US prepares to exempt AUKUS nations from ITAR(naval-technology.com)
naval-technology.com
US prepares to exempt AUKUS nations from ITAR
https://www.naval-technology.com/news/us-prepares-to-scrap-itar-for-aukus-nations/
145 comments
ITAR destroyed my hopes of joining SpaceX. Norway even exports missiles to the US. I don't understand why we cant have free flow of people between Norway and the US. We're not that many.
> We're not that many.
We already allow freedom of movement from countries within the EU, whose population sizes are an order of magnitude more than ours. Yet the amount of paperwork it takes for a US citizen to work here is fairly high. They also don't get any unemployment benefits as long as they are on a work permit because of NAV's rules.
Why should the US offer us more than what we offer them?
We already allow freedom of movement from countries within the EU, whose population sizes are an order of magnitude more than ours. Yet the amount of paperwork it takes for a US citizen to work here is fairly high. They also don't get any unemployment benefits as long as they are on a work permit because of NAV's rules.
Why should the US offer us more than what we offer them?
Because you lack enough talent to fuel your insatiable demand for it, to keep the competitive sustainable advantage the US economy has.
You're right. That's why the US has skilled worker streams to obtain work permits. For those with extraordinary abilities, the process is arguably quicker. These streams are oversubscribed with talent from other countries so the US isn't immediately pressed to create a special visa stream for Norway specifically.
Not to mention even opening a bank account ;)
Swiss banks routinely either reject Americans, or ask for so much paperwork.
Swiss banks routinely either reject Americans, or ask for so much paperwork.
Swiss banks reject Americans because of US legislation, namely FATCA (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/tax-policy/foreign-a...) Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. It's introduced reporting requirements and thus massive costs in having US citizens banking with you, thus it's cheaper to just say no. Rational economic response.
>...because of US legislation, namely FATCA ...
To be clear: The issue with FACTA is that saying "yes" to an American citizen (or national) adds costs to the foreign bank (in free labour on-behalf of the US). The US doesn't fund any of the work of reporting these accounts back to US.
Its almost as if the US has internal sources of free labour and expects no repercussions from expecting the same from their international counterparts...
To be clear: The issue with FACTA is that saying "yes" to an American citizen (or national) adds costs to the foreign bank (in free labour on-behalf of the US). The US doesn't fund any of the work of reporting these accounts back to US.
Its almost as if the US has internal sources of free labour and expects no repercussions from expecting the same from their international counterparts...
I worked in the defence sector. There are ways around it. They are just not publicised. We had designated US territory for assembly in the UK so that we didn’t trip over ITAR.
Was it already a part of US military base in UK or completely new location?
Completely new.
Is this like a church, you have to fly in a fat Texan to sanctify the soil as American or is it more paper-based?
[deleted]
you can - you ”just” need to get a non-itar job in the US, get your green card, then apply. If you are from Norway, it would probably take you around 5 years to get to that point.
Alternatively - you can get an export license for information to the particular person. Kind of like a TAA for a foreign employee. Previous employer had a European EW expert in the US office temporarily. Still not fast and lots of paperwork and limitations.
[deleted]
Why would you want to join it though? I heard it’s pretty horrible to work there - below market pay, long hours, high stress, and you can be fired anytime with no advance notice. All of this is justified with “we’re going to Mars” rhetoric. I like what they’ve been able to accomplish, but I’d never even consider working there.
Below market pay, long hours, high stress, you can be fired anytime with no advance notice, so... just like the majority of research that isn't about amplifying doom scrolling. Yet people do it for the satisfaction of creating things no one else has before and pushing humanity forward.
It's not for everybody.
> below market pay
Everyone I know who has worked there for >5 years is a millionaire, including some fairly junior people.
Everyone I know who has worked there for >5 years is a millionaire, including some fairly junior people.
I’ll take “things that never happened for $1000”, JumpCrisscross: https://www.levels.fyi/companies/spacex/salaries
Now include stock appreciation. (It’s up close to 10x in that time period. And that’s the principal way money is made in tech, not salaries.)
Gimme my money.
Gimme my money.
What is the market for SpaceX shares? Are they liquid?
