51–60 of 82 posts
I'm old enough to remember everyone here shitting on Trump for suggesting Huawei 5G is a national security threat. This opinion is now so uncontroversial that even Eric Schmidt agrees: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/06/18/huawei-pos...
That's an interesting claim to test, actually. Could you provide links to one or more discussions on this site where the overwhelming consensus was that Huawei 5G would not be a national security threat to the US?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
International law barely exists and is unenforceable. If a superpower--especially a permanent Security Council member--wants to do something, there's absolutely no recourse. Look at Russia and Crimea. That's the most egregious violation of the notion of international law in recent history, and nothing of consequence happened. The big powers can do whatever they want, and the worst response will be token economic sanc…
There are better examples than Russia and Crimea. I am not Russian, and have nothing to do with Russia or Ukraine or whatever (I am Brazillian, of Iberian descent). Still, Crimea was not a "invasion" or "conquest". Long story short: Russia invaded Crimea in 1700s, taking it from Tartars. When a Ukranian became leader of URSS, he "gave" Crimea to Ukraine, it was only nominal, nothing changed in Crimea itself, the plac…
Edit: it’s an alternate spelling. I had not heard that before. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URSS
Should the international laws be amended to consider state-led cyber attacks an act of war in additional to traditional aggression? Seems like UN Security Council should deal with these matters.
International law barely exists and is unenforceable. If a superpower--especially a permanent Security Council member--wants to do something, there's absolutely no recourse. Look at Russia and Crimea. That's the most egregious violation of the notion of international law in recent history, and nothing of consequence happened. The big powers can do whatever they want, and the worst response will be token economic sanc…
There's a reason no country gives much of a second thought to international law. In the end it's purely about the optics and the optics are written by each superpower for whoever cares to listen to them. Case in point:
- Wage an asymmetric proxy war, invade a sovereign country, and annex one of their territories - Not OK.
- Find even a demonstrably false reason to wage declared war, invade a sovereign country, kill and torture combatants and civilians alike during the war and subsequent occupation - OK.
International law is a guideline and every country will interpret their own acts as righteous heroism and other countries' acts as barbaric violations of the law.
https://pics.me.me/their-barbarous-wastes-our-blessed-homela...
China is going rogue again. Cyberattacks against Australia, bullying in South China Sea, border fights against India and so on. We need a unified world approach.
Can you please give me a proof that it's China and not someone else...or nothing at all? I always hear cyber-attack's from Russia, North Korea or China, but never from Israel or the US, are they just so bad in covering up or is maybe something else behind it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
International law barely exists and is unenforceable. If a superpower--especially a permanent Security Council member--wants to do something, there's absolutely no recourse. Look at Russia and Crimea. That's the most egregious violation of the notion of international law in recent history, and nothing of consequence happened. The big powers can do whatever they want, and the worst response will be token economic sanc…
There are better examples than Russia and Crimea. I am not Russian, and have nothing to do with Russia or Ukraine or whatever (I am Brazillian, of Iberian descent). Still, Crimea was not a "invasion" or "conquest". Long story short: Russia invaded Crimea in 1700s, taking it from Tartars. When a Ukranian became leader of URSS, he "gave" Crimea to Ukraine, it was only nominal, nothing changed in Crimea itself, the plac…
I'm old enough to remember everyone here shitting on Trump for suggesting Huawei 5G is a national security threat. This opinion is now so uncontroversial that even Eric Schmidt agrees: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2020/06/18/huawei-pos...
> everyone here That's an interesting claim to test, actually. Could you provide links to one or more discussions on this site where the overwhelming consensus was that Huawei 5G would not be a national security threat to the US?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21757097
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19954673
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23191055
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> everyone here That's an interesting claim to test, actually. Could you provide links to one or more discussions on this site where the overwhelming consensus was that Huawei 5G would not be a national security threat to the US?
Below are the top stories. No consensus, let alone overwhelming. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21757097 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19954673 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23191055 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19923655 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20279227
Note that I did not say HN disagreed with the decision necessarily. I was just saying it was shitting on Trump for making it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is the UN Security Council going to do anything when China is one of its charter members? They can veto anything. Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vetoed_United_Nations_...
By recognizing Taiwan as the defacto China
What does it do but exclude them from any dialog to make force and violence more likely alternatives?
