MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Boeing’

Astronaut just Revealed Boeing Starliner Situation is Worse Than Ever! Can’t Return?

Posted by M. C. on September 5, 2024

This gives a keyhole sized peek into the corrupt relationship between Boeing, congre$$ and government bureaucrat$.

While SpaceX is not entirely free from government, it’s umbilical is much longer than Boeing’s. SpaceX makes me wonder what could have been accomplished if government/congress weren’t involved since, say, the Mercury program.

TECH MAP

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Elon Musk Just Exposed Shocking Secret About Boeing Starliner Failure…

Posted by M. C. on August 28, 2024

Boeing welfare program, failure. Although Boeing’s campaign funding program is a success.

TECH MAP

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Curious About Boeing, Starliner and How They got Where They Are?

Posted by M. C. on August 17, 2024

jets, planes

During her nomination process to become the chairman of the Export-Import Bank, Kimberly Reed promised Senator Patrick Toomey that she would be an agent of reform at the bank. The bank has a long track record of serving mostly large foreign and domestic companies in higher income nations, and distorting capital markets to fund projects that would likely be funded otherwise. It’s called cronyism and it has a negative impact on the economy and our political system. 

On Tuesday, she is testifying again before the Senate Banking Committee and this piece is a warning to them that what the chairman may call reforms will lead to the exact same crony outcomes as we have seen for decades at the Bank. Sadly, few people care these days as we are all preoccupied with many other restrictions of our freedom. Yet, I have to try to send the alarm one more time. 

Ex-Im Bank’s “No-Reform” Reform to its Additionality Guidelines

Ex-Im Bank Chairman Reed apparently has put to rest a few of the reform commitments that she made to Senator Toomey in her confirmation hearing nearly two years ago. These commitments included improving protection for domestic companies from economic harm that might arise from Ex-Im Bank financing their foreign competitors, and ensuring that the Ex-Im Bank is not crowding out private financing options that would otherwise be available but for Ex-Im Bank’s involvement. 

This piece focuses on the second of these commitments, as reflected in a recently published “Additionality Guidelines and Checklist” document that purportedly will lead U.S. exporters and their overseas buyers to use Ex-Im Bank only when they have no commercial alternatives. I testified a few months ago before the Bank’s Board of Advisors on this same issue. My oral comments can be found here and my written testimony is here

Unfortunately, a cursory reading of the new guidance suggests the continuation of a longstanding philosophy that will result in few, if any, changes in Ex-Im Bank’s decisions about which borrowers will receive government-backed loans. In fact, if Chairman Reed wants to show how effective her new guidelines are, she should tell us which companies and deals that were approved in the past would not be approved under these new guidelines.

Following is a summary of what appear to be the core elements of the Ex-Im Bank philosophy on Additionality.

The “Foreign Export Credit Agency Under the Bed” Standard

See the rest here

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/us-export-import-bank-says-board-backs-811-mln-loan-guarantee-aid-boeing-sale-2022-06-17/

WASHINGTON, June 17 (Reuters) – The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) on Friday said its board of directors approved an $811 million loan guarantee to help finance the sale of Boeing wide-body aircraft to French-Dutch airline Air France-KLM SA (AIRF.PA)

EXIM said in a statement that the loan guarantee would support aircraft assembled at Boeing’s Everett, Washington, and North Charleston, South Carolina, factories, which produce 787 jetliners. It did not specify the number of aircraft involved, but KLM had ordered some 15 787-10 aircraft and began to take delivery of them in 2019.

Since then, Boeing experienced severe delays in 787 Dreamliner deliveries because of production flaws and has advised airlines and suppliers that deliveries would resume in the second half of 2022, but is still awaiting regulatory approvals. read more

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Representatives are Too Invested in Defense Contractors

Posted by M. C. on August 12, 2022

After Raytheon and L3Harris, the rest of the top ten defense companies donating campaign cash were Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, BAE Systems, General Atomics, Huntington Ingalls Industries, Boeing, and Leidos. These companies lined members’ campaign coffers with millions of dollars in PAC funding.

https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2022/08/representatives-are-too-invested-in-defense-contractors

BY DYLAN HEDTLER-GAUDETTE & NATHAN SIEGEL

As Congress considers two monumentally important pieces of legislative business — the annual defense policy bill and a historic reform to congressional ethics rules — it is worth taking some time to consider just how deep the potential for corruption goes in both these areas and how they intersect with one another. In other words, congressional corruption and ethical failings are inextricably linked to the military-industrial-congressional complex — the unhealthy intersection between Congress and the defense sector. This situation calls for serious reforms, and Congress is the only stakeholder that can make that happen.

