      As to whether you're a socialist or not... Guessed right. You are a socialist. :D

      You people are so predictable and obvious. You fuck up everything you touch and take no responsibility for any of it. :D

      We can't have a productive discussion. You're not going to be capable of the inherent honesty and good faith required for such a discussion. You'll just get selectively stupid or lie if I corner you. So... change the subject off your pathetic ideology or simply don't presume to talk me further about it.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    25. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      No, their failures are their own. Denying this is merely self delusion.

      As to the US having some negative consequences of fighting the drug war?... sure. Which nation would you rather be?

      The US or Russia? Comparing the two isn't even close. Russia and has been for a long time... a sad joke.

      If they weren't run by fools they could be very rich and very powerful.

      But they are run by idiots and the price is to be an international laughing stock.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    26. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Here I presume you're going to find my point inconvenient because you really wanted to compare the US to Sweden or something. Tough shit. Its an unreasonable comparison.

      Not with the list you put up above. To quote the previous start of the entry for Sweden in the CIA world fact book "Though a military super power in the 17:th century..."

      So if you can compare the US to the holy roman empire, then you can compare it to Sweden. The 30 years war for example, was the first true world war and it lasted three times as long as the two the US has been involved in, combined. There were plenty of people who said "the Swede will save us!" (and for a time we actually did), just about as many as sang "Sleep, child, sleep, for tomorrow comes the Swede".

      Not that I'm particularly proud of this moment in history, mind you, but it happened all the same.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    27. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      That's a distinction without meaning. First, you're not talking about modern sweden but about 17th century Sweden which had a very different character and nature than the modern Sweden. Compare the US morally and ethically against 17th century Sweden, and it is unlikely the modern US would look worse.

      Second, while Sweden might have been threatening to their immediate neighbors, they had no where near the projection of true empires. I grant they were formidable. But only within their region.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    28. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      Point of note, here in the UK we never really gave a dam about what Sweden was getting up to in the 17th Century. I also suspect neither where the Spanish.

    29. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I'm well aware. The super power claim wasn't taken seriously.

      I only brought up that tangent because I could smell the moral equivalency coming and I had to head it off by insisting on ACTUAL equivalency. Such arguments tend to rely on conflating very minor powers that couldn't do anything really nasty even if they wanted with huge powers that often have no choice but to do nasty things. It comes with the power.

      So if the US is to be judged morally or ethically, it should be judged against its peers... which are other hegemonic powers. Powers capable of dictating policy on a word. That narrows the field considerably and also puts the US in a context where it is hard to actually impugn the US in any great extent.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    30. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      No, their failures are their own. Denying this is merely self delusion.

      Why do you think I'm disagreeing with you? I said "They did it to themselves" which is EXACTLY THE SAME as "Their Failures are their own"

    31. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point in an attempt to gain some sort of illusory high ground.

      I think you're misconstruing my point. What I'm saying is that the US doesn't fundamentally change, it just changes the tools it's using. You see it as one group losing all power, and I see it as the US as a whole just changing the tools it's using for a while.

      After Pearl and 9/11 the US didn't turn into a military dictatorship, the civilian government just gave the OK to the military to do their thing and gave them the resources necessary to do so. The diplomats and politicians were still running things, they just sent their hounds out to teach a lesson. The toolset changed, because the country decided to switch it's toolset.

      And where did I compare the US to Mexico or Sweden? I think you're reading some kind of nefarious intent where there isn't.

    32. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      sorry, i was still basically reacting to this guy:
      http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

      he was saying the Russians failed to produce a prosperous democracy because the Evile Amerikanzis looted his country and some how instituted the oligarchy.

      So we're on the same page that that guy had his head up his ass... sorry for the confusion. :)

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    33. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The problem is that that isn't what happens. There is a sudden change in mentality.

      You could say Russia or China or any country just changes the tools. They don't send their general to negotiate a trade deal or their diplomat to command their armies.

      And yet this sudden change in US posture is unique to the United States so far as I know. I've seen no other nation that shifts that fast and will make changes that extreme to its policy.

      The US will make 180 degree turns in policy in an instant. There's no other power that does that.

      Now why does the US do that? I offered my theory for it. You don't like that theory? Okay... Do you have one of your own that explains the shift and why it is unique?

      As to the US turning into a military dictatorship, to the contrary we had people in internment camps, we were executing German spies almost daily, we had rationing, a mandatory draft, and a great many other hallmarks of a militarized society.

      What is more it isn't just that we gave the Okay to the generals. It was that prior to that point the Generals had very little influence. They were suggesting a firmer hand with Japan long before Pearl harbor. And this was overruled by the diplomats.

      Then Pearl Harbor happened. No one gave a fucking shit what the diplomats said at that point. All anyone wanted to hear was what the Generals and Admirals wanted to do.

      It was a sudden shift. You say this is just a change in tools? How is that any different from my comment if the tools ultimately control how things are done and your PREVIOUS tools are utterly ignored for the duration and they controlled how things were done in their time?

      The answer is that you've cited a distinction without meaning.

      As to mexico and sweden:
      ""I think of it less as "lose all power", than "authorizing a temporary grant of power" to the "General Ripper" and "The Blood Knights".

      Think of the US as "The Federation", who is quite willing to be the Picard most of the time, but if they think you're a credible threat, then you discover that those "exploration cruisers" are actually heavily armed battleships.""

      The point appears to be to render some kind of moral or ethical judgement. To suggest the US isn't so pure or so sweet.

      I say "compared to whom?" I'm not competing against a fictional ideal. Real world comparisons only. And lets keep it to hegemonic powers.

      Cite a hegemonic power purer than the US. You won't find one.

      Do we match up to some goalposting fictional ideal? No one can. I'm not even going to take that challenge seriously.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    34. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      That's a distinction without meaning. First, you're not talking about modern sweden but about 17th century Sweden which had a very different character and nature than the modern Sweden. Compare the US morally and ethically against 17th century Sweden, and it is unlikely the modern US would look worse.

      No argument, it was you how brought up the comparison with empires of yore, and then mentioned Sweden in the next breath.

      Whether you'd look worse... Good question. "We" were pretty bad, so I'm not sure that's aiming very high. However, the world has also changed, we're much more peaceful now, so an absolute comparison is fraught with difficulty anyway.

      Second, while Sweden might have been threatening to their immediate neighbors, they had no where near the projection of true empires. I grant they were formidable. But only within their region.

      Well, by that token, so were many others on your list. Also, those that covered lots of land, often ruled vast "empires" of no-one, as many of the areas where they ruled didn't have much of a population to begin with (the Mongols come to mind here).

      The British ambasador of the time did after all tell the Swedish monarch that Sweden's natural border in the east ought to be considered to stop at the shores of the black sea. The crown didn't think the Swedes had any natural claim beyond that (and schemed to start another war with Russia to put a stop to that). So, "our" influences well beyond the local region were considerable at the time.

      So, in short, I'm not really arguing with your basic premises, just picking a nit regarding comparisons between "empires" and "Sweden" being invalid. Historically it's not a stretch.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    35. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to what the British Empire told you... consider ulterior motives. This is an unavoidable consequence of the sort of power I'm talking about.

      A lot of an empire's power is based on pretense... image... machismo... fear... respect... love... some kind of emotion. And the best application of that is to get people to do what you want them to do.

      I know that the British were fighting the Crimean War around 1853. Do you have a date on when the British said "oh hey, you should totally go in that direction because its your destiny and stuff."?

      If it lines up at all trouble the british were having in the vicinity of wherever they told you to go, then it is possible they simply wanted you to be a stablizing force in the region. After all, what does it cost them if you dominate people that aren't them and in the process serve their interests?

      The US does this with some regularity. Though we tend to feel it is important that whatever we're telling you to do actually can work out well for you... and whomever might be getting suppressed.

      Again, it goes back to the "win- win" scenario. We ideally like outcomes where in our opinion everyone profits.

