Sarah Palin: "Sputnik Resulted In The Collapse Of The Soviet Union"

there are some very capable women out there that I would be more than happy to vote for, but those to dim wits may have set back the cause of women for another decade or more.

The really sad part is the women who do support our dear Sarah is that they believe that women's rights have "gone to far" but can't tell us what rights that the women's movement are fighting for or what rights that have been won that they don't want.

She is so focused on Obama=socialist=commie that she just assumed that he was talking about the path the USSR ventured on post-Sputnik.

Unless there is something in SP's Fox contract saying she will not be humiliated on TV no matter what she says, shame on Ms. Susteren for not at least gently prodding her back in the correct line of thinking.

What would be truly fascinating would be a real-time poll of Fox viewers to see if any of them questioned SP's tortured logic or (less surprising) just blithely agreed.

You are so right 3sheets...

Please repeat as needed because sooner or later you will read something that I wrote that will convince you that I have totally lost my mind.

I cant fathom why so many women would support Palin/Bachman Teabaggers.If its just about supporting a women,any women,there are many more capable.Perhaps those that don't get it are the ones that have remained barefoot and pregnant at home,in other words,ignorant,uneducated and un-informed.Just plain sad...........

Teabag women support these two dingbats because Palin and Bachmann are "christian" and "love" the Constitution. No other qualifications are required.

don said:

She proves again why there were some women could not win elections that ran this year.

Why does this have anything to do with women? That honestly never crossed my mind until I read your comment, and I'm still sitting here going "huh?"

Sarah Palin is no more representative of women than Dan Quayle is representative of men. If you want a class of people that Palin is representative of, I'd suggest "idiots."

Almost all women I know are intelligent and thoughtful people - nothing like Palin. But then again, maybe I just hang out with a better class of people than the Palins... :-)

maybe I just hang out with a better class of people than the Palins... :-)

That would be almost everyone on the planet who has read more then 3 books and the bible doesn't count.

Sarah speaking is a really a good thing, she is keeping all those comedies employed. And she even makes Machele Bachmann look smart ( I can't believe I said that - Machele Bachmann looking smart).

Sarah Palin, History teacher. Can you imagine how badly she is dumbing up this country?

She has so many blind followers that hang on her every word.

I saw a book signing video that was really sad. I'll look for it. It showed people in line being asked about her and her "policies".

Can you imagine how badly she is dumbing up this country?

And that my friend is the real danger that Sarah and Michele pose to this country.

Well, something went wrong and my two year old woke up and told me "Daddy, put down your buttons, I want a bannana". Priorities, I'll try and post it later. It's Sarah Palin book signing on You tube. Gotta go.

Palin is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! As a matter of fact, she didn't "take that country back" far enough. The downfall of the USSR actually began with the Russian Revolution.

I mean, it had to exist before it could fail, didn't it? I think that's what the former half-term governor really meant!

Using that logic, one could go back to Prince Alexei of Kiev agreeing to pay annual tribute to the Mongols back in the eleventh century. It's a wonderful thing to contemplate that Genghis Khan was a free market capitalist and a small government conservative.

You know...it sort of all goes back to the Big Bang...IF you happen to believe in that kinda thing.

If NOT...see Genesis for a complete explanation.

It's a wonderful thing to contemplate that Genghis Khan was a free market capitalist and a small government conservative.

And his mass murdering gig sure pulled in the headlines, as well.

Pssst...... Nofluer.... it's really irrelevant whether you can bend over backwards and make some justification that Sputnik and the space race contributed to the downfall of the USSR (it's stupid to suggest that it was a major part, but stupid or not, it's still irrelevant).

The dumbest part was Palin thinking that President Obama was putting us in the role of the Soviets in the "Sputnik moment". Wouldn't it make more sense that we're in the role of... oh, I dunno... the U.S. in the "Sputnik moment"?

The USSR bankrupted itself because Reagan called them the Evil Empire and once suggested nuking them to oblivion in an open mic. Reagan scared the crap out of the Soviets because they really did believe the man was insane.

Internal corruption got the russkies. Reagan gave them a lil push too.

Stally, Well his own son stated he was showing signs of early alzheimers while in the white house, so IMO the Soviets had something to be afraid of.

Well this is one of those examples where hindsight is 20/20. We can look back and laugh, but at the time most of us were starting to think about bomb shelters again.

Sorry - Palin was right.

No, she was wrong, Nofluer...

In her rant, Palin wildly misconstrued the president's argument, which was not about emulating the Soviets in the 1950s but instead about the Americans who responded to early Soviet success in space exploration by educating themselves and out-innovating the Soviets. Did she listen to the speech? Alexandra Petri has more on this here.

