US nears $100 billion arms deal for Saudi Arabia

[denel]

This is a joke. They have children dying left right and center in Yemen due to the siege and yet they continue to feed the devil.

 

[hussain0216]

This is a joke. They have children dying left right and center in Yemen due to the siege and yet they continue to feed the devil.

Israel?

 

[Penguin]

Because they have common sense.

Have you not seen what the West has been doing in the Middle East over the past few decades? They dropped more bombs on Iraq alone than in the entire European theater of WW2.

A million dead civilians in Iraq alone, over fake WMD. Now compare that to "rumors" that China has banned beards, which is completely false, just check any recent video taken in Xinjiang and count how many beards you see there.

As we speak, America is dropping a bomb on someone's head.

Lets see what happens after a few aircraft have been flown into, say, the Great Hall of the People, August First Building, and a few other key buildings in Beijing.

As for the US dropping more bombs on Iraq alone than in the entire European theater of WW2, pls consider the following:.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II

2.7 million tons of bombs were dropped on Cambodia, 1970-1073. To put this in perspective, the Allies dropped just over 2 million tons of bombs in all of World War II, which is generally seen as a notable conflict.

http://www.tinyrevolution.com/mt/archives/003712.html
http://www.businessinsider.com/we-c...-cambodia-2012-3?international=true&r=US&IR=T
... well, 2.7 million tons actually in Europe alone. (some sources even say 3.4 million tons)
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-th...of-bombs-dropped-on-Europe-during-World-War-2

The air campaign of the Gulf War, also known as the 1991 bombing of Iraq, started with an extensive aerial bombing campaign on 17 January 1991. The coalition flew over 100,000 sorties, dropping 88,500 tons of bombs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign

The United States bombed Laos almost daily for nine years. Out of 2,858 total days, the United States Air Force bombed Loas for 2,290. Over 280 million bombs were dropped on Laos, 1965-1973. It’s estimated that up to 80 million of them never exploded.
https://peterslarson.com/2010/12/15/us-bombings-in-laos-1965-1973/

In President Obama’s last year in office, the United States dropped 26,172 bombs in seven countries. This estimate is undoubtedly low, considering reliable data is only available for airstrikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya, and a single “strike,” according to the Pentagon’s definition, can involve multiple bombs or munitions. In 2016, the United States dropped 3,028 more bombs—and in one more country, Libya—than in 2015. Most (24,287) were dropped in Iraq and Syria.
http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/01/05/bombs-dropped-in-2016/
26,000 x 15 years = 390,000 bombs total.
Of 26000 total, about 12100 dropped on Iraq > x 15 years = 181,500 bombs on Iraq.

December 2015. The U.S.-led coalition against Islamic State last month dropped the most bombs in its 16-month campaign in Iraq and Syria, according to new Air Force data.
The 3,271 munitions used in November were almost double the 1,683 in June, the low point of this year. They bring to almost 32,000 the weapons -- most of them precision-guided -- dropped by fighters, B-1B bombers and drones in almost 11,000 combat sorties since August 2014, according to statistics compiled by U.S. Air Forces Central Command that were obtained by Bloomberg News in advance of publication.
The airstrikes began over Iraq in August 2014 and expanded into Syria the next month. Since then, the U.S.-led coalition has dropped 20,600 munitions on targets in Iraq and 11,000 in Syria. One of the 3,271 munitions dropped last month was a laser-guided Hellfire missile fired at a vehicle in Syria carrying British citizen Mohamed Emwazi , the Islamic State extremist known as “Jihadi John.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...islamic-state-targets-tallied-by-u-s-military
I.e. (32000/16)*12=24,000 for 12 months aka 1 year on Iraq and Syria > roughly 12000 on each country

Now, lets assume at least 1.5 million tons of US ordnance was indeed dropped on Iraq and lets also assume this took some 182000 bombs. That means 1 bomb averages over 8 tons in weight. Now, even if you double, triple or quadruple the number of bombs, it is still quite unlikely that that over 1.5 million tons were dropped on Iraq (you still end up with 1 bomb weighing on average 2 tons or 4,000 lbs. A Tomahawk weighs 13000-1600kg, JSOW <500kg, JDAM 227 kg to 907 kg. AGM-114 Hellfire: 50kg or so. GP dumb bombs

• 
  
  
  • Mark 81 – nominal weight 250 pounds (113 kg)
  • Mark 82 – nominal weight 500 pounds (227 kg)
  • Mark 83 – nominal weight 1,000 pounds (454 kg)
  • Mark 84 – nominal weight 2,000 pounds (907 kg).

Let alone you use 2.5 million or 3.5 million tons of bombs like in Europe....

As a rule of thumb, in WW2, half of each bomb’s weight was the explosive charge; the other half was the bomb body’s metal, which would fragment upon explosion.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150922-these-nazi-bombs-are-more-dangerous-now-than-ever-before
Therefore, 2.7 million tons of bombs = 1.35 million tons of high explosive
_______________________________________________________________
"In the attack by Allied air power, almost 2,700,000 tons of bombs were dropped, more than 1,440,000 bomber sorties and 2,680,000 fighter sorties were flown. The number of combat planes reached a peak of some 28,000 and at the maximum 1,300,000 men were in combat commands. The number of men lost in air action was 79,265 Americans and 79,281 British. [Note: All RAF statistics are preliminary or tentative.] More than 18,000 American and 22,000 British planes were lost or damaged beyond repair."

THE UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY
Summary Report
(European War)
September 30, 1945
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs02.htm

The total tonnage of bombs dropped by Allied planes in the Pacific war was 656,400. Of this, 160,800 tons, or 24 percent, were dropped on the home islands of Japan. Navy aircraft accounted for 6,800 tons, Army aircraft other than B-29s for 7,000 tons, and the B-29s for 147,000 tons. By contrast, the total bomb tonnage in the European theater was 2,700,000 tons of which 1,360,000 tons were dropped within Germany's own borders.

UNITED STATES STRATEGIC BOMBING SURVEY
SUMMARY REPORT
(Pacific War)
WASHINGTON, D.C.
1 JULY 1946
http://www.anesi.com/ussbs01.htm#taaatjhi
_______________________________________________________________

https://www.reddit.com/r/path%3D%252Fr%252Fdataisbeautiful%252Fcomments%252F5j8nlp%252F

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

As for the US dropping more bombs on Iraq alone than in the entire European theater of WW2, pls consider the following:.

Alright I might have quoted that wrong, I'm not sure what the original quote was compared to, the entire Middle East or just Iraq. All the allies bombs or just American ones, etc.

Lets see what happens after a few aircraft have been flown into, say, the Great Hall of the People, August First Building, and a few other key buildings in Beijing.

Hey man, I felt sorry for the USA after 9/11, most people did, even the most hardcore anti-Americans I know. Those people didn't deserve to die.

But what does that have to do with invading Iraq over fake WMDs, leading to the deaths of over a million Iraqi civilians? Invading Aghanistan, invading Libya, bombing Syria?

And China has had more than its fair share of suffering, losing 3000 people is terrible but we've had to deal with losing tens of millions in many different conflicts over the past two centuries.

 

[Penguin]

But what does that have to do with invading Iraq over fake WMDs, leading to the deaths of over a million Iraqi civilians? Invading Aghanistan, invading Libya, bombing Syria?

The US went into Afghanistan in 2001, right after 9/11, supported by Canada and the UK initially and later joined by the rest of NATO. Importantly, article 5 of the North Atlantic treaty, requiring member states to come to the aid of any member state subject to an armed attack, was invoked for the first and only time after the September 11 attacks, after which troops were deployed to Afghanistan under the NATO-led ISAF. Public aims of the invasion were to dismantle al-Qaeda and to deny it a safe base of operations in Afghanistan by removing the Taliban from power. I find that one perfectly justifiable.

A combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and deposed the Ba'athist government of Saddam Hussein. Iraq always was and remains a questionable move.

NATO forces enforced United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 in Libya. Only 8 of the 28 NATO member nations were participating in combat operations, with assistance from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. There was internal debate within NATO on whether or not this intervention fell withing the mission of NATO. Soon many countries dropped out, in no small part due to high cost, low ordnance supplies, economized maintenance. Leaving the US.

Syria is a quagmire, in no small part due to the regime itself. Here, you can blame many.

And China has had more than its fair share of suffering, losing 3000 people is terrible but we've had to deal with losing tens of millions in many different conflicts over the past two centuries.

Well to be honest, the US has also sustained significant loss of life over the past century. But those, like China's losses are not at all relevant to the discussion.

 

[The Accountant]

Hi,

Saudis are taking care of the business that should have been taken care by pak military if they had sent 150k troops some 2 years ago to the GCC.

So---just imagine the loss Gen Raheel incured on pakistan---. That alliance in itself could have been worth 100 to 200 billion dollars for a 5 - 8 years period---.

This is a slap on the face of pak military decision makers.

Sir i would like to disagree with you on this front ... we act as front state of usa in war against terror and paid a humonongus price in terms of terrorism .. afghan refuges unstable borders and econmic cost ... at that time had we opted to shake hand with soviet union and tried to remain neutral instead of becoming active part of cold war we probably could have a better industrial base and our economy might have been slight better ...

I am of the view that economic social and political cost of war is much higher than the benefits we will get ...

I am in favour of following the hardway of self reliance rather than being opportunist ... although our establishment and gov are not moving in any direction but right direction is self reliance ...

I dont understand we always seek for help ... we are not small country ... we are a huge country 7th largest population with mostly young folks ... our real investment needs to be in these people ... it will take time to realize the benefits but it is ultimate solution not to look for saudi, china and usa for help ...

Remember we have the brain to convert a desert into uae ... we have brain to create emirates ... we can do the same again but only need to remove corruption from the system ... we need to build ourselves as a nation and then we will not need anyone esle for help ..

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

It looks like a new norm - a 100b down payment before any further talks!!! Good job President Trump!!! Now, what chances other folks have????

 

[MastanKhan]

Sir i would like to disagree with you on this front ... we act as front state of usa in war against terror and paid a humonongus price in terms of terrorism .. afghan refuges unstable borders and econmic cost ... at that time had we opted to shake hand with soviet union and tried to remain neutral instead of becoming active part of cold war we probably could have a better industrial base and our economy might have been slight better ...

I am of the view that economic social and political cost of war is much higher than the benefits we will get ...

I am in favour of following the hardway of self reliance rather than being opportunist ... although our establishment and gov are not moving in any direction but right direction is self reliance ...

I dont understand we always seek for help ... we are not small country ... we are a huge country 7th largest population with mostly young folks ... our real investment needs to be in these people ... it will take time to realize the benefits but it is ultimate solution not to look for saudi, china and usa for help ...

Remember we have the brain to convert a desert into uae ... we have brain to create emirates ... we can do the same again but only need to remove corruption from the system ... we need to build ourselves as a nation and then we will not need anyone esle for help ..

Hi,

You acted as a ' front state ' for the U S and tried to milk it---and started playing the pakistani game---well---no one plays the game better than the U S.

What is happening to you in pakistan is of your own doing and not of the U S.

The problem with you in pakistan is you have no clue how to change direction in mid stride when it comes to national interests---.

Pakistanis are not a very intelligent people when it comes to their nation---national security---national integrity---and nationalism---..

In my last visit to pakistan---I talked with quite a few people--they said the same things that you did---and my answer the the same---. It is your nation---you failed it---you made brother of those who wanted to murder you if you went against their wishes.

And during the afg war---had you shook hands with the russians---you would be worst off now.

 

[XenoEnsi-14]

THUG LIFE

 

[The SC]

It looks like a new norm - a 100b down payment before any further talks!!! Good job President Trump!!! Now, what chances other folks have????

Let's look at it from a different perspective.. The US/NATO would have loved to push for a KSA/GCC vs Iran prolonged war that would cost more than a trillion dollars, this would have allowed western weapons factories to go full gear and would have benefited the west mostly, while at the same time weakening KSA and its Sunni Allies and Iran and its Shia' allies, in other words; weakening the whole Muslim world in one go and without any western nation having to fight or lose lives.. to the contrary the West would be making hundreds of billions in arms sales anyway..
So I think it is a smart move to pay a few hundred Billions of dollars, get the best weapons for it, avoid a devastating war between Muslims, protect oneself as best as one can, benefit the Mafia boss (US) the most, get his added protection and benefit technologically and scientifically from it.. Keep progressing instead of regressing..

 

[denel]

Israel?

KSA.....

 

[HannibalBarca]

Let's look at it from a different perspective.. The US/NATO would have loved to push for a KSA/GCC vs Iran prolonged war that would cost more than a trillion dollars, this would have allowed western weapons factories to go full gear and would have benefited the west mostly, while at the same time weakening KSA and its Sunni Allies and Iran and its Shia' allies, in other words; weakening the whole Muslim world in one go and without any western nation having to fight or lose lives.. to the contrary the West would be making hundreds of billions in arms sales anyway..
So I think it is a smart move to pay a few hundred Billions of dollars, get the best weapons for it, avoid a devastating war between Muslims, protect oneself as best as one can, benefit the Mafia boss (US) the most, get his added protection and benefit technologically and scientifically from it.. Keep progressing instead of regressing..

Having the best tech equipment will not make you win a war in anyway... it will only give you the opportunity to end it fast otherwise you are screwed in the long term...

If those Hundreds of Bill$ come with limited or no ToT then it's like doing nothing... Iran has some sort of Def industry and they proved to be quite knowledgeable in few areas... where KSA is lacking by decades away... meaning if a War broke btw GCC/Iran (only with no allies intervention) then Iran has quite the upper hand... with a Def industry ready to kick... and a Army pool bigger than all GCC combined...

But the most likely scenario if a war broke btw them... you will get mostly an abdiction or lose of Iran... since allies will be involved...

 

[mike2000 is back]

Americans are well known for their extremely limited tech transfer. Why are Saudis buying American hardware why not British products? The Brits are much more willing to share knowledge. It's election time in the UK and Brexit negotiations are ongoing. May would do anything to announce a 100b USD deal.

Saudi Arabia is not going to change, they're making constantly the same strategic failures over and over again...

Agree thia they could have approached our defence companies for a similar to deal which i believe our leaders would have lobbied our defence companies for a better compromise on TOT than the U S
However, I disagree with your point that Saudi Arabia has been making the same strategic failures for decades. They have always been strategic allies with the U. S and U. K. If they have been making strategic mistakes for decades then they might have been in Iraq's, Syria's, venuezuela, Libya situation or less wealthy and isolated like Iran. They won't have the worlds second largest sovereign fund, nor will they have the highest GDP per capita /living standards in the region outside gulf states and Israel, their citizens will be fleeing in large numbers abroad as refugees or as economic migrants /asking for asylum like many countries in the middle east and north Africa do. So I wont call that a strategic mistake.
Morever, Britain already exports a lot of weapons to KSA(we are their second largest defence partner just behind the U. S). So it's not like we are not already heavily involved in their defence Industry.

 

[1st Brahmans]

11 new Corvettes/frigates Lsc, 14 destroyers (arleight burke), thaad, 24 sea hawk anti submarine helicopters, 6 p-8 poseidon's, mq-8b unknown number,logistic ships, 3 landing ship platform's

Goddemn... I think we are getting new rival in South Asian Sea.

Well, there is already an indirect (sectarian?) war going on between Saudi and Iran, if it turns into a "hot war" that could spell enormous devastation for the region and the global economy. So hopefully they take it easy there.

Ah sunni Shia war can also destroy Fabric of Islamic Nations and can cause permanent decide between Sunni and Shia muslims.

 

[Hakikat ve Hikmet]

Having the best tech equipment will not make you win a war in anyway... it will only give you the opportunity to end it fast otherwise you are screwed in the long term...

If those Hundreds of Bill$ come with limited or no ToT then it's like doing nothing... Iran has some sort of Def industry and they proved to be quite knowledgeable in few areas... where KSA is lacking by decades away... meaning if a War broke btw GCC/Iran (only with no allies intervention) then Iran has quite the upper hand... with a Def industry ready to kick... and a Army pool bigger than all GCC combined...

But the most likely scenario if a war broke btw them... you will get mostly an abdiction or lose of Iran... since allies will be involved...

But, here [KSA/GCC + Turkey + Pak] vs Iran when Ebraha vs Ebabil is concerned!!!!!