Europe selling arms to China

[username]

Here's something to discuss - should Europe sell arms to China?
The decided they wont for another year but the issue is still there.

Here's something by TG Ash on the topic: http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...444400,00.html
His strongest argument is a quote from Lee Kwan Yew, which is like quoting Bashar Assad on Iran. ..

My opininion is that the whole issue is purely a face matter - China is already buying arms from Russia and I dont see what much more they could buy from Europe.

[Tiwaz]

Well, many nice electronic widgets are far better in Europe than in Russia and could make wonders for chinese military. Russian designs are not bad and if chinese take cheap russian airplanes, ships etc and upgrade them with european electronics they will have stuff which tends to be better than russian and cheaper than european.

[Profler]

Well, the disruption to the European arms business in the middle-east has been quite severe, so we need to find a new market somewhere. (The French in particular will be hard hit if they can no longer offload old equipment on the Iraqis)

Damn the consequences! The free market demands that we reserve the right to sell shoddy military equipment to whoever we damned well like!

[Phobos]

Though it is somewhat unnerving to note that a future conflict with China (if indeed one does occur) might involve our own lads being gunned down with our "allies'" technology, I honestly don't see how the distribution of "Western" arms technology can be prevented from spreading to China in the first place. As of the present the European arms embargo appears to be working largely because China seems perfectly willing to settle for Russian materials, and quite frankly a Russian gun is just as capable of killing someone as a British one. Indeed when considering the military capacity that China might field cheaper Russian arms are a better alternative then high-tech European and American models, particularly when considering that our technology leans towards smaller unit actions.

But even should China desire to acquire better arms from Europe or America then legitimate purchasing is hardly the only way to go about doing so. Naturally one can cite the use of "spies" and other such techniques to acquire this technology, but I consider that to be somewhat... overboard from what is actually necessary. Instead Chinese arms manufacturers may easily acquire a small number of weapons from "the other dealers" and, unlike Nigeria or some other third world nation, manufacture replicas on their own. But all of these are extreme scenarios, my only point is that China may, if it so desires, turn elsewhere and still acquire European arms, better to let the Europeans profit from the venture. After all, if another "great war" breaks out it'd be nice to have a strong set of allies...

[Tiwaz]

Profler, middle-east trade? In case you were not aware there has been no trade with Iraq for about a decade, or during the sanctions. If you can point to EVIDENCE saying opposite I would be interested to see it.

As for selling weapons to China. What countries China has invaded in say last 20 years? 30? 40? How far we have to go to get to actual aggression of China. Hell, they have been more peaceful than majority of western nations.

As for selling weapons to China and whining of USA... Look who is talking!
As you might have noticed from that very article USA ITSELF is selling military gear to China. Yes! USA!

Perhaps USA is annoyed, not because it fears that China will invade someone with western weapons tech, but because their trade might suffer when europeans would be there to compete with USA.

[Profler]

Profler, middle-east trade? In case you were not aware there has been no trade with Iraq for about a decade, or during the sanctions. If you can point to EVIDENCE saying opposite I would be interested to see it.

Bad example with France and Iraq (for some reason I just forgot that big thing called the UN had been involved for 10 years...), substitute Syria. Middle Eastern trade has nevertheless continued for European groups, but the recent instability over the last few years means that the market is dying off for nearly all countries apart from the UK.

[Tiwaz]

As for the "damn the consequenses"... I would be more worried when european nation was worlds biggest arms exporter. Which, incidentally, is today USA.

Europe should not sell their weapons but it's just fine for USA to make a fast buck that way?

[Portuguese Rebel]

I'm all for it. They are going to get them anyway. The reason why they are not running over patents of war material bought in the black market is because they don't want to piss of Europe and the US by doing so. If a confrontation was eminent they would give the west the finger and start making those materials themselves by reverse engineering.

So they save the trouble and hassle and we get some money.

[Xiaodun]

Originally posted by Tiwaz@Mar 25 2005, 02:26 PM
As for selling weapons to China. What countries China has invaded in say last 20 years? 30? 40? How far we have to go to get to actual aggression of China. Hell, they have been more peaceful than majority of western nations.

Actually China has been known to cause several minor military disputes with Vietnam and other southern Asian nations over land disputes. However during the cold war they were mostly satisfied killing their own people (thank you Mao&#33

Of course, now that CHina is developing into an industrial nation and gaining a lot of media coverage from first world nations, they arent about to go to war with Japan over the Senkakus or something.

The arms trade is probably because the Chinese government is trying to modernize its military so that internationally they will gain regocnition for being a modernized country.

[OTZ]

Originally posted by Tiwaz@Mar 25 2005, 02:26 PM
As for selling weapons to China and whining of USA... Look who is talking!
As you might have noticed from that very article USA ITSELF is selling military gear to China. Yes! USA!

Perhaps USA is annoyed, not because it fears that China will invade someone with western weapons tech, but because their trade might suffer when europeans would be there to compete with USA.

USA has a problem with lifting the embargo beacuse european nations wish to sell lethal-weapons to china. since '89, EU and US sales of military hardware has been of the non-lethal variety. do a little research and you will see that most of the US sales have come from the sale of sattelites. the US does not care if the EU exapnds the sale of non-lethal weapons - so quit thinking the US is taking a hypocritical stand on the issue, or that they are trying to protect some non-existent market niche.

every frickin time an issue likes this comes up, and the US is involved, people automatically start assuming the wrong things.

[GodEmperor Nicholas]

Trade is good--It builds bonds between nations.

Arms are bad--it leads to standoffs between nations.

At any rate it is a clear hypocracy on the part of "enlightened europe", since for all there talk about maintaining world order and criticisms of the US's in the interests of oil, it is clear they are more than happy to run toward a profit in the name of the military industrial complex when it suits them.

NM

[OTZ]

Originally posted by GodEmperor Nicholas@Mar 28 2005, 12:51 PM
Trade is good--It builds bonds between nations.

Arms are bad--it leads to standoffs between nations.

At any rate it is a clear hypocracy on the part of "enlightened europe", since for all there talk about maintaining world order and criticisms of the US's in the interests of oil, it is clear they are more than happy to run toward a profit in the name of the military industrial complex when it suits them.

NM

try to keep that one quiet - no one needs to know this :whistle