Iraq and Industry Competition

WMD removal, OK! Regime change, No Way!

The Bush administration has been edging toward a stance that would move it into a League of its Own, that of War Mongering US Presidencies. While UN mandates clearly suggest that Iraq be helped in the elimination of its Weapons of Mass Destruction, these mandates categorically do not give any nation the right to topple the Iraqi leadership. We may not like this leadership, and I doubt most Iraqis like their leaders, but it is not for the US to institute a policy that leads to it imposing a puppet government on this country. All efforts should be made to support the Arms Inspectors, to the point of declaring war on units that hamper their searches, to make sure that the UN and us can feel happier that the country is rid of the capability to make these weapons (at least for the time being) and are in obeyance of the UN resolutions.

I doubt that we can stop a country making chemical or biological weapons. While such activities are banned by signatories to various international agreements, these same agreements allow most of the signatories to continue weapons development for the purpose of 'research.' Highlighted with the recent Anthrax attack in the US, it became clear the US is still making substantial quantities of weapons grade biological weapons material. As the production facilities for chemical and biological weapons are so easy to hide (sizeable production could be done in civilian Iraqis basements), all we can do is remove the existing stocks; remove the ability to weaponize it; and remove enough of the required ingredients that it would be hard to make certain types of the more dangerous chemicals or biological agents.

Iraqs Nuclear weapons capability is clearly fictional. After what has been done to Iraq over the last 20 years; what the inspectors have done in the recent past; and without the massive amounts of power needed to convert low grade materials to the highly enriched forms needed for weapons; with limited radioactive materials of any sort available to them; it seems unlikely Iraq could build weapons anytime soon - and don't forget they also have to test them to make sure they work, a sure sign they have or have not got the things. To the best of my knowledge making nuclear weapons go bang! is still rocket science, and not something that is a dead certainty.

Competition

In Britain they now have one (fixed wing) aircraft manufacturer. In American there are three, maybe four, airframe capable companies. Is it any surprise therefore that the Defense departments in these countries are getting a bit miffed at the spiraling costs of equipment, and the mind numbingly unoriginal designs, coming out of the designers? Of course the Pentagon and the Ministry Of Defense only have themselves to blame for what is essentially a competition- less market, as they were the bodies that demanded consolidation of the marketplace and the manufacturers.

Of course when your only manufacturer of widebodies is unwilling to think about dropping prices (why should they afterall, they have to be producing these airframes at rock bottom prices… aren't they?!) And fighter prices are skyrocketing: the F-35 (or should I prophesy that it will be the F/A-35 any year now?) will be a 'cheap' fighter with just a $35 million price tag (believe that price, and I have a swamp and a bridge for you.)

The consolidation of the defense industry certainly looked like a great idea, but when a large concern decides a certain segment of the market is no longer profitable enough and pulls out, they leave few competitors in that segment, and as we all know from basic Economics, prices go up. While it's fair to say that certain of these companies may have gone bust had they not been picked up, isn't that saying the company had little of value before it was taken over? McDonald-Douglas was so poorly managed that they had almost no products left, just the F/A-18, the MD-95 and the Delta rocket. Boeing has made little progress with Delta follow- ons; has had a hard time pressing an EF-18 Growler into Pentagon hands; and killed the renamed 717 only a few years after getting the almost new aircraft. A huge amount was paid by Boeing for M-D, yet it has got little back for its investment. Had it just given the money to M- D for it's own investment Boeing may have reaped better returns!

In the UK, BAe is the single last entity in a long line of airframe manufacturers that included names like Supermarine, Gloster, Hawker-Siddeley, English Electric, and AVRO. Most were subsumed in the 1950's and 60's, but the rush to get to one competition-less manufacturer ended in the 1980's as BAC merged with Hawker-Siddeley. It was a marriage made in Whitehall. It made little sense then and less now. The fact that there are few airframe contracts coming out of Whitehall may have seemed like reason enough to only have one manufacturer, but the loss of design vibrancy and cost competitiveness is seen in aircraft prices that mean even the few OR's that get out are stillborn because BAe can't think of solutions that are going to be cheap enough.

France has a slightly better situation than the UK. Dassault is still more or less independent (48% owned by EADS - how did they come up with such a meaningless name???) and is in direct competition with EADS (only the Gauls can figure that one!). But Rafale is a great competitor to Typhoon, and Dassault has a long client list for Mirage fighters that just might be persuaded to buy this capable fighter, whereas EADS has a lot of shoe leather to wear out before it can tell clients their product is based on a long line of renegade fighters that have changed the shape of history. The French government has the best of both worlds: Dassault is mostly privately owned, extremely outspoken, very creative, and very intent on making money; EADS keeps people employed.