Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

"Public" Weapon Designs

Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:21:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The way it works currently is that if a nation wants to purchase a certain type of weapon for its army it has to purchase them from the original nation, which may or may not choose to sell.
Instead of this, I propose that military weaponry be made "public domain" by means of an international treaty so that all nations are granted knowledge of how these weapons are built and they're granted permission to build and use them without having to ask permission from the country of origin.
Such designs would become "public" after being 40 years old (the F-22 designs would become public in 2045, the F-35 in 2055, the F-16 in 2018, the M1 Abrams in 2020, the M4 in 2034, and so on). Certain stuff, such as ICBMs and WMD designs, would not be included.

Thoughts?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:26:56 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:21:51 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The way it works currently is that if a nation wants to purchase a certain type of weapon for its army it has to purchase them from the original nation, which may or may not choose to sell.
Instead of this, I propose that military weaponry be made "public domain" by means of an international treaty so that all nations are granted knowledge of how these weapons are built and they're granted permission to build and use them without having to ask permission from the country of origin.
Such designs would become "public" after being 40 years old (the F-22 designs would become public in 2045, the F-35 in 2055, the F-16 in 2018, the M1 Abrams in 2020, the M4 in 2034, and so on). Certain stuff, such as ICBMs and WMD designs, would not be included.

Thoughts?

It isn't the knowledge of how the weapons are built that matters. Once a weapon is built, it is useless trying to covet the secrets of it, since most weapons are not really that complex to begin with.

The actual problem with this is that weapon manufacturing companies own the licenses to these products, and why in the hell would they want to allow their competition to make the same product as them?

Also there is little practical value in copying another countries design. It is preferable to make your own indigenous model with a weapons company in your home country.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:28:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Also you made the mistake of thinking that nations produce their own weapons, but they do indeed buy their weapons from corporations in the state. There are a couple examples of state owned weapon factories, but they will usually license a gun from another company instead of creating their own designs.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:33:06 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:26:56 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/3/2015 5:21:51 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The way it works currently is that if a nation wants to purchase a certain type of weapon for its army it has to purchase them from the original nation, which may or may not choose to sell.
Instead of this, I propose that military weaponry be made "public domain" by means of an international treaty so that all nations are granted knowledge of how these weapons are built and they're granted permission to build and use them without having to ask permission from the country of origin.
Such designs would become "public" after being 40 years old (the F-22 designs would become public in 2045, the F-35 in 2055, the F-16 in 2018, the M1 Abrams in 2020, the M4 in 2034, and so on). Certain stuff, such as ICBMs and WMD designs, would not be included.

Thoughts?

It isn't the knowledge of how the weapons are built that matters. Once a weapon is built, it is useless trying to covet the secrets of it, since most weapons are not really that complex to begin with.

The actual problem with this is that weapon manufacturing companies own the licenses to these products, and why in the hell would they want to allow their competition to make the same product as them?

Exactly. The licenses would expire and any country would be allowed to build them. The weapons would become available for use by anybody only after 40 years, so by no means would this allow, say, North Korea to be able to effectively compete with the United States or China, seeing as how it'd be outdated tech. This would only allow weaker countries to not fall too far behind.

Also there is little practical value in copying another countries design. It is preferable to make your own indigenous model with a weapons company in your home country.

Despite this, you don't see countries like Egypt and Turkey using indigenous 4th generation fighter designs instead of F-16s.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:37:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:28:48 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
Also you made the mistake of thinking that nations produce their own weapons, but they do indeed buy their weapons from corporations in the state. There are a couple examples of state owned weapon factories, but they will usually license a gun from another company instead of creating their own designs.

The U.S. gets its fighter jets from, say, Lockheed Martin, a corporation. However, Lockheed receives U.S. funding for researching and developing virtually every series of plane that it builds. One could make the argument that as a result the U.S. Government shares the rights to the F-16, F-22, F-35, and so on. Copyrights are enforced by the Government, and the Government can allow copyrights to expire.
As a rephrasing, any defense contractor would be able to build such public weapons and sell them to any nation.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:43:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:33:06 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Exactly. The licenses would expire and any country would be allowed to build them.
Countries have ripped off Soviet designs a million times without purchasing the license. It honestly doesn't matter that much.

Even American weapons, the greatest example being the M1A1, have been ripped off numerous times. Look at the new assault rifle Turkey launched for its armed forces, and also the new service rifle of Georgia.

The weapons would become available for use by anybody only after 40 years, so by no means would this allow, say, North Korea to be able to effectively compete with the United States or China, seeing as how it'd be outdated tech. This would only allow weaker countries to not fall too far behind.

North Korea already began modernizing its military. They have two tanks and a couple ships which are really advanced.

Despite this, you don't see countries like Egypt and Turkey using indigenous 4th generation fighter designs instead of F-16s.
There isn't enough demand for indigenous fighter jets, otherwise they would exist. There is demand for tanks, guns, and infantry fighting vehicles, which is why both Turkey and Egypt already produced prototypes for all those things.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 5:47:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:37:24 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
One could make the argument that as a result the U.S. Government shares the rights to the F-16, F-22, F-35, and so on.
You honestly couldn't, since the US government never made a claim to the license. If they even considered this, companies like Lockheed Martin would fold on certain contracts and definitely reject federal funding.

Copyrights are enforced by the Government, and the Government can allow copyrights to expire.
That wouldn't be popular at all. Do you know how many defense contracts the US has? Defense contractors run the military, not the government.

As a rephrasing, any defense contractor would be able to build such public weapons and sell them to any nation.

That is a clearer way to put it. I am not necessarily opposed to this, but I do not think enacting the policy bluntly would be a good idea, and it also wouldn't have much practicality since countries are going to continue producing indigenous guns rather than using foreign designs. Licenses are not actually that expensive for a company to buy, yet the market has way more demand for indigenous weapons.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 3:40:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:21:51 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
The way it works currently is that if a nation wants to purchase a certain type of weapon for its army it has to purchase them from the original nation, which may or may not choose to sell.
Instead of this, I propose that military weaponry be made "public domain" by means of an international treaty so that all nations are granted knowledge of how these weapons are built and they're granted permission to build and use them without having to ask permission from the country of origin.
Such designs would become "public" after being 40 years old (the F-22 designs would become public in 2045, the F-35 in 2055, the F-16 in 2018, the M1 Abrams in 2020, the M4 in 2034, and so on). Certain stuff, such as ICBMs and WMD designs, would not be included.

Thoughts?

This seems a very unlike you thread. Oddly, I will take the hawk side on this. No, regardless of who owns the intellectual property, we have no desire to open it to just anyone. Friendly nations can purchase from us, recoup some of the massive costs we the taxpayers put out, but I am not seeing the benefit of your schema.
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 6:50:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 5:43:08 AM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/3/2015 5:33:06 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
Exactly. The licenses would expire and any country would be allowed to build them.
Countries have ripped off Soviet designs a million times without purchasing the license. It honestly doesn't matter that much.

*** If I remember correctly, the soviets didn't believe in patents or copyrights or anything like that. That' why everyone copies them. That, and they make decent stuff.

Even American weapons, the greatest example being the M1A1, have been ripped off numerous times. Look at the new assault rifle Turkey launched for its armed forces, and also the new service rifle of Georgia.

The weapons would become available for use by anybody only after 40 years, so by no means would this allow, say, North Korea to be able to effectively compete with the United States or China, seeing as how it'd be outdated tech. This would only allow weaker countries to not fall too far behind.

North Korea already began modernizing its military. They have two tanks and a couple ships which are really advanced.

Despite this, you don't see countries like Egypt and Turkey using indigenous 4th generation fighter designs instead of F-16s.
There isn't enough demand for indigenous fighter jets, otherwise they would exist. There is demand for tanks, guns, and infantry fighting vehicles, which is why both Turkey and Egypt already produced prototypes for all those things.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 6:55:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 6:50:24 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:

*** If I remember correctly, the soviets didn't believe in patents or copyrights or anything like that. That' why everyone copies them. That, and they make decent stuff.
No, they did have licenses. They got their guns from different weapon companies like the Izmash, Kalashnikov, Dragunov, Mig, Ural, ect.

Interesting enough though, the Soviets would sometimes manufacture weaponsin unconventional places. The first few generations of the BTR were produced in the national tractor plant.
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 6:59:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 6:55:50 PM, BlackFlags wrote:
At 11/3/2015 6:50:24 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:

*** If I remember correctly, the soviets didn't believe in patents or copyrights or anything like that. That' why everyone copies them. That, and they make decent stuff.
No, they did have licenses. They got their guns from different weapon companies like the Izmash, Kalashnikov, Dragunov, Mig, Ural, ect.

Interesting enough though, the Soviets would sometimes manufacture weaponsin unconventional places. The first few generations of the BTR were produced in the national tractor plant.

So how is every 3rd world country able to copy these designs? Who do they license them from?
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 7:09:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/3/2015 6:59:22 PM, Mr_Anderson wrote:
So how is every 3rd world country able to copy these designs? Who do they license them from?

They purchase the license from the company which makes them. Occasionally companies enter an agreement with their primary military contractor where they agree to not sell the licenses to foreign buyers.

The majority of buyers purchase the licenses legitimately to produce the vehicles. Some companies just rip off the designs without paying the licensing fee.
BlackFlags
Posts: 904
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/3/2015 7:12:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Innovation is easily copied. It does not take long for designers to figure out the secrets of their competition. Even if they do not actively seek them out.

Russia invented something revolutionary in the 90's, known as explosive reactive armor. It is a thin lining of explosives concentrated between two armored plates in the tank, which would actually reduce impact from penetrative rounds.

Needless to say, almost every modernized military produced a new vehicle with explosive reactive armor from the time it was created to now.