But let's pretend that wasn't Obama's point. The Soviets didn't have an empire-draining debt problem until some 30 years after Sputnik passed over America. And when they did, it was in large part a result of massive overinvestment in heavy industry, which supported Soviet military pretensions. None of this is to argue that the Soviet economy is anything we should emulate. But let's at least get the basic facts right when we criticize it.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2011/01/sarah_palins_weird_sputnik_sto.html

Nofluer

Even if you assume a causal link the chain of events that Sputnik was the drop that caused the ripples that eventually bankrupted the Soviet Union, you can not infer that is evidence of Sarah's intellectual prowess. In fact that in itself is an indictment of Sarah's powers of comprehension and communications skills.

Since the point of the presidents comment was that Sputnik was a wake up call to the United States launching us into to space race, which we eventually won. The point was "We", the USA, answered the call and came from a lagging position to one of dominance then, and "We" can do it again. He was not, as Sarah suggests saying we should follow in the USSR's foot steps.

She could not follow a simple English sentence and failed to grasp the message or context. So even if she was able to consider the chain of events as you suggest (and I think your probably way ahead of Sarah in that respect), she failed to comprehend the message. And since she has a degree in communications remember, it still adds up to a big FAIL.

3sheets--

The really sad part is the women who do support our dear Sarah is that they believe that women's rights have "gone to far" but can't tell us what rights that the women's movement are fighting for or what rights that have been won that they don't want.

Every woman in America should know that it was our GREAT-GRANDMOTHERS who were the first generation to be able to even vote in this country. Sadly, not that long ago. It was they and their mothers who fought for that right.

The truely perverse thing to me is that Palin would not HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE a Governor or VP Candidate if it were NOT for women's suffrage and the women's liberation movement. This woman prances around the tv circuit with an entitled air and then SPOUTS the "old-fashioned family values conservative" drivel her slobbering fans want to hear. SHE doesn't abide by those values...trust me that woman isn't in the kitchen cooking meals for her family every night, nor is she putting "family first" in any way....she's putting BOOK signing first and BLATHERING first and, most importantly MONEY first.

And yet people follow her like some cult...

you betcha...WINK.

stally, when you said Reagan scared the crap out of the Soviets I laughed out loud! I remember him saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

Every one advised him not to say that, but he insisted. And I think he said the right thing!

And bomb shelters!!! Do you remember "Duck and Cover"? As if hiding under a school desk would protect you from a nuclear blast! How naive we all were back then!

Duck and Cover. Oh yea! That poor turtle!

I remember him saying "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

I remember the Saturday address testing the mic for sound - "I have signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever - we begin bombing in 5 minutes."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv13ZnkpWos

A Wadsworth

Yep that was the statement I was thinking of!

Stally, Well his own son stated he was showing signs of early alzheimers while in the white house, so IMO the Soviets had something to be afraid of.

Maybe, it's time to put Sarah and Michele in the WH but this time is to scare the @!$%# out of the Chinese. Heh !

The only prostitute I know of that has a team of pimps pushing her goods. In this case their names are Greta and Sean.

Sarah Palin: "Sputnik Resulted In The Collapse Of The Soviet Union"

Not only that, she thinks Sputnik was a Russian potato famine.

"Waterloo moment"

My favorite Abba song!!

Her comprehension of history would fit into a thimble, or is that metaphor an insult to thimbles?

Be careful what you compare her to. It will be an insult to whatever inanimate object you use to explain her lack of intelligence. For example: "She is dumber than a bag of rocks." I've actually known several highly intelligent rocks. They would be insulted if they were used in this way. All I'm trying to say is, perhaps we need to look for single cell life forms with which to compare Sarah. After all, if they are single cell creatures, they won't have 2 brain cells to rub together, right?

"Don't worry Senator, when you win you can make her an ambassador..."

to Antarctica...

Actually, to prove his willingness to work with the Tea Baggers, Obama could appoint her as Ambassador to Antarctica now. She would have a job in politics, and we wouldn't have to hear from her at least 9 months of the year. I say let's start a campaign for this very thing.

Texas school districts would! Unfortunately. As well as Tennessee.

Her lack of a grap of history's acctual events is not Sarah's fault. She has been listening to Glen Back explain history.

They could do a combo thing...

6 thousand years ago, when dinosaurs lived with the humans...mothers were staying home and raising their children...but it's really all about jobs Charlie, then Soros paid the Soviets to put up a basketball sized beeping satellite and then they fell down...but before they did, they exported their socialism and beamed by that satellite into the brain of our current president and if you listen REALLY closely, you can hear that beeping whenever you're near him...

but don't believe MEEEEEE...do you OWN research. Here we've gathered a few websites for you...they are right next to the roswell websites...and the one about jesus appearing in a guy's grilled cheese.

I think Sputnik and the Soviet Union caused Sarah Palin.

To all Sarah's fans and followers, please accept my deepest sympathy on this new embarrassment from your leader. Take heart and be very, very, very strong because she'll never change. If only she could stf up.

If it's not in the Abridged Conservative Bible, she's not interested.

@ Rodney

She's getting to the point where you really have to wonder about her mentality. If she is willing to say stuff like this on national TV, then one really has to question her mental stability.

When I listen to Palin, it reminds me of the infinite number of conversations I have with family members, friends, and people in the community alike everyday. Literally, everyday i run into ample numbers of people speaking with such conviction about "the isuses", and yet it's painfully obvious that they don't have the slightest idea what they are talking about. In that way, I think Palin truly represents a large portion of the American people - in that a large chunk of Americans are simply uninformed in regard to matters of economics, politics, and policy.

That's what I see in Palin; the average American who doesn't want to take the time and energy to understand the complexities of the challenges the nation faces but believes she has all the answers anyway.

She has the con down. Say it like you believe, if you believe it, they will believe it.

Those of us that think for ourselves can see right through it.

Those that can't, she brings to her through fear.

@ Rodney

Your right JSJ, and the education data proves it

Touche'. We were the Twitter nation long before Twitter ever got here. We can't pay attention for more than 140 characters, and the more hyperbolic the better.

But the unfortunate truth is that our nation's challenges can't be summed up in quick, chewable soundbites. It takes focus, concentration, and time to really dig into the issues. We don't want to take the time to be informed, but then we cite "freedom of speech" as an excuse to parrot unfounded bullsh*t.

Sure, we have the right to vociferously parrot unsupported claims and lob baseless accusations at others, but having the right to do it certainly doesn't make it the responsible thing to do.

I kind of feel sorry for Sarah.

I honestly believe that Sarah is unaware of the mirth and face-palming her comments enlist. She only listens to FOX News, only meets with people who adore her, and her family and assistants busily delete negative comments on her Facebook and Twitter. She is so insulated that she is oblivious to what the majority of Americans think about her.

She is channeling two of those three monkeys, "Hear no Evil" and "See no Evil". I just wish she would get around to channeling the third.

Do any of her kids go to school? Have any of them graduated from school?

Bristol must have gotten her GED.

WRT to Track; you don't need a HS degree to join the Army. As a matter of fact, you don't even need to know how to spell Army, to join the Army.

That was very unecessary and inappropriate, Sgt. You know better. I am refraining from making any comments about Marines, Airmen or Sailors.

What I was trying to get across is that the Army had to GREATLY reduce its standards in order to maintain a force to fight these wars. Prior to 9/11, many of these volunteers would have been tossed out of the recruiting station. Now, they are welcomed with open arms; regardless of their intelligence level..

Nick, I'm an active duty recruiter (Marine). I speak with the Army guys daily, and the reality isn't what you portrayed. The standards right now have swung back towards the stricter side, especially when it comes to moral dq. Long gone are the days of "join the military or go to jail." If its to that point, its way too late. We wont even consider them. Got two kids? Dqed. Over 25? Sorry. Got a possession charge when you were 14? Too bad.

We did a poll at recruiter school. Out of 200+ Marine Corps recruiters, 2/3 of us would not be able to enlist under todays standards. Most of us have been in less than 10 years too...

Even considering that fact, almost all of our recruiting missions are made by the first week. My RSS makes mission by noon on the first.

What do you do the rest of the month? ;>)

we prospect for the next month. We do colorguards at football games, I work with the high school wrestling and football coaches on conditioning or assist the at the va. We keep ourselves busy...

What do you do the rest of the month?

With what I know of Marines from being stationed with them on Okinawa and elsewhere, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say PT. Nothing like driving past a platoon of Marines doing a formation run and carrying ammo boxes while on my way to the base Burger King for breakfast.

>.>

Student, your are absolutely correct. My son-in-law to be will be graduating basic (Navy) tomorrow!! He was home schooled so he had to provide all of his transcripts just to be considered. Interesting fact: 70% of high school graduates can't pass the entry tests, forgot what they are called, to enter the armed forces. Luckily MSILtb passed his entrance exams with a 96%!! People like Sara Palin want to defund public education and those kids we have now can't even get in the military with the education we have today!! Tea Partiers want to make it 100% of high graduates that can't pass!! We need more funding and better education not worse.

Maybe if Sarah Palin had a better education herself she would understand what the "Sputnik" moment was about, one of America's greatest achievements!! For someone who runs around says she is proud to be an American she certainly doesn't understand one of the greatest acheivements this country made!!! First Man on the Moon!! Nex to the Revolutionary War this was one of the greatest moments in American/World history and she doesn't even know it!

By the way,SARAH, if your reading, next time you stick something in the microwave, or make a cell phone call or even tweet something you should thank Nasa! All of those innovations are due to the space program

Bristol is starting college. She is free of "mommy dear". DWTS I think gave her the ability to believe enough in herself to break free of Sarah's toxic stranglehold. Arizona, particularly ASU, may not have been a good choice. Bristol is trying to come out from under a domineering mom and into her own. She, however, has a fragility that can and- where she is- will be exploited. I hope she has excellent friends and a strong faith (but not the idiotic thing Palin has force fed her).

So true. it never stops, run til you drop.

There were a couple of airfield crew Marines assigned to our aircraft arresting system shop at Kadena AB, and they would do AF PT with us and then go do Marine Corps PT with their parent unit.

