• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Here's who buys the most weapons from the U.S.

Dragonfly

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2007
Messages
25,107
Reaction score
13,931
Location
East Coast - USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Here's who buys the most weapons from the U.S. - CNNPolitics.com

The U.S. is responsible for nearly 33% of worldwide exports -- by far the top arms exporter on the planet --

Ummm....WHY???

Saudi Arabia was the top recipient of American-made arms from 2011-2015, followed closely by the United Arab Emirates, according to research compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), which has been analyzing international arms transfers since 1968.

The rest of the top 10 included Turkey, South Korea, Australia, Taiwan, India, Singapore, Iraq, and Egypt.





Why on hell's half-acre are we selling so much to everybody else???

Is it purely capitalism?
Is it all about the money?

Seems truly odd that the USofA seems so friggin frightened of being invaded by everybody out there, yet we'll sell weapons to just about anybody out there who wants them.

This kind of crap is going to bite us hard one day.
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
42,374
Reaction score
48,838
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, if we sell aircraft, munitions and artillery to places like Saudi Arabia and the UAE we not only make a few bucks but reduce the training time to get our troops working together with theirs should the need to take on a mutual enemy come up. We also have the advantage of being intimately familiar with their capabilities if they decide to turn on us at some point. Furthermore, if we want to build newer and better weapons we need to sell the ones we're making now to somebody. I know it's a strange concept but profit tends to fund R&D.
 

SMTA

Ketsu no Anna
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
35,245
Reaction score
8,918
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's who buys the most weapons from the U.S. - CNNPolitics.com



Ummm....WHY???




Why on hell's half-acre are we selling so much to everybody else???

Is it purely capitalism?
Is it all about the money?

Seems truly odd that the USofA seems so friggin frightened of being invaded by everybody out there, yet we'll sell weapons to just about anybody out there who wants them.

This kind of crap is going to bite us hard one day.

Cough.....Shah of Iran.....cough.....Afghanistan.....cough.
 

Tigerace117

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
43,950
Reaction score
12,024
Location
Chicago
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's who buys the most weapons from the U.S. - CNNPolitics.com



Ummm....WHY???




Why on hell's half-acre are we selling so much to everybody else???

Is it purely capitalism?
Is it all about the money?

Seems truly odd that the USofA seems so friggin frightened of being invaded by everybody out there, yet we'll sell weapons to just about anybody out there who wants them.

This kind of crap is going to bite us hard one day.

Geography.

Take a look at those countries' neighbors(or at least the countries in the general vicinity)

Turkey---- not too far away from Russia. And the Caucasus States are hardly a buffer.

South Korea--- oh hi North Korea.

Australia--- China. Also possibly Indonesia.

Taiwan--- China

India--- China

Singapore--- China

Iraq--- ISIS, total chaos

Egypt--- ISIS, what used to be Libya
 

American

Beer Lover Extraordinaire
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
91,293
Reaction score
29,804
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Well, if we sell aircraft, munitions and artillery to places like Saudi Arabia and the UAE we not only make a few bucks but reduce the training time to get our troops working together with theirs should the need to take on a mutual enemy come up. We also have the advantage of being intimately familiar with their capabilities if they decide to turn on us at some point. Furthermore, if we want to build newer and better weapons we need to sell the ones we're making now to somebody. I know it's a strange concept but profit tends to fund R&D.

.....spare parts, maintenance, training, upgrades....... :mrgreen:
 

Chillfolks

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
12,641
Reaction score
6,259
Location
VA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
This administration is trying hard,even considering a divine proclamation they call executive order, to restrict law abiding citizens from obtaining firearms. Yet out the other side of their mouths flooding the world with firearms declaring them fundamental tools for freedom.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's who buys the most weapons from the U.S. - CNNPolitics.com



Ummm....WHY???




Why on hell's half-acre are we selling so much to everybody else???

Is it purely capitalism?
Is it all about the money?

Seems truly odd that the USofA seems so friggin frightened of being invaded by everybody out there, yet we'll sell weapons to just about anybody out there who wants them.

This kind of crap is going to bite us hard one day.

I agree that America sells far too many advanced weapons to other countries...especially countries with horrible regimes like Saudi Arabia's.

Frankly, I would like to see all advanced weapons sales banned to ALL other countries.

Guns, grenades, logistical equipment and other 'simple' tools of war is fine.

But nothing advanced like combat aircraft, advanced missiles, warships, etc...and I don't care how 'friendly' the other country. Let 'em build and/or buy their own weapons from other sources.


And I am not buying that U.S. manufacturers need foreign sales. Sure, they want them. But America is BY FAR the largest purchaser of weaponry in the world, that should give her military industrial complex enough to chew on.
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I agree that America sells far too many advanced weapons to other countries...especially countries with horrible regimes like Saudi Arabia's.

Frankly, I would like to see all advanced weapons sales banned to ALL other countries.

Guns, grenades, logistical equipment and other 'simple' tools of war is fine.

But nothing advanced like combat aircraft, advanced missiles, warships, etc...and I don't care how 'friendly' the other country. Let 'em build and/or buy their own weapons from other sources.


And I am not buying that U.S. manufacturers need foreign sales. Sure, they want them. But America is BY FAR the largest purchaser of weaponry in the world, that should give her military industrial complex enough to chew on.

I think that you're half right. We should only sell very low-tech weapons or very high tech ones. The high tech ones (always a generation behind what we're using) should all be equipped with a "drone chip" that allows us to at least disable them and at best turn them on their users. Think about what would happen if we sold a bunch of F-15's to the Saudis and then got into a war with them. Suddenly, every f-15 in the air turns into a Kamikaze, diving into their most secure facilities, protected by a "Friend or Foe" beacon. :twisted:
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
42,374
Reaction score
48,838
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I agree that America sells far too many advanced weapons to other countries...especially countries with horrible regimes like Saudi Arabia's.

Frankly, I would like to see all advanced weapons sales banned to ALL other countries.

Guns, grenades, logistical equipment and other 'simple' tools of war is fine.

But nothing advanced like combat aircraft, advanced missiles, warships, etc...and I don't care how 'friendly' the other country. Let 'em build and/or buy their own weapons from other sources.


And I am not buying that U.S. manufacturers need foreign sales. Sure, they want them. But America is BY FAR the largest purchaser of weaponry in the world, that should give her military industrial complex enough to chew on.

Let's think about this for a minute. Say you have a good trade relationship with country X. Not only does X have resources we need but they are also located in close proximity to a number of other less than stable nations. If we want to maintain our deal on those resources then we will either need to support X if they are attacked or work out some way for them to protect themselves. As long as X remains stable and remains an ally they will be a good reason for those unstable nations to stay settled down (more or less). Furthermore, other nations also want the resources X has and if X starts to feel like we don't support them they will turn to other nations for that support.

The bottom line in such a scenario is that it's less expensive for us to sell X the means to defend itself than to risk losing the resources X has and/or having to defend X on our own.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I think that you're half right. We should only sell very low-tech weapons or very high tech ones. The high tech ones (always a generation behind what we're using) should all be equipped with a "drone chip" that allows us to at least disable them and at best turn them on their users. Think about what would happen if we sold a bunch of F-15's to the Saudis and then got into a war with them. Suddenly, every f-15 in the air turns into a Kamikaze, diving into their most secure facilities, protected by a "Friend or Foe" beacon. :twisted:

Yeah...I read about those but cannot find more information about them.

I read how Israeli F-15's (and all foreign ones, I assume) can be put into safe mode by the U.S. military.

They can still fly but their radar and weapons systems become inert. They effectively become non-combat aircraft - short of kamikaze attacks.

Do you have any links to this and/or the 'drone chip' you mentioned?
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Let's think about this for a minute. Say you have a good trade relationship with country X. Not only does X have resources we need but they are also located in close proximity to a number of other less than stable nations. If we want to maintain our deal on those resources then we will either need to support X if they are attacked or work out some way for them to protect themselves. As long as X remains stable and remains an ally they will be a good reason for those unstable nations to stay settled down (more or less). Furthermore, other nations also want the resources X has and if X starts to feel like we don't support them they will turn to other nations for that support.

The bottom line in such a scenario is that it's less expensive for us to sell X the means to defend itself than to risk losing the resources X has and/or having to defend X on our own.

I get your point.

But, imo, either the country is worth fighting for or it is not.

If Americans (through Congress) vote to send in troops to help a nation...so be it. If they don't, then the nation is on it's own (short of the U.N. or NATO).

I am not big on America getting involved in other countries problems/business...short of humanitarian aid or international defense efforts (like the first Gulf War, for example).


If other countries want the low tech stuff..great. Buy all you want.

But I am against ANY other country receiving ANY high tech, American weapon systems...even if it is a generation behind (like F-16's).

America should do everything it can to maintain it's technological edge over the world. I don't like U.S. taxpayers forking over their hard earned dollars to fund the development of advanced weapons systems that are then simply sold to other countries - no matter how 'friendly' they are.
if those other countries want advanced weapons...let them develop them themselves, buy them from someone else or do without.
 
Last edited:

Celebrity

DP Veteran
Joined
May 13, 2016
Messages
5,257
Reaction score
761
Location
VT, USA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here's who buys the most weapons from the U.S. - CNNPolitics.com



Ummm....WHY???




Why on hell's half-acre are we selling so much to everybody else???

Is it purely capitalism?
Is it all about the money?

Seems truly odd that the USofA seems so friggin frightened of being invaded by everybody out there, yet we'll sell weapons to just about anybody out there who wants them.

This kind of crap is going to bite us hard one day.

Calling globalization imperialism won't make you very many friends. Sure we have a military industrial complex, but isn't there a conflict of interest? Should we be training other nations to fight using the tools we provide? In most businesses, the product comes with a manual, but the political ramifications of enabling a sovereign country to kill its enemies are by far different than red-blooded Americans at boot camp learning how to defend their country. These countries have their own vested interest. We're playing the Saudis in the same game as the Chinese. Indoctrination of our allies would be unethical, though our enemies will learn more from how we fight anyway.
 

faithful_servant

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2006
Messages
12,533
Reaction score
5,659
Location
Beautiful Central Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Yeah...I read about those but cannot find more information about them.

I read how Israeli F-15's (and all foreign ones, I assume) can be put into safe mode by the U.S. military.

They can still fly but their radar and weapons systems become inert. They effectively become non-combat aircraft - short of kamikaze attacks.

Do you have any links to this and/or the 'drone chip' you mentioned?

I'm strictly talking out my butt on this one... 100% theoretical...
 

Skeptic Bob

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 6, 2014
Messages
16,626
Reaction score
19,488
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left
The high tech ones (always a generation behind what we're using) should all be equipped with a "drone chip" that allows us to at least disable them and at best turn them on their users. Think about what would happen if we sold a bunch of F-15's to the Saudis and then got into a war with them. Suddenly, every f-15 in the air turns into a Kamikaze, diving into their most secure facilities, protected by a "Friend or Foe" beacon. :twisted:

Stuff like that doesn't work outside Hollywood.
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
42,374
Reaction score
48,838
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I get your point.

But, imo, either the country is worth fighting for or it is not.

If Americans (through Congress) vote to send in troops to help a nation...so be it. If they don't, then the nation is on it's own (short of the U.N. or NATO).

I am not big on America getting involved in other countries problems/business...short of humanitarian aid or international defense efforts (like the first Gulf War, for example).


If other countries want the low tech stuff..great. Buy all you want.

But I am against ANY other country receiving ANY high tech, American weapon systems...even if it is a generation behind (like F-16's).

America should do everything it can to maintain it's technological edge over the world. I don't like U.S. taxpayers forking over their hard earned dollars to fund the development of advanced weapons systems that are then simply sold to other countries - no matter how 'friendly' they are.
if those other countries want advanced weapons...let them develop them themselves, buy them from someone else or do without.

But that's part of the equation. Those sales offset a lot of the cost we would otherwise incur internally. If Lockheed Martin can sell a billion dollars worth of electronics and aviation controls to Saudi Arabia the profit from that deal supplements R&D we would have to pay for ourselves.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
But that's part of the equation. Those sales offset a lot of the cost we would otherwise incur internally. If Lockheed Martin can sell a billion dollars worth of electronics and aviation controls to Saudi Arabia the profit from that deal supplements R&D we would have to pay for ourselves.

That would only help American taxpayers if American military manufacturers were developing a weapons system jointly with a foreign company AND IF America and the foreign country were going to procur similar numbers of the weapon system being developed.

Otherwise, it would not help U.S. taxpayers because:

a) Lockheed Martin is not going to spread out R&D costs to different platforms. They are not going to go 'Gee, we saved billions on those Saudi sales so we will put that towards F-35 R&D'. It does not work like that...they base the R&D per unit cost base on the R&D costs for that weapons system only. That is why the B-2 and the F-22 price's went through the roof. Because Congress drastically cut back the numbers bought, which spread the huge R&D costs over less airframes which sent their per unit overall costs to the Moon.
So whatever the R&D costs for the F-35 are going to be are going to be exactly the same and cost American taxpayers exactly the same - no matter how many other weapons systems Lockheed Martin sells.

and b) almost all the R&D costs of say the F-16 are long paid off. If Lockheed Martin sells F-16's to Saudi Arabia, that is almost pure profit (in terms of R&D costs). The U.S. taxpayer saves nothing...it's just Lockheed Martin that benefits.
 

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
42,374
Reaction score
48,838
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That would only help American taxpayers if American military manufacturers were developing a weapons system jointly with a foreign company AND IF America and the foreign country were going to procur similar numbers of the weapon system being developed.

Otherwise, it would not help U.S. taxpayers because:

a) Lockheed Martin is not going to spread out R&D costs to different platforms. They are not going to go 'Gee, we saved billions on those Saudi sales so we will put that towards F-35 R&D'. It does not work like that...they base the R&D per unit cost base on the R&D costs for that weapons system only. That is why the B-2 and the F-22 price's went through the roof. Because Congress drastically cut back the numbers bought, which spread the huge R&D costs over less airframes which sent their per unit overall costs to the Moon.
So whatever the R&D costs for the F-35 are going to be are going to be exactly the same and cost American taxpayers exactly the same - no matter how many other weapons systems Lockheed Martin sells.

and b) almost all the R&D costs of say the F-16 are long paid off. If Lockheed Martin sells F-16's to Saudi Arabia, that is almost pure profit (in terms of R&D costs). The U.S. taxpayer saves nothing...it's just Lockheed Martin that benefits.

With all due respect, R&D is ongoing for all industries. If the only time a company decided to look into new technology is when the government says "we need one of these" we'd still be arming our soldiers with rocks and sticks.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
With all due respect, R&D is ongoing for all industries. If the only time a company decided to look into new technology is when the government says "we need one of these" we'd still be arming our soldiers with rocks and sticks.

With all due respect, no it is not.

IF that were true - then why did the per unit costs of the F-22 and the B-2 go through the roof when their procurements were cut way back?

Because they DO NOT spread R&D costs onto other weapons systems when they are charging U.S. taxpayers.

When they charge Uncle Sam R&D costs on the F-35...they charge the ENTIRE R&D costs to the government...they NEVER charge less based on additional profits from other parts of their corporation.
In other words, if they sell more F-16's to Saudi Arabis, that will not - imo - lower the R&D cost per plane on the F-35 one penny.
Those extra F-16 profits just go to LM's bottom line and to their shareholders through dividends.



Also, you are forgetting that U.S. taxpayers often pay the other countries to buy the U.S. weapons. Israel, for instance, basically gets all it's U.S. weapons for free. Who pays for that...the U.S. taxpayer. The same with Egypt. And many other countries.

Also, the vast majority of American advanced weapons system sales are to the United States military. The profits from foreign sales pales in comparison to U.S. sales.


Finally, I would not care if everything you said was 100% true...I do not want U.S. military technology shared with other countries...period.


I guarantee you American advanced weapons manufacturers can make enough money from selling their high tech weapons exclusively to the U.S. military. If Israel - with only about 6 million people - can develop some of the best battle tanks in the world from their tiny tax base, then Lockheed Martin and all the other US military manufacturers can develop fantastic weapons from their massive American tax base (for example).
 
Last edited:

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
42,374
Reaction score
48,838
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
With all due respect, no it is not.

IF that were true - then why did the per unit costs of the F-22 and the B-2 go through the roof when their procurements were cut way back?

Because they DO NOT spread R&D costs onto other weapons systems when they are charging U.S. taxpayers.

When they charge Uncle Sam R&D costs on the F-35...they charge the ENTIRE R&D costs to the government...they NEVER charge less based on additional profits from other parts of their corporation.
In other words, if they sell more F-16's to Saudi Arabis, that will not - imo - lower the R&D cost per plane on the F-35 one penny.
Those extra F-16 profits just go to LM's bottom line and to their shareholders through dividends.



Also, you are forgetting that U.S. taxpayers often pay the other countries to buy the U.S. weapons. Israel, for instance, basically gets all it's U.S. weapons for free. Who pays for that...the U.S. taxpayer. The same with Egypt. And many other countries.

Also, the vast majority of American advanced weapons system sales are to the United States military. The profits from foreign sales pales in comparison to U.S. sales.


Finally, I would not care if everything you said was 100% true...I do not want U.S. military technology shared with other countries...period.


I guarantee you American advanced weapons manufacturers can make enough money from selling their high tech weapons exclusively to the U.S. military. If Israel - with only about 6 million people - can develop some of the best battle tanks in the world from their tiny tax base, then Lockheed Martin and all the other US military manufacturers can develop fantastic weapons from their massive American tax base (for example).

Israel and Egypt are pretty much the only nations that allow to use FMF funds for weapons acquisitions. Granted, outside of Iraq and Afghanistan (due to current circumstances) they are the largest beneficiaries of US hardware but they are hardly the only purchasers. You can find a rundown of recent purchases here - http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales
Note that those acquisitions are in the multiple billion dollar range just on that one page.

