# Does the pentagon really authorize selling technology as it's developed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 11, 2005, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-pentagon-really-authorize-selling-technology-as-its-developed/325770 "2005-10-11T16:29:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![gitfiddle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/898d66/32.png) [@gitfiddle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gitfiddle)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-pentagon-really-authorize-selling-technology-as-its-developed/325770/1 "2005-10-11T16:29:47Z")
I’m crossing my fingers as I write this, but I fear that’s no good. I read today in Jessica Williams’ _50 Facts that Should Change the World_: > [@](#): > > The CDI argues that really, there is no need for the US to develop such advanced new weapons systems–because no other nation is currently developing weapons that are as sophisticated. In fact, **the pentagon has given its permission for arms developers to sell their newest technology overseas almost as soon as it is off the production line. This export of high-tech weaponry has pushed the US into what is effectively an arms race with itself**. The Council for a Livable World points out that the export of top-line combat equipment decreases the US’s relative military strength, and **this in turn leads 'politicians, the military and the defence industry to press for higher military spending to procure increasingly sophisticated equipment superior to weapons shipped overseas**. This latest technology is again offered to foreign customers, and **the cycle begins anew**.’ I’m in the process of looking up the sources she sites from the CDI and from the Council for a Livable Planet, but I want to know if anyone’s ever heard of this. I know the old Bill Hicks routine about how there is no one in the world that we need to worry about except the people we arm first, but I was kind of hoping that was exaggerating. What can I say, I’m young and naive. If anyone’s got sources, I’d love to see 'em… ---
**Author:** ![DougC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7feea3/32.png) [@DougC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DougC)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-pentagon-really-authorize-selling-technology-as-its-developed/325770/2 "2005-10-11T22:10:12Z")
- - - It’s a wonderfully trite example of why “spending money on guns is like, uncool for Mother Gaia, man” but it’s simply not true. - Most of the “high tech” weapons the US develops are so expensive that most other countries could not afford a useable number of them anyway–and most likely the country that would be first in line to buy would be China. Go ask Jessica Williams how many B-2 bombers the Pentagon has sold to China so far. I’m remembering, , , , -_none_. You are rather asking us here to prove that ghosts don’t exist; perhaps the CDI would be so kind as to provide you with some actual examples of items with which this was allowed, and we can work on researching it from that end. My bet is that anything immediately allowed for foreign sales is generally not thought to be technologically significant. - Here’s my example it’s BS: in the US, _anybody_ with $3500 to spend can buy a top-of-the-line night-vision scope **through the mail**. The sellers don’t have to check anything concerning you, if your credit card number is good, it comes in a box to your door. It is basically functionally equivalent to what the military uses, and you can buy as many as you can pay for and the builders can get their mitts on. The internal parts are made in the same factories making the military scopes. Trying to export or transport it to any non-NATO country however is an export violation, and a federal offense. These scopes have been commercially available for at least twenty years now, and the export restrictions are still in place. ~ ---
**Author:** ![T\_SQUARE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de053/32.png) [@T\_SQUARE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/T_SQUARE)\ **Post date:** [October 11, 2005, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-pentagon-really-authorize-selling-technology-as-its-developed/325770/3 "2005-10-11T23:33:11Z")
I checked the table of contents on Amazon for this book and found some of the “facts” (which are the chapter titles) to be misleading or quite dubious. So, I’m doubting credibility a little bit, as is often the case with “X number of fun/odd/true/scary facts” books. As Doug has pointed out with his stealth bomber and night vision example, it is clearly not as simple in reality. I’m guessing misleading at best, a lie at worst.