castledoom.com

[JuntaJoe]

I just wrote this to my two US Senators, Cornyn and Hutchison.

Quote: American security should not be for sale. Making US passports in Taiwan? French air tankers? French Marine One helicopters? Arab managed US ports?

I'm a capitalist and firmly believe in free trade. I'm not a protectionist. Merit and performance rule my ethical standards. But I'm also a USMC veteran. I know that certain things should be sourced completely at home because national security demands it. We are in a war with an unknown future and enemies that never play by the rules. That we should ever risk losing material sourcing or suffer technology theft from outside our borders is beyond comprehension.

There should be a law. That law should demand that everything, with the exception of raw resources, that relates to national security should be manufactured in their entirety in the US. If there is a stoppage of flow or a sale to enemies there needs to be the ability to step in with federal authorities to secure these goods and technologies. This ability is not possible if the work is sourced outside the US.

Texas has a strong and proud tradition of defending this nation. Therefore I expect my US Senators from Texas to do nothing less than their best effort to secure our defense materials and critical security technologies from foreign control.

A dollar saved is not worth our security.

You've always had my vote in the past. That continued support will firmly rest in your visible efforts on this matter. Texas should lead from the front on this critical matter of national security.

What do you all think?

[NibbyCat]

I agree, it's wrong on several levels. National security is the big one, but it just sends a wrong message to the US people, that our workers aren't deserving, for whatever reason they imagine, of these projects.

[s_stabeler]

:roll: while I understand why you'd probably want the stuff made in the USA, the EU would actually be juts as secure. not to mention, it's only parts f the tankers ( I believe it's the wings) that would be manufactured in the EU,. the actual assembly would be in the US. same goes for marine one. I believe that was going to be UK rotors, rest built in the US. the passports I can agree with you though.

[JuntaJoe]

No matter how secure you think a French or UK plant to be, Sstabeler, there is no way we can send in FBI and US troops to secure such a facility if there is a breach.

American has the technology and skills to make everything in our police/military arsenals and supply depots.

We have the ability to be completely self sufficient in our national security.

But if we get in the practice of outsourcing it then we could hit a shortfall at the most critical time, or worse, see it fall into enemy hands.

America's unique ability in war has been its internal logistics and technology. Plenty of countries out there with more warm bodies, but we manage to out pace them. There is absolutely no good reason we should let go of our most unique ability simply to save some money.

[s_stabeler]

:roll: sure, you can't send US troops in, but remember that the crucial diagrams (the blueprints for the whole thing) could easily be mandated to be stored in the US. if you are concerned about a bomb being snuck in when the parts are made, inspect them when they arrive in the US.

As for the chances of production falling into enemy hands, simply mandate that it can't be outsourced to anywhere that isn't a US ally.

[JuntaJoe]

s_stabeler wrote: As for the chances of production falling into enemy hands, simply mandate that it can't be outsourced to anywhere that isn't a US ally.

And how could we enforce a mandate to keep it safe?


Didn't the UN mandate that supplying Saddam with cash or advanced equipment would be illegal?

If you cannot put a patriotic man with a gun in his hand at the doorway then there is always going to be a risk something will go through that door you don't want to happen.

[s_stabeler]

insert a clause into the contract saying parts must be sourced form within the EU/US? then if it DOES happen that parts come form elsewhere, it's breach of contract, and you could get Boeing ( or however it is spelled) to make different ones. as for avoiding terrorists stealing anything, I don't know, but wouldn't miltiary production facilities usually have an armed guard anyway?

oh,and it wasn't cost that airbus won the contract on for the tankers, to was a better aircraft, it could store more fuel for refuelling, and could be used for more things.

[JuntaJoe]

The airbus costs more, actually, and is subsidized by YOU as well.

Having it sourced in the EU doesn't provide security either.

If we find that workers go on strike in France then can the US immediately send in a battalion of US Marines to put them back to work?

Not hardly. Thus not secure.

If we think a critical black box made in Belgium is being copied and sent to China can we surround the place with FBI SWAT and barge in with US search warrants within hours of learning of the leak, not letting anyone other than Justice Department officials know to ensure the raid isn't compromised?

Not hardly. Thus not secure.


Your operative theory is that the EU is like the US and will protect our interests. A Brit should know better than that. Simply list all the current and prospective EU members and consider where their loyalties may lie.

