http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4761276&c=POL&s=TOP
I can’t believe he’s actually doing something I support…
I don’t know how I feel about that!
If imports where decontrolled as part of the package I might support it. Otherwise, I don’t give a crap about 3rd world countries getting things that may harm our men and women in harms way. It smells like a money deal to me and that always means the little guy gets it in the end.
I think its more along the lines of being able to sell US goods in markets that are already flooded by competitors–like night vision, lasers, etc…etc. These products are already out there, this would allow US companies to take a more dominent role. At least that is the way I read this.
The thing that surprises me is that this kind of a change puts money in the pockets of the people who have the biggest problem with the current administration from a political point of view. I’m not sure if this is viewed as an additional stimulous with specific deals in mind or if it is just a general opening of the flood gates.
I think it’s good to expand our export sales. If we can’t export, we are doomed in a global market.
We should be mindful of what we export though. Americans do have some technological advantages on the battlefield, especially when it comes to night fighting.
I agree, but I’m pretty sure China has already copied our stuff and selling at bargain basement prices all over the world. Some of it is probably almost as good too. Our OTN doctrine, training and general common sense help us prevail at night. Many Iraqi’s like to leave the damn IR illuminators on or blind themselves with the IR lasers.
I can’t see the laser–is it on??? I’m staring right at the laser–I see nothing—wait, is it darker in here? I don’t see the laser… holy crap! I can’t see! I can’t see!!!
I actually watched a guy spray lysol tile cleaner with bleach is his mouth thinking it would help make his teeth whiter. But that’s another story 
I’m a xenophobe I guess, because I support zero exports to any country. I don’t give two shits if we export corn bread to the Japanese, but even rifle plates should be restricted from exporting to Canada.
Yeah other countries have similar technology and much of it is based on American tax payers research dollars and stolen tech. Hell the Russians couldn’t even make decent arcade machine in the days.
Don’t freak out, stopped clock and all that, don’t start to doubt yourself.
If there’s one thing the US does well–its export arms tech. While I in part agree that its not always the best idea, its all about money. Its a global economy and like the U2 song, across the mud huts where the children sleep–I can see those fighter planes. Iraq just spent 13 Billion on our gear with more to come. They’ll be one of our biggest customers this year.
No way around the global economy until well past “peak oil”. If you subscribe to the Olduvai theory–then we are already on the bad side of the ski slope.
But if our exporting non-bleeding edge mil-tech puts people back to work–I think its what we need to do. When you see what third world countries do with this stuff, you’ll sleep better at night. Sometimes its almost the same knowledge gap as aliens showing up and giving us fusion power cells. We wouldn’t know how to fix it and we’d probably blow a more than a few up on accident. :suicide:
Between TCNs and locals, I’ve seen some of the dumbest most ignorant shit you could ever imagine. In some cases, western civilization may as well be another galaxy by comparison. Common sense is pretty elusive.
Another one time at band camp story… Iraqi’s didn’t want to pay to have a port-a-crappper pumped out in the IZ, so they cut a hole in the bottom, removed a manhole cover and filled a cable vault full of shit.
Here’s another example, if you exported 5000 Aimpoints to some of these places–50% would disappear in shipping (if not the entire shipment), the other half would have a 25% destruction rate when they tried to mount them, another 25% would probably end up lost or stolen within the first year. The remaining 1250 aimpoints would work until the batteries wore out at which time, they would never turn on again. So 5 years basically. If we sell them with old batteries–2 years tops!
This is exactly what scares me.
Instead of implementing sound fiscal and tax policies, we’ll whore ourselves and put the USA up for sale; exporting our technological advancements and intellectual property to the highest bidder just to make a quick buck instead of smart buck with sustainable long term prospects.
Weapons/military equipment does not equal enough sales to let sensitive stuff out of our country.
Yeah other countries have NV but Id bet they LOVE to get some our newest IR and thermal optics. Generally the overseas stuff is years behind us.
BTW I can’t even legally buy an IR laser from a dealer so I sure as shit don’t want that stuff being exported. But then again I think its wrong our own LE gets to own a lot of stuff I cant (along with most of us). Some two bit country gets the stuff but I cant?
And besides Im pretty sure its already possible for countries to get stuff. We sell sensitive stuff to trusted allies, share technology, ect. We could have near unrestricted trade with the UK and Australia…our two closest allies. I dont think we should be selling stuff to Georgia who let the friggin Ruskies get a bunch of M4’s, Humvees, ect.
Have you guys seen the 3 tiers mentioned in the article with lists saying what specific items belong in what tier? I highly doubt the new scheme mentioned involves providing our best technologies to everyone.
There are some seriously inane things I have read about being restricted under the current scheme.
I think military tech is the last thing we should be exporting. How many times in the past has this bitten us in the ass?
If we can make money by selling very mundane military items and relax certain provisions involving dual use technology I am all for it. People talking about us selling some of our top military secrets I wonder if they even read the article, that is not going to happen.
Even some of our close allies at this point are avoiding purchases of aircraft and other ITAR controlled items because of the uncertainty involved in dealing with US bureaucracy (just like US businesses are not expanding, albeit not related to ITAR) and because of delays involved in the licensing process.
Certain aspects of ITAR also place a very heavy burden on free speech and academic freedom in a way that is very troublesome and possibly unconstitutional. I am not for laws that restrict our technological development over dubious national security claims.
Listen to this interview while doing something else, it is quite lengthy but highlights some of the major issues with these kinds of export controls. At several points it is highlighted that under ITAR it is quite easy to commit a felony just having a conversation with somebody about any number of technologies:
http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/457-BWB-2006-02-12.mp3
the libs always talk about the middle class supporting our economy. export is where the real money starts pouring in though.
wonder how they tricked obama into signing something smart 
VB and Belmont, I don’t disagree. I think we should have better fiscal policies and an administration that isn’t going to spend us into oblivion. However, I also think that selling things like, rail panels, rifle stocks, and folding sights does not represent any kind of paradigm shift that puts us at further risk. I agree that our NV products are the highest quality in the world–but we already export them!! If the government does the selling, it’s OK–but if you’re a private or small business–that’s where the restrictions have been the most applicable. Uncle Sam already exports most of our tech as it is through a wide variety of processes. One of the big differences is that most countries cannot afford to spend 10K outfitting an infantryman.
But getting back to an issue I touched on earlier–there are so many things that are inter-related here.
Essentially, the US expeditionary forces are an “export”–as horrible as that sounds.
If you look at where Iraq’s oil is going, you see that it’s not going to the US. Many people have a problem with that issue, but here’s the deal–it does go to Europe and other countries which normally would have decreased the supply from Saudi and our other primary sources. Essentially, with more oil on the market–we are able to continue to buy what we want as cheaply as possible and as much as we need.
Peak Oil is still not a popular subject, but it is a very serious looming concern for many governments.
This isn’t the most non-biased site but I think there are some ideas that aren’t crazy.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6101
Securing this supply source has long term world-wide strategic implications. It’s not about taking anything from the Iraqis–its about making sure Iraqis keep doing what they need to do and meet their obligations.
Exporting US arms tech does no mean we provide all the capabilities that we enjoy–but it does mean jobs and a shit load of money.
Selling Iraq 13 Billion in arms creates opportunities. One thing about the Defense Industry is there are heavy mandates for US based production. We do not outsource building tanks to China. Sensitive electronics and other critical needs items are always built in the US (although sometimes with foreign components).
Here is another article on the export restrictions issue
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67T09F20100830
Its hard to get solid figures on the total value of our arms exports but its easily over the 300 Billion dollars annual–and that is not including what we spend internally on defense (which is anywhere from 5-10% of GDP varying based on the source you find)
If you roll it together, I think its fair to say that the cumulative and combined effects of defense spending and defense sales makes up a much larger portion of our economy than we would like to admit.
Opening more doors to increase arms sales will help our economic recovery.
http://current.com/news/92643429_us-...nder-obama.htm
Selling another billion dollars worth of Patriot batteries to Kuwait is also significant
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4763537
Like it or not, defense exports are booming and the more we can sell, the more dependent other nations will be on our expertise and parts.
In some ways, I view the wars we are involved in as paid advertising for the US Government’s ability to export defense based products. Sure, we have other goals like making sure Saddam’s kids can’t rape and kill 500 women a year or that the Taliban isn’t able to bugger little boys with impunity. We do a lot of what we do for what the left would consider the “Right” reasons. But the secondary agenda is that we need to export Team America World Police and a whole crap load of Pelican cases in the process.
Its hard to sell a soldier on the inter-connected processes involved in the sacrifices they are making. We all stumble around the “serving your country” mantra without really having a full understanding of what this means. Many people say thank you for your service or for defending our freedoms–without knowing all the moving pieces that are making those statements true. In essence we truly ARE fighting for our very way of life–even if it is less clear than avoiding Nazi world domination or repelling Japanese imperialistic goals.
In our brave new world, it is all about ensuring US economic interests in a global economy. Keeping the oil flowing in multiple directions so we can continue to buy cheaply while we try to switch to green technology is essential. We don’t yet have a full understanding of what the post-hydrocarbon world economy is going to look like–but we are certainly not prepared for that eventuality at the present.
Afghanistan may be less clear in terms of overall strategic interests, but look at the coalition involved. If you want to get down and dirty, it provides justification to continue defense spending for western powers while pursuing a worthy moral cause. It also continues to project US dominance and keeps us as the coalition leader for little things like NATO as well as bringing in other countries to drink our Kool-aid.
