Ok, this is definitely going to be a controversial thread, but on the other forum, we were arguing about it a lot. So, what weapons do you think a country should export and what weapons should not be exported (too advanced, secret). Should the F-22 be sold abroad? Eurofighter? Mig-31? Also, do you think there are geopolitical spheres of the world. For example, I believe that Russia, China, India, and their surrounding countries could be considered a political sphere because they share many weapons and systems (Glonass, Shanghai Cooperation Organization). Then, I believe there is another sphere of the earth that the U.S. has the most control over. I believe this includes the Americas (Rio Pact defense treaty), Australia, Europe, Africa, Arab states, Japan and Korea, and the countries of the Malay Archipelago. The reason I include these countries is that the U.S. has military bases or Forward Operating Bases (FOB) in practically all of them. It is for this reason that I also include the Arab states. We train many of their troops and they give us oil. The U.S. is also introducing Africom in Africa so we will have a presence there too. I believe the U.S. relationship with Australia and the European Union is a given in that we have many common beliefs.
Weapons Exports and Spheres of the World
- Thread starter Brandon
- Start date
The only thing I would want my government to ask and be able to answer with a "Yes," before exporting weapons to a particular country is the question, "Is it in our best interests to do so?"
In the case of high tech weapon systems, like the F-22 Raptor and B-2 Spirit for example, I believe that a strong case can be made for the USA not to sell them to any other country. Certainly I would expect that the US government would want to be absolutely convinced that their best technology would not be compromised through information being leaked to unfriendly countries.
At the same time there is a compelling case for insuring that allied countries are able to assist in defending common interests and I think that selling reasonably high tech weapons systems (like the F-35 for example) to these countries makes sense. In other words I am suggesting that the US sell weapons to its trusted allies that can defeat its ememies' weapons but which in turn are able to be defeated by even higher tech weapons that are not exported.
Cheers
-Weapons that aren't "secret," I don't see a problem in selling to your close allies. With the F-22 and B2, I'd think I'd pretty much say to close allies, "I'd trust you with my life, but not with my wife".
-I'd let those allies train in them or sims, in the event that a close ally might really the stuff. It would be difficult to keep allies if you can't even say in the end, "we did all we could have done to help."
Depending on the climate of the world, that isn't good for "you," selling the best to allies my be in your best interest.
That's exactly the point. Two questions.
What are our benefits and how big is the risk?
I quote the post from performance from the F-35 thread into this thread and answer it here:
Second. I AM GERMAN. You don't need to teach me about WWII or Japans role as our ally in it.
But what does it have to do with today. Do you expect Japan to turn around 180° and start a surprise attack against the US?
With the same justification you also should stop every exports to Germany. No wait, we are in NATO...
And Japan is your ally. Yeah, because you forced it to be your ally after WWII but by now it is well integrated into the western world.
My post was mainly aimed at countering the argument that everybody should defend itself and that we export to everybody who has enough money. The first thing is not possible (I gace smaller closely allied countries as an example) and the second one is just false.
I agree that in the past many arms exporting nations made mistakes by selling weapons to countries which are not that stable. Examples are Iran or Argentina. Because of that I am also sceptical about modern weapons exports to Pakistan.
But defenitely not about exports to such close partners like our NATO allies, Australia, Japan, etc.
What are our benefits and how big is the risk?
I quote the post from performance from the F-35 thread into this thread and answer it here:
First, were did I talked about rights?
Second. I AM GERMAN. You don't need to teach me about WWII or Japans role as our ally in it.
But what does it have to do with today. Do you expect Japan to turn around 180° and start a surprise attack against the US?
With the same justification you also should stop every exports to Germany. No wait, we are in NATO...
And Japan is your ally. Yeah, because you forced it to be your ally after WWII but by now it is well integrated into the western world.
My post was mainly aimed at countering the argument that everybody should defend itself and that we export to everybody who has enough money. The first thing is not possible (I gace smaller closely allied countries as an example) and the second one is just false.
I agree that in the past many arms exporting nations made mistakes by selling weapons to countries which are not that stable. Examples are Iran or Argentina. Because of that I am also sceptical about modern weapons exports to Pakistan.
But defenitely not about exports to such close partners like our NATO allies, Australia, Japan, etc.
A curious thing in Performances post that you quoted -
"Japan attacked us with the same weapons we gave them".
I wonder what weapons he thinks the USA gave Japan? AFAIK the USA hadn't even sold Japan any weapons that it used in WW2, let alone given them away.
Last edited:
Geopolitically? I don't see it really, at least not since the mid-60s (with european countries gradually shifting away from the US starting with France). While there is a lot of cooperation, and military bases and so on stemming from post-WW2 occupation and NATO cooperation (mostly the first though), both sides have been forming different spheres since at least the late 90s. The US starting to differentiate Europe into "close Allies" (UK only), people "who agree with us" ("New Europe") and "people who don't agree with us" ("Old Europe") doesn't exactly help either of course. Politically, this gap is widening further and further, see especially the Galileo Project (and how the US is trying to sabotage it), or the US attempts at establishing ABM bases in "New Europe".
Sure, but on a geopolitical level "core europe" is following a different agenda, and rather often appears as a competitor to the US.
Let's not go back to the old bilateral world as outlined
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #15
When I am talking about the spheres, I don't mean that these countries are always agreeing with each other, but that they have a relatively good relationship with the U.S. One way to describe this is that we all know that the U.S. and Europe aren't going to have a war anytime soon. The same applies to Australia, Japan and Korea, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, etc. I say Saudi Arabia because the U.S. still has some troops there and even protects their oil through the Sixth Fleet.
performance
New Member
Which? The question is better phrased which ones weren't American. The biggest reason why we completely destroyed the Japanese Navy is because they were using old US technology while we had newer upgraded ships.
You seriously believe that Japanese created that big of a Navy with indigenous technology?
The answer is ALL of it. We gave them nearly everything from the beginning of the Meji restoration era.
Dont ever question why Japan is where it is Jap.
performance
New Member
You were talking about Europe's right to sell Eurofighter...everyone has a right to defend. You are completely right that people have the right to pursue commercial activities and that they have the right to defend themselves. But there is a bigger force, the US government wants more money.That's exactly the point. Two questions.
What are our benefits and how big is the risk?
I quote the post from performance from the F-35 thread into this thread and answer it here:
First, were did I talked about rights?
Second. I AM GERMAN. You don't need to teach me about WWII or Japans role as our ally in it.
But what does it have to do with today. Do you expect Japan to turn around 180° and start a surprise attack against the US?
With the same justification you also should stop every exports to Germany. No wait, we are in NATO...
And Japan is your ally. Yeah, because you forced it to be your ally after WWII but by now it is well integrated into the western world.
My post was mainly aimed at countering the argument that everybody should defend itself and that we export to everybody who has enough money. The first thing is not possible (I gace smaller closely allied countries as an example) and the second one is just false.
I agree that in the past many arms exporting nations made mistakes by selling weapons to countries which are not that stable. Examples are Iran or Argentina. Because of that I am also sceptical about modern weapons exports to Pakistan.
But defenitely not about exports to such close partners like our NATO allies, Australia, Japan, etc.
No I do not expect Japan to attack, for one reason only, we have made it so that they are incapable of attacking anyone. If we didn't place restrictions would they? Its debatable and ultimately its wild speculation, but its similar to saying what if the Soviet Union didn't collapse would they have won?
You have this assumption that due to economic factors Japan is an ally. It is a trading partner not an ally. We control Japan. Its as simple as that. They dont have the option not to become an ally ergo whether they want to be one is irrelevant.
Exactly what makes you think US-Japan relations is a two-way street? Japan will get technology such as the f-22 when the US needs Japan to have it. Never before.
US foreign relations are driven by 1 factor, its money. This notion that they are our friends is stupid and naive. Its not at all what is going on in the govt.
No it is not money.
It is what the government think fits into their future plans. Otherwise the US government wouldn't have given several countries weapons nearly for free (Or for free in the case of rebels and so on) as well as giving military aid to other countries (With the understandable restriction to use this money in the US).
BTW, you said by yourself that Japan is not going to turn around and wage war against the US and its allies. You think this partly because of other reasons than I do but the result is the same.
No facts against us selling them the EF.
They nearly operate US made material exclusively together with self developed weapons for gods sake...
You post about that the US gave nearly all its old tech to Japan is so vague and without ANY fact that it is not worth a reply.
Why do I get the idea that you are much much biased when it comes to Japan?
It is what the government think fits into their future plans. Otherwise the US government wouldn't have given several countries weapons nearly for free (Or for free in the case of rebels and so on) as well as giving military aid to other countries (With the understandable restriction to use this money in the US).
BTW, you said by yourself that Japan is not going to turn around and wage war against the US and its allies. You think this partly because of other reasons than I do but the result is the same.
No facts against us selling them the EF.
They nearly operate US made material exclusively together with self developed weapons for gods sake...
You post about that the US gave nearly all its old tech to Japan is so vague and without ANY fact that it is not worth a reply.
Why do I get the idea that you are much much biased when it comes to Japan?
Complete bullshit of course. The Imperial Japanese Navy was based on British technology, with most pre-WW1 capital ship classes originally designed by British yards, especially Vickers-Armstrong and Thames Iron Works.
Post-WW1, all ships were designed and built in Japanese yards, building on the British designs and experiences from it though of course. By WW2, several of the British-designed ships were still around, like the Kongo class battlecruisers (Kongo herself being the last Japanese capital ship to be built in Britain), but all of these either only pulled escort duties, or had long ago been rebuilt into training or repair ships and the like.
Japanese aircraft mostly were designed locally with British and French input into the process (Mitsubishi had some British working for them in the 20s e.g.).
US-Japanese relations had cooled down significantly by the time WW1 rolled around already, due to the Japanese "stance" towards China.
Last edited:
Apart from your assertion that Japan got all its technology from the USA being utter nonsense, as has been pointed out below (& BTW, they modelled their school system on Prussia, like the army, & it still shows in the school uniforms), the Japanese weren't "given" anything. They paid hard cash. There's a difference, you know.
They learned about artillery & small arms from Europe (deliberate policy - pick the countries with most experience), & learned fast. By the 1890s, the Japanese army was equipped with indigenously-designed & made rifles of similar quality to those they could import.
"You" do not control Japan. The Japanese find their alliance with the USA useful, and are therefore unwilling to antagonise the USA, but it is not a US colony. BTW, how much time have you spent there? Speak the language? Know any Japanese?