      So for example, dictator gets toppled... we tend to view that as a win win because freedom is awesome and tyranny sucks for everyone. Trade deals where various countries agree to not fuck with free trade that therefore allows other countries to trade freely with those countries. The net result is generally a common economic boom. win win.

      Anyway, the old British Empire was not above such things. Great powers never are. They handle it differently sometimes based on the internal philosophies of each culture. But the core ethics of it are "this is a tool and using it will save our people time, money and life."

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    36. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, there were plenty of ulterior motives. You see, the Swedish government in about 1670 before Charles XII realised that in order for Sweden to survive we had to have peace with the Russians. So the deal was made that we would help open the old silk road. We would help the Russians build canals etc. for a transport route that would take gods from India and China via Persia, across the Kaspian via Volga to Narva via Moscow. The endpoint would be where present day St Petersburg is, i.e. with handy access to the Baltic (Swedens "Mare nostrum" at the time as Finland and the Baltic were Swedish), Sweden and the world.

      BUT, this of course pissed off the naval powers that had a lock on that trade royally. So they schemed and schemed to have war between Russia and Sweden, and with a new Peter the Great, who listened too much to the Dutch (another of the two great eastern sea/trading powers at the time) and a Charles the XII who listened to the Duke of Marlborough, John Churchill (yes an ancestor of that Churchill), who at Sachsen/Saxony persuaded the young king to not join the Saxony/English against the French, but instead keep at the war with Russia! (He thought it better in the long run for Sweden and Russia to bleed each other dry, rather than having the extra help against the French. And this at the time when the war against the French was a very closely run affair, and not at all certain. He later professed this to be his most prominent achievement). This against the protestations of the Saxony/Hannoverian government official Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (yes that Leibniz!)

      And of course the plans of Marlborough worked. Sweden lost at Poltava 1709, (which marked the end of the Swedish empire and the rise of the Russian), and then the king fell at Halden in Norway in 1718 and in hindsight that was all she wrote. Sweden was too tired of war to even try and continue, and little by little the "empire" collapsed. The Russians hit the final nail in the coffin in 1809 when the took Finland (which had been Swedish for 600 years by that time). We basically haven't been to war since.

      So, definitely not a win-win scenario. And as you point out, like everything important, based on trade. We wanted it, the Dutch, English, (and Portuguese, and Spanish) didn't want to lose it, and they took steps to prevent that from happening, and we and the Russians fell for it. Hindsight 20-20 and all that... :-)

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    37. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      There you go. You know a lot more about this specific incident than I do, but I still predicted accurately that there were some unstated hijinks involved. I should note again, that I didn't claim the British were believers in Win-Win. This is an American belief... The British empire believed in the more traditional "win-lose" system.

      The reason America believes in Win Win is not just altruism but what we think of long term wisdom. First, when people lose they are rarely destroyed. Which means they are left resentful and become long term enemies because you've slighted them again and again.

      Next, nations inside your influence web should profit and be strong while countries outside your influence web should be weak. If we're constantly fucking over everyone that listens to us then those inside our influence web will be weaker than those that do not listen to us. That is our allies have to profit to stay strong.

      Third, you don't want to balance your entire hegemony on ONE thing. The fear of military reprisals works only so long as you have the military force to back up that position. Lets say you get into a big war such as happened to the British empire in WW1 and WW2. What happened to their empire? It fell apart because the primary thing holding together... the British image of invincibility... was gone. We want powers to stay with us for as many reasons as possible. Like us if possible. Like our culture. Profit from our trade. Like our technology. Anything and everything at once.

      Its like a table with at least a dozen legs. Take one away for a time and the table still stands. A table with one leg cannot survive having that leg removed.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    38. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      The British empire believed in the more traditional "win-lose" system.

      That may be a bit harsh. I would say it was more a "we win, we don't care particularly what happens to you". If you look at e.g. the African nations that won independence from their European masters the former British ones usually did OK. The Brits had taught the natives how to actually run a country, as they needed the country to be run and didn't want to waste their own manpower on it.

