UK Top World Weapon Sales

[Viv]

This explains the red carpet at Buckingham Palace and Gordon Brown's trundling out the Queen and the royal family, when the Saudi leader visited a while back.

People protested against his UK visit, but...business is business at the end of the day...

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.

The figure amounts to a third of all worldwide export orders for military equipment, ministers and arms companies reported. An essentially political, government-to-government contract - the sale of 72 Eurofighter/Typhoon aircraft, for £4.4bn, to the Saudis - accounted for Britain's number one position, the figures make clear.

The Ministry of Defence says the terms of the contract - called Salam, Arabic for peace - and the total expenditure involved are confidential. But officials make it clear that when upkeep, spares and training were included, the deal could amount to £20bn spread over many years. The figures last year were also boosted by orders placed by Oman and Trinidad and Tobago for patrol boats.

The companies involved - chiefly BAE Systems and the VT Group - were praised by the trade minister, Digby Jones.

"As demonstrated by this outstanding export performance, the UK has a first-class defence industry, with some of the world's most technologically sophisticated companies," he said.

Traditionally, American arms companies have occupied the top spot in the global arms market, with Britain, Russia and France vying to be the runners-up. Over the past five years the top arms exporters have been the US, with $63bn worth of sales, UK ($53bn), Russia ($33bn), France ($17bn) and Germany and Israel ($9bn each), according to government figures.

Analysts yesterday said that the latest figures reporting Britain's top spot in 2007 should be treated with caution, as they represent orders and not actual deliveries of equipment...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/2...ade.saudiarabia

[Spideynw]

I don't care about businesses selling weapons. It does concern me though when governments get involved in deciding who can be sold to.

[motivez]

It's interesting that the British government is so eager to sell weapons to other countries when it doesn't want its citizens to have any.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Spideynw

I don't care about businesses selling weapons. It does concern me though when governments get involved in deciding who can be sold to.

Should businesses be allowed to sell guns to both sides of an armed conflict? I assume you've seen "Lord of War"

[Viv]

Originally Posted by motivez

It's interesting that the British government is so eager to sell weapons to other countries when it doesn't want its citizens to have any.

Lol...not the gun debate. That subject cannot be logically discussed with US posters IMO.

You may find the UK citizens don't want to have any and are happy that they are safer that way.

Why would guns not be sold to both sides in war?

[avsp]

[quote=Viv;191021]Lol...not the gun debate. That subject cannot be logically discussed with US posters IMO.

You may find the UK citizens don't want to have any and are happy that they are safer that way.[quote]
possibly, ..., the idea of a collective defence by limiting guns runs counter to the cherished 'individual rights' approach favoured by Americans

Why would guns not be sold to both sides in war?

Coz its immoral?
Coz it runs counter to the populace's own, possibly self-serving, beliefs/cant?
Coz it'll ramp up conflict?
Coz the weapons are still there after the conflict & may be used against you or your allies?

Coz Bill Hicks is a better comedian than Shane was a film?

The whole BAe corruption investigation fingy stank, ..., & its really odd that the Yamks might take it up. I hope they do & that Blair gets his etc

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Viv

Lol...not the gun debate. That subject cannot be logically discussed with US posters IMO.

You may find the UK citizens don't want to have any and are happy that they are safer that way.

Why not?

And what about those who do? If you outlaw law abiding citizens from having guns, the only people who'll have them are criminals.

They aren't going to respect your laws telling them they can't have a gun, why would they if they intend to break other laws?

Originally Posted by Viv

Why would guns not be sold to both sides in war?

What avsp said.

[Spideynw]

Originally Posted by motivez

Should businesses be allowed to sell guns to both sides of an armed conflict? I assume you've seen "Lord of War"

Yes, I have seen Lord of War, and one damn fine movie that is. And at the very end, they make the point that governments are by far the largest suppliers of weapons.

As to your first question, yes, I think businesses should be allowed to sell guns to both sides of a conflict.

[Viv]

Originally Posted by motivez

Why not?

Because US posters...well, I have debated gun law a few times and the most reasonable people turn into wild animals when discussing US gun law. The cultures are different and US posters cannot accept the concept of a gun-free society. But there are many such societies in Europe.
I avoid the debate, but for you...the basic premise starts from the statement that if a person does not have a gun, he cannot shoot you...

And what about those who do? If you outlaw law abiding citizens from having guns, the only people who'll have them are criminals.
They aren't going to respect your laws telling them they can't have a gun, why would they if they intend to break other laws?

Not really. They are still permissible as tools. Agricultural use and such.

We are discussing two different cultures. But here we find the criminals who have guns tend to contain their use within the criminal subculture. It normally relates to drugs. Normal people don't really have any intervention from guns.

Knives are a different subject. There is still violence, but I guess you have more chance of surviving attack if a gun is not used.

What avsp said.

Yes, I was sparking debate with that question. I don't support gun sales, I am anti-violence in any form. People should use political means to further their aims. War and conflict being the last resort.

[motivez]

Show me one society where no one has a gun.. They don't exist, and people who want guns for criminal purposes can still get them, thus leaving ordinary citizens without a gun to defend themselves with.

The premise of "If someone does not have a gun, he cannot shoot you." doesn't seem to mesh with the reality of guns being easily attainable for the criminal element of a society.

While you say they are usually limited to the drug culture, that doesn't mean they're unattainable for someone who wants to commit a robbery with the use of a firearm, so why not give law abiding citizens a chance to defend themselves?

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by Viv

Lol...not the gun debate. That subject cannot be logically discussed with US posters IMO.

You may find the UK citizens don't want to have any and are happy that they are safer that way.

Why would guns not be sold to both sides in war?

lol

[Phantom]

"Controversial deal" because it was most likely procured by more outrageous bribes.

Those MFs at BAE nearly screwed me bad last summer when the bribe story broke and they withdrew their intention to bid on a contract one week before the bid was due.

[motivez]

MF's at BAE?

[Viv]

Originally Posted by thewise1

lol

That is clearly from my local newspaper, you creepy git. Where did you get a hold of it?

And what point are you making??

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Viv

That is clearly from my local newspaper, you creepy git. Where did you get a hold of it?

And what point are you making??

He's saying if no one has guns, anything can be used as a weapon, even a belt.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

He's saying if no one has guns, anything can be used as a weapon, even a belt.

Even if people have guns, anything can be used as a weapon.. they're just not as effective if the person you're trying to attack has a means of defending themselves at range

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by motivez

Even if people have guns, anything can be used as a weapon.. they're just not as effective if the person you're trying to attack has a means of defending themselves at range

If you have a belt and want to rob someone, but they might have a gun, you won't rob them.

But if you have a belt and KNOW no one has a gun, then you're the man.

[Viv]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

If you have a belt and want to rob someone, but they might have a gun, you won't rob them.

But if you have a belt and KNOW no one has a gun, then you're the man.

But if you are a little Greenock Jakey with just a belt, we're likely to survive your attack. It may be used as a weapon, but you're not going to kill me.

With a gun, that's more likely to happen.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Viv

But if you are a little Greenock Jakey with just a belt, we're likely to survive your attack. It may be used as a weapon, but you're not going to kill me.

With a gun, that's more likely to happen.

LOTS of people in the US have guns (legal or illegal). Very few people die by guns (compared to the previous very large number).

The POSSIBILITY of having a gun (ie., no law exists that prevents one from having a gun) prevents crime. The IMPOSSIBILITY of having a gun (ie., laws exist that prevent it) promotes crime.

Get away from specific hypotheticals. If some 100 lbs cracked out punk comes at you with a shoe, yes, you'll survive. But if you look at society as a whole, crime rates reduce when people are ALLOWED to own guns.

[Viv]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

LOTS of people in the US have guns (legal or illegal). Very few people die by guns (compared to the previous very large number).

The POSSIBILITY of having a gun (ie., no law exists that prevents one from having a gun) prevents crime. The IMPOSSIBILITY of having a gun (ie., laws exist that prevent it) promotes crime.

Get away from specific hypotheticals. If some 100 lbs cracked out punk comes at you with a shoe, yes, you'll survive. But if you look at society as a whole, crime rates reduce when people are ALLOWED to own guns.

Compared to what previous very large number? Where are your figures coming from...oops, you don't have figures. I'm not sure what you are comparing the current death rate to.

Please note, I am asking. I accept your assertion but just for fun,
where have crime rates reduced when people were allowed to own guns? Do you have an example?