< Previous Post | Next Post >

Friday, May 16. 2008

Top Four Arms Exporters: USA, Russia, Germany and France

Posted by Kyle Atwell in European Issues, Transatlantic Relations on Friday, May 16. 2008

Observing Hermann has posted a revealing article that references the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) most recent survey on global arms transfers (HT: Joe Noory):
The survey says that the USA, Russia and Germany are the world’s leading weapons exporters, with Germany’s latest weapons export piece of the pie profits coming in at around $3.395 billion. Damn, just think of all the ploughshares you could buy with that.
Taking a look at the numbers more closely reveals some interesting facts:

ObamaIn 2007:
• The USA, Russia, and Germany held 31, 19, and 14 percent of global exports respectively

• France was the fourth largest arms exporter, with 11% of the global market


From 2006 to 2007:
• Russia’s market share dropped 25% to 19%

• Germany’s market share rose 11% to 14%

• France’s market share rose 6% to 11%

The chart above shows Germany's global arms exports have increased steadily over the past few years. This is interesting considering Germany's resistance to take on an active combat role in Afghanistan, instead preferring to focus on reconstruction projects.  As Observing Hermann wryly states:
All I can say is that it’s good to know that all of these German weapons are being used for goodness and niceness and purely defensive purposes (did you know that Wehrmacht meant defensive force?), not like some other countries’ weapons out there, if you know what I’m sayin’. Otherwise a whole lot of people in this country wouldn’t be able to sleep well at night.
Related posts on Atlantic Review:
•    Afghanistan: Merkel has “No Time” for Burden Sharing Proposals
•    Afghanistan: NATO Crisis Gets Worse
•    War for Dummies: Step 1, Fighting is Necessary
•    Afghanistan: Fighting is Not Most Important
Comments (28)
Defined tags for this entry: , , , , , , , ,

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Pat Patterson - #1 - 2008-05-16 03:04 - (Reply)

Russia's share of military exports have currently bottomed out because they have sold off much of the older weaponry and many of the new products have not yet been delivered. While though the Russian Air Force(?) can't afford the latest generation of fighter/bomber aircraft from Sukhoi and MIG it has signed deals to jointly develop these them and some light patrol bombers for India. As well, as an article from Dawn points out, three new frigates and the conversion of a a "real" heavy cruiser into India's second operational air craft carrier.

I used the world "real" in the context that many modern cruisers on duty throughout the world are simply stretched out destroyers with more weapons and anti-aircraft and anti-missile tracking equipment. Also that the US's share will probably decline somewhat over the next five years, due to Boeing's loss of the air tanker contract, they will be considered sourced from France and that the US has still delayed shipping of some advanced fighters and parts and usually ships "sanitized" versions that are actually more useful and cheaper to use but usually end up insulting the pride of the buyer.

Comments ()

Pat Patterson - #1.1 - 2008-05-16 03:24 - (Reply)

Forgot the link;

[url]http://www.dawn.com/2007/10/19/top12.htm[/url]

Comments ()

Feynman - #1.2 - 2008-05-16 10:22 - (Reply)

Admiral Gorshkov was a modified Kiev class aircraft carrier of the Russian Navy, originally named Baku. In 2004, she was sold to India for conversion into a STOBAR carrier to be named INS Vikramaditya. (quote from wiki)

The Groshkov was not a full aircraft carrier, the foredeck of the ship was occupied by missiles. Heavy long range ( possible nuclear tipped) cruise missiles were the weapon of choice against the strong US Navy,especially against carrier battle groups.

Comments ()

franchie - #1.3 - 2008-05-16 10:54 - (Reply)

"due to Boeing's loss of the air tanker contract, they will be considered sourced from France"

woa, the villan frenchs again ! that steel the gentle Americans' jobs !

Not at all, the Airbus tanker that will be manufactured in the US : there will be not a single piece that will come from France, except for the technologies, pneumatics... that were already bought from France by Boeing ; remember, Airbus is an EU consortium, pieces are made in UK, Germany, Spain... and assembled in Toulouse, so you see assemblage will be next done in Mobile,

try to be less suggessive, but more accurate

Comments ()

Elisabetta - #1.3.1 - 2008-05-16 11:27 - (Reply)

Right, that means that EADS and all its subsidiaries will be legally obligated to follow the Corrupt Foreign Practices Act and Alien Tort Claims Act.

I see a bit of problem. Remember how quickly BNP caved to the Senate on the Oil-for-food fiasco? Who knows what a standard discovery request might find?

Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence does not make a distinction between public and private law; hence, should a district court find EADS or any allied or subordinate companies liable, the court can confiscate national pension fund investments, proportional funds from companies with a minority equity interest...

Another thing, the deep South, outside of Texas and South Carolina, is the tort captial of the nation.

Comments ()

franchie - #1.3.1.1 - 2008-05-16 13:44 - (Reply)

"Remember how quickly BNP caved to the Senate on the Oil-for-food fiasco? Who knows what a standard discovery request might find? "

oh, I see still stirring the old frying-pans, thank you anyway for let me the opportunity to clarify them, though as many investigations (real or manipulations ?) that were launched to undermine UN and specifically France, (because of her place in the council, didn't the US contest it, yeah, there should be one seat for the whole EU, blabla...) it's not been confirmed that the BNP made the mistake, Paul Volcker, had not a clear position either ; so, "man muss Relativität halten" ; besides, how about all the accounts in Lichtentein, in Switzerland, in Luxemburg and all those offshore paradises, one should investigate them either , because of the multi-boxes with unknown persons with numbers that cross the earth in a three-dimention world ? how many good moralists lessons-givers are hiding there ?

"Le document révèle que les manipulations du programme « pétrole contre nourriture » ont permis de détourner 1,8 milliard de dollars et auxquelles plus de 2200 entreprises ont participé. D’après le rapport Volcker, plus de 2200 grandes entreprises issues de plus de 60 pays seraient impliquées dans le scandale. Selon le rapport, 139 sociétés ont payé des surcharges illégales et 2253 lui ont versé des commissions sur des marchandises exportées en Irak. De la banque française BNP au pétrolier américain Texaco, en passant par le groupe d’ingénierie britannique Weirgroup ou les allemands DaimlerBenz et Siemens, l’enquête épingle de grandes sociétés dans le monde entier."

[url]http://www.heritage.org/Research/InternationalOrganizations/wm641.cfm[/url]

[url=http://www.expatica.com/fr/articles/news/bnp-paribas-ignored-abuses-in-iraqbr-oil-for-food-scheme-us-report-14070.html]BNP Parisbas[/url]

[url]http://www.paradisfj.info/spip.php?article493[/url]

"Another thing, the deep South, outside of Texas and South Carolina, is the tort captial of the nation."

uh, MCCain Chose Alabama, any idea ?

Comments ()

franchie - #1.3.1.2 - 2008-05-18 13:43 - (Reply)

I see a bit of problem. Remember how quickly BNP caved to the Senate on the Oil-for-food fiasco? Who knows what a standard discovery request might find?

I made a complement d'information for you, apparently it didn't fit as insertion

it was all about strirring old frying pans... that shared almost 200 enterprises of the whole world wide, majoritarely westernies, too bad !

Comments ()

Pat Patterson - #1.3.2 - 2008-05-16 13:15 - (Reply)

Franchie-All I can suggest is that if reading one of my posts causes such agony and defensiveness then wait one day before responding and simply don't make up fantastic interpretations out of some imagined hidden meaning in the text.

The KC-45 has to be from somewhere and for statistical purposes it is considered a French product and will count as a French arms exports. Mainly because the original airframe was subsidized by the French government and it and they were built in Toulouse from a redesigned A330. I did not say anything about American jobs.

The Gorshkov was indeed a briefly operational air craft carrier but its keel was from a heavy cruiser and thus was not purpose designed. The Indian Navy is already having second thoughts because of the cost associated with the extensive fire damage the ship suffered in the 90's and which the Russian maritime surveyors somehow forgot to mention. As well as the fact that the carrier is too deep to get into its designated homeport of Mumbai.

Mississippi has become an example of how fast its economy can grow by making significant changes to its tort laws and Alabama, where part of the KC-45 will be built is having final hearings now on a package of reforms that basically copy those made in Mississippi. By the time actual construction begins the legal situation in Alabama will have changed and those poor but brave trial lawyers will have left for more fertile grounds. But, slightly O/T, the lawyers are fighting a rear guard action by being not only the largest political campaign donor group in the US for the 2008 election cycle but also the largest contributer to the Democratic Party.

Next time try to read and be less paranoid.

