Self Production...Good or Bad? - Page 4

June 26th, 2005  
I think a bad example would be... oh, any weapon France has ever produced... ever
I would tend to disagree with this, citing one example in particular. The Argentines proved the effectiveness of the French's Exocet missile during the Faulkland Islands dispute when they sunk a British ship. It certainly bolstered the US production of the Phalanx system.

But back to on topic, any country's military needs should generally be equal or greater than the enemy's threat. Simply because of where technology has evolved to, it's not possible for a start-up country to meet the threat with home-grown technology, of an enemy who has been equipped with superior technology obtained from out-sourcing. So it becomes a race by both countries to purchase competing but equally effective weapons from foreign suppliers.

Eventually, when these countries want to become less dependant on their foreign suppliers, they seek to buy the technology so that they can self-produce them. Unfortunately, they are usually still locked into buying parts and putting them together themselves. Also, in most cases, these weapons are the hand-me-downs of the foreign supplier anyway. This allows the foreign suppliers (governments) to not only maintain their technological advantage but to control the capabilities of the purchasing country.

It's only when these countries become truly industrious that they begin to acually produce their own (competing) weapons and even then, they will be bastardized or modified versions of existing weapons (AK-47s, SCUDs, etc.). True research and development, is mimmiced with trial and error until they develop their skills enough to truly join the ranks of the big boys.

Good or bad? That depends on if a country places national pride over winning battles. In either case, there is a natural progression and evolution to owning superior technology.