4 ms·
Another and more immediate concern is that anything which contains subcomponents/subsystems or parts from US origin companies runs into ITAR and MTCR [1] issues
by walrus01 1mo ago
Another and more immediate concern is that anything which contains subcomponents/subsystems or parts from US origin companies runs into ITAR and MTCR [1] issues with the US federal government. There's a number of very complex European origin final aviation/aerospace industry products which are laden with US-origin components. I wonder about exactly how "non-US" this Isar rocket is.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Technology_Control_Regime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Technology_Control_Reg...
I would put it as a much greater likelihood that the US would decide to mess with export-control permits for various subsystems than a theoretical scenario where they begin intercepting western European flagged cargo ships on the way from Europe to French Guiana.
- nolok 1mo agoAgreed, the moment we allowed MBDA to put some american component in our (French) missiles made with european allies (Scalp, Meteor), the US blocked our sales to Egypt because they wanted to sell their own instead, using ITAR, forcing us to fix it for the french version. The US has repeatedly proven that ITAR is for them as much of a military thing as it is an economic one, and that they're willing to use it against allies. If we refuse to learn that lesson, it's on us not them.
- dylan604 1mo ago> The US has repeatedly proven that ITAR is for them as much of a military thing as it is an economic one, and that they're willing to use it against allies. If we refuse to learn that lesson, it's on us not them. I'm actually surprised anyone ever thought it was not a military thing.
- nolok 1mo agoMaybe I phrased it wrong, it's not my native language ? I meant it "it's not just a military restriction thing when they think there is military danger, it's an economic thing for when they can take advantage over a seller, and who the buyer is doesn't even matter".
- noir_lord 1mo agoI mean it's expected behaviour in one sense but in another it's becoming a bigger geopolitical risk to rely on the US for defence components/technology in the current world, the risk always existed, it's just shifted more one way. There are a whole bunch of military suppliers across Europe who are in the same boat as MBDA. Simply put, the US as an ally is less predictable than previously and that has knock-on effects across every sphere.
- TitaRusell 1mo agoThe European and US weapons industry is heavily intertwined because of the cold war. In hindsight the whole world should have planned for the "what if America goes Nazi" eventuality.
- noir_lord 1mo agoIt's going to take time to unwind that and it's going to be a slow process (unless they do something so utterly stupid they make it a fast process).
- freeopinion 1mo agoI think Canada might recognize that it needs to be a much faster process than anyone expected. Europe is getting some pretty strong signals and should be accelerating the process. Ukraine is obviously already in a full war footing to accelerate as fast as they can. They are pulling Europe along simply because the U.S. has abandoned them and walked away from almost every promise they ever made. How utterly stupid any individual action is will be a matter of discussion for decades. But the pace has moved towards urgent for at least half a dozen prominent countries.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- spiderfarmer 1mo agoUS military products are also full of European parts.
- echoangle 1mo agoDoes Europe prevent the sale of US products based on that though?
- spiderfarmer 1mo agoWe could if we wanted to. We just don’t have to behave like the biggest bully in the world in every geopolitical context.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- spwa4 1mo agoRegularly, yes. On a lot of these sorts of products, nothing happens without governments making deals first. Mostly because governments have a need to make sure they get weapons too, not just money for the components they make. Perhaps should be described as "sale is forbidden by default, but deals are common". This goes 100% for either completed weapons, or components that can be directly used as a weapon, then you have "dual-use", and the less directly it's a weapon, the more free you are to do what you want.
- _djo_ 1mo agoCan you name any examples? European countries and the EU as a whole don't have an equivalent of the US's ITAR 'See-Through' rule, which lets the US control the usage of a system that has any US components. I'm not aware of any sale of a US weapons system containing European parts being blocked by any European government. It has been done within Europe, but only for major components, such as Germany's blocking at one point of sales to Saudi Arabia.
- OrvalWintermute 1mo agoITAR and EAR were built to keep U.S. military and dual-use technology from strengthening countries that could use it against the United States or its allies, like Europe