A Cozy Relationship

There are few examples that better highlight the ethical dysfunction in Congress than the excessively cozy relationship between policymakers and the defense industry. Each year, including this one, members of the House and Senate armed services committees and the House and Senate appropriations committees craft the policy and allocate the hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that fund the Pentagon. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is the primary vehicle for defense policy. The accompanying appropriations bill allocates the money to operationalize the policy laid out in the NDAA. To put this in perspective, consider that the defense budget now clocks in at more than $800 billion and the Pentagon allocated $420 billion in contracts in fiscal year 2020 — over half the total defense budget and a contract dollar amount larger than every other federal agency combined.

In light of the scale and scope of defense spending, reasonable observers could be forgiven for assuming there might be some prudential rules in place to prevent corruption when it comes to Congress’s work regarding the defense industry. Unfortunately, there are virtually no such rules. In fact, the current framework around congressional conflicts of interest and campaign finance regarding industry relationships is so permissive as to all but guarantee the perversion of the policymaking process in this area.

There are few, if any, rules in place that restrict or prohibit members of Congress who sit on committees that oversee and legislate defense policy from holding direct personal financial stakes in defense companies, including through the ownership of stock. This means there is nothing stopping members of the House and Senate armed services committees (as well as each chamber’s respective defense subcommittee of the appropriations committee) from directly tying their own personal financial interests to the financial interests of defense contractors, all while passing laws that would steer billions of tax dollars to those very same companies. Again, these contracts total hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Boeing & Airbus urge delay of 5G — RT Business News

Posted by M. C. on December 22, 2021

https://www.rt.com/business/543876-boeing-airbus-5g-risks/

The world’s two largest planemakers, Boeing and Airbus, have called on the US government to delay the rollout of new 5G cell services next month, citing an “enormous negative impact on the aviation industry.”

In a joint letter to US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, the bosses of the two companies warned that “5G interference could adversely affect the ability of aircraft to safely operate.”

The letter cited research by trade group Airlines for America, which found that if the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) 5G rules had been in effect in 2019, about 345,000 passenger flights and 5,400 cargo flights would have faced delays, diversions or cancellations.

According to a new rule, announced by the FAA earlier this month, pilots are forbidden from using auto-landing and other certain flight systems at low altitudes where 5G wireless signals could interfere with onboard instruments that measure a plane’s distance to the ground.

The new rule comes as US telecom giants AT&T and Verizon are due to deploy 5G services on January 5.

Last week, United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby said that the FAA’s 5G directives would bar the use of radio altitude meters at about 40 of America’s biggest airports.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Rebellion Deepens: America Says ‘No!’ To Vax Mandate!

Posted by M. C. on November 3, 2021

Mainstream media can no longer ignore the growing rebellion among US workers over the demands that they take an experimental vaccine for the “privilege” of working. As Reuters puts it today, “From Boeing to Mercedes, A US Worker Rebellion Swells Over Vaccine Mandates.” Will Washington destroy the economy to push the shot? Also today, mainstream Newsweek publishes, “How Fauci Fooled America.” Is the truth starting to come out?

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

America Dominant Again (in Arms Sales) – TomDispatch.com

Posted by M. C. on May 26, 2021

https://tomdispatch.com/america-dominant-again-in-arms-sales/

William Hartung

Think about this: on Saturday, May 12th, with barely an hour’s notice, Israel took out the al-Jalaa Tower, a high-rise building in Gaza City that housed the Associated Press, al-Jazeera, and other media outlets. That act of destruction, among so many others, caused shock globally and protests not just by those media groups but by previously Israeli-supporting Democrats in Congress. As it happens, the weapon that destroyed that tower was a GBU-31, a Joint Direct Attack Munition, or JDAM (aka a “smart bomb”) that was manufactured in the United States. Not only that, but in the midst of the ongoing carnage in impoverished, increasingly devastated Gaza (as well as in Israel), the Biden administration has been pushing through a new $735-million package of just such weaponry for Israel, ensuring more of the same to the horizon.

This has even disturbed key pro-Israeli congressional figures like Representative Gregory Meeks (D-NY), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who, according to the New York Times, “told Democrats on the panel… that he would ask the Biden administration to delay a $735 million tranche of precision-guided weapons to Israel that had been approved before tensions in the Middle East boiled over.” Later, he would pull back on his threat, but Bernie Sanders has actually introduced a resolution in the Senate aimed at halting the future delivery of that weaponry (as several Democrats have already done in the House).

As the invaluable Pentagon specialist and TomDispatch regular William Hartung notes today, the U.S. leads all other nations on this planet by a country mile in selling the latest weaponry globally, as has been true for almost three decades. In other words, this country has been number one (U.S.A.! U.S.A.!) when it comes to such weapons sales (and so future destruction) forever and a day. In the case of Israel, those sales, however, are a secondary matter. For years, the U.S. has annually been giving — yes, giving — nearly $4 billion in military aid to Israel, a relatively wealthy country.  Since 2001, Israel has, in fact, received more than half of all the “military financing” approved by this country. Imagine what those tens of billions of dollars might have done had they been used instead for America’s fading infrastructure or other domestic investments.

In other words, Washington is complicit in the ravaging of Gaza in these last weeks, just as it has been in the devastation of Yemen in these years (thanks to similar sales of weaponry to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates). It’s a money-making, military-industrial tale from hell and Hartung tells it today in all its grim horror. Tom

America Dominant Again (in Arms Sales)

And Again… and Again… and Again

By William Hartung

When it comes to trade in the tools of death and destruction, no one tops the United States of America.

In April of this year, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) published its annual analysis of trends in global arms sales and the winner — as always — was the U.S. of A. Between 2016 and 2020, this country accounted for 37% of total international weapons deliveries, nearly twice the level of its closest rival, Russia, and more than six times that of Washington’s threat du jour, China. 

Sadly, this was no surprise to arms-trade analysts.  The U.S. has held that top spot for 28 of the past 30 years, posting massive sales numbers regardless of which party held power in the White House or Congress.  This is, of course, the definition of good news for weapons contractors like Boeing, Raytheon, and Lockheed Martin, even if it’s bad news for so many of the rest of us, especially those who suffer from the use of those arms by militaries in places like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Israel, the Philippines, and the United Arab Emirates.  The recent bombing and leveling of Gaza by the U.S.-financed and supplied Israeli military is just the latest example of the devastating toll exacted by American weapons transfers in these years.

See the rest here

William D. Hartung, a TomDispatch regular, is the director of the Arms and Security Program at the Center for International Policy and the author, with Elias Yousif, of “U.S. Arms Sales Trends 2020 and Beyond: From Trump to Biden.”

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Caveat Emptor, Boeing – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on May 27, 2020

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/05/walter-e-block/caveat-emptor-boeing/

By

Caveat emptor is one the basic building blocks of just law. “Buyer beware” is the lynchpin of commerce. If the seller is responsible for flaws in the product (caveat vendidor), there will be precious few goods or services ever supplied. For who would want to grant any disgruntled consumer open sesame to engage in a lawsuit?

This includes products that have “danger” written all over them, at least potentially, such as knives, guns, scissors, hedge clippers, razor blades, automobiles, planes, etc. Also covered are items not ordinarily thought of as fraught. But staples can bite into fingers and cause infection; rubber bands can take out an eye. This is to say nothing of even the most humble drugs: take 100 aspirins at one sitting, and you will no longer be among the living. Meat can spoil. Even garden vegetables come replete with dirt, which can contain who knows what.

But these are mere utilitarian considerations, unworthy of consideration, almost, to those concerned with justice. There is also that little matter of deontology. It is plainly unjust to hold the seller responsible for what the buyer can do with a purchase, even if it falls apart from proper use. If we want to hold pistol and rifle manufacturers responsible for actions perpetrated by terrorists, that will end their production. If we want to be logically consistent we shall have to do the same with cars; no one would want to do that.

The charge levelled at Boeing is that it “cut corners” in the production of its 737 Max airplane, which resulted in the crash of  Lion Air flight 610, which killed 189 poor souls, and Ethiopian Airlines flight 302, in which 157 people perished.

That is to say, this Seattle based firm would always have spent more, subjected their aircraft to additional tests, etc. But this could be said of all producers, without exception. Every last one of them continually “cuts corners” in the sense that they did not spend an infinite amount of money trying to perfect what they offered for sale. Unless there was out and out fraud, which has not been charged let alone proven, it would be improper in the extreme to even think of levelling criminal charges against the executives of this company, as is sometimes bruited about (Source: Wall Street Journal, November 4, 2019, p. B1).

Boeing never guaranteed the complete safety of its products. They are all sold on an “as is” basis. It would be unfair in the extreme to hold them to a standard they did not voluntarily undertake.

No, if criminal charges are to be brought against anyone in this sad situation, not that they should be, the more justified target would be the Federal Aviation Administration. Their mandate, in contrast, was precisely to ensure safety. There were not merely a certification agency, attesting to propriety. Rather, they are a licensing bureau. It would have been illegal for the 737 Max to leave the ground with passengers aboard without their explicit imprimatur. The very existence of Boeing is now in question. The same, alas, cannot be said for the FAA. At the very least, this government agency ought to be disbanded, and replaced by a private competitive certification agency.

Milton Friedman eloquently made the case for this institutional arrangement in his book, Capitalism and Freedom. He did so for physicians. But the same arguments apply in the present case.

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Boeing and the FAA will see entirely different consequences for their failures | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on May 18, 2020

The private firm faces a very real chance of bankruptcy. Nor will its present size necessarily save it. “The bigger they are, the harder they fall.” Boeing might well join other large firms that are no longer with us:

The Army Corp of Engineers was responsible for some 1900 fatalities in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and they are still in business, thank you very much. The U.S. Post Office has lost billions of dollars, and the same applies to them.

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/boeing-and-the-faa-will-see-entirely-different-consequences-for-their-failures/

By Walter E. Block PhD

It is still impossible to confidently apportion blame for the tragic airplane crashes in Indonesia and Ethiopia, which killed 189 and 157 people, respectively.

The jury is still out on this matter, despite the ongoing Senate hearings on the matter. Every human life is precious, and several hundred of our fellow creatures met an all too early demise with this failure of the 737 MAX airplane.

The major candidates for responsibility for this loss are the Boeing company, which built the plane and the Federal Aviation Administration, which certified its safety (a third possibility, which we shall ignore, arguendo, is driver error; the pilots of these two aircraft were insufficiently trained to operate them).

What have we learned from the recent Congressional hearings on this failure? Not too much. It has been documented that the automated flight control system on the planes, the mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS) was problematic, that Boeing knew in advance of difficulties with the single angle of attack (AoA) sensor and pilot training, and that this company refused to ground the plane despite this information.

It has also been well established that Senators Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) along with their confreres are opposed, bitterly so, to plane crashes.

What will be the fate of Boeing and the FAA if is it demonstrated that both share culpability for these catastrophic events, in roughly equal measures? Their destiny will be very different.

The private firm faces a very real chance of bankruptcy. Nor will its present size necessarily save it. “The bigger they are, the harder they fall.” Boeing might well join other large firms that are no longer with us:

BlockBuster, Borders Books, Enron, Kodak, Lehman, Pan Am, Schwinn Bicycles, Readers Digest, Toys-R-Us, Radio Shack, Rand typewriter, Sears, Thomas Cook, United Shoe Machinery.

Automobile firms alone account for many companies in the graveyard of commerce: American Motors (Nash Rambler), Checker, DeLorean, DeSoto, Edsel, Hummer, Mercury, Oldsmobile, Packard, Plymouth, Pontiac, Rambler, Saab, Studebaker, Willys.

A perusal of the past lists of the Fortune 500 will reveal many more such examples.

It is unlikely in the extreme that the Federal Aviation Administration will face any such danger.

The Army Corp of Engineers was responsible for some 1900 fatalities in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and they are still in business, thank you very much. The U.S. Post Office has lost billions of dollars, and the same applies to them.

The number of farmers has been decreasing, sharply, lo these many years, while employment at the Department of Agriculture has been moving in the opposite direction. The Food and Drug Administration presided over the Thalidomide disaster and is still very much with us.

The Fed was charged with keeping inflation under control, and has presided over a loss in the value of the dollar of some 96% since its inception in 1913. Is it still in operation? Of course.

No, private businesses come and go, in proportion to their success in customer satisfaction, while the same cannot be said for government bureaus. When is the last one of them that ever got cashiered? I can’t think of one either.

What lesson can we learn from this stark divergence?

It is that consumers have far more control over private producers than they as voters have vis a vis government regulatory agencies, which, also, presumptively, labor in their behalves. The public policy recommendation suggested by this fact is that we should rely more and more on private enterprise to deliver our mail, keep us safe in the air, and prevent food, flood and drug damage.

How would this work in practice?