      You can contrast this to many of the smaller players, like Portugal or, horror of horrors, Belgium. They were more likely to just abuse the locals for sheer short sighted profit taking and to hell with everything, and everyone else. "The heart of darkness" was after all written as an argument against the abuses of King Leopold of Belgium.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    39. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to be unfair to the British. They knew how to run an empire but they didn't uplift nations in their spheres for the mutual profit of those peoples. They invested in those countries to profit the empire or make controlling the territory easier.

      No one ran a global empire better or more benevolently than the British until the Americans came along. Our administration is very different in character but arguably more stable, definitely more profitable, and the people's within our sphere tend to be happier because they can pretty much do whatever they want until it comes to geo politics.

      That's really where the US starts paying attention to things... when something crosses the lines on the map. If it stays within certain borders we tend to ignore it. This is why for example we don't get involved in the brutal civil wars in Africa. Central africa from our perspective is all sort of one big mess. We have very little invested in it and the chaos there doesn't spread. They just kill each other in huge numbers.

      The middle east draws us because they keep invading each other and especially messing with Israel which we have a lot invested in. If they just killed each other in their own countries we'd probably do nothing. Our assumption is that such wars burn themselves out and there's no long term benefit to getting involved in some country's civil war. Wait for one side to kill the other and then sign a trade deal with the victor.

      Let me just finish with saying I have great admiration for the old British empire and the US learned a lot of what it knows from it. Forgive us if we have our own spin on the issue. We're all going to do things differently.

      Our method has pros and cons. But this is the system we're most comfortable with.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    40. Re:The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      China is boxed.

      She is boxed from the north by Japan. She is boxed to the east by Korea and Australia. She is boxed to the west by India. All she has left is the south china sea. That's her way out of the box.

      Which is in large part why the Chinese are focusing on the South China sea. They're trying to get out of the box.

      They can't. Even if they pushed into the south china sea it wouldn't really help them. They'd have to push into other areas to break the cage. It isn't happening. As I said, China has no friends. They'd need strategic partners to break out. And they have none. Their accomplishments ironically make other nations more nervous about them and drives more countries into the US's arms.

      You forgot Pakistan. China is investing heavily in developing a railway and 6 lane highway link form its western provinces to the Gwadar port in the Arabian sea to get out of this boxing. Did you really think they are investing in a country with a non-existent economy and zero purchasing power out of the goodness of their hearts ?

    41. Re:The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      And what makes you think Pakistan is an ally of China?

      You can move economic goods that way. But then the US believes in free trade so we wouldn't interfere with that in any case.

      Now imagine what happens if Chinese troops enter pakistan? The chinese are not muslim. ;) So the fun is pretty predictable. The beardy death cultists will cause problems.

      What is more, pakistan is very unstable. They've a very tense relationship with India and the two can be played off against each other if you need them to change policy. China's road further doesn't get them out of the box.

      To get out of the box, China would need a network of contracted ports that they could dock warships in at any time for supply/repair/RR for crew. And then china would need a large Navy to make use of that.

      China is a land power. Not an air power. Not a sea power. They are a LAND power.

      Land powers very rarely are able to field credible navies or to invest the time to really understand what they are doing.

      When land powers go to sea, they are frequently incompentent, their designs are comically bad, they easily lose interest and go back to their land issues, and even if they aren't... you can intentionally distract them very easily.

      It takes a special mentality and commitment and experience to be able to pull it off. The chinese have none of it. None.

      They don't think in terms of the sea. They think in terms of their borders.

      Think of the US. Do we think in terms of OUR borders? No. Our borders are the least of our concerns. America is the world's largest Island naval power. North America is our island. At a strategic level, we dominate it utterly. China can't make that claim. Russia can't make that claim. The UK can. The US can. Japan can. And this means that such powers can project without having to man expensive forts or whatever along our borders because we can more easily intercept things at sea long before they get to us. And since we're already out there ready to intercept... we can use the same force to project power.

      China also has iffy relations with their islamic population. The chinese love pork. They're not big fans of foreign religions. And they're pretty xenophobic compared to most people... and there are some muslims living in China. And that means that with some frequency the Chinese crack down on them whenever they get uppity.

      Beyond that, to secure Pakistan, China would have to PAY them. I mean MONEY. Not public works. Cash. That's what the Pakistanis really want. Mostly to keep their government from collapsing and to keep the political wheels greased in what is one of the most corrupt societies possible. The US pays Pakistan. If Pakistan flips on us, we'll double down on India, stop sending checks to Pakistan... and then China is going to have fun dealing with the shit storm that creates.

      The thing I find the most interesting about these discussions is that people don't appreciate that Americans not only are capable of but have generally thought through the geopolitics through in greater detail than most nations. We after all must consider wider spans of the globe. We balance one area that is getting pissy with another.

      We are not a stupid people. To the contrary, we have a better handle on how to manage these issues than most powers can imagine.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    42. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by lars_stefan_axelsson · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to be unfair to the British. They knew how to run an empire but they didn't uplift nations in their spheres for the mutual profit of those peoples. They invested in those countries to profit the empire or make controlling the territory easier.

      Sure, don't get me wrong, I didn't say they did. However, they were much better than most of the "competition".

      No one ran a global empire better or more benevolently than the British until the Americans came along.

      That is up for debate I think. :-) I even said as much during your past and current debacle in Iraq. "You even had the British with you, the best imperialists there have ever been, and you still couldn't take their advice and do the smart thing." (They moved to have Abu Ghraib bombed for example, it being such a powerful symbol for Saddam's oppressive rule. Did you? No instead you made it a symbol of your oppressive rule. It's such a rookie mistake it's painful to see.

      And then sending his army complete with political leadership home? WTF? You didn't even do that to the Nazis until after several months. German army units and US units even patrolled together all through the summer of '45, to ensure a stable and peaceful transition. It wasn't until after that was secured that you started hunting Nazis in earnest. So analogously, following your own example, in Iraq you should have rounded up the republican guard in short order and left the rest to simmer until done. Then dealt with it. You didn't and ended up with Iraq a vassal state of Iran, and the bloody Isis in the north.

      So, I understand that you try and sell the current US as the empire that thwarts all other empires, but from outside I (and many with me) just can't see it. We see business acumen, and nothing else. No knowledge of actual facts on the ground, no sense or knowledge of history (local or otherwise), no shrewdness, no long term plan or direction. And by your own explanation, that's perhaps not surprising as the US leadership almost guarantees that there can be none of the above. To be a skilled imperialist, you need knowledge, direction, and being in it for the long haul. The US system, with everybody changing all the time, as you point out guarantees that that won't happen.

      And hence you get the many messes that you get yourself involved in. Half heartedly and haphazardly. You can't seem to neither shit, nor get off the pot. From Vietnam to Iraq the symptoms and outcome are the same. And everybody else knows this, beating the Americans is easy. Just bleed them until they lose interest, as they inevitably will. The US have no staying power. (Compare that with the British if you will.) Even two-bit Somali war lords understood this, and managed to pull it off without much effort.

      Now, why the US as imperialists are a failure, is a good question, and one we could write books on (as others have), but let me end with saying that of course this isn't all bad, or even overwhelmingly so. I'd absolutely hate for the current US to start behaving like the British, even as late as the late nineteenth century, don't get me wrong. I'd rather see an inept US that doesn't really want to be imperialist, than one that would and started doing that competently. But I'd also rather see a US that took an even more complete step in that direction and avoided clumsiness like Iraq altogether.

      --
      Stefan Axelsson
    43. Re: The point is that Russia's tech is crap by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      As to it being up for debate that the US was more benevolent... not by any objective measure.

      Set hard standards that can be quantified and you'll find the difference is quite stark.

      We have no colonial india. we have no colonial egypt. we don't even control the panama canal.

      Stop and think. Would the British have given up something like the Panama Canal during their Empire?

      Of course not. The US did. We gave it up on the understanding that if it is held hostage or misused in any way we might come back. But so long as they don't do that... we take no part. :)

      No comparison. Look at the world and notice that there are no US colonies... anywhere.

      We do have military bases But they're military bases. People typically don't live there with the intention of having a family and living on the military base forever. They live there for some years and then they come back to the US.

      We have no Australia. There is no US version of Pakistan under the British empire. The British did nation building by replacing the local government with a british governor.

      The US doesn't do that. We didn't even do it in Iraq. We found this hapless fellow that apparently was the best we could do and put him in charge. We gave him giant stacks of cash and weapons. We helped them draft a constitution and explained to them how republics work. We hoped they'd build something respectable. Sadly the idiots looted the money, sold the weapons, and all the soldiers deserted.

      What are you going to do.

      We tried. Those idiots apparently deserved the old Empire. It didn't respect the locals to know how to run anything and apparently that lack of trust was well placed.

      As to our handling of Iraq, the problem with all this is what we're asked to do two mutually exclusive things. We're supposed to win and we're supposed to be politically correct. We've been having trouble with the PC police because we know what we have to do but we also know that doing it creates "bad optics" in the west and at home. So we have to do everything as much as possible while satisfying BOTH agendas. Its not easy.

      The British Empire never had to deal with a 24 hour news cycle, teenagers calling your campaign genocide from their parent's basement, and assorted indignities from the morons on social media.

      WE have to deal with that. Lets not pretend the playing field is equal here. Can you imagine the old British empire having to explain to their own people for every little ugly thing that ever happened in any corner of the empire AS IT HAPPENED. There's no point.

      So we have special circumstances to contend with that the British never had to struggle with.

      As to this notion that we're stupid... A lot of this stems from a forest from the trees mixed with quite a lot of 20 20 hindsight.

      First, you have to appreciate that we're not focused on one area. Everything is linked.

      The issue with Iraq was the possibility of the nuke. And the possibility of the nuke was the possibility of a nuke in Iran. And the nuke in Iran means the entire middle east goes nuclear. And that creates a game theory paradox for general strategic policy which would force the US to retreat from his position as global policeman. This would cause a collapse in international law since who would enforce it. And a collapse in the global trade lanes because who is going to keep them open.

      That whole statement likely sounded completely bizarre to you. If so, I'll explain it in detail because this lies at the bottom of most of the confusing things you see the US do. Most people outside of the US don't get this. But US strategic policy for decades has been rooted in the imperative to prevent the US from getting annihilated in a nuclear engagement.

      THAT is our policy. Everything we do is derived from that.

      Take the current US undermining of Syria. Why are we doing that? Because it gets us closer to Iran and it will make it easier for us to seal them up tight if they get a bomb. We want to have a

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  18. COTS revolution is underway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most satellite electronics to date have been specialized "space qualified, rad-hardened" parts, and these indeed are still made in the US. They are needed because the space environment, and especially the radiation environment, is hostile for commodity electronics. However, the space industry is very rapidly changing, and one big change is toward the use of commodity electronics. (COTS or "commercial off-the-shelf"). You get system reliability via redundancy instead of by using specialized parts. This works because space-qualified parts are several generations older than the COTS state of the art, so 3-to-1 or even 10-to-1 redundancy consumes less size, weight, and power (called "SWaP" in the space industry) for the same functionality and reliability as the old space-qualified parts.

    1. Re: COTS revolution is underway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you just made the day of a gru sigint analyst.

      more seriously, whatabout power electronics and permanent damage ?

  19. ITAR gets in the way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure, but whoever does the buying of the space rated parts (which are not, in general, available from DigiKey) will get them with a nice notice saying "these parts are subject to ITAR, export may require a license"

    If they then transfer them to someone who's not a US person without a license, they've just committed a federal crime. And oddly enough, there's a nice paper trail to the person making it very easy to find them.

    Espionage and smuggling are omnipresent, but probably not a good way to run a satellite industry.

  20. rad tolerance/rad hard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, not old low density chips. they tend to have worse radiation properties. Unless you're talking 4000 series CMOS.

    Yes, SiGe and Silicon on Insulator are popular for radiation tolerance.
    A lot of modern parts are reasonably radiation tolerant: very small feature sizes helps, because it requires a lot of doping to make the junction work in such a small size. Large doping levels means less likely that a particle will upset the apple cart.

    The real issue is process controls: in some cases radiation tolerance depends on things that don't affect conventional yield, so they're not well controlled in commercial parts. You might get a lot that's great, and the next lot from the fab is different.

    There's also a lot more to space parts than the fab process. There's also the testing and inspection.

    Also bear in mind that there's a difference between latchup (fairly rare these days) and bit flips: the latter can be handled by EDAC or good design, and is a "soft" failure. SEGR (Gate Rupture) is another problem, but that's more about biasing levels.

    1. Re:rad tolerance/rad hard by matfud · · Score: 1

      "A lot of modern parts are reasonably radiation tolerant: very small feature sizes helps, because it requires a lot of doping to make the junction work in such a small size. Large doping levels means less likely that a particle will upset the apple cart."

      You missed the converse of that. As features get smaller there is a higher probability that a high energy particle can and will cause something to go wrong. A lower probability of it actually hitting something. Sort of a trade off.

      Reminds me of the Solarsail stories here on /. They knew that the hardware would reset due to random particles hitting it. something would trigger one of the watchdogs.

  21. Backdoor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to put in a Backdoor into the chips....

  22. Ah, yes, the idiot version of history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The simpleton always wants to see a single other guy and some abstract philosophy as the cause of international struggles. It's easy and simplistic to say "Hitler started the war because he was evil..." or "If only Stalin and Truman had gone golfing..." etc as though there was no larger issue and every hot or cold war is just an inter-personal pissing match between people who accidentally found themselves in power. In reality, the populations of nations support their leaders (either by actively elevating them or buy passively refusing to remove them) and those leaders engage in hostilities in support of the views and demands of their populations, as informed by their views of history and threats. The population of Germany largely supported Hitler as he rebuilt their country and then took them on a path of conquest, just as today's Russians are giving Putin very high ratings as he wages war in Ukraine and pokes and probes NATO members. The population of Imperial Japan supported their leaders as they plundered their way across Asia in search of resources, just as the population of Iran supports their leaders who back much of the world's terrorism and are seeking nuclear weapons (which will lead to nuclear proliferation in the mideast).

    If you removed the leader of each of these nations at the times you think would end what you simple-mindedly think would fix things, the likelihood is that some other similar person would arise to fill-in the gap and produce similar results. This is not fatalism, it's the recognition that the causes of war (no matter what some lame-brained stupid feminist professor might say) have nothing to do with the measure of the human male's member, but rather are a complex web of the needs of societies, the beliefs and desires of their populations, perceptions of injustice or deprivation, and so on.

    The other problem with your kindergarten view of international affairs, which is now pushed by so many post-hippie morons in academia where such stupidity is the norm, is that it leads directly to the cro magnon idea that all sides in any war are of equal merit. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was an absolute moral chasm between Churchill and Hitler for example; that's not to say Churchill was personally a saint, or that his actions were Holy - but the causes of the two leaders were by no means equally valid. The world would have truly been plunged into darkness and barbarity had the wrong side won in that struggle.

  23. TI , Xinix, Altera would be enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just these three brands, and all military and aerospace of Russia and former soviet union will go out for gardening and farming.

    1. Re: TI , Xinix, Altera would be enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i hear they have an own vliw cpu developed by mcst. also they have fabs in (i think) zelenograd and sizeable electtronics indust

    2. Re: TI , Xinix, Altera would be enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck android.

      electronics center in voronesh.

      they had a phased array radar in the mig31 20years before an american fighter had one.

      so, maybe you should not believe all of the fuehrers lies which come out of bndcia.

      they also had the worlds best tank when the fuhrers munich idiots called them untermenschen. only they had no officers to command them properly, courtesy of the georgian.

      also, german cryptanalysis was started after ww1 by the czars chief of cryptology because the german kaiser had effected the killing of the romanovs.

      my personal experience with russians is that germanic people (including french, italians and british) are very often very naive compared to them.

      they compensate inefficiency with shrewdness.

  24. USA #1 by whipnet · · Score: 1

    The U.S. is #1 in manufacturing and has been since WWII. http://www.wisegeek.org/what-a...