> Others could argue that's just the cost of being in the business of weapons manufacturing.
Well, sure, you could argue that, but that argument justifies every rule that exists now or might in the future.
Well, sure, you could argue that, but that argument justifies every rule that exists now or might in the future.
Export controls are there to prevent killing machines getting in the hands of a countries enemies (or potential enemies in the future)
1. You live in the US
2. You believe the US government is moral and "good"
3. Any "enemy of the US" is evil
3 assumptions I am not willing to support
It isn't about believing your government is moral or good. Its about understanding that your government is responsible for the safety of citizens, and that your enemies will want to kill you (or at least kill your soldiers).
I would be much happier with US strategy if the discussion always began with metaanalysis of the motivations and origins of a putative enemy, with the focus on social and humanitarian means to prevent the formation of new problems.
Does it have any enemies?
Would you be upset if some local corporation sold breakthrough military technology to that enemy?
Yes the US has Enemies,
No I would not be upset is some local corporation sold breakthrough military technology to that "enemy"...
I lived through the first cryptowars, I do not have the desire to give the government that kind of power
I see the resurgence of the new cryptowars on the horizon, government can not be trusted to choose what information should be public and what should be secret
But you don't really need to assume any of that. If you just assume that spreading military tech is a net negative, then this is good. I don't support the US's use of drones, but I especially don't want other countries to have drones. I don't support the use of nuclear bombs, but I certainly don't want other countries to have them. Whether the country is good or not, I think advancing military tech is at best neutral, and at worst very, very bad.
Better stop using that GPS as well, and about 1000000000 of other common everyday technology that was created for military reasons.
The internet started as a ARPA research project, the fact that it is used by civilians today is not relevant to the conversation
You stated that "I think advancing military tech is at best neutral, and at worst very, very bad." GPS and the Internet are 2 prime examples of Military Tech has that massively improved the world. Nuclear Power being a 3rd, I can cite 1000's of others.
In practice that isn't, umm, practical. Consider the Falklands war - Argentina had Type 42 destroyers sold to them by Britain, and Exocet missiles sold by fellow NATO member France.