Comments ()

franchie - #1.3.2.1 - 2008-05-16 13:50 - (Reply)

no, But I like precision, the sense of the details, (typically french :lol: pinaillerie)

Comments ()

Zyme - #2 - 2008-05-16 08:40 - (Reply)

Well Franchie, at least in this thread we won´t read about the pacifist europeans, huh? :)

In any case I am strictly in line with our government here when promoting arms industries and easing export restrictions. How else are our arms industries supposed to remain at the peak of research, if not allowed to sell their wonderful products around the globe?

Export restrictions are distorting the market and endanger its legal development. Only on a free market enables the best products to prevail.

Apropos restrictions: How strong is the support in France to keep up the weapons embargo against China? This is yet another thing of the past that we should let go. The Chinese would surely be interested in some of our models. Rather than waiting for them to spy all the technical details and reverse engineer our developments, our companies can as well sell them and earn well deserved money this way.

In many cases has equipping foreign armies laid the groundwork for very good bilateral relations. Let´s not forget this service for international peace ;)

Comments ()

franchie - #2.1 - 2008-05-16 11:11 - (Reply)

Well Franchie, at least in this thread we won´t read about the pacifist europeans, huh? :)

Zyme, I get in use to read how bad-intentionned, cheaters, hypocrits, machiavellans... lazy asses profitors we are in the old world

"How strong is the support in France to keep up the weapons embargo against China"

I think the government is thinking of how to revoke that obsolete embargo, but they'r waiting to see how big American brother will react ; actually China seems to be the Americans'guarded hunting fields, now if there is an opened window, then, I think, neither one of us would hesitate ; so far Taiwan isn't a purity model, but a corrupted mafiosi state

if EU doesn't make it, be sure that Russia, the US, and whatever, would do it

ps) BTW our UK friends have been forgotten there

Comments ()

Zyme - #2.1.1 - 2008-05-16 11:31 - (Reply)

" I get in use to read how bad-intentionned, cheaters, hypocrits, machiavellans... lazy asses profitors we are in the old world"

:D exactly, and this while in reality, we are just being honest :)

What do you mean by the UK has been forgotten? Btw what happened to their arms exports - they have even decreased in the last seven years! Have most of their industries been sold out already?

Comments ()

Pat Patterson - #2.1.1.1 - 2008-05-16 13:35 - (Reply)

You have to go to the link and find the figures listed for 2006 and 2007 for the UK in the drop down box. Many British sources are claiming that the UK exported over $45 billion dollars in arms in the last ten years but I couldn't find the source for that number. BAE is still the Uk's largest arms exporter and also still owns a 20% stake in EADS though they are in negotiations to sell.

It appears that over the last two years, using the SIPRI figures, that the UK has exported $978 million and then $1.15 billion. Unfortunately those numbers make the claimed $45 billion overall figure either wildly inaccurate or raises the possibility that perhaps SIPRI's figures are too low.

Comments ()

Zyme - #2.1.1.1.1 - 2008-05-16 17:27 - (Reply)

I used the link and wanted to see the results from a timespan of 2000-2007, as only one or two years seemed to short for a longtime judgement. That is why I said that over the course of those seven years, the volume has even decreased.

Comments ()

Pat Patterson - #2.1.1.1.1.1 - 2008-05-16 17:51 - (Reply)

Yeah, I was looking for a similar time span, two years seems too short to give any real indication of sales, other than unsourced blog comments or newspaper opinion pieces. I suspect that the UK is selling and exporting similar amounts to Germany and France. But because so many of the companies own stock in each other or are partners in particular projects I'm glad I'm merely trying to find someone else's numbers.

Comments ()

Joe Noory - #2.1.2 - 2008-05-16 16:47 - (Reply)

So evil is alright if it's done with élan and panache. The same old one-sided story that gave us monarchism, marxism, autocracy and hundreds of million of dead.

Comments ()

Joe Noory - #2.2 - 2008-05-16 13:21 - (Reply)

Yeah? You and what Army?

Selling arms, as we've seen by the rapacious example of nations and zones that really don't have laws restraining to whom they sell weapons to has little oer nothing to do with a propensity to see an lack of beligerance as pacifism.

In other words, there are people in Europe who want to believe that they're not promoting beligerence, but sell far more arms on a per-capita basis than anyone on earth - to the point that a hacked up version of NATO's symbol is embedded in EADS' logo.

Comments ()

franchie - #2.2.1 - 2008-05-16 13:47 - (Reply)

nah, their making business, protecting their jobs, just like you do ouh ouh !

