Vive Le Complexe Industriel Militaire

Apparently, there wasn't enough defense spending in the massive NDAA ($740 billion), so we had to throw some into the coronavirus stimulus package...
Source

Yeah, that's what we need right now, to make sure Boening and Lockheed are taken care of. 

geeze, you really want to go back to the '60's, '70's for the old Industrial Military Complex of very old time. TGet something new. It was boring years ago, and it's more so now.

I'm curious how an agreement to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons bears any place in a discussion about drones?

But at the same time.  This is typically disgusting of Trump on this front.  But not out of character.  If the US is going to stop protecting these countries ... they'll need to protect themselves.  Kind of hard to argue they need to do that, while blocking them from buying arms and munitions to do so.  Seems like a part of the conversation that needs to be considered.

I'm not sure I care if US defense companies sell arms to other countries.  I'm more concerned about US soldiers using those armaments on other countries.  It's not really the military/industrial complex that's being discussed in this article.  More of a other countries/industrial complex?

Queshank

To expand on this ... do you think the US military is in favor of US defense contractors strengthening the military capabilities of other countries?

Queshank

Here are a few things on the MTCR:

"The MTCR was initiated by like-minded countries to address the increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons by addressing the most destabilizing delivery system for such weapons. In 1992, the MTCR’s original focus on missiles for nuclear weapons delivery was extended to a focus on the proliferation of missiles for the delivery of all types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), i.e., nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Such proliferation has been identified as a threat to international peace and security. One way to counter this threat is to maintain vigilance over the transfer of missile equipment, material, and related technologies usable for systems capable of delivering WMD." (Source)

"Each MTCR member is supposed to establish national export control policies for ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, space launch vehicles, drones, remotely piloted vehicles, sounding rockets, and underlying components and technologies that appear on the regime's Material and Technology Annex. Members can add items to or subtract them from the annex through consensus decisions. The annex is divided into two separate groupings of items, Category I and Category II. Category I includes complete missiles and rockets, major sub-systems, and production facilities. Specialized materials, technologies, propellants, and sub-components for missiles and rockets comprise Category II." (Source)

There are also several U.S. laws related the MTCR; see here.

That doesn't really answer the question I'm asking.  Why are drones a part of this and not say ... F16s?

For that matter ... is the MTCR ... a cold war era agreement ... relevant today?  Is this something the blob is clinging to for blob reasons?

Queshank

Now THAT persuades me. My attempt at pigeon holing the MIC fails pretty hard with this response. Esper as a guy who was a lobbyist before he became a mover in the military bureaucracy is an aberration I let distract me from how the opposite is the typical career trajectory for military officials.



Tongue in cheek tho, I have to point out "willy nilly so defense contractors can make a buck" has traditionally been Congress's job. I'm not sure elaborate theatre surrounding a lot of these stupid decisions historically is really a good rational for using that system in the alternative.

As a teen in the 80s who went thru nuclear drills in elementary I think there's very little from the 80s that is relevant to today. So I find it hard to get too worked up about agreements Ronald Reagan made being bypassed.

Queshank

My point in saying this is just to illustrate my biases. Not so much to say it's a valid reason for my skepticism.

Queshank