8 ms·

Can you explain why you think that?

derefr 13y ago
The US makes a lot of money from the government allowing defense contractors to sell the stuff they design for it to its allies as well. The munitions-export provisions exist because, although we aren't too worried about our allies reselling the tents or latrines we send them to our enemies, we really don't like the idea of having the guns we've manufactured pointed back at us. A secure softphone implementing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_Suite_A_Cryptography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_Suite_A_Cryptography is a lot more like a gun than it is like a tent or a latrine, in terms of what an enemy nation that gets their hands on it will do with it.
- shard972 13y ago
  So, would that also cover citizens? As in, if I made my own encryption method and then supplied that to some friends overseas, would that be violating munitions exporting if crypto was still covered?
  - colechristensen 13y ago
    Essentially, yes. A well educated person with the motivation and no cooperation from existing tech is very much capable of making the state department rather unhappy by exporting their own creation.
    - shard972 13y ago
      Well I suppose thats what we live for, to keep the state department happy.
- judk 13y ago
  The Afghan Taliban and Saddam Hussein were armed by the USA. "Ally" and "Enemy" are transient labels. Cryptography is far more like body armor than it is like a gun.
  - yardie 13y ago
    The "Taliban" were never armed by the US. There were some members who were US allies during the Soviet-Afghan war. Just like they are some members of the Northern Alliance, US ally during the Afghan campaign, that were allies of the Soviet Union. In the end one war ended and groups broke up. Then the next war came and alliances had changed.
    - pjakma 13y ago
      The US funnelled hundreds of millions of $ through Pakistan to help fund the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. The CIA also provided direct support, in training and weapons, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone Here's an Afghan with a Stinger missile (and there are lots of similar photos), not sold on the open market then, could realistically only have been acquired in bulk with US government assistance: http://tkfiles.storage.msn.com/y1pUt0liKawcr-ryBplDmzAGeFbxGpv3kgnqKuP6w2HdvM_snddyLIwB-FYJ5BkDWn4Fnr4buch5q8 http://tkfiles.storage.msn.com/y1pUt0liKawcr-ryBplDmzAGeFbxG...
    - arca_vorago 13y ago
      The names may have changed but the people didn't. We funded Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and provided numerous FIM-92 stingers which after the war was over turned into the buyback fiasco, where many of these stingers were never recovered. Not to mention the third-party plausible denability effect, through which arms may not have passed directly to "Muj" or Taliban, but were supplied by the US. So to say the "Taliban" were never armed is completely factually incorrect, both in relevance to the Soviet war and the current one. If you want to learn more about the US involvement as the number one arms dealer in the word, the revised Shadow Factory book is out and worth the long read.
      - yardie 13y ago
        > So to say the "Taliban" were never armed is completely factually incorrect By this logic the US has armed every one of its enemies. I said the US never armed the Taliban. You are saying that through enough backchannels and shifting alliances the US did arm the Taliban. Now who is being obtuse?
colechristensen 13y ago
Few things are more valuable in war than the secrecy of long distance communications. Though we haven't been at a conflict which posed any credible threat for the better part of a century, holding on to technological advantages when they're fresh is in our best interest and in the best interest of the American Peace we have going.
- VMG 13y ago
  Computer technology alone is extremely valuable, would you be OK with restricting the export of that?
  - colechristensen 13y ago
    It's fairly unfortunate that a majority of computer technology is imported from foreign manufacturers for many reasons, but export control isn't really one of them. Supercomputers, yes ... general components... not particularly. In a lot of ways 'modern' computer technology isn't all that essential. It certainly isn't present in a whole lot of our military hardware because of realities of acquiring and maintaining such hardware _and_ the lack of an exponential increase of computing needs to match capabilities. In fewer words, computer technology is valuable, but not extremely so. Restricting the flow of anything remotely related to consumer computer tech wouldn't have much benefit, even if it were possible considering most of it is made in Asia.
    - VMG 13y ago
      Then just focus on basic computer technology. Restricting the export of semiconductors in the early 60s could have created a significant advantage for the US, but would be absurd to support a decision like that. Military benefit alone is not enough to justify an export restriction, one has to consider the cost on society as a whole. The cost of restricting the export of cryptography is too large to justify.
    - jimktrains2 13y ago
      > Supercomputers, yes ... general components... not particularly. There isn't a terribly large difference anymore except for size and tuning.

The US makes a lot of money from the government allowing defense contractors to sell the stuff they design for it to its allies as well. The munitions-export provisions exist because, although we aren't too worried about our allies reselling the tents or latrines we send them to our enemies, we really don't like the idea of having the guns we've manufactured pointed back at us. A secure softphone implementing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_Suite_A_Cryptography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSA_Suite_A_Cryptography is a lot more like a gun than it is like a tent or a latrine, in terms of what an enemy nation that gets their hands on it will do with it.

shard972 13y ago
So, would that also cover citizens? As in, if I made my own encryption method and then supplied that to some friends overseas, would that be violating munitions exporting if crypto was still covered?
- colechristensen 13y ago
  Essentially, yes. A well educated person with the motivation and no cooperation from existing tech is very much capable of making the state department rather unhappy by exporting their own creation.
  - shard972 13y ago
    Well I suppose thats what we live for, to keep the state department happy.
judk 13y ago
The Afghan Taliban and Saddam Hussein were armed by the USA. "Ally" and "Enemy" are transient labels. Cryptography is far more like body armor than it is like a gun.
- yardie 13y ago
  The "Taliban" were never armed by the US. There were some members who were US allies during the Soviet-Afghan war. Just like they are some members of the Northern Alliance, US ally during the Afghan campaign, that were allies of the Soviet Union. In the end one war ended and groups broke up. Then the next war came and alliances had changed.
  - pjakma 13y ago
    The US funnelled hundreds of millions of $ through Pakistan to help fund the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. The CIA also provided direct support, in training and weapons, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone Here's an Afghan with a Stinger missile (and there are lots of similar photos), not sold on the open market then, could realistically only have been acquired in bulk with US government assistance: http://tkfiles.storage.msn.com/y1pUt0liKawcr-ryBplDmzAGeFbxGpv3kgnqKuP6w2HdvM_snddyLIwB-FYJ5BkDWn4Fnr4buch5q8 http://tkfiles.storage.msn.com/y1pUt0liKawcr-ryBplDmzAGeFbxG...
  - arca_vorago 13y ago
    The names may have changed but the people didn't. We funded Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, and provided numerous FIM-92 stingers which after the war was over turned into the buyback fiasco, where many of these stingers were never recovered. Not to mention the third-party plausible denability effect, through which arms may not have passed directly to "Muj" or Taliban, but were supplied by the US. So to say the "Taliban" were never armed is completely factually incorrect, both in relevance to the Soviet war and the current one. If you want to learn more about the US involvement as the number one arms dealer in the word, the revised Shadow Factory book is out and worth the long read.
    - yardie 13y ago
      > So to say the "Taliban" were never armed is completely factually incorrect By this logic the US has armed every one of its enemies. I said the US never armed the Taliban. You are saying that through enough backchannels and shifting alliances the US did arm the Taliban. Now who is being obtuse?

colechristensen 13y ago

Few things are more valuable in war than the secrecy of long distance communications. Though we haven't been at a conflict which posed any credible threat for the better part of a century, holding on to technological advantages when they're fresh is in our best interest and in the best interest of the American Peace we have going.

VMG 13y ago
Computer technology alone is extremely valuable, would you be OK with restricting the export of that?
- colechristensen 13y ago
  It's fairly unfortunate that a majority of computer technology is imported from foreign manufacturers for many reasons, but export control isn't really one of them. Supercomputers, yes ... general components... not particularly. In a lot of ways 'modern' computer technology isn't all that essential. It certainly isn't present in a whole lot of our military hardware because of realities of acquiring and maintaining such hardware _and_ the lack of an exponential increase of computing needs to match capabilities. In fewer words, computer technology is valuable, but not extremely so. Restricting the flow of anything remotely related to consumer computer tech wouldn't have much benefit, even if it were possible considering most of it is made in Asia.
  - VMG 13y ago
    Then just focus on basic computer technology. Restricting the export of semiconductors in the early 60s could have created a significant advantage for the US, but would be absurd to support a decision like that. Military benefit alone is not enough to justify an export restriction, one has to consider the cost on society as a whole. The cost of restricting the export of cryptography is too large to justify.
  - jimktrains2 13y ago
    > Supercomputers, yes ... general components... not particularly. There isn't a terribly large difference anymore except for size and tuning.