They’re privately traded by institutions. The company also regularly does buybacks, and I’m referencing those prices.
Yeah, it happened. SpaceX offers RSUs and up until recently, valuations were climbing rapidly.
People can enjoy making something useful and not Ad tech BS.
> I don't understand why we cant have free flow of people between Norway and the US.
Probably among other reasons is because this would have to be bi-directional and the US has a lot of people and Norway doesn’t want those people coming there.
Probably among other reasons is because this would have to be bi-directional and the US has a lot of people and Norway doesn’t want those people coming there.
That is interesting. Before I finished reading your post I was confused because immigration seems to be good.
But if you are only getting Americans with no college education or 60k in debt with soft/useless degrees, I can see why they wouldn't want the drain.
But if you are only getting Americans with no college education or 60k in debt with soft/useless degrees, I can see why they wouldn't want the drain.
I think the problem would be really fucking rich Americans moving or buying second homes in Norway and causing property values to 5x.
Immigration in general isn’t a moral good or moral bad. It’s just public policy. At least in my view.
Immigration in general isn’t a moral good or moral bad. It’s just public policy. At least in my view.
> I think the problem would be really fucking rich Americans moving or buying second homes in Norway and causing property values to 5x.
We have that problem in the UK, especially London. Rich Russians, Chinese, and from just about everywhere else.
If Norway does not make an exemption for rich people to come in if they want to, its very unusual. Generally, if you are rich, you can visit or live in anywhere you want. I can think of multiple cases where rich people with histories of serious crime or links to organised crime have no problem travelling to multiple countries.
We have that problem in the UK, especially London. Rich Russians, Chinese, and from just about everywhere else.
If Norway does not make an exemption for rich people to come in if they want to, its very unusual. Generally, if you are rich, you can visit or live in anywhere you want. I can think of multiple cases where rich people with histories of serious crime or links to organised crime have no problem travelling to multiple countries.
It would be both situations that would have large undesirable consequences (as well as a positive impact as well)
> But if you are only getting Americans with no college education or 60k in debt with soft/useless degrees
Norway still needs people to collect the garbage, sweep the streets, drive cabs etc. Why do you dismiss low-skilled labour so easily?
Norway still needs people to collect the garbage, sweep the streets, drive cabs etc. Why do you dismiss low-skilled labour so easily?
Ah yes, the poor and huddled masses. Those useless ones.
/s
/s
I'm guessing why Australia is so important to have in a partnership is the uranium reserves, no? In addition to geopolitics of course.
Also, I would love to have the French as part of AUKUS (but that _would_ really mess up a great acronym). The reason being I'm impressed with the French's nuclear nuclear experience through power generation (although, it's been a bit stagnent the last 20+ years). I'm curious if this was just too complicated to broker for some reason (4 parties instead of 3) or there was another reason I'm missing. As the article points out, French submarine reactors use different fuel, which could be a reason, but that seems like something that could be figured out given that we're talking about a clean sheet design anyway.
Also, I would love to have the French as part of AUKUS (but that _would_ really mess up a great acronym). The reason being I'm impressed with the French's nuclear nuclear experience through power generation (although, it's been a bit stagnent the last 20+ years). I'm curious if this was just too complicated to broker for some reason (4 parties instead of 3) or there was another reason I'm missing. As the article points out, French submarine reactors use different fuel, which could be a reason, but that seems like something that could be figured out given that we're talking about a clean sheet design anyway.
I wonder if this means SpaceX can build launch and landing facilities in Australia. Australia is really well positioned near the equator. I think it also has better weather than Florida, but I'm not sure.
The British space/missile program in the 1950s - which focused on forcing peroxide through a silver mesh - was mostly tested in the Australian outback.
Also tested nukes out in Woomera.
Australia was also under British rule until the 1980s
> Australia was also under British rule until the 1980s
Not really. The Australia Act 1986 just closed a technical loophole but Australia was for all intents and purposes fully sovereign since ratifying the Statute of Westminster in 1942. [1]
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986
Not really. The Australia Act 1986 just closed a technical loophole but Australia was for all intents and purposes fully sovereign since ratifying the Statute of Westminster in 1942. [1]
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986
See Rocket Lab in New Zealand.
