As a thank you for Pakistan's alliance in the war on terror, the US will sell Pakistan its F-16 fighter jets - a move that does little to reassure their Southeast Asian neighbor, India. Many say lifting the sales ban on fighter jets to Pakistan complicates a tense region of nuclear foes. The US solution: sell to India too, with the more advanced F-18. Is our participation in arms dealing undermining international peace processes? Are we contributing to the problem rather than the solution?

• The United States supplied arms or military technology to more than 92% of the conflicts under way in 1999.
  
  
• Small arms kill an estimated 500,000 people every year. There are approximately 500 million small arms in circulation around the world.

In Afghanistan our troops are finding themselves fighting insurgents that were remnants of the US armed allies against the soviets. The US has invested millions in new weapon development, including new nuclear weapons, to fight this conflict and others worldwide - even looking toward space defense. A recent report claims that the information used by the government to predict "trends" in weapon development may be unreliable. Are we manufacturing and selling weapons that may be used against us in international conflicts? Are we creating the need to invent ever more lethal weapons to stay ahead of those we arm? Where will it stop?

The latest national defense strategy describes the need for an "active defense of the nation and its interests." Yet, meeting the international demand for security with weapons and technology creates enormous financial opportunity for suppliers. The manufacture and sales of weapons is an industry unto itself, providing jobs, income and the opportunity for technology development. US companies are major players in a global market. What prevents government from serving the interests of the industry over citizens?

• The US share of arms sales between 2000 and 2003 amounted to $76 billion, more than the rest of the world combined.
  
  
• In 2003 alone, 46.2% of US arms sales went to the developing world, many to regimes in volatile regions with poor human rights records.

All nations need protection for defense, but how do we stop the flow of 'lethal defense' weapons to unstable regimes and human rights violators? Who are the major manufacturers and suppliers of arms? What is the latest national defense strategy? Can we have an effective defense strategy and still work toward non-proliferation? Will other nations disarm if we continue to develop nuclear weapons and weaponize space? Can we put more effort into to making international treaties effective, rather than abandoning them entirely? Does developing and selling arms to others make us safer as a country? Should we have an international standard that determines which states can be sold weapons based on their intended use? Where can we get information to make informed decisions when it comes to supporting 'defensive weapon' development? Why is so much money spent on lethal 'defensive weapons' as opposed to neutralizers or detection 'defense?' What does this have to do with protecting the country from non-state terrorist actors who hijack planes or carry dirty bombs in suitcases?

Are there efforts in Congress and internationally to control the escalation and proliferation?

Talking Points