why does the west still refuse to sell china weapons?

Red Moon

Junior Member
I think what the West (in particular the Europeans, having experienced this) fears the most is something similar to what happened to them in the high-speed rail/train sector.

China, initially having no experience with high-speed rail bought sample systems from the 3 main suppliers - the French with the TGV, the Germans with the ICE and the Japanese Shinkansen.

Eager for further orders, they agreed to some transfer of technology and all three built high-speed lines in China.

All of them expected that large orders would follow, but much to their dismay, the integrated nature of China's rail and rolling-stock manufacture allowed them to learn quite a lot from those designs.

Now China can not only build competitive (if not better) products, but can even under-cut them in price.

CSR really surprised them all at the speed with which they learned how to make those high-speed trains - no one expected them to be able to do so as quickly as they did.

What if something similar happens with the weaponry they sell - a few samples here and there, a series of token orders, some transfer of technology, then voila! - a Chinese facsimile that may even perform better at an unbeatable price.

Truly a nightmare for the West.

I don't know what kind of sales they were really expecting, since they must have known, like we all do, that China wants the technology more than the product. But, how many systems did Shinkansen export to the world before this? I think the number is zero, and it's not too different for the the European companies. In the end, this technology ended up being for home use. Today, now that China has actually opened the field and begun exporting high speed rail, there is at least a chance for the Japanese and others to export, and they are bidding on various projects. I don't know if they foresaw this back then. But if your wonderful technology is not producing profits any more, why not sell it? I think this was the rationale behind the sale of AP1000 nuclear technology to China as well.

With military technology there is an added issue, which is that a state which wants to preserve or develop its option of being a power independently, needs to maintain a military industrial sector that basically cannot pay for itself, unless there are exports, or a war, or some major "modernization" going on.

Frankly, I don't know if this "added issue" argues in favor of selling or of not selling, but surely, the decisions can be taken on a case by case basis by the corporations and states involved. This would solve their diplomatic problem with China, and of course, it would create a new problem with the US, so we're back to square one.
 

Gavaskar

Just Hatched
Registered Member
in a very straight forward way it could be explained as, china could be a threat to west in the upcoming future. may some members of this forum not be agree with my statement
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
in a very straight forward way it could be explained as, china could be a threat to west in the upcoming future. may some members of this forum not be agree with my statement

I highly doubt that there will be direct confrontations between China and European nations in the next 50 years or so.
 

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
in a very straight forward way it could be explained as, china could be a threat to west in the upcoming future. may some members of this forum not be agree with my statement

A threat to the west in what way? Economic, military, energy usage?

China could be a threat to many countries in the world, she could also be treated as a strategic partner too. I seriously doubt that the reason for Europe not selling weapons to China had anything to do with CHina being a threat to them... it might be because of US pressure (influence), afraid that China will copied their technology and sell it to third countries or simply, there is nothing that the West wanted to sell interest China, while what CHina was interested in, cannot be sold.
 

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
Would They Have This To Sell?

1295862336583.jpg


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


1295862367048.jpg


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I'm sorry, but we couldn't see any of the pics you have attached.
 

CaptMorgan68

Just Hatched
Registered Member
Original R&D takes an awful lot of time. Some technologies we rely on now took upwards of three decades percolating around labs and test ranges to mature to the point where it was affordable enough and reliable enough to weaponize. The US has had high mach ramjet test articles since the late 1960's and solid fuel ramjet test articles since the 1970's but that technology never was weaponized. We did buy an off the shelf Russian system, the MA-31, and found it lacking in many ways. We fly a rocket ramjet target, the Coyote, but it is very expensive.
Without access to the best western material science China, or Russia, have to expend their own hard earned to pay scientists and fund their own labs to figure these things out. That takes time and money to do, and being ahead, the US certainly isn't anxious to give China any help catching up. We managed to stay far enough ahead of the Soviets even with them spending upwards of 40% of their GDP on their military.

far enough ahead of the Soviets? really? can you please describe just how far ahead of the Soviets the American tech was during the late 70's or late 80's... plz
 
Ambivalent said:
We managed to stay far enough ahead of the Soviets even with them spending upwards of 40% of their GDP on their military.

40%!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Nice try... buddy. LOL
I used to think you were at least somewhat credible with your sources...
 
Last edited:

Rising China

Junior Member
:):):) What's different if they want to sell or not?

Chinese and NATO arms better than Russian?
16.03.2011 06:40

The Russian defense industry manufactures poor quality arms for ground forces. NATO and China produce better quality hardware, the commander of Russian ground troops Alexander Postnikov said.

"The combat vehicle arsenal, artillery systems and small arms produced by the domestic defense industry fall behind NATO and even Chinese arms," the official stated.

Postnikov particularly cracked down on the Russian T-90 tank, which, as he said, "was a 17th modification of the Soviet T-72 tank produced since 1973. According to the official, a tank like that currently costs 118 million rubles ($4 million). "It would be easier for us to purchase three Leopards from Germany for this money," he said.
He did not explain, though, why India prefers to buy one Russian T-90 tank instead of three German Leopards. India plans to use T-90s to replace its outdated T-72 and T-55 tanks. Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Turkmenistan also signed contracts with Russia for the delivery of such machines, but Mr. Postnikov disregarded that too.

There are other interesting aspects to the story. According to media reports, in 2010, one T-90 tank was valued at 70 million rubles ($2.3 million). Therefore, it is not clear how the cost increased more than 1.7 times in less than a year.

Here is another aspect. Cheapest and oldest Leopards cost not less than 70 million rubles as of 2009. As for Leopard 2A6, the cost of this machine is 172.2 million rubles ($5.7 million).

It is worthy of note than 80 countries of the world purchase arms from Russia today. The volume of Russian arms sales grows every year by $600 million. However, according to Mr. Postnikov, all these countries buy outdated and extremely expensive hardware. Moreover, Russia's arms sales in 2010 were evaluated at $10 billion vs. $8.8 billion earned in 2009, Rosoboronexport said.

Do the governments of 80 countries purchase Russian arms to cause damage to their own detriment? Nevertheless, it is not the first time, when officials from the Russian Defense Ministry express negative remarks about the quality of domestic military hardware.

It was particularly said, for instance, that Russia would launch the license production of Italian Iveco Lynx armored vehicles in 2011. No one could prove, though, that Russian analogues of those vehicles are worse.

Vladimir Popovkin, first deputy defense minister, complained of the poor state of affairs in the development of Russian unmanned aircraft. Russia spent five billion rubles for the purpose, but failed to achieve any progress, the official claimed.

Alexander Postnikov, the commander of the Russian ground forces, said in September of 2010 that his troops had completed test flights of 22 Russian drones. The designers achieved impressive progress, Postnikov said and added that some drones could be put into service soon.

These are contradictory statements, but it seems that Russia is not going to refuse from purchasing the drones of Israeli production.

The most controversial statement was released by Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov in December of 2010. He stated that Russia could replace its iconic Kalashnikovs and SVD rifles with foreign analogues.

Vladislav Shurygin, a military expert:
"Those saying that the production of the Russian defense industry is worse and more expensive than Western and even Chinese analogues need to have their heads examined. Such remarks can bury all our defense contracts, so they are voiced by those who should be considered as enemies of their own country.

"As for the condition of the national defense industry, it is a very complicated one indeed. Russia has been living on the Soviet legacy during the recent 20 years. We have not been investing anything in the modernization of our defense industry. As a result, one can hear some people saying that Russia is incapable of building high-quality arms. However, T-90 tanks are not outdated. This vehicle operates perfectly under the conditions of the Russian climate. No one can give guarantees that foreign tanks will do well in low temperatures.

"As for the quality, it has decreased too. For example, the quality of armor that is produced today is lower than the quality of Soviet armor produced during the 1980s. Russia lost many technologies during the period of so-called democratic reforms.
"If we start to purchase hardware from abroad, we will go back to the level of the 19th century. We will not be able to defend our national interest," the expert said.


Nikolai Novichkov, editor-in-chief of Arms-Tass news agency:
"I believe that Postnikov has a point. President Medvedev stated several days ago that there were no qualified engineers left in the country. Instead, we have the multi-million-strong army of managers and lawyers, he said. One should think about that when analyzing the situation in the Russian defense industry. Many employees working at our defense enterprises are in their fifties and sixties. Young people do not go to work in the defense industry, because they pay about 15,000 rubles there ($500) a month. If someone comes to work there, they soon leave to work as managers to get more money," Novichkov said.

Sergei Balmasov
Pravda.Ru
 

龙空小三儿

Just Hatched
Registered Member
难啊,俄罗斯是已经衰落了,给他不给他也无所谓了。
但是中国不同,给了之后速度将更快的发展和超越他们,没有人会这样做的

Please realize that most people on this forum do not speak Chinese. English is the official language for this forum.

- TUP
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top