Colombian Navy Takes Sub in Smuggling Bust

juancegomez says on Mar 11, 2006, 10:26:

.. It would seem that the submarine, like others before it, was "custom-built" especially for this kind of task...

"Authorities say smuggling cocaine by sea has in recent years become the top method of transport, as radar systems have made it exceedingly difficult to smuggle drugs in small airplanes without being detected."

That is true, but even detection is no guarantee of interception, which is what actually matters.

Bluntly speaking, we have a poor man's airforce (no, helicopters aren't of much use for this particular task), and that's one of the reasons why the FAC is buying the Super Tucanos.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Mar 11, 2006, 10:49:

"Bluntly speaking, we have a poor man's airforce..." Poor but happy?

How much does a Super Tucano cost?
How much is the annual Colombian budget for education and health?
Which spending priority will provide the best security for Colombia's future?
For the children of Pitalito and Peque?plátano

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Mar 11, 2006, 10:54:

Teenage boys are an important target audience. Include some priests and the boys can be part of the sex action, too.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 11, 2006, 11:36:

platano: Everything is necess Tinto: Shouldn't the "Governator" be invited to the party too?

platano: The sad truth is that everything is necessary at this point in time.

The Super Tucanos aren't really that expensive (about 25 for 234 million dollars, paid and delivered over several years, not all at once, so it's not even comparable to Venezuela's current projected arms purchases). They are necessary, because many of the older planes have already been in use for about 20 years, if not 30 or more. Some are simply falling apart, roughly speaking.

Though I don't have the rest of the figures available, the point is that they cost much less than the entire health and education budgets for 2006.

That doesn't mean that more than enough is being spent on health and education, no. Just that it isn't like avoiding the cost of the Super Tucanos is suddenly going to save the health or education systems and remove all their multiple limitations.

The thing is, even if it would be better, ideally, to abolish the entire airforce and military and spend all that money in social investment, that is absolutely unrealistic in the current national situation.

We have to spend money on that, and we also have to spend money on health and education. It's kind of a Catch-22, you could say.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Mar 11, 2006, 11:52:

We have to spend money on that...??? Why do you say "we have to spend money on that..."??? If Colombia doesn't have Super Tucanos in its airforce the sky will not fall, and the security of Colombia will not be decreased, in my opinion.

But the welfare of the nation will be decreased by the millions of dollars, or thousands of millions of pesos not spent on addressing real (not imagined, not fear-conjured) needs of real children who live where there is no clean water, where diarrhea is life-threatening, where there are no libraries or first-rate schools... the litany can go on...

The point is there is a choice to be made. Humans make choices. There is no "have to" when it comes to spending on multi-million dollar fighter jets. For too long these fearful projections (Venezuela could attack us!!!) have kept Colombia in poverty and unemployment. And you know where I'm going... buy those fighter jets and you are benefitting the recruitment efforts of FARC. That is Catch-22.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 11, 2006, 14:46:

We have to spend money on everything platano:

"Why do you say "we have to spend money on that..."??? If Colombia doesn't have Super Tucanos in its airforce the sky will not fall, and the security of Colombia will not be decreased, in my opinion."

That is, precisely, your opinion. Not mine.

It appears that you are not taking into consideration that our airforce has a very limited interception capabilities, that more than half the planes are at the end of their service life, if not on virtual life support, that much of our airspace is full of loopholes, and that we are in the middle of a war.

The sky will not fall, but the security of Colombia will definitely suffer if we can't even patrol our own borders or intercept illegal flights, not to mention train our pilots.

"But the welfare of the nation will be decreased by the millions of dollars, or thousands of millions of pesos not spent on addressing real (not imagined, not fear-conjured) needs of real children who live where there is no clean water, where diarrhea is life-threatening, where there are no libraries or first-rate schools... the litany can go on..."

A practically endless litany, to be sure, that wrongly supposes that not buying those planes would somehow dramatically increase the "welfare of the nation" or resolve all those problems. That is a false dilemma.

You have not proven that the money for buying those planes, money which isn't going to be paid all at once but over *several years*, is somehow being directly substracted from yearly health and education budgets or what have you. Yet you appear to assume so.

Guess what: I see no such relation. Those planes are long overdue because our airforce is practically made up of flying zombies. And more importantly, not buying them before didn't resolve any of those problems, at all, so your premise is also flawed on that count.

"The point is there is a choice to be made. Humans make choices. There is no "have to" when it comes to spending on multi-million dollar fighter jets."

Actually, there is a basic need that does constitute a "have to" in this case. Unless you want our airspace to be violated increasingly often, or want Colombian soldiers and civilians to die due to lack of air support as air assets become even more rusty and precarious every passing year.

So, the choice has to be made every few decades, but it has to be made.

And btw, please get your facts straight: the Super Tucanos are not "fighter jets", but turboprops. Fighter jets are much more expensive, for your information.

But now that you mention it...IHS...if this is how you are reacting to the Super Tucanos, I won't even imagine how you will react when, by the next decade and a half (10-15 years at most), the FAC begins seriously contemplating the necessary retirement of the circa 1970's Mirage 5s (the Kfirs are a little bit younger, so they will probably stay for some more time, last I read).

"For too long these fearful projections (Venezuela could attack us!!!) have kept Colombia in poverty and unemployment."

I would love to agree with you on that, I really would, but the more I look at the facts that you are skipping...I just can't.

Again, that's a false dilemma. Why? Because, precisely, despite our evident inferiority, we have *not* spent much money in order to be able to decently defend ourselves from such a scenario.

Need I remind you that, until very recently, for decades Colombia had a below-average degree of military spending, compared to all the other countries in our neighborhood? And this was despite the fact that we were in a war! Imagine that.

So your premise keeps getting weaker and weaker...(strictly speaking; I do agree with the point that we have not done enough to reduce unemployment over the decades, but not because of military spending).

The issue is not that Venezuela will attack us anytime soon, at least not at this time. I only mentioned Venezuela because they are buying tons of weapons and equipment that we are not even contemplating. Some of which they have often used to violate our airspace, btw (what? You thought that we were the only ones that violated the airspace of our neighbors? Think again. "Persecución en caliente" was born as a Venezuelan term, not a Colombian one).

A war with Venezuela, while unlikely, is not impossible. It shouldn't be a priority (and it isn't! If it was, we wouldn't have the pathetic defenses that we currently have), but it's not a possibility that can be totally ignored. Why not?

Let's see...back in 1987, if war had broken out they would have utterly raped us during the Gulf Crisis. They even had plans to bomb several cities and overrun us with tanks. That would have led to the direct death or injury of thousands of Colombians, civilians included, and we couldn't have done much more than a fighting retreat, really.

If that had happened, then perhaps you'd understand that, even if military spending shouldn't be a priority, it cannot be totally ignored.

We have to spend some money on it, even if at a historically pitiful rate compared to all our neighbors.

"And you know where I'm going... buy those fighter jets and you are benefitting the recruitment efforts of FARC. That is Catch-22."

I repeat, those are not fighter jets.

And yes, I knew you were going to say that...but no, I don't see how the recruitment efforts of the FARC will be affected by that, except in the most abstract and questionable of ways.

If anything, they will be affected by the lack of social investment and the negative treatment of the rural population, which is an entirely different thing, something that is in no way directly tied to the fact that we have a pathetic airforce that, sooner or later, needs some degree of spending, every few decades.

That in no way means that we shouldn't spend money, much more money, on all the problems that you've outlined. But, and this is important, that money actually has to be spent on a yearly basis and over many years, in order to benefit our population, not "once or twice every few decades".

In other words...I see no contradiction between:

a)the urgent need to spend much more money, much more efficiently, on social necessities every single year.

b)the need, every few decades, to spend comparatively modest sums on replacing military equipment that is reaching the end of its physical service life.

Ignoring "b" will not suddenly result in the fulfillment of "a".

Using that reasoning, the fact that we have not bought any reasonably modern tanks since Rojas Pinilla (the closest thing we have are WWII-era Stuarts, which are little more than glorified parade vehicles by now) should have resulted in a huge increase in social investment...nope.

In order to really, really pretend to accomplish some serious degree of social improvement, we need to do much more than ignoring military purchases.

We need to take out loans and lobby for social development aid, we need to reform the tax system, we need to fight corruption, we need to reach a negotiated solution to the conflict, we need to change the current drug policies, we need to address the issue of the "TLC", and so many other things that actually could make a real difference.

Instead of complaining about Super Tucanos, whose effect on the "situation of the poor" is insignificant by comparison to everything else I've mentioned.

There still is a sort of Catch-22 there, but again, I'm not nearly as adamant about it.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Mar 11, 2006, 16:59:

Did Colombia get screwed? A quick glance on the internet leads me to believe Embraer Super Tucanos cost just under $6 million USD each. And if I remember correctly, the other potential sellers dropped out and Embraer was the only one offering. So unless the $234 million price for 25 includes all kinds of goodies like training, cheap financing, fixed prices for future years, spare parts, bombs, missiles, maintenance and so on, the $9.36 million unit price seems high.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Mar 11, 2006, 18:41:

$9 million dollars for a turboprop? You say the cost is high. High is not the word I would use. Immoral, socially irresponsible, and OBSCENE are words I would use, but then I am not benefitting from the contract and I am sure someone is getting their pockets filled.

And I strongly disagree with juancegomez that not spending the money on SuperTucanos would not mean more children's lives could be saved. To say that is only to confirm that there is more political will for war-making than there is to provide benefits for the children of Colombia. And that DOES play right into the hands of FARC.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 12, 2006, 13:00:

Responding... Tinto:

Yes, the generic price for a Super Tucano seems to be 6 million dollars.

But the difference is that we aren't just buying generic Super Tucanos here, but ones that have to fulfill detailed equipment requirements and service specifications, as well as including the necessary training packages and spare parts.

All that surely implies an additional cost beyond that of a "vanilla" Super Tucano, even without taking into consideration any other additional aspects of the sale.

In other words, the costs of all those things are reflected in the price tag, and that should be kept in mind when estimating whether we were properly screwed or not, pricewise.

platano:

Again, I believe that is it inaccurate to paint the situation in such primary colors.

platano, we all know that almost any kind of military spending at all is immoral and obscene for you, practically by definition, due to your pacifist leanings. That's no big secret. It's your opinion, and it's a valid one.

Again, I would love to share that idealism, I really would, but I mostly can't, when faced with the rest of the things I've pointed out.

We will have to agree to disagree, in essence.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Mar 12, 2006, 13:40:

juancegomez, my position is that of a realist... juancegomez, you write: "Again, I would love to share that idealism..." but I am a realist.
I do not oppose the purchase of military and air force technology for solely ideological reasons, as you suggest. On a purely pragmatic level their purchase is counterproductive.

Humanity has developed vast, powerful means, but lacks noble ends to coordinate such lethal power. As so often said, mankind is a nuclear giant, a political pigmy, and an ethical infant because we have hi-tech like SuperTucanos, but not a higher consciousness. Humanity has sophisticated means, but mostly narrow, crass and conflicting ends. Because of this end-means imbalance, the ship of civilization is overloaded on one side with stupendous technologies of matter, but almost empty on the other with technologies of a higher consciousness, so it threatens to capsize, taking all with it. Inner maturity must match outer power or we are like children with matches in a haystack. Humanity can safely have only that which it is evolved enough to wisely use. Our advanced material technologies must be balanced by more mature technologies of the interior spirit. We have some of this, but we are playing about 500 years of catch up...

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

Tinto (Moderator) says on Mar 12, 2006, 13:52:

Well, even if you took away all the advanced weapons in the world and Kofi Annan decreed we could only fight with slingshots and pebbles, the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Brazilians and the Americans would be significant powers. Not much different from where we are today. Bangladesh would gain standing, though. ;-)

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Mar 12, 2006, 14:07:

Heaven help us if moral pigmies like the FARC.... manage to get radiologic weapons into Colombia. The emphasis on seeking peace and spending on the welfare of the Colombian people is a pragmatic way to undermine FARC. If we continue to spend on armaments, instead of human needs, FARC will continue to thrive. And contrary to juancegomez' assertion that both are necessary, we are talking about a world of competing for exclusive values. Exclusive values are essentially like commodities in that the more one grouping has of them, the less is left to go around for all others. On the world stage, they are things like raw materials, markets, bases, allies, spheres of influence, trade zones, most favored nation status, patents, military supremacy, prestige, etc.

In Colombia more spent on SuperTucanos means less available for the welfare of the children in Pitalito, Peque, San Antonio del Chami and all the rest of the Colombia I love and do not want to see shot to hell from the air by machine guns, free falling bombs, or rockets delivered by a 9 million dollar SuperTucano.

I think that is a REALIST position, not a pie-in-the-sky idealist pacifist position.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.

juancegomez says on Mar 12, 2006, 16:17:

Round and round... platano:

This will likely be my last (or one of the last) reply to you on this topic today, if only because starting tomorrow (and for some days after that) I will be temporarily isolated from the internet.

If I may be so bold...if I had a crystal ball, I would now see a great future for you as a politician, as a charimastic leader of men, or as a social fighter.

But, unfortunately, it appears that I cannot say the same of any potential future of yours as a an academic or as an accountant.

"If we continue to spend on armaments, instead of human needs, FARC will continue to thrive."

They will continue to "thrive" if we don't spend on both things. One example: While Samper was investing in the supposed "Salto Social", the FARC won their greatest military and political victories in recent memory.

Conversly, they had their greatest political and military defeats during the Pastrana administration which, when all is said and done, spent a lot of money on both social investments and on the military.

"And contrary to juancegomez' assertion that both are necessary, we are talking about a world of competing for exclusive values."

Unfortunately, I disagree. I would argue that those values, while definitely in competition, are not always mutually exclusive, but often have to be complentary.

"Exclusive values are essentially like commodities in that the more one grouping has of them, the less is left to go around for all others. "

That may often be so, abstractly speaking. But that is not always the case, in absolute terms, when speaking about specific values and commodities. In other words, a concrete analysis demands more nuances than just direcctly applying general principles to specific situations.

"In Colombia more spent on SuperTucanos means less available for the welfare of the children in Pitalito, Peque, San Antonio del Chami and all the rest of the Colombia I love"

Again, you have not conclusively proven this, nor presented a detailed scenario to that effect. I have pointed out that when we have historically spent much less money on armaments than any of our neighbors, this did not necessarily result in "more being avaiable for the welfare of the children".

"and do not want to see shot to hell from the air by machine guns, free falling bombs, or rockets delivered by a 9 million dollar SuperTucano."

I do not want that too. But all that, and all the actions of the guerrillas and the paramilitaries, are inevitable as long as a conflict persists.

Unilaterally stopping government weapons purchases will solve nothing.

At the very least, what we need is a serious negotiation between the parties at war, one that directly addresses the political and socio-economic issues at stage, as part of a multilateral effort than seeks real peace and real social reforms.

I believe that only within such a framework, and not in isolation, can a significant reduction of military spending make sense.

"I think that is a REALIST position, not a pie-in-the-sky idealist pacifist position."

Perhaps not entirely, but in my opinion, you seem to be closer to the latter than to the earlier position.

0 funny, 0 helpful.

platano says on Mar 12, 2006, 21:40:

juancegomez, I may not be an academic or an accountant... but it doesn't seem quite fair to compare the Uribe administration to Samper's.

You say: "While Samper was investing in the supposed "Salto Social", the FARC won their greatest military and political victories in recent memory."

Uribe has two guerrilla groups, ELN and FARC, to deal with, and during his administration the 20,000 man AUC army has been supplementing Uribe's anti-guerrilla efforts.

During the Samper administration the monies dedicated to the armed forces was not diverted to the "Salto Social" and in addition to FARC and ELN, Samper had to deal a number of other guerrilla movements... without the help of a 20,000 man AUC army.

You are always telling me how things are not so simple and cannot be so easily compared, so your most recent comment surprised me for its facile and erroneous comparison of presidents. Due to the efforts of previous presidents to negotiate, Uribe did not have to face a Simon Bolívar Guerrilla Coordinator (CGSB), which included all the guerrilla groups. Between 1989 and 1991, the April 19 movement (M-19), People's Liberation Army (EPL) and other smaller groups signed agreements with the government leading to their disarmament and demobilization.

ELN in 1996 decided to pursue a peaceful resolution of the war through a new model that was not centered exclusively around bilateral talks between government and guerrilla leaders. This happened during the Samper administration.

As has been previously mentioned Pastrana, with a policy of negotiating with FARC, is responsible for the freeing of dozens of hostages held by FARC. Uribe, with his belligerent policy of "mano dura," actually has a negative number... in response to Uribe's policy FARC hostages have been killed, not released.

Enjoy your time away from the internet.

plátano

0 funny, 0 helpful.