Malygris on 22/1/2007 at 22:40
The prototype for the F16 Fighting Falcon, one of the most recognizable, famous, and widely-used fighter aircraft in the world, was first tested in 1974. While no longer a cutting-edge aircraft, the F16 is still very much a modern, front-line fighter. It does make one wonder what's being worked on now, that we're going to find out about in 2025.
Aircraftkiller on 23/1/2007 at 00:02
Who would have thought that defense contractors would make more money during wartime? I guess their Valentine's day "candy-filled bombs" never caught on.
Paz on 24/1/2007 at 13:55
I believe the concern is less about the ethical implications of a section of industry directly profiting from the proliferation of war (though there's a moral argument to be made there, somewhere, too), and more to do with the possible influence that this industry may have on those who take the decisions to go to war in the first place.
One might consider that the combination of making large sums of money from wartime and having the potential lobbying powers to aid the spark of war, or to perpetuate existing wars, could be deemed a conflict of interest. The necessity of war can be debated ad infinitum, but since they're apparently going to continue at the moment, it would at least be beneficial for those with the responsibility to conduct acts of war to be free from any compromised views offered by those who would seek to gain financially from the affair.
As we have already seen in the UK, the largest arms firm (BAE Systems) have been able to use government channels to silence a serious fraud investigation against them. One which, by all accounts, was about to close the net on some high-profile criminal elements at work within the company.
This is an unacceptable level of power for a single business to be wielding.
I'm unsure how engrained Lockheed Martin are in the corridors of administration (although my guess would be "quite a lot"), nor do I think a simplistic "so Iraq happened because Lockheed asked for it!" explanation is useful. However, the broader picture of defense contractors having the ear of government is one which should trouble people. Or, at the very least, people should be keenly aware of.
Ultraviolet on 24/1/2007 at 17:47
But what are people supposed to DO about it?
SD on 24/1/2007 at 18:12
Settle international conflicts with rock/paper/scissors?
Chimpy Chompy on 24/1/2007 at 18:12
Quote Posted by Paz
As we have already seen in the UK, the largest arms firm (BAE Systems) have been able to use government channels to silence a serious fraud investigation against them.
I thought it was the Saudis who shut that one down? Or to put it another way, the fear of losing several billion ££ destined for the British Economy?
Malygris on 24/1/2007 at 20:24
Isn't that basically the same thing? What's good for BAE is good for the UK.
Chimpy Chompy on 24/1/2007 at 20:46
I'm not sure they're quite the same thing - the assertion is that the cancellation happened just cos BAE asked for it. But I'm thinking the government might have reached that decision anyway for the sake of the economy.
Which is great for the BAE guys of course, and suggests they can get away with terrible stuff, but it's because of happy circumstances from their perspective, not because they personally have the power to influence major government decisions.
Malygris on 24/1/2007 at 21:16
Their influence is an inevitability of their position; any company that has as much direct impact on the national economy as BAE is going to have influence regardless of how, or whether, they choose to wield it. In most cases, including this Saudi business I would imagine, all they'd really need to do is let the right people know that, wow, this sort of thing could be really bad for business, and then stand back and let pieces fall into place. Maybe they don't have a direct hotline to Tony's place, but in their position, why would they need one?
