Talk:Arms industry

Propaganda

feels like a propaganda piece from Disinfopedia. Is this really all that can be said about a huge and strategically important industry, that some people get killed with "small arms", half of them probably in Africa? People kill people, you know. Watcher 20:55, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

And so do bullets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.180.233 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Article expansion

I work in Security Assistance in dealing with Foreign Military Sales (FMS), and have attended class at the Defense Institute for Security Assistance Management (DISAM), but that doesn't make me an expert yet. It really is a complex organization with stringent directives, much of which is outlined in the Secretary of Defense Instruction titled (currently) Joint Security Assistance Training Manual (JSAT), and the soon to be completed JSET which will replace the JSAT.

Let's face it, the world is not a safe place. There are many reasons that we share our weapons, technology and practices (training) with other countries. We share this with our allies to ensure that if and when we go into battle with them, we may have a better coordinated fight. We give things to other countries as a gesture of good will. Another very important part that is commonly overlooked is that when International Military Students come to the U.S. to train, they get to see the U.S. for what it really is, and can take their (hopefully pleasant) experiences home with them to share with their friends and families. Since it is not uncommon for a Head of State have served in their nations military, there is a chance that they may have attended training in the U.S. This is in fact the case with King Abdullah II of Jordan. Another thing to be looked at is countries that we may have obligations (under treaties) to defend, such is the case with Japan and the Republic of Korea (South Korea). If they purchase our technology (and the training to use it), it may partially relieve our responsibilities.

"Let's face it, the world is not a safe place." Largely because the American arms industry is behind every war since David Copperfield was a kid.

However, this article surely needs to be expanded. Foreign Military Sales (FMS) is extremely important. There should be separate articles for FMS, IMET, DCS, DISAM, International Military Student Officer (IMSO) (my job), Naval Education and Training Security Assistance Field Activity (NETSAFA), U.S. Army Security Assistance Training Field Activity (SATFA), Air Force Security Assistance Center (AFSAC), Security Assistance Officer (SAO) among others. I would love to help write these articles, but I'm not an article writer. I can help with facts, perhaps specific statistics, but I could not do it by myself.--Asacan 04:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have tried to do research on this topic, and I have added several paragraphs. I am, however, quite new to Wikipedia, and therefore apologize for my numerous meaningless edits (I will try to update by doing one big update in the future). If you discover that any of the information is uncertain, or that it is not properly organized, feel free to work over my own edits. I consider this topic to be important, and will therefore do whatever I can to improve this article, more research on this topic will be completed soon. --Ludvig 06:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Information on arms trade is hard to obtain. Not only illegal but also legal military transactions are often taking place in secret. Help improve and bring attention to the article.

Information wanted: Need some info on the weapons industry of France, Britain and Russia.

Contradiction

The values in the Top Arms Exporters table seems to be completely wrong. The total of the top arms exporters for 2006 is $1.2Billion, whereas the article also states "From 1989 to 1996, the global value of direct commercial arms sales was US$257 billion, of which 45% was exported from the US". ($257/8 years = $32B/year, so unless the arms trade dropped by a factor of 25 in the next decade, those numbers are incorrect.)

The cited sources also give different values.

I added the contradiction flag at the top of the article, and added a sentence above the table telling people to go to the sources instead. I don't know what the Wiki-appropriate edit should have been, but I assume that this article is sufficiently watched that someone will be aroudn shortly to clean it up. Thank you. DMPalmer

Invalid criticism of the United States

A large part of this piece seems to be an attempt to slander the United States and does not objectively look at arms sales worldwide. No mention is made of other major arms exporters in the same light... small arms exports are mentioned, but based on the article one would think that the United States is the primary supplier of small arms, when in fact it is Russia (whose AK-47 is the most widely produced assault weapon). I recommend that arms sales specifically related to the United States be moved to a new article titled, "Arms Sales of the United States," and then that article broken down into sections where criticisms such as the ones that exist in this article can be put into proper context.

And then there's this: "The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, with a sales volume that exceeds the next 14 countries combined. Military sales equate to about 18 percent of the Federal budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any nation." This is ridiculous! 18% of the $2.2 trillion federal budget (FY 2006) is $396 billion, yet according to SIPRI total arms sales worldwide totalled a maximum of $53 billion for 2004, with the United States making up approx. half of that.

"According to the 2005 annual US congress reports, 58% of all US arms trade contracts are made with developing countries." This is especially misleading, because nowhere in the article does it cite that Russia is the largest exporter of arms to the developing world. (Source: CDI, "U.S. Arms Still Dominate International Market, Russia Leader to Developing World" Nov 15, 2006)

In summary, it seems that the intention of this article is to slander the United States by misleading the reader by using an extremely selective use of sources and "facts" that do not hold up to any kind of scrutiny. I recommend the United States be removed from this article entirely and be given its own entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 215.65.50.34 (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

-

This clause seems wholly unsupported: "Entire nations, to use the parlance of the early 21st century, can go from the "Coalition of the Willing" to the "Axis of Evil" in very little time, and every change affects policy and the distribution of arms in the world." Lostnihilist 17:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Statistical support

The volume of transactions for specific contries can vary a lot from year to year and comments about the volume for a single year could be misleading and become irrelevent in the future.

Many statistical figures originally contained in this article come from this annual CRS report to Congress: Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1997-2004 However, other figues originally contained in this article come from the appendices of the SIPRI Yearbook 2005 which are producing quite a different picture even considering that they are stated in 1990 dollars. --Astator 04:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

POV

I've tried to NPOV this article a bit, removing weasel phrases such as There are often allegations of political corruption in regard to large arms contracts. I'm sure there are, but without further context or citations (of wide spread practice, not individual incidents), it is IMO a pov statement. Also removed the bit about how many people get killed by guns, which doesn't belong in the article, as well as the misunderstanding of both irony and the role of the Security Council.

An account of the oposition to arm trade aught to be in the article, but the article should not be an outlet for their ideas. --BadSeed 10:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I've restored the deaths figure as I think that is relevant under a section on "global impact" though I agree the article does need work - might be better to have a separate section on opposition.--Muttgirl

I like the list of outside websites. Nah, there's no POV problem with this page. 2-9-2007

Major Weapon manufacturers

Is it really necessary to have a list of the major weapon manufacturing companies in the world, considering there's already an article for that (See: List of modern armament manufacturers)? At least, I'd try to shorten it, clarify it, maybe put it into some table. I've made some research and it seems most of sources I stumble upon are very subjective and unreliable. This article will be hard to complete. --Ludvig 03:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

hallo dear all! in the age of transnationalism, it is completely irresponsible to just issue country listings about arm trade. everybody knows that trade does not only exist between countries but also between TNC's in collboration with governments. so where are all the banks, industries and backchich people earning money with protection and fear of protection? ABN-AMRO

I deleted L-3 Communications from the list as they are not weapon manufacturers.

Largest Weapons Exporters

I created a table for the data listed here. I don't know how to right justify the figures, so if somebody could do that I would appreciate it. Also, if the original author (or somebody) could clarify what they mean by "current US dollars" and "1990 US dollars", that would really help the understandability of the article. Tabun1015 02:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC) The Carlyle Group is a private equity company and does not manufacture arms.

Lacking in history

This article could use a "history" section, if anyone's willing to do the research to write it. Isomorphic 01:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Volume ~ types of weapons ~ trade flows

Does anyone have figures for amrs in terms of volume or types of arms? 1) The currency figure are a little misleading since American and Western-European defence products are generally more expensive. 2) Those dollar figures largely represent 'high-end' hardware (eg. aircraft) rather than small arms, where most of the carnage is concentrated. 3) All the 'high-end' products are likely to be bought by larger/richer nations (it'd be interesting to see the trade flow - my bet is cross-Atlantic). Htra0497 03:57, 24 October 2006 (AET)

umm

This list is flawed in 2004,2005 and 2006 The Netherlands was #5 arms exporter in the world even above the UK (odd but true).

Pacifist Canada?

Canada world's largest arms exporter?????

According to the table 'Top Arms Exporters' Canada appears to export nearly twice as much as the US? I suggest this table is re-worded to actually reflect the situation. It is ambiguous at best

AK-47 and Other Misunderstandings

The AK-47 is the most widely-copied weapon in the world and, according to the Russians, who would very much like a larger piece of the action, most are made illegally by nations and private enterprises which don't pay a license fee to the Russian patent holder. So equating numbers of AK-47s with any sort of Russian dominance seems hasty at best. Even with developing countries, more than two thirds of Russian transfers were to China and India, economic powerhouses in their own right and major military and nuclear powers besides. Is it fair to equate these two nations with countries such as Uganda or Nigeria?

Moreover, Russian exports are steadily declining, and EU and Israeli exports increasing, so statistics given for a range of years, especially in the past, may misstate the instantaneous, or even annual figures for the countries mentioned. See the current SIPRI report, among others.

It's also hard to equate the numbers released by the various agencies cited in both the main article and in these comments with reality, since terms of art, apples and oranges comparisons, and outright obfuscation mar most of them. Sales to developing nations are not the same as the arms trade in its entirety, since a large part of US output, for example, goes to developed countries. Canada, for example, buys from us, as do Taiwan, Australia, and many others, and all the official reports very clearly state that they reveal only unclassified information, so we must suppose that CIA-mediated and other clandestine transfers don't show up in the statistics. In the end, the article relies on the informed guesswork of SIPRI and other organizations with somewhat less of an agenda and/or political mandate than many official government agencies.

The SIPRI report cited is actually last year's edition, and has been superceded by the 2006 version here: SIPRI Yearbook 2006

L-3 Communications makes the sighting systems for weapons, as well as logistical support systems for military operations, so excluding it from the list, in this era of subcontractors taking on tiny bits of each finished product, seems slightly obsessive. One could easily carry this to extremes, and exclude the manufacturers of explosives, for example, because they have to be packed into a bomb in order to qualify as a weapon, or bullets, because they don't become weapons of war until fired from a gun at another human being. Indeed, there are those who use AK-47s to hunt deer and other game, so perhaps many of these so-called assault rifles are actually intended for jolly bands of huntsmen, out to shoot ducks or quail.

Likewise Carlyle Group profits from or substantially owns several defense companies. Are the owners of a business somehow not responsible for what they produce? Even if the relative amount of Carlyle capital invested in weapons contractors is minor? One notes that Aerospace & Defense are specialties, while plowshares are not. Not much money in the latter, one must suppose. Lee-Anne 14:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mikhail Kalashnikov never patented the design for the AK47, hence until 1999 there was nothing illegal about other nations building their own versions or even exact copies. IZH's claim to the patent, issued 52 years after the rifle was first created, is incredibly dubious. Just a little titbit which might be of interest. Happy-melon 17:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Table vandalism

Currently the stats are all incorrect.

I've reverted the section to a previous version. Feel free to remove/revert the vandalism if you see it. Thanks, Ladida 11:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Illegal vs. Legal Arms Trading

There seems to be very little distinction between legitimate, legal arms trading and illegal weapons smuggling (which is what it should be called). This is important because small arms smuggling is usually the area of concern for most people concerned with current events in war-torn regions and is what "arms trade" means to a lot of people; whereas legitimate trading between, say, the US and Mexico, is entirely different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.151.181.214 (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC).