With the exception of most of Africa and a handful of other basket-cases, countries’ militaries have been getting smarter in terms of the people they recruit (largely due to what Andy identifies, the inability to call up millions of poverty stricken underclass), so their weapons preferences have been slowly moving away from the Russian model. Armies in countries like India now have the brains and wherewithall to operate and maintain sophisticated and thus more effective weaponry, and no longer need simple, maintenance free rifles which never jam but don’t have anywhere near the accuracy of their western counterparts.

As well as this, though, is the increased media coverage of war and the value we place on human life. As a result, the political cost of each war death is higher than it was in, say, the 1950s. Compare, for example, British actions in Malay with British actions in Afghanistan today.

And, if politicians have access to as much money as they need, they’re bound to invest it in the military equipment needed to protect their political capital.

Plus, of course, better equipment gives you an edge over your opponent.

(God, I sound like a cynic this morning).

In a time of increasing insecurity, increasingly wealth and increasingly sophisticated military technology, countries are going to be increasingly looking for quality over quantity.