US prepares to exempt AUKUS nations from ITAR
99 points by osm3000 1 year ago | 136 comments- unixhero 1 year agoITAR destroyed my hopes of joining SpaceX. Norway even exports missiles to the US. I don't understand why we cant have free flow of people between Norway and the US. We're not that many.
- kldx 1 year ago> We're not that many.
We already allow freedom of movement from countries within the EU, whose population sizes are an order of magnitude more than ours. Yet the amount of paperwork it takes for a US citizen to work here is fairly high. They also don't get any unemployment benefits as long as they are on a work permit because of NAV's rules.
Why should the US offer us more than what we offer them?
- unixhero 1 year agoBecause you lack enough talent to fuel your insatiable demand for it, to keep the competitive sustainable advantage the US economy has.
- kldx 1 year agoYou're right. That's why the US has skilled worker streams to obtain work permits. For those with extraordinary abilities, the process is arguably quicker. These streams are oversubscribed with talent from other countries so the US isn't immediately pressed to create a special visa stream for Norway specifically.
- kldx 1 year ago
- fakedang 1 year agoNot to mention even opening a bank account ;)
Swiss banks routinely either reject Americans, or ask for so much paperwork.
- TechnicalVault 1 year agoSwiss banks reject Americans because of US legislation, namely FATCA (https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/tax-policy/foreign-a...) Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act. It's introduced reporting requirements and thus massive costs in having US citizens banking with you, thus it's cheaper to just say no. Rational economic response.
- TechnicalVault 1 year ago
- unixhero 1 year ago
- cjk2 1 year agoI worked in the defence sector. There are ways around it. They are just not publicised. We had designated US territory for assembly in the UK so that we didn’t trip over ITAR.
- 1 year ago
- ghufran_syed 1 year agoyou can - you ”just” need to get a non-itar job in the US, get your green card, then apply. If you are from Norway, it would probably take you around 5 years to get to that point.
- gte525u 1 year agoAlternatively - you can get an export license for information to the particular person. Kind of like a TAA for a foreign employee. Previous employer had a European EW expert in the US office temporarily. Still not fast and lots of paperwork and limitations.
- gte525u 1 year ago
- 1 year ago
- ein0p 1 year agoWhy would you want to join it though? I heard it’s pretty horrible to work there - below market pay, long hours, high stress, and you can be fired anytime with no advance notice. All of this is justified with “we’re going to Mars” rhetoric. I like what they’ve been able to accomplish, but I’d never even consider working there.
- dotnet00 1 year agoBelow market pay, long hours, high stress, you can be fired anytime with no advance notice, so... just like the majority of research that isn't about amplifying doom scrolling. Yet people do it for the satisfaction of creating things no one else has before and pushing humanity forward.
- CamperBob2 1 year agoIt's not for everybody.
- JumpCrisscross 1 year ago> below market pay
Everyone I know who has worked there for >5 years is a millionaire, including some fairly junior people.
- ein0p 1 year agoI’ll take “things that never happened for $1000”, JumpCrisscross: https://www.levels.fyi/companies/spacex/salaries
- ein0p 1 year ago
- tekla 1 year agoPeople can enjoy making something useful and not Ad tech BS.
- dotnet00 1 year ago
- ericmay 1 year ago> I don't understand why we cant have free flow of people between Norway and the US.
Probably among other reasons is because this would have to be bi-directional and the US has a lot of people and Norway doesn’t want those people coming there.
- resource_waste 1 year agoThat is interesting. Before I finished reading your post I was confused because immigration seems to be good.
But if you are only getting Americans with no college education or 60k in debt with soft/useless degrees, I can see why they wouldn't want the drain.
- ericmay 1 year agoI think the problem would be really fucking rich Americans moving or buying second homes in Norway and causing property values to 5x.
Immigration in general isn’t a moral good or moral bad. It’s just public policy. At least in my view.
- markdown 1 year ago> But if you are only getting Americans with no college education or 60k in debt with soft/useless degrees
Norway still needs people to collect the garbage, sweep the streets, drive cabs etc. Why do you dismiss low-skilled labour so easily?
- pokepim 1 year ago[dead]
- nozzlegear 1 year agoAh yes, the poor and huddled masses. Those useless ones.
/s
- ericmay 1 year ago
- resource_waste 1 year ago
- kldx 1 year ago
- exabrial 1 year agoI'm guessing why Australia is so important to have in a partnership is the uranium reserves, no? In addition to geopolitics of course.
