Huawei Files Suit In its Fight Against US Ban

[harryk]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

So? That doesn't actually mean anything. Why is this a political matter and why does your government need to put bans in place and orders on US companies that have effects on countries other than your own based on only fear and in contradiction to your own ideals of free markets, capitalism and rights to a free trial.

 

Yea sure, they are Chinese not US so they don't get any of the above, heard that before etc. I don't care it's still hypocritical and your actions still effect more than you, prove it or stop unfounded meddling.

 

Private company civil matters are just that, everything is there to address IP theft by Huawei without going political.

Because the job of the US government is to protect its citizens. Immediate side effects which harm both citizens and non-citizens must be less than the perceived potential for greater harm. If anyone is reliant on Huawei hardware, sorry you bet on the wrong team. It happens. 

 

For better or for worse, the US is a major, if not dominant, component of the world economy. If Huawei wants to be a world leader of networking technology they better be ready to appease the US government. 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, harryk said:

Because the job of the US government is to protect its citizens. Immediate side effects which harm both citizens and non-citizens must be less than the perceived potential for greater harm. If anyone is reliant on Huawei hardware, sorry you bet on the wrong team. It happens. 

Protect from what? US companies losing their market dominance? So rather than let the market decide just make it so they can't compete and shut them out, now what and who does that sound like?

 

Greater harm, please define what that is.

 

1 hour ago, harryk said:

For better or for worse, the US is a major, if not dominant, component of the world economy. If Huawei wants to be a world leader of networking technology they better be ready to appease the US government. 

Huawei is already one the largest companies in the world and the second largest telecommunications provider. Without the actions of the US they would already be the largest.

 

I don't actually care who is "number one" and I do not care who's is better. I don't care that we use their network equipment either, it's not even that good and full of bugs but then so is/has everyone else's. Their server equipment is even worse quality, there isn't a single product of theirs I prefer or would pick first other than in the 5G area which I have no experience in so cannot comment on it.

 

What I do care and have to care about is prolonged market manipulation that does actually effect me, and others. And it's utterly laughable that you should think Huawei has to appease the US government, that only works until everyone else throws you under the bus for this meddling and decides they have had enough then you have nothing. Huawei could then just walk through every other country and get the rest of the world market which is bigger than the US market then everyone has even less reason to care about the US companies, being that they would then no longer be globally dominant. The most dangerous postilion to be in is one of false confidence and power, strong arming in this situation may not have the outcome one desires. Huawei is a much larger company than I suspect you realize it is.

 

Again if you have just reasons for these actions you must show them, nobody cares about rhetoric. We require, not want, evidence to claims not fear mongering because they are a company from a different country with a different political ideology. None of that factors in to purchasing equipment so nobody cares, if a company can offer what you need at the desired price you think anyone actually cares about their home country's political system?

 

If you could actually prove the claims then we can move forward with doing something about it, the longer it drags on the bigger the problem is. I would rather have to pull the equipment out now than in 2 years time after wasting all the effort that is required to integrate new product technology and systems. Edit: What we had was better so I'd be more than happy for this to happen.

 

With all the conflicts of interest involved, the lobbying from US telecommunications companies who are involved in these bans there is very little to no credibility to the claims. I have no reason to believe any of it, I see no reason for this to be a political matter with political intervention.

[Trik'Stari]

6 hours ago, leadeater said:

So? That doesn't actually mean anything. Why is this a political matter and why does your government need to put bans in place and orders on US companies that have effects on countries other than your own based on only fear and in contradiction to your own ideals of free markets, capitalism and rights to a free trial.

 

Yea sure, they are Chinese not US so they don't get any of the above, heard that before etc. I don't care it's still hypocritical and your actions still effect more than you, prove it or stop unfounded meddling.

 

Private company civil matters are just that, everything is there to address IP theft by Huawei without going political.

........They aren't being banned from the free market. They're being banned from being used by the Federal government. It is entirely reasonable for the government, or any government for that matter, to make security based judgement decisions, on what companies they are willing to use.

 

That would be the part that makes this not just a "private company civil matter".

 

To flip that on you, I would argue that any company that goes under because it's no longer able to suckle from the teat of government, deserves to go under.

[leadeater]

4 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

They aren't being banned from the free market

Other than the Department of Commerce order to US companies to cease business with them, the reason for most of the recent news about Huawei. Or the US attempts to stop other countries from using their equipment, successful in Australia's NBN but less so in other countries.

 

There's a lot of measures the US have tried to block Huawei's ability to operate in the market.

 

4 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

It is entirely reasonable for the government, or any government for that matter, to make security based judgement decisions, on what companies they are willing to use.

The security assessment of the equipment by the US itself, and others, have all come up with nothing and has a status of no identified risk.

 

I have no issue with a company getting banned or going under if there is an actual proven reason. What I care about is this open market manipulation that effects everyone else under the guise of trying to protect everyone else from the very actions the US is actually doing. You know the saying, two wrongs don't make a right. If you're willing to do it here then you're willing to do it again. Protectionism of US companies for the pure purpose of maintaining market position is obviously something I don't tolerate, no one else should either.  

[notafanboy21]

On 6/2/2019 at 3:12 PM, Trik'Stari said:

Simple fix.

 

"temporarily banned until a complete investigation is conducted, including unlimited access to any and all Huawei properties"

 

OR, they could go with white listing. "Only companies on this list may do business with federal agencies, after passing inspection and investigation to be included on the list" then just.... don't allow Huawei on that list.

