S. Korea earmarks 1.4 tln won for major arms purchase

S. Korea earmarks 1.4 tln won for major arms purchase

english.yonhapnews.co.kr

SEOUL, Nov. 26 (Yonhap) -- South Korea has earmarked around 1.4 trillion won (US$1.23 billion) to buy weapons such as K-9 self-propelled howitzers and F-15K fighter jets next year, but the spending is expected to increase following North Korea's deadly artillery attack on a southern border island, government officials said Friday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

It seems after every N-Korea attack, the only one who benifits from it is the US.

Think about the Vessel attack for example, it put fear in the hearts of Japan who wanted US military bases out, therefore forced the resignation of the prime minister and allowed US bases to stay in.

Think about this one, money flowing in to US as S-Korea increases its shopping with obviously US.

Thoughts

oz

english.yonhapnews.co.kr
(visit the link for the full news article)

Is it possible to find the truth, in the age of lie? (Let's get this straight)


Just found out more strategic gain for US:

S. Korea to consider redeployment of US tactical nuclear weapons

South Korean defence minister Kim Tae-young said Monday (November 22) that South Korea would consider the redeployment of US tactical nuclear weapons in consultation with Washington as one of the options to deal with North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.

More:

U.S. arms sales to South Korea rose to $939 million in fiscal 2010 from $819 million in fiscal 2009, according to the U.S. agency that oversees foreign arms sales.

I dont know why so many undecuated folks think the US makes SO much money off of arms deals. Relative to the US budget they dont make that much....folks act like that is the US's main source of income or something.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
I dont know why so many undecuated folks think the US makes SO much money off of arms deals. Relative to the US budget they dont make that much....folks act like that is the US's main source of income or something.

I never said they make a lot of money, I said US is the only one who gains something from such attacks, and being objective, I ask why?

And do you think 1.5 billion $ is a small amount of money?

Originally posted by oozyism

Originally posted by princeofpeace
I dont know why so many undecuated folks think the US makes SO much money off of arms deals. Relative to the US budget they dont make that much....folks act like that is the US's main source of income or something.

I never said they make a lot of money, I said US is the only one who gains something from such attacks, and being objective, I ask why?

And do you think 1.5 billion $ is a small amount of money?

Yeah really. People have been desensitized to exactly how large 1 billion dollars really is. Nowadays, anything below 10 bil is chump change. Weapons are not the only source of income for the US, but the amount that is made each year is almost equal to how much the government spends on education that directly benefits students, not like the 3/4 of the money that goes to administration, and the 300bil+ that goes into superficial aspects of education, such as new paint for the buildings, or cleaner water. so you could say our weapons support our children's education

The K-9 howitzer is made by Samsung, in South Korea.
The F-15K has a substantial amount of the production (40%, if memory serves) in Korea.

The USA isn't the only country in the world capable of making weapons.

Originally posted by princeofpeace
I dont know why so many undecuated folks think the US makes SO much money off of arms deals. Relative to the US budget they dont make that much....folks act like that is the US's main source of income or something.

True, although many personal fortunes are made by these transactions in the corrupt scheme of things.

reply to post by asperetty

so you could say our weapons support our children's education

And the resultant deaths of children in other countries.

Tricks Of The Trade

Weapons sales are an important factor in geopolitics, and are definitely a factor in east Asia, but they take a very distant back seat to general trade. As an example, the U.S. volume of international trade in 2009 was about $2.4 trillion, while U.S. international arms sales were about $6.8 billion, or about 0.3% of total trade.

A significant figure, to be sure, and politically relevant, but still trivial compared to the bulk and importance of overall U.S. trade. And though the U.S. is indeed the world's leading arms dealer and has its fingers in virtually every pie, it is far from alone in that line of business.

For much of the past decade, Russia has kept fairly close pace with the U.S. in arms exports, and is its closest competitor. Add in Germany, the world's third largest arms exporter, and between them they typically outsell the U.S. in a given year. Add up the top ten arms exporters, and the U.S. accounts for about a third of the total. Consider total arms exports from all countries and the U.S. falls to less than a fourth.

So while the U.S. is still the top dog in arms exports, and arms sales are a key factor in its foreign policy, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to general trade, and you can be sure U.S. leaders know it.

Focusing on arms sales alone, or the U.S. alone, requires ignoring the fact that the rest of the world also does basically the same things, for similar reasons, and that all nations act in what they see as their best interests.

There's no doubt that certain constituencies promote arms sales and use their political influence to drum up business these days as they and others like them have for centuries, but they are not confined to one nationality, and are ultimately "equal opportunity destroyers".

My tuppence, YMMV.








Edit: Please note that the figures used are approximate, subject to dispute and are offered for ballpark purposes. Also, please note that international arms sales are distinct from domestic military spending, a category in which the U.S. is the 500-pound gorilla, and that domestic military spending definitely affects U.S. foreign policy as well. I'm just offering some context.

Originally posted by Majic
Tricks Of The Trade

Weapons sales are an important factor in geopolitics, and are definitely a factor in east Asia, but they take a very distant back seat to general trade. As an example, the U.S. volume of international trade in 2009 was about $2.4 trillion, while U.S. international arms sales were about $6.8 billion, or about 0.3% of total trade.

A significant figure, to be sure, and politically relevant, but still trivial compared to the bulk and importance of overall U.S. trade. And though the U.S. is indeed the world's leading arms dealer and has its fingers in virtually every pie, it is far from alone in that line of business.

For much of the past decade, Russia has kept fairly close pace with the U.S. in arms exports, and is its closest competitor. Add in Germany, the world's third largest arms exporter, and between them they typically outsell the U.S. in a given year. Add up the top ten arms exporters, and the U.S. accounts for about a third of the total. Consider total arms exports from all countries and the U.S. falls to less than a fourth.

So while the U.S. is still the top dog in arms exports, and arms sales are a key factor in its foreign policy, it's still a drop in the bucket compared to general trade, and you can be sure U.S. leaders know it.

Focusing on arms sales alone, or the U.S. alone, requires ignoring the fact that the rest of the world also does basically the same things, for similar reasons, and that all nations act in what they see as their best interests.

There's no doubt that certain constituencies promote arms sales and use their political influence to drum up business these days as they and others like them have for centuries, but they are not confined to one nationality, and are ultimately "equal opportunity destroyers".

My tuppence, YMMV.

Edit: Please note that the figures used are approximate, subject to dispute and are offered for ballpark purposes. Also, please note that international arms sales are distinct from domestic military spending, a category in which the U.S. is the 500-pound gorilla, and that domestic military spending definitely affects U.S. foreign policy as well. I'm just offering some context.

edit on 11/26/2010 by Majic because: (no reason given)

Your figure of $6.8 billion in US international arms sales does NOT include arms GIVEN to foreign countries..
Them sales still are paid for, it's just the sucker US taxpayers that foot the bill..
The military complex still makes their profit..Missleading no ?
From your link.

The unit in this table are so-called trend indicator values expressed in millions of US dollars at 1990s prices. These values do not represent real financial flows but are a crude instrument to estimate volumes of arms transfers, regardless of the contracted prices, which can be as low as zero in the case of military aid. Ordered by descending 2000-2009 values. The information is from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.[10]

reply to post by backinblack

Granted, military aid is also a factor worth considering, and in some cases outstrips overt sales. How it tracks with and factors into reported sales will vary widely from one country to another.

We can assume the U.S. also leads the world in this category, and likewise assume that it affects foreign policy as well.

None of this, however, changes the fact that the U.S. isn't the only country that plays the game, and that ignoring the rest of the world's involvement means losing sight of the big picture.

Just sayin'

Originally posted by Majic
reply to post by backinblack

 

Granted, military aid is also a factor worth considering, and in some cases outstrips overt sales. How it tracks with and factors into reported sales will vary widely from one country to another.

We can assume the U.S. also leads the world in this category, and likewise assume that it affects foreign policy as well.

None of this, however, changes the fact that the U.S. isn't the only country that plays the game, and that ignoring the rest of the world's involvement means losing sight of the big picture.

Just sayin'

Fully agree with you..It's not just the US that wishes to stay in a state of perpetual war..
It's just worthwhile to point out that sometimes figures are skewered to give a false impression that war is slowing and that's what the figures you linked tend to show..
When in fact war is escalating and that can be seen easily when you look at total sales from military suppliers..

War is bussiness and bussiness is booming..