Replies

--so, what's the alternative then? What we have now? Just more of the same, and even more complex and confusing? No restrictions at all, or somethibng in the middle? We have that middle ground now, and it's not working all that well.

It works well enough. You don't see China flying F-22 Raptors; their J-10 is a knockoff of a knockoff of an F-16. That's a 30-year-old design.

If you want some sort of national security. if it doesn't matter if china or iraq gets the latest stuff because they have the money, then go ahead, sell them anything ya want to.

Consider that having the latest cool stuff is not sufficient for victory in war; you need well-trained troops who know how to use it to best effect and have the freedom to do so within broad mission parameters. Now realize that China and Iraq tend to choke-chain their military forces with "political officers" and secret police informants--just the thing to develop the "band of brothers" mentality needed to fight and win on the battlefield.

Where do you draw the line on what can and cannot be exported? ANY technology can have military significance; if you intend to restrict technology exports based on "military significance," we will soon have NO technological lead, because America will become a closed market--like it was for Detroit in the 1950s-1980s. THAT little escapade damn near destroyed the American automobile industry, and we haven't really recovered all the way (the last is due to the fact that while it takes NO time at all to destroy a good reputation, it takes a LONG time to redeem a bad one).

My bottom line is never money as the number one consideration when contemplating business.

Interesting. You probably don't make much money.

Probably why I think and write as I do compared to most folks who take loot as the most important thing in the world.

In business, it's the most important thing. Get over it.

I never have, ever. Guess it's a sin on my part or something....

In business, not being concerned about the bottom line IS a sin. Verily, the person in business who does not concern himself first and foremost with the bottom line shall turn the page, eventually to reach the Chapter numbered Eleven.

anyway, I see no easy solution to it. Where I would draw the immediate line is weaponry without any doubt whatsoever, not so much as a single bullet exported, let alone any high tech stuff.

I just find the prospect of chinese fighters carrying US made commo and built with us jet engine technology and israeli air to airs partly developed with our money to be sorta silly.

So's the idea that some stooge who doesn't get enough flight time to achieve basic proficiency is going to win a shootout with an American pilot who gets more flight time in a month than he gets in a year.

I see iraq having fiber optic communications shipped from the us via china as more than a touch hypocritical and silly.

So you'd forbid export of any technology that's even remotely dual-use. The problem is, ANY technology is potentially dual-use. Heck, if you can make ballpoint pens, you can make chemical weapons.

The prospect of saudi fighters being used against israeli fighters, both from the US is sorta silly. Examples like that.

That particular prospect is about as likely as me winning the California Lotto, the PowerBall lottery, and the Irish Sweepstakes--all in the same week.

Like why bomb iraq then, why not go directly to the plant that manufactuers the stuff and bomb them, eliminate the middle men, much more efficient.

The problem isn't the hardware, it's the Clymer who's trying to use it. Let's apply your model to domestic business: some malicious souls use automobiles to facilitate the commission of crime. Therefore, we must keep the latest and greatest automotive technology out of the hands of any and all private individuals and only allow governments to own it. Everyone else can drive an AMC Pacer or a Chevy Vega.

Kinda silly, isn't it?

So, how would you deal with it? No restrictions, total international free market? Cash wins? Open to suggestions here.

The current system isn't perfect. Unrestricted transfer of military hardware is not a good idea. Your suggestion, on the other hand, would completely end US export of high technology, and probably shove the country into a depression. And when the US goes into depression, so followeth everyone else. And when THAT happens, you've just (a) given everyone an incentive to take on the US (it's called "revenge for trashing their economy with your boneheadedness") and (b) made it much harder for the US to actually FIGHT a war to a successful conclusion.

--still waiting. yes, we agree the current system isn't perfect. I tend to think it's a lot less than perfect, I think it actually goes towards promoting more wars all over and upping the ante. I offered an embargo on foreign military sales of our current 'best" production technology as in "don't ask the answer is no". And maybe we can agree on "weapons systems". Weapons systems as defined as something you or I can't go down to the local gun store and buy, ball point pens you can buy, automobiles you can buy. Fighter planes and tanks and missiles that go boom, nope, you ain't buying one. But any foreigner can if he has enough bribe money to spread around congress and enough retired mil guys who are now armaments salesmen willing to sell whatever to him. I'd like it banned. That should be a clear enough distinction now without getting muddled into dual or triple use. At least I hope so, third try now. No sidetracking or insults intended, but I'd like to stay on topic here. Pick just those three areas, fighter planes, tanks, advanced missile tech for starters, clear military primary usages and design. Advanced front line weapons. So, how would you restrict it or regulate it? Just like it is now? Just keep doing what we have been doing? And you are also saying that unless we build weapons for export we can't build anything else, that all these trained people are incapable of building or designing anything else? Or that we can't build them at all then? I know the arguments about keeping production lines open, so don't assume I am saying shut them all down, because I'm not. Just looking for an answer, should we or should we not sell advanced weaponry to anyone with the cash? Yes or no? My opinion is that it's more destructive than good, both short term and long term, so I say "no", it's been a bad mistake and should stop. I'll take the "risk" we wouldn't be able to keep up with the joneses.

Thanks, that's all I want to know on this matter and about my limit on replies on this thread tonight..