41–50 of 68 posts
What's worse is the billions in armored vehicles and weapons that can be used against those who resist them. If anything, the Taliban are now in a stronger military position than in 2001.
That equipment can be decommissioned from the air with low risk to allied forces.
We should never have left valuable material behind. How often has our own money and technology been used against us? We need to learn out lesson and do better. If we planned on leaving we had time to get that type of technology out of there first or destroyed the equipment beyond the point of repair.
Taliban would love to use any technology that's available to them considering their position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It absolutely is. Or do you think it's ok to supply North Korea?
Afghanistan is not yet on the list[1]. If the new government doesn’t uphold its obligations under Doha, there is a good chance it will be added to it in the future. 1. https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/
Considering that the Taliban is/was a hostile party to an active US military operation, starting economic activities with them without explicit government approval is probably not a good idea.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a stark difference between old cars and modern tech, especially when we take into consideration repairability and right to repair being pressing issues.
Could you please explain why you believe "right to repair" is relevant in this case?
It follows then that unless right to repair passes/exists, obtaining replacement parts for any devices is exceptionally difficult. There is therefore a stark contrast between 1960s cars and their very limited electronics and current tech that relies on often hundreds of chips and software to operate.
[1] https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/7/3/18761691/right-to-rep...
We should never have left valuable material behind. How often has our own money and technology been used against us? We need to learn out lesson and do better. If we planned on leaving we had time to get that type of technology out of there first or destroyed the equipment beyond the point of repair.
Unfortunately, it was a bad plan.
Why do we leave so much behind? Is it impractical to remove economically or there’s no money that be made from it? I understand large parts of it was given to the Afghan army but it’s jarring to see. With regards to anything other than a weapon, we should be able to brick everything with a firmware update in the future.
The more equipment the army leaves behind, the more will need replacing, and the more profit the arms manufacturers make :P > we should be able to brick everything with a firmware update I am curious how permenantly-bricked a tank would be without the electronics. Sure replacing the electronics would be a pain in the ass, but I would imagine it’s still orders of magnitude easier than building a whole tank from scratc…
It is theoretically possible to lock down the system to only authorized users, much like what we see with TPMs and modern smartphone security. This is supposed to be part of the reason the F35 program was so expensive - every component is cryptographically signed and verified.
We should never have left valuable material behind. How often has our own money and technology been used against us? We need to learn out lesson and do better. If we planned on leaving we had time to get that type of technology out of there first or destroyed the equipment beyond the point of repair.
The material wasn't "left behind". It was given to the ANA for them to fight the Taliban.
I'm actually surprised at the response to my comment. I think I'm not expressing myself clearly. My thoughts keep wandering to what could have been done and the costs of the Taliban possessing advanced technology. Sorry for the Pollyanna mindset here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Presumably, if the customer doesn't have the right to repair then the manufacturer would be able to make parts that are exceptionally difficult to repair without specialized knowledge and tools. Or worse, enforce cryptographic locks on any software/firmware to prevent unauthorized changes. I think right to repair is about ensuring that the customer can make reasonable repairs to the product, and the manufacturer not…
It’s military equipment. It’s easy as heck to repair and the manuals are all online.
> Manufacturers can prevent the Department of Defense from repairing certain equipment, which puts members of the military at risk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the Taliban now represent the official .gov of Afghanistan it is not a crime for any company to provide supply and services. Edit: I am not talking about US-American companies only.
It absolutely is. Or do you think it's ok to supply North Korea?