So you want to sell weapons to your enemies but not to your brother?Great Logic. I'm glad you don't make China's export policies.
And since your logic was that selling your own weapons is the means to win war, i assume you are preparing for war with Japan and India , but never with Taiwan....well at least we know that you don't sit on the CMC.....and why!
When it comes to simple issues, you always tend to overcomplicate them; yet when it comes to complex issues, you prefer to oversimplify them.
Consider the following question carefully:
Many countries around the world have purchased F-35 fighter jets. If a global conflict were to break out, and setting aside political considerations—analyzing the situation purely from a military and technical perspective—do you believe these nations could use their F-35s to attack the United States?
Or,
Do you think the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) is free to use its F-16s to attack the United States? And is the PAF free to use its J-10CEs to attack China? ------ Excluding political factors!
Weapon systems embedded with advanced modern information technology derive their operational effectiveness from the continuous technical support and upgrades provided by the original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). The procurement of such systems by any nation invariably comes with technical support services, as well as contractual restrictions—essentially defining "prohibited use cases." Should a nation attempt to employ these weapon systems against the country of origin, such actions trigger contractual clauses that allow the manufacturer to legally—and through various technical means—render the equipment entirely inoperable, effectively turning it into nothing more than a "useless hunk of metal."
==============================
Turkish media once reported that Chinese-exported UAVs are unable to enter Chinese airspace; whenever they approach China’s borders, they automatically turn back.
If this report is accurate, I suspect it stems from technical testing conducted by Pakistan. In technical terms, this is known as: geofencing!
==============================
In the field of modern information technology, there is a vast number of similar technical approaches.
If your "enemy" merely seeks to purchase a small quantity of advanced weaponry from you—for purposes such as technical testing, reverse engineering, or use by opposing-force (OPFOR) units—then such a transaction is certainly out of the question.
However, if your "enemy" wishes to acquire a massive quantity of these weapons—enough to equip their combat forces—then such a deal is, in fact, feasible. This ensures that they could never realistically use these weapons to wage war against you, while simultaneously consuming a vast portion of their defense budget.
BTW.
In the past, weapon systems did not recognize a "master." Whoever held one in their hands became its master.
During the Chinese Civil War, many of the weapons in the hands of the CCP forces had originally been supplied by the United States to the KMT.
During the Sino-Vietnamese War, much of the weaponry used by the Vietnamese military consisted of arms that China had previously provided to North Vietnam to help it fight against the United States.
In the current Russia-Ukraine War, both sides make extensive use of Soviet/Russian-made weaponry—for instance, the Su-27 pitted against the Su-35.
The nations that originally manufactured these weapons began contemplating this issue in depth many years ago.
