Thats my question. When I look at international Arms sales I'm always struck by the inherent contradictions , such as selling advanced tanks to Egypt, and F-15's to Israel, or F-16's to Pakistan while trying to convince the Indians to buy American.
Or selling Hunter jets to Indoniesia to be used on Civilians in East Timor while claiming to support human rights.
For the record I'm not opposed to selling arms persay, I believe in selling to your close and true allies, or to a country which has come under unprokoked attack.
I do not believe in selling weapons to a country to make a profit, or to make your own weapons a little cheaper to buy.
So I guess I want to hear from you guys, more than a few are ex mil, or work in the arms industry, what do you think of the ethics of selling weapons?
Do you believe the system as it stands is the best one?
Do you think there are alternatives?
I believe a set of guideline could put in place, obviously the United States, as the largest exporter of arms would have to take the lead.
1/ A ban on the sale of weapons to Undemocratic nations.
2/ A ban on the sales of weapons to nations persuing expanionary wars.
3/ A Ban on the sale of weapons to countries which under international law are illeagally occupying territory
I believe those would be sane and ethical guide lines for us to follow.
Enforcement would be the kicker, but a sliding scale of economic santions could be put in place.
This is an excerpt from a wiki article, its fully referenced, so I have no reason to doubt it, and shows the scale to which the market has grown.
"The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, with a sales volume that exceeds the next 14 countries combined. Military sales equate to about 18 percent of the Federal budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any nation. (Estimated budget authority as presented in the President's budget.) John Ralston Saul states that the American government cannot reduce arms sales because of the consequent fall in GDP. (See John Ralston Saul's The Collapse of Globalism, 2005)
U.S. arms are sold either as Foreign military sales (FMS), in which The Pentagon is an intermediate negotiator, or as Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), where a company directly negotiates with its buyer. Many sales require a license from the State Department. The Defense Department manages the Excess Defense Articles (EDA), weapons from the US military given away or sold at bargain prices, emergency drawdowns, assistance provided at the discretion of the President, and International Military Education and Training (IMET).
From 1989 to 1996, the global value of direct commercial arms sales was US$257 billion, of which 45% was exported from the US. According to the 2005 annual US congress reports, 58% of all US arms trade contracts are made with developing countries. The most recent World Policy Report, an annual update issued by the Arms Trade Research Center, a more detailed breakdown of US military spending is offered. It is here touched on from the following passages from the executive summary, expounded upon later in the report:
"In 2003, the last year for which full information is available, the United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in active conflicts. From Angola, Chad and Ethiopia, to Colombia, Pakistan and the Philippines, transfers through the two largest U.S. arms sales programs (Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales) to these conflict nations totaled nearly $1 billion in 2003, with the vast bulk of the dollar volume going to Israel ($845.6 million)."
In 2003, more than half of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world (13 of 25) were defined as undemocratic by the U.S. State Department’s Human Rights Report: in the sense that "citizens do not have the right to change their own government" or that right was seriously abridged. These 13 nations received over $2.7 billion in U.S. arms transfers under the Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales programs in 2003, with the top recipients including Saudi Arabia ($1.1 billion), Egypt ($1.0 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), the United Arab Emirates ($110 million) and Uzbekistan ($33 million)."
In fiscal year 2002, $70 million USD was spent on International Military Education and Training (IMET) for 113 countries. During this same year, $46 million worth of drawdowns were provided to Nigeria ($4 million), Afghanistan ($2 million), Georgia ($25 million), the Philippines ($10 million) and Tunisia ($5 million)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales
At its root selling weapons for profit leads us into a basic contradiction, Western civilisation, Chistian, democratic, believes in giving everyone the chance to lead peaceful, profitable lives. We believe, with good reason, that democracy grants us the best chance to live that life.
Yet at the same time we sell weapons to some of the most dictorial regimes on the planet, those same weapons are used to buttress the power of those states, in some cases they are used directly on there citizens. And why do we do this? the arguements range from the selfish ie, your saving jobs back home, to the absurd ie, we engaging with the regime. But as for as I can see is we've built this hugh machine that produces arms that so many people are dependent on and tied it into our military, and that machine needs to be feed with new orders.
Spending on armaments has now exceeded cold war levels! while the number of active conflicts in the world have dropped to there lowest levels since the Cold war.
Or selling Hunter jets to Indoniesia to be used on Civilians in East Timor while claiming to support human rights.
For the record I'm not opposed to selling arms persay, I believe in selling to your close and true allies, or to a country which has come under unprokoked attack.
I do not believe in selling weapons to a country to make a profit, or to make your own weapons a little cheaper to buy.
So I guess I want to hear from you guys, more than a few are ex mil, or work in the arms industry, what do you think of the ethics of selling weapons?
Do you believe the system as it stands is the best one?
Do you think there are alternatives?
I believe a set of guideline could put in place, obviously the United States, as the largest exporter of arms would have to take the lead.
1/ A ban on the sale of weapons to Undemocratic nations.
2/ A ban on the sales of weapons to nations persuing expanionary wars.
3/ A Ban on the sale of weapons to countries which under international law are illeagally occupying territory
I believe those would be sane and ethical guide lines for us to follow.
Enforcement would be the kicker, but a sliding scale of economic santions could be put in place.
This is an excerpt from a wiki article, its fully referenced, so I have no reason to doubt it, and shows the scale to which the market has grown.
"The United States is by far the largest exporter of weapons in the world, with a sales volume that exceeds the next 14 countries combined. Military sales equate to about 18 percent of the Federal budget, far and away the greatest proportion of any nation. (Estimated budget authority as presented in the President's budget.) John Ralston Saul states that the American government cannot reduce arms sales because of the consequent fall in GDP. (See John Ralston Saul's The Collapse of Globalism, 2005)
U.S. arms are sold either as Foreign military sales (FMS), in which The Pentagon is an intermediate negotiator, or as Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), where a company directly negotiates with its buyer. Many sales require a license from the State Department. The Defense Department manages the Excess Defense Articles (EDA), weapons from the US military given away or sold at bargain prices, emergency drawdowns, assistance provided at the discretion of the President, and International Military Education and Training (IMET).
From 1989 to 1996, the global value of direct commercial arms sales was US$257 billion, of which 45% was exported from the US. According to the 2005 annual US congress reports, 58% of all US arms trade contracts are made with developing countries. The most recent World Policy Report, an annual update issued by the Arms Trade Research Center, a more detailed breakdown of US military spending is offered. It is here touched on from the following passages from the executive summary, expounded upon later in the report:
"In 2003, the last year for which full information is available, the United States transferred weaponry to 18 of the 25 countries involved in active conflicts. From Angola, Chad and Ethiopia, to Colombia, Pakistan and the Philippines, transfers through the two largest U.S. arms sales programs (Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales) to these conflict nations totaled nearly $1 billion in 2003, with the vast bulk of the dollar volume going to Israel ($845.6 million)."
In 2003, more than half of the top 25 recipients of U.S. arms transfers in the developing world (13 of 25) were defined as undemocratic by the U.S. State Department’s Human Rights Report: in the sense that "citizens do not have the right to change their own government" or that right was seriously abridged. These 13 nations received over $2.7 billion in U.S. arms transfers under the Foreign Military Sales and Commercial Sales programs in 2003, with the top recipients including Saudi Arabia ($1.1 billion), Egypt ($1.0 billion), Kuwait ($153 million), the United Arab Emirates ($110 million) and Uzbekistan ($33 million)."
In fiscal year 2002, $70 million USD was spent on International Military Education and Training (IMET) for 113 countries. During this same year, $46 million worth of drawdowns were provided to Nigeria ($4 million), Afghanistan ($2 million), Georgia ($25 million), the Philippines ($10 million) and Tunisia ($5 million)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales
At its root selling weapons for profit leads us into a basic contradiction, Western civilisation, Chistian, democratic, believes in giving everyone the chance to lead peaceful, profitable lives. We believe, with good reason, that democracy grants us the best chance to live that life.
Yet at the same time we sell weapons to some of the most dictorial regimes on the planet, those same weapons are used to buttress the power of those states, in some cases they are used directly on there citizens. And why do we do this? the arguements range from the selfish ie, your saving jobs back home, to the absurd ie, we engaging with the regime. But as for as I can see is we've built this hugh machine that produces arms that so many people are dependent on and tied it into our military, and that machine needs to be feed with new orders.
Spending on armaments has now exceeded cold war levels! while the number of active conflicts in the world have dropped to there lowest levels since the Cold war.
Last edited:
