Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]

    Search       Member List      Official United Site     ArabZone      ArabTRUST       BBC Sport     Twitter
Welcome to The Arab League, one of the longest established Dundee United Football forums, with many members from the old ArabFC forum.

New members are always welcomed, so to join the debate, just sign up - registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join The Arab League!


If you're already a member please log in:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Defence Cuts
Topic Started: Oct 20 2010, 08:32 AM (3,663 Views)
Skeletor
Member Avatar
Most likely to be Ann Widdecombe
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Well, on the whole United seem to be plodding on despite these Defence Cuts
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
YazooArab
Member Avatar
Paul Sturrock
[ *  * ]
No defence cuts for Rangers, they are going with a back 5 again tonight!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
whatsthatonyourback
Oct 20 2010, 03:29 PM
If you look at it with your equation, rich countries will always have a higher "cost to protect one person's life and liberty". But then, the cost of most things is higher for people in rich countries. But they're rich, they can afford it.

That's wrong on a couple of levels.

For starters, GNP doesn't correlate at all with defence spend per capita. Switzerland, for example, has the third-richest population in the world per head but is 21st when it comes to defence, spending just $352 per citizen. Pre crisis, Greece's GNP by capita was barely more than Slovenia and Portugal yet it spent $532 per head, which was considerably more than richer economies such as Japan and Germany. Even red-button petrochemical states such as the UAE can't match Greece's valution of its own population. Contrast with Iceland, which briefly rose to the world's fifth-richest per head yet continued to spend zero on defence, largely because it maintains no standing state military force.

Secondly, we're talking about international governmental trade, not population wealth. Why should a richer country's army cost more, given a missile does cost the same whether you're Luxembourg or Sudan? The hardware of war is effectively sold on a level playing field. I accept that the manpower costs are different between borders, but the expense of cannon fodder is generally far less important than the expense of cannons.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ivan
Member Avatar
F*cking plebs.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Oct 20 2010, 07:04 PM
whatsthatonyourback
Oct 20 2010, 03:29 PM
If you look at it with your equation, rich countries will always have a higher "cost to protect one person's life and liberty". But then, the cost of most things is higher for people in rich countries. But they're rich, they can afford it.

That's wrong on a couple of levels.

For starters, GNP doesn't correlate at all with defence spend per capita. Switzerland, for example, has the third-richest population in the world per head but is 21st when it comes to defence, spending just $352 per citizen. Pre crisis, Greece's GNP by capita was barely more than Slovenia and Portugal yet it spent $532 per head, which was considerably more than richer economies such as Japan and Germany. Even red-button petrochemical states such as the UAE can't match Greece's valution of its own population. Contrast with Iceland, which briefly rose to the world's fifth-richest per head yet continued to spend zero on defence, largely because it maintains no standing state military force.

Secondly, we're talking about international governmental trade, not population wealth. Why should a richer country's army cost more, given a missile does cost the same whether you're Luxembourg or Sudan? The hardware of war is effectively sold on a level playing field. I accept that the manpower costs are different between borders, but the expense of cannon fodder is generally far less important than the expense of cannons.

Do you know this for a fact, or are you guessing? I'd personally be very surprised if this were true given that it's not true for other, more competitive, goods.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
I'm guessing, but it's a reasonably informed guess. The reasons companies indulge in discretionary pricing aren't really there when dealing long-term big-ticket supply and support contracts with nations. It is also, for the most part, quite a competitive field. Have a wander round an arms fair if you don't believe me. Or, if that's too much fuss, have a Google around for contract values of something off-the-shelf and widely used, such as attack drones. You'll find very little divergence between contract values by nation. Certainly a lot less than if you were looking at textbooks or Ipods.

America has the most expensive army not because it's the richest, or it gets charged the most, but because it's f*cking nuts.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ivan
Member Avatar
F*cking plebs.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Naebody
Oct 20 2010, 09:49 PM
I'm guessing, but it's a reasonably informed guess. The reasons companies indulge in discretionary pricing aren't really there when dealing long-term big-ticket supply and support contracts with nations. It is also, for the most part, quite a competitive field. Have a wander round an arms fair if you don't believe me. Or, if that's too much fuss, have a Google around for contract values of something off-the-shelf and widely used, such as attack drones. You'll find very little divergence between contract values by nation. Certainly a lot less than if you were looking at textbooks or Ipods.

America has the most expensive army not because it's the richest, or it gets charged the most, but because it's f*cking nuts.

I'll take your word for it (y'know, until and unless I can be arsed actually doing some research). I would have thought that with such limited and heavily regulated demand that cost would be extremely flexible but I confess that it's not an area which I know much about.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ah, but contrary to logic it's not heavily regulated. There's a ragbag of treaties, most of which have not moved beyond the draft stage, but basically if you can afford it you can buy it. Also, I've just checked: it seems the top 100 defence companies account for less than a third of the $1 trillion-plus spent on weapons worldwide each year. It's a very fragmented market, petards.

(Disclaimer: I'm not an arms dealer, just an interested observer.)

(ETA disclaimer: just realised that makes me sound like I'm Hans Blix. I'm not him either.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
gordonthearab
Craig Brewster
[ *  *  * ]
One thing they could cut from the defence budget is Trident. It's a total waste of money.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ivan
Member Avatar
F*cking plebs.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Damn straight, Gordon.

