Conquer Club

The US government has contacted Turkey to say that if Turkey buys anti-aircraft systems from Russia the US will not sell Turkey any fighter planes, on the grounds that US government finds it literally physically impossible to imagine a world in which it refrains from antagonising Russia:

Turkey has been given a deadline of the end of July to choose between buying US fighter jets and Russian anti-aircraft missile systems.

Acting US Defence Secretary Patrick Shanahan set out the ultimatum in a letter to his Turkish counterpart, Hulusi Akar.

Turkey, he said, could not have both America's F-35 advanced fighter jets and Russia's S-400 systems.

The Russian government has not issued a similar ultimatum and is understood to be accepting of a situation where Turkey buys military equipment from both Russia and the US.

So do you have any guesses why that might be a bad idea?

No collusion, no co-operation ? Or are they getting them mixed up?

Why is this a problem?

Should not the USG have the right to decide to whom it sells/doesn’t sell military items / weapons?

Are you suggesting that some world gov’t should intervene and force USG to allow sales of weaponry?

jimboston wrote:Why is this a problem?

This is only a problem for US... and not for Russia(obviously).
Russia has perfect idea what is selling and what capabilities the product has. Same can not be said for US and their fighter jet.

Too bad we need WW3 just to demonstrate the capabilities of S-400, and incapabilities of F-35

Fear is powerful enemy.

Russia will be happy to sell Turkey Sukhoi 35s.

KInda interesting Russia supplying nato weapons.

GoranZ wrote:

jimboston wrote:Why is this a problem?

This is only a problem for US... and not for Russia(obviously).
Russia has perfect idea what is selling and what capabilities the product has. Same can not be said for US and their fighter jet.

Too bad we need WW3 just to demonstrate the capabilities of S-400, and incapabilities of F-35

Fear is powerful enemy.

Turkey shot one of those down without even trying a couple years ago. How many American planes they taking down?

spurgistan wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

jimboston wrote:Why is this a problem?

This is only a problem for US... and not for Russia(obviously).
Russia has perfect idea what is selling and what capabilities the product has. Same can not be said for US and their fighter jet.

Too bad we need WW3 just to demonstrate the capabilities of S-400, and incapabilities of F-35

Fear is powerful enemy.

Turkey shot one of those down without even trying a couple years ago. How many American planes they taking down?

Japan just lost an F 35 to a cloud. How many Sukhois have clouds taken down?

Even the Canadians won't buy the F 35. That's a country that bought used subs from Britain that couldn't go underwater. (Seriously.)

The only decent aircraft we have now is the F 22 but the technology is so secret they can't actually use it in combat in case one gets captured. So now we own the world's most expensive air show exhibit.

Thanks, Obama!

GoranZ wrote:

jimboston wrote:Why is this a problem?

This is only a problem for US... and not for Russia(obviously).
Russia has perfect idea what is selling and what capabilities the product has. Same can not be said for US and their fighter jet.

Too bad we need WW3 just to demonstrate the capabilities of S-400, and incapabilities of F-35

Fear is powerful enemy.

You’re projecting.

You’re assigning ‘motives’ and ‘feelings’ to these countries as if they were individual people.

That’s not how geopolitics works.

armati wrote:
KInda interesting Russia supplying nato weapons.

Russia isn’t selling NATO weapons.

Russia is selling one NATO Member State weapons.

Big difference.

It’s less interesting that Russia is selling a NMS weapons and more interesting that said State would buy them.

Pick your side Turkey!

spurgistan wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

jimboston wrote:Why is this a problem?

This is only a problem for US... and not for Russia(obviously).
Russia has perfect idea what is selling and what capabilities the product has. Same can not be said for US and their fighter jet.

Too bad we need WW3 just to demonstrate the capabilities of S-400, and incapabilities of F-35

Fear is powerful enemy.

Turkey shot one of those down without even trying a couple years ago. How many American planes they taking down?

To be fair, they probably haven’t shot at any American planes... so it’s not a fair comparison.

saxitoxin wrote:

spurgistan wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

jimboston wrote:Why is this a problem?

This is only a problem for US... and not for Russia(obviously).
Russia has perfect idea what is selling and what capabilities the product has. Same can not be said for US and their fighter jet.

Too bad we need WW3 just to demonstrate the capabilities of S-400, and incapabilities of F-35

Fear is powerful enemy.

Turkey shot one of those down without even trying a couple years ago. How many American planes they taking down?

Japan just lost an F 35 to a cloud. How many Sukhois have clouds taken down?

Is this a reflection of the capabilities/quality of the F-35?

Or is it a reflection of the capabilities/quality of the pilot?

(I’m asking... I honestly don’t know... has this been investigated?)

... quick Google search shows me this particular F-35 was assembled in Japan.

saxitoxin wrote:The only decent aircraft we have now is the F 22 but the technology is so secret they can't actually use it in combat in case one gets captured. So now we own the world's most expensive air show exhibit.

Thanks, Obama!

Has there been a combat situation where this was needed?

In a real war the gloves come off... whereas in proxy wars or ‘interventions’ it’s often smarter to use tried & tested tools.

You’re also presuming the gov’t would actually tell us when/if it was used?
That’s unusual for you Saxi to believe everything the USG says.

jimboston wrote:Why is this a problem?

Should not the USG have the right to decide to whom it sells/doesn’t sell military items / weapons?

Are you suggesting that some world gov’t should intervene and force USG to allow sales of weaponry?

I won't answer your third question at all since it seems to be specifically for the OP and I can't speak for him.

As for your second question...

I could be cute and suggest that maybe if America is supposed to believe in the free market, that American manufacturers should be free to sell to whomever they want to without government interference. I won't even bother with that, since we all know the free market doesn't exist any more and the military-industrial complex is an interlocking mass of pseudo-private companies and public subsidies that can't be readily disentangled.

So, okay. American defense contractors are concubines that can only get into bed with countries the USG approves of, granted.

On to the first question. Why is this a problem?

As noted, it's an act of hostility. "When goods don't cross borders, armies do." Trade gives nations a motive for co-operation, restraint of trade reduces that motive. Embargoes are understood to be a low-level act of war. So, is there a clear motive for this hostility?

NATO was formed to stop the Soviets from rolling over Europe at a time when the Comintern was devoted to a goal of world domination. That threat no longer exists. The Russian government of today may be composed of ex-KGB agents, but they have long ago dropped any idea of world domination. They have a far more limited regional goals now, so why is NATO pushing them?

I don't see any morally valid goal here.

There was a time when America's mission statement was "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none." Maybe someone should remember that.

Dukasaur wrote:

jimboston wrote:Why is this a problem?

Should not the USG have the right to decide to whom it sells/doesn’t sell military items / weapons?

Are you suggesting that some world gov’t should intervene and force USG to allow sales of weaponry?

I won't answer your third question at all since it seems to be specifically for the OP and I can't speak for him.

As for your second question...

I could be cute and suggest that maybe if America is supposed to believe in the free market, that American manufacturers should be free to sell to whomever they want to without government interference. I won't even bother with that, since we all know the free market doesn't exist any more and the military-industrial complex is an interlocking mass of pseudo-private companies and public subsidies that can't be readily disentangled.

So, okay. American defense contractors are concubines that can only get into bed with countries the USG approves of, granted.

On to the first question. Why is this a problem?

As noted, it's an act of hostility. "When goods don't cross borders, armies do." Trade gives nations a motive for co-operation, restraint of trade reduces that motive. Embargoes are understood to be a low-level act of war. So, is there a clear motive for this hostility?

NATO was formed to stop the Soviets from rolling over Europe at a time when the Comintern was devoted to a goal of world domination. That threat no longer exists. The Russian government of today may be composed of ex-KGB agents, but they have long ago dropped any idea of world domination. They have a far more limited regional goals now, so why is NATO pushing them?

I don't see any morally valid goal here.

There was a time when America's mission statement was "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none." Maybe someone should remember that.

If you’re suggesting we abandon NATO, ok. I can get behind that possibly. I’d like it replaced with a smaller / more cohesive family of nations.

Going with your analogy.... if you have your concubines you want to share them with your buddies. So Turkey is a buddy and you let him borrow some...no problem. Then you find out that Turkey on the side is also sleeping with some dubious street whores (i.e. Russian weapons). You are within your rights to tell Turkey to stop, because you don’t want Turkey getting a VD and passing it to you.

Might the street whore’s pimp (i.e. Russian Gov’t)get mad... yes. You don’t care. Turkey needs to make up it’s mind.

If the pimp cleans up his act then you can play ball... but that’s not the current situation.

jimboston wrote:

Dukasaur wrote:

jimboston wrote:Why is this a problem?

Should not the USG have the right to decide to whom it sells/doesn’t sell military items / weapons?

Are you suggesting that some world gov’t should intervene and force USG to allow sales of weaponry?

I won't answer your third question at all since it seems to be specifically for the OP and I can't speak for him.

As for your second question...

I could be cute and suggest that maybe if America is supposed to believe in the free market, that American manufacturers should be free to sell to whomever they want to without government interference. I won't even bother with that, since we all know the free market doesn't exist any more and the military-industrial complex is an interlocking mass of pseudo-private companies and public subsidies that can't be readily disentangled.

So, okay. American defense contractors are concubines that can only get into bed with countries the USG approves of, granted.

On to the first question. Why is this a problem?

As noted, it's an act of hostility. "When goods don't cross borders, armies do." Trade gives nations a motive for co-operation, restraint of trade reduces that motive. Embargoes are understood to be a low-level act of war. So, is there a clear motive for this hostility?

NATO was formed to stop the Soviets from rolling over Europe at a time when the Comintern was devoted to a goal of world domination. That threat no longer exists. The Russian government of today may be composed of ex-KGB agents, but they have long ago dropped any idea of world domination. They have a far more limited regional goals now, so why is NATO pushing them?

I don't see any morally valid goal here.

There was a time when America's mission statement was "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations—entangling alliances with none." Maybe someone should remember that.

If you’re suggesting we abandon NATO, ok. I can get behind that possibly. I’d like it replaced with a smaller / more cohesive family of nations.

Going with your analogy.... if you have your concubines you want to share them with your buddies. So Turkey is a buddy and you let him borrow some...no problem. Then you find out that Turkey on the side is also sleeping with some dubious street whores (i.e. Russian weapons). You are within your rights to tell Turkey to stop, because you don’t want Turkey getting a VD and passing it to you.

Might the street whore’s pimp (i.e. Russian Gov’t)get mad... yes. You don’t care. Turkey needs to make up it’s mind.

If the pimp cleans up his act then you can play ball... but that’s not the current situation.

I love it when you talk dirty. I need a cigarette....

saxitoxin wrote:The only decent aircraft we have now is the F 22 but the technology is so secret they can't actually use it in combat in case one gets captured. So now we own the world's most expensive air show exhibit.

Thanks, Obama!

Unfortunately F-22 is no longer produced. In favor of the infamous F-35.

I think the Turks will be better without F-35, they dont need expensive toys

I think the thing about the americans not selling Turkey f 35s is they break yet another contract.

One more time the world sees their word is no good.
Iran says exactly that, no point making any agreements with the U.S., they are not trustworthy.

GoranZ wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:The only decent aircraft we have now is the F 22 but the technology is so secret they can't actually use it in combat in case one gets captured. So now we own the world's most expensive air show exhibit.

Thanks, Obama!

Unfortunately F-22 is no longer produced. In favor of the infamous F-35.

Yeah, most hilarious end to a production run in history.

The plane's tech is so secret we can't sell it to anyone, even the Australians who are willing to burn down their own TV stations to protect knowledge of the PM's inseam size. If we can't sell it to anyone then we lose economy of scale. If we lose economy of scale we can't afford to buy it ourselves. So now we have 187 planes that each cost as much as a frigate and can only be flown at airshows.

The F-15 is still the future.

saxitoxin wrote:

GoranZ wrote:

saxitoxin wrote:The only decent aircraft we have now is the F 22 but the technology is so secret they can't actually use it in combat in case one gets captured. So now we own the world's most expensive air show exhibit.

Thanks, Obama!

Unfortunately F-22 is no longer produced. In favor of the infamous F-35.

Yeah, most hilarious end to a production run in history.

The plane's tech is so secret we can't sell it to anyone, even the Australians who are willing to burn down their own TV stations to protect knowledge of the PM's inseam size. If we can't sell it to anyone then we lose economy of scale. If we lose economy of scale we can't afford to buy it ourselves. So now we have 187 planes that each cost as much as a frigate and can only be flown at airshows.

Sooner F-35 get face to face with worthy opponent from 4-th generation planes the better it will be for continuation of F-22 production.

P.S. I bet Russians forbid the Syrians to use the gifted S-300 against Israeli F-35

Fact is that Russia needs money and will sell their junk at a great discount.

If you are cash rich like Saudi Arabia, you will buy the best quality.....American hardware.

I think Saudi buys from the U.S. due to the deal for the petro dollar in 1971.
Sell oil only for american dollars and we will be your guard dogs.