The Military Almost Got the Right to Repair. Lawmakers Just Took It Away
wired.comWhat will happen when the greed of defense companies outweighs the needs of the country for defense? can the defense companies continue overcharging the US government and being drunk on their profits lag behind and lagging behind lobby for the requirements of the US military to be out of date(which is already happening as we see requirements persist that still look like they are from the 1970s in an era where low cost drones, and cheap loitering munitions do not exist, era only way to track a fighter jet is long range radar that distributed camera and ir camera tracking does not exist that fighter jets have true stealth.)and once that lobby works they become over budget and late on delivering on those requirements. This thinking that the defense companies can slumber and we will still be ok is erroneous and will result in us getting humbled in the conflicts to come (having nukes will not make us impervious)
There's a fine line between parasites short-term maximizing how much blood they can suck out of their host, and parasites ending up net losers because they got too greedy and undermined their host's longer-term health.
Historically, military grafters and war profiteers haven't been know for either their long-term thinking, or their judgement about fine lines.
I know this will be an unpopular comment but this totally makes sense to me. As much as I want a right-to-repair for my own consumer goods, forcing all the defense contractors to uptake this all at once especially for top secret systems is highly unlikely to ever happen as it would increase exposure risk of secret leakage via enlisted people working on these systems and would put service members at higher risk of compromise. I think this part of the bill would have to be teased apart and resubmitted.
Having the person doing the repairs be in the military or some contractor working for a company makes no difference security wise. They'd still need access to the same secrets.
Besides, most of this is non-secret. They're dealing with the same issues with ordinary consumer goods that everyone else is.
Contractors defend this by pointing out that service members tend to retire and get jobs at competing firms.
The problem is they’re saying “we don’t trust the military with our secrets.”
I’ve seen this attitude at many firms. Keep things so secret even the clients/regulators don’t know what’s going on.
There’s a huge cultural lack of openness, which strongly contrasts with our history of free inquiry.
You are right nobody likes this comment. Soldiers need to be able to repair their gear. It is of critical National Security importance.
Me: would increase exposure risk of secret leakage
It is of critical National Security importance
I totally get it but those two concepts are at odds. I would not hold my breath, especially at this time given the current state of the world. I say this as someone that has tried many times to make small changes in the military when tensions were much lower.
The only reason to do that is corruption.
That’s the most plausible explanation to me. Somebody got paid. The FBI should find out who.
One good reason behind this approach is the idea that whoever makes something should be responsible for it’s maintenance- but without extra payment.
It encourages them to make it durable in the first place. If the manufacturer of an aircraft carrier has to support it throughout its whole life, it will be a much better designed ship.
Socialism for wealthy interests will always prevail
Regulatory capture is not socialism
It is for the ones capturing the regulatory apparatus.
No, no it isn't.
I mean, as Americans would consider it (and not the red scare "socialism" of Fox-types), what is often the colloquial military industrial complex is already socialism, without incoming the privatized profits and socialized losses enabled by regulatory capture or too-big-to-fail. It's a single-payer operation (with strict caveats) where the government not only pays and sets prices through cost-plus schemes (that may or may not separately be perverted and exploited) but they also control the products produced. Even universal, single-payer healthcare as a practical concept is likely less socialist.
In case you're wondering, this is an argument for universal Healthcare and not for the US government having to buy aircraft carriers off the rack or against it limiting/ controlling whom besides itself can pick up reaper drones and hellfire missiles.