There's already a place in Australia I suspect is developed in anticipation
There's already a place in Australia I suspect is developed in anticipation
Great, I can finally download Kerberos!
Sounds like PRC either has all the info on Virginia subs or is about to.
I suspect that this is somehow Peter Becks doing.
Rocket lab is in my opinion the coolest player in the space race.
Carbon fiber rockets!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhnBn_c9f8Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhnBn_c9f8Q
But Rocket Lab is based in New Zealand, and NZ isn't part of AUKUS...
(disclosure: I work at Rocket Lab, but not on anything to donwith this.)
(disclosure: I work at Rocket Lab, but not on anything to donwith this.)
Not at the moment, though there does seem to be a bit of chatter about joining from the pols.
But as a half hearted member due to the nuclear issue, and historically a bit of a weak link in the Five Eyes, ITAR privileges are likely not on the cards.
But as a half hearted member due to the nuclear issue, and historically a bit of a weak link in the Five Eyes, ITAR privileges are likely not on the cards.
Change my view: USA is going to strengthen ties with AUKUS instead of European NATO allies (except select counties like Poland) regardless the administration.
I agree. There seems to be a lot of frustration, even in the pro NATO American institutions, at the lack of output from Canada & European allies.
South Korea alone seems to have more military industrial ambition than either France or Germany.
South Korea alone seems to have more military industrial ambition than either France or Germany.
SK is clearly punching up a lot and performing very well on the export market, but in real number terms, SK is still trailing both France and Germany in arms exports (though clearly SK appears to be trending upwards). It seems very likely to me that SK (~2% of global exports) can probably overtake Germany (~5%) relatively soon, but it's still quite a journey to get to France (~10%).
https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/fs_2403_at...
French defense spending, strategy, and export has always been... less aligned with US interests. SK's recent resurgence in popular awareness is in part due to the alignment between Ukraine's situation and SK's situation (ie, artillery production). France's defense industry has been aligning towards French interests for the last few decades (ie, maintain high end halo products like Rafale, FREMM, and also have equipment suitable for expeditionary war in Africa). Similarly with SK... just that SK's situation involved huge amounts of artillery.
Especially with the inclusion of Sweden and Finland, I think it is quite difficult to speak of a single "European NATO". I think there's a clear east-west split in terms how you hear American analysts speak of NATO. It's not really possible to criticize the activity of most of the eastern NATO countries.
https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/fs_2403_at...
French defense spending, strategy, and export has always been... less aligned with US interests. SK's recent resurgence in popular awareness is in part due to the alignment between Ukraine's situation and SK's situation (ie, artillery production). France's defense industry has been aligning towards French interests for the last few decades (ie, maintain high end halo products like Rafale, FREMM, and also have equipment suitable for expeditionary war in Africa). Similarly with SK... just that SK's situation involved huge amounts of artillery.
Especially with the inclusion of Sweden and Finland, I think it is quite difficult to speak of a single "European NATO". I think there's a clear east-west split in terms how you hear American analysts speak of NATO. It's not really possible to criticize the activity of most of the eastern NATO countries.
Isn’t South Korea withholding weapons from Ukraine, though, notably artillery shells, at a time when North Korea is supplying Russia without reservations?
Its against their law to export weapons to active combatants.
They did do a deal where artillery shells needed in Ukraine were laundered through the US
They are looking at changing their law.
They did do a deal where artillery shells needed in Ukraine were laundered through the US
They are looking at changing their law.
I think the Czechs are also doing the whole triangular thing, but they don't have the financial muscle of the US.
Germany for sure. Even speaking to some "locals" last year, they're completely unconcerned with Russian aggression, as long as it wouldn't affect their daily lives.
Marcon, at least, seems to get it though? I thought the words about the "end of abundance" were fairly spot on, though it does seem like he's pushing the ship himself.
Marcon, at least, seems to get it though? I thought the words about the "end of abundance" were fairly spot on, though it does seem like he's pushing the ship himself.
The issue with France is that it compete with Us military industry not that it does not produce enough.
I think the real issue with France is that they continue to pretend to be a super-power but they don't have the ability.
So we hear their grand claims, and they never enforce it.
This creates frustration in Europe because the leader of the European identity has a reputation of being a C student. (And no one seems to be ready to let Germany lead)
So we hear their grand claims, and they never enforce it.
This creates frustration in Europe because the leader of the European identity has a reputation of being a C student. (And no one seems to be ready to let Germany lead)
Both France and UK are former superpowers (really empires) that are now shadows of their former selves, but still refuse to accept the new reality (where "new" means ~80+ years old). The UK is arguably doing better at accepting reality than France though. French people really don't seem to understand why no one outside of France (or Quebec, or some colonies) speaks French these days.
>And no one seems to be ready to let Germany lead
Including the Germans.
Including the Germans.
I mean, whats that bit from Norm McDonnell about how he’s still worried about the Germans, “it was basically them versus the world and it was kind of close!”
https://youtu.be/uXdtafGdIVM?si=Q0Di2LHqiuHzqyRR
The stand-up comedy in question
The stand-up comedy in question
That's not even a controversial opinion though. US has pretty much always favored its anglosphere allies. It's more or less the new form of the british empire. See Five Eyes, Special Relationship.
Similar culture. As bad a Britain was during colonization, they seemed to be the morally highest out of the colonizers. Or at least France and the mainland European powers really really have a bad colonial reputation.
As someone born in a former British colony I tend to agree with that. I do not think you can lump all the mainland European powers together though (they varied a lot), and all empires (not just the European ones) varied greatly over time and behaved differently in different places.
There is a reason why the British Empire was able to get a lot of support from local populations. Some groups had a lot to gain from British rules, including oppressed group: I think this might me true for one group of my own ancestors.
There is a reason why the British Empire was able to get a lot of support from local populations. Some groups had a lot to gain from British rules, including oppressed group: I think this might me true for one group of my own ancestors.
I doubt that it can be said about Britain to have been "the morally highest out of the colonizers".
The most obvious difference between Britain and the other colonizers is that in most British colonies the former native populations have vanished in a much greater proportion than in the colonies of other countries (with the notable exception of India, which was much more populous since the beginning and where much less British have immigrated).
Based on this difference, Britain does not seem to have been the morally highest, but the opposite.
The current higher solidarity between some former British colonies is based exactly on the fact that these are the colonies where the natives have been almost completely replaced by immigrants, which are more closely related between themselves due to their common origin.
The most obvious difference between Britain and the other colonizers is that in most British colonies the former native populations have vanished in a much greater proportion than in the colonies of other countries (with the notable exception of India, which was much more populous since the beginning and where much less British have immigrated).
Based on this difference, Britain does not seem to have been the morally highest, but the opposite.
The current higher solidarity between some former British colonies is based exactly on the fact that these are the colonies where the natives have been almost completely replaced by immigrants, which are more closely related between themselves due to their common origin.
There isn’t a single European colonizer who didn’t replace native populations in their settler colonies, “other colonizers” do not exist.
That the Spanish Empire established large extractive colonies in 2 densely populated Indias (Aztec, Inca empires) [0] does not erase the complete and near total genocide the Spanish perpetrated in the less populated Caribbean, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina etc to replace the natives with their settlers.
The intractable population density of large extractive colonies does not excuse Empire, and does not provide moral superiority.
[0] - https://i.stack.imgur.com/9TdJI.png
That the Spanish Empire established large extractive colonies in 2 densely populated Indias (Aztec, Inca empires) [0] does not erase the complete and near total genocide the Spanish perpetrated in the less populated Caribbean, Colombia, Venezuela, Argentina etc to replace the natives with their settlers.
The intractable population density of large extractive colonies does not excuse Empire, and does not provide moral superiority.
[0] - https://i.stack.imgur.com/9TdJI.png
Britain led the way to abolishment of slavery.
> Similar culture.
Not sure about that. They all have white anglo-saxon protestant roots but there are too many differences for me to believe they have similar cultures. People I've met from the US and the UK have always seemed like polar opposites to me when it comes to personal values and general life philosophy.
> As bad a Britain was during colonization, they seemed to be the morally highest out of the colonizers.
I live in a former portuguese colony. I simply can't argue with that.
Not sure about that. They all have white anglo-saxon protestant roots but there are too many differences for me to believe they have similar cultures. People I've met from the US and the UK have always seemed like polar opposites to me when it comes to personal values and general life philosophy.
> As bad a Britain was during colonization, they seemed to be the morally highest out of the colonizers.
I live in a former portuguese colony. I simply can't argue with that.
> there are too many differences for me to believe they have similar cultures
There are significant differences between anglo countries but they also all have similar moral philosophy, Britain-derived legal and political systems, they’re maritime powers so have mostly compatible geopolitical dispositions, since WWI they have a history of close military cooperation, and since WWII they’ve established a stable pecking order. That’s all before considering the shared language which means they have similar ways of chopping up reality, similar myths, and a lot of contemporary cultural sharing. The differences that exist will keep them separate countries and distinct cultures but the similarities compared to other European countries let alone elsewhere are significant.
There are significant differences between anglo countries but they also all have similar moral philosophy, Britain-derived legal and political systems, they’re maritime powers so have mostly compatible geopolitical dispositions, since WWI they have a history of close military cooperation, and since WWII they’ve established a stable pecking order. That’s all before considering the shared language which means they have similar ways of chopping up reality, similar myths, and a lot of contemporary cultural sharing. The differences that exist will keep them separate countries and distinct cultures but the similarities compared to other European countries let alone elsewhere are significant.
This belief right here is why the USA continues to play world cop (which is actually a colonization effort dressed up for the modern age). Why USA? Because it is the new empire and the new of the anglosphere.
> which is actually a colonization effort dressed up for the modern age
Which colonies have been established by the US? Are you talking about the military bases in foreign countries?
Which colonies have been established by the US? Are you talking about the military bases in foreign countries?
The countries where the US installs a puppet government. Karzai in Afghanistan. Sandu in Romania. Pashinyan in Armenia.
That’s a curious definition of a colony. Since I’m an American, I assume I could go live in these American colonies quite easily?
That's not the definition of a colony at all. UK citizens still need to go through immigration to live in Canada, even though the official head of state there is King Charles III.
Perhaps we have different definitions of colonies then, because I think the answer there is obvious: Canada isn't a colony of the UK any longer and hasn't been since 1931 or 1982 depending on which event you want to use. Just like Afghanistan, Armenia and Romania aren't colonies of the US, even if we've set up puppet governments [1] in those countries. There's a great deal you can rightly criticize about US foreign policy post-WW2, but calling us modern colonizers doesn't fit.
[1] I don't know enough about the events you're referencing in Armenia and Romania, but Afghanistan was war. Of course we were going to set up a government that was friendly to the US.
[1] I don't know enough about the events you're referencing in Armenia and Romania, but Afghanistan was war. Of course we were going to set up a government that was friendly to the US.
The places with puppet governments would qualify under the Oxford dictionary definition of a colony: "a country or area under the full or partial political control of another country, typically a distant one, and occupied by settlers from that country."
The only wrinkle is the "occupied" part. But most European colonies in Africa didn't have a huge number of settlers either and nobody questions whether these colonies were colonies.
The only wrinkle is the "occupied" part. But most European colonies in Africa didn't have a huge number of settlers either and nobody questions whether these colonies were colonies.
Please, the United States has a universal history of promoting freedom, democracy, and human rights far better than autocracies.
They literally fended off communism and stalinism.
Its really easy to make grand claims when you are Iceland.
They literally fended off communism and stalinism.
Its really easy to make grand claims when you are Iceland.
Just because you drink deep of the Kool Aid doesn't mean the world matches the visions you have as a result.
The first statement is so vague as to be meaningless. What does it mean to promote freedom and democracy? How many milliDems are contained in each bomb you drop on Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza?
Fended off Communism? Last I checked, China was a superpower, and the fact that the western media are heating up their hysterics means they are doing quite well.
Stalinism was fended off by Stalin kicking the bucket. For most of his life he was a US ally.
The first statement is so vague as to be meaningless. What does it mean to promote freedom and democracy? How many milliDems are contained in each bomb you drop on Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza?
Fended off Communism? Last I checked, China was a superpower, and the fact that the western media are heating up their hysterics means they are doing quite well.
Stalinism was fended off by Stalin kicking the bucket. For most of his life he was a US ally.
> How many milliDems are contained in each bomb you drop on Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza?
Yes exactly.
Without the US involvement, instead of getting democracies, you get ethnic squabbles or regional powers involved.
You are just new to the anarchic nature of state-level politics.
These conflicts are inevitable, its up to the United States to tilt them in the direction of human rights. Historically its true.
(And its not like the morally poor side in Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza has the moral high ground when the US gets involved. )
Anyway, really cool hipster take that Europe and their 1000 year old ethnic rivalries would have navigated any of these better. Maybe for their own realpolitk self interest. How is that more moral than democracies?
Yes exactly.
Without the US involvement, instead of getting democracies, you get ethnic squabbles or regional powers involved.
You are just new to the anarchic nature of state-level politics.
These conflicts are inevitable, its up to the United States to tilt them in the direction of human rights. Historically its true.
(And its not like the morally poor side in Serbia, Iraq, or Gaza has the moral high ground when the US gets involved. )
Anyway, really cool hipster take that Europe and their 1000 year old ethnic rivalries would have navigated any of these better. Maybe for their own realpolitk self interest. How is that more moral than democracies?
And that pure US hubris right there is the reason for your reputation around the world. You should travel more. These people you are "helping" hate. Your. Guts.
But you might just remain convinced that you are just better because murica.
But you might just remain convinced that you are just better because murica.
I’m a huge critic of many US foreign policies. However, I cannot deny the realities of a postwar Pax Americana.
Hey, victors just always happen to be the good guys. It's an amazing coincidence.
Sometimes having the ability to hold two conflicting ideas in one’s mind at the same moment is advantageous.
What???? Keep reading buddy. Ridiculous.
[deleted]
Does the USA necessarily need to weaken NATO ties at the expense of AUKUS ties?
The Australian submarine deal suggests so, yes.
The US is going to be providing a sealed nuclear reactor to the UK/AU submarine development. It already shares that nuclear technology with the UK and CA, this is an extension to AU.
Okay? Not really what we're talking about though. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/19/1038746061/submarine-deal-us-...
Of course, Australia found out they got the raw end of the deal a couple of years later: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/15/australia-may-...
Of course, Australia found out they got the raw end of the deal a couple of years later: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/15/australia-may-...
As an Australian - fuck me sideways, that was a shitshow on every possible level (and it's barely begun)
I'm not going to change your view, rather I'm going to ask you only realized that now?
I'm not even being snarky. Despite fighting a war for independence, the USA has always loved mom (the UK) and likes its siblings (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Five Eyes is probably the most obvious example of our familial cooperation.
The USA will always prioritize AUKUS and Five Eyes before NATO.
I'm not even being snarky. Despite fighting a war for independence, the USA has always loved mom (the UK) and likes its siblings (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Five Eyes is probably the most obvious example of our familial cooperation.
The USA will always prioritize AUKUS and Five Eyes before NATO.
Don’t forget the 1812 War and British support for the Confederacy (granted, they apologized for the latter and paid reparations, something unheard of from the British).
That said, the UK are docile vassals, not allies, which is why they get preferential access.
That said, the UK are docile vassals, not allies, which is why they get preferential access.
China is a bigger threat than Russia. Ukraine war has shown russias ability to force project is limited at best.
This has been the case for decades i.e Five Eyes alliance.
So not sure why you think your statement is somehow provocative.
So not sure why you think your statement is somehow provocative.
Please, NATO is the only one that actually matters.
I think a big part of the "value" Australia provides is a physical presence close to the Pacific and East Asia, where NATO isn't really a factor.
Obviously NATO is larger militarily but the US will want to protect both flanks (or project power across both the Atlantic and the Pacific).
Obviously NATO is larger militarily but the US will want to protect both flanks (or project power across both the Atlantic and the Pacific).
"Giant, Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier" is definitely a practical benefit that Australia (and also Japan) has that the US really appreciates having.
That seems to be the path being travelled on at the moment, and Germany and Poland seem to be planning for that outcome, but there will be serious lobbying - including from the U.K. - because it could be seen by Putin and the wider Kremlin system that keeps him in power as a gentle waving through of Russian tanks into Swedish, Finnish and former Soviet territory.
So does naval-technology.com think that if they fill up my history with 20+ entries (making it nearly impossible return by hitting "back") I'll just stay on their site forever?
roenxi(11)
Having extremely little knowledge about the abbreviations (ITAR and others) in this article, reading this as a layperson, this reads like it amounts to a tax break to defense contractors (whether in actual tax breaks, or in just less beauracratic hurdles that no doubt translates to full time jobs).
Or is there more to it?
Or is there more to it?
Yes, it has nothing to do with taxes. ITAR is a law that says individuals can be charged with crimes and go to jail if they tell/sell/give almost anything defense related to a foreigner without asking the US State department for permission.
The law is vast and vague and “captures” many surprising things. ITAR includes items as mundane as a bolt that was designed for military use. The US government’s interpretation of the ITAR law makes almost no exceptions for allies except for Canada, so it is a huge deal if Australia and the UK become exempt
Compliance is also not cheap. If you think getting soc2 compliant or CIPS or hippa compliance was a pain in the ass.....OTAR is like the major boss.
ITAR can also intertwine with EAR regulations as well.
Parts of itar are very clear....others can be vauge to mean anything and can be up to interpretation of the government. Also key thing to note. If you think HIPPA or OSHA has harsh penalties.... ITAR violations can be career prospect ending. I'm talking massive fines, jail time, and if your a lawyer you get disbarred iirc.
ITAR can also intertwine with EAR regulations as well.
Parts of itar are very clear....others can be vauge to mean anything and can be up to interpretation of the government. Also key thing to note. If you think HIPPA or OSHA has harsh penalties.... ITAR violations can be career prospect ending. I'm talking massive fines, jail time, and if your a lawyer you get disbarred iirc.
To add to this: that "tell/sell/give to a foreigner" portion applies universally anywhere, and (the way I was taught), it can happen by proxy/passively.
Example: You put up on a whiteboard in a conference room an engineering drawing of a Air-to-Air missile's internals. When you leave the room, you forget the drawing on the board.
Later that day, somehow, a foreign visitor is walking around the office and peeks inside, and sees the whiteboard.
Congratulations, you just committed an ITAR violation.(Why? The apparent logic behind this rule is that spy agencies regularly employ people with photographic memories)
Another example: You take your phone that has your work email/chat on vacation to a foreign country. On arrival, your phone gets confiscated for "inspection" and then is handed back hours later. Bam. ITAR violation.
A nice side effect of this, by the way, is that you just leave all work stuff behind when you go on vacation. No pesky work-calls while chilling on the beaches of Portugal. Don't want to go breaking the law now, would we?
Example: You put up on a whiteboard in a conference room an engineering drawing of a Air-to-Air missile's internals. When you leave the room, you forget the drawing on the board.
Later that day, somehow, a foreign visitor is walking around the office and peeks inside, and sees the whiteboard.
Congratulations, you just committed an ITAR violation.(Why? The apparent logic behind this rule is that spy agencies regularly employ people with photographic memories)
Another example: You take your phone that has your work email/chat on vacation to a foreign country. On arrival, your phone gets confiscated for "inspection" and then is handed back hours later. Bam. ITAR violation.
A nice side effect of this, by the way, is that you just leave all work stuff behind when you go on vacation. No pesky work-calls while chilling on the beaches of Portugal. Don't want to go breaking the law now, would we?
ITAR is dumb madness: A canadian software company, doing business with french hardware manufacturer for a canadian client has ZERO connection to the US, but still under full control and compliance because of... the nature of the hardware
Yup ITAR/EAR follows the specific item/technology. You can get in major trouble even if you never interacted with a US counterpart at any point in the supply chain in this way.
It might seem draconic, but it's to plug a very easy loophole that can be exploited, and people actually do try to exploit when they don't understand exactly to what the regulations apply to.
It might seem draconic, but it's to plug a very easy loophole that can be exploited, and people actually do try to exploit when they don't understand exactly to what the regulations apply to.