[pm90]

That's how procurement, and especially military procurement, works in most countries which have some degree of corruption. Or at least: when there isn't any good oversight by the stakeholders. Seems like the procurement of Patriot missiles was driven more by a need to "buy from the USA" than as an actual credible way to thwart actual threats. Which is incredibly surprising EVEN after knowing how this works because presumably the Houthis are using Iranian/Iran-derivatives of missile systems and Iran is supposed to be the primary geo-political rival to the Sauds. (Makes me wonder what else won't really work in an actual war).

Let me say that I'm a pacifist 100%; diplomacy comes first and all that but war is really where you can't lie and all your bad decisions are right there in your face and fuck you up completely if you didn't think hard enough through these things. This particular incident reminds me of when the Pakistanis procured the latest F-6 aircrafts from the US but were unable to use them effectively in a war against India (1971) because their pilots were not sufficiently trained in how to handle the advanced aircraft systems.... oops.

[Jtsummers]

Sadly a very accurate statement. US allies are encouraged and sometimes required to buy US weapon systems even if they have no real utility, need, or capability to use them. Often they purchase them directly from the US government (versus the manufacturer), this is one way the US government directly makes money, provides a form of corporate welfare (for the defense industry), and subsidizes its weapon system development.

[Covzire]

I'm not seeing a problem here, assuming the hardware sold works as intended of course.

[Jtsummers]

> even if they have no real utility, need, or capability to use them.

This is the critical part. The hardware may work as intended, but if no one can operate it what use is it? If it works as intended but is ineffective against the enemies weapons or techniques what use is it? Or if there isn't even an enemy to use these systems against? But to play ball with the US as an ally, nations can be placed in a position where they're making these purchases whether appropriate or not.

[pm90]

The problem is that the hardware is not really solving the problem it was procured for. And that bad decision was facilitated by the USG. So the USG is crippling other nations defense capabilities while protecting its own armaments industry. Does that make sense?