Originally Posted by John Galt
my arguments for military control of the design aspects of its own weapon systems can be summed up in two firearms: <snip>
Please correct me if I am missing the point, but in both of these cases your concern appears to be with questionable quality. If that is indeed the case, then I question the quality control procedures in use by the manufacture and the failure of the purchaser to enforce minimum quality requirement (I'm making big assumption on this last part. It may be that the failure rates listed are with acceptable ranges set forth by the purchaser).
If this indeed your argument then I would think that the purchaser is the one to blame in both cases. One, for not requiring higher standards from the manufacturer and two, for not changing manufacturers if the standards are high, but are not being met.
I don't think either of these points raise a case for not utilizing global markets. If the best quality and most competitive price comes from our manufactures, then we should purchase from them. If those things are present elsewhere, we should purchase there.
Thank for the links. Very interesting reading (I knew about the M16s, but not the M9s)!