wotsupcas wrote:So if you were in charge how many of those people would you sack? And therein lies the problem. I wish, like you, that it was a perfect world without the need for arms. But it isn't and if we don't sell them someone else will.
If we were a member of the EU we could have a coordinated manufacture & procurement policy plus a ready market, hence an economy of scale.
Joined: Nov 20 2011 Posts: 1184 Location: Australia
wrencat1873 wrote: If we are saying that there has to be that number of employees within the industry, to enable us to arm and protect ourselves and the consequence of that is that there will be "X" spare capacity, then a decision has to be made as to whether to allow the excess "stock" to be sold elsewhere and how to control those sales or, should the industry be "shrunk", in order to prevent having to "chase" sales to "dodgy" customers.
You would think where the supply of arms is concerned, it should be on a defence and safety remit and not just selling additional arms because we have over capacity ??
There is an episode of 'Yes Minister' where Jim Hacker faces a moral dilemma when he learns that British manufactured arms are ending up in the hands of Italian terrorists.
Brings a little humour to your comments and is worth a look.
"Yes Minister" Series 3. Episode 6. "The Whiskey Priest".
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18068 Location: On the road
wrencat1873 wrote:Do we really ??
Yes, manufacturing these items would mean that we COULD sell them to other nations but it doesn't mean that we HAVE to ?? We could just produce equipment for our own armed forces and not feel that we have to supply other nations / groups.
Of course there can be deals done to reciprocate the supply of arms but, when we begin to offer such things to "unstable" governments / nations, there is always the danger that they will be used either against us or against our allies. The only reason that some of these things are sold to "dodgy" organisations is to make money.
I think you are missing a point - the R&D required on some of these projects is vast - similar to pharmaceuticals - unless you can spread this cost over volume of product it is simply uneconomic to develop cutting edge technology. No point going into battle with one hand tied behind your back because the planes/tanks are not up to it. So unless you think the British tax payer should pay well over the odds what is the alternative - these businesses employ tens of thousands of people.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18068 Location: On the road
silver2 wrote:If we were a member of the EU we could have a coordinated manufacture & procurement policy plus a ready market, hence an economy of scale.
Why would we it didn't happen when were a member what would change if we had stayed in?
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Joined: Jun 29 2011 Posts: 1522 Location: PIE IN THE SKY DISH
The biographer for Boris Johnson was on the radio earlier and when asked he didn't know how may children he had (abandoned). To be fair to him though he is consistent, in that he doesn't want to tell us an accurate birth or death rate.
Sal Paradise wrote:Why would we it didn't happen when were a member what would change if we had stayed in?
My comment was a bit of a wind up. In reality we did have coordinated policies for the Tornado and Eurofighter. Both however were flawed designs but as the Saudis have a history of buying British I suspect a deal was done to ensure continuity even though it was politically embarrassing.
Sal Paradise wrote:I think you are missing a point - the R&D required on some of these projects is vast - similar to pharmaceuticals - unless you can spread this cost over volume of product it is simply uneconomic to develop cutting edge technology. No point going into battle with one hand tied behind your back because the planes/tanks are not up to it. So unless you think the British tax payer should pay well over the odds what is the alternative - these businesses employ tens of thousands of people.
And therein lays the conundrum.
You would expect that "allies" would share their technology (up to a point) but, regardless of cost and loss of business, arming dangerous groups should be absolutely off limits. Of course there is diplomacy at work all over the world and deals done for all sorts of reasons but, the rationale of selling arms to the Saudis "because we have to sell them somewhere to balance the book" is just ridiculous.
Lets face it, the majority of recent conflicts involving the UK have been over oil or drugs, ultimately falling at the feet of our major ally, the USofA
You would expect that "allies" would share their technology (up to a point) but, regardless of cost and loss of business, arming dangerous groups should be absolutely off limits. Of course there is diplomacy at work all over the world and deals done for all sorts of reasons but, the rationale of selling arms to the Saudis "because we have to sell them somewhere to balance the book" is just ridiculous.
Lets face it, the majority of recent conflicts involving the UK have been over oil or drugs, ultimately falling at the feet of our major ally, the USofA
So I'll ask again. How many thousands of jobs (people) are you willing to lose so we can salve your conscience? I don't mean this in a confrontational way but there would be a huge financial cost to individuals in taking the moral high ground. Would you be willing to sack them?
wotsupcas wrote:So I'll ask again. How many thousands of jobs (people) are you willing to lose so we can salve your conscience? I don't mean this in a confrontational way but there would be a huge financial cost to individuals in taking the moral high ground. Would you be willing to sack them?
Counter question - Industries get wiped out all the time. The British coal, steel, textile, shoemaking and pottery industries have either all but gone, or have been reduced to miniscule operations in the grand scheme of things. Why does the arms industry get a free pass?
"Back home we got a taxidermy man. He gonna have a heart attack when he see what I brung him."
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18068 Location: On the road
King Street Cat wrote:Counter question - Industries get wiped out all the time. The British coal, steel, textile, shoemaking and pottery industries have either all but gone, or have been reduced to miniscule operations in the grand scheme of things. Why does the arms industry get a free pass?
Because its one thing that we are very good at innovation - and its where the UK really a powerhouse. If we look at all the other things you mentioned these are commoditised they can be produced anywhere - we cannot manufacture mass produced products cost effectively that is not the future for high cost populations. Highly sophisticated planes/tanks etc now that is a different ball game.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 80 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
