- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
Summary
U.S. officials have warned European allies against excluding American defense firms from EU weapons tenders, amid new EU proposals to boost domestic arms production.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized U.S. concerns in recent meetings, citing potential negative repercussions if U.S. companies are sidelined.
The EU’s €150 billion ReArm Europe plan aims to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers as Trump signals reduced U.S. NATO engagement.
Washington sees the move as conflicting with its goal of selling arms abroad. Tensions highlight diverging transatlantic defense priorities under Trump’s leadership.
There are no patent limitations on manufacturing M16s. It’s a solid, proven, affordable design. Europe is a manufacturing powerhouse, with plenty of superb weapons manufacturers who don’t even need to use Stoner’s design. They risk absolutely nothing.
The argument against the M16 right now is that an intermediate caliber rifle can’t do anything against modern body armor (Edit: and to the other poster, this also applies to the HK416). Works if you’re shooting poor brown people, but not anyone with a well equipped military. The US itself is in the middle of replacing the M16 for this reason.
When the XM7 was being developed, there was a chance the whole thing was a mistake if a near-peer war never happened. Now the likelihood of a near-peer war is looking more likely.
Why would Europe manufacture M16s? HK416s are superior, in that most NATO armies, including the US has adopted it.
Because it’s free. H&K is expensive. I imagine they still hold parents on the HK416 and might prevent other manufacturers from making them. No such restrictions exist for the M16 or AR-15 anymore. While the HK416 may well be superior, there’s nothing wrong with the AR that hasn’t been addressed for years. And it might send a bit of a message if Europe starts building a bunch of them.