Top arms exporters (including non-payment transfers) for 2007, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute website (billions of $ US):

1. USA 7,821
2.Russia 6,463
3. Germany 2,891
4. France 1,586
5. Netherlands 1,575
6. UK 978
7. Spain 825
8. Italy 694
9. PRC 562
10. Sweden 437
11. Poland 255
12. Israel 246
13. Canada 210
14. Switzerland 208
15. South Korea 80

I'd like to see an estimate in terms of quantities. I'm sure it'd look different.

Yeah, the USA may have sold/made the most money from their exports, but their technology is typically much more expensive that the cheap, mass produced products Russia makes. I was surprised to see the Netherlands made higher arms exports than the UK, not what I was expecting!

One thing to keep in mind with the figures I cited is that they probably include all natures of military and naval equipment, from naval vessels, tanks and jet fighter to mess tins, radios, trucks and field hospital tents.

There have been more than a few PhD's earned trying to unravel this entire topic. Frankly, it's not my area of expertise. SIPRI, despite their sometimes holier-than-thou attitude, generally has some pretty good info. There are others' the UN maintains some data, as does the Federation of American Scientists (try this one to start: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/asmp/index.html).

The problem, as noted, is made much more complex by the initial cost of the equipment, whether it is new or used, whether or not it is passed with a cost subsidy or even made a gift. As well, some of the data is compiled on a SWAG basis as the nations involved are not generally forthcoming with info.

Much of what the the old Soviet Union provided (at least for complex stuff like aircraft and AFVs) during the Cold War were 'monkey models', much-simplified and less-capable models of what they themselves were using. The Soviets were (rightly) worried about their kit falling into enemy hands and also about the capabilities of their clients to use and maintain sophisticated gear. (Considering that most Soviet equipment was specifically designed to be used by semi-trained conscripts on a two or three-year term, the latter thought seems a bit thin.) I get the impression that Chavez will be not be getting monkey models however; the Project 636 boats on order are an improvement over the older Project 877 KILO design.

I think our guys at shipyard will definitely "forget" to put something important in... Anyway when they would be ready it seems they would be of not much use to Chavez whose reign doesn't seem to last SO long :hmm:

As for Beslan - there was a difficulty for spec ops guys concerned with locals. You see on Caucasus everyone has firearms - shotguns, hunting rifles, trauma pistols and so on (sometimes illegal ones like AK-74, M-16 or else - in Chechnya totally illegal including machineguns, grenade throwers and mortars). It's a part of their mentality.
So when "highland freedom fighters" took the kids as hostages everybody in Beslan came at school building with what gunnery he could bring with him. And they all were eager to fight right now. Of course lot of them were parents of the kids inside the building. Spec ops spent a lot of time trying to persuade locals not to interfere into operation. And even after combat began, should any Police officer turn out of sight, locals immediately opened fire towards the terrorists (as they thought). The result was Spec ops members were caught between two fires - enemy's and friendly.
And even in such circumstances Spec ops managed to eliminate all those bastards.

Sorry for slight offtop, but there is more on Beslan.
There were of course mistakes in execution of this operation.
First of all authorities being guided by unconfirmed info decided not that this is a local crime and let the local officials to solve the problem. Leaders of the emergency staff were not the trained FSB officers but civilian officials.
They called for Alpha Spec Ops group of course, but this group is responsible for only a tactical part of any operation and they are trained best for tactical actions - strategy means a lot too and on this part there was a gap.
First of all local officials didn't care to make an effective perimeter and to prevent armed citizens from interfering into operation.
Then nobody was ready when combat began - there was no plan for assault.
Alpha group members where without body armour as they were taking observation stands. And straight from there they went into combat. They've had heavy losses (R.I.P. guys :nope: ). Taking into account that all this situation was a complete improvisation thanks God Alpha managed to rescue most part of hostages - about 600 out of 1000.

Thats really dodgey. The SAS over here make an imidieate action plan as soon as they arrive on station. the spec ops were there for some time if they hadn't make a plan if things turned sour before they could draw up a complete plan thats piss poor in my books. For something like spetznaz thats not good at all. Still no excuse to use tanks though, I mean christ its an anti-terrorist operation not Kiev! Probably killed a great deal of people who were on the other side of the walls they bashed down. Russian CQB teams seems to need a lot of training, as frequently their actions result in a very much unaceptable loss of civilian life. When terrorist operations happen in Russia, is it controlled independently by the police/fsb chief on the ground or does the modern reincarnation of the politburo control everything? If its all controlled centrally by the government its a prime example of how when everything is centralised it leads to mistakes and wasted time, it only serves to stifle personal initiative of those at the scene.

You didn't understand my point. Thing is not in was this specific operation lead centrally or not. It was lead by wrong people.
Well there were whole pile of other terroristic acts including plane-theft when FSB officers ruled the operation and result was positive.
Alpha is trained to highest standarts and they have a lot of experience but they can do a little when inept civilian officials are in command.
Staff's job is to weaken terrorists and to produce a moment for an assault goup to act. And that wasn't done in Beslan.
On the contrary there was hostage-taking act in Sochi in the year 2000 and everything went tip-top because there were FSB staff from the beginning until the end and no civilians at all.
I agree with you on the terms that centralisation is not always the best possible way.

Out of curiosity, have any other security services been faced with a hostage situation the size and scope of either the Beslan school or the Moscow theatre? There have been several airplane rescues (including Entebe) and embassy rescues, but I get the impression that these were all an order of magnitude smaller. No doubt the Russian SOF capability could be improved (whose cannot?) but mass hostage situations would seem to add an additional level of complexity.

Yea Waco TX, as big a cock up as Beslan.

Or Grenada 1983. Not a screwup though, perhaps more by luck than anything else.

Waco, whatever the politics involved or perceived, was hardly a classic hostage situation, with bad guys holding a gun on good guys a rescue was effected by other good guys. Which is not to say that the feds handled it well...

As to Grenada, I supported (and still do) the invasion, but the 'hostages' were clearly an excuse as opposed to a reason. Ways could have been found to get them out without fighting. Again, it hardly fits the classic hostage situation.

But thanks for mentioning them.

There is no argument that the Russian handling of Beslan was a Class A Gong Show, but it is far from certain that another agency (SAS, GSG-9, Delta Force, your choice) could have done substantially better. Huge numbers of captives, large numbers of willing-to-die fanatical captors armed with suicide belts, automatic weapons, grenade launchers, etc, the place wired to blow - it was a recipe for a poop sandwich no matter how you look at it.

An excuse for what? Grenada was hardly a strategic objective.

That US students were studying medicine there and, presumably, were in critical danger, was specifically cited by the US govt as one rationale for invading.

Damn, you took the words right off my keyboard. :up: