Why does the US supply AKs?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd say Lord of War as well, but that is fictional, the other is a true story

Look up Victor Boot. Nicholas Cage's character in LoW was in part based upon Boot.

That is absolutely true but I was just trying to make as strong a point as possible. Lord of War is a fictional story rooted in fact. Cage represents not only Boot, but other bigtime arms dealers as well. Charlie Wilson's War was a non fictional account of what happened. (I happened to find Lord of War FAR more fascinating though.)
 
Think about how our gov works. They probably have a set amount of money to arm other millitaries. So they buy a bunch of AK's so they can pocket a bunch of money. They don't care what the rifle is just how much they graft off the top.
 
Grant48 said:
Eightball said:
Why does the US supply AKs?
Because we want the Iraqi Army to be serviceable, but not "too good".

Its the same reason we're re-equipping the Iraqi Air Force with Cessnas and Hueys instead of Super Hornets and Apaches.
You make a good point. However, AH-64s and F/A-18C/Ds ar far more expensive and complex, in relation to Cessnas and UH-1s, than M-16s are to AKs. Another thing is that a Cessna or Huey getting captured will not result in sensitive technology falling into the wrong hands. Not so with Apaches and Super Hornets.

As to Eightball's original question, I'd say it's mostly a matter of logistics.
 
If you are going to let your kid drive, do you toss him the keys to your old pickup or your new BMW?
 
Another reason why we supplied AKs to the Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan war was because AKs in the hands of the mujahideen would not look to be U.S.-supplied, thus giving the USA and the CIA deniability that they had any involvement at the time. This wouldn't work so well if the Soviets had seen the Mujahideens carrying M16s and XM-177 carbines.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top