Peace and the Arms Trade

tomMK1

http://www.caat.org.uk/information/facts-figures/faf-top-arms-exporters.php

Isnt it amazing that Britain, who apparently are in Iraq to support peace and who done such a fine job of peacekeeping in the north ( :rolleyes: ) have the second biggest arms business in the world? Like, isnt that a tad ironic? (OK< its just as bad that America have the first).

My questions are these:

how can a nation (be that America or Britian) be classed as peaceful if they profit from weapons of war?

Isnt war profitable for them, so therefore aren't they contradicting themselves when they say they promote peace?

Moriarty

It doesn't necessarly have to be a contradiction. For example, it's been a while since Ireland, Switzerland or Sweeden were involved in a war, but they all maintain a military force that needs weapons to operate..

Is there anywhere that shows a breakdown of where arms exports go/what sort of arms are exported?

tomMK1

i must google that.

this is mad, sherlock, mycroft and moriarty ... all on the one board. wheres watson?

tomMK1

Moriarty wrote:

It doesn't necessarly have to be a contradiction. For example, it's been a while since Ireland, Switzerland or Sweeden were involved in a war, but they all maintain a military force that needs weapons to operate..

very true, and in an ideal world, they wouldnt need armies for protection .. but Ireland certinaly doesnt sell arms and profit from a product that is used to fight wars and kill people. britain does, and therein lies the contradiction

supersheep

I believe FAS would be a good place to start. I had a breakdown somewhere, but don't ask me where - it isn't on this PC anyways...

mr_angry

The 5 permenant members of the UN Security Council: USA, UK, France, Russia, China.

The 5 biggest arms exporters in the world: USA, UK, France, Russia, China.

Architects of their own problems? I think so. The only thing is, each of them is selling weapons to the others' enemies. The USA to Tiwan, the French to Iraq, the Russians to the Koreans and the Iranians, and the UK and China to Israel. If you sit back and look at it objectively, its almost comical, but its happenning.

I firmly believe that if the sale of arms to Africa was halted for a period of 10 years - no arms, no ammunition, nothing - it would sort itself out in that period without major foreign intervention. But war is a profitable business, and are the governments of these countries going to turn their backs on the businesses that helped them in all of their recent wars (Lockheed Martin, etc.)? Not a chance in hell.

dermo88

Very true

It is a small coincidence that the moment the Cold War ended, a recession began. Arms spending constituted a large part of the expenditure of the United States in particular.

Arms spending is incredibly wasteful in terms of what it contributes to the world economy. The resources dedicated to heavy armaments used in Iraq and Afghanistan are not what is required to restore peace. Its a big like using a sledgehammer to crack nuts. What is really needed is intelligence, and covert forces. Except the hawks are stuck in their old fashioned romantic ideas of showing the flag, spending huge sums on aircraft carriers, submarines, etc, when something smaller and smarter could do the job, just as effectively, at a fraction of the cost.

Removing arms expenditure in these African tin pot dictatorships might be a way forward, but then, these places don't have dole queues and a military is a good substitute for some of their respective populations.

Thats just me firing off the top of my head.

Strange how the neutral countries tend to have the best arms industries:

Sweden - Saab, Bofors, ASEA. This is a country with 8 million people, and the Nazis did not dare invade in 1939-1945.

mr_angry

A good breakdown here:
http://www.amnestyusa.org/arms_trade/document.do?id=0087DBCEF8C8736880256FB300689A9A

supersheep

From FAS: http://www.fas.org/asmp/profiles/655-2004/6552004.html
A detailed breakdown of all US arms sales during 2004. And if you go to the FAS website and click on Arms Trade (right hand menu bar), there's a lot more information... A little US-centric, but highly detailed. For example $9m arms sales to Irelan in '04 - that's more than to Hungary, including nearly five million bullets and $24,000 worth of chemical agents and herbicides... Worrying. What is also worrying is that Ireland paid more then $3m for 10 computers... I want me a Defence Forces contract...

Flukey

War is big business. It is one of the things that keeps the American economy going. That's one of the reasons that America always needs a hate figure. Over the years who it is has changed like Hitler, the Russians, Castro, Saddam, Bin Laden etc., but there is always someone. Having a threat is a great way for the government to justify to the people the arms spending. Since the end of world war 2, far from promoting peace, America has invaded far more countries than anyone. They have supported many wars and regimes, many highly corrupt and undemocratic. They supply most of Israel's military equipment, so peace there would be a major threat to business.

They are selling arms left, right and centre all over Africa, keeping all sorts of wars going. As someone said, everyday is 9/11 in the Congo. One Donald Rumsfeld was over selling arms to Saddam Hussein in the early 80s and backing his war on Iran. As has been said in recent years, if America wanted to know what weapons Saddam had, all they had to do was to check their invoices. Of course they are not alone in the supporting of different regimes. Lots of countries are involved. War is also a great shop window to demonstrate weapons they want to sell.

There are many other economic spin-offs to war. Companies like Halleburton are in Iraq now, making a fortune in rebuilding Iraq. War has many benefits in terms of the economy and in helping some politicians to keep their posts by being seen as a great leader in fighting wars and bringing peace. Even places where there is no arms industry, war has many benefits. Peace is a big threat to the DUP as it gets rid of the thing that they have been screaming about for years and has helped them to get into politics and power. Last week they were giving out about the reduction in troops and police, but not because of the fear of attack, which they were publically saying, but because of the loss of jobs and how it could undermine their party and its reason for existence. Paisley has built his career on the back of the IRA. If they go, he has nothing to shout about. He'd be lost without them. As things have changed in recent years, they keep having to find new things to say "No" to and to justify their existence.

In many ways peace is a bigger threat to economies and political establishments than the likes of the IRA, Bin Laden and Saddam could ever be.

Meh

mr_angry wrote:

I firmly believe that if the sale of arms to Africa was halted for a period of 10 years - no arms, no ammunition, nothing - it would sort itself out in that period

I wouldn't be so sure of that, remember the Rwanda genocide was mostly carried out with machetes and cans of petrol.

Flukey

It would also result in a lot of unemployment in western economies. The west has been benefitting from Africa for years. Even long after they have left it, they are still profitting from the problems they left in their wake. A "little thing" like thousands of people dying, can't get in the way of making a profit. They are "only Africans" after all. For a fraction of what is being spent on war there, many of the problems of Africa could be solved, but profit and politics come first.

ISAW

Moriarty wrote:

It doesn't necessarly have to be a contradiction. For example, it's been a while since Ireland, Switzerland or Sweeden were involved in a war, but they all maintain a military force that needs weapons to operate..

Is there anywhere that shows a breakdown of where arms exports go/what sort of arms are exported?

there is a huge difference between a Defence Force and a specialised attack force which is used primarily to enforce trade and economic interest.

as to a breakdown here is a good one on the US:
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/research.htm

Well the military did invent the internet didnt they?

rsynnott

tomMK1 wrote:

but Ireland certinaly doesnt sell arms and profit from a product that is used to fight wars and kill people.

Really? Interesting. Tell the IT industry that.

Victor

tomMK1 wrote:

Isnt it amazing that Britain, who apparently are in Iraq to support peace and who done such a fine job of peacekeeping in the north have the second biggest arms business in the world?

Part of it is down to the cost and sophistication of the weapons they produce.

Which is more dangerous? Selling someone one million rifles at €100 each or 10 aircraft at €10m each?

dermo88 wrote:

It is a small coincidence that the moment the Cold War ended, a recession began.

Any chance it had anything to do with a spike in oil prices and the collapse of ordinary businesses?

Sweden - Saab, Bofors, ASEA. This is a country with 8 million people, and the Nazis did not dare invade in 1939-1945.

They didn't need to, Sweden was providing them with the resources they wanted and had Norway occupied and Finland allied. Why annoy the Swedes by invading?

mr_angry wrote:

I firmly believe that if the sale of arms to Africa was halted for a period of 10 years - no arms, no ammunition, nothing - it would sort itself out in that period without major foreign intervention.

Most of the 1,500,000 killed in Rwanda were killed with machetes and fire.

ISAW

rsynnott wrote:

Really? Interesting. Tell the IT industry that.

That is called "mixed use"
One can use a circuit to time a coin operated vending machine or a bomb.

Victor

ISAW wrote:

That is called "mixed use" One can use a circuit to time a coin operated vending machine or a bomb.

"Dual use".

rsynnott

ISAW wrote:

That is called "mixed use"
One can use a circuit to time a coin operated vending machine or a bomb.

No, software is developed specifically for the defense industry, and companies like Xylinx produce military and radiation-resistant versions of their chips. (A while back I was reading Xylinx documentation on a DART; the person beside me was staring extermely suspiciously at a little box detailing the differences in that radiation-proof version; they had obviously decided I was a terrorist )

A Dub in Glasgo

Defense (sic) industry is a misnomer

Some of the biggest WoMD in the world reside 35 miles from me :eek:

rsynnott

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Defense (sic) industry is a misnomer

Some of the biggest WoMD in the world reside 35 miles from me :eek:

Yes, that it is, but there's no acceptable alternative.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Some of the biggest WoMD in the world reside 35 miles from me :eek:

Just as well, too; atomics have been preventing major war for decades now.

supersheep

How about military industry?
And what kind of statement is it about our race that the only thing that prevents us from killing is the threat of more killing? Yay us! :rolleyes:

Victor

A Dub in Glasgo wrote:

Defense (sic) industry is a misnomer

Some of the biggest WoMD in the world reside 35 miles from me :eek:

Actually, Scotland has greatly receded as a nuclear power. They have "only" about 200 nuclear weapons.

rsynnott

supersheep wrote:

How about military industry?
And what kind of statement is it about our race that the only thing that prevents us from killing is the threat of more killing? Yay us! :rolleyes:

Like it or not, it works. Humanity is largely made up of dreadful people. This is not news.

county

tomMK1 you have a passionate hatred for the british as i see from most of your posts,the word biggot spings to mind,why all the hatred

gurramok

rsynnott wrote:

Just as well, too; atomics have been preventing major war for decades now.

How?...by threat of greater force, the country that is less equipped will succumb to the mighty?
If one country has atomic weapons, their neighbours will certainly want it to counter-balance. God helps if there is a nuke war, it would be on a more devastating scale than a conventional war due to the massive destruction of life involved.
By your logic, we just have to trust the mighty countries that they will not fire those atomic weapons at us!

Victor wrote:

Actually, Scotland has greatly receded as a nuclear power. They have "only" about 200 nuclear weapons.

Well, based in Scotland but not owned by Scotland

rsynnott

gurramok wrote:

By your logic, we just have to trust the mighty countries that they will not fire those atomic weapons at us!

That's reasonable. After all, by doing so, they doom themselves, too.

gurramok

rsynnott wrote:

That's reasonable. After all, by doing so, they doom themselves, too.

How?
If we are destroyed, who will 'doom' them?
Do you mean by defence treaty... if one country is attacked, the rest of the countries will fire in self-defence like NATO except that we are not in NATO.
What military alliance are we in that will defend us if we are attacked not just by non-EU countries but by within the EU?

Thought we were militarily neutral according to Nice 2!

rsynnott

AH, you mean if the US or Russia or someone decides to nuke us in particular? Well, that would be highly odd, but yes, they could do that. Of course, they could also beat us effortlessly by conventionaly warfare.

supersheep

rsynnott wrote:

Like it or not, it works. Humanity is largely made up of dreadful people. This is not news.

I know, unfortunately... Isn't it great the way our safety was protected by something called MAD? And then, of course, NUTS, even better... Why are nuclear war-related acronyms words for crazy? Durrr...
And county, where does bigotry come in? He lambasted the arms trade and those who claim to be peaceful while selling the guns that cause war.