Space x does not have strategic usage. It is only economically efficient. If the country has enough resources to bother about reuse cost, then it doesn't matter.
Matters, the kind of technologies that would be needed for mining on other celestial bodies at low cost will give their own strategic advantage.
Russia is self sufficient in all important items like food, energy, vehicles like car, train and technology in serve and communication. That is good enough to be strong.
It's "good enough" survive in current scenario only. Neither any hi fi living standards will be there. Nor Russians will be able to keep up to global standards of living.
I only intend to say that Russians are
as intelligent as anyone can get and hence others simply can't outcompete them in Technology of defence
That's why I said you have lost argument by default. Russians got resources in their land, others can purchase.
Saying others can't outsmart them is stupid. With bigger R&D budget, number and aspects of experiments will be much larger for other countries.
R&D improvement rate is not same as absolute improvement. China did not have enough infrastructure base in the past and hence needed some time to start and consolidate. So, in that time, they will show faster growth. It is like saying a student who secured 50% marks has higher rate of improvement than a student with 95% marks.
At the end, the R&D levels can only equalise unless Russia botch up due to manual or political error.
Russia isn't at culmination of technological advancement that it can be called a kid with 95%.
When other kids get more notes and costiler books, they'll definitely do better than Russia.
US has saturated in its Technology for about 10 years. Only thing it is doing now is fancy stuff and window dressing. EU was always falling after WW2 and survived under the shadow of USA dominance by becoming USA stooges. But Russia has its own strength.
Initial ecosystem created immediately after World War 2 actually enriched EU greatly, not failed it. US & EU started losing after losing monopoly after rise of Asia.
For USSR/Russia, they have portrayed perfect example of how not to manage your country all that time. Both China & India dumped socialist models and got financially much stronger than Russia, producing much more industrial stuff.
USA is now completely losing steam and has halted in Technology progression. If you think otherwise, show me one Technology improvement since 2015.
Hundreds and thousands. Open USPTO and WIP IPRs. Search gadgets. Innovations in weapons. I don't have to cite.
USA is self sufficient for now in terms of oil and hence is surviving.
Wondering why other oil producing countries are suffering too?
US is much more more than controller of global oil. Russia is useless besides its resources.
Whereas Russian self sufficiency is much higher.
Resources only. Russia has to import finished goods Including machineries as their population at home is aging.
USA will economically collapse after 2030.
Mark your words. I got screenshot.
You are indulging in psychology. You are assuming that people have fixed psychology and incapable of sacrifices. That is where you are going completely wrong. Marxism failed because USSR leadership became corrupt and started indulging in luxuries which made people get disgusted. But, China survived the same principle because they stuck to it. Even today, entire chinese land and assets of production is owned collectively (on collective village basis or by government) and it survives and thrives. So, stop speculation based on your understanding of psychology. People's psychology can be manipulated into making sacrifices if the
China got it after suppressing people in worse way. Soviets and Chinese have done so many brutal suppressions of their people what we will never come to know. Wave was there against authoritarianism for sure.
1989's revolutions make it clear that people have a limit of tolerance and sacrifices. They are not just asset of your country who are going to work day & night just for your productivity. They too want luxuries and connect to world outside.
For my personal opinion, the country uses its citizens only to become more powerful rather than appeasing them is useless. I'm glad that India won't ever be so.
For history being evident, rough states have a high degree of instability.
Now, coming back to Russian economy, it is self sufficient when it comes to important goods like food, energy, defence, communication and transportation.
Russia isn't self sufficient in food, communication and transportation unless it chooses to cut down number of dishes in plate, quality of communication and transportation.
Other things like low lithography semiconductor are not really critical
They are very critical. So is monopoly on global information. China has proved itself to be far far more intelligent than crazy Soviets.
Semiconductors are key of many advanced techs. Case is different that your "It's just not important" factor is what I'm saying why Russia will be left behind other great powers.
You seem to think very linearly. India will be the last and the greatest power. But because of completely different reasons, mainly rooted in Dharma ideology being superior, benign and universal, propagation of it can demolish other ideologies.
India being last great power has nothing to do with Dharma. India despite all its Dharna and culture has fallen well behind in past few centuries.
Both China & India are highly populated states. They were so even during cold war and were followed by USSR & USA in populations but were much poorer than them.
As second tier powers like France, UK, Germany, Brazil or Japan have relatively much smaller room left to grow, the ultimate great powers near long term will be China & India as their income levels catch up with west. Much bigger manpower with better living standards & educational levels.
Only a couple of African countries have population growth rates high enough to catch up with China & India after some 80-100 years but their income levels aren't.
Russia has extraordinary size land and Resources. That is exactly why UK is small and USA is large in economy. Otherwise, there wouldn't be much difference in USA and UK. The size of resources (land included) ad population itself is the main reason why any country becomes big or small. So, ignoring the size difference of Russia & comparing to UK, pretending that size is a trivial difference is incorrect
The same applies Russia and the Ukraine as well.
At the same time, if Americans are maintaining disproportionate capabilities and Europeans have their forces & firepower close to Russia is basis of why I called Russia an ineffecient country.
Even India sucks if we leave its size.
Anyways, I won't litter AMCA thread further.
