I would say that we have the right to arm whoever we please. I don't think it's wise to arm everyone the way we do, but that's a slightly different matter than what rights we have.

I would definitely put some of the governments we sell weapons to in the "known threat" category.

A great topic.

I agree that as a nation, we have a right to arm whoever we choose.  But, I also believe that we have to take responsibility if we are arming a nation and we know their intentions to be hostile or destabilizing.

We can think of it a number of different ways.  First, arms deals are not exclusively one-to-one mapped between buyer and seller.  We sell to many nations that buy from China, Russia, European nations, and others.  So, it is rarely the case that the US is the sole provider of weapons to a state.

Second, how do you know who is good and who is bad?  For instance, the US used to sell weapons to Iran.  After 1979, that stopped (for the most part) after we deemed them a threat to our interests.  As far as I know, almost everything Iran has in terms of military equipment is from Russia, the Chinese, or a few European nations.  Just like the Mujahadeen of Afghanistan, we can arm people to defend themselves and drive away invaders but end up being at odds with them as soon as the invaders leave.  It is impossible to predict who will be a friend in 5, 10, 20 years time.

Third, what about nations that have no defense industry to speak of?  How do they keep up with the pace of the rest of the world?  If we don't sell weapons to a nation - where will they get them assuming nobody else sells them?  And on the same note, if others are willing to sell (like the Chinese and Russians), do we actually harm our image with nations that we won't sell to?  Assume Russia and China are arming country X - if country X is made to chose sides, they are going to chose their "friends" who have been arming them without fail.

So it seems to me that just shutting down military aid may actually hurt us politically.  And thus, if we decide to sell - it is really impossible to know how nations will use our weapons in the future.

Not entirely accurate.

I know for a fact that Iran was getting some really great shit in the '70s... to the point that the US Ambassador stationed there was concerned.

I only hope this practice has ended.

From: Mission to Iran by Former Ambassador to Iran William H. Sullivan

The first concerned the level of military-equipment sales to Iran. Under previous administrations the Iranaians had been permitted to purchase any amount of weapons they felt they could handle and, in most categories, ones just short of the most sophisticated. They had on the table for discussion with us a significant list of additional military equipment they wished to aquire. I knew the was introducing a memorandum to the executive branch restricting arms sales in general, and I asked how he wished to apply this to Iran.

His response was was quick and specific. He wished to be quite generous with the Iranians, and there was nothing currently on their shopping list under sonsideration that he felt is neccessary to deny them. This specifically included the AWACS aircraft that were still being introduced into the United States Air Force.

We were quite liberal with our technology back then, even ones we were still considering "new". It is this practice that I hope has ended.

Um, I don't see how this counters my assessement either...the highlighted portion of your post confirms what I have said.

With regards to the AWACS, if the Air Force wasn't able to easily jam it's capabilities or take them out with air superiority, then we wouldn't sell them....this again confirms my assessement.

If you just don't like us selling things to others, it is one thing...if you think we sell proprietary inventory for which we have no easy counter for...well that's another thing entirely....so it is hard for me to determine now if you have no clue as to what I am saying or whether it is an attempt at just being difficult.

Sorry, I had a better reply and then IAP cut out... so I apologize if I forget details that I had in the other.

Patton-

I didn't entirely understand your point. I apologize.

The AWACS, as you well know, are not war planes, but since the Air Force was at the time becoming aquainted with them as well, it isn't far beyond "unreasonable" to think we didn't have a countermeasure. The EW bonus AWACS grant to the Iranians is no different then what it will offer to the US.

My greater point was that I hoped we have stopped selling weapons that are so close to what we consider "modern". I also hope we have stopped selling chemical and biological weapons all together. It didn't work with Iraq too well.


This is a little bigger than the relationship between Lockheed Martin and you.

When a country sells weapons to another there is a level of trust that goes into it. Namely that these weapons will not be used against the US and that these weapons will not be used to endanger US interests.


Do you think the cost of our 2 wars in Iraq outweigh ANY profit we made in selling them the weapons they used against us? Do you think the issues that Israel has created using our weapons outweigh the profit we made selling them?

I'm just saying there are more long term costs then the short term satisfaction of dropping obsolete technology for a pittance.