It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

War profit and weapons sales (video)

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:07 AM
link   
Here's good quick video that goes into the details of exactly what countries buy the most weapons, what countries sell the most weapons (you'll never guess..), and which war profiteering, weapons contractor companies make the most money from war.




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: DimensionalChange03

shh, you aren't supposed to follow the guns and money trail back to where it begins.

The beautiful thing about war is all its products (arms and ammunition ) are meant to be destroyed by throwing them at the 'enemy'. The destruction caused then needs to be cleaned up and infrastructure rebuilt. That means hi interest loans, lucrative construction contracts and endless servitude to endless debt. Hopefully, from the warmongers perspective, many such rounds of conflict ensue…

Look at Iraq.

The biggest businesses are religion and war making. Combined into Holy War, they represent the never ending cycle of Empires and their hapless victim states.
edit on 27-3-2016 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr

Yes, look at Iraq. Now look at China. Which has produced more 'profit'? Business goes where there is opportunity, period.That's their job...LOL.


Zero war and zero religion in China....so much for your mantra.....



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Many of the worlds other superpowers that aren't allied with US (NATO) or a Proxy are also arming in response to the US buildup since the 80's under Reagan. They have to keep up or die. But they aren't doing what the US is currently.

For instance Russia is bombing in Syria, but not because Russia is trying to subvert or take over Syria, because they are helping the Syrians put down the US backed insurgency. Same thing in Vietnam. The Chinese and Soviets helped defeat the US military. And in the Korean war and Cuba as well.


They are responding to US aggression, arming to defend themselves and their allies, big difference.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: nwtrucker

Many of the worlds other superpowers that aren't allied with US (NATO) or a Proxy are also arming in response to the US buildup since the 80's under Reagan. They have to keep up or die. But they aren't doing what the US is currently.

For instance Russia is bombing in Syria, but not because Russia is trying to subvert or take over Syria, because they are helping the Syrians put down the US backed insurgency. Same thing in Vietnam. The Chinese and Soviets helped defeat the US military. And in the Korean war and Cuba as well.


They are responding to US aggression, arming to defend themselves and their allies, big difference.




Your a little out of date citing Reagan's build-up....which ultimately broke the Soviet Union's back. From Bush 1 to Bush 11 the military reduced in size by an average of fifty percent. Omitting the Gulf Wars, the U.S. has been steadily reducing bases and troops.

The build-up by other nations is two-fold. First, with the reduction of the U.S.'s superpower status- which was MANDATED to be able to conduct two wars and a third smaller action, at the same time- other nations have been obliged to fill that partial vacuum created by a smaller superpower. Then there's the issue of regional power and keeping up with their neighbors. China gets nukes? India gets nukes. Pakistan get nukes in response to India getting nukes.

In the Reagan era, no one would bother massive military build-ups. it would cost a fortune and they'd still get slobber-knocked!

So spare us the usual anti-U.S. diatribe.

What you miss is we are fast approaching the ingredients that led to the two world wars. Multiple power that are roughly comparable, militarily,with an increasingly isolationist U.S.- no troops of worth involve in the ME and only one of many in the bombing of Isis- add in leaders who think they might just pull off land grabs and territorial expansion and we've never been closer to a WWIII.

This would not be the case if the U.S. had maintained it's overwhelming military edge.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
In the Reagan era, no one would bother massive military build-ups. it would cost a fortune and they'd still get slobber-knocked!

So spare us the usual anti-U.S. diatribe.

What you miss is we are fast approaching the ingredients that led to the two world wars. Multiple power that are roughly comparable, militarily,with an increasingly isolationist U.S.- no troops of worth involve in the ME and only one of many in the bombing of Isis- add in leaders who think they might just pull off land grabs and territorial expansion and we've never been closer to a WWIII.

This would not be the case if the U.S. had maintained it's overwhelming military edge.


The world isn't the same as it was in the Reagan era and even back then it was changing as you can see from how the Afghani's beat the Soviets. War has evolved, it's not about controlling territory anymore. Weapons are so abundant, so powerful, and so cheap that anyone can fight. Al Qaeda with a $25 million/year operating budget that wasn't even 100% focused on Iraq made us spend $2 trillion in Iraq with another $6 trillion in health care costs over the next few decades. For $200 million they made us spend $8 trillion, that's 40,000:1 and that type of spending gap just can't be overcome. Defensive wars that focus on disrupting an economy are very cheap to conduct and cost the occupier huge sums of money that will eventually break them.

On top of that is the issue that WMD's have evolved. We no longer live in a world where the greatest threat is an ICBM that's restricted to just a handful of countries. The real threat today is a cyber weapon. Almost every country on Earth has these weapons, and they're all pointed at each other. With a few computer commands they can be activated and totally shut down a nations infrastructure. With no fuel, electricity, or running water an invading army isn't even required, the nation dies virtually overnight.

An overwhelming advantage in terms of fighters and tanks just isn't practical in todays world. They're slow and expensive to transport, costly to product, limited in effectiveness, and just not well suited for todays threats. If we ever go back to WW2 battlefields they'll have a place, but that's just not the situation the world is in anymore but even then, defensive tech is just so much cheaper to deploy. Look at China's anti carrier missile. We have no known defense against it and for the price of a $1 million missile they can destroy an $11 billion carrier, all the aircraft on board, and kill a bunch of people.

Warfare just isn't the same anymore.
edit on 28-3-2016 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Text
a reply to: Aazadan


Debatable, at best. My point was there was no U.S. wars under Reagan, unless you count a couple of days in Grenada.

Next, if one compares the Vietnam war to Gulf War II, many more similarities than differences. Political interference, outside supplies, guerrilla tactics. Not much change where the rubber meets the road.

The changes are there though. That's why I support Trump's views on withdrawing from NATO. I'd have never supported that in the day.

edit on 28-3-2016 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join