If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Top of the world! Britain now the world's biggest arms dealer
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/21/armstrade.saudiarabia
Nothing wrong with that, I hear some of you scream. If we don't somebody else will, and the world needs weapons and blah blah.
Makes you fucking proud, doesn't it?
A controversial deal with Saudi Arabia catapulted Britain to the top of the world arms export league last year, as UK firms won a record £10bn in orders from overseas, official figures show.
Nothing wrong with that, I hear some of you scream. If we don't somebody else will, and the world needs weapons and blah blah.
According to the latest annual report on weapons-related exports, the government in 2006 approved arms exports to 19 of the 20 countries it identified as "countries of concern" for abusing human rights.
They included Saudi Arabia, Israel, Colombia, China, and Russia. The report also reveals that during 2006 the UK authorised the export of more than 15,000 sniper rifles to countries including Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, components for military aircraft and tanks for China, and heavy machine guns for Colombia.
They also included the sale of components for combat aircraft, electronic warfare equipment, helicopters, military aircraft cockpit displays, unmanned vehicles and anti-armour missiles for Israel.
Makes you fucking proud, doesn't it?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
We beat RUSSIA? Who recently (apparently, not confirmed, but people have had eyes-on, no confirmation from Russia or Iran) sold Iran MiG-31's and Su-30's?
Russia who arms anyone and everyone? Wow. We win that one then.
If anything it shows that our stuff is obviously highly regarded.
I once remember reading something that said that only countries who have the capability to manufacture advanced arms are the ones that can be regarded as superpowers.
Not only is morally bankrupt, but also ludicrous. Imagine a crack dealer using that defence in court...
I cant see the problem with us being the world leader in Arms, and about it being morally bankrupt thats just a personnal view.
Do you really don't see a problem selling weapons to nasty regimes that will use them specifically to murder and oppress innocent civilians?
Few things in life are more morally bankrupt than that.
I don't think anybody can plausibly dispute the less than perfect human rights records of some of the states propping up Britain's defence industry. However, Saudi Arabia and China don't directly persecute civilians using military aircraft and helicopters... And I've yet to see any evidence to suggest Britain cutting off arms sales to Saudi Arabia, China, etc will lead to improvements in human rights.
I assume nothing Aladdin does in his day-to-day life uses Saudi oil? I'll assume he doesn't buy anything made in China? How do you think the Saudis and Chinese fund arms sales?
And since it's accepted that Britain cutting off the sales will just create business for the French and the Americans - wouldn't the 'solution' be to cut off the supply of funding to Saudi Arabia/China that allows them to buy weapons?
--- Yet I don't think many people here could lead a life completely independent of Saudi oil - and how many could survive without clothes, DVD players, furniture, shoes, etc made in China?
If Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, etc posed a genuine threat to regional and global peace (and appeared to be stockpiling arms to invade a neighbour...) I might feel differently about arms sales... I might feel differently if I saw credible proof that banning arms sales would help human rights. But, the only guaranteed consequence of banning arms sales I can see is - the loss of thousands of British jobs and Britain losing a multi-billion pound industry.
Britain would survive fine. We're talking about less than 1% of the entire economy IIRC. And those who lost their jobs would find new ones.
Some things are unnaceptable, and profits (or even jobs) should not always be the overriding concern.
Fine - if it's not your job.
That said there's other reasons for arms sales beyond just the direct jobs. Saudi Arabia, like it or not, is a key economic partner of the UK - that oily stuff is pretty important. It's in the UK's interests to make sure it remains close to us and arms sales (ie making it a client dependant on our good will) is a pretty effective way to do it.
Those who constantly apply a zero-sum "moral/ethical" line to foreign nations/supposed rivals instantly revert to a solely pragmatic and nationalist position, dismissing humanist responsibility and the implications of our own governments' actions.
Having said that, the reason we outcompete our military-industrial economic rivals in dollar value is quality of technology and infrastructure rather than "quantity" of arms built and sold. Whilst we sell highly advanced aircraft, guidance systems, GPS systems/data (etc) to wealthy despots and/or "Western allies," countries such as Russia and China mass produce less sophisticated equivalents and small arms, and sell them pretty much indiscriminately on the world market.
Nail - head. The War economy needs fuel, the price war costs these days... and as it runs of the blood of innocents and money, it needs both. One is harder to come by...
It is what is being sold that should be regulated not how much.
But that's not a bad thing. When being tortured thousands of miles away from home by a despotic regime your country sucks the cock of, it's comforting to know at least you're being tortured with British-made goods and your suffering is helping safeguard British Jobs. :rolleyes:
But if we didn't buy from them it would probably cost us more (as the supply goes down). And we probably wouldn't loose them (at least straight away), but all in all it's better to have them as dependant on us as we are on them.
We really have to stop trying to justify everything we do, however amoral, on the theory that it might cost us money to take a stand. What's wrong is wrong.
In any case, why stick to Saudi? What about the many dodgy regimes we sell weapons to who are not major providers of the oil we care so much about? Are we afraid Israel and Colombia are going to put up the prices of oranges and coffee if we stop selling them weapons?
Billion pound jets are rarely used for torture, its not how much we sell but what, and to whom.
We support Israel because it's in our interest that we don't risk another Holocaust (plus it's one of our best sources for intel and is in a strategically important part of the Med). Colombia get's hardly anything from the UK (it's not very rich), though it's in our interest that a bloody minded communist insurgency is defeated (more in the US and more in the interests of the people of Colombia).
We don't sell to countries when it's our interest's not too - which is why there is a lack of Challenger tanks parading through Moscow.
Every country in the world acts in it's own interests - the UK just happens to have some comparitive advantages when it comes to selling arms
It all comes to profit, as always. I am yet to shown a single case where sales of British weapons are critical to the buyer's wellbeing, or indeed to Britain.
Profit is critical - without it we'd be in deep shit (it's profit which enables the economy to function and us to pay taxes). If we didn't sell Arms we're not going to become Zimbabwe overnight - but it's a significant chunk of the economy (especially in certain areas) and the loss of it would have a major impact. this might be acceptable if saudi Arabia didn't then buy arms from France - but as they would the end result is that the UK is basically taking an economic hit for no reason. And the next result is that France gets a lot closer to the saudi's on other things (such as supplying petrol infrastructure, yachts etc).
I know you don't support the argument 'if we don't someone else will' but actually it's pretty important when you're a Government and have people's livelihoods to consider.
Niether side of that civil war come out all that well, both sides have used horrible tactics to get what they want.
I agree with that in part, but just saying that doesnt excuse the lack of control of the market. There needs to be much better control on what is sold and to whom. Covering all British people across the globe by the same standards would go a long way to reducing the darker side of the industry.
As it always seems to be the case, risks and scenarios tend to be greatly exaggerated in order to protect the status quo. But we can certainly afford to implement a more ethical weapons sales policy, and should do so.
It's a lot more regulated than a lot of countries - admittedly there's always going to be a dark undercurrent of people misusing end-user licences. However that tends to be at the small ends arm of the market (which the UK isn't a big player in) rather than high-tech, high-intensity arms