MiG-23MLDThats alright Scooter!:D In the end I’m here to talk about aviation technology, I’m surprised the mods haven’t locked this thread down yet.
As for what news channel I watch well thats difficult…being British I have a degree of loyalty to the BBC, I have a lot of respect for ITN and after that I tend to hop between the different 24 hour news channels on satellite TV. Fox news is comic relief as it comes accross as hugely biased.
Politics influence weaponry and politics are involved in why they bought SU-30s, the reasons are several, first as any nation they have the right to buy weapons, second they have the right to have the leader they want and third they have the right to stablish commercial and military links to whoever they please because If Chavez ask your nation why you buy JSFs you will say what right he has to ask about a british national right? or why you have Tony Blair in power or why you are in the EU? Venezuleans could also ask about it but they do not and if you want to know more about Venezuela and Chavez read what Lula thinks or watch Telesur
MiG-23MLDI don’t think he or any other Americans give a damn what the other leaders of Latin America think. Chavez is a frickin’ loon. EdLaw is right. Chavez is a dictator who is doing next to nothing to help his people. Hell, he spends more time touring other countries than he does in his own country. All he does is spend money on weapons to keep himself in power, and give the occasional speech where he calls Bush the devil. The whole time everyone around the world except for maybe Russia and Iran are laughing at him. Hell, he’s even mentioned trying to change the constitution so he can stay in power. Sooner or later, the people will get tired of his antics because he’s doing nothing to better the lives of Venezuelans.
So to hell with Chavez. Venezuelans deserve a hell of a lot better than this fruitcake.
By the way, FA-18ORDNANCE was also right. We wouldn’t sell him the spare parts to keep the F-16s in the air. He didn’t say Russian aircraft were bad. So he bought the Russian aircraft, mostly to spite the U.S. Although we couldn’t care less what fighters he bought. He might as well buy them from Russia because he sure as heck isn’t going to get anything from America.
Yes yes first you do not live in Latin America, second no head of state can remain in power withou at least some political and military support from the people of that country and Chavez spend much less in weapons than many other countries do specially the US Europe or even Brazil and second the reason Venezuela have Chavez is simply because they have the right to elect who ever they want as their president.
Democracy can not be imposed if it is imposed then it is a dictartorship, when the Venezuelans overthrown Chavez you can say he was not popular as Pinochet was forced to leave power
I suggest you look in the democracy of your country not in some else`s look if your country has democracy and has no poors later you critize, Only the Venezuelans have the right to opine if Chavez is good or not and at least he has the support of his people an in any democracy you have opposition and he has but if he buys weapons is not because he is a menace, 20 or 30 Su-30 can not beat the USAF it is an irony you complaign
The reason he is not liked by Washington is not democracy
He is not liked because he wants the Venezuelan oil for the Venezuelans and perhaps you do not know that he is building one of the Largest oil companies with Argentina and Brazil and Venezuela as Brazil and Argentina oppose the free trade agreement of the Americas
MiG-23MLDSyria, has been offered upgraded MiG-31s from Russia just recently, hell Russia is willing to allow the Syrian air force to trade in their MiG-25s for the new Foxhounds, so lets talk about Syria. My orginal post was not defining what country is friendly or unfriendly just that Chavez’s decision to buy the Su-30s was based partly on an arms embargo that would not allow him to buy parts for his fleet of F-16s from the U.S. or Israel. So if you want to go off on another tangant go ahead. The USA has SSBNs for nuclear deterrence and we have never publicy said that we want to “wipe a country like Israel off the map” like the president of Iran has been quoted as saying, that is why Iran wants nuclear weapons or vehicles capable of delivering them, that is the differance Iran is demonstrating an intent to use them because of hatred toward Israel and the west. If I recall just recently some Su-25s were recently delievered to Iran and Iran has placed on order for the S-300 SAM systems, Kilo class diesel subs that are quiter than nuclear subs, appears Russia is selling some quality weapons to Iran from where I am sitting.
