• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Arm the poor?

Fighters are more effective than SAMs in convincing the people that you're doing something about the external threat you're convoluting to keep them scared. You can fly fighters fast and low over the people and impress the hell out of them.
 
Darth Rotor said:
I agree with this: if he worries about US air strikes, he needs SAMS, though you can't just cede the skies to US airplanes. You need to have something up there for an integrated air defense posture, and Air to Air platforms have a flexibility that SAMs don't. It's a matter of force balancing.
Click to expand...

Well I'm rapidly exhausting my limited knowledge of air defence strategy, so I'll concede that airplanes might be needed. Nonetheless, I would still point to a fairly solid track record of the US blowing up enemy fighters before they have a chance to scramble. Also, if my memory serves me correctly, all the losses of US aircraft that I can remember in recent years have been to ground fire (talking about Iraq and Serbia, here).[/quote]

What Hugo is doing is for political effect as much as it is for capability augmentation.

DR
Click to expand...

This is entirely possible.

The fighter planes might also be useful if he's worried about a possible war with one of his neighbours, assuming the US wouldn't involve itself. Referral to a possible US threat might be an easier / more prudent way to justify the purchases than invoking possible regional opponents.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
The fighter planes might also be useful if he's worried about a possible war with one of his neighbours, assuming the US wouldn't involve itself. Referral to a possible US threat might be an easier / more prudent way to justify the purchases than invoking possible regional opponents.
Click to expand...

Good point. :)
 
Captain.Sassy said:
Many countries with socio-economic problems that need to be addressed spend some of their money on weapons. As soon as you accept that Venezuela has any legitimate reason to buy arms, then you accept that some level of military spending is necessary. The question becomes one of how much military spending is justifiable, which is a question that can only be answered by, in part, looking at how much money is available to spend. This is why considering military expenditures as a share of GDP is important, and also why considering whether these expenditures (a lot of capital expenditures, as I understand it, to make up for the declining useability of US weapons systems since further arms exports to Venezuela are now blocked) are 'one-offs' or continuous (the amortization question).

If it's 'not your bag' to hazard a guess as to what a reasonable level of GDP to spend on arms would be for Venezuela, then I have a hard time taking your assertion that Venezuela is spending too much at face value.

I hope this comment isn't coming off as rude or anything.

Cheers!
CS
Click to expand...

Please read my posts again. I mentioned the space race. I tried to stay to that subject. You are saying I am mentioning arms spending.

Do you have me mixed up with another poster? If not then bring the posts where I criticise their military spending.
 
My bad.

I thought we were talking about the arms spending in this thread, so I didn't realise you didn't consider the weapons purchases a waste of money. Looking back, when you said 'not my bag' I guess you meant 'I'm not talking about the arms', but I thought you meant 'I don't consider the question relevant'.

Of course, since Venezuela hasn't actually spent any money on a 'space race' yet, and since it has apparently spent money on weapons, I can perhaps be forgiven for my oversight given that you suggested not spending money on some things might be a good way to address the power shortage (which may be contestable, depending on the set up of their power grid, as I pointed out above).
 
Hey, if Uncle Hugo doesnt buy military hardware he then cannot bully companies into giving him their property and equipment at knockdown prices while facing the barrel of a gun eh?

That just wouldnt be gentlemanly............
 
funk de fino said:
Hey, if Uncle Hugo doesnt buy military hardware he then cannot bully companies into giving him their property and equipment at knockdown prices while facing the barrel of a gun eh?

That just wouldnt be gentlemanly............
Click to expand...

nonsence, they could do that with baseball bats.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
My bad.

I thought we were talking about the arms spending in this thread, so I didn't realise you didn't consider the weapons purchases a waste of money. Looking back, when you said 'not my bag' I guess you meant 'I'm not talking about the arms', but I thought you meant 'I don't consider the question relevant'.

Of course, since Venezuela hasn't actually spent any money on a 'space race' yet, and since it has apparently spent money on weapons, I can perhaps be forgiven for my oversight given that you suggested not spending money on some things might be a good way to address the power shortage (which may be contestable, depending on the set up of their power grid, as I pointed out above).
Click to expand...