Now, when the DoD decides that it needs a new weapons system it opens the process up to bidding and yes, the corporation(s) that get the contract bill all R&D for that project to the DoD. However, that isn't the only R&D that's happening. These companies also like to come up with new ideas to sell to the military (both US and foreign).
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
22,664
Reaction score
10,124
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yeah...I read about those but cannot find more information about them.

I read how Israeli F-15's (and all foreign ones, I assume) can be put into safe mode by the U.S. military.

They can still fly but their radar and weapons systems become inert. They effectively become non-combat aircraft - short of kamikaze attacks.

Do you have any links to this and/or the 'drone chip' you mentioned?

Israeli ones are unlikely to be effected by that.

They tend to redo the software and some sensors with domestically developed systems. Israel is the only f35 operator who will be able to put their own systems in their planes. I believe Israel has done that with their f16 and f15s as well.

I don't think the trust anyone enough to allow their weapons to be shut down by any foreign country
 

Lord Tammerlain

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
22,664
Reaction score
10,124
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Too bad...I was hoping it was true.

:)
Friend or foe identification is true. It will preventer Saudio planes from firing on US ones while the US could fire on Saudi planes. Provided the software has not been changed
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
76,975
Reaction score
61,801
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's who buys the most weapons from the U.S. - CNNPolitics.com



Ummm....WHY???




Why on hell's half-acre are we selling so much to everybody else???

Is it purely capitalism?
Is it all about the money?

Seems truly odd that the USofA seems so friggin frightened of being invaded by everybody out there, yet we'll sell weapons to just about anybody out there who wants them.

This kind of crap is going to bite us hard one day.

going to? ****, isn't IS shooting at us with our own weapons already?

it's time to get out of the war business.
 

DA60

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
16,386
Reaction score
7,793
Location
Where I am now
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Israel and Egypt are pretty much the only nations that allow to use FMF funds for weapons acquisitions. Granted, outside of Iraq and Afghanistan (due to current circumstances) they are the largest beneficiaries of US hardware but they are hardly the only purchasers. You can find a rundown of recent purchases here - Major Arms Sales | The Official Home of the Defense Security Cooperation Agency
Note that those acquisitions are in the multiple billion dollar range just on that one page.

Now, when the DoD decides that it needs a new weapons system it opens the process up to bidding and yes, the corporation(s) that get the contract bill all R&D for that project to the DoD. However, that isn't the only R&D that's happening. These companies also like to come up with new ideas to sell to the military (both US and foreign).

I did not say that is all the R&D that is happening - but I don't care what R&D they do on weapons systems not purchased by America. I simply stated that selling arms to other countries does not save American tax dollars on R&D spending costs for American-bought weapons systems (which you acknowledge)...which is the point. If American taxpayers save no money from foreign sales on domestic military R&D costs...what is the point? To make the military industrial complex more money for it's shareholders? I don't care about them.

Additonally, in FY 2015, AMerica sold $46.6 billion to other countries in military equipment. Now deduct $5.9 billion due to U.S. taxpayers forking out military aid to other coutnries to pay for these weapons.

Pentagon Agency Handled Record Foreign Arms Sales in 2015

U.S. foreign military aid: 75% goes to two countries - CNNPolitics.com

That leaves roughly $40 billion.

But the U.S. military budget for 2015 was $636 billion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_States_federal_budget

That means the international sales equals less then 7% of US sales (theoretically). With respect, I hardly think this makes a substantial difference to the US military industrial complex's bottom line.

If every dime of those foreign sales went directly to savings for U.S. taxpayers in R&D costs (which clearly it does not), then that would still represent a tiny fraction of the total American military budget. Imo, that is hardly financial justification for sharing high tech military hardware with other countries.


Imo, Congress allows high tech weapons sales abroad for three reasons - support of military jobs in their jurisdictions (though it clearly makes little difference), election support from the corporations and the (imo) mistaken belief that it is in America's best interest to sell advanced American weapons abroad to prop up various regimes.


If you want to support foreign weapons sales of advanced American weapons...fine.

But I do not.

And I think it is fairly clear that any financial benefit to U.S. taxpayers in foreign sales is negligible at best (in comparison to yearly American military procurement).


I say, why arm other countries with some of the best American military technology in the world? Let them develop their own equipment which would - probably - be somewhat inferior in most instances. Let their taxpayers spend their money on their R&D to develop their weapons. And, if relatively recent history is any indication, the weapons they come up with will usually be inferior to American ones (with exceptions).
That is fine with me.


I applaud you for posting link(s) and keeping are discussion civil.

Good day.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom