Ask HN: From a business perspective, how does an “arms deal” play out?
Presumably the US treasury doesn’t send palettes of cash and a letter of reference for the Ukrainian military to give to Raytheon and Lockheed Martin in exchange for as many million-dollar missiles as they can fit in their C-130 shopping cart.
So how does it work? Who picks which vendors provide the weapons? Who transfers the money to the vendors? Is the Ukrainian military even involved in the transaction, or do they take whatever the US buys for them?
It seems to me that this must be rife with moral hazards. How convenient that right as the war in Afghanistan winds down (leaving all the equipment unrecoverable), a new war starts up and suddenly Uncle Sam is paying $40 billion to unload your excess stock and get you started on the next generation of weaponry.
I’m all for helping the people of Ukraine, but I also believe firmly that war is unequivocally, always bad. So any action that prolongs or escalates a war must also be inherently bad. Combined with my distrust of arms manufacturers, I don’t feel good about the current situation.
I’m hoping someone can shed some light on the practical reality of how this goes down.
In general they don't specify things such as 1000 AK-47s but instead (1) Require a report on what kinds of small arms UA needs (2) Authorizes spending of $x for small arms to be given to UA. Which is really as they should do since "congress has power of the purse" and isn't the executive branch.
ex. [1] [2]
[1]: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriati...
[2]: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/381...
Still, it doesn’t answer my question. Who disburses the “spending” to the vendors who provide weapons in exchange for that money? And how do they choose who gets it?
I think what irks me is that while I understand the benefits of this system when it comes to supplying the US military (rapid mobilization), I question the ethics of redirecting the output of this system to another country, who is ultimately an additional end customer for the arms companies.
I can’t articulate the precise source of my discomfort, but I know it feels wrong for this artificial market to exist according primarily to the whims of politicians and those who pay them.
One argument in favor of the military industrial complex is that it keeps the wheels greased for when a real war happens. And we’re seeing the benefits of that in Ukraine right now. But to be honest, I get the sense that the MIC, i.e. the power structure controlled by executives at the top US arms manufacturers, has a vested interest in prolonging this war, any war, so long as the weapons need replacing.
like that but with less integrity and more drugs, I think.