U.S.: Venezuela Overspending on Military

Well, I think the paranoid thought of some in this government is that Venezuela is either out to get us, or to get one of our allies in South America. Now, I do believe that Chavez is full of shit, and that he is capable of trying to start an offensive, but that's where I stop. Chavez has the ability to destabilize South America, especially if given a bunch of weapons, and the TONS of oil money that he has. Also, it's really hard to believe a leader that is constantly hurling insults at the US, even though he likely would never have made it to power without the US's help (either directly or undirectly).

Yeah, the US spends a lot on defense, but our country is a much larger target than venezuela, and we may be the biggest exporter of weapons, but we typically export them to countries that won't shoot us in the back with them, and i'm fairly certain, given the chance, Venezuela would shoot us in the back.

I think the aircraft deal should be stopped, because the last thing we need is a destabilized South America. It's bad enough that the Middle East is a few days from a Nuclear Holocaust, and Africa which is in the midst of civil wars, but to add a South America that's being bullied by Chavez, would be even more detrimental to our national security, and to our economy.
 
looks to me like someone tries to stabilize his country, not destabilize a continent...
 
ryosuke said:
looks to me like someone tries to stabilize his country, not destabilize a continent...
Click to expand...

I don't see how 35 fighter jets can stabilize a country. You can't use fighter jets for reconaissance very well. The million man militia would be more effective, except for the fact that the drug trade in all of South America, is largely supported by corrupt members of the government and military. Chavez plays the part of corrupt government member PERFECTLY.
 
Well. Didn't the US recently sell F-16s to Pakistan? Not going to be very effective in fighting terrorism....only going to create more tension between pakistan and india...that's probably why pakistan wants them, as part of their arms race
 
Firecat said:
Well. Didn't the US recently sell F-16s to Pakistan? Not going to be very effective in fighting terrorism....only going to create more tension between pakistan and india...that's probably why pakistan wants them, as part of their arms race
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to justify what our country sells to other countries, but at the time Pakistan is an ally, and venezuela is becoming less of one... It's all politics anyway, it's not like any weapons we sell to anyone will be used for what we are told they will be used for (and hell any allies we currently have, will likely be enemies in 10 years). Part of the rules of selling weapons is to not get shot with your own goods, and at the moment, there's less chance of Pakistan causing trouble (in our own backyard) than there is in Venezuela.

If I had it my way, we would keep all of our military technology to ourselves, and maybe select allies (like the British and Canada), and let the rest of the world fend for itself with crappy MiG fighters and other Cold War surplus from Russia.
 
I think part of my issue (regarding spending tons on the military) is that when problems arise, there is more of an inclination to resort to violence to sort these problems out. And when so much is spent on weapons, something has to be done with them....or a lot of people will be out of work. I'm not 100% sure on this, but I believe 18% of America's GDP comes from the sale of weapons.....if they were to stop exporting arms, it would likely hurt the economy as well. It's the whole military industrial complex.

The saddest thing is that the top 5 exporters of weapons are also the 5 permanent members of the UN security council.
 
hokiethang said:
ryosuke said:
looks to me like someone tries to stabilize his country, not destabilize a continent...
Click to expand...

I don't see how 35 fighter jets can stabilize a country. You can't use fighter jets for reconaissance very well. The million man militia would be more effective, except for the fact that the drug trade in all of South America, is largely supported by corrupt members of the government and military. Chavez plays the part of corrupt government member PERFECTLY.
Click to expand...
35 fighter jets can be used to defend yourself against neighbouring countries...
 
ryosuke said:
hokiethang said:
ryosuke said:
looks to me like someone tries to stabilize his country, not destabilize a continent...
Click to expand...

I don't see how 35 fighter jets can stabilize a country. You can't use fighter jets for reconaissance very well. The million man militia would be more effective, except for the fact that the drug trade in all of South America, is largely supported by corrupt members of the government and military. Chavez plays the part of corrupt government member PERFECTLY.
Click to expand...
35 fighter jets can be used to defend yourself against neighbouring countries...
Click to expand...

Which neighboring countries have a reason to attack Venezuela? I highly doubt the Brazilians, or the Colombians would attack Venezuela. I mean hell, the one country that they share the largest border with is trying to sell them aircraft, I really doubt they would arm the enemy before trying to storm their country. The other countries in South America are not looking to stir up trouble. If anyone is going to cause trouble it's Chavez.

I'd believe a few could be useful for combatting the drug trade, but then again as I said before, it's more likely Chavez is involved in the trade, and has no reason to really want to stop it.
 
Or to control drug smuggling.
Seriously does anyone believe that Venezuela will attack America with these turbo prob planes? There isnt even the smallest chance.
It's probabaly just another barrier to trade :thumbsdown:
 
hajj said:
Or to control drug smuggling.
Seriously does anyone believe that Venezuela will attack America with these turbo prob planes? There isnt even the smallest chance.
It's probabaly just another barrier to trade :thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

They don't need to attack the US directly to cause damage. All they have to do is destabilize South America, and it would cause economic damage to all of the Western Hemisphere. Attack Panama and control a major shipping lane, or invade colombia and start a civil war. I wouldn't trust Chavez doing anything he says he is going to use it for.

Like I said before, most of the governments of the countries plagued with Drug Smuggling problems, are actually in bed with the cartels. Even if the government itself claims to want to stop drug smuggling, their soldiers are less likely. Hell, most of the soldiers for the armies, are probably paid more by the drug cartels to NOT raid them, than the government to hunt them down.
 
Well how big is the range of those planes? Venezuela and Panama are at least 300miles apart the Panama channel should even be further away.
But I agree Panama is a basement of our wolrd trade, so damaging that would be painful.
I think I need to look better into the matter, to fully understand it.
 
hokiethang said:
They don't need to attack the US directly to cause damage. All they have to do is destabilize South America, and it would cause economic damage to all of the Western Hemisphere. Attack Panama and control a major shipping lane, or invade colombia and start a civil war. I wouldn't trust Chavez doing anything he says he is going to use it for.
Click to expand...
hereby you state the reason why chavez won't buy any fighters to attack some other country yourself...if he did and it would cause economic damage to the whole of the western world, he would cause the NATO to react...

if you want to attack another country, you either have to be one of the big three usa, russia and china (for example US vs. irak, russia vs. chechnya) or you have to choose a target that nobody gives a fuck about (like some of the least developed countries in africa).
otherwise a war would lead to a global reaction...

chavez' government isn't very stable. he has many enemies, including the USA... those jets are for defense...

even iran isn't after nukes to attack anybody, because there is no possibility to start and win a war with nukes these days. whoever uses them would get a global (nuke) reaction and will be wiped of the map...
they want to them for defense, because again, iran has many enemies, but when they have nukes, those enemies will think twice whether tey launch an attack. north korea was (is?) trying to build them for the same reason, as have done india and pakistan.
 
Re: U.S.: Venezuela Overspending on Military

Firecat said:
This coming from the country that spends how much on defense? and the country that is the biggest exporter of weapons.
Click to expand...

Hardly surprising given the price of US weapons.

Major recipients of US weapons in 2003 were Egypt, Saudi Arabia, S Korea, Taiwan, Oman and Pakistan. A substantial amount of the money paid was for upgrades, spares, training and support rather than for new weapons. Not only that, but a sizeable chunk of US sales are to NATO countries.

Russia has sold Su-24 fighter bombers, Su-30 fighters, Mi-35 attack helicopters, T-72 tanks and Kilo-class submarines to Iran, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Algeria and Yemen. And let's not forget the ubiquitous AK-47 ;)

China has sold warious weapons to Iran and N Korea

In sales of tanks, artillery, APCs, ships, missile boats, submarines, combat aircraft, transport aircraft, helicopters and SAMs, the US is behind Russia and China in terms of units sold worldwide.

Of the weapons recipients, who is most likely to cause a regional or even global threat?
 
Well do you include the war on Iraq? ;) If yes you have your answer the US and the UK, but I guess that's not what you mean.
In my eyes North Korea was the biggest problem back in 2002, today it is Iran, but Iran always came second.
 
you miss the point...

iran and north korea couldn't make the slightest move without being completely destroyed by nato. their leaders know that. but they also know that even without making a move, they are watched closely by nato and especially the us. irak has shown that you can easily become a target even without posing a threat.
iran and north korea want and have to defend themselves, thats why they are so eager to aquire nuclear weapons. if you have nuclear weapons you can use them to threaten any attacker.
 
Well thats the reason for Nuclear wapons, the problem is that Israel can be infunctional with one nuclear bomb. That's why they are so concerned and aggressive.
 
ryosuke said:
iran and north korea want and have to defend themselves, thats why they are so eager to aquire nuclear weapons. if you have nuclear weapons you can use them to threaten any attacker.
Click to expand...

Defend themselves from what?

NATO is no longer functional as a unit and it's purpose in the post-Cold War era is questionabe.

The geography of either country would mean that an all out air/land/sea war is highly unlikely and any action against them would be limited to US missile strikes against targets perceived as being of greatest threat i.e. nuclear facilities. It thus follows that the best way of either country avoiding attack would be to cease nuclear weapon programs.

While on the subject of Iran, could you be sure that a country whose regime questions the holocaust and has wanted to rid the region of Israel is pursuing nuclear weapons entirely for defensive purposes?
 
hajj said:
Well thats the reason for Nuclear wapons, the problem is that Israel can be infunctional with one nuclear bomb. That's why they are so concerned and aggressive.
Click to expand...
what would be the point? iran could extinct isreal with a nuclear bomb, but the next day, iran would be wiped of the map. there would be no advantage for the leader of iran...
such weapons are only really dangerous as attack weapons in the hands of terrorist.

that said, i still don't like the idea of iran aquiring nuclear weapons, because it would make it hard to intervene there in case its needed...

rhegedus said:
ryosuke said:
iran and north korea want and have to defend themselves, thats why they are so eager to aquire nuclear weapons. if you have nuclear weapons you can use them to threaten any attacker.
Click to expand...

Defend themselves from what?
Click to expand...
the US who have already attacked irak!? iran and north korea have always been in their scopes...nuclear weapons would give them safety.

NATO is no longer functional as a unit and it's purpose in the post-Cold War era is questionabe.
Click to expand...
it is functional as a unit and questionable. NATO is for defense, not for attack. thus NATO is not a unit in the irak case, but would any NATO member be attacked, it would work together in the defense. furthermore, it would also function as a unit in case a third party is attacked that is important for the western worlds interests (for example irak vs. kuwait case, where the US did most of the work but NATO members bankrolled the job).

The geography of either country would mean that an all out air/land/sea war is highly unlikely and any action against them would be limited to US missile strikes against targets perceived as being of greatest threat i.e. nuclear facilities. It thus follows that the best way of either country avoiding attack would be to cease nuclear weapon programs.
Click to expand...
irak had no WMDs, has it helped them?
long before this discussion about iran broke out, it has been speculated whether iran would be the next target. the only way for them to avoid an attack for sure would be to work together with the western world, which they don't want to. they feel threatened and surrounded by the western world, military wise as well as cultural. they feel that they have to defend themselves from any western influences.

While on the subject of Iran, could you be sure that a country whose regime questions the holocaust and has wanted to rid the region of Israel is pursuing nuclear weapons entirely for defensive purposes?
Click to expand...
most of the muslim nations think so...seldomly as visible as in this case, but if amanidshad or whatever his name is really wanted to wipe israel from the face of this planet, he should plan it secretly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top