This report provides Congress with official, unclassified, background data from U.S. government sources on transfers of conventional arms to developing nations by major suppliers for the period 2004 through 2011. It also includes some data on worldwide supplier transactions. It updates and revises CRS Report R42017, Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations, 2003-2010 , by [author name scrubbed]. Data in this report provide a means for Congress to identify existing supplier-purchaser relationships in conventional weapons acquisitions. Use of these data can assist Congress in its oversight role of assessing how the current nature of the international weapons trade might affect U.S. national interests. For most of recent American history, maintaining regional stability and ensuring the security of U.S. allies and friendly nations throughout the world have been important elements of U.S. foreign policy. Knowing the extent to which individual arms suppliers are transferring arms to individual nations or regions provides Congress with a context for evaluating policy questions it may confront. Such policy questions may include, for example, whether to support specific U.S. arms sales to given countries or regions or to support or oppose arms transfers by other nations. The data in this report may also assist Congress in evaluating whether multilateral arms control arrangements or other U.S. foreign policy initiatives are being supported or undermined by the actions of arms suppliers. The principal focus of this report is the level of arms transfers by major weapons suppliers to nations in the developing world—where most analysts agree that the potential for the outbreak of regional military conflicts currently is greatest, and where the greatest proportion of the conventional arms trade is conducted. For decades, during the height of the Cold War, providing conventional weapons to friendly states was an instrument of foreign policy utilized by the United States and its allies. This was equally true for the Soviet Union and its allies. The underlying rationale given for U.S. arms transfer policy then was to help ensure that friendly states were not placed at risk through a military disadvantage created by arms transfers by the Soviet Union or its allies. Following the Cold War's end, U.S. arms transfer policy has been based on maintaining or augmenting friendly and allied nations' ability to deal with regional security threats and concerns. Data in this report illustrate global patterns of conventional arms transfers, which have changed in the post-Cold War and post-Persian Gulf War years. Relationships between arms suppliers and recipients continue to evolve in response to changing political, military, and economic circumstances. Whereas the principal motivation for arms sales by key foreign suppliers in earlier years might have been to support a foreign policy objective, today that motivation may be based as much, if not more, on economic considerations as those of foreign or national security policy. Nations in the developing world continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by conventional weapons suppliers. During the period of this report, 2004-2011, conventional arms transfer agreements (which represent orders for future delivery) to developing nations comprised 73.7% of the value of all international arms transfer agreements . The portion of agreements with developing countries constituted 79.2% of all agreements globally from 2008 to 2011. In 2011, arms transfer agreements with developing countries accounted for 83.9% of the value of all such agreements globally. Deliveries of conventional arms to developing nations from 2008 to 2011 constituted 59.5% of all international arms deliveries. In 2011, arms deliveries to developing nations constituted 63.3% of the value of all such arms deliveries worldwide. The data in this new report supersede all data published in previous editions. Because these new data for 2004-2011 reflect potentially significant updates to and revisions of the underlying databases utilized for this report, only the data in this most recent edition should be used for comparison of data found in previous reports. The data are expressed in U.S. dollars for the calendar years indicated, and adjusted for inflation (see box note on page 3). U.S. commercially licensed arms export delivery values are excluded (see box note on page 19). Also excluded are arms transfers by any supplier to subnational groups. The definition of developing nations, as used in this report, and the specific classes of items included in its values totals are found in box notes below on page 2. The report's table of contents provides a detailed listing and description of the various data tables to guide the reader to specific items of interest. The value of all arms transfer agreements worldwide (to both developed and developing nations) in 2011 was $85.3 billion. This was an extraordinary increase in arms agreements values (91.7%) over the 2010 total of $44.5 billion. This total in 2011 is by far the highest worldwide arms agreements total since 2004 ( Figure 1 ) ( Table 1 ) ( Table 30 ) ( Table 31 ). In 2011, the United States led in arms transfer agreements worldwide, making agreements valued at $66.3 billion (77.7% of all such agreements), an extraordinary increase from $21.4 billion in 2010. The United States' worldwide agreements total in 2011 is the largest for a single year in the history of the U.S. arms export program. Russia ranked second with $4.8 billion in agreements (5.6% of these agreements globally), down significantly from $8.9 billion in 2010. The United States and Russia collectively made agreements in 2011 valued at over $71 billion, 83.3% of all international arms transfer agreements made by all suppliers ( Figure 1 ) ( Table 30 ) ( Table 31 , Table 32 , and Table 34 ). For the period 2008-2011, the total value of all international arms transfer agreements ($261.8 billion in current dollars) was higher than the worldwide value during 2004-2007 ($206.1 billion in current dollars). During the period 2004-2007, developing world nations accounted for 66.7% of the value of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide. During 2008-2011, developing world nations accounted for 79.2% of all arms transfer agreements made globally. In 2011, developing nations accounted for 83.9% of all arms transfer agreements made worldwide ( Figure 1 ) ( Table 30 ) ( Table 31 ). In 2011, the United States ranked first in the value of all arms deliveries worldwide, making nearly $16.2 billion in such deliveries or 36.5%. This is the eighth year in a row that the United States has led in global arms deliveries. Russia ranked second in worldwide arms deliveries in 2011, making $8.7 billion in such deliveries. The United Kingdom ranked third in 2011, making $3 billion in such deliveries. These top three suppliers of arms in 2011 collectively delivered nearly $27.9 billion, 62.9% of all arms delivered worldwide by all suppliers in that year ( Table 2 ) ( Table 36 , Table 37 , and Table 39 ). The value of all international arms deliveries in 2011 was nearly $44.3 billion. This is an increase in the total value of arms deliveries from the previous year from $41.2 billion. The total value of such arms deliveries worldwide in 2008-2011 (about $167 billion) was higher than the deliveries worldwide from 2004 to 2007 ($155.8 billion [ Table 2 ]) ( Table 36 and Table 37 ) ( Figure 7 and Figure 8 ). Developing nations from 2008 to 2011 accounted for 59.5% of the value of all international arms deliveries. In the earlier period, 2004-2007, developing nations accounted for 64.1% of the value of all arms deliveries worldwide. In 2011, developing nations collectively accounted for 63.3% of the value of all international arms deliveries ( Table 2 ) ( Table 15 , Table 36 , and Table 37 ). Worldwide weapons orders increased in 2011. The total of $85.3 billion was a substantial increase from $44.5 billion in 2010, or 91.7%. The United States' worldwide weapons agreements values increased greatly in value from $21.4 billion in 2010 to $66.3 billion in 2011. The U.S. market share increased greatly as well, from 48.1% in 2010 to 77.7% in 2011. The extraordinary total value of U.S. weapons orders in 2011 distorts the current picture of the global arms trade market. For while the United States retained its position as the leading arms supplying nation in the world, nearly all other major suppliers saw declines. The principal exception was France, whose worldwide agreements increased from $1.8 billion in 2010 to $4.4 billion in 2011. Meanwhile, Russia posted a significant decline in its global arms agreements values, falling from $8.9 billion in 2010 to $4.8 billion in 2011. Russia's market share of worldwide agreements fell from 20% in 2010 to 5.6% in 2011. The collective market share of worldwide arms agreements for the four major West European suppliers—France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy—also fell from 12.2% in 2010 to 7.2% in 2011. Although the global total in weapons sales in 2011 was especially high—due primarily to the unusually large agreements value of the U.S. contracts with Saudi Arabia—the international arms market is not likely growing overall. The U.S. global total for arms agreements in 2011 seems a clear outlier figure. Moreover, there continue to be significant constraints on its growth, due, in particular, to the weakened state of the global economy. The Eurozone financial crisis and the slow international recovery from the recession of 2008 have generally limited defense purchases of prospective customers. Concerns over their domestic budget problems have led many purchasing nations to defer or limit the purchase of new major weapons systems. Some nations have chosen to limit their purchasing to upgrades of existing systems and to training and support services. Others have decided to emphasize the integration into their force structures of the major weapons systems they had previously purchased. That said, orders for weapons upgrades and support services can still be rather lucrative, and such sales can provide weapons suppliers with continued revenue, despite the reduction in demand for major weapons systems.