Jeff Foust has some thoughts about issues facing the new administration. It may in fact be an opportunity to undo the damage in the 1990s when Congress arbitrarily put space hardware on the munitions list. Duncan Hunter won't be in a position to stop it now, being firmly in the minority.
Space hardware simply IS military equipment.
As I recall the Clinton Administration was strongly attacked by the Republicans for allowing China access to technology that was said to have improved Chinese ICBMs.
For example, World Net Daily from 1998:
This is a scandal unlike any other in American history. Clinton and Schwartz have nothing on Benedict Arnold. The sensitive technical data shared with the Chinese for simple greed and power has apparently enhanced the reliability of Beijing's long-range nuclear missiles -- missiles, by the way, targeted at the United States.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14497
That said, I agree that ITAR is stifling the US commercial space industry however the core issue is that US global hegemony and economic globalization are divergent trends.
We cannot compete in global high tech market sectors unless we can sell "made in the USA" high tech products however once those same high tech products are sold globally that simply will tend reduce our technological edge in the military arena.
Bill, the Army uses trucks and computers too. Does that mean Intel and Ford should be subject to ITAR? What about our shipyards? Satellites?
China will develop its rocket technology. The only question we can answer is: Will American companies get to participate in that or not? And China will not launch its rockets at us for the same reason the USSR never did - 10,000 nuclear tipped missiles here in the USA and aboard our subs.
Brock, I believe Intel currently is subject to export restrictions as is most high end computer equipment.
My point is that unchallenged US military dominance and economic globalisation are inconsistent objectives.
Me? I would tend to support increased economic activity since our military needs a robust economy to be sustainable anyway. Even if there needs to be a way to forge a sensible balance. For example, radars that can see our stealth aircraft? Eh, no - no sale.
BUT! If we do agree to relax ITAR then we also need to agree to not get knotted knickers over stuff like that Clinton - Loral - China. Back then (in 1998) I thought the Clinton-Loral-China business was over-hyped for partisan GOP purposes anyway but opinions may vary on that.
"Duncan Hunter won't be in a position to stop it now, being firmly in the minority."
Heck, Hunter won't even be in congress anymore. This is Hunter's last term, he is retiring and his son just won election to his seat.
Heck, Hunter won't even be in congress anymore. This is Hunter's last term, he is retiring and his son just won election to his seat.
Even better. Let's hope that the apple falls far from the tree with regard to ITAR.
My point is that unchallenged US military dominance and economic globalisation are inconsistent objectives.
Geez, I don't know. This seems a little extreme. After all, what kind of market is there for super high-end military equipment, that costs a fortune? I mean, a super-duper stealth-piercing radar is only really worth the money if you're worried about being attacked by stealth aircraft. It's not worth the money if you're just trying to equip a regional airport with bad-weather equipment.
I'd think that being successful in the global market consists largely of freely selling low-price consumer-grade stuff, and it seems like you could do this without necessarily selling your exorbitantly-priced military-grade stuff to your enemies. There's going to be a big market for Falcon 1, not so much for Titan V, a big market for Pentium Core Duo laptops, not so much for petaflop clusters that can simulate a micronuke in an hour, a big market for genetically-engineered human insulin, less for weaponizable anthrax strains. I realize there are some interesting lines that must be drawn, but...is it really that hard, for men of sense and good will?
Carl --
Please read carefully the last sentence of your post, and think "Congress".
Bill, you are correct when you said, "I thought the Clinton-Loral-China business was over-hyped for partisan GOP purposes anyway but opinions may vary on that." While that definitely wasnt't the smartest thing that happened on Clinton's watch, let's not forget that program started under Bush senior (which I thought was dumb at the time).