Also, I would love to have the French as part of AUKUS (but that _would_ really mess up a great acronym). The reason being I'm impressed with the French's nuclear nuclear experience through power generation (although, it's been a bit stagnent the last 20+ years). I'm curious if this was just too complicated to broker for some reason (4 parties instead of 3) or there was another reason I'm missing. As the article points out, French submarine reactors use different fuel, which could be a reason, but that seems like something that could be figured out given that we're talking about a clean sheet design anyway.
- gabesullice 1 year agoI wonder if this means SpaceX can build launch and landing facilities in Australia. Australia is really well positioned near the equator. I think it also has better weather than Florida, but I'm not sure.
- PaulRobinson 1 year agoThe British space/missile program in the 1950s - which focused on forcing peroxide through a silver mesh - was mostly tested in the Australian outback.
- edward28 1 year agoAlso tested nukes out in Woomera.
- rcdemski 1 year agoAustralia was also under British rule until the 1980s
- nyokodo 1 year ago> Australia was also under British rule until the 1980s
Not really. The Australia Act 1986 just closed a technical loophole but Australia was for all intents and purposes fully sovereign since ratifying the Statute of Westminster in 1942. [1]
- nyokodo 1 year ago
- edward28 1 year ago
- inemesitaffia 1 year agoSee Rocket Lab in New Zealand.
There's already a place in Australia I suspect is developed in anticipation
- PaulRobinson 1 year ago
- lukeh 1 year agoGreat, I can finally download Kerberos!
- maxglute 1 year agoSounds like PRC either has all the info on Virginia subs or is about to.
- Gud 1 year agoI suspect that this is somehow Peter Becks doing. Rocket lab is in my opinion the coolest player in the space race. Carbon fiber rockets!
- sam_bristow 1 year agoBut Rocket Lab is based in New Zealand, and NZ isn't part of AUKUS...
(disclosure: I work at Rocket Lab, but not on anything to donwith this.)
- indemnity 1 year agoNot at the moment, though there does seem to be a bit of chatter about joining from the pols.
But as a half hearted member due to the nuclear issue, and historically a bit of a weak link in the Five Eyes, ITAR privileges are likely not on the cards.
- indemnity 1 year ago
- sam_bristow 1 year ago
- f6v 1 year agoChange my view: USA is going to strengthen ties with AUKUS instead of European NATO allies (except select counties like Poland) regardless the administration.
- spacebanana7 1 year agoI agree. There seems to be a lot of frustration, even in the pro NATO American institutions, at the lack of output from Canada & European allies.
South Korea alone seems to have more military industrial ambition than either France or Germany.
- icegreentea2 1 year agoSK is clearly punching up a lot and performing very well on the export market, but in real number terms, SK is still trailing both France and Germany in arms exports (though clearly SK appears to be trending upwards). It seems very likely to me that SK (~2% of global exports) can probably overtake Germany (~5%) relatively soon, but it's still quite a journey to get to France (~10%).
https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/2024-03/fs_2403_at...
French defense spending, strategy, and export has always been... less aligned with US interests. SK's recent resurgence in popular awareness is in part due to the alignment between Ukraine's situation and SK's situation (ie, artillery production). France's defense industry has been aligning towards French interests for the last few decades (ie, maintain high end halo products like Rafale, FREMM, and also have equipment suitable for expeditionary war in Africa). Similarly with SK... just that SK's situation involved huge amounts of artillery.
Especially with the inclusion of Sweden and Finland, I think it is quite difficult to speak of a single "European NATO". I think there's a clear east-west split in terms how you hear American analysts speak of NATO. It's not really possible to criticize the activity of most of the eastern NATO countries.
- fmajid 1 year agoIsn’t South Korea withholding weapons from Ukraine, though, notably artillery shells, at a time when North Korea is supplying Russia without reservations?
- fmajid 1 year ago
- exabrial 1 year agoGermany for sure. Even speaking to some "locals" last year, they're completely unconcerned with Russian aggression, as long as it wouldn't affect their daily lives.
Marcon, at least, seems to get it though? I thought the words about the "end of abundance" were fairly spot on, though it does seem like he's pushing the ship himself.
- orwin 1 year agoThe issue with France is that it compete with Us military industry not that it does not produce enough.
- resource_waste 1 year agoI think the real issue with France is that they continue to pretend to be a super-power but they don't have the ability.
