Let’s not get too excited here:)

I just asked what I thought was a perfectly reasonable question and used SA as an example. My argument that countries in general should still be spending less on arms and more on social needs still stands though.

Obviously a country has the right to defend itself and South Africa’s arms purchase is entirley within reason when you realize what they could be up against, in fact it seems to be rather conservative.

Their arms industry is also mighty impressive when you consider the resources available to them, they seem to build or have built everything from handguns to nukes and IRBMs. All on a limited budget and in isolation(during apartheid) that’s some seriously impressive sh!t.

Just how does Angola justify 15 Su-27 though?:diablo:

PS no offence taken from any of the replies

no offence

I didn’t mean to single out SA, it is just that I am heading there soon and used them as an example.

Can one really compare a countries like SA, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibi etc. to developed western countries? The problems in Africa are significantly worse e.g. Aids, housing, education, unemployment etc.
The point that I was trying to make was that the arms industry is more interested in the money than the actual well-being of the purchasing country.

As far as I am concerned Ethiopia and Eritrea(two of the poorest countries on earth) should not have been allowed Su-27 aircraft, or any other expensive aircraft. It seems they have pretty much used these aircraft to kill each other. The money could instead have gone to healthcare, schools etc.

And finally I do agree that western countries(mostly the US) spend way to much on weaponry and could also find a better use for the money.

Just checked: Eritrea is spending 17% of their GDP on their armed forces, think about it.