MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Meeting in Buenos Aires to “recondition Argentine missiles” with Brazilian technology
Brazil’s Minister of Defence Celso Amorim is in Buenos Aires for several scheduled meetings this week with his Argentine counterpart Arturo Puricelli and to establish closer ties in defence issues in the framework of Unasur (Union of South American nations). Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOf course, if Britain decided to 'recondition' its missiles on the Falkland Islands, both Brazil and Argentin would scream about the 'militarization' of the south Atlantic.
Sep 06th, 2011 - 02:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just as well ours are full up-to-date isn't it !
@1 thanks to American technology, yes.
Sep 06th, 2011 - 03:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0@2 - Its better than brazilian technology though isn't it, but then you wouldn't know as your country can not afford anything but remanufactured missles, whilst ours are replaced with brand new ones. And alot of our missles are our own designed and built missles.
Sep 06th, 2011 - 04:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Funny how only a few days ago they were on about a joint space agency to defend from space, now missles being remanufactured with brazilian technology. Hmm funny that, may be my posts on the article for the space agency were not far from the truth afterall.
I guess the 'blue touch paper ' is past its 'best before' date....
Sep 06th, 2011 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just a side note. The era of the aircraft carrier is coming to an end. see dongfeng 21-D.
Sep 06th, 2011 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0now obviously im not saying argentina would have these any time soon, but carriers are now no-longer what they used to be, thanks to these.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21
hypersonic, mach 10. And i bet they cost a whole lot less.
a good idea, but you forgot the 3rd rule,??
Sep 06th, 2011 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it has not yet been fully tested, and the west is already counteracting it,
china is still growing, she and india will not reach full potential untill at least 2040/50,
and besides, this will in no way affect the argentine question
at the end of the day, [as you lot have been told often enough]
it will be between argentina and great britain,
you may have sightings of south america in tow, we have the commonwealth, but not all would want to get involved if it came to violence, your only distent hope is either [hugo] or [brazil]
we on the other hand have been used to standing alone, so what ever happens the brits will stand .
Let me guess, Argentina have transferred technology from the golf ball and have added dimples to the rocks they are to fire from their catapults. With that and extra strong elastic bands then they would be a force to be fec
Sep 06th, 2011 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I did try to make it clear that my comment was nothing to do with your usual obsession. Breath, count to 10. Its not an 'idea'.
Sep 06th, 2011 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway, Id be VERY interested in the idea of counteracting even 1 of these, let alone multiples synchronised- as i said i guess theyre a whole lot cheaper than a carrier.
China has left an element of the balance of world power behind it through this missile. Nato loses on this one.
@2 and 7: Laugh all you like, yet in 1982 the British economic losses due to lost military resources were far superior to Argentine. You sank a 1940 ship and 1960 planes, we were sinking modern warships and planes (without US satellite assistant might I add). So yes, your friendship with the US has paid off and you get modern equipment - it would be better if you learnt how to use it properly.
Sep 06th, 2011 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0go to Pentagon,tell them the qualifications of British army ,not here !!
Sep 06th, 2011 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I anticipate that many future tranches of repayment for Argentinian soy beans will be paid-for and reciprocated with Chinese missile technology.
Sep 06th, 2011 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The SA arms race will begin with increasingly bellicose rhetoric, creating enemies where there are none, and preparing for unnecessary battles which will be fought with foreign weapons to establish a power-heirarchy of bellicosity across a whole Continent.
Because, with instability come the greatest opportunities for outside intervention and exploitation.
Beware of Defence Ministers and Presidents who focus a nation's attention on matters military.
Toneas - the only reason we sank a couple of ships was that after we sunk te Belgrano te rest of your navy shit themselves and didn't venture out of port! If they had we could have laid waster to your navy at will. We in the otter hand we operating from our floating platforms and still won despite the ships we lost.
Sep 06th, 2011 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What economic losses. Is our armed force full of 1982 era
Subs and aircraft? Is yours?
Let the oil flow!
11
Sep 06th, 2011 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Beware of defense ministers and presidents who focus a nations attention on matters military. Yes, you must be talking of UK, USA, etc nations that are always in war, to hide little problems like the recession they have now and dont know how to resolve.
@malen,
Sep 06th, 2011 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ignore him. Despite his self-assured writing style, he generally doesn't know what he's talking about. This is specially so when it comes to foreign policy and economics. There's no arms race in South America. The region as a whole spends on the military budget less than 2% of its GDP.* That makes it the least militarized region in the world. An escalation of tensions in the region also seems distant when one considers so many of us are investing in intra-regional relations as a means of softening the impact of the next global economic crisis.
______
* The only exceptions to that are Chile and Colombia. Colombia is of course worried mainly about its internal issues; and Chile, it is concerned mostly with dissuading Peru and Bolivia from taking any action against it in the future. Despite some hysteria in right-wing circles concerning Venezuela's defense spending, even it spends relatively on weapons and military affairs.
Hello, Malen!
Sep 06th, 2011 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You've been taking flack and giving it back a lot recently. We are not at war personally.
My comments relate as much to the NATO countries that use WMDs to validate wars as they do to SA nations that talk up military position, postures and spend.
When two big continental players' Defense Ministers kick off in harmony with the 'Defense' rhetoric I get distinctly twitchy.
IMO there is absolutely no need to divert monies from urgently needed civil development to military development featuring the further militarising of space, missiles, etc.
Much needed integrated anti-drug defense needs a very different profile to that which our two august Defense ministers are promoting.
14 Agree with you
Sep 06th, 2011 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Télam (Argentina) reported today the first full UNASUR joint defense exercise.
Sep 06th, 2011 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lasting 3 days, the ‘regional peace-keeping operation’ was organized by the Argentine Defense Ministry’s Secretary of Strategy and Military Affairs, and carried out on army land in B.A..
The rationale, scenario and scope (military battle hardware) is unknown - at least to Télam - but it is viewed as a 'statement of intent' co-inciding as it does with Amorim's visit and Brasil's agreement to renovate some Argentinian 'missiles'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
Sep 06th, 2011 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Defense spending as a percentage of GDP:
- South America
Argentina: 1%
Bolivia: 2%
Brazil: 1.6%
Chile: 3.5%
Colombia: 3.7%
Paraguay: 0.9%
Peru: 1.4%
Uruguay: 1.6%
Venezuela: 1.3%
Average: 1.9%
Spends more than 2% of GDP on military budget: 2/9 countries (22%).
- Great powers:
China: 2.2%
France: 2.5%
Japan: 1%
Russia: 4.3%
UK: 2.7%
US: 4.7%
Average: 2.9%
Spends more than 2% of GDP on military budget: 5/6 countries (83%).
- States in war-prone areas:
Greece: 3.2%
India: 1.8%
Israel: 6.3%
Pakistan: 2.8%
Saudi Arabia: 2.8%
South Korea: 2.9%
Turkey: 2.7%
Average: 3.2%
Spends more than 2% of GDP on military budget: 6/7 countries (86%).
Conclusion: Whoever says there's an arms race in South America, or that the region overspends in the military, is full of shit.
@14 @18 Brazil has said on numerous occasions that it is planning to increase Defense spending as they are concerned about the protection of their natural resources. This was particularly fueled by the discovery of the oil fields in Sao Paulo and Rio. They are in stages of developing a nuclear sub and have plans to acquire modern jet planes for their air force (F-18, Grippen or Raffale). You can bet that Argentina especially will not sit idle whilst they arm themselves (despite the good relations both countries enjoy).
Sep 07th, 2011 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://gcreport.com/index.php/analysis/193-englands-loosening-grip-on-the-falklands
Sep 07th, 2011 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0argentina will use others to get her own way .
@ 18 Forgetit87 (#)
Sep 07th, 2011 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0I completely agree with you when you say: “....conclusion: Whoever says there's an arms race in South America, or that the region overspends in the military, is full of shit...”
Some people likes to feed this Falklands theme but the truth is what South American countries are doing is to trying to maintain a minimum military to defend themselves from clearly much stronger external forces.
A high comissioner from US Army said once that depending on what Brazil does with the Amazon they should interfere by force. You can't trust on them. If you could, they would say “we will work at Brazil's side to protect environment of the Amazon”.
Remembering that US fommented the coup of state and the supoorted the military dictatorships of the whole continent. They even positioned their navy in the south atlantic to ensure the Brazil's coup of state success.
Even an eventual SATO (South Atlantic Treaty Organization) would be welcome for South America. Not to “challenge” NATO but to improve independence of the area from external powers.
so in your honest opinion
Sep 07th, 2011 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0brazil and argentina,
what enemies do you think or consider that they have at this moment in time,
enenies not countries that thay may or may not get on with .
So, are the nations of South America gearing up their arms industries and armed forces to defend themselves from:
Sep 07th, 2011 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. the USA, Russia, China, Japan and the EU? . . . . Or
2. others amongst the South American nations (internicine strife = of, or relating to, conflict within a group or organization). Or . . . .
3. The Falkland Islands.
If 1.,
the massive differences in GDP between the two groups means that the S.A. 'GDP: Annual Defence Spend Ratio' over many years will need to massively increase both elements, with the Annual Defense Spend % exceeding that of “The Enemies” for at least a generation. Only then will the South American armed bloc be able to fight a 'real' war with any chance of a Win or a Draw.
If 2.,
the size and economic disparity between S.A. nations means that Brasil will always prevail unless other nations like Argentina and Venezuela increase 'Defence' spending eg. x10 c.f. Brasil.
Only Venezuela has the (oil) money to do this and the political environment to make it happen.
The small S.A. nations can be militarily discounted, though they each command 'one vote' and so can condition politically the course of events (as we see with Paraguay within Mercosur).
If 3.,
then the 'refurbished missiles' will need a 250---300 nautical mile operative radius, and the deployment of such missiles will be viewed in the same light as the Cuban missile deployment of half a century ago.
Power politics will prevail rather than weaponry, and any change will follow the Israel-'Palestine' UN route.
So, what is South America setting itself up to defend? . . . .
Its land,
its food,
its raw material resources,
its continental EEZ,
its right to cut down the rainforests,
? its ability to remain a continent controlled by the axis of the (far) Left.
Yes, South America has much to defend,
but *force of arms* will not be the way it best defends itself.
Coherent, integrated and *good, ethical * management of the continent's assets is the way to go.
they cannot answer something that does not exist,
Sep 07th, 2011 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0so again argetine aggresion, and again keeps pushing.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!