On the defence cuts more generally, I was intrigued to note that the government have apparently decided to go ahead with two new aircraft carriers (at a combined cost of £5.9 Billion) because it would cost more in damages to cancel the contracts than to proceed. Leaving aside the fact that that's a legal nonsense (how can a breach of contract cost the supplier more than performance?), don't the government realise the extent of their own powers? Oh noes the defence contractor will sue our asses if we don't go ahead. Fucking nationalise the cunts, see how they like it then.

One of the carriers is apparently going to be mothballed as soon as it's launched, the second will be relying on a team of strong men with hang gliders.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ivan
Oct 21 2010, 10:13 AM
don't the government realise the extent of their own powers? Oh noes the defence contractor will sue our asses if we don't go ahead. Fucking nationalise the cunts, see how they like it then.

Seriously? Why not just send the heavies round and kidnap their wives.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ivan
Member Avatar
F*cking plebs.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Setenza
Oct 21 2010, 10:40 AM
Ivan
Oct 21 2010, 10:13 AM
don't the government realise the extent of their own powers? Oh noes the defence contractor will sue our asses if we don't go ahead. Fucking nationalise the cunts, see how they like it then.

Seriously? Why not just send the heavies round and kidnap their wives.

I like the way you're thinking, Setenza. Let's get the SPG back and kick some heads in.

Desperate times and all that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ivan
Oct 21 2010, 10:43 AM
Setenza
Oct 21 2010, 10:40 AM
Ivan
Oct 21 2010, 10:13 AM
don't the government realise the extent of their own powers? Oh noes the defence contractor will sue our asses if we don't go ahead. Fucking nationalise the cunts, see how they like it then.

Seriously? Why not just send the heavies round and kidnap their wives.

I like the way you're thinking, Setenza. Let's get the SPG back and kick some heads in.

Desperate times and all that.

Too much evidence...


But I can't see why if the government messes up, the contracter should suffer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Naebody
Member Avatar
Twat
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
The aircraft carrier thing is ridiculous, but also seems to be a bit of a distraction. It's the one bad decision they can blame directly on Brown, who locked down the contract in his final days. Meanwhile, other more expensive but equally useless programmes such as Eurofighter date back to the last time the Tories were in.

I found this an interesting piece. It's written by a hawk, but one who appears to have a handle on what's spent where and what's required. The gist is that we've shaped the budget to maintain a fleet of aircraft built for bombing Russia and not really useful for much else.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ivan
Member Avatar
F*cking plebs.
[ *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Setenza
Oct 21 2010, 10:47 AM
Ivan
Oct 21 2010, 10:43 AM
Setenza
Oct 21 2010, 10:40 AM
Ivan
Oct 21 2010, 10:13 AM
don't the government realise the extent of their own powers? Oh noes the defence contractor will sue our asses if we don't go ahead. Fucking nationalise the cunts, see how they like it then.

Seriously? Why not just send the heavies round and kidnap their wives.

I like the way you're thinking, Setenza. Let's get the SPG back and kick some heads in.

Desperate times and all that.

Too much evidence...



Fine, if we must play nice, you wouldn't actually need to nationalise the defence contractor to avoid the contract, a simple private Act of Parliament would suffice. The point is, the government (by enjoying a majority in Parliament) can make any law it requires to avoid liability (if such a mental contract does indeed exist). I'm sure there will be lots of contracts ripped up over the next few years. That's what happens when you take an axe to public spending.


Quote:
 
But I can't see why if the government messes up, the contracter should suffer.


I like it. Why should the poor defence contractor suffer? I wonder if we could extend that logic to other innocent parties in this mess.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Setenza
Member Avatar
Knitting with only one needle
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Ivan
Oct 21 2010, 10:57 AM
Setenza
Oct 21 2010, 10:47 AM
Ivan
Oct 21 2010, 10:43 AM
Setenza
Oct 21 2010, 10:40 AM
Ivan
Oct 21 2010, 10:13 AM
don't the government realise the extent of their own powers? Oh noes the defence contractor will sue our asses if we don't go ahead. Fucking nationalise the cunts, see how they like it then.

Seriously? Why not just send the heavies round and kidnap their wives.

I like the way you're thinking, Setenza. Let's get the SPG back and kick some heads in.

Desperate times and all that.

Too much evidence...



Fine, if we must play nice, you wouldn't actually need to nationalise the defence contractor to avoid the contract, a simple private Act of Parliament would suffice. The point is, the government (by enjoying a majority in Parliament) can make any law it requires to avoid liability (if such a mental contract does indeed exist). I'm sure there will be lots of contracts ripped up over the next few years. That's what happens when you take an axe to public spending.


Quote:
 
But I can't see why if the government messes up, the contracter should suffer.


I like it. Why should the poor defence contractor suffer? I wonder if we could extend that logic to other innocent parties in this mess.

Sure we could. But still the government that's messed up, as it always does. Making up the rules as they go, inventing / disregarding laws as they please, forcibly taking control of others assets or whatever. It's all behavior that, although sure happens all over, if it was done by anyone other than a government would be rightly critisised, and can't see it as a preferred course of action, or one that's to be encouraged.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Off Topic · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Find this theme on Forum2Forum.net & ZNR exclusively.