 

I'm sorry but the "may have ties to the Chinese government" aspect is too dangerous. Considering how very little respect that government has for anyone else's sovereignty or property.

 

No I don't care about things the US government has done in the past. I'd still rather trust them than the Chinese government, mainly because their interests at least partially align with my own.

agreed, its not worth the risk.

[Trik'Stari]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

Other than the Department of Commerce order to US companies to cease business with them, the reason for most of the recent news about Huawei. Or the US attempts to stop other countries from using their equipment, successful in Australia's NBN but less so in other countries.

 

There's a lot of measures the US have tried to block Huawei's ability to operate in the market.

 

The security assessment of the equipment by the US itself, and others, have all come up with nothing and has a status of no identified risk.

 

I have no issue with a company getting banned or going under if there is an actual proven reason. What I care about is this open market manipulation that effects everyone else under the guise of trying to protect everyone else from the very actions the US is actually doing. You know the saying, two wrongs don't make a right. If you're willing to do it here then you're willing to do it again. Protectionism of US companies for the pure purpose of maintaining market position is obviously something I don't tolerate, no one else should either.  

Full disclosure: You are talking to someone who absolutely believes that we should have a complete and total trade embargo placed upon China.

 

That government cannot, and should never have been, tolerated, at all, by anyone. We should not only have a trade embargo on them, but on anyone willing to do business with them. Yes I realize this would harm us economically, but if we think of ourselves as a moral nation, it would be the only choice.

 

The only other options I see would be to demand that they allow democratic elections that aren't fucking single party, OR, we start federally funding Elon Musk's idea for a global wifi network. Preferably in a way that cannot be blocked (if possible).

 

I would also accompany that with operations to smuggle wifi enabled laptops, en mass, to the people of North Korea as well as China, because I would expect the Chinese government to use their corporate connections and power, to require any wireless device sold in China, to somehow ignore or not see that network.

Edit: North Koreans would also probably need food and solar chargers for said laptops.

 

As soon as both of those people see how the majority of the rest of the world lives (barring certain countries that I will not name), you've got instant rebellions waiting to happen, that we could also back, and rightfully so.

 

I regard communists, rightfully so, on the same level I do Nazi's.

[leadeater]

52 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Full disclosure: You are talking to someone who absolutely believes that we should have a complete and total trade embargo placed upon China.

 

That government cannot, and should never have been, tolerated, at all, by anyone. We should not only have a trade embargo on them, but on anyone willing to do business with them. Yes I realize this would harm us economically, but if we think of ourselves as a moral nation, it would be the only choice.

 

The only other options I see would be to demand that they allow democratic elections that aren't fucking single party, OR, we start federally funding Elon Musk's idea for a global wifi network. Preferably in a way that cannot be blocked (if possible).

 

I would also accompany that with operations to smuggle wifi enabled laptops, en mass, to the people of North Korea as well as China, because I would expect the Chinese government to use their corporate connections and power, to require any wireless device sold in China, to somehow ignore or not see that network.

Edit: North Koreans would also probably need food and solar chargers for said laptops.

 

As soon as both of those people see how the majority of the rest of the world lives (barring certain countries that I will not name), you've got instant rebellions waiting to happen, that we could also back, and rightfully so.

 

I regard communists, rightfully so, on the same level I do Nazi's.

So the wrong doings under the name of righteous actions makes everything you are doing fine? Doesn't matter what label you want to sit under, communist or democratic, said actions actually matter. Your doing the very things that you say communist do and claim we need protection from yet it's the US in this situation doing all the things that everyone else actually needs protection from. If you want to say you are a moral national you need to act like it not say it.

 

Isolationist policies just do not work, you've made zero progress with NK because of that and blew a golden chance years ago in that region which is why we are here today.

 

Have you bothered to ask citizens of other countries how they feel about their governments and freedoms? Have you asked if they want you stepping in? You'll find a lot of people are happy as they are even knowing how other countries live. Barging on in and "helping" when you weren't asked often isn't welcomed.

[Trik'Stari]

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So the wrong doings under the name of righteous actions makes everything you are doing fine? Doesn't matter what label you want to sit under, communist or democratic, said actions actually matter. Your doing the very things that you say communist do and claim we need protection from yet it's the US in this situation doing all the things that everyone else actually needs protection from. If you want to say you are a moral national you need to act like it not say it.

 

Isolationist policies just do not work, you've made zero progress with NK because of that and blew a golden chance years ago in that region which is why we are here today.

 

Have you bothered to ask citizens of other countries how they feel about their governments and freedoms? Have you asked if they want you stepping in? You'll find a lot of people are happy as they are even knowing how other countries live. Barging on in and "helping" when you weren't asked often isn't welcomed.

Those people you want me to ask, will answer under the assumption that if they give the wrong answer, that they and the closest generation of their family will go to a camp their entire life, which is an entirely accurate assessment of those nations in question. Either that or they have never had any experience with any notion other than what the dictatorship above them has given them.

 

So no. I do not deem it necessary to ask the brainwashed and the threatened, if they want my help. Because I already know their answer, and the reasons behind that answer.

 

Please stop arguing in favor of egregious totalitarian dictatorships under the guise of morality, whilst somehow bashing isolationism whilst supporting it (non-intervention is basically the same thing as being isolationist). Isolationists would have had us not intervene in WW2. If that had happened, the UK and likely Russia would have more than