So we hear their grand claims, and they never enforce it.
This creates frustration in Europe because the leader of the European identity has a reputation of being a C student. (And no one seems to be ready to let Germany lead)
- resource_waste 1 year ago
- icegreentea2 1 year ago
- matheusmoreira 1 year agoThat's not even a controversial opinion though. US has pretty much always favored its anglosphere allies. It's more or less the new form of the british empire. See Five Eyes, Special Relationship.
- resource_waste 1 year agoSimilar culture. As bad a Britain was during colonization, they seemed to be the morally highest out of the colonizers. Or at least France and the mainland European powers really really have a bad colonial reputation.
- graemep 1 year agoAs someone born in a former British colony I tend to agree with that. I do not think you can lump all the mainland European powers together though (they varied a lot), and all empires (not just the European ones) varied greatly over time and behaved differently in different places.
There is a reason why the British Empire was able to get a lot of support from local populations. Some groups had a lot to gain from British rules, including oppressed group: I think this might me true for one group of my own ancestors.
- adrian_b 1 year agoI doubt that it can be said about Britain to have been "the morally highest out of the colonizers".
The most obvious difference between Britain and the other colonizers is that in most British colonies the former native populations have vanished in a much greater proportion than in the colonies of other countries (with the notable exception of India, which was much more populous since the beginning and where much less British have immigrated).
Based on this difference, Britain does not seem to have been the morally highest, but the opposite.
The current higher solidarity between some former British colonies is based exactly on the fact that these are the colonies where the natives have been almost completely replaced by immigrants, which are more closely related between themselves due to their common origin.
- matheusmoreira 1 year ago> Similar culture.
Not sure about that. They all have white anglo-saxon protestant roots but there are too many differences for me to believe they have similar cultures. People I've met from the US and the UK have always seemed like polar opposites to me when it comes to personal values and general life philosophy.
> As bad a Britain was during colonization, they seemed to be the morally highest out of the colonizers.
I live in a former portuguese colony. I simply can't argue with that.
- riehwvfbk 1 year agoThis belief right here is why the USA continues to play world cop (which is actually a colonization effort dressed up for the modern age). Why USA? Because it is the new empire and the new of the anglosphere.
- chiggsy 1 year agoWhat???? Keep reading buddy. Ridiculous.
- graemep 1 year ago
- 1 year ago
- resource_waste 1 year ago
- gabesullice 1 year agoDoes the USA necessarily need to weaken NATO ties at the expense of AUKUS ties?
- yau8edq12i 1 year agoThe Australian submarine deal suggests so, yes.
- rswail 1 year agoThe US is going to be providing a sealed nuclear reactor to the UK/AU submarine development. It already shares that nuclear technology with the UK and CA, this is an extension to AU.
- aldonius 1 year agoAs an Australian - fuck me sideways, that was a shitshow on every possible level (and it's barely begun)
- rswail 1 year ago
- yau8edq12i 1 year ago
- Dalewyn 1 year agoI'm not going to change your view, rather I'm going to ask you only realized that now?
I'm not even being snarky. Despite fighting a war for independence, the USA has always loved mom (the UK) and likes its siblings (Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). Five Eyes is probably the most obvious example of our familial cooperation.
The USA will always prioritize AUKUS and Five Eyes before NATO.
- fmajid 1 year agoDon’t forget the 1812 War and British support for the Confederacy (granted, they apologized for the latter and paid reparations, something unheard of from the British).
That said, the UK are docile vassals, not allies, which is why they get preferential access.
- fmajid 1 year ago
- bushbaba 1 year agoChina is a bigger threat than Russia. Ukraine war has shown russias ability to force project is limited at best.
- threeseed 1 year agoThis has been the case for decades i.e Five Eyes alliance.
So not sure why you think your statement is somehow provocative.
- resource_waste 1 year agoPlease, NATO is the only one that actually matters.
- andyferris 1 year agoI think a big part of the "value" Australia provides is a physical presence close to the Pacific and East Asia, where NATO isn't really a factor.
Obviously NATO is larger militarily but the US will want to protect both flanks (or project power across both the Atlantic and the Pacific).
- andyferris 1 year ago
- resource_waste 1 year ago
- PaulRobinson 1 year agoThat seems to be the path being travelled on at the moment, and Germany and Poland seem to be planning for that outcome, but there will be serious lobbying - including from the U.K. - because it could be seen by Putin and the wider Kremlin system that keeps him in power as a gentle waving through of Russian tanks into Swedish, Finnish and former Soviet territory.
- spacebanana7 1 year ago
- smcl 1 year agoSo does naval-technology.com think that if they fill up my history with 20+ entries (making it nearly impossible return by hitting "back") I'll just stay on their site forever?
- roenxi 1 year ago[flagged]
- CAP_NET_ADMIN 1 year agoI long for a few years of peace and prosperity, so that I won't have to read military, geopolitical and pandemic "experts" everywhere I look with half of them being agents of foreign interests.
- EdwardDiego 1 year agoWhy would they be fighting NZ? Someone has to do their scaffolding and run security at clubs on King's Cross.
I think you underestimate Australia significantly. They've geared up for a fight with nearby powers they (and NZ) have fought before. And if Aussie ever ends up in a stand-up fight against an invader, NZ will jump back in with them.
Admittedly, the ANZACs haven't met the nearby power in regular warfare, only irregular warfare. But each country now has the measure of the others and make plans accordingly.
Hence why Australia is very good in jungle environments.
And why NZ military maintains close ties with Singapore's military.
- 082349872349872 1 year agoTIL the backstory of the folboat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folding_kayak#Second_World_War
- 082349872349872 1 year ago
- 65a 1 year agoI get the strong sense you understand neither ITAR nor this article. Good luck!
- Wytwwww 1 year ago> with all their US-sponsored weapons; under what conditions do we see the UK or Australia using these weapons where there is still a country left over afterwards?
The idea is that the more weapons you have the less likely it is that you would ever need to use them in a defensive full-scale war.
> Tactically, Australia will probably just lose any fight against anyone more scary than New Zealand or Papua New Guinea.
They might lose it strategically, but I don't really see how or why would China want to invade Australia (besides maybe trying to nuke its major cities). It hardly makes sense logistically.
- skissane 1 year ago> Tactically, Australia will probably just lose any fight against anyone more scary than New Zealand or Papua New Guinea
Invading Australia isn't easy. It is a long way from anywhere. It is very big (12x the area of Ukraine). Much of the terrain is inhospitable. It has no land borders. Very different situation from Ukraine, where Russia is literally right next door – and not remote Siberia either, the western densely populated parts of Russia.
Yes, in the unlikely event that Australia embarked on a solo offensive expedition against another major country, it would probably lose. But it seems very unlikely that Australia would ever do that.
- impossiblefork 1 year agoSo, if I'm interpreting this correctly, if the current birth rate is sustained, which I imagine is the best one can hope for, and people live on average to 75, then Ukraine will eventually be a country of 7.5 million people?
- 127 1 year agoIt's quite bold to predict the future for the next 100 years.
- iraqmtpizza 1 year agoAustralian submarines don't need better propulsion because demographics of ukraine, yes
- 1 year ago
- iraqmtpizza 1 year ago[flagged]
- iraqmtpizza 1 year ago
- 1 year ago
- threeseed 1 year agoIf you want to attack Australia you don't bother trying to invade it which is borderline impossible.
You simply blockade any ships arriving here. And being an island that heavily depends on imports that's a problem.
Hence the need for long range submarines.
- EdwardDiego 1 year agoAustralia's long had subs, but they were, let's say, Indonesia range.
These new subs are South China Sea range. So it's an increase in Australia's strategic projection.
- EdwardDiego 1 year ago
- hackerlight 1 year agoUS is pivoting to APAC, not away. That's the important theatre in the next decade, as agreed upon by basically everyone related to the US military and foreign policy. In particular, pursuing China containment policy, which is bipartisan.
Trump may withdraw from Europe but it's unlikely he'd take that approach with Asia. He and the Republicans are hawkish on China, and they don't have the equivalent of a powerful Europe to do the heavy lifting for them. Russia is also only 0.1x the size of China, and the US doesn't have key interests in Eastern Europe aside from NATO preservation. Trump has also given more firm verbal commitments to Asian allies in the past.
- willvarfar 1 year agoIn his interview for Time, Trump is isolationist even in APAC:
> America’s Asian allies, like its European ones, may be on their own under Trump. Taiwan’s Foreign Minister recently said aid to Ukraine was critical in deterring Xi from invading the island. Communist China’s leaders “have to understand that things like that can’t come easy,” Trump says, but he declines to say whether he would come to Taiwan’s defense.
> Trump is less cryptic on current U.S. troop deployments in Asia. If South Korea doesn’t pay more to support U.S. troops there to deter Kim Jong Un’s increasingly belligerent regime to the north, Trump suggests the U.S. could withdraw its forces. “We have 40,000 troops that are in a precarious position,” he tells TIME. (The number is actually 28,500.) “Which doesn’t make any sense. Why would we defend somebody? And we’re talking about a very wealthy country.”
https://time.com/6972021/donald-trump-2024-election-intervie...
- skissane 1 year agoTrump made very isolationist noises before being elected in 2016 – but once he actually took power, he didn't follow through on the vast majority of them.
Once Trump was actually sitting in the White House, he was surrounded by countless advisors and lobbyists working overtime to talk him out of his crazier ideas, and in very many cases they succeeded.
Of course, it could be different this time around, if he wins in November. Then again, it could also very easily be largely the same as last time.
- throwaway290 1 year agoThat future looks grim.
- nozzlegear 1 year agoTrump isn’t president yet, nor is it guaranteed. For every isolationist American view you hear about, there are just as many Americans like myself who don’t want to abandon our allies.
- skissane 1 year ago
- willvarfar 1 year ago
- shmerl 1 year ago[flagged]
- dang 1 year agoYou can't do this here, regardless of how wrong someone is or you feel they are. No more of this, please.
Also, it would be good if you'd stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments generally. We've had to ask you this many times in the past, and it's still showing up in your comments here.
- shmerl 1 year ago[flagged]
- shmerl 1 year ago
- dang 1 year ago
- CAP_NET_ADMIN 1 year ago
- cleverpatrick 1 year agoHaving extremely little knowledge about the abbreviations (ITAR and others) in this article, reading this as a layperson, this reads like it amounts to a tax break to defense contractors (whether in actual tax breaks, or in just less beauracratic hurdles that no doubt translates to full time jobs).
Or is there more to it?
- someguydave 1 year agoYes, it has nothing to do with taxes. ITAR is a law that says individuals can be charged with crimes and go to jail if they tell/sell/give almost anything defense related to a foreigner without asking the US State department for permission. The law is vast and vague and “captures” many surprising things. ITAR includes items as mundane as a bolt that was designed for military use. The US government’s interpretation of the ITAR law makes almost no exceptions for allies except for Canada, so it is a huge deal if Australia and the UK become exempt
- tonetegeatinst 1 year agoCompliance is also not cheap. If you think getting soc2 compliant or CIPS or hippa compliance was a pain in the ass.....OTAR is like the major boss.
ITAR can also intertwine with EAR regulations as well.
Parts of itar are very clear....others can be vauge to mean anything and can be up to interpretation of the government. Also key thing to note. If you think HIPPA or OSHA has harsh penalties.... ITAR violations can be career prospect ending. I'm talking massive fines, jail time, and if your a lawyer you get disbarred iirc.
- quartesixte 1 year agoTo add to this: that "tell/sell/give to a foreigner" portion applies universally anywhere, and (the way I was taught), it can happen by proxy/passively.
Example: You put up on a whiteboard in a conference room an engineering drawing of a Air-to-Air missile's internals. When you leave the room, you forget the drawing on the board.
Later that day, somehow, a foreign visitor is walking around the office and peeks inside, and sees the whiteboard.
Congratulations, you just committed an ITAR violation.(Why? The apparent logic behind this rule is that spy agencies regularly employ people with photographic memories)
Another example: You take your phone that has your work email/chat on vacation to a foreign country. On arrival, your phone gets confiscated for "inspection" and then is handed back hours later. Bam. ITAR violation.
A nice side effect of this, by the way, is that you just leave all work stuff behind when you go on vacation. No pesky work-calls while chilling on the beaches of Portugal. Don't want to go breaking the law now, would we?
- beefnugs 1 year agoITAR is dumb madness: A canadian software company, doing business with french hardware manufacturer for a canadian client has ZERO connection to the US, but still under full control and compliance because of... the nature of the hardware
- quartesixte 1 year agoYup ITAR/EAR follows the specific item/technology. You can get in major trouble even if you never interacted with a US counterpart at any point in the supply chain in this way.
It might seem draconic, but it's to plug a very easy loophole that can be exploited, and people actually do try to exploit when they don't understand exactly to what the regulations apply to.
- quartesixte 1 year ago
- tonetegeatinst 1 year ago
- someguydave 1 year ago