Their argument would hold if they recognized national defense as a public good rather than a profit center. As it stands, a continent fixated on juicing sales figures is not going to formulate an optimal security strategy. Its just going to become a new ballooning budget hole that feeds into the pockets of middlemen.
There’s a huge difference between addressing a security concern and following a perverse incentive. And when politicians can profit from a crisis, you’re going to see new existential threats to Europe springing up as fast as business leadership can engineer it.
Because you’re phrasing the problem as “Who do I buy my guns from?” rather than “How do I efficiently secure the borders and deter foreign aggression?”
Their argument would, in your opinion, hold more value if they suggested (and did themselves) buy, for example, korean weaponry?
Their argument would hold if they recognized national defense as a public good rather than a profit center. As it stands, a continent fixated on juicing sales figures is not going to formulate an optimal security strategy. Its just going to become a new ballooning budget hole that feeds into the pockets of middlemen.
There’s a huge difference between addressing a security concern and following a perverse incentive. And when politicians can profit from a crisis, you’re going to see new existential threats to Europe springing up as fast as business leadership can engineer it.
I’m unsure how this comment answers my question?
Because you’re phrasing the problem as “Who do I buy my guns from?” rather than “How do I efficiently secure the borders and deter foreign aggression?”
Ah, you changed my question, substituted an easier one, and responded to that. Thanks for explaining.