"Penta" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:08:34 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:

Gee, you would not be whining if you developed these kind of systems with
your own money, would you? Break off your relaiance on US aid money and
then
you can chart your own course free of US involvment--until then, life is
a
bitch when the US decides that Arrow has too great a range for the
sensitive
Indo-Pakistani region at present (and consider yourself lucky that we did
not sit on that recent sale of the Phalcon radar to India, where we had
to
sell the Pakistanis some radar aerostats to maintain some level of
balance
between the two sides). Maybe you can sell it to the PRC, like you did
the
Python AAM?

There's a point there, but OTOH the original poster does have a fair
point, too.

America treats her allies really, really shabbily on things like this;
I understand WHY (hell, I go to college thanks to US combat vehicle
headsets, including FMS), but it still seems shabby. We can, and
should, let the Israelis and our European allies have a fair shot in
situations like this. Why?

In the case of the Europeans, no problem--they are paying their own way and
will do as they so desire. But as long as we are footing the bill for
programs like Arrow, then we get the right to decide who they can be sold
to. There is no real comparison between how we deal with European armament
sales and how we can, and should, deal with sales from Israel. If Israel
wants to be its own independent little armory for whoever has the resources
to buy on a cash-and-carry basis, fine--as long as Israel is the one paying
the development bills. If the US taxpayer is subsidizing the Israeli
efforts, then tough luck, our "interference" is the cost of taking our
money. Imagine the possibility of Israel announcing they wanted to sell
Arrow to the PRC--would it be right to allow them to do so after we
bankrolled its development? Nope.


1) It may well be better. (See Arrow, purpose-designed for ABM work.
Personally, I would actually prefer it if the US adopted Arrow; it
seems to be a plain better piece of equipment for the task.)

The article notes that the US is concerned over giving Arrow, with its
greater range, to a nuclear nation that is involved in a current bout of
"missile diplomacy" with another nuclear armed state. Personally I can
understand our reluctance to contribute to, or even possibly contribute to,
any imbalancing of the delicate status quo that currently exists between
India and Pakistan. I'll bet that the US will in the end only sell Patriot
to India if they also allow Pakistan to buy it--it is in our interest to
maintain the staus quo, as we saw when we allowed pakistan to buy those
airborne radars to offset the Indian purchase of Phalcon from Israel.


2) It makes the inevitable disagreements easier to bear; it's a lot
easier to agree not to sell to, say, the PRC, if you know that you at
least have a fair playing field in other sales competitions.

So you are saying we should allow Israel to sell Arrow to any nuclear nation
that is involved in a "brinkmanship"-like period of relations with another
nuclear armed nation? I disagree.


3) It lets our allies develop their defense industries. (It's
forgotten that mostly, the reason Israel and similar countries depend
on US aid money is because they can't dev their own local sources. Why
can't they do that? Because they can't recoup their costs in the
ever-more-important export market when they compete against the US,
who then forces them NOT to compete.)

I'd hesitate to label a nation that has already sold advanced (compared to
what they currently had) AAM's to, and tried to sell an advanced AWACS to,
and currently is trying to sell an advanced fighter radar and helmet mounted
sight system to, the PRC as an "ally". The same nation that has been
identified by the US government as being one of the bigger espionage threats
to the US, to boot. Just my opinion, though.


So, Kevin...if you want the Israelis not to depend on US aid or not to
sell to the PRC, you have to quit hamstringing them, and actually make
it possible for them to win vs the US on the export markets.

If they want to win versus the US in that international marketplace, they
have to compete *on their own*, not with our subsidies. As long as we are
paying the piper, we get to call the tune.

Brooks


John