I won't make any jokes about Jarheads having to be retrained if they're given a five minute break between training classes if you give up on the not being able to spell Army.

huh?

Hoah! Airborne! (actually Chairborne these days).

Well Sir, we can push your chair out of the airplane if it'll make you feel better. :)

The entry test for all branches of service is called the ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery)...and everybody joining must past the minimum requirements for it. A person's scores on the ASVAB help to determine the career fields and/or jobs that will be open for them. Obviously the higher your score on the math and science questions, the more technical your job will be.

This is how they handle enlistment. As for the officer ranks, I don't know how it's usually done, my hubby went from the enlisted ranks to a commission...and had to put in an entire package of information and tests in order to be considered, and then accepted to officer training...and that was all pre-Afghanistan and Iraq.

I know that the Army was running short of enlisted troops for a while there, during the height of both wars. I think they were forgiving minor infractions as long as a person could pass the ASVAB.

I am SURE that has changed now that the drawdown has mostly happened in Iraq. Now they have too MANY troops on the books and there will be a national drawdown of troops. That has happened before during my husband's career. It's a natural ebb and flow based on estimates of how many troops they think they will need over the next decade and it changes often.

Colodomom,

OCS packages work the same way. They use the ASVAB as well.

We actually use the Enlisted Screening Test as well for our OCS potentials. Depending on the score (we're looking for 80 or higher) we'll refer them to the OSO or start selling them on the enlisted-commissioning programs like your husband.

If you want to be an officer, you start by speaking to an enlisted recruiter. We then forward your request to the Officer Selection Officer, and he tries to set you up in a program that meets your needs.

Can she really disappear? If she is still willing to go on Fox News and spout such stupid stuff can we really ignore her? Are you going to take my entertainment away from me? I am just not ready for that much commitment.

Has anyone sent the memo to Sarah about Feburary is No Stupidity Month? I mean some of the stuff she comes up with - it's going to be a hard temptation to resist.

Like asking a football fan not to watch the Super Bowl. Or asking someone in snow bound northeast, not to take a free trip to Hawaii.

Sarah is the gift that keeps on giving, to late night tv, comedy channel, Saturday Night Live and

a teaching tool to all those parenets out there " See Junior, this is what happens when you don't do your homework"

At least it's the shortest month of the year.

I was hoping the Mama Grizzly would stay in hibernation.

She doesn't need the launch codes. "She can see Russia from her house." :)

Yea, I can imagine her saying is that 1-2-3-4 or 2-1-3-4 ect...... Boom!

"One, Two, Four"

"Three, my lord"

"Three!"

Bush the mental midget=Rhodes Scholar. dont' think so. $arah might be dumber that the mental midget but I could never put his intellect as a Rhodes Scholar. Just can't. They are both short bus material.

Yeah, that's it Greg. Dig deep enough and twist enough and you can figure out how to defend your gal. It was all about Sputnik. Isn't that what your hero Ronald Reagan said when he told Mr. Gobachev to "tear down that wall"? He added something like, "We've had you guys caught in a "one-sided" competition since Sputnik" right? One sided - that's a good rewrite of history.

Sputnik STARTED it? There wasn't anything between the two before? Like maybe an arms race or a Cold War going on?

Or was it Reagans arm race and the general economic conditions of the Soviets?Dont try to give her any credit,what she said was just stupid.She didn't even see an opportunity to credit that demigod of the right,Ronnie......

@ jacq:

I thought that was a simple explanation. Can you show me I'm wrong?

President Kennedy sure did push the space program after that, including missle defense and you think the Soviets had the resources to keep up?

Throughout the 1960s the United States and the Soviet Union made massive efforts to develop, build, and deploy strategic forces that relied primarily on ICBMs and SLBMs (submarine-launched ballistic missiles) armed with nuclear warheads. Bombers gave way to missiles. In 1963 the United States had 630 intercontinental bombers to 190 for the Soviets; by 1972 bombers had dropped to 457 for the United States and 156 for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. During the same time period, however, the United States had increased its number of ICBMs from 424 to 1,054 and its SLBMs from 224 to 656, while the Soviets increased their ICBM force from 90 to 1,533 and their SLBMs from 107 to 437. The number of nuclear warheads each country possessed had grown to match the numbers of launch vehicles, with the exception of American war-heads for SLBMs, which increased from 224 in 1963 to 2,096 in 1972. (A technological breakthrough allowed the United States to mount multiple warheads on their SLBMs.) By the end of the decade the United States and the Soviet Union had each stockpiled enough nuclear weapons to destroy one another—and the entire world—several times over.

You do read about history, right?

Ever heard of the arms race? and NO, it didn't start with Reagan!

Add on to comment #11.3:

The Space Race

The 5 October 1957 launch by the Soviet Union of Sputnik, the first man-made satellite to orbit the earth, dramatically changed the arms race. Re-acting with shock and embarrassment, the Americans rushed to launch their own satellites. Throughout the 1960s the United States and the Soviets competed to see which country could be the first to demonstrate a particular feat in space. On 25 May 1961 President Kennedy announced a program to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade and asked Congress to fund the project. This goal was accomplished on 20 July 1969 when American Neil Armstrong walked on the surface of the moon From an intelligence point of view, any nation that demonstrates the ability to launch satellites into orbit also has the capability to develop and deploy intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Further, every successful launch of a satellite or any other space project is evidence of the reliability of all launch vehicles including ICBMs. In addition to technological advances that resulted from the space race, it also brought public relations benefits, demonstrating American technical sophistication to a marveling world.

That's like saying cotton clothing led to the Civil War.

Greg is right, insofar as the Sputnik moment reference was NOT to Russia's downfall but rather to America's wake up call. That's what SP missed. She thought the Sputnik moment was about Russia's decades long decline. The Sputnik moment (moment that is, not years and years, Sarah) was about how America responds to advertsity. We wake up, make a renewed commitment to winning the future and begin the movement forward in unified measure. If we can stop the divisiveness and negativity, and get behind the President's call to arms, (figurative, not literal, Sarah) this Country can move forward. Or we can just keep up the same old same old name calling thingy. WTF, Sarah.

If our only methods of technological advancement are through DoD spending, then we truly are a warrior nation.

That's like saying cotton clothing led to the Civil War.

Ya! That's it!

Holy Cow! ((((shakes)))) Head.

And in case you ask, NO, I didn't hurt myself.

From the article.

Mr. Obama was suggesting that when the Soviet Union beat the United States into space in 1957 with the launch of Sputnik, that victory spurred Americans to push science to the limits that led directly to the American moon landing in 1969.

Mr. Obama used the analogy to compare the U.S. to China and India and to suggest that those countries' investments in, for example, green technology and information technology should spur the United States to research and development better technologies so that the United States may remain a world leader. He wasn't cheering on the former Soviet Union.

Greg to claim that Sputnik collapsed the Soviet Union would seem to be a weak attempt on your part to defend the rampant stupidity that Sarah the half-wit continues to display.

From a link in the article.

It is CLEAR to all rational people that Sputnik did NOT destroy the Soviet Union. So even your pathetic defense of the idiot from the north is a complete failure.

If anyone wants to understand the right's cult-like devotion to morons like Palin and Bauchamnn this link would be a good starting point. It talks about authoritarian followers. Make sure to lookat the PDF on the Tea-Party.

Actually cmlawyer, it was years after.

The USSR fell in 1991.

As far as the presidents "Sputnik" comment, who are we competing against? Ourselves?

It is CLEAR to all rational people that Sputnik did NOT destroy the Soviet Union

No, it is clear to Liberals, it didn't have any effect on the downfall of the USSR.

Rational people know, through either living it or reading about it, caused an explosion of ingenuity and design from the "United States of America" which the Soviets had no clue, like the Japanese and Germans in WWII found out, can decimate an economy, if you try to keep up with us.

@ odney:

We've sunk so low, now China and India are the super powers to compete with? Really?

We're that bad?

Did you read your own article?

Mr. Obama used the analogy to compare the U.S. to China and India and to suggest that those countries' investments in, for example, green technology and information technology should spur the United States to research and development better technologies so that the United States may remain a world leader. He wasn't cheering on the former Soviet Union.

Seems he feels China and India are surpassing us, just like what happened in 1957.

Green Tech, pfffft!

All that's gonna do is raise my debt requirements, just to live in "MY" house.

Rational people know, through either living it or reading about it, caused an explosion of ingenuity and design from the "United States of America" which the Soviets had no clue, like the Japanese and Germans in WWII found out, can decimate an economy, if you try to keep up with us.

Greg do you realize that YOU are now arguing FOR Obama's point?

Not even close, tracytruth.

We are now to compete with the biggest coal fired plant polluter in the world?

You've got to be kidding me !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We are the biggest "Non-polluters" in the world!

We already lead, period!

We don't need no more stinkin' rules to get us better.

We need to get the world at our levels. Hello!

Greg -

Ever heard of the arms race? and NO, it didn't start with Reagan!

You're kidding me right? Of course I heard of the arms race. I mentioned it to YOU! Try reading what is written. I stated in my post that the arms race started BEFORE Sputnik. Surely you know Sputnik occured BEFORE Reagan was president. Don't you?

I never said the arms race started with Reagan. I was pointing out to you that the "competition" started BEFORE Sputnik. Sputnik did not start the Cold War or the arms race. You need to read some history of the USA/USSR relationship before 1957.

I mention Reagan because the right gives him almost full credit for bringing down the Soviet Union, which is ridiculous. However, it means that Sarah is blaspheming the hero of the right by claiming that Sputnik did it instead, which is also ridiculous.

Now we're getting to the truth of your little tantrum, you don't like green technology. You could have saved us all a lot of time and just said that from the start.

I still don't see why you wanted to defend the half-wit, half-term former govenor, can you explain?

We are the biggest non-polluters in the world? Where do we rank in C02 emissions, greg?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

China is clearly not wildly surpassing us unless you think 3% is a lot.

HELLO! (btw, that annoys me)

A little history, Greg.

1) Soviet backed insurrection in Greece in 1947, support of communist movements in Turkey, the difficulty the US had in prying the USSR out of northern Iran, the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948 and the Berlin Blockade and the fall of China to the Maoists in 1949 started the "Cold War". The result was the Marshal Plan, the Truman Doctrine and the rise of NATO. The US began to reverse the massive disarmament program started with the end of WW2, which included refunding a number of rocket and missile programs that would lead to the Atlas ICBM and Jupiter and Thor IRBMs.

2) The Korean War sealed the realization that the Soviet Union had ambitions beyond its borders, both nationalistic and ideological. The US began building up the Strategic Air Command and NORAD/ADC. By 1956, we could have destroyed the Soviet Union with barely any cost to us.

3) The "missile" gap was more of a wake-up call to the US as far as national defense as "Sputnik" was a wake-up call on the scientific front. The reality though was quite different. In 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US held a decided edge over the Soviet Union in strategic nuclear weapons, including ICBMs, an edge that had existed as far back as 1956. The US had three times more ICBMs and as many IRBMs, of better design than the USSR. But the re-armament program under JFK was focued on conventional and unconventional forces to meet the real Soviet threat. During the late '50s, Eisenhower had relied on "Massive Retaliation" as the cheapest way to meet national defense needs, to maintain low taxes. The failure of this strategy as the Soviet Union gained equivalent nuclear capability against conventional attack and unconventional warfare forced the Kennedy Administration to execute one of the largest military build-ups in our history. It especially affected the Army, which had been allowed to atrophy under Eisenhower. The result was that the Army in 1965, even made up of draftees, was one of our best. During the LBJ administration we accepted Soviet/Russian equivalent in nuclear strategic weapons a policy continued to this day.

4) Unfortunately your assertion falls apart at this point. From 1969 to 1979, the US defense budget shrank and and two entire generations of weapons systems passed, the one we forwent during Vietnam in order to fund operations there without raising taxes and the one we didn't begin to field until the late '70s, during which the USSR not only increased its forces in quantity but also in quality, to where their systems equalled or surpassed ours.

5) The Reagan build-up, which actually started under Carter with a supplemental funding bill after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, not only brought the diminuation of our forces temporarily to a halt (we did not actually increase our forces significantly, even with the Navy's 600 ship objective (never reached) over those of the late '70s. What we did was field modified versions of our late '70s generation of weapons that took a technological leap beyond what the Soviets had and put them behind the curve again. But what really screwed the Soviet Union in this area was its inability to translate science into technology that could reach production. The Soviets never fell behind in pure science and very little in the area of technology demonstrators. Where they fell behind was the inflexibility of their military-industrial complex, working at max capacity as it was, to respond to the new egenration of Western weapons and doctrine. Gorbachev recognized this and tried to do two things: reduce tension with the West to allow him to step down production and redirect it and to open up the centrally planned economy (which was never really centrally planned, another subject) to innovation in producing technological demanding systems. "Peristroika" and "glasnost" was intended to buy the USSR time, but it escaped Gorbachev and the Soviets' leadership and they were forced to ride the wave that saw their satellites in Eastern Europe break away, Germany unite under the West and the Soviet system collapse along with its internal empire. Not that the USSR ever became a democracy or is at this moment as Russia.

6) "Spunik" was not a primary process in the fall of the USSR. The space race was in fact a sideshow, other than as a prop for national pride and morale, as the development and fielding of ICBMs, recon, comm, C2 and intel sats were far more important to both "superpowers" than getting to the Moon first. If "Sputnik" was so important than the USSR should have fallen apart right after we got to the moon first.

She thought the Sputnik moment was about...

You mean it wasn't about Sarah Palin. Gee that's a first. LOL

#11.21 rated up, Informative!

I still don't see why you wanted to defend the half-wit, half-term former govenor, can you explain?

I wasn't defending Sarah one bit.

I was defending the statement, not the person. Get the difference?

"Spunik" was not a primary process in the fall of the USSR

Did I say it was the Primary Source?

Funny how liberals can take this:

If you think about it, Sputnik "Woke America Up" and started the one sided competition between the U.S. and the Soviets, which we won.

And make it an end all to the rebuttal.

So the "Space Race" had nothing to do with helping in the decline of the USSR?

Like I said, it's your line of reasoning, you explain it.

When you name names, apparently, we need to compete with them, making them "The Power" we need to strive to surpass.

@ Greg

I was defending the statement, not the person. Get the difference?

But the statement can't be defended - that's the point. It doesn't matter who makes that statement; it's a dumb statement (especially considering the implication that Palin tied to it).

I mention the implication because one could make the argument that Palin never actually said that Sputnik had anything to do with Russia's incurring of debt. Of course, there would be no reason for her to even mention it then, which is why it appeared her disdain for the "Sputnik" reference was because of a severe grasp of the facts on her part......

But the statement can't be defended

Sure it can, unless you want to erase parts of history.

Many factors came together to help in the downfall of the USSR and "Sputnik" was one of those factors.

It was another "Wakeup Call" for America that got us going.

Sure it is, depending on your definition of "Super Power".

Super Power doesn't always have to mean, "More Missles" ya know. It can mean, those your afraid of.

If you feel you need to compete against China and India, on "Green Tech.", What a laugh.

Two of the biggest polluters in this world. LMAO!

What a moronic statement by the president!

@ Greg-709692

Many factors came together to help in the downfall of the USSR and "Sputnik" was one of those factors

Except, there doesn't seem to be any history experts who'd agree that Sputnik how much to do at all with the downfall of the USSR.

And if Palin was so upset with the reference, you'd think that Sputnik would have played a primarily role.... at least in Palin's mind, right? Otherwise, why even bother commenting on it?

It was another "Wakeup Call" for America that got us going.

Yeah, that was actually the President's point. But, Palin completely misconstrued it and then added a rather baseless implication into it as well. As CBS noted:

Mr. Obama was suggesting that when the Soviet Union beat the United States into space in 1957 with the launch of Sputnik, that victory spurred Americans to push science to the limits that led directly to the American moon landing in 1969.

Mr. Obama used the analogy to compare the U.S. to China and India and to suggest that those countries' investments in, for example, green technology and information technology should spur the United States to research and development better technologies so that the United States may remain a world leader. He wasn't cheering on the former Soviet Union. link

Again, there's really no defense for Palin's implication, not any defense that's steeped in any kind of reality anyway.....

greg-709692

If you feel you need to compete against China and India, on "Green Tech.", What a laugh.

Very poor argument.

They can be polluters while at the same time innovating, producing, and moving toward green technology. The two are not mutually exclusive and the fact that you cannot discern the finer points of the debate makes me laugh.

The fact of the matter is, Germany, China, and India are moving beyond us on renewable energy and that means they are going to be a) keeping money within their country instead of sending billions per year overseas (to unfriendly nations), and b) selling us the products and technology we failed to develop on our own.

So, keep laughing, but the joke is on you.

greg-709692

What a moronic statement by the president!

The president is a moron because YOU didn't understand the point of his statement? That's very amusing.

greg-709692

Many factors came together to help in the downfall of the USSR and "Sputnik" was one of those factors.

Let me see if I can help you understand.

Sputnik was used as a figurative example of technological innovation, as something that spurred the United States (NOT the USSR) to do what many thought was impossible (and all agreed would be very dangerous and difficult), namely to send a man to the moon.

The 'Sputnik Moment' reference has nothing to do with the former USSR and very little to do with other countries, and everything to do with the United States.

They can be polluters while at the same time innovating

Not if your using it as a Green Tech. Argument. LOL!

Who's the Moron?

The 'Sputnik Moment' reference has nothing to do with the former USSR and very little to do with other countries, and everything to do with the United States.

Now you've got it. Our advance and technology and our inovations helped bankrupt the former USSR.

Good job Smith Cassidy!

greg-709692

They can be polluters while at the same time innovating

Not if your using it as a Green Tech. Argument. LOL!

There is no switch to be flipped between dirty energy and green energy. Just as there was a time when horses and cars shared the road (and still do in some places), dirty fuels will still be around for some time but that doesn't mean a country cannot advocate, invest in and advance green energy technology.

Our advance and technology and our inovations helped bankrupt the former USSR.

How did you work that out?

There is no switch to be flipped between dirty energy and green energy.

Sure there is. At least that's what we keep getting told. Over regulating other energies is the biggest switch off you can get.

Any thing showing China and India are working "Hard" at this "Green Tech."?

Last time I looked, both these countries told the rest of the world to "Kiss their butts".

Where did you look greg?

Have you been to India? As the world's largest democracy, they are well aware of their need to clean up their own backyard.

http://gogreenindia.in/

And as you know from the link I provided that showed we are virtually as big a polluter as China(with less than 25% of it's population), India is responsible for 5% of the world C02 emissions compared to our 19+%, another country with a billion+ population.

I'd say per capita we don't look very green at all, wouldn't you?

Exitcusa 11.21 Excellent post and very informative read.

CO2?

http://www.populartechnology.net/2008/11/carbon-dioxide-co2-is-not-pollution.html

"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama

Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned." - Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo

"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology, Former Senior Scientist for Climate Studies, NASA

And So On!

It is probably just me, but Palin is lame. And this continual attention she receives here on the Vine is lame. And in fact, though I am probably in the minority on this, posting seeds and articles about her latest efforts to appear smarter than a fifth grader are ...also.. lame. This constant pointing out of her lack of anything remotely resembling intelligence is starting to become a reflection upon the those who can't seem to, like potato chips, put her down. But that's just me.

@ Greg

Now you've got it. Our advance and technology and our inovations helped bankrupt the former USSR.

Great.

I'm still wondering why Palin took offense to the notion that Sputnik spurred American greatness?

You've been reduced to arguing something that Palin herself wasn't arguing, all in the defense of defending a foolish statement.

Oh John Christy, the AGW denier and paid by big oil sham artist!

So, are you saying that C02 emissions are fine?

Then what's your problem with China?

Help me here, I'm tired.

Help me here, I'm tired.

Go to bed then!

My problem is not with China, but Mr. Obama thinking we need to compete with them, period. I could care less about China.

The World should be competing with us, not the other way around.

Unfortunately Greg we only have one Palin to go around.

I know tesla.

If they would spend more time worrying about those in congress, who make law, instead of a woman making speeches, we might get some better results.

How many times have I pointed out to you my friend that making sense will only get you deleted?

The World should be competing with us, not the other way around.

Thus the point of his "Sputnik moment" in his SOTU speech. Unless you think we're still #1 in the areas he mentioned and he should have never acknowledged China as even a competitor?

No Gregg, the space race had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Soviet military and commercial industries received the same technology boost (sepecially given their effective espionage) we did, the difference was that our industrial strength wasn't so committed to the production of nuclear and conventional weaponry from the early '70s on that we could use excess capacity to convert to the production of microelectronic based weapons systems, which the Soviets could not. And that our military and government management and economic leadership wasn't so corrupt and vested in things as they were not to change to things as they needed to be.

Missiles (and nuclear weapons on them)aren't the only thing that makes a "superpower" but it is one of the factors. The primary factor that distinguishes a "superpower" is the ability to project power and influence throughout the world. The USSR from about 1956 was the only other nation able to do this with any success or consistency, but even they weren't in our league. And the truth is that China and India (and Russia) are more regional powers at this point. The point is that they have the potential to be "superpowers".

As I said before, the Soviet Union collapsed from the inability of the leadership to maintain legitimacy once they began admitting mistakes and trying to make political and social changes, changes driven by military and economic necessity, that got beyond their control. The same thing may happen in China (and it may not, since the Chinese leadership seems to be making a successful transition from a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist totalitarian dictatorship to an authoritarian paternalistic dictatorship based on ultranationalism and ethnocentric populism.

BTW, calling the President a moron, sort of reveals your true colors, eh? Obviously you would have a problem with anything he said.

I'll say it again since I love the sound of my own typing. Internal corruption caused the collapse of the russkies. Twas only a matter of time when Reagan scared the pee out of 'em.

tesla013, you know you can buy "silent" keyboards?

exit I do not even own this com. But yes I actually do know that. I love the clacky sound though. I used the silent kind at Ma in Laws and I kept having to look up to see if I typed anything.

greg,

shall we do a recap of your posts in #11.0-11.50 and just see how many times you either contradicted yourself or conflicted with your previous assertions?

It's quite the fascinating study...

Rodney: I'm in. I'll see your right arm too. What fun to watch SP and MB. Sorry about your arm, though.

I had been archiving both the Palin and Bachmann comments along with some from Angle and O'Donnell but ran out of room in the warehouse and couldn't afford a bigger one. WalMart out bid me by quite a bit.

It translates: "Drink more tea!"

The heartland, How poetic and Palinistic. That is all she wanted to say, heartland, ahhhh I love me some senseless symbolism in the morning.

I believe what she was saying was that we need more Spudnut shops in the Midwest. I can agree with her as Dunkin has really cornered the market here. Competition would be a good thing. I would hope, however, that the tea would be kept in the back room. I'll stick with coffee.

One more thing, has anyone else heard the rumor that in honor of Sarah and Michelle, their two most beloved spokespeople, the Tea Party will be changing their name slightly to the Ice Tea Party?

...electing Sarah Palin as our next president will ensure the collapse of the United States.

She's the natural choice for anarchists who want to break everything down and then rebuild from the ashes.

Does anyone believe that she knew what Mr. Obama was referring to when he mentioned Sputnik?

Probably thinks it was a breakfast cereal in Soviet Russia.

You have a problem with space exploration being privatized?

Let me guess--a re-reg--how cute.

Privatize space govmentalize health care

Because "privatized health care" and "govmentalized (er...governmentized? or govermental?) space programs" have done SUCH wonders for our deficit and our health...

sigh.

I dream of the day when all of us can honestly ask this question. Perhaps by the time my grandchildren begin their educations non one will remember her or her partners in crime.

Sarah's ego is way too large to allow her to even consider the fact that she sounds ignorant or that anyone would question what she has to say. As long as FOX news gives her the opportunity to babble, she will babble away.

all to true itstoolate

She may be slow & lack common sense

but where was the left when she called herself a Mama Grizzley

...which is nothing more than a fancy name for a Sow.

The Cut & Run Queen of the frozen North

is nothing but a cash toilet for the stupid to "invest" in.

Well, something good will come out of this. She has a new name should she or her daughter has another baby. Sput Nick Palin.