Comments ()

Joe Noory - #2.2.1.1 - 2008-05-16 16:59 - (Reply)

Just like me? Zyme's suggestion that that old, outmoded embargo being done away with for the same of a job could turn Taiwan into a glowing, irradiated blob in the sea, but alas! [i]Droit de l'homme![/i] in any other case!

As for me, I design buidings for a living. What do you do? SMICard?

Comments ()

Zyme - #2.2.1.1.1 - 2008-05-16 17:38 - (Reply)

Oh come on, if Peking wanted to destroy Taiwan they could do so either way. This has nothing to do with the weapons embargo from Europe. Lifting the embargo would push back the american influence in southern Asia - that is really why you are so upset.

So you are an architect?
You probably don´t like to hear what I do for a living: Right now I am working at a civil court in a legal clerkship (is that the right word?)

Comments ()

Joe Noory - #2.2.1.1.1.1 - 2008-05-16 20:05 - (Reply)

If you're a law clerk (a lawyer or someone trained in law working for a judge), then you're correct. I don't know why I wouldn't like that - I mean somebody has to do it.

Why do you say that? Miserable looking Architects showing up for Construction related lawsuits?

Comments ()

Zyme - #2.2.1.1.1.1.1 - 2008-05-16 20:32 - (Reply)

I had a different reason to assume you wouldn´t like the idea. People who don´t know many law-related students usually expect them to have high pricinples and high ethical standarts. Those who know a number are convinced of the opposite instead.

And somehow I expected you to be in the first group :)

But architecture sounds fascinating. After all you are creating something on your own and that will last. Not many jobs match those criteria.

Comments ()

franchie - #2.2.1.1.2 - 2008-05-16 17:41 - (Reply)

do you think that "droits de l'homme" are so well respected there ?

I own an auberge, not for long anymore, I hope, it's on sale, my hubby is retired, and I'd like to get a life under sunnier skies afterwords

Comments ()

franchie - #2.2.1.1.2.1 - 2008-05-16 17:44 - (Reply)

oh my gawd, misinterpretation

Comments ()

Joe Noory - #2.2.1.1.2.2 - 2008-05-16 18:40 - (Reply)

[i]do you think that "droits de l'homme" are so well respected there ? [/i]

No, I think people parade it around like a kind morally vane conceit if all they're willing to do about it is walk around in a crowd holding candles with half a million other people who think that by asking "someody should DO something" tht they're actually doing something.

Comments ()

jabgoe - #3 - 2008-05-16 14:47 - (Reply)

So, what is the consequence of this article? Is it intended to convice everybody that only those nations are allowed to sell weapons that use them themselves to produce high civilian death tolls in conflicts like Tchechnia or Iraq?

Comments ()

Reid of America - #4 - 2008-05-16 19:57 - (Reply)

The data from Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s (SIPRI) seems to be at odds with other defense export analysts. SIPRI is the only list that has Germany in the top 5. According to most lists that I have seen Israel has moved ahead of Germany and Britain into 4th place.

http://www.upi.com/International_Security/Industry/Analysis/2007/12/13/analysis_israel_defense_exports_strong/7255/

Comments ()

Russia - #5 - 2009-01-30 07:07 - (Reply)

It seems Russia is more involved in gifting the arms to its partners now a days.. It has given 10 MiGs to a friend( I think Latvia or Lithuania..) as gifts..what does it mean I don't know.. Also Russia is making some more deals with Cuba to setup space center by 2015.. Russia is certainly in aggressive mood now a days making ties with different countries like Argentina..
I think there gotta be COLD WAR II again between US and Russia soon..
So start making your list for taking having reasons to choose any option..

Comments ()


Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA
 
 

Contact Us

Email Joerg Wolf and Kyle Atwell at:

ar-team AT atlanticreview.org

We are available for interviews, and appreciate feedback and suggestions.

Subscribe and Follow

Welcome!
You are reading the ATLANTIC REVIEW,
a Press Digest on Transatlantic Relations combined with commentary and analysis.
More about us.

Follow Atlantic Review on
Facebook or on
Twitter.

Subscribe to one of our RSS-Feeds or to our newsletter.

AddThis Feed Button

Sponsor

SUPPORT THIS SITE

Use these links to shop at Amazon USA or Amazon Deutschland:
 

 

Blogroll

Recommended Blogs
 

Hot Topics

Click on one of the following links to see all Atlantic Review posts about this topic in a chronological order with the latest post on top:

















Click here for the full list of all topics.
Follow transatlantic on Twitter