I feel you have to see weapons are evil in essence, war is evil in essence, you might justify and condemn what a given nation sell to who but all nations commit crimes either to their own populations or external populations because war in essence is evil, selling weapons is a crime against humanity.
Every body knows examples when weapons sold to evil governments or even moderate governments were used to commit social crimes.
History is full of bloodshed, full of war and war crimes and war has been called an apocalyptic knight when you see that you will see all nations have comitted crimes because war in essence is evil
Gandhi and Christ in that sense are two of the few politicians ( or religious leaders) who did not advocate war and their social movements were non violent in nature.
If Venezuela or Iran or China or Egypt or what ever the nations buys weapon is based upon the basic factor weapons kill and are either to defend your nation or invade another nation.
The US and Russia are the two biggest arms exporters and both have no moral to claim sainthood when selling weapons to dictatorships and evil regimes
MiG-23MLDNot to turn this into any kind of flame war, the term ‘democratically elected’ does not really apply to Chavez – he held an election, but made clear to the opposition that he would unleash a ‘bloodbath’ if he lost. Chavez raised a mass militia in order to secure his control over Venezuela, so whatever your opinion of him, he most certainly is not democratically elected!
Listen Venezuela is a nation that does not need democracy imposed by a external power niether an invasion under the name of democracy, a democracy or dictatorship are vague concepts used by politicians to justify their own interest, Chavez won the election and if you do not think was fair tell to the rest of latin american presidents who support him Chaves is acknolowledged by Lula and kichner as the lected president of Venezuela or in few words brazil and Argentina accept him as the legal president of Venezuela. You opinion is as subjective as mine but i recommed you read other concepts specailly read spanish news and the Latin american opinion about Chavez and you will find not everybody share your opinion specially in south america
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/the_world/note.jsp?idContent=336834&hideIntro=true
MiG-23MLDHe needs new SU-30s because we (U.S.) will not supply him any parts to keep his air force’s fleet F-16s airworthy and Russia will sell their military hardware to anyone who has the cash to pay for them.
That is not correct specially in Latin America, that is a myth made by Westerners that claim Russia builds second class weapons and nations willing to buy western but unable buy, have no other option than buying Russian Russian, example Mexico, India Malasya and Peru.
If you look at the air forces of Mexico and Malasya you will find that Mexico in special has Brazilian made ERJ-145 AWACS along side E-2 Hawkeyes retroffited by the Israelies and French Helicopters flying along side Black hawk and Mi-17.
In Latin America the JAS-39, Rafale and Su-27s were possible options to buy by Mexico and Brazil why the Russians beat the Western airccraft is basicly price and offset in trade and technology transfers
India like Peru flies French and Russian equipment even English and Malasya flies MiG-29s and F-18s.
Today the Russian Su-30 has become a best seller simply because the aircraft is first cheap and second is good, the Mi-17 and Mi-26 are quit good helicopters
MiG-23MLDAll I can say is from his own words at the UN a couple months back. The guy has a couple of screw loose! I said my peace and I will say no more…………:p
From my point of view he is a comedian but undoutedly also a hipocrite but okay let`s cut it up here, it is senseless also for me to defend another corrupt politician as Chavez is, the only politician i really admire is Mahatma Gandhi the guy was really a great politician . 
despite i do not agree with his diet😀
MiG-23MLDI have many great friends from Venezula. With most living in the US because they fear for there lives!:eek: I don’t want to get into any flame wars or politics but Chavez is a nut!:p
man Chanvez is niether a nut niether an Angel he is a smart guy who is benefing his people with the oil that belongs to their people, he is not an angel undoutedly because he is a politician and therefore a liar but calling him a nut only because your friends is incorrect the guy is a politician that was elected by his country`s people and has democratically demostrated he is in power thanks to the poor people of Venezuela.
He is just the elected president of Venezuela like any other politician who uses power for personal benefit but at least as politician his popularity depends upon benefiting the poor with the venezuelan oil, his ideology of latin american union and his inpractical economic program in that sense Lula is smarter.
Is the Guy nuts? no the guy is very smart and he understands something you might not see he wants Latin america united and strong he is like Mao to China or Lenin To Russia he is not an angel niether a saint he is just another politician.
he needs those Su-30s as the US needs the F-22 only to defend his own country`s interests or in few words the Venezuelan interests
MiG-23MLDBeautiful bird…..such a shame it’s going to serve a country led by the nut job that is Hugo Chavez.
I hope he feels more comfortable though….that force of Flankers will certainly protect him from us Devil worshippers from up North and our leader who apparently is Satan himself……:)….at least according to Chavez.
Well Hugo is not calling himself christian and invading countries and causing wreck and destruction and making more widows, more orphans and more dead in the name of Crist, civilization and democracy at least no one can blame him for that in fact if he is a devil by buying few Su-30s well he is still in the small leagues compare to those who spend more money in weapons.
MiG-23MLDMiG-23MLDWe dont have a democracy the way the Greeks defined it, and which operationally becomes tyranny by the majority or simply put mob rule.
Roman Republican government is essentially rulership by a feudal elite, that eventually led to autocracy.
What we have now is actually representative government. In representative government, smaller political entities elect their rulers which in turn, elect the higher ups. For me, parliamentary goverment is the current and more practiced form of representative goverment now. Personally I think the US representative system is flawed.
Representative government has its origins in the most primitive societies—your tribes, nomads that filled the world before “civilization’ sets in. That’s why it is so inherently fundamental. The basic belief of representation predates even before we have civilization to actually screw this up.
What i meant is in 1776 the US democracy was not a democracy for all, it was only democracy for the free but not for the slaves.
The Greek idea was the same
The British move in 1807 to abolish the slave trade had an immediate impact on the juntas struggling for independence in Spanish America. The slave trade was declared illegal in Venezuela and Mexico in 1810, in Chile in 1811, and in Argentina in 1812. In 1817 Spain signed a treaty with Britain agreeing to abolish the slave trade in 1820, but the trade continued to the remaining Spanish colonies until 1880. Chile freed its black slaves in 1823; Mexico abolished slavery in 1829, and Peru in 1854
http://search.eb.com/blackhistory/article-24160
Contrary to what many have thought democracy was stablish in Latin america quit soon in fact by the end of the 19th century largets nation in Latin America already had abolished slavery and were democracies.
In fact Mexico abolished slavery sooner than the US and even had an early democracy in the 1830s
Independent México
The Modern period began with the War of Independence (1810-1821). The priest Miguel Hidalgo initiated a revolt against the Spanish rule on the 16th of September, 1810. This date is México’s National Day.
In 1821 the first independent government was established and in 1822 Agustín de Iturbide was proclaimed Emperor of México.
In 1824, the Congress adopted a Constitution instituting a Federal Republic under the first President of México, Guadalupe Victoria. During his government England and the United States of America recognised the country’s independence, noble titles and slavery were abolished, and different measures were taken to develop a more democratic society.
http://www.mexican-embassy.dk/history.html#independent
However even democracies can become dictatorships under the one party rule that commits electoral frauds.
Russia independently of their political system or China independently of the chinese political system in one way or other their respective governments are result of the will of the chinese and Russian people, because both governments emanated from revolutions and in the case of Russia, the russian people turned Russia democratic and capitalist under the will of that people.
Having strategic weapons is something that does not depends on political system and democracies do not assure dictatorships won`t follow in example is Pinochet in Chile and Hitler in Germany
MiG-23MLD1. All states are evil – read Hoppe.
2. I condemn Communism (like all other forms of collectivism). But then even the Party admitted, that they never actually reached “Communism”.
3. Talking to people here: The biggest dream during the Soviet times was going to America. Any further comments needed?
Yeah, one: Please no more deconstructivistic-relativistic comments about the merrits of the communist state system. Anybody who likes that stuff should get a residency permit in Pyong Yang. Ok?
