shivered,harrows admits sublanguage nearest polynomials brokenness phentermine online http://phentermineonlinet.blogspot.com/ …

While Russia undoubtedly has competent weapon designers, their ability to modernise their weapons has been restricted by lack of funds.

Iran and Syria will not buy Eurofighter (mainly because the UK governement has a very big say in the marketing of the aircraft)

Selling to Iran after their recent outburst is obviously a no-no. But in general I’d like to see the UK have a less restrictive policy towards weapons exports. The UK (and European) aerospace industry since 1945 has been continually hobbled by political constraints. Why hasn’t Britain had a best-selling fighter like the F-16? It isn’t because we don’t have the technology, for example British engineers made VTOL aircraft and supersonic airliners when other countries had failed, we invented radar and the jet engine, we had supercruise fighters half a century ago, etc.

Eurofighter has a highly impressive specification and with the right political backing would have got a lot more export orders than it had. The political mistakes that have been made on the project include:

(1) the French insistance on project leadership in a joint European project, which lead to Rafale being a separate design alongside Eurofighter.

(2) delays due to lack of funding in the 1990s due to German defence cuts.

(3) the system whereby each country gets its “share” of building the thing; it would be better to have a system whereby all contracts for parts of Eurofighter could be sourced from any company within the building countries without political constraints.

(4) political restrictions on exports.

Eurofighter could have been in service in the 1990s; if it had, it would have won many export orders due to it being vastly superior to anything else in the air.

Well, perhaps I should have put up a footnote saying “this is an oversimplification, but one with an element of truth in it”, but I thought it was obvious that was what I meant.

Second, there are still nations in the world which need to be kept in check. By “kept in check” I am specifically thinking of examples such as the 1991 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.

That’s a reasonable point of view, IMO. (The invasion was in 1990, BTW).

It might be nice to claim europe doesn’t want to invade anyone, therefore can sell to everyone, but with that attitude, you’ll quickly lose the ability to do legitimate things like kick Iraq out of Kuwait.

That’s not a good example — many European countries *had* sold Iraq weapons prior to 1990. In general, the amount of military capability a nation can afford is determined by its GNP, and Europe’s economy is vastly larger than that of any country Europe might consider invading. Take Iran for example; the EU’s economy is about 100 times bigger than Iran’s so there is simply no way, with whatever military build-up Iran achieves and whatever weapons Europe sells it, that Iran could ever become powerful enough to win a war against Europe.

The realpolitik you’re advocating is simply too shallow and rather amoral.

Isn’t Realpolitik inherently amoral?

You somehow try legitimize this with the claim, “Some people might reply that sales of Eurofighters to Syria and Iran will harm Israel … neither should it put Israeli interests before European interests.” Of course, in this context, “israeli interests” means “it’s existence” and “european interests” means “money”.

No.

My article specifically pointed out why selling Eurofighters in the Middle East would not give Iran or Syria the ability to win a war against Israel.

It also looks just as likely that Turkey will join the Eurofighter club, and this may well be because certain European nations have shown them that its in Turkey’s interests to invest in Europe’s future.

Whilst its clear that Israel is told which aircraft it must buy from the US, its just as clear that they dont mind. They get the most advanced systems even if the airframes are not the latest design. Certainly anything they can field is more advanced than any other fighter in the Middle East at the moment (except almost identical F16s just sold to the UAE).

Iran and Syria will not buy Eurofighter (mainly because the UK governement has a very big say in the marketing of the aircraft), but i wouldn’t put it past the French to slip a few Rafales to these countries (they cant sell the things at the moment and I think they have always had a lower threshold for the “moral” side to these things).

You’d do a lot better in the world if you stopped playing the stereotype game. First, it’s important to realize that the US attitude is not “do what we want, or we’ll invade you”. There are plenty of nations around the world who don’t do what the US wants – and the US hasn’t invaded them. If you can’t immediately think of a half dozen off the top of your head, it only reveals the blinders you’re wearing. Certainly, the US is more willing to start a war than europe, but it doesn’t change the fact that “do what we want, or we’ll invade you” is a cartoonish and erroneous stereotype. Second, there are still nations in the world which need to be kept in check. By “kept in check” I am specifically thinking of examples such as the 1991 invasion of Kuwait by Iraq. It might be nice to claim europe doesn’t want to invade anyone, therefore can sell to everyone, but with that attitude, you’ll quickly lose the ability to do legitimate things like kick Iraq out of Kuwait. Think deeper. The realpolitik you’re advocating is simply too shallow and rather amoral. Ultimately, to retain peace you should think about the strategic balance of power not only between europe and some buyer nation, but the buyer nation and its neighbors. Right now, you’re completely blind to this – which ultimately makes you like an amoral arms dealer who says “if our buyer invades his neighbors and kills innocent people, it’s not our concern. Our concern should be the money we get out of the deal”. You somehow try legitimize this with the claim, “Some people might reply that sales of Eurofighters to Syria and Iran will harm Israel … neither should it put Israeli interests before European interests.” Of course, in this context, “israeli interests” means “it’s existence” and “european interests” means “money”. When restated that way, your idea sound harshly amoral: “neither should it put Israeli [existence and Middle-East peace] before European [profits].” Maybe you should rethink your idea that being an amoral, destabilizing arms dealer is a good thing.