Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

heise.de

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 585 posts

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#431

Post by AndrewKemendo »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #391
a2tech wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any nation made up of human beings is going to be flawed. The way forward is via incremental change and compromise. Forcing societal change does not, and never has, worked.

>Forcing societal change does not, and never has It looks like Musk was able to buy Twitter and, together with the other media magnates, force a massive societal change in USA. At least from the outside looking in, before this year USA seemed to be a democracy (with some factions doing their best to subvert that) and the Constitution seemed to be a widely supported basis for that democracy. But now, the Constitution…

All you’re seeing now is what’s been happening behind closed doors since the founding of this country.

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#432

Post by Yoric »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #396
Mikhail_Edoshin wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn't. It had some weapons on their territory but could not use them. The red button was always in Moscow.

> It had some weapons on their territory but could not use them. The red button was always in Moscow In the 90s. Twenty years buys lots of time for code cracking, reverse engineering and—if that fails—bullshitting. With the benefit of hindsight, Ukraine should have kept its nukes. (Finland, the Baltics, Poland and Romania should probably develop them.)

I could be wrong, but I don't think that nuclear warheads have such a long shelf life.

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#433

Post by Yoric »

dpedu wrote: post #313
einpoklum wrote: post #282

Let us remember what this is about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFUkfmnCR7U the scale of destruction in Gaza is horrendous: Its dense cities reduced to rubble, as though after a nuclear strike. The death toll is not yet known. the lower bound - the number of bodies counted by the ministry of health - is at around 69,000, while the Lancet estimated over 186,000 (and that was over a year ago), or nearly 7.9% of the…

It's worth noting that the Gaza Health Ministry is a government agency and the de-facto government of Gaza is Hamas, and therefore the health ministry _is_ Hamas. Casualty numbers released by the ministry have already been statistically dubious, and seeing that Hamas would only benefit from inflating these numbers, it is likely they are not accurate numbers. https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/how-gaza-h…

That is true. And Hamas has always had very a imaginative use of statistics.

However, if you look at the few times that IDF published casualty estimates, they were pretty close to the numbers published by Hamas.

That's perhaps one of the saddest things about this war: there are so many casualties that even Hamas doesn't need to inflate the number.

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#434

Post by JumpCrisscross »

drysine wrote: post #409
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It had some weapons on their territory but could not use them. The red button was always in Moscow In the 90s. Twenty years buys lots of time for code cracking, reverse engineering and—if that fails—bullshitting. With the benefit of hindsight, Ukraine should have kept its nukes. (Finland, the Baltics, Poland and Romania should probably develop them.)

>Ukraine should have kept its nukes They would've quickly sold them to Iran like they did with nuclear capable missiles. [0] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005-05/ukraine-admits-missi...

> They would've quickly sold them to Iran like they did with nuclear capable missiles

Unclear. A nuclear Kyiv would have different security incentives than a non-nuclear one.

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#435

Post by Yoric »

octopoc wrote: post #274
arresin wrote: post #263

Why is the president of the United States protecting a blood soaked war criminal? It’s weird. I mean what even does he get in return for this extraordinary service for someone so undeserving? I can’t even see how it’s valuable for him. Can someone explain it?

Zionist Jews wield a lot of political power in the US. It’s difficult/impossible to get elected at the federal level if you don’t support Israel. Supporting Israel is valuable to Trump because many of his donors are these Zionist Jews.

I think that it's actually the opposite.

I haven't followed in the recent past, but a few years ago, if my memory serves, Netanyahu was largely funded by a group of US Evangelists.

It's not Israel or Zionism controlling the US. It's some subset of US Evangelists using Israel as a puppet for whatever eschatological purpose they have in mind.

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#436

Post by JumpCrisscross »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #408
dragontamer wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah. No one is saying that China cannot do that. Just that the political calculus is that it's better for China to spend their resources on that, rather than building up troops and warships. Force Chinas growth to be more expensive. It has nothing to do with not believing China can do it, it's about slowing them down in a task we believe that they can do.

> Just that the political calculus is that it's better for China to spend their resources on that, rather than building up troops and warships. Note that this calculus only makes sense if you invade China while they are busy with the EUV machines, otherwise they catch up technologically and then build all the scary military. Of course, the the calculus doesn't make sense at all, because the obvious order when you can…

> the obvious order when you can't do both is you build enough military to feel safe first, then you try for the tech race

Literally zero actual wars with a technological component have progressed like this. (The first tradeoff to be made is the one Russia is making: sacrificing consumption for military production and research. Guns and butter.)

