Export controls are there to prevent killing machines getting in the hands of a countries enemies (or potential enemies in the future)
In practice that isn't, umm, practical. Consider the Falklands war - Argentina had Type 42 destroyers sold to them by Britain, and Exocet missiles sold by fellow NATO member France.
Those are more the exceptions that prove the rule, though. I don't see any other countries with B-2s or other major US weapons systems, unless the US intended it.
Not really. Every country that has weapons development also has export controls.
It isn't about believing your government is moral or good.
Its about understanding that your government is responsible for the safety of citizens, and that your enemies will want to kill you (or at least kill your soldiers).
There is a sibling comment that was flagged to death that makes a reasonable point. The word "enemy" is used in political rhetoric as if enemies are a force of nature, like hurricanes or earthquakes. But "enemies" are just people, and there's very little discussion about why those people want to kill those other people, or how their existence is blowback (or even an intended result) from yet another operation against some previous enemy.
I would be much happier with US strategy if the discussion always began with metaanalysis of the motivations and origins of a putative enemy, with the focus on social and humanitarian means to prevent the formation of new problems.
Nothing about dkopi's comment requires one to view the US as good and her enemies as evil, or for him to be American. Anyone whose gov't develops or pays other to develop weapons has at least a passive interest in those weapons not being turned on them.
Well for 1 & 2, this story is about a guy who is from the US, and is trying to sell military tech to the US. Either he supports the US, or he doesn't care what his military tech is used for. Either way he can't really claim the moral high ground if he turns around and sells it to "enemy" countries.
But you don't really need to assume any of that. If you just assume that spreading military tech is a net negative, then this is good. I don't support the US's use of drones, but I especially don't want other countries to have drones. I don't support the use of nuclear bombs, but I certainly don't want other countries to have them. Whether the country is good or not, I think advancing military tech is at best neutral, and at worst very, very bad.
Obviously the internet and GPS are mostly used for civilian applications. Are you really going to argue that there is a huge civilian market for stealth boats?
GPS is still 100% military, the US Military can kill the civil band of GPS at any time it wants, all of the satellites are own, operated and maintained by US Sat Com.
The internet started as a ARPA research project, the fact that it is used by civilians today is not relevant to the conversation
You stated that "I think advancing military tech is at best neutral, and at worst very, very bad." GPS and the Internet are 2 prime examples of Military Tech has that massively improved the world. Nuclear Power being a 3rd, I can cite 1000's of others.
No I would not be upset is some local corporation sold breakthrough military technology to that "enemy"...
I lived through the first cryptowars, I do not have the desire to give the government that kind of power
I see the resurgence of the new cryptowars on the horizon, government can not be trusted to choose what information should be public and what should be secret
Well, sure, you could argue that, but that argument justifies every rule that exists now or might in the future.