Buy-American vs safety - Aircraft of World War II

Colin1 · 08-07-2009, 06:01 AM

Seems a little hard-line by the US Government
couldn't they soften their policy to buy-American-where-possible?

Surely if it's protecting US soldiers and it's popular with them, then it's American enough?

Buy-American vs. safety makes for battle over military uniforms - CNN.com

vikingBerserker · 08-07-2009, 01:36 PM

Well, the basic premise of the law is to ensure that the US during times of war would have access to the required material. In this case, if the US went to war against Austria then the ability to purchase the yarn/fabric would be lost.

This perhaps is a little bit more on the unique side in which it's currently not possible to manufacturer it here.

Interesting problem.

Catch22 · 08-07-2009, 01:46 PM

You're right VB. After reading it before your post I thought the premise behind the law was soley based on economics, but your explanation makes a lot more sense. IF it WAS purely economic, the armor itself is still made within the US, so I don't see how it would affect jobs that much.

Glider · 08-07-2009, 01:57 PM

To be honest its a no brainer The material is the best, has been the best and provides the soldiers with the best protection. Buy it.

When people put arguments like this before the safety of the guys in the front line, its time to lose them

FLYBOYJ · 08-07-2009, 01:57 PM

There's actually a US law where if your procuring material for the US military you must "buy American." With that said, there is a waiver process where in a case like this, excpetion can be made.

wheelsup_cavu · 08-07-2009, 01:58 PM

I believe it was Switzerland who refused to sell the US some critical cruise missle parts at the outset of the second gulf war.
A perfect example of why having to build it here is necessary, IMO.
What we build may not necessarily be the best but it is better than nothing at all if there is a refusal to sell us the needed product/s.

A link to a video during a session of Congress in 2004.
House Session 180902-2 : C-SPAN Video Library | Created by Cable. Offered as a Public Service.
The article if the video doesn't work.
View Appearance | C-SPAN Congressional Chronicle, Created by Cable. Offered as a Public Service.

An excerpt from an article written in 2002 before the second gulf war.
Buy America` Provisions Are Critical to U.S. Defense

Quote:

`Buy America` Provisions Are Critical to U.S. Defense
Allowing foreign firms increased participation in American military projects is a "penny wise, but pound foolish" notion that would inevitably lead to more defense production moving offshore. All the pennies saved in peacetime will not buy a victory if there is a breakdown in production or supplies during wartime.

During the Vietnam War, Sony withheld TV cameras used to guide tactical missiles. In 1983, the Socialists in the Japanese Diet blocked the sale of ceramic packaging used in U.S. cruise missiles to protest Reagan administration policies. Last year, the Bush administration approached Holland and Germany about selling submarines to Taiwan; both countries refused, citing policy differences. And the gap between the United States and Europe on a host of foreign policy matters continue to widen. 1917 was a long time ago; and so was 1945; and even 1989.

Wheels

diddyriddick · 08-07-2009, 03:38 PM

Another precedent was when the US government adopted the Beretta 92F in lieu of the venerable 1911 Colt. One of the conditions of the contract was that the vendor had to be able to make the pistol here in the US. IIRC, such fine handguns as the Sig, H&K, and others were disqualified because they couldn't produce here.

VB is absolutely right on this one.

08-07-2009, 06:01 AM	#1
Colin1 Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 1,763	Buy-American vs Safety Seems a little hard-line by the US Government couldn't they soften their policy to buy-American-where-possible? Surely if it's protecting US soldiers and it's popular with them, then it's American enough? Buy-American vs. safety makes for battle over military uniforms - CNN.com Last edited by Colin1; 08-07-2009 at 07:26 AM.

08-07-2009, 01:36 PM	#2
vikingBerserker Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: South Carolina Posts: 3,732	Well, the basic premise of the law is to ensure that the US during times of war would have access to the required material. In this case, if the US went to war against Austria then the ability to purchase the yarn/fabric would be lost. This perhaps is a little bit more on the unique side in which it's currently not possible to manufacturer it here. Interesting problem. __________________ "Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it" "Those who dwell in the past, condemn the future"

08-07-2009, 01:46 PM	#3
Catch22 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Posts: 4,293	You're right VB. After reading it before your post I thought the premise behind the law was soley based on economics, but your explanation makes a lot more sense. IF it WAS purely economic, the armor itself is still made within the US, so I don't see how it would affect jobs that much. __________________

08-07-2009, 01:57 PM	#5
FLYBOYJ IP/Mech THE GREAT GAZOO Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Colorado, USA Posts: 16,050	There's actually a US law where if your procuring material for the US military you must "buy American." With that said, there is a waiver process where in a case like this, excpetion can be made. __________________ "IF ITS RED OR DUSTY, DON'T TOUCH IT"

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-07-2009, 01:57 PM	#4
Glider Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: London Posts: 3,652	To be honest its a no brainer The material is the best, has been the best and provides the soldiers with the best protection. Buy it. When people put arguments like this before the safety of the guys in the front line, its time to lose them

08-07-2009, 03:38 PM	#7
diddyriddick Senior Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Hamlet, NC, US Posts: 723	Another precedent was when the US government adopted the Beretta 92F in lieu of the venerable 1911 Colt. One of the conditions of the contract was that the vendor had to be able to make the pistol here in the US. IIRC, such fine handguns as the Sig, H&K, and others were disqualified because they couldn't produce here. VB is absolutely right on this one.