[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?