Should the US provide offensive weapons to other countries?

[jwoodie]

Should the US provide offensive weapons to other countries? This may be partly a philosophical question, but it is also relevant to current US foreign policy. For example, should the US provide weapons which can be used by Ukraine to strike into Russia, or by Israel to invade Gaza? Doesn't the US become complicit when these weapons are used offensively outside the borders of the recipient countries?

What if the US limited its military assistance to defensive weapons like anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems? We could also provide intelligence on foreign troop movements and incoming aerial threats without becoming de facto combatants. But it seems to me that going beyond this is tantamount to giving other countries the power to declare war on our behalf. Is that a wise policy?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

We do.

 

[ReinyDays]

... and I'm offended ...

 

[Manonthestreet]

Many weapon systems are both.....oooops

 

[Rambunctious]

It should never happen if our government can't tell us why they are doing it....

 

[BluesLegend]

Should the US provide offensive weapons to other countries?

Sure, AFTER our $35 trillion dollar debt is repaid.

 

[lg325]

With the war on terrorism and anti democracy groups and nations becoming more and more agressive we dont have a choice.
But just to those who are allies and share our democratic principles. No weapons to dictators or other totalittarian nations.

 

[1srelluc]

Why bother, FJB leaves them behind in every country we run away from.

 

[Batcat]

Should the US provide offensive weapons to other countries? This may be partly a philosophical question, but it is also relevant to current US foreign policy. For example, should the US provide weapons which can be used by Ukraine to strike into Russia, or by Israel to invade Gaza? Doesn't the US become complicit when these weapons are used offensively outside the borders of the recipient countries?

What if the US limited its military assistance to defensive weapons like anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems? WE could also provide intelligence on foreign troop movements and incoming aerial threats without becoming de facto combatants. But it seems to me that going beyond this is tantamount to giving other countries the power to declare war on our behalf. Is that a wise policy?

I am all for selling weapons to our allies so they are not a target of our enemies.

The best defense is a good offense. Democrats can’t seem to figure this out.

 

[Foxfyre]

Should the US provide offensive weapons to other countries? This may be partly a philosophical question, but it is also relevant to current US foreign policy. For example, should the US provide weapons which can be used by Ukraine to strike into Russia, or by Israel to invade Gaza? Doesn't the US become complicit when these weapons are used offensively outside the borders of the recipient countries?

What if the US limited its military assistance to defensive weapons like anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems? WE could also provide intelligence on foreign troop movements and incoming aerial threats without becoming de facto combatants. But it seems to me that going beyond this is tantamount to giving other countries the power to declare war on our behalf. Is that a wise policy?

Interesting topic. I have no problem selling armaments/ammo whatever to our allies. For instance we are selling, not giving, weapons to Israel as they need and order them. Giving them to other countries does raise some ethical questions we should sort out. We should not give or sell or encourage weapon sales to countries like Russia who unethically invaded another country or to terrorist groups like Hamas.

 

[jwoodie]

Maybe I should have posted it as a poll question?

 

[Seymour Flops]

We should only send non-offensive weapons. In particular, we should avoid sending any weapons that are noted for their mean tweets. Those can really be hurtful.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Should the US provide offensive weapons to other countries? This may be partly a philosophical question, but it is also relevant to current US foreign policy. For example, should the US provide weapons which can be used by Ukraine to strike into Russia, or by Israel to invade Gaza? Doesn't the US become complicit when these weapons are used offensively outside the borders of the recipient countries?

What if the US limited its military assistance to defensive weapons like anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems? We could also provide intelligence on foreign troop movements and incoming aerial threats without becoming de facto combatants. But it seems to me that going beyond this is tantamount to giving other countries the power to declare war on our behalf. Is that a wise policy?

You must first define the difference in offensive and defensive weapons. A fighter can shoot down incoming attacking aircraft and still drop bombs on other country's targets.

 

[Godboy]

Is that a wise policy?

It hasnt hurt us yet.

 

[BackAgain]

Should the US provide offensive weapons to other countries? This may be partly a philosophical question, but it is also relevant to current US foreign policy. For example, should the US provide weapons which can be used by Ukraine to strike into Russia, or by Israel to invade Gaza? Doesn't the US become complicit when these weapons are used offensively outside the borders of the recipient countries?

What if the US limited its military assistance to defensive weapons like anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems? We could also provide intelligence on foreign troop movements and incoming aerial threats without becoming de facto combatants. But it seems to me that going beyond this is tantamount to giving other countries the power to declare war on our behalf. Is that a wise policy?

What bomb isn’t an offensive weapon?

 

[Orangecat]

Should the US provide offensive weapons to other countries?​

Provide? No.
Sell? Sure.

 

[Orangecat]

What bomb isn’t an offensive weapon?

A photo bomb.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Should the US provide offensive weapons to other countries?​

No. It makes us a target.

 

[BackAgain]

A photo bomb.

That depends on who is getting in the picture.

I mean, who wants Ellen Degeneres in the picture?

 

[g5000]

Should the US provide offensive weapons to other countries? This may be partly a philosophical question, but it is also relevant to current US foreign policy. For example, should the US provide weapons which can be used by Ukraine to strike into Russia, or by Israel to invade Gaza? Doesn't the US become complicit when these weapons are used offensively outside the borders of the recipient countries?

What if the US limited its military assistance to defensive weapons like anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems? We could also provide intelligence on foreign troop movements and incoming aerial threats without becoming de facto combatants. But it seems to me that going beyond this is tantamount to giving other countries the power to declare war on our behalf. Is that a wise policy?

Um...let me give you a clue, clueless.

When your country is deeply invaded, you need to go on the OFFENSE to push them back out.

So, hell yes, we should provide all means necessary for Ukraine to kick Putin out of their country.