Thailand buys Gripen, or will they?

[Viggen]

If SAAB sells Gripen to a country that may use them for war and it would do "very good" in combat. That would increase its apeal on the market, right? But why cant SAAB or General Dynamics sell their equipment to countries where they had a coup or being instable? It does not make any sense, weapons of any form are destructive, no matter in whos hands it´s in.

We cant sell you these aircraft because you might use them for their true purpouse.... That is just bullshit! (pardon my french). 

I hope the deal goes through, both for Sweden and Thailands sake.

[Globetrotter]

sorry to go offtopic, but isn't 12 years a little bit too much? I mean, you have planned  a lot of time!

Anyway, it is better than our situation, we don't even know when we're gonna change the IIIEA hehe

[Raptor]

I wrote a very nice and long reply, then something happened to the browser.

In short, anyway, weapons are deterrent. It wouldn't be nice if Lockheed Martin was embargoed by suppliers and looses all its customers.

[Viggen]

I wrote a very nice and long reply, then something happened to the browser.

In short, anyway, weapons are deterrent. It wouldn't be nice if Lockheed Martin was embargoed by suppliers and looses all its customers.

True, but the rules are still confusing. How come Israel got to buy F-16´s, while we all know that they are used in a offensive way, by bombing palestinians? 

[alyster]

Because if any senator / congreman speaks out against Israel he gets a major negative campain against him next elections. Carter(if I'm not harshly mistking with the name) has the luxury as an expresident to speak up, others don't.

Your comparison is good. In Lebanon Israel even bombed a red cross convoy, not to mention stuff like water supply, power plants which were needed for hospidals and so on.

[Raptor]

Viggen-

what he said.

Israel bought F-16s. Have they purchased any recently? I'm not sure. But from what the media feeds us here, Israel does it in a offensive-defensive way.

[Viggen]

Ok, they have not bought any recently. But they still need ammo, engines need spareparts etc etc... 

[alyster]

Recently? Does it really matter?
I mean...
1956 Israeli-Arab war (a colonial war btw)
1967 Six Day war ("pre-emtive defensive strike" in short attack)
1981 a strike against iraqi nuclear facility*
1982 invasion of Lebanon
2006 Lebanon war
2007 Strike against Syria
... were not excatly what I'd call defense 

*F-16s went into a dive. 

BTW don't they have 50 or something Falcons on order?

[Raptor]

I see. The US has done much worse.
Argentina went all out and lost a war... Hooray Harriers!

50 Falcons is quite a lot. But the US supports the Israeli's anti-whatever policy. *Shrug*

[Webmaster]

They are taking deliveries of new F-16I "Sufa", as we speak. They are Block 52 two-seaters, with CFT and lots of Israeli components of course. 50 ordered in 2000, 52 more in 2001, first deliveries in 2003, final deliveries in 2009. Deal of 4.5 billion USD.

US promised Israel some 30 billion military aid for the next 10 years. Few more years and they'll start shopping for a fifth gen fighter, F-35 probably...

If SAAB sells Gripen to a country that may use them for war and it would do "very good" in combat. That would increase its apeal on the market, right? But why cant SAAB or General Dynamics sell their equipment to countries where they had a coup or being instable? It does not make any sense, weapons of any form are destructive, no matter in whos hands it´s in.

Politics. Actually the "rules" depend on what the government's policies are and how they are prioritized, more than whether the weapon will be used yes or no. Deliveries weapons would not reflect the government's policy of protesting human right violations, defusing the instability, not recognizing the new goverment, or not fuel an arms race or support a regime, or whatever the case. If the policy of supporting an important ally is more important than such things, weapons are delivered even though they are not just a deterrent and actually used. It's just politics... it's not as simple as weapons are good vs weapons are bad.

The Netherlands (initially) supported the Operation Iraqi Freedom politically, but not military. Which was actually something like saying, we don't want a war, don't want conflict, but we must agree with and support the US on anything they do and Saddam is bad, so okay you can invade another country and kill people...

Anyway, I think the Swedish government will add up all the pros and cons of this deal, and let it go through. Since the US reluctance to sell them new F-16s, I wonder if there will be any intervention from the US on this though, because of the US components? Thailand has not been placed under a US embargo, right? Otherwise, it would be time to fit the EJ200?

[Viggen]

Embargo?, Not that i know of.  The EJ200 is long overdue, they should of allready fitted it. 

I hate stuff like this, first news all over the papers and on TV, now not a word.  If the deal is so important, why dont they let us know anything. Hate being kept in the dark.

I dont think there will be an intervetion from US, and Sweden has learned its lesson from the Viggen-era. US might even make some money of it, because of that. Im more worried about these peace-fanatics who might get some strong political assistance (backup)  and mess the whole deal up. 

[Globetrotter]

Raptor, what do you mean with the allusion to the Malvinas war? I think I missed something