Posted on 01/28/2011 8:13:42 PM PST by Bigtigermike
Instapundit notes that Soviet space expert James Oberg supports Governor Palin’s comments on Sputnik:
I’m seeing up close how “Palin Derangement Syndrome” can compel otherwise intelligent people to foam at the mouth and babble nonsense to prove they’re right and she’s wrong.
The historical view is that the early Soviet victories in the Space Race led to the US response of the Apollo program, whose triumph validated the superiority of US space technology — which had profound diplomatic, military, commercial, and cultural consequences. When Reagan challenged the USSR with Strategic Defense in the 1980s, Apollo had given that challenge credibility — and the same pundits in the West and in Russian who pooh-poohed SDI had also pooh-poohed the odds of Apollo working.
Proven wrong once, they lost credibility when Gorbachyov had to decide when/.if to pull the plug on the USSR’s own hideously expensive space weapons programs (eg, Polyus-Skif and Buran). Soviet leadership came to believe, rightly or wrongly, that SDI was a lethal threat to them, based on the success of Apollo that had only been made possible by the stinging US defeats in the early Space Race, It’s more complicated, but the essence is, Palin was right: the Soviets sowed the seed of their own collapse by setting off the Space Race.
James Edward Oberg (often known as Jim Oberg) is an American space journalist and historian, regarded as an expert on the Russian space program.
“The Nedelin disaster was a key in leapfrogging the Soviets in the 60s. Wonder if the whole story will ever come out.”
This seems like a pretty complete version of the story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nedelin_catastrophe
What’s missing?
You may have read the part about Mikhail Yangel conveniently stepping out for a smoke break. Just wonder about sabotage and potential role foreign intelligence services may have had in it.
I note that a troll sounds like a female, jealous of the good Governor.
You know if the USSR fell in 1980 and or in early 1981 and Jimmy Carter was widely given credit for it like Reagan is, the Sputnik theory would gain more popularily here and with Republicans in general. But because it was Reagan that won the cold floor they are going to have trouble selling this re-writing of history WITH ANYONE just to cover a mistake. Here's an interesting writing and FR post that doesnt mention Sputnik:
An interesting quote from that:
Yet many historians and pundits have refused to credit Ronald Reagan's policies for helping to bring about the Cold War victory. .Rather, they insist that Soviet communism suffered from chronic economic problems and predictably lapsed, as Time magazine's Strobe Talbott put it., “not because of anything the outside world has done or not done . . . but because of defects and inadequacies at its core”.
and
“.Margaret Thatcher remarked a few years ago that Reagan would go down in history as the man who “won the Cold War without firing a shot”. .Perhaps it is too much to ask the wise to admit their errors. But it's only right that Reagan deserves due credit during his lifetime for his prescient statesmanship. “
I was told in journalism class that the definition of news is whatever the media considers news.
We have no shortage of myopic, narrow-minded retards here in the US who get irate when the roots of our current economic collapse are traced back to changes in ideas, attitudes, and business practices, starting three decades ago.
Obama was the one babbling on about "our Sputnik moment" for the weeks leading up to the SOTU address, and Obama is the one who had the audacity to insert some more babbling nonsense about "out Sputnik moment" into the SOTU address.
That someone, anyone latched on to several of his "points" as a starting point for rebuttals should be no surprise.
That so many people lash out, Alinsky style, against someone offering rebuttals against Obama's propaganda speech, only points out which side of the aisle these critics really hail from. That's you; on Obama's side.
I wish you had a video of that class.
Muahahahaha!
It’s a SPUTNIK moment alright:
S ARAH
P ALIN
U NHINGES
T HE
N ARCISSISTIC
I NEXPERIENCED
K ENYAN
From one Bob to another, let me say: LOL
Do you?
If you don't go on believing the lie, isn't it safe to assume that many others don't either?
Ain't it the truth.
On Sputnik and the fall of the USSR she has a huge timeline problem. Sputnik was 1957. The USSR didnt collapse until 1989 and that was Reagan that did it, not Sputnik. The Soviet’s went broke on the military because Reagan stood up to them. Just a few years earlier under Carter they were rolling into country after country hardly broke from Sputnik in 1957. Read Ann Coulters book Treason.
Ann Coulter writes some good stuff, but I don’t recall seeing her labeled a “Soviet Space Expert”.
And there is no conflict between Coulter and Palin on the major issue here. It’s simply a contrivance of the other poster.
Palin’s point is that the precedent for the Soviets losing an arms race (or a tech race) was foretold in the space race. If you mark the launch of Sputnik as the END of a race, the Soviets won. But if you mark it as the beginning of a race...
When decades later the Sovs were hanging by a thread under the challenge of Reagan, the loss of the space race in the 1960s simply gave them less faith they could win and thus less reason to hang on.
An argument FOR that might have been available to hard-liners in Moscow was gone. An argument AGAINST was rooted in history. History had already recorded that they LOST tech races with us. “Back then it was Reagan, and he understood.”
Today it is Sarah, and she does too.
(And the citation of Treason by the other poster is errant.)
No. We actually get this information on FR. Most Americans do not.
You would be surprised how many people out there are as tuned in as FReepers are who have never even heard of Free Republic. I talk to them all the time. This is a great place for information but it is far from being the only one. Besides, a lot of people don’t need to be spoon fed the truth to know the truth. They see through the BS the liberal media spews.
I fully agree with that.
“Back then it was Reagan, and he understood.”
Today it is Sarah, and she does too.
I fully agree again. Sarah Palin is the anti-Obama. Unless and until others on the right step forward and assume that role, as forcefully and as consistently as she has, then I'll continue to insist that attacks against Sarah Palin are from pro-Obama elements or from the equally destructive liberal Republicans. Any half-measure adjustments envisioned by the "moderate" establishment Republicans will not stave off the economic disaster that the USA is facing.
There are many people and some campaigns pretending to be on the "right" who have no qualms about employing the Alinsky tactics developed and practiced by the "left".
For instance, why are these discussions about the SOTU address being redirected so strongly against those who issued rebuttals against Obama's communist propaganda in the SOTU? Obama is, hypothecally, the president, and even when we had legitimate presidents, their public speeches were subject to much analysis, rebuttals, and outright disagreement, point-by-point and on their overall themes.
This goober warrants much closer scrutiny, and such is long overdue.
I’m sure it’s still being taught on the first day of class at every university across the U.S.
I’m still pretty worked up over Leika, and I wasn’t even born then.
There is a lot of information about her in the Wikipedia article "Laika." The Russian version of the article calls her a "dog-cosmonaut" and shows a pack of cigarettes from a brand named in her honor. She was a stray found wandering in Moscow, a mongrel, thought to be 3 years old.
In the immortal words of the Cowardly Lion in "The Wizard of Oz."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.