Actually Venezuela has an own communications satelite, the Chineses send it to space for Venezuela. i cannot know if they really needed it. but sounds somewhat usefull.
 
for me we can include the space programm in this topic. hungry people dont need satelites.
 
DC said:
for me we can include the space programm in this topic. hungry people dont need satelites.
Click to expand...

Well, just as with arms spending vs. food spending, there is a marginal benefit to any increased spending on any priority that must be weighed against the marginal cost of reducing spending on another priority. By the logic of 'no space spending until everyone is well fed and educated', there would be no spending on space programmes anywhere in the world. In the case of communications satellites, there are decided developmental benefits to having access to communications channels, so saying 'no spending on communications infrastructure until everyone has more food' may in fact hamper development goals of reaching a certain level of wellbeing (HDI or GDP/Capita or however you want to measure it). Look at what India's doing with regards to trying to get wireless broadband to poor rural villages, by way of example.
 
AFAIK he was not talking about Russia or China putting a comms satellite up.

He wants a space industry to lauch his own.

Nice logic when the country is falling apart and his popularity is on the wane.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
Well, just as with arms spending vs. food spending, there is a marginal benefit to any increased spending on any priority that must be weighed against the marginal cost of reducing spending on another priority. By the logic of 'no space spending until everyone is well fed and educated', there would be no spending on space programmes anywhere in the world. In the case of communications satellites, there are decided developmental benefits to having access to communications channels, so saying 'no spending on communications infrastructure until everyone has more food' may in fact hamper development goals of reaching a certain level of wellbeing (HDI or GDP/Capita or however you want to measure it). Look at what India's doing with regards to trying to get wireless broadband to poor rural villages, by way of example.
Click to expand...

you arent that wrong i guess :D

well aslong the poor also benefit from it, its ok, and its not like there is a huge Famine in Venezuela.
 
funk de fino said:
AFAIK he was not talking about Russia or China putting a comms satellite up.

He wants a space industry to lauch his own.

Nice logic when the country is falling apart and his popularity is on the wane.
Click to expand...

what do you mean with falling apart?

and how low is his current popularity?
 
funk de fino said:
AFAIK he was not talking about Russia or China putting a comms satellite up.

He wants a space industry to lauch his own.

Nice logic when the country is falling apart and his popularity is on the wane.
Click to expand...

True, but we were talking about actual money spent. DC pointed out that Venezuela had put up a satellite.

The rocket-ship program talks (as opposed to the actual Venezuelan space presence) could be looked at a few ways:
1) 'friendship and amity, motherhood and freedom' diplomatic posturing with Russia
2) longer term development plans (I agree, probably not the best use of public funds right now but not a crazy idea in the longer term)
3) foolish posturing vis. US concerns about missile and nuclear weapon proliferation

I worry that it's #3. He mentioned a longer term space program along with Russia-Venezuela cooperation on nuclear power plants. The combination of the two technologies is exactly why everyone's so pissed at Iran right now.
 
Captain.Sassy said:
True, but we were talking about actual money spent. DC pointed out that Venezuela had put up a satellite.

The rocket-ship program talks (as opposed to the actual Venezuelan space presence) could be looked at a few ways:
1) 'friendship and amity, motherhood and freedom' diplomatic posturing with Russia
2) longer term development plans (I agree, probably not the best use of public funds right now but not a crazy idea in the longer term)
3) foolish posturing vis. US concerns about missile and nuclear weapon proliferation

I worry that it's #3. He mentioned a longer term space program along with Russia-Venezuela cooperation on nuclear power plants. The combination of the two technologies is exactly why everyone's so pissed at Iran right now.
Click to expand...


True, but I was not. I was talking about him mouthing off about a program that could potentially cost billions when his priorities at the moment should be elsewhere. That's all. If nuclear power is a solution to what we see now then I am al for it. I believe that he will be gone well before any of this comes to fruition so the #3 would not concern me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom