Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the US award defense contracts to foreign companies?
Results so far:
| Yes | 21% | 12 votes | Total: 57 votes | |
| No | 79% | 45 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesWhether the U.S. should award defense contracts to foreign companies is somewhat of a moot question; in that the Americans have purchased weapons and war material from foreign countries since the founding of the republic. However, a case can be made that the U.S. sacrifices some of its strategic independence in doing so.
By purchasing planes, helicopters, firearms and other weapons from non-U.S. suppliers, the skills and the technology the industrial base that goes in the construction of them are lost. It is sent "off-shore" like so many other seemingly traditionally American jobs in the modern globalized economy.
Whether this good or bad, really depends upon one's view of the value of globalization as whether it is good for the United States or bad. The growing economic interdependence in the world through globalization tends to make wars less likely, but does not eliminate the threat. However, there is a potential danger that the country of origin may switch sides or embargo supplying the American Defense Department during a crisis.
There are many potential problems with foreign suppliers, even if they set up U.S.-based subsidiaries to build the product in factories around the nation. Components, key parts, etc., still may have to come from suppliers who may or may not be willing to respond to the demands of U.S. needs. The suppliers may be more responsive to their own domestic political and economic requirements, rather than gear up to meet U.S. requirements.
This is not to say that key weapon systems currently in the U.S. arsenal are not already foreign.
The AT-4 84mm anti-tank rocket is a Swedish design.
A new addition to the U.S. inventory will be a helicopter that will replace the venerable Sikorsky-built VH3. The new VH-71, which will be used to carry the president, will be derived from the airworthy-proven, European-built, AgustaWestland EH101.
The Defense Department, long accused of being too cozy with U.S. defense contractors, has opted to replace the aging C-135 aerial tanker fleet with a European Airbus-derivative instead of going with Boeing, which has traditionally build most of the U.S. aerial tankers. But even Boeing's offer was deceptive because the Boeing design was not really "made in America" as many of its components, like the wings, were to be imported from foreign partner suppliers.
The popular M-240 7.62mm light machine gun, used throughout the U.S. Army, replacing the Vietnam-era M-60 (which was based on a German design) and the Browning .30 caliber machine guns, is a Belgian-built weapon.
The new attack fighter the F-35, still in development, will be built by a coalition of contractors, foreign and domestic.
The U.S. Navy's new littoral combat vessels and high-speed cargo vessels have been based on an Australian design.
During the Persian Gulf War and the Iraq war most of the war materials were carried in chartered foreign-flag ships rather than U.S. merchantmen because the U.S. merchant fleet essentially no longer exists, replaced by ships flying "flags of convenience" in order to evade the costly regulations imposed on the American fleet.
So, the question whether U.S. should award defense contracts to foreign countries basically has been overcome by the reality that the U.S. has imported weapons, and weapon systems, for its entire history.
Learn more about this author, Rich Browne.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
The United States should not only award defense contracts to foreign companies, but should begin retracting contracts that have already been awarded to companies whom has had ties with at any time with wary nations. China for instance is not an ally of the United States in which we would like to award a military contract to. Jeep/Chrysler Corporation for instance began contract operations in China for the make of Chrysler vehicles, which China began mass producing copied vehicles for its own population, since copyright laws doesn't exist in China as it does in the United States. Also, China wanted to begin producing military products developed by Jeep/Chrysler, such as the Hummvee and the M-1 Main Battle Tank. What a scary thought that would be for the United States having to fight a billion man army with tanks equal to our very best.
The mass influence by companies to use cheaper labor from foreign countries has triggered a very negative impact upon the security and the American spirit as a whole. Americans have invented a majority of products that has ever been developed in the world as we know it today. Americans have invented the automobile, the light bulb, the cotton gin, and the first air flight. We have sent people to the moon, developed a rail line from east to west, and defeated both the Germans and the Japanese in World War II in just a few short years. We did so with an American spirit and ingenuity and an undying will to succeed. We developed tanks, ships, planes, and jeeps in the masses to overcome enemy tyrants and dictators during a time after the great depression, and America can still do it again a hundred times over. The only difference between the now and the then is corporate greed to sell out, cut a few jobs, and or seek cheaper labor to save the bottom line. Sadly, this frame of business has infiltrated the think tanks of Washington. An over spending irresponsible Congress, with Republicans whom just can not find themselves to say no to corporate lobbyist, and Democrats with no true genuine ideas of there very own except to overtax and spend themselves. A Congress whom can't even find a way to balance a budget but yet can find the opportunity to outsource our national security by awarding defense contracts to foreign companies.
Some of the issues concerning foreign companies with defensive contracts can range from cheaper material or parts made with cheaper metal to short cuts in design which can create serious flaws that may risk American lives on the battlefield or the open seas. One example concerned the bolts for the main gun mount of the M1A1 main battle tank. The recoil of a round fired brings the main gun back inside the turret of the tank at a tremendous force. An incident occurred during a live fire exercise, a round was fired by the main gun, the main gun recoiled back and sheared the mounting bolts holding the main gun in place inside the turret, and the main gun and breech block fell onto the turret floor. Luckily, no one was hurt during this incident, as the loader of the tank at the time was dismounted during this particular engagement. Investigation of the incident revealed that the mounting bolts were bolts made from China. A cheaper material of metal produced a substandard grade of bolt allowing the bolts to shear during a live fire training exercise, which after several rounds,the bolts finally given way to the extreme force by the recoil of the main gun.
Not only parts and materials should be considered a major factor concerning defense contracts being awarded to foreign companies. What about espionage of our very defenses. The United States isn't well liked in many places. What if foreign companies in Saudi Arabia or even in England whom may have someone inside more than ready to sale information or technology to our enemies. The United States would not be able to control such an environment. Our very government can not even control the shipment of warheads to another country with our own defensive leaders at the wheel, how can we control the risk of espionage by a foreign company. Nuclear weaponry had been flown across the nation unaccounted for by our military whom had no idea where these weapons were. We have to ask ourselves, is our government and our Congress responsible enough to allow defensive contracts to be awarded to foreign companies? I think not.
Lastly, during a time of a never ending war on terrorism, we can not allow military equipment to be produced cheaply to conserve cost. Every piece of military equipment needs to be built, designed and tested by Americans for Americans. The lives of our sons and daughters are at risk every day. The hearts and souls of these young men and women rely on the fact that the equipment in which they are using and fighting with will make them through the day and allow them to someday come home. We can not allow that to be taken away from them just to cut a few dollars. I would much rather cut the pay of the irresponsible men and women of our Congress than to do that to our armed forces. But it is up to us America. This government is by us, we the people. We control whom these contracts go to. We are the people, but it takes us, the people to make the difference. If we are not heard, then who is to say whom shall our contracts be awarded to?
Learn more about this author, Jim Segal.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- US Military (Other)
- Should the US close the military prison on Guantanamo Bay?
- Should the United States set a timetable for the withdrawal of all troops from Iraq?
- Should the U.S. stay the course in Afghanistan?
- Is it right to use private contractors or mercenaries to fill roles in the US military?
- US Army recruitment rates continue to fall: Is a volunteer army sufficient anymore?
