Hacker News Reader

Comment by greyman | Hacker News Reader

> I'm not a US citizen, so for me the US having a strong military isn't necessarily in my best interests, depending on circumstance.

Yes, that's exactly the problem. What if in the future, my country and USA will be enemies? It is not very probable, but so wasn't a prospect of war in Ukraine, for example. You just don't know how things will develop, and if a company want's to be global, it shouldn't directly support a military of a specific country.

View on HN

That's not how things are done today. Military technology is shared widely among allies. If we cannot trust our friends, we are doomed.

There might be national secret-sauce here or there, but the major military contractors are all international. Lots of projects involve R&D spread across multiple nations. Things mostly get dicey when looking at nations that are too unstable to trust (Egypt, Pakistan, etc.), or those that are current rivals (Russia, China).

But Google has customers also into those rivals countries. I would prefer military to hire their own people, and don't touch normal companies.

Isn't it the case that the only nation getting an F35 comparable to the US version is the UK? It's unclear if even that version is the same. Everyone else seems to be getting some sort of F35 lite export version, including Australia, Italy and possibly others.

Is that trusting one's friends or are they too unstable to trust?

The US generally does not export its most advanced defense technology. Almost all fighter aircraft exports over the past century have have limitations on its equipment. Generally the receiving country replaces some equipment with their own domestic variants. Israel and Japan do this with their US fighter aircraft.

Trusting an ally with any version of the F-35 is a big thing. The base F-35 is still going to be a very great fighter aircraft.

There is no such thing as an "export version" of the F-35. All F-35s have the same installed mission systems, the same avionics, and the same mission performance. This was one of the big goals of the program -- to give the US, allies, and other friendly nations a common, capable, 5th generation strike aircraft.

That's funny, I've read the claim multiple times in the media amongst the controversy over its procurement. Not least because it took years for the US:UK dispute over technology transfer to resolve during the Bush+Blair years.

Even since resolution there's unprecedented restrictions of maintenance in RAF service, requiring some major components returned to BAe in the US when BAe are a British based company.

I'm on my way out but a quick search seems to show Israel as having the least restricted version, which is a surprise: https://www.wired.com/2016/05/israel-can-customize-americas-...

Some discussion of the Blair era issues: https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/uk-warns-usa-over-itar-...

The major components returned to BAE in the US are probably related to the AN/ALQ-239 Electronic Warfare suite, which is made by BAE's US subsidiary. BAE UK does not directly control its US subsidiary.

Just because Israel is allowed to add additional equipment to the F-35 doesn't mean anything in terms of the F-35 itself. Which, as I said, is the same as everyone else's.

What if in the future your country needs the US military?

What if in the future their country ia attacked by the US military for some bullshit made up claims of WMDs? If you weight the outcomes with their probabilities of occuring, they believe that the US military is a net negative. You just have a different cost function and a different pdf of certain events occuring.

Isn't the point here that there are too many what-ifs to state that a strong US military is good for everyone?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com