🧵 Why do defense contractors sell armaments to other nations?
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:34:51 UTC No. 16584111
Why do defense contractors sell armaments (weaponry/vehicles) to other nations? I mean if a USA corporation made a very advanced warplane, why on earth would I (as a plebeian) or the country's elite (the upper echelon) want Saudi Arabia to have it as well? I mean they represent huge research investments - and then they are sold to other countries where they could be reverse engineered or studied or used for anti-American reasons. I know we primarily sell to allies - but I still see it as sharing confidential and proprietary secrets.
Why isn't defense weaponry sold only to the host country? Stupid analogy, but: I mean it's like EA having FIFA on all consoles - yeah you make more money, but why wouldn't the USA pay for first-class exclusivity on the armaments and make it like Xbox/Halo?
I don't normally post on 4chan, not sure if this is the right board. I just want to have a logical argument with people.
Anonymous at Wed, 12 Feb 2025 23:55:23 UTC No. 16584124
>>16584111
To fund it, also to get allies who have some level of reliance on you.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 00:04:48 UTC No. 16584128
because many sticks are stronger than 1 solid tube, in this way giving NATO-spec equipment to all of our allies allows for a much stronger defense as everyone will be using the same supply chains
a shame Trump is trying to destroy this, and probably will. Americans will be the ones holding the bag when the EU finally makes it's own military and cucks Americans in Latin America as a consequence.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 01:29:12 UTC No. 16584197
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 01:31:35 UTC No. 16584199
>>16584111
Theyre downgraded export variants and the government has to approve sales so that they aren't sold to unallied countries.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 01:34:13 UTC No. 16584204
The "good stuff" is usually sold only to trusted close allies, and often they have a hand in the development of those weapons and systems as well so it's in everyone's interest to keep the secrets safe. Stuff sold to less-than-close partners is usually older tech or "monkey model" stuff with the cutting edge pieces removed.
The other answers are also correct, you want allies that have a reason to stay tied to you, you want a stronger compatible defense network among allies, and you want your domestic industry to make more money.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 02:36:30 UTC No. 16584238
>>16584111
Military alliances offer the ability to wage war without sustaining all the cost and casualties yourself.
>want Saudi Arabia to have it as well
Because if shit goes down without warning in the ME SA can react while the carriers are still on the other side of the world, the opening days of a war can have a major impact on the long term cost and outcome.
>they could be reverse engineered or studied or used for anti-American reasons
US contractors with clearance preform work on classified systems and would notice someone pulling about an F-35 pretty quickly.
Also in a hot war planes get shot down, tanks lose tracks, ships sink ect. anything you send into combat has a chance of falling into enemy hands, the best insurance against this is maintaining production capability your enemies don't have.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 03:34:45 UTC No. 16584275
Because we make all the right decisions so we never have to BUY THEM FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 08:02:51 UTC No. 16584429
>>16584111
Free market capitalism
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 08:11:29 UTC No. 16584435
>>16584111
Not enough orders to maintain labor force in peacetime without it. You could downsize but that would defeat the point. You want an existing productive capacity with the scale to provide for America in a big war. We could just pay contractor employees to sit around and do nothing but that would be very expensive.
This is what's causing all those problems with US Navy contractors. They don't export the way Lockhead et al do, and so they can't retain a steady skilled workforce.
>t. Huntington Ingalls Industries bagholder, down 30% this year.
Anonymous at Thu, 13 Feb 2025 08:42:25 UTC No. 16584457
>>16584128
>EU
>own military
huh. dont these fags not even have enough ammo to do target practice?
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:25:38 UTC No. 16585673
>>16584111
Because it costs too much money to develop weapons, and if they are not sold then only like 10 countries would have weapons. Maybe you think this is good but it would just make them easy to take over by rivals.
So powerful countries just arm their allies and this also creates a dependency. Ally doesnt mean they have to do everythinhg but basically are subordinate.
If you dont sell weapons to an ally, you would have to take over that country as an empire or another empire would.
Anonymous at Fri, 14 Feb 2025 11:26:54 UTC No. 16585674
>>16584429
the weapons market isnt a free market at all. You cant just buy and sell whatever you want.