The compromise could even be official. Parliamentary systems fall and require election and compromise to restore. New parties can seize power after a crisis and change the deal. Look at what happened in Spain after the train bombings. The opposition swept in and completely reversed their commitments.

Hell I'd rather the parts were made in China at that rate. We know they are glued to our economy and would collapse if we collapsed. The plants would almost certainly be made by US contractors and have American supervisors on site. Other than their own espionage, you could be sure the People's Republic would react swiftly, quietly, and brutally to any outside attempts to compromise the work or security.

[s_stabeler]

if workers go on strike anywhere you can't send in the army.

did you hear me on what is being made in the EU? WINGS and ROTORS. i.e black boxes are going to be made in the US. so if black box data is copied, yes, you can surround the facility with FBI, as it is on US soil.

also, parliamentary systems don't fall during an election, it is only the house of commons that is dismissed. and ministers stay in position until the election has occurred, and as for the spain bombings, you're forgetting that the IRA was bombing Britian well before Al-Quaeda was ever thought of. we didn't blink. during the double bombings of London ( the 7/7 and 21/7 bombings) we didn't blink. there was no backlash against the government. ergo, to influence an election, the terrorists would ahve to somehow get at the actual ballot boxes, whihc would likely end up with the election being re-run.

also, do you think that the UK would respond kindly to espionage in the UK? remember the Litvenko affair? an ex-spy poisoned by his old masters. was that a small response, throwing out 4 diplomats? now, imagine what the UK government would do if someone stole sensitive data. I'd say it would come close to war.

[JuntaJoe]

Actually, you are quite wrong on the first supposition. Very Wrong.

US Presidents have the power to stop labor strikes, by force if necessary. Bush did it with Amtrak (railroad carrier) late last year. All the President has to do is declare the strike a threat to safety or national security and he can end it with a stroke of the pen. He's free to use all force necessary, including sending in National Guard troops.

In times past, former Presidents have called in military units and they have opened fire on strikers!

Mind you, it's been a while since there has been shooting, but that's because the unions now understand the President's rights and don't try to push the issue that far. At best a union will try to get a judge to appeal the Presidential order, but that's about the limit of their resistance now.


As for your Parliament argument, you fall back on the UK model. The House of Lords is decidedly Brit, whereas the basic Parliamentary model is worldwide. Given France's revolution, do you really think they permit "lords" in their government? Spain's government fell within a week, the government stopped legislating there, and the opposition seized power within a fortnight. At which point all commitments were canceled and reversed.

The enemy doesn't need to seize the ballot boxes. It just needs to seize the will of the government enough to cause anarchy and fear. Then the opposition will grab control.

Honestly Sstabeler, if the parts were only being made in the UK then there would be less of an issue about this. But you of all people should see the growing influence and threat of the Middle East on the mainland there. Who are the primary laborers becoming there now? Aging Euro populations encouraged massive immigration and unrest from Middle Easterners. You can be assured that home grown and imported terror cells have liberally infiltrated the continent. You need only look as far as the France side of the Chunnel and the refugee camps that attempt to find a way across to your homeland. Some succeed or they wouldn't keep trying.

The UK isn't going to be building most of the parts for that plane. Most is right too. You say it's just the wings and engines. It just so happens that those are the largest subcomponents. The entire fuselage will be made over there too, just in smaller parts.

The only thing happening in America is assembly. We will received the entire plane in it's broken down component form and slap it together. There will be no American QC oversight on the actually manufacturing of the plane.

A plane that will be a huge flying bomb. You think a regular airplane can make a mess if it goes down? Now imagine a tanker filled with fuel!


There was no merit behind the Airbus choice. Boeing was told to submit a bit for a mid-sized tanker. Boeing has larger airframes to offer, but were told not to submit bids on those. Airbus defied the order and submitted the offer for a bigger plane.

At the 11th hour, with no time for Boeing to resubmit a secondary offer for a larger airframe, the DOD changed the parameters and called a vote. Changed the parameters to exactly fit the Airbus!

A week's notice and Boeing could have matched the necessary new specs. But they weren't given it.

This was a political move to lock Boeing out and let Airbus in.

Why? Pandering to the EU.

We risked national security to throw the EU a bone.


You can be sure that Boeing will never be able to win a bid for any Euro tankers. Do you really think France or Germany would allow them to seriously compete for a tanker deal there?

Hell no!