Destiller
A Governments is the product of the will of a nation and works for the people even dictatorships and kingdoms
Democracy as we know it reflects that, even the Soviets were a democracy, what happens they became dictatorships as a result of misundestanding of the phrase worker`s dictatorship, there are also another kind of dictatorships that also they call themselves democracies i mean nations where despite there is an electoral system, electoral fraud is common and a single party dictatorship rules despite there are other parties besides it.
The american democracy of 1776 was not the same the US has now in fact in 1776 the idea of democracy in the US considered slavery as a normal practice. it was more related to the ancient greek idea of democracy than today`s democracy concept practice in the US.
Any government is the result of a nation`s will even dictatorships and its function it`s serve the people does not matter what political system it is , no government is pure evil, governments are neither pure evil or pure good, they are simply governments and they sometimes commit crimes and sometimes do good for the nation that elected it by what ever the means they came to power.
When a government does not serve the people that chose it simply is overthrown, and it happens also in empires, the Spanish and Portuguese empires fell due to the fact they were not serving well their own colonies.
Without a real desire for peace there is going to continue the arms race and wars will be common, today Russia as the US have stablished a military balance they are unwilling to break and try to bring other nuclear parties such as India, England or China into the same understanding, Russia`s commitment to continue having a nuclear force is a result of that.
MiG-23MLDBrrr!
What kept us all alive during the cold war were the megaton bombs on top of those ICBMs and SLBMs.
Europe played no role apart that of a shooting ground.And the question whether the U.S. or the Soviet Empire was the agressor in the Cold War: Well, it all just happened, kind of. Stalin was fed and watered by the Anglo-Saxons to fight Hitler, and when it was all over he was more dangerous than that fellow before.
Being here in Russia now for a couple of month, I honestly think for some time already that, besides for a few couple of years under Stalin, the Soviets lacked the mindset for an offensive war against Western Europe. (Cuba just happend). And later, purely judged by technical developments and priorities, direct offensive war against the West was never really considered.
And as I said: The strategic weapon systems were – and are – the things that *really* count.To return to the original topic posted:
Some time ago there was this publication that postulated U.S. nuclear supremacy, did all the math and showed that in a few years the U.S. can disarm the Russian nuclear forces in a suprise first strike, provided the locations are known.
The next 15 years at least Russia does not have the capability for a retaliatory strike. Part of that was in Foreign Affairs, but there was a more complete version on the net. Can’t find it right now.
The US can not disarm Russia niether Russia do the same while there are ICBMs and SLBMs there is no way any power will try to win a nuclear war, it is purely suicidal try to win a nuclear war.
In today`s world is plainly foolish to think a power can win a nuclear war, does not matter what politician from what country a guy who launches a nuclear strike and thinks he or she can win is plainly mad and is worst than Hitler, a true apocalyptic anti-christ.
Russia and any power can not win a nuclear war even if the enemy achieves to hit four or five cities the losses will be millions of lives lost and the nuclear pollution quit dangerous it is going to be a Chernobyl many times over.
that is the reason, Soviet and Americans never went to war they knew they might have a different political views or economic interests but mutual anihilation or the total anihilation of the Human race is something that is purely madness
MiG-23MLDalthough combat success is a major factor in purchasing aircraft, most important are the types ease of mantinence, price, also how useful the type can be. the F-4 for instance could be used for a variaty of roles, like the F-16, Mig-21, F-5, Hawker Hunter, to a certain extent Mig-23. all these types acheived large export orders. because they where good all rounders, and cheap. the more specilised types genrally tend too be more complex, expensive and one role only aircraft, most countries cannot afford such luxurys..
I totally agree with you many nations can not buy the best weapons on the market or are unwilling to buying them because either are too expensive and in reality they do not need them.
A good example is Latin America, with the exception of few countries such as Venezuela or Cuba few nations really feel threated by external enemies, contrary to Asia or Europe where some nations have some rivalry and are threated by their neighborghs, in Latin America this does not happen in the same way.
For example Brazil and Mexico have already large economies in the size of a trillion dollars in PPP dollars, for Mexico or Brazil buying a large fleet of Su-27s or Rafales is not as expensive as many imagine, their economies could allow them to buy larger fleets of aircraft easily but since these two latin american nations are not really threat by something beyond inflation and poverty they have decided to buy a relatively small air force and dedicate their efforts into adquiere peaceful aircraft technology such as Embraer has done for Brazil or Mexico has done by building and assembling aircraft for the canadian firm Bombardier.
Other nations that have even economies in a much less developed state but feel more threated have even bought large number of aircraft in example Morroco, Algeria, Yemen, Egypt or Vietnam etc etc….
For me war is a definitive important test ground for a weapons system in terms of effectiviness but all depends what kind of war, a local war, a civil war or an total war with nukes and mass destruction weapons the dynamics of the arms race is a constant improvement and developement of better weapons, therefore war despite is important as a test ground and the ultimate test of a weapon system what keeps the arms race is the constant development of newer weapons and the increasing lethality of these new weapons
Few nations need in reality a B-2 or a Tu-160 and even can not really even build them, Brazil for example has an economy as large as Russia an a realtively developed aircraft industry but it does not need in reality a Tu-22M or a Tu-160 since there is no real threat in any of their neighbors beyond short local border wars, the constant threat of civil unrest or narcotraffic.
MiG-23MLDThey bought F-15s primarily due to the desire to be able to effectively intercept MiG-25Rs. F-16s weren’t initially going to be a massive upgrade when facing a MiG-23 as they lacked any BVR armament at the time. They were replacing older aircraft such as A-4s, but they weren’t there because all of a sudden Syria was buying MiG-23s.
And Russia fielding MiG-29s and Su-27s? Who cares? They might have cared had they been exported right away, but Israel wasn’t going to invade Russia and vice-versa.
Israel was over flown by MiG-25s and the Syrians bought their MiG-23s in the late 1970s, and by 1982 they had already MiG-23s armed with R-23 and by 1983 armed with R-24s.
The arms race is a war of deploying newer weapons before your potential enemy deploys a better weapon than your own.
The Israelis knew as any nation on earth that your main threat is also arming better and better so you can not rest and think they won`t be better armed than you, so they simply purchased F-15s and F-16s as a defensive measure.
Now in east Asia you have a newer arms race fueled by China`s deployment pf potentially better weapons than their main rivals.
All around the wold the arms race continues simply because the nature of it is build always newer weapons in order to stay ahead of any potential threat
losses in Southeast Asia ( from June 6, 1965, to June 29, 1973 ) losses in
Version F-4 Phantom C RF-4 Phantom C F-4 Phantom D F-4 Phantom E Unknown Totals
Combat losses (air-air, Sam/AAA, others) 118 72 169 70 1 430
Operational losses(Collision, crash landings/t.o., others) 33 7 24 – n 67
Ground losses (Rocket/mortar attack, others) 9 4 1 – – 14
Totals 160 83 194 73 1 511
See that in total 511 F-4s were lost in Vietnam
MiG-23MLDMiG-23s had nothing to do with why Israel wanted the F-15 and F-16.
It has to do because in any arms race you have to buy newer and better weapons than any weapons your possible rival or enemy might have, Israel bought newer fighters because in the 1970s the Russians deployed the newer MiG-25s and MiG-23s and exported them to their main clients around the world.
If Israel wanted to survive needed new fighters, the F-4 by 1978 was totally outclassed by the MiG-25s and surpassed in many areas by the MiG-23s and they knew Russia was going to field newer Su-27s and MiG-29s very soon in the future and by 1976 they already new about the MiG-31.
Syria and Iraq purchased MiG-25s and MiG-23s keeping a fleet of IAI Kfirs, Mirage III or F-4s was not enough, they needed to buy new aircraft
Sign In
