Armada gets Tomahawks

[radiosilence]

The acquisition of the Tomahawk will suppose a qualitative leap for the Spanish Armada. For the first time, will have a capable missile to reach an objective situated 1.600 kilometers of distance with a margin of error of ten meters.

Spain and US are both partners in the MTCR. Isn't the transfer of missile technology over 300 Km in violation of the MTCR Guidelines on the transfers of missiles and related technology?

 

[swerve]

Spain and US are both partners in the MTCR. Isn't the transfer of missile technology over 300 Km in violation of the MTCR Guidelines on the transfers of missiles and related technology?

There's no restriction on transfers within NATO.

 

[radiosilence]

There's no restriction on transfers within NATO.

Seems like the MTCR is a waste of time.

 

[Galrahn]

just read that the Dutch tactom order is not cancelled but postponed, comes down to the same thing I guess but a cancellation of the order would require approval by parliament and postponing does not.

There is actually more too it than that, because the approval process has already been completed, by postponing the purchase it gives the government some leverage to purchase quickly if necessary.

If I remember correctly, there was a contract with Raytheon to insure integration on the HNLMS Tromp (when it was on the West coast for Anti-Ballistic Missile integration) for the Tactical Tomahawk Weapon Control System (TTWCS).

 

[kato]

There's no restriction on transfers within NATO.

There's no restriction due to the MTCR at all, actually. It just provides "guidelines" for how to approach a transfer of technology and items relevant to MTCR.

... or in other words, MTCR allows anyone to sell anyone else anything, really. As it says itself: Restraint will be exercised in the consideration of all transfers of items contained within the Annex and all such transfers will be considered on a case-by-case basis. And: Until further notice, the transfer of Category I production facilities will not be authorized. The transfer of other Category I items will be authorized only on rare occasions and where the Government (A) obtains binding government-to-government undertakings embodying the assurances from the recipient government called for in paragraph 5 of these Guidelines and (B) assumes responsibility for taking all steps necessary to ensure that the item is put only to its stated end-use. (Tomahawk is a Category I item)

Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[swerve]

Seems like the MTCR is a waste of time.

Why would you want to have external limits on what you can supply to your allies?

BTW, if you consider what kato has posted, you'll see that selling missiles to a NATO ally fits very comfortably into the MTCR. No technology transfer, is there? And the end-use provisions are nicely tied up.

Selling North Korea detailed information on how to make small & efficient jet engines, & guidance systems suitable for long-range cruise missiles, on the other hand . . .

 

[radiosilence]

Why would you want to have external limits on what you can supply to your allies?

BTW, if you consider what kato has posted, you'll see that selling missiles to a NATO ally fits very comfortably into the MTCR. No technology transfer, is there? And the end-use provisions are nicely tied up.

Selling North Korea detailed information on how to make small & efficient jet engines, & guidance systems suitable for long-range cruise missiles, on the other hand . . .

If there isn't any restriction on transfer/selling of "controlled items" whats the point of having a MTCR?

 

[swerve]

If there isn't any restriction on transfer/selling of "controlled items" whats the point of having a MTCR?

The point is in the name: Missile technology control regime. The parties to it agree not to provide potential troublemakers with certain sorts of technology. It's to stop the ability to make long-range missiles spreading to more nasty people than already have it, & the ability to make better long-range missiles spreading to nasty people who can already make poor ones.

 

[Todjaeger]

If there isn't any restriction on transfer/selling of "controlled items" whats the point of having a MTCR?

If there weren't restrictions, then correct, there wouldn't be a point to the MTCR. One must remember though, what the restrictions are. Spain is a member of NATO and therefore shares in the technology exchanged between NATO members. Selling an in-production weapon like the Tomahawk and derivatives doesn't violate MTCR since Spain already has the appropriate technology, they just haven't pursued their own indigenious design.

As I understand it, the restrictions of MTCR was more aimed at preventing nations that don't have the technology from developing/fielding it.

Just my US$0.02

-Cheers

 

[radiosilence]

The point is in the name: Missile technology control regime. The parties to it agree not to provide potential troublemakers with certain sorts of technology. It's to stop the ability to make long-range missiles spreading to more nasty people than already have it, & the ability to make better long-range missiles spreading to nasty people who can already make poor ones.

It creates one set of standards for one set of countries and another for others.

 

[swerve]

It creates one set of standards for one set of countries and another for others.

Yes. Like the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the comprehensive test ban treaty, the agreements on UN security council membership & a plethora of other treaties. And your point is?

 

[swerve]

...Spain is a member of NATO and therefore shares in the technology exchanged between NATO members. Selling an in-production weapon like the Tomahawk and derivatives doesn't violate MTCR since Spain already has the appropriate technology, they just haven't pursued their own indigenious design.

As I understand it, the restrictions of MTCR was more aimed at preventing nations that don't have the technology from developing/fielding it.

Just my US$0.02

-Cheers

Exactly!

 

[radiosilence]

Yes. Like the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the comprehensive test ban treaty, the agreements on UN security council membership & a plethora of other treaties. And your point is?

Its just as ineffective as those that you mention.

 

[kato]

Its just as ineffective as those that you mention.

There's nothing "ineffective" about this. The MTCR as written in 1987 has a single purpose: To hinder companies from recklessly delivering missile technology to third nations without explicit approval and consideration of the government (of the USA, and later also other nations' governments).
The MTCR is a standardized export restriction adopted by the US and later other nations, nothing else.

 

[radiosilence]

There's nothing "ineffective" about this. The MTCR as written in 1987 has a single purpose: To hinder companies from recklessly delivering missile technology to third nations without explicit approval and consideration of the government (of the USA, and later also other nations' governments).
The MTCR is a standardized export restriction adopted by the US and later other nations, nothing else.

It basically allows for the transfer/proliferation of very sophisticated weaponry among the selected and prohibit others. This will lead to instability. Its not preventing Iran from getting missile related technonlogy form North Korea. Do you think that effective?

 

[kato]

Its not preventing Iran from getting missile related technonlogy form North Korea. Do you think that effective?

North Korea never adopted the MTCR. Neither did Iran. MTCR does not affect either of them in any way, and was never intended to.

It prevents Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan from buying more MRBMs from China (as China abides by MTCR-Guidelines since 2000), and limits Indian missiles from technology cooperation with Russia to a range of 300 km (as Russia abides by MTCR-Guidelines). That's what MTCR is about really.

MTCR is just a guideline. Almost all exporters of sophisticated missile technology have other self-inflicted export limitations for this kind of technology anyway. MTCR just provides a standardized set for such limitations.

 

[radiosilence]

North Korea never adopted the MTCR. Neither did Iran. MTCR does not affect either of them in any way, and was never intended to.

It prevents Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan from buying more MRBMs from China (as China abides by MTCR-Guidelines since 2000), and limits Indian missiles from technology cooperation with Russia to a range of 300 km (as Russia abides by MTCR-Guidelines). That's what MTCR is about really.

I am aware that Iran and North Korea are not partners of the MTCR. These two countries are the greatest threat to peace in their respective regions and they are trading in Missile and nuclear related(rumored) technology. The MTCR has no affect on stopping them from doing this. This show the ineffectiveness of the MTCR. If the MTCR applied it restriction on the transfer of "controlled items" for everyone across the board it would have had a lot of more partners and it might have prevented rogue states such as North korea from trading in missile related technology.


The countries that you mention are in no way a threat to world peace.

 

[kato]

The MTCR has no affect on stopping them from doing this. This show the ineffectiveness of the MTCR. If the MTCR applied it restriction on the transfer of "controlled items" for everyone across the board

Maybe i should explain that a bit better - the MTCR is not some kind of international treaty between any nations (unlike e.g. the NPT).

MTCR is a set of guidelines outlined by the US Government (for the US), which later were adopted identically by other nations.

 

[radiosilence]

Maybe i should explain that a bit better - the MTCR is not some kind of international treaty between any nations (unlike e.g. the NPT).

One of the MTCR goal is stopping the spread of missile technology
over 300 km in the world. I can think of at lease 4 countries who are advancing with their missile program and have missiles that can travel more than 1,000 kilometers. some of these countries are also exploring missiles with much greater ranges.

 

[kato]

One of the MTCR goal is stopping the spread of missile technology
over 300 km in the world.

Umm, no. MTCR doesn't have that goal.

(below source: official MTCR site)

The Missile Technology Control Regime is an informal and voluntary association of countries which share the goals of non-proliferation of unmanned delivery systems capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction, and which seek to coordinate national export licensing efforts aimed at preventing their proliferation.

MTCR partner countries are keen to encourage all countries to observe the MTCR Guidelines on transfers of missiles and related technology as a contribution to common security.

The MTCR has made concerted efforts to reduce global missile proliferation, recognizing the growing international consensus that could be directed into practical action to reduce this threat. Against this backdrop, MTCR partners initiated the process that resulted in The Hague Code of Conduct.
In 1999, MTCR partners began consultation to this end, initially internally and then with non-MTCR states. They agreed at Ottawa in 2001 to universalize the draft text through a transparent and inclusive negotiating process open to all states, severing in the process the Regime's connection with the Code.

Further, even if it did, it would be of no consequence. There is only one single "universal" text that tries to actively apply itself to both signatories and non-signatories - and that's the UN Charter (which places all nations worldwide under UNSC decrees, including the handful non-UN-members).