Top Arms Exporting Countries

Switzerland as an arms exporter surprised me. I just wouldn't assume they would be in the business of producing arms let alone selling them. Unless this includes the exportation of arms to allied nations (UN Members)?

Same here. I always thought they were neutral - I guess that means they can supply both sides.

LoL Stevediverse,love it.

And founded by mercenaries back in the day...

"Neutral" doesn't mean, they don't profit from wars; look i.e. on their role in WWII.

Must be all those Swiss Army knives

Agreed

If you want peace, prepare for war.

Forgot Israel - stupid! Surprised by Switzerland!

Grenades, Tanks, Ammunition etc.

Also hunting and sporting arms?

They don't equal that. Switzerland is still 12 places behind the USA.

Realy surprised with the all of those peacekeepers...

Remember that just because you export something doesn't mean that you produce it. Just like unofficial diplomatic communications go through intermediary countries, I imagine that companies in so called "neutral" countries still purchase arms from major manufacturers and send them in small quantities to less than desirable peoples. That was very very common in the pre 9/11 world.

Netherlands?

These figures probably do not account for the black market and other illegal transactions. Or maybe thousands of old automatic rifles with ammunition are not as valuable as a couple of high-tech fighter jets. I'm not an expert, so I don't know the prices of these things.

The source does include a category for unknown suppliers. Their numbers are absolutely dwarfed by all the big countries.

Ah the west, still arming and prospering from conflict and dictators world wide.

Right. In a related story, it's McDonald's fault that people are fat.

Haha yea nice one, we make them for ornamental purposes right?

Make what? Weapons? No... they're for killing people. That doesn't mean that the people who make the weapons also manufacturer their customers.

No we're not in agreement. You are employing ridiculous oversimplification to prop up a false implication. I'm pointing out one of the flaws in logic necessary to draw that inference. The "West" ships arms many places. But the West does not prosper from conflict and suggesting that they do leads into another popular but false assumption people make about Western governments intentionally sowing the seeds of discord around the globe to profit from it. The opposite is true. Most of these arms go to countries that are seen as allies in maintaining the balance of power, because maintaining a balance of power is necessary to ensure peace and stability, which is good for business around the world. You may disagree that this is a smart policy, or disagree about who should or should not be considered an ally. Fine. But what you said is silly.

So I disagree with the implication that the West is somehow sowing discord in order to profit from it. Popular but inaccurate meme. They ship weapons in part as a check on the growing power of other countries like Iran, Russia, North Korea, China, etc. And while, yes, China wants to annex Taiwan, and the Jews and Arabs hate each others guts, and Russia wants to conquer the world, and Africa is enjoying its 150th consecutive millennium of uninterrupted tribal violence... the West has little to do with all that.

And I also feel that the 2nd half of your statement is misleading, as well: that "the West" somehow directs aid at dictators. 1st, the democratic values of the recipient of arms is not as big of a factor as the criteria I described above, 2nd, when it is, then the West would prefer to not arm dictators. But sometimes you're choosing between monarchist Saudi Arabia and theocratic Iran, and the Russians are already arming one of them (via Syria), so...

Anyway, it kind of depends on who you are looking at. If you look at UK exports, for example, a whopping 48% of their arms exports go to Saudi Arabia. I personally find this a bit alarming. Around a 3rd of their exports go to democracies in Europe, Asia, Oceania and the Americas and a smaller portion goes elsewhere. Maybe the UK could take a moment to consider this. I have some British friends who are similarly unhappy about this.

On the other hand if you consider US arms exports, the majority go to democracies in Europe, Asia, Oceania and the Americas. A smaller but still substantial portion goes to assorted monarchies around the Middle East. A tiny portion goes to various countries in Africa. The USA's biggest customer is also Saudi Arabia, but they only account for 12% of sales not 48.

Deleted my comment in error, meant to press reply. I feel like I've properly arrived on jetpunk now I've had a long winded telling off from kalahamabut. But yes, there's massive industries all across the west (and other empires) which profit off conflict and there has been for centuries, to pretend otherwise is absurd.

It's not absurd; it's absolutely true. You are buying in to very popular but stupid and inaccurate memes. It is NOT in the West's or America's interests to have widespread open conflict. Large-scale wars and large shifts in the balance of power lead to instability and unpredictability. This is bad for markets, it leads to various humanitarian crises which can lead to large numbers of refugees, outbreaks of disease, energy shortages, terrorism, etc etc. Selling weapons IS obviously good for the economies of countries that produce said weapons. But this is not the same thing as supporting or endorsing conflict. In fact it's often the opposite. If we were NOT supplying arms to Taiwan, the inevitable Chinese invasion and occupation would lead to great loss of life. If we were NOT supplying weapons to NATO and Ukraine, this would enable to Russia to start more wars in Eastern Europe. If Israel did NOT have access to the weapons necessary to defend herself, there would be war and genocide.

Just because the US, Germany, France, etc are happy to profit from their arms sales doesn't mean that they are scheming to start wars. THAT is absurd. You can make money arming allies to help keep the peace or mitigate conflicts, too. If a man falls in to a bear pit at the zoo, and the bears are circling ready to devour him, and you throw him a can of bear mace... does that mean you are instigating conflict? The Wikileaks cable dump on the Internet, in service of Russian intelligence aimed at trying to undermine NATO and the US, if you actually read the cables, support everything I said above. No nefarious schemes to sow discord or division. It was the exact opposite. Behind the curtain the US is (or was, until the Trump administration) pursuing exactly the goals that it always stated it was pursuing. Probably the most underreported story from that whole scandal.

and conflating private industry sales with national policy is nonsensical. Breaking arms embargoes will get you in trouble. See: Iran/Contra.

It was a joke based on western countries featuring so heavily on this list. Get a hold of yourself kal, you're sounding delirious.

and you're sounding like right-wing pundits describing the testimony at the impeachment hearings.

Does that excuse the US public from believing they need to be armed with high-powered rifles? Also, the US sells more weapons than every other name on this list put together. Americans first need to get their own house in order, as you point out.

You only show your complete ignorance by calling them "high power rifles." Define a "high power rifle." And what US citizens own is none of your business. In fact, it's almost like you want more Americans to die considering what happens in gun free US cities. In other news, the majority of the US' clients are countries that are trying to defend themselves, like Taiwan and Israel, or Europe. In fact, they throw a hissy fit when the US decides to stop throwing weapons at them. Interesting how Russia and the PRC get no flack for their clients, which consist mainly of terrorist Islamist states, Communist shitholes, African tinpot dictators....

Israel dealing with weapons?? Such peaceful people, always suffering, oppressed by their gigantic tough neighbours...I'm quite surprised by this news...

What a dumb strawman argument. Nobody ever said Israel was a hippie commune without any weapons. They've been fighting for their survival since day one. Of course they have weapons.

Israel has been in a state of war, that the Arab League declared, since the day after the Israeli declaration of independence from the Ottoman Empire and the British Mandate of Palestine. Though peace treaties were brokered with Egypt and Jordan, there has never been a sovereign Palestinian state that Israel recognized in order to establish relations with, and Israel is still technically in a state of war with some of the other countries that attacked them in '48. The last time Israel took any significant amount of land from anyone was in 1967, and this land was taken from Jordan, Syria, and Egypt, whom Israel was at war with at the time. Yasser Arafat did not declare Palestinian independence until 1988.

Informative quiz! One small suggestion: I think totals (i.e. dollar amounts) would be more interesting to see than ranks.

We’re number one! We’re number one!

That isn't something to be proud of.

What about Japan?, I'm not saying it should be on the list though