Simple. Instead of having one monopoly regulatory agency, the FAA, that is immune from termination no matter how serious their failure, lean in the direction of a private enterprise certification industry that takes on this role. If the Jones agency approved of the Boeing 737 Max, while the Smith certification firm refused to do so, we all know what will tend to happen. We will have better protection from such a system than from present institutional arrangements.

Are there any real-world examples of this sort of thing?

Yes. There are Good Housekeeping Seals of Approval, Consumers Reports for retail purchasers. There are Underwriters Laboratories, for commerce and manufacturing and Fitch, Moody’s and Standard and Poor for stock and bond market ratings.

These are only the tip of the iceberg.  According to the directory of U.S. Private Sector Product Certification Programs, there are 180 private organizations that certify almost 1000 different products.

Are any of these perfect? Of course not. But they stand head and shoulders over our present situation where failure cannot be punished by banishment.

All we need do to improve matters for plane safety is to apply this certification system to aviation, too.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Bombs Away | Lorissa Rinehart

Posted by M. C. on October 29, 2019

https://thebaffler.com/latest/bombs-away-rinehart

Lorissa Rinehart

Most of the world celebrated when the Berlin Wall fell and nuclear holocaust ceased to feel like it was just around the corner. But for the arms industry, the end of the Cold War meant catastrophe, shrinking their market by more than 50 percent in the following years. Those companies that didn’t fold entirely attempted to restructure mid-fall by diversifying their product output while implementing huge layoffs. Survival became Darwinian: adapt or die.

Part of adapting meant changing the way arms manufacturers reached potential clients, since they could no longer rely on the United States or the USSR to serve as an all-in-one PR firm, sales team, and procurement officer as they did when Cold War proxies were buying weapons by the boatload. Instead, companies like Boeing began contracting advertising firms to help increase their existing market shares while penetrating new ones. Starting in the late 1970s, the ads they produced began appearing in military journals that were produced largely in the Western world and distributed in developing nations, where there was room for growth, a practice that only increased into the 1990s. The U.S. government also began to lend a helping hand: in 1996, the Pentagon provided almost $380 million in marketing assistance to U.S. weapons-exporting firms…

As the world settled into its new, post–Cold War order, mergers, closures, and layoffs in the weapons industry accelerated. History was ending, and the future looked bleak—for arms dealers, anyway. Then, two essential paradigms shifted.

The first occurred with the September 11, 2001 attacks. The aftermath, of course, led to an exponential increase in arms sales not only to the United States and Russia, but also to secondary players, many of which are in the Middle East. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, U.S. arms sales to Saudi Arabia steadily increased from $3 million in 2000 to $3.5 billion in 2018. Though a much smaller number, the United States increased its sales to Morocco from a total of $4 million in 2000 versus a 2018 total of $333 million. Independent studies produced by the Congressional Research Service and the Cato Institute report similar trends throughout the Middle Eastern region.

The second shift remains largely unexamined, unquantified, and unqualified. Yet it constitutes a sea change in the methods and strategies employed in advertising conventional weapons. Quite simply, the launch of Facebook in 2004 and the universe of social media that followed revolutionized the way the arms trade is able to target, reach, and appeal to potential buyers.

Despite this glaring omission in analyses from both academia and the mainstream news,  the importance of social media as a plank in the weapons industry’s marketing platform is evident from the prodigious and extensive output of nearly every major manufacturer across multiple platforms.  One need only tune into Lockheed Martin’s YouTube Channel for corroboration. One of the company’s most recent videos, published on September 16, typifies their marketing strategy on the platform. Backdropped by a blue sky, a low angle image of a Warrior Armored Fighting Vehicle—in other words, a British tank—is interrupted by the kind of pixelated distortion familiar to video games, suggesting a resetting, the introduction of something new, as well as danger ahead.

The camera snaps back to three tanks kicking up dust beneath their tracks while a title card identifies them as being equipped with the “Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme (WCSP)” that upgrades rather than replaces existing armored vehicles. A score fades in with a looped baseline and progressive harmony that simultaneously suggests urgency and hope as the tanks fill the screen with steel and firepower. A cannon fires into a virginal landscape to demonstrate the product’s “Enhanced Lethality.” There are slo-mo shots that look modeled after the juicer moments in action movies, when higher frame rates allow viewers to savor the destruction being wrought on screen. Borrowing from video games, Hollywood, and the daydreams of would-be generals, Lockheed’s WCSP promotional video accomplishes what any good advertisement sets out to do: it establishes its product as cutting edge and cost effective, absolutely necessary and certifiably sexy. This strategy and aesthetic is replicated across multiple videos including those for their Long Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM), F-35 Fighter Jets, and fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles.

Northrop Grumman also has an active YouTube channel replete with high production value content, including a video for its OmegA Heavy Lift Rocket that looks more like a trailer for a patriotic space movie than an ad for a military payload delivery system. But none match the cinematic sophistication of Raytheon, with videos that seem to be taken right out of the Mission: Impossible franchise. A recent production for their Special Mission Aircraft, which “offers several modes of intelligence collection and analysis,” dispenses with the overwrought soundtrack featured by Northrop and the soon-to-be dated special effects in many of Lockheed’s videos. Instead, this short film, as well as many others on Raytheon’s channel, features clean visuals, highly legible text, and upbeat modular music; banners advertising the craft’s specs are punctuated by the telemetry sound effect that often accompanies urgent dispatches from headquarters in a spy film…

Highly produced promotional videos are only one aspect of the arms industry’s social media presence. More personal and “approachable” content can be found on Facebook, where Boeing’s page recently highlighted the Blue Angels, the Navy’s demonstration squadron of fighter jet pilots. Since 1986, the Blue Angels have flown the Boeing F/A-18 Hornet; conveniently, then, the Angels serve not only as entertainment at patriotic airshows, but also as de facto, and rather attractive, spokespeople for the manufacturer of their aircrafts.

But Facebook seems to be most effective for these companies when integrated with industry trade expositions targeted toward government weapons procurement officers and agencies. General Dynamics Mission Systems ramped up their posting during the 2019 Advanced Naval Technology Exercise (ANTX), a multi-day demonstration of new technologies with Naval implications. Specifically, the company used Facebook to promote their Bluefin-9, an unmanned underwater vehicle. This video of a General Dynamic’s salesperson posted during the expo, serves as an infotisement that includes technological specifications as well as potential military applications; its length and content suggest it was intended to serve both as an enticement to attract potential buyers to General Dynamic’s expo booth as well as a resource for procurement officers when presenting their findings to superiors back in the office.

Likewise, the UK’s largest weapons manufacturer, the ironically acronymed BAE Systems, took to Facebook regularly during the 2019 Defence and Security Equipment International conference, making a concerted push for their Light Attack Aircraft System (LAAS), a plug-and-play technology suite designed to interface with a variety of military aircrafts. One infographic posted during the event sets an LAAS equipped plane against a mountainous landscape backlit by a sherbet orange sunrise. Encircling it are a veritable halo of graphics and descriptions detailing its laser-guided rockets, mission computers, missile-warning systems, along with other high-tech features. The advertisement makes an appeal to those in the market for an affordable option that doesn’t sacrifice lethality. As Dave Harrold, BAE’s senior director of business development commented in a National Defense Magazine interview during DSEI, LAAS “can be much more efficient and cost effective. Not everybody can afford an F-35.”

Finally, there is the most rapid, least formal social media platform: Twitter, where users go to get quick hits of dopamine or to prove their pithy yet insightful points IN ALL CAPS once and for ALL. Here, the arms industry’s major players take full advantage of the virtual conveyor belt of infotainment. Posting up to fifteen times a day, Raytheon is perhaps the most prolific tweeter among weapons manufacturers. Aggressive tweets about neutralizing hostile drone swarms and innovative guided missile systems are counterbalanced with those promulgating an inclusive corporate culture, to project a holistic brand image and appease consumers who prefer their deadly war machines built in a welcoming and diverse environment…

To put it succinctly, conventional weapons are presented on social media as if they were any other consumer product. The result is an uncanny collage alternatively composed of banal, benign, and ultraviolet content that visually analogizes advertisements for tanks, fighter jets, and laser-guided bombs with those for cars, travel deals, and cleaning products. This leveling was warned of by the authors of a 1980 study on arms advertising—“If there is any use value of weapons at all it is the destruction of human life,” they wrote, “therefore, a line should be drawn between arms advertisements and all other forms of sales promotion”—and it has only become more pronounced in the intervening decades. It’s hard to know what its ultimate effect will be, but if nothing else, it creates a virtual reality in which ever more lethal weapons are accepted and a state of perpetual war is taken as a given. And, as is increasingly the case, what is true on social media transposes itself onto the real world, where the sale of conventional weapons is still steadily on the rise.

Be seeing you

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »