Talk:Arms industry

message: feels like a propaganda piece from Disinfopedia. Is this really all that can be said about a huge and strategically important industry, that some people get killed with "small arms", half of them probably in Africa? People kill people, you know. Watcher 20:55, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  And so do bullets. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.180.233 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Propaganda

message: I work in Security Assistance in dealing with Foreign Military Sales (FMS), and have attended class at the Defense Institute for Security Assistance Management (DISAM), but that doesn't make me an expert yet.  It really is a complex organization with stringent directives, much of which is outlined in the Secretary of Defense Instruction titled (currently) Joint Security Assistance Training Manual (JSAT), and the soon to be completed JSET which will replace the JSAT.
Let's face it, the world is not a safe place.  There are many reasons that we share our weapons, technology and practices (training) with other countries.  We share this with our allies to ensure that if and when we go into battle with them, we may have a better coordinated fight.  We give things to other countries as a gesture of good will.  Another very important part that is commonly overlooked is that when International Military Students come to the U.S. to train, they get to see the U.S. for what it really is, and can take their (hopefully pleasant) experiences home with them to share with their friends and families.  Since it is not uncommon for a Head of State have served in their nations military, there is a chance that they may have attended training in the U.S.  This is in fact the case with King Abdullah II of Jordan.  Another thing to be looked at is countries that we may have obligations (under treaties) to defend, such is the case with Japan and the Republic of Korea (South Korea).  If they purchase our technology (and the training to use it), it may partially relieve our responsibilities.
However, this article surely needs to be expanded.  Foreign Military Sales (FMS) is extremely important.  There should be separate articles for FMS, IMET, DCS, DISAM, International Military Student Officer (IMSO) (my job), Naval Education and Training Security Assistance Field Activity (NETSAFA), U.S. Army Security Assistance Training Field Activity (SATFA), Air Force Security Assistance Center (AFSAC), Security Assistance Officer (SAO) among others.  I would love to help write these articles, but I'm not an article writer.  I can help with facts, perhaps specific statistics, but I could not do it by myself.--Asacan 04:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Information on arms trade is hard to obtain. Not only illegal but also legal military transactions are often taking place in secret. Help improve and bring attention to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by M3taphysical (talk • contribs) 06:57, 21 December 2005 
Information wanted: Need some info on the weapons industry of France, Britain and Russia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by M3taphysical (talk • contribs) 17:48, 22 December 2005 
Please add methods of terrorits groups like LRA (Lords Resistance Army)obtaining weapons.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.243.228 (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Article expansion

message: The values in the Top Arms Exporters table seems to be completely wrong.  The total of the top arms exporters for 2006 is $1.2Billion, whereas the article also states "From 1989 to 1996, the global value of direct commercial arms sales was US$257 billion, of which 45% was exported from the US".  ($257/8 years = $32B/year, so unless the arms trade dropped by a factor of 25 in the next decade, those numbers are incorrect.)
The cited sources also give different values.
I added the contradiction flag at the top of the article, and added a sentence above the table telling people to go to the sources instead.  I don't know what the Wiki-appropriate edit should have been, but I assume that this article is sufficiently watched that someone will be aroudn shortly to clean it up.  Thank you. DMPalmer
The 'Top Arms Exporters' table is now gone, so I removed the contradiction flag.  I clarified that the table that replaced it excludes China (see the cited references.)  An accurate and complete breakdown of arms traffic (NPOV, of course) would be a useful addition to this page.  DMPalmer 04:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction (since removed) 

message: A large part of this piece seems to be an attempt to slander the United States and does not objectively look at arms sales worldwide. No mention is made of other major arms exporters in the same light... small arms exports are mentioned, but based on the article one would think that the United States is the primary supplier of small arms, when in fact it is Russia (whose AK-47 is the most widely produced assault weapon). I recommend that arms sales specifically related to the United States be moved to a new article titled, "Arms Sales of the United States," and then that article broken down into sections where criticisms such as the ones that exist in this article can be put into proper context.
:: Let's get it straight and speak only the truth.  What make people hate the States?  Here is an example.  Tell me what is wrong with this:
Harold Pinter The Nobel Prize in Literature 2005
And then there's this:
"The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, with a sales volume that exceeds the next 14 countries combined. Military sales equate to about 18 percent of the Federal budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any nation."
This is ridiculous! 18% of the $2.2 trillion federal budget (FY 2006) is $396 billion, yet according to SIPRI total arms sales worldwide totalled a maximum of $53 billion for 2004, with the United States making up approx. half of that.
"According to the 2005 annual US congress reports, 58% of all US arms trade contracts are made with developing countries."
This is especially misleading, because nowhere in the article does it cite that Russia is the largest exporter of arms to the developing world. (Source: CDI, "U.S. Arms Still Dominate International Market, Russia Leader to Developing World" Nov 15, 2006)
In summary, it seems that the intention of this article is to slander the United States by misleading the reader by using an extremely selective use of sources and "facts" that do not hold up to any kind of scrutiny. I recommend the United States be removed from this article entirely and be given its own entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 215.65.50.34 (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact the world won't be save while people like you still live.  You're not happy with what you named "extremely selective use of sources", and you make me wonder how in the world there are so many people, mainly in the States, so stupid and brainwashed like you.  It's really disturbing and I can see that more 2 or 3 right-wing administrations like Reagan and Bush, oil and arms industries puppets, will lead your country to civil war.  For as you know, fortunately there are also human beings left in your country that will not stand more of your worldwide misery and lies.
-
This clause seems wholly unsupported: "Entire nations, to use the parlance of the early 21st century, can go from the "Coalition of the Willing" to the "Axis of Evil" in very little time, and every change affects policy and the distribution of arms in the world."
Lostnihilist 17:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you brainwashed or just plain stupid?  Have a look in the East, mainly Near East, American foreign police in the last 50 years history.  How many times your enemies changed their names, how many times the same former enemies changed to big friends of yours? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.19.180.233 (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a better way of describing this process than using terms directed specifically at slandering the US.  That sentence and the following  ""Freedom fighters" become "insurgents". "Terrorists" become "invaluable allies", and "religious zealots" morph into "agents of stability". Entire nations, to use the parlance of the early 21st century, can go from the "Coalition of the Willing" to the "Axis of Evil" in very little time, and every change affects policy and the distribution of arms in the world."  are very much directed specifically at the US when many other nations have gone through the same process.  Should be put in an objective manner, not like it is, currently. James 03:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Shut up and accept the facts. U.S. = Evil. The cold hard facts, Christ.
-G
"Of course—and this is endemic of nearly every debate over arms trade—the terminology used and the people it refers to can be frustratingly fluid. As years pass, governments decide on new "interests" and circumstances change accordingly. "Freedom fighters" become "insurgents". "Terrorists" become "invaluable allies", and "religious zealots" morph into "agents of stability". Entire nations, to use the parlance of the early 21st century, can go from the "Coalition of the Willing" to the "Axis of Evil" in very little time, and every change affects policy and the distribution of arms in the world."
I removed that^. It is obviously written by someone with a bias against the US, and anyone that cannot see it is either blind, a fool, or both. "Coalition of the Willing" and "Axis of Evil" being two terms used by the Bush administration and seem to criticize such beliefs. Also personal opinions are personal opinions, and are discouraged on Wikipedia when it comes to making a case for or against. In addition, they are quotes without any reference.
"Entire nations, to use the parlance of the early 21st century, can go from the "Coalition of the Willing" to the "Axis of Evil" in very little time," has no source to back it up. Who says that it can go from one to the other in very little time. Let's be honest here. This is a slam against the USA and if we take it as that, it is factually incorrect on account that the "Axis of Evil" included North Korea and the United State's relations with North Korea have pretty clear since the Korean War. When were they ever part of the "Coalition of the Willing"?
HeronMark (talk) 01:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid criticism of the United States 

message: The volume of transactions for specific contries can vary a lot from year to year and comments about the volume for a single year could be misleading and become irrelevent in the future.
Many statistical figures originally contained in this article come from this annual CRS report to Congress:
Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 1997-2004
However, other figues originally contained in this article come from the appendices of the SIPRI Yearbook 2005 which are producing quite a different picture even considering that they are stated in 1990 dollars.
--Astator 04:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical support 

message: I've tried to NPOV this article a bit, removing weasel phrases such as There are often allegations of political corruption in regard to large arms contracts. I'm sure there are, but without further context or citations (of wide spread practice, not individual incidents), it is IMO a pov statement.  Also removed the bit about how many people get killed by guns, which doesn't belong in the article, as well as the misunderstanding of both irony and the role of the Security Council.
An account of the oposition to arm trade aught to be in the article, but the article should not be an outlet for their ideas. --BadSeed 10:26, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Is it really necessary to have a list of the major weapon manufacturing companies in the world, considering there's already an article for that (See: List of modern armament manufacturers)? At least, I'd try to shorten it, clarify it, maybe put it into some table. I've made some research and it seems most of sources I stumble upon are very subjective and unreliable. This article will be hard to complete. --Ludvig 03:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Weapon manufacturers 

message: I created a table for the data listed here.  I don't know how to right justify the figures, so if somebody could do that I would appreciate it.  Also, if the original author (or somebody) could clarify what they mean by "current US dollars" and "1990 US dollars", that would really help the understandability of the article. Tabun1015 02:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest Weapons Exporters 

message: This article could use a "history" section, if anyone's willing to do the research to write it. Isomorphic 01:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lacking in history

message: The AK-47 is the most widely-copied weapon in the world and, according to the Russians, who would very much like a larger piece of the action, most are made illegally by nations and private enterprises which don't pay a license fee to the Russian patent holder. So equating numbers of AK-47s with any sort of Russian dominance seems hasty at best. Even with developing countries, more than two thirds of Russian transfers were to China and India, economic powerhouses in their own right and major military and nuclear powers besides. Is it fair to equate these two nations with countries such as Uganda or Nigeria? 
Moreover, Russian exports are steadily declining, and EU and Israeli exports increasing, so statistics given for a range of years, especially in the past, may misstate the instantaneous, or even annual figures for the countries mentioned. See the current SIPRI report, among others.
It's also hard to equate the numbers released by the various agencies cited in both the main article and in these comments with reality, since terms of art, apples and oranges comparisons, and outright obfuscation mar most of them. Sales to developing nations are not the same as the arms trade in its entirety, since a large part of US output, for example, goes to developed countries. Canada, for example, buys from us, as do Taiwan, Australia, and many others, and all the official reports very clearly state that they reveal only unclassified information, so we must suppose that CIA-mediated and other clandestine transfers don't show up in the statistics. In the end, the article relies on the informed guesswork of SIPRI and other organizations with somewhat less of an agenda and/or political mandate than many official government agencies. 
The SIPRI report cited is actually last year's edition, and has been superceded by the 2006 version here:  SIPRI Yearbook 2006 
L-3 Communications makes the sighting systems for weapons, as well as logistical support systems for military operations, so excluding it from the list, in this era of subcontractors taking on tiny bits of each finished product, seems slightly obsessive. One could easily carry this to extremes, and exclude the manufacturers of explosives, for example, because they have to be packed into a bomb in order to qualify as a weapon, or bullets, because they don't become weapons of war until fired from a gun at another human being. Indeed, there are those who use AK-47s to hunt deer and other game, so perhaps many of these so-called assault rifles are actually intended for jolly bands of huntsmen, out to shoot ducks or quail.
Likewise Carlyle Group profits from or substantially owns several defense companies. Are the owners of a business somehow not responsible for what they produce? Even if the relative amount of Carlyle capital invested in weapons contractors is minor? One notes that Aerospace & Defense are specialties, while plowshares are not. Not much money in the latter, one must suppose. Lee-Anne 14:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mikhail Kalashnikov never patented the design for the AK47, hence until 1999 there was nothing illegal about other nations building their own versions or even exact copies.  IZH's claim to the patent, issued 52 years after the rifle was first created, is incredibly dubious.  Just a little titbit which might be of interest.  Happy-melon 17:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AK-47 and Other Misunderstandings 

message: Currently the stats are all incorrect.
:I've reverted the section to a previous version. Feel free to remove/revert the vandalism if you see it. Thanks, Ladida 11:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table vandalism 

message: There seems to be very little distinction between legitimate, legal arms trading and illegal weapons smuggling (which is what it should be called). This is important because small arms smuggling is usually the area of concern for most people concerned with current events in war-torn regions and is what "arms trade" means to a lot of people; whereas legitimate trading between, say, the US and Mexico, is entirely different. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.151.181.214 (talk) 21:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal vs. Legal Arms Trading 

message: According to more current figures from 2006, Russia and France have taken over as the leading countries in arms dealing -- why is this not reflected in the article?????  Here is the link to the article setting this out.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2d383264-f486-4305-9336-d6178d88f3b2&k=70609 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.230.224.34 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated Figures 

message: This article seems to violate the NPOV rule badly, especially the last part of global impact.  While America's policies might be questionable, this is not the place to do it.  I'm shocked that this whole talk page hasn't turned into a flame war considering how vehement most editors are about keeping POV out of an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.177.83.13 (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First post ever 

message: The whole thing is awful. Even the very first line: "The Arms Industry is a massive global industry." Someone needs to rewrite this to a professional standard; I'd do it myself, but I don't have a good enough understanding of the subject matter. Ironically, I came here to learn more about it...  --boiled_elephant 15:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Lack Of Quality 

message: How can this article say that the US is by far the largest exporter of arms when this position is, according to many sources, held by Russia.
Sources: 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200606/s1661277.htm
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2d383264-f486-4305-9336-d6178d88f3b2&k=70609 User:Ilya1166 2 June 2007
Both sources are rather fishy (incompetent journalist irresposible blab apparently).
According to SIPRI data (and their numbers I take anyday over what "borzopisci" write), largest armes exporter IS USA, with Russia not far behind.
Why are you giving a link that refers to 2005? It is now 2008 and the United Kingdom is currently the largest exporter of armaments. 
~'BS Detector'~ 15 November 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 20:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: US is not the largest exporter of arms

message: I won't bother correcting the article since truth is usually deleted and called 'vandalism'. However, for anyone interested in truth as opposed to propaganda you will find that the United Kingdom is in fact the world's largest arms exporter. I include the following references.
http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto061720081820345462
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90778/90858/90865/6432795.html
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-06/18/content_8394781.htm
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/6214
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/2791850/UK-leads-world-market-in-defence-exports.html
etc etc.
~BS Detector~  14 November 2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For anyone interested in truth. 

message: I know the defense budget for the US is nowhere near 12.11% of the country's GDP - closer to 5%, really.  And either the US figure of 987.5 billion is wrong, or the total for the world is wrong - just sum up the top several countries and the discrepancies become clear.  I'm not sure where to find a good source for this, so I won't try fixing it myself - but I thought I'd bring it up. 163.118.220.229 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defense budget error 

message: There was a note in the "World's largest defence budgets" where it said that venezuela budget was 50 to 80 Billion USD, that's just impossible, Check the CIA Factbook at https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ve.html#Military and there you have that venezuela military budget it's around 1.2% of its GDP, reaching as much as 4.5 Billion USD  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.79.202.110 (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venezuela's Military Budget 

message: I am dismayed to see some new edits that are injecting politics into this wiki-article.  What, pray tell, does "small arms-conflicts" mean?  Clearly, this is a fabricated political term of art invented by hoplophobes. The statistic quoted from the Oxfam report is meaningless.  No modern war is fought entirely with small arms.  Statistically, most casualties are caused by aerial bombs, artillery shells, mortars, and rockets, NOT small arms.  THERE ARE NO  "small arms-conflicts", but there ARE conflicts that include the use of small arms.   To assign the aggregate death toll to a weapons system that is in fact has a minority causal relationship, and then give a name attributing the deaths wholly TO that system is intellectually dishonest, at best, and political strong-arming at worst. In the early 21st Century, perhaps the only "conflicts" that take place entirely with small arms are fought by urban street gangs.  So, with a high degree of certainly, the cited annual death toll in the hundreds of thousands is specious.  Unless or until a less blatantly-biased source can be cited, this politicized statistical detrius from the Oxfam politicos should be removed from the article..  Trasel (talk) 04:30, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You've side-stepped the key issue:  THERE ARE NO  "small arms-conflicts". That term is a politicized construct.  Do a Google search on the phrase "small arms-conflicts" and you will see that the alleged "reference" essentially invented the term.  How can you accuse me of injecting opinion into the article, when all that I'm trying to do is delete some unsubstantiated balderdash another editor inserted? To insert that sort of blatantly-biased POV into this article without balance or attribution of the origin of the phrase is irresponsible and most unwikilike. Trasel (talk) 03:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: New Attempts at Politicizing

message: SIPRI published data for 2008, a good summary is here. Have fun. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that TheFourFreedoms has been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Trends

message: I propose to remove the "Pop culture" section; it doesn't add anything to the article. Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Unless someone protests, I'll just remove it in some days. Greswik (talk) 18:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture 

message: Turkey and Iraq have higher military spending than Spain. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong chart 

message: This section reads like nothing more than editorialising and moralising, and can hardly be considered NPOV.
128.104.49.177 (talk) 03:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Arms_exports#Ethical_dimension|Ethical dimension]] section 

message: These two articles seem similar. Merge? TGCP (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Defense industry]] ?

message: No country specific picture? Having either a US ship or a Turkish ship, you are not going to avoid a country specific picture (unless you have a picture of several ships from different nations). So why did I replace the previous picture? The opening collage is dominated by US images. A US ship under naval systems makes this article even more US-centric when it comes to images (the AK-47 being an exception). The new image adds a bit of variety. Secondly, this article is also about arms exports, and the new image I put in is an example of a naval system that has been exported, the previous image was not. Chwyatt (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naval systems picture 

message: He was a successful general and a president—i.e., someone with proven executive talent, and someone who would dress down and then fire someone who was too stupid to remain in a position under him. I wish he was here today so that some of the visitors to this article could tell him that his farewell presidential address was worthless and meaningless because, as one recent comical edit summary had it, "what gov does with arms isn't about the industry that makes them". When I have more time to devote to it, I will rewrite the "risks"/"criticisms" section so that it is more encyclopedic and cites, for example, that address directly. But the themes that were already here, albeit in a draft that people didn't approve of, are the same themes that will be covered therein. Just another instance of the general Wikipedian principle that there are those who work with existing valid content to fix its flaws, 
and then there are those who just delete it because they're lazy and, judging by some of the edit summaries, not very informed either. See you later—I'll be back to re-add the revised draft when I get time. — ¾-10 03:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dwight Eisenhower would kick some asses around here 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:F-247 TCG Kemal Reis.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: http://en.rian.ru/world/20120210/171252979.html --Alibaba445 (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian Arms exports are 14 Billion US Dollars in 2012 

message: The table of the world's largest arms exporters claims, that iceland is the worlds 10th largest exporter. But that's definetely false. Can someone correct that? 
--41.135.177.117 (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iceland Place 10?? 

message: Recently an editor has undertaken to remove sourced information about Algeria. The edit-warring to blank Algeria from the table of top importers also removed the recent source which I added to replace the old one whose link  does not work. In their edit-summaries, the user removing the information leaves comments which are unclear at best. Their latest implies that the new source I added is wrong and that s/he has talked about it. But there is no trace of any comments of his on this talkpage regarding my source. I will consider any further removals of this cited information without engaging on this talkpage not only as edit-warring but also unjustified blanking. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  23:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sourced information 

message: Will the two editors please stop edit warring over the "Largest defense industry companies" table. Note that the table is sourced from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute for the year 2013. Please do not add alternative sources to the table as that would constitute WP:SYNTH, and is against Wikipedia's policies. Cheers. Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit warring

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Arms industry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fpa.org/newsletter_info2584/newsletter_info.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050520090124/http://www.sipri.org:80/contents/armstrad/ to http://www.sipri.org/contents/armstrad/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100708205432/http://www.sipri.org:80/research/armaments/production/Top100/data/copy2_of_top1002008 to http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/production/Top100/data/copy2_of_top1002008
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141226134428/http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/production/recent-trends-in-arms-industry/Fact%20Sheet%20Top100%202013.pdf to http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/production/recent-trends-in-arms-industry/Fact%20Sheet%20Top100%202013.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071018160005/http://europa-eu-un.org:80/articles/en/article_7338_en.htm to http://www.europa-eu-un.org/articles/en/article_7338_en.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110524090136/http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/production/Top100 to http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/production/Top100
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504104156/http://www.worldsecurityinstitute.org:80/showarticle.cfm?id=195 to http://www.worldsecurityinstitute.org/showarticle.cfm?id=195
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There's a lot that could be said about the History of the arms industry, going back at least to Europe and the invention of firearms, and perhaps before that.  The Trebuchet article has a history section all on its own, just for that one type of weapon; does the whole industry rate any less? Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see a "history" section in the current version. It could certainly be improved. Trebauchets are pre-industrial. Felsic2 (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacks a History section 

message: I'd like to see a "Definition and terminology" section.  For example, currently, Weapons industry redirects here; I wasn't sure if weapons and arms were completely synonymous or not. What about armament, is "arms" just an abbreviation for that?  Does 'industry' imply we're past the Industrial Revolution so that nothing that came before was part of it?  (That leaves out the Trebuchet and gunpowder.)  If it's just artisanal, one-off production, with no interchangeability of parts or mass production, is it still an arms industry?
I'd like to see all these definitions and questions taken up in a Definition and terminology section. Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition and terminology section needed 

message: i want to send my staff for training i do wish to know the cost implication 
my e-mail address (tonyyusuf@yahoo.co.uk) whatsapp Number +234803676339741.217.3.145 (talk) 08:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  training to improve in skills 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Arms industry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723081459/http://controlarms.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Shattered-lives-the-case-for-tough-international-arms-control.pdf to http://controlarms.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Shattered-lives-the-case-for-tough-international-arms-control.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldsecurityinstitute.org/showarticle.cfm?id=195
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: How is the total sales for Northrop Grumman a lower number than the arms sales number? The column right next to these clearly states that 86% or revenue comes from defense/arms sales which would lead me to conclude the total sales should be higher. I have tried correcting this in the past but it looks like someone is set on reporting different numbers. Could someone care to explain?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:3C0D:3F00:7114:95D3:276F:81DA (talk) 23:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi and welcome, your right the page need a new update, I will look for new sources , thanks. LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 07:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: someone have already updated the information of the year 2018 , thanks. LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in total sales for Northrop Grumman 

message: The term war industry is sometimes used, as in the War Industries Board and War Industry Committees -ApexUnderground (talk) 03:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  War industry