4 ms·

This is a great move. I welcome it. I would not blame China at all for the same moves. Something as critical as telecom infrastructure should not come from your

This is a great move. I welcome it. I would not blame China at all for the same moves. Something as critical as telecom infrastructure should not come from your biggest military adversary.

itsoktocry 4y ago
>biggest military adversary Why is the default position that they are a military adversary? I mean, in what ways are they even an adversary, outside of the fact they are World #2?
- DannyB2 4y ago
  Taiwan Or maybe more specifically TSMC.
  - trasz 4y ago
    And? There isn’t anything military going on between China and Taiwan, despite continued US efforts to change it.
    - CogitoCogito 4y ago
      > And? There isn’t anything military going on between China and Taiwan, despite continued US efforts to change it. China regularly threatens military action against Taiwan.
      - trasz 4y ago
        USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan. China has made it very clear they don’t have any intention to invade. They also don’t have a recent history of invading. I guess the optics here depends on the sources you’re following. If you only read one side you can get to rather silly conclusions.
        CogitoCogito 4y ago
        > USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan. Could you provide an example of this please? > China has made it very clear they don’t have any intention to invade. I'm quite confused about this. Are you claiming that China has not made threats to invade Taiwan? I find that claim very confusing considering both their rhetoric as well as their military exercises. China even passed an "Anti-Secession Law" which explicitly states that China will attack Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't "peacefully" allow its annexation. I find your position quite hard to square with reality. > I guess the optics here depends on the sources you’re following. If you only read one side you can get to rather silly conclusions. I'm quite curious what "side" you're reading that's leading to to ignore the PRC's own official policy and actions demonstrating their aggression and belligerence towards Taiwan.
        trasz 4y ago
        >Could you provide an example of this please? Literally anything about the conflict. Look at their posturing, or military exercises. It’s a matter or rhetorics - it’s usually described as helping Taiwan, because, well, that’s media for you. >Are you claiming that China has not made threats to invade Taiwan? Not only that - it repeatedly declared they won’t invade, and have it written down in their constitution. Also, https://www.ft.com/content/01eb9112-6363-451f-89d2-b90566d9f6dc https://www.ft.com/content/01eb9112-6363-451f-89d2-b90566d9f.... >I'm quite curious what "side" you're reading that's leading to to ignore the PRC's own official policy Again - you’re not describing PRC’s own policy, you’re describing US state propaganda materials about that policy.
        CogitoCogito 4y ago
        > Literally anything about the conflict. Look at their posturing, or military exercises. It’s a matter or rhetorics - it’s usually described as helping Taiwan, because, well, that’s media for you. Could you provide an actual example of this? If the USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan as you said, providing such a specific example would be quite easy for you. > Again - you’re not describing PRC’s own policy, you’re describing US state propaganda materials about that policy. So you’re making the claim that the anti-secession law in which China threatens Taiwan is not official Chinese policy?
- lm28469 4y ago
- kotlin2 4y ago
  Well, they’re not an ally and there are a finite amount of resources on the planet.
- pyinstallwoes 4y ago
  Do you know what malware and APT’s are?
jhbadger 4y ago
Except if they banned, say, Apple, they'd be ultimately banning themselves (yes, I know Apple is expanding manufacturing to other countries, but China is still the primary manufacturing location)
hakfoo 4y ago
TBH, if this was a security touchpoint, they should have done it 15 years ago. Or maybe they should have had a programme to subsidize the cost of Cisco kit to make sure they couldn't get a foothold in the data centre in the first place. I recall they did some big dog-and-pony show where they got GCHQ to do some audits, but it always seemed like the result was pre-cooked. There was a specific, obviously politically-infused outcome planned from day 1, and no amount of audits, disclosures, or compliance guarantees would ever make them politically acceptable for the US. Sort of makes me think of the Iraqi WMD inspections, or the Iranian nuclear deal.

This is a great move. I welcome it. I would not blame China at all for the same moves. Something as critical as telecom infrastructure should not come from your biggest military adversary.

itsoktocry 4y ago

>biggest military adversary Why is the default position that they are a military adversary? I mean, in what ways are they even an adversary, outside of the fact they are World #2?

DannyB2 4y ago
Taiwan Or maybe more specifically TSMC.
- trasz 4y ago
  And? There isn’t anything military going on between China and Taiwan, despite continued US efforts to change it.
  - CogitoCogito 4y ago
    > And? There isn’t anything military going on between China and Taiwan, despite continued US efforts to change it. China regularly threatens military action against Taiwan.
    - trasz 4y ago
      USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan. China has made it very clear they don’t have any intention to invade. They also don’t have a recent history of invading. I guess the optics here depends on the sources you’re following. If you only read one side you can get to rather silly conclusions.
      - CogitoCogito 4y ago
        > USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan. Could you provide an example of this please? > China has made it very clear they don’t have any intention to invade. I'm quite confused about this. Are you claiming that China has not made threats to invade Taiwan? I find that claim very confusing considering both their rhetoric as well as their military exercises. China even passed an "Anti-Secession Law" which explicitly states that China will attack Taiwan if Taiwan doesn't "peacefully" allow its annexation. I find your position quite hard to square with reality. > I guess the optics here depends on the sources you’re following. If you only read one side you can get to rather silly conclusions. I'm quite curious what "side" you're reading that's leading to to ignore the PRC's own official policy and actions demonstrating their aggression and belligerence towards Taiwan.
        trasz 4y ago
        >Could you provide an example of this please? Literally anything about the conflict. Look at their posturing, or military exercises. It’s a matter or rhetorics - it’s usually described as helping Taiwan, because, well, that’s media for you. >Are you claiming that China has not made threats to invade Taiwan? Not only that - it repeatedly declared they won’t invade, and have it written down in their constitution. Also, https://www.ft.com/content/01eb9112-6363-451f-89d2-b90566d9f6dc https://www.ft.com/content/01eb9112-6363-451f-89d2-b90566d9f.... >I'm quite curious what "side" you're reading that's leading to to ignore the PRC's own official policy Again - you’re not describing PRC’s own policy, you’re describing US state propaganda materials about that policy.
        CogitoCogito 4y ago
        > Literally anything about the conflict. Look at their posturing, or military exercises. It’s a matter or rhetorics - it’s usually described as helping Taiwan, because, well, that’s media for you. Could you provide an actual example of this? If the USA regularly threatens military action against Taiwan as you said, providing such a specific example would be quite easy for you. > Again - you’re not describing PRC’s own policy, you’re describing US state propaganda materials about that policy. So you’re making the claim that the anti-secession law in which China threatens Taiwan is not official Chinese policy?
lm28469 4y ago
kotlin2 4y ago
Well, they’re not an ally and there are a finite amount of resources on the planet.
pyinstallwoes 4y ago
Do you know what malware and APT’s are?

jhbadger 4y ago

Except if they banned, say, Apple, they'd be ultimately banning themselves (yes, I know Apple is expanding manufacturing to other countries, but China is still the primary manufacturing location)

hakfoo 4y ago

TBH, if this was a security touchpoint, they should have done it 15 years ago. Or maybe they should have had a programme to subsidize the cost of Cisco kit to make sure they couldn't get a foothold in the data centre in the first place. I recall they did some big dog-and-pony show where they got GCHQ to do some audits, but it always seemed like the result was pre-cooked. There was a specific, obviously politically-infused outcome planned from day 1, and no amount of audits, disclosures, or compliance guarantees would ever make them politically acceptable for the US. Sort of makes me think of the Iraqi WMD inspections, or the Iranian nuclear deal.