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

The Taliban Have Seized U.S. Military Biometrics Devices

theintercept.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–68 of 68 posts

Re: The Taliban Have Seized U.S. Military Biometrics Devices

#61

Post by HWR_14 »

trynumber9 wrote: post #22
howaboutnope wrote: post #19

> Frightening people man. Bush tried to buy votes towards the end of the election. Goes around, you know, selling weapons to everyone, getting that military industrial complex vote happening for him. Sold 160 fighter jets to Korea and then 240 tanks to Kuwait and then goes around making speeches why he should be Commander-in-Chief because, “We still live in a dangerous world.” > Thanks to you, you fucker! What are yo…

I suppose it is a joke but Kuwait had tanks before that. 200 Yugoslavian M84s.

I also assume that was the elder Bush (based on your Yugoslavian tanks comment). Since we literally had just fought a war on Kuwait's behalf, arming them seems reasonable.

Re: The Taliban Have Seized U.S. Military Biometrics Devices

#62

Post by HWR_14 »

bigmattystyles wrote: post #15

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.

A lot of the equipment was left for the Afghan forces. The worries are (a) if the Taliban will use it and (b) is there anything in that equipment that the Chinese/Russian/etc. forces can reverse engineer.

Re: The Taliban Have Seized U.S. Military Biometrics Devices

#63

Post by kodah »

throwawayswede wrote: post #60
kodah wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both what you and GP said can be true simultaneously, and in my opinion is.

Thank you for your informative contribution.

What else would you like me to say?

It is factually true that the Taliban and ISIS wanted to achieve cultural domination. Al Queda I'm not so sure about, but hell, they're religious extremists who sometimes masquerade as a violent and totalitarian political party.

It is also true that back in the 80's the US funded, specifically, Al Queda and the Taliban for various things. It doesn't mean they were our allies, just an underhanded way of doing policy. You saw this on repeat in Syria where we were giving weapons and funding to people that we'd, in any larger context, consider terrorists.

That just agrees with what's already been said. If you want me to disagree with anything it's your use of "naive". Ironically, if you can't perceive both as true (since they're both factually true), who is the naive one? My guess is on the person telling themselves a half baked truth.

Re: The Taliban Have Seized U.S. Military Biometrics Devices

#64

Post by rualca »

thanksforfish wrote: post #26
rualca wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please explain why you believe "right to repair" is relevant in this case?

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…

> Presumably, if the (...)

In this case, the "customer" is a sovereign state that has the ability to set its own laws.

Why does anyone think that "right to repair" applies in this case?

Re: The Taliban Have Seized U.S. Military Biometrics Devices

#65

Post by PartiallyTyped »

rualca wrote: post #64
thanksforfish wrote: post #26

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…

> Presumably, if the (...) In this case, the "customer" is a sovereign state that has the ability to set its own laws. Why does anyone think that "right to repair" applies in this case?

From another reply:

> Ah, I see you don't know that companies can "prohibit" chip manufacturers from selling specific chips to third parties [1,2]. Moreover, schematics, repair guidelines, and all sorts of other tools are not available to independent repair shops, which render repairs very difficult, Louis Rossmann has had frequent rants about this on his channel on Youtube [2], and is one of the most prominent advocates of the right to repair.

> 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...

> [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCFP9P7lIvI

It is not that the right to repair applies in this case, but rather because the right to repair does not exist/has not passed, the procurement of chips and other electronics necessary to repair the hardware may be difficult or outright impossible.

The cars that we compare to (1960) are orders of magnitude simpler than modern day electronics and not reliant on megacorps allowing others to obtain schematics and microchips.

Re: The Taliban Have Seized U.S. Military Biometrics Devices

#66

Post by neonate »

trynumber9 wrote: post #22
howaboutnope wrote: post #19

> Frightening people man. Bush tried to buy votes towards the end of the election. Goes around, you know, selling weapons to everyone, getting that military industrial complex vote happening for him. Sold 160 fighter jets to Korea and then 240 tanks to Kuwait and then goes around making speeches why he should be Commander-in-Chief because, “We still live in a dangerous world.” > Thanks to you, you fucker! What are yo…

I suppose it is a joke but Kuwait had tanks before that. 200 Yugoslavian M84s.

Of course it's a joke. It's Bill Hicks. Wish he were still around so we could hear what he would make of "But they had 200 Yugoslavian tanks".

Re: The Taliban Have Seized U.S. Military Biometrics Devices

#67

Post by defaulty »

newsclues wrote: post #54
h2odragon wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure people said Cuba would run out of cars in the 60s. They might be able to use all that gear per the manual and best practices, but they'll make use of it however they can. Humans do that. I hope history will look back at that and see it as a "plowshares" dump, where native ingenuity took tons of scrap iron and reformed into the infrastructure of a better society. I figure it's about as likely as being canrall…

Keeping an AK-47 running with kyber pass manufactured parts is manageable, keeping a Blackhawk helicopter is not.

I don't think anyone expects them to fly a Blackhawk, but armored ground vehicles are very likely

Re: The Taliban Have Seized U.S. Military Biometrics Devices

#68

Post by rambojazz »

defaulty wrote: post #2

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.

I would be surprised if those armored vehicles could be easily turned on by turning a key. Can the talibans just hop in and drive them?
Post reply on HN