Ambiguity in cyberspace and the legality of hacking and manipulating sovereign nations; does it benefit the attacker, or the victim? We've all but survived the potential catastrophe of the 2016 election, and the Russian interference within it, but what does that mean for the future of cyber and psychological warfare throughout the world?
Consider the following questions:
- How does a NATO country, like Belgium or Spain, raise its defense spending rapidly over the short term (i.e. 4 years) without incurring the risk associated with research and development or costs associated with increased manpower?
- How does a businessman-turned-politician drive down the costs of a weapon's program whose costs are "out of control?"
- How does one make good on promises to "bring manufacturing jobs back home?" to appease Economic Security voters?
- How does an administration, in dire need of showing strength against a country who allegedly helped it get elected do so without leading to an accidental international incident?
The answer to all of these is through Foreign Military Sales; the one thing that the U.S. government has been decidedly good at over the last several decades. Currently, the most prolific export of the U.S. military sale market is the F-35 and it has been catapulted into the limelight as a cornerstone in the next Cold War.