Global arms sales

[Ordie]

http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1003/gun-slingers/flat.html

After looking at this graph, its seems that the US is in an arms race with itself.

But I assume the per unit cost of US weapons are much higher,

[Tank34]

http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1003/gun-slingers/flat.html
After looking at this graph, its seems that the US is in an arms race with itself.
But I assume the per unit cost of US weapons are much higher,
USA the most agressive country in modern world so it need huge military. (do not want to enter discussion about this, but this is a fact and main reason for this is just than only USA have capabilities to wage war against any country in the world that do not have nuclear weapon so it is just use this capabilities, why is another question)

[Dragonscript]

USA the most agressive country in modern world so it need huge military. (do not want to enter discussion about this, but this is a fact and main for it is just than only USA have capabilities to wage war against any country in the world that do not have nuclear weapon so it is just use this capabilities, why is another question)

You read the graph wrong. This does not state how much the US buys, but how much the US sells. Why would we sell 65%+ of the world's arms, in dollar value, if we were going to conquer the world?

AFAIK, most US arms sales include training and support, so they cost more. Maybe it is just me, but 55.2 billion out of a world GDP of 60.9 trillion, or less than .1% of total world GDP, is not that bad.

I could show you sources that cite that the US spends on average per capita about the same as everybody else, but that would conflict with the whole "most aggressive country in the history of TIME" theory you got going there.

[Tank34]

You read the graph wrong. This does not state how much the US buys, but how much the US sells. Why would we sell 65%+ of the world's arms, in dollar value, if we were going to conquer the world?

AFAIK, most US arms sales include training and support, so they cost more. Maybe it is just me, but 55.2 billion out of a world GDP of 60.9 trillion, or less than .1% of total world GDP, is not that bad.

I could show you sources that cite that the US spends on average per capita about the same as everybody else, but that would conflict with the whole "most aggressive country in the history of TIME" theory you got going there.

Largest military in the world mean largest military industry in the world. Simple. To be effective industry need customers. And main customers for USA industry is pro american states. States that are not pro american can be invaded.(Just look on Iraq, while we do not look at reasons why it was invaded, it is now export more oil than for last 20 years, and would be long term customer for american military industry, and some other countries would think twice about how dangerous can be independent from USA politic, while this lead to large gap in USA budget, but some companies have huge moneys from all this). WMDs are the only possible way to be completely independent from USA and still even a lesser confrtontation can be deadly. It is main disadvantage of unipolar world.
USA spend almost half of total world military spendings. It is the largest military power for 15 years at least. And why do you think all this needed? It is just to secure interests of american goverment and american companies and it uses this . All countries would be glad to have such capabilities.
And about agressive just look how many countries was inervented by US military and its allies in last 20 years starting from Panama and this is after diminish of main enemy USSR.
Valid this intervention was or not, but still the numbers give a not very good impression. Without WMD it is too dangerous to have independent from USA politic.

[Tank34]

With such situation it is not so impressive that some countries want nuclear weapons. Especialy the countries invervention in which could be not so big burden by economical reasons( have enough resources to compensate some parts of US loses due to intervention).

[brainplay]

and some other countries would think twice about how dangerous can be independent from USA politic, while this lead to large gap in USA budget, but some companies have huge moneys from all this). WMDs are the only possible way to be completely independent from USA

And about agressive just look how many countries was inervented by US military and its allies in last 20 years starting from Panama and this is after diminish of main enemy USSR.
Valid this intervention was or not, but still the numbers give a not very good impression. Without WMD it is too dangerous to have independent from USA politic.

Umm...maybe its the translation. Independent from USA politic.

113480

If people don't want to buy our weapons they can go to Russia and buy their state subsidized cheap equipment. They don't get invaded because they didn't buy.


It is the largest military power for 15 years at least. And why do you think all this needed?

Mostly it has to do with our allies in NATO or the UN not having the ability to intervene in certain situations either due to lack of military/diplomatic strength or lack of political will. You should understand this. The Russian Federation has done their own version of "peacekeeping" before.


It is just to secure interests of american goverment and american companies and it uses this .

While you're at it, just say we invaded Iraq for it's oil. Go ahead.

[I can't think of a name]

The US sells big ticket items that don't even have weapons. AWACS for example can be mutli-billion dollar contracts (look at Saudi Arabia and Australia). That does far much less harm than a couple million dollars in small arms.

[-CZ-75]

This statistic is crap
-> http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/page/toplist.php

Take reliable information!!!
2008 arms export
1.USA - 6,2
2.Russia -6,0

[micheal1234dd]

In 2009 Israel sold arms worth 6.75 billion dollars. It's a great thing considering that we don't manufacture big platforms.

[-CZ-75]

In 2009 Israel sold arms worth 6.75 billion dollars. It's a great thing considering that we don't manufacture big platforms.

Some sources !?

[micheal1234dd]

http://www.defense-update.com/newscast/0110/businessnews_0110.html#export
Russia sold weapons that worth 8.5 billion dollars if you want to know.

[Tank34]

Umm...maybe its the translation. Independent from USA politic.
If people don't want to buy our weapons they can go to Russia and buy their state subsidized cheap equipment. They don't get invaded because they didn't buy.

It is always a complex of factors. Of course no one would be invaded because they do not buy american equipment. It is not so simple. But it is not so easy to buy military equipment from Russia in US backed country, because it is would be against US interest, which lead to some consequences(not military of course).
And Russia equipment is cheap not because it state subsidized, but because we have much lower wages.


Mostly it has to do with our allies in NATO or the UN not having the ability to intervene in certain situations either due to lack of military/diplomatic strength or lack of political will. You should understand this. The Russian Federation has done their own version of "peacekeeping" before.

Yep. But Russian capabilities are only limited to exUSSR countries. And still we do not have enough political and economical ability to occupy another country unlike USA even if we just retaliate. US have such capability and as all of us see used it. Would be glad too see list of countries than occupy other countries and overtrown it goverment by force. In recent 20 years do not think that this list would be long.


While you're at it, just say we invaded Iraq for it's oil. Go ahead.
Sadam stand on antiamerican position this is the main reason of invasion. But of course without oil in Iraq it is would be much less likely.

[Cabalabro]

It is natural that worlds leading economy with most well funded armed military, that has interest around the globe is also a leading arms seller. I mean this is how it should be!

One thing what surprised me most are the numbers in that page.

In 7 years US sold 650 APC/IFV's. That's all? This is not much at all!
17 subsonic combat aircraft. In 7 years! How?!
159 supersonic aircraft. Again in 7 years! While having best fighter plane designs?!
All the other numbers are shocking in the same way!
Only number of tanks looks significant. But then again knowing the full story of those Egyptian tanks...

[Tank34]

While having best fighter plane designs?!

But certainly not the best price/effectivnes ratio. All american equipment are just too expensive. Without so strong american lobby sales would be even lower.

[11 Bravo]

But certainly not the best price/effectivnes ratio. All american equipment are just too expensive. Without so strong american lobby sales would be even lower.

Tanky ; tell us who you really work for ?.

[-CZ-75]

Tanky ; tell us who you really work for ?.

Tell us why you just don't want to hear the truth ?

[Deus257]

I'm more interested in the top 10 arms importers. I can't believe Saudi Arabia beat out india, probably worried about Iran, venezuela at #9 no surprise there.

[cordel]

It is interesting that most sales go to Middle East. Assuming that there is virtually zero external threat, that speaks a lot about Arabic unity.

I have my doubts about the "sales by country" graph. Russian sales are less than Italian, and on the level with small European countries??? That does not look credible.


While you're at it, just say we invaded Iraq for it's oil. Go ahead.

No, of course not, you invaded Iraq because of its WMD. How does the search go, by the way?

Please enlighten me, why did you invade Iraq? You are not pretending to be some kind of liberators, aren't you? :roll: Indeed, there were several reasons to invade Iraq, but none of them any nobler than simple oil grabbing. I believe the main reason was to install a puppet government, and use it to counterbalance Iran and to ensure control over Middle East. But the chance to grab Iraq oil and create new markets for US companies hardly was overlooked.

[Tank34]

Tanky ; tell us who you really work for ?.
For Russian goverment in IC MVD. Already said this in some topics:).
And still USA military equipment is extremely expensive, just too big salaries not so cost effective designs(yep for so rich military as US it is ok). So without american lobby it is would be much harder to find customers.

[brainplay]

I
No, of course not, you invaded Iraq because of its WMD. How does the search go, by the way?

Please enlighten me, why did you invade Iraq? You are not pretending to be some kind of liberators, aren't you? :roll: Indeed, there were several reasons to invade Iraq, but none of them any nobler than simple oil grabbing. I believe the main reason was to install a puppet government, and use it to counterbalance Iran and to ensure control over Middle East. But the chance to grab Iraq oil and create new markets for US companies hardly was overlooked.

/facepalm

Wow,..oh wow. You got me. The secret's out. As soon as they get clearance from Moscow the black helicopters will arrive at your house now that you've figured it all out.

Just a little tidbit....we didn't get any oil. It all goes to China. We import our oil from South America. And a HUGE majority of the oil contracts went to Russia, Malaysia, Angola, and China.

They already counterbalanced against Iran. They scared the crap out of them before we ever showed up. Did they not teach you about the Iran/Iraq war in Russian high school? The idea of a nuclear Iraq scared the entire Middle East.

[bababooey]

Just a thought. You'd think a foriegn country would not want to buy american made. Buying american means needing parts. Parts can been used as a bargaining chip. Look at Iran and Chile in the 1970's with the Carter administration. In both cases its US equipment made almost useless.

[deadtired]

No mention of small arms sales. That's odd.