5 ms·

Without supply chains most of it will be useless in a year or two.

by newsclues 5y ago

sigzero 5y ago
"a year or two" smh
j245 5y ago
Phew ! - That’s only one or two years of suffering for the Afghan population. Who cares ?! /s
abacadaba 5y ago
For the planes maybe. Don't see why they couldn't use a certain number of those vehicles to scavenge parts from for a very long time.
- wayoutthere 5y ago
  In most cases where the US has supplied this kind of equipment, the locals don’t have the skills to actually work on the vehicles. The maintenance work in these situations is usually contracted out to a company from the US (just another part of the $2T grift). They can probably figure out how to fix the ground vehicles and keep them running, but aircraft without a proper maintenance schedule will break down very quickly.
h2odragon 5y ago
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 canrally pleasured by a pink unicorn, but its a pleasant fantasy.
- PartiallyTyped 5y ago
  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.
  - rualca 5y ago
    Could you please explain why you believe "right to repair" is relevant in this case?
    - thanksforfish 5y ago
      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 infringing on their rights when designing the product.
      - rualca 5y ago
        > 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?
        PartiallyTyped 5y ago
        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 https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/7/3/18761691/right-to-rep... > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCFP9P7lIvI 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.
Torwald 5y ago
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.
- pstrateman 5y ago
  It absolutely is. Or do you think it's ok to supply North Korea?
  - mikehotel 5y ago
    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/ https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/
    - RandomBK 5y ago
      "Afghanistan" (the recently routed government) is not on the list. The Taliban is not a (yet) recognized nation-state in most Western countries. It'll take time for these lists to get updated with recent events. 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.
    - dragonwriter 5y ago
      The Taliban (in Afghanistan; the Pakistani Taliban is on both the Treasury and State lists), as well as a very large number of persons and organizations associated with the Taliban separately, is on the Treasury Department OFAC Sanctions list even though for diplomatic reasons the Taliban has not been included on the State Department list of international terrorist organizations.
  - Torwald 5y ago
    I didn't say it is "ok". I said it is not a crime.

Without supply chains most of it will be useless in a year or two.

sigzero 5y ago

"a year or two" smh

j245 5y ago

Phew ! - That’s only one or two years of suffering for the Afghan population. Who cares ?! /s

abacadaba 5y ago

For the planes maybe. Don't see why they couldn't use a certain number of those vehicles to scavenge parts from for a very long time.

wayoutthere 5y ago
In most cases where the US has supplied this kind of equipment, the locals don’t have the skills to actually work on the vehicles. The maintenance work in these situations is usually contracted out to a company from the US (just another part of the $2T grift). They can probably figure out how to fix the ground vehicles and keep them running, but aircraft without a proper maintenance schedule will break down very quickly.

h2odragon 5y ago

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 canrally pleasured by a pink unicorn, but its a pleasant fantasy.

PartiallyTyped 5y ago
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.
- rualca 5y ago
  Could you please explain why you believe "right to repair" is relevant in this case?
  - thanksforfish 5y ago
    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 infringing on their rights when designing the product.
    - rualca 5y ago
      > 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?
      - PartiallyTyped 5y ago
        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 https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/7/3/18761691/right-to-rep... > [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCFP9P7lIvI 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.

Torwald 5y ago

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.

pstrateman 5y ago
It absolutely is. Or do you think it's ok to supply North Korea?
- mikehotel 5y ago
  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/ https://www.state.gov/state-sponsors-of-terrorism/
  - RandomBK 5y ago
    "Afghanistan" (the recently routed government) is not on the list. The Taliban is not a (yet) recognized nation-state in most Western countries. It'll take time for these lists to get updated with recent events. 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.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    The Taliban (in Afghanistan; the Pakistani Taliban is on both the Treasury and State lists), as well as a very large number of persons and organizations associated with the Taliban separately, is on the Treasury Department OFAC Sanctions list even though for diplomatic reasons the Taliban has not been included on the State Department list of international terrorist organizations.
- Torwald 5y ago
  I didn't say it is "ok". I said it is not a crime.