defence costings dodgy: us , page-5

it's pretty simple isn't it?

developing a local defence industry here in Aus does a few things to the US - it takes away future jobs growth in the US, and they would much prefer US jobs growth over Aussie job growth - and let's face it, their economy is on its knees and needs it --- while a local defence industry also denies profits to US companies - again, their first choice is always to keep everything within their borders -- developing a local defence industry also poses the threat that other companies will follow suit, so the US has to head-off any one company that tries to get a foot-hold outside their borders -- and needless to say, any substantial developments outside their borders means they have lost direct control over the products and who they are sold to - sure there are treaties and agreements between the US and our government that regulate how and who Australian companies can sell to, but ultimately Australia ends up holding better cards when the developing, manufacturing and selling of any products occurs within our borders - again, this is a loss of control that the US appears to have zero teloerance for wherever possible, so always their efforts will be to prise away as much control as possible, with the sole aim being to bring that control within US borders -- and as always there simply exists the US defence establishment... - mega huge firms that have been working with successive US administrations and individual US politicians for decades - those mega firms have been paying large kick-backs and political donations in the 100s of millions for decades now, and they won't be allowing any two-bit start-ups in 'friendly' countries deprive them of profits that could just as easily, with a bit of effort, delaying and coercion, be turned into their profits, and brought in under their control...

at the end of the day MST has been going up against an almost mafia-like establishment of long vested interests that has a philosophy of never giving away any opportunity it doesn't have to, or any opportunity that with a bit of muscle can be taken from someone else - this philosophy has been shared intimatley with successive US administrations for decades also - they are the epitome of absolute power internationally, where we know that absolute power corrupts - and the US has long been a prime example of a system corrupted at all levels of power - it's just part of the way they do business...

so why should Australia care then? - well I don't think we really do - we have via our relationship with the US been promised support if we really need it, and when that promised support comes in the form of the most sophisticated defence force known on the face of the planet, then why the hell would you bother arguing with them, just to be able to say that you made a few shareholders and managers of a local company happy, by helping them to establish themselves independently of the US defence establishment ... ? - no Australian politician would bother with the heat coming from Washington - it is simply easier to do the US a favour, while not being seen to be overtly selling the local Aussie company down the river, because at the end of the day Australia will never prove-up to have anything like the capabilities of the US, so where the US is always prepared to bring those capabilities to our aid when needed, then for that bargain, failing to ensure and completely support the local development, manufacture and sale of a domestic innovation in warfare is really a small sacrifice in the grand scheme of things

therefore calls denouncing our government's continued failures towards the support of MST technologies is to me to be missing the mark, if not the point - we should just be thankfull that MST has been able to develop the tech locally for as long as they have, and in the process accumulate more IP in our company's name - this accumulation of IP and the production of near-perfect first-run examples of the hardware means that we as shareholders can one day hope to be paid off handsomely for funding the various development stages to date, where that pay-off will in one form or another come from vested interested within the US defence establishment - it really can come from no other source, nor will it...

make no mistake, this will always be technology governed by the wishes of the US defence establishment, and when things really heat-up, when the need for our tech can no longer be put-off, and after old moving parts technology contracts have run their course, then I have no delusions in thinking our company will always manage to keep our IP and developments on our shores, because when the US really want to acquire a tech like ours, then given their economic might and the long history between our countries, well it will be theirs for the taking should they deem it necessary, and surely they will one day, barring some astounding tech breakthrough somewhere else...

so get use to where our company is going, and understand... appreciate, that our hardware will (one day) be some of the very few products in the US to hold a very special marking that will appear something like this:

MADE IN THE U.$.A.



good luck