We are in the process of denying our enemies safe havens, but there’s this place called Africa–and we aren’t policing that situation very well. Fortunately, the bad guys there tend to go after each other before they try to fly planes into buildings in the US.
When comparing US involvement with Afghanistan to the Darfur conflict–the moral justifications for Afghanistan are less clear.
If anything, we’re involved in an offensive and defensive feint on a global scale to delay a re-balancing of economic forces towards a less defense centric model. Conflict, tension and other issues keep the wheels of the machine lubed. The US is simply not prepared to NOT export arms tech. We need to keep building it, buying it and using it or we’d be even more screwed than we already are.
As long as we are the key or most desired provider–we have a chance to maintain a few aspects of global market superiority.
I think he’s realizing that you can’t sit on the high horse without doing some of things that many liberals hate. I’m sure if the rest of the world was willing to spend billions on shiny happy rainbow dolls or pink ruffled tu-tus–that would be much less of a dilemma. The reality is rainbow dolls and pink tu-tus don’t pay the bills. If you don’t pay the bills, you don’t get to live in the big house on the hill.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of countries without child labor laws willing to sew those rainbow dolls and tu-tus together for insanely low prices. However, building an M1 tank with state of the art armor and target acquisition systems is a bit more complicated than sewing and takes a skilled labor force with people who can read books without pictures. The countries that have millions of people sewing would love to be in the business of building tanks, but many are too far behind the curve to catch up. Even when they copy or re-engineer our solutions–we’re still a few steps ahead.
As long as we can keep innovating, the rest of the world can keep copying. That’s our edge. If we lose sight of that then we will have a serious problem.
Also want to throw in that ulitmately–its not about tank-on-tank on the battlefield. The battlespace is so much more complicated now. In the present pre-text of battle–our guys should never be running into an enemy tank that still poses a threat. Those enemy tanks should have been detected and destroyed by a variety systems long before our ground forces have to deal with an anti-armor scenario. Yes, we still need to train as if we are going to send light infantry into anti-armor scenarios. But the reality is there are a multitude of aviation assets that should have created a smoking hole in the ground where that armor used to be.
We aren’t in the business of building the best WW2 King Tiger Tank, we are in the business of deploying systems which make the King Tiger Tank obsolete as an MBT before the wheels ever turn the tracks.
Deploying and maintaining this incredibly complex web of systems and capabilities is something that only we can do right now. Yes, there are countries that are catching up–but thats the point–they are catching up to where we were–not to where we are.
In today’s battlefield, an MBT is more about force projection than force application. Asymmetric threats are the reality.
That is part of the problem with these import/export controls. They do not just control physical import and export of goods and services but intellectual property as well. US companies and thinkers are no longer free to share ideas (edited to add, with companies and thinkers from friendly countries even) without a government license, literally on a case by case basis and even have to have inspectors there to monitor what is happening (check out that interview link I posted). I think these regulations, not in place very long, will hurt our innovation over the long term.
While I understand why our government is guarded when it comes to military technology being exported, it does hurt some firms that do not benefit from large contracts in the USA.
Firms should be allowed to peddle their wares internationally with some level of restriction to prevent the USA military from losing its advantages. But total lockdown is certainly hurting more than helping innovation.
I agree we do a poor job of protecting intellectual property rights. But this does not just apply to firearms parts. Everything on the market is victimized by China on this issue. The only solution in many cases is to build something they cannot copy easily or with a 500% markup. In some cases, this comes down to material choices and design decisions made to specifically protect the product. I think a good example of this is the KAC Costa Brake made from Iconel. The design can (and was) copied externally, but not materially.
If someone designs a 15 cent plastic part they can sell for $20, expect China to make a 10 cent version and sell for $1.
Anything that a couple of guys with a machine shop can duplicate will absolutely be duplicated and your rights to the design will be violated hundreds and thousands of times over. I’m not saying that is right, its just reality.
I think Magpul is a good example of a product that, in many ways, could be copied fairly easily from an external aesthetic perspective. However, their designs for how their plastic is molded and the recipes for the actual materials are unique. Making an EXACT duplicate materially or from a quality performance standpoint would be difficult–but throwing something together that looks like their products would not be extremely difficult.
The people who desire the real Magpul product, are not going to be satisified with the immitation because the cosmetic replication doesn’t meet the actual need. In this case, the brand that Magpul has established comes into play as much as the actual product.
I am sure that many manufactuers are victimized by overseas copy-cat products that cause problems for them both here and abroad–but the bottom line is the US cannot enforce our laws on other countries where we do not have specific agreements in place. We also do a poor job of setting up consequences at a diplomatic level for countries who are continual abusers (like China).
Until we address the root cause of the issue, our only defense is in the inherent complexity of the design and service and branding provided for the products we manufacture and sell.