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?
Everyone I know who has worked there for >5 years is a millionaire, including some fairly junior people.
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.
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.
South Korea alone seems to have more military industrial ambition than either France or Germany.
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.
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.
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.
That said, the UK are docile vassals, not allies, which is why they get preferential access.
So not sure why you think your statement is somehow provocative.
There's already a place in Australia I suspect is developed in anticipation
Or is there more to it?
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.
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?
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.
(disclosure: I work at Rocket Lab, but not on anything to donwith this.)
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.