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#437

Post by gessha »

IAmBroom wrote: post #120
gessha wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> used to be that the US stood out because it took the law seriously The US looked like it stood out but it has its own internal and external legal problems such as slavery, Native American repressions, the legacy of slavery, anti-Asian policies, coup-ing foreign countries, etc etc etc

You are conflating morality with legal jurisprudence. The US obeyed its own (highly immoral) laws on slavery, genocide of Native Americans, etc. I'll give you the point about promoting coups in foreign countries (couping is actually the verb).

When I mentioned Native American repression, I had the federal government breaking treaties in mind which falls under legal category but you’re right that the gov also did the genocide.

More generally, as a foreigner who now lives in the US, I held Americans to a higher standard than, say my own government or major other governments. Not anymore, I feel like there’s just different trade offs in living in different countries.

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#438

Post by TimorousBestie »

mrguyorama wrote: post #327
embedding-shape wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there are many Japanese alive today not aware of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While it's true they didn't place Japanese in internment cam.. no wait, they did do that. While it's true they didn't straight up execute Japanese folks on the street, they did effectively erase two cities from the world map, how that isn't a "Crime against Humanity", I don't know why we even have the label. So yeah, the US didn't…

>aware of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Of course this argument never uses the much more horrifying and abysmal firebombing of Tokyo, because it doesn't come from a place of historical knowledge, but rather trite lies. Hell, the Allies told Japan (literally) "Surrender or face prompt and utter destruction", while Japan knew they were utterly cooked and already lost the war like a year ago, and they simply ignored it. Japan…

> Of course this argument never uses the much more horrifying and abysmal firebombing of Tokyo,

For what it’s worth, I did try to limit my claims in this thread to the notion that maybe the firebombing of Tokyo was a crime against humanity, and avoid yet another pointless relitigation of the use nuclear weaponry.

I don’t know what to make of your whataboutism, however. Nobody here is arguing that the Tokyo tribunal should not have been held, as far as I can tell.

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#439

Post by JumpCrisscross »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #429
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It had some weapons on their territory but could not use them. The red button was always in Moscow In the 90s. Twenty years buys lots of time for code cracking, reverse engineering and—if that fails—bullshitting. With the benefit of hindsight, Ukraine should have kept its nukes. (Finland, the Baltics, Poland and Romania should probably develop them.)

Right stealing nukes you cannot immediately operate as a 0-year old nation, to me it doesn't seems like an incredibly bright idea in a world where the existing nuclear states doesn't want anyone else to get nukes too. And in any case it's was not simply removing the safety devices on the weapons, you need to be able to target the ICBMs at Russia, which Ukraine could not do: > In fact, the presence of strategic nuclea…

> stealing nukes you cannot immediately operate as a 0-year old nation

Agreed. But nobody was invading Ukraine in 1994.

The weapons were seen as a security liability. In reality, they were bargaining chips.

> to me it doesn't seems like an incredibly bright idea in a world where the existing nuclear states doesn't want anyone else to get nukes too

To be clear, Kyiv made the right decision given what they knew in 1994. Non-proliferation was in vogue. America and British security guarantees meant something.

If Kyiv knew what we know today, that the Budapest security guarantees were worthless from each of Washington, London and Moscow; that wars of conquest would be back; and that non-proliferation would be seen through the lens of regional versus global security, it would have been a bright idea to demand more before letting them go, or at least to drag out negotiations so Ukraine could study the weapons and maybe even extract some samples.

> SS-24s do not have the ability to strike targets at relatively short distances (that is, below about 2000 km)

Again, having the nukes would give Kyiv leverage. At a minimum they'd have HEU and a proven design to study.

And again, don't undervalue bullshitting in geopolitics. If Kyiv said they have a short-range nuclear missile, it would not be credible. But would it be incredible enough to green light an invasion?

Re: How a French judge was digitally cut off by the USA

#440

Post by [deleted] »

nwellnhof wrote: post #267
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those were Soviet nukes, physically located in Ukraine but not controlled by it, same as any French/US nukes stationed in Germany would not make it a nuclear state. This is not an accurate comparison. It's not that Russia had nukes in Ukraine and withdrew them. Many of the Soviet soldiers manning them were Ukrainians and stayed behind. Much of the infrastructure for maintaining the Soviet arsenal was also in Ukrain…

> It's not that Russia had nukes in Ukraine and withdrew them. Russia is the single legal successor of the USSR, so all Soviet nukes became Russian nukes, regardless where they were located. So after the USSR broke up, Russia did have nukes in Ukraine and withdrew them.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN