killagee 0 Posted April 9, 2003 If you want solid information on the Arms Trade in all its disgusting glory check this site out. http://www.fas.org/ er, great information and image database for modelers and addon makers too.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jinef 2 Posted April 9, 2003 What! The arms trade disgusting? It's British! We started it all and we're damn proud of it! We are one of the biggest manufacturing agents of the best weapons and we have bankrupt many a poor stupid African country! If you look at the percentages on what we all spend on weapons you would be flabberghasted (cool word eh?) and mighty dissapointed that we aren't spending more! Muhahaha Britain has a relatively small offense budget (30 billion) but we sell some of the most potent weapons and get huge amounts of money for them. We love weapons and don't want the world economy to collapse due to the demise of their purchase. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jinef 2 Posted April 9, 2003 Your website sees the US as defending against the whole world, our military assets are on the OPFOR list. Ahh it's not friendly fire in Iraq - they are slowly picking us off! That A10 pilot wasn't blind after all, he really was trying to destroy those APCs! *Runs off to tell his commander and orchestrate the Euro/Commie invasion of America* The UK has declared that in the new found homeland it shall control the former state of New York and it shall be renamed 'England 2'. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gollum1 0 Posted April 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 09 2003,18:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Your website sees the US as defending against the whole world, our military assets are on the OPFOR list.<span id='postcolor'> Erm, if you look a little closer it´s actually the *ROW/OPFOR* list. ROW stands for rest-of-world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jinef 2 Posted April 9, 2003 Precisely, the rest of the world against compared to US. They don't have it by country just the US and the 'others'. I saw the ROW and thats why i said </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">against the whole world<span id='postcolor'> Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FSPilot 0 Posted April 9, 2003 Because we have the strongest military in the world? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted April 9, 2003 More like because it's FAS = Federation of American Scientists. It's normal that you list your own country in a separate category. FAS is not so good however - it's full of technical errors. It's good as a quick reference but terribly inaccurate. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
munger 25 Posted April 9, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 09 2003,16:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Britain has a relatively small offense budget (30 billion)<span id='postcolor'> That's not actually true. Britain has the fourth highest defence (not offense ) budget in the world after the US, Russia and China. I'm afraid I can't find the source for this but I know it was reliable. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Assault (CAN) 1 Posted April 10, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">FAS is not so good however - it's full of technical errors. It's good as a quick reference but terribly inaccurate. <span id='postcolor'> True, it's a good site for quick references, but I haven't found anything better as of late. In alot of their articles, they usually quote government sources, which usually works for me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
killagee 0 Posted April 10, 2003 Yeah I suppose FAS is a little inaccurate, but do you realise how expensive a full subscription to Janes costs? Heaps! There are great links to official PDF docs on arms transfer numbers from around the world at FAS though. Non Proliferation is their main drive i think. I find these sites pretty good for Weapons info: http://www.army-technology.com/ http://www.airforce-technology.com/ http://www.naval-technology.com/ Apparently the main arms exporters since 1974, in order are: USA Russia Sweden France UK China Japan ( I cant figure this one out, must be technology...) More links appreciated Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Assault (CAN) 1 Posted April 10, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yeah I suppose FAS is a little inaccurate, but do you realise how expensive a full subscription to Janes costs?<span id='postcolor'> Lots. Same goes for their books that have some errors in them. I have a Jane's weapon recognition book (like I needed it ) and it was full of little errors. For example, the description for the M-16 was actually for the Diemaco C7 LSW. A bolt-action rifle appeared in the semi-auto section as well. And you'd think that after paying good money for a guide that they could at least include all-colour pictures. Tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jinef 2 Posted April 10, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Munger @ April 09 2003,22:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That's not actually true. Britain has the fourth highest defence (not offense ) budget in the world after the US<span id='postcolor'> Well it has a got a high one yes but it's on a rough level to other European countries like France (34b) and Germany (28b) and they are all small compared to the 400b that GWB has spent this year on 'defence'. If i have to put averted commas around every skeptical remark i make so everyone can understand it makes me look stupid, you don't laugh at your own jokes or highlight them so everyone can notice them. I'm in the forces mate, i am expected to know the difference between offense and defence and i would say that most conflicts Britain has got itself into recently have had nothing to do with defence. See the difference? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Snrub 0 Posted April 10, 2003 'Defence' need not relate to a direct terrirtorial defence against an foreign aggressor - it can also be attributed to defending a countries interests abroad, ie. the notion of 'forward defence'. Plus, it wouldn't do much for foreign relations if you called your armed forces the 'Offence Force' - might worry some of your neighbours Could someone tell me the difference (in factual information, that is) between FAS.org and GlobalSecurity.org? I know they are independent analysis and research groups, but they seem to have much the same information, just a different layout... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
munger 25 Posted April 10, 2003 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Jinef @ April 10 2003,09:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm in the forces mate, i am expected to know the difference between offense and defence and i would say that most conflicts Britain has got itself into recently have had nothing to do with defence. See the difference?<span id='postcolor'> What a particular country's forces are doing at any particular time is irrelevant. The money spent on the military by a government is never referred to as the 'offense budget' - the accepted term is 'defence'. Of course, realistically it usually is about offense, but as Mr. Snrub said, it wouldn't be politically correct for politicians and the like to call it that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jinef 2 Posted April 11, 2003 Agreed it would be politically incorrect, but when did that ever stop us in the days of colonisation? But you have to remember i was being all skeptical *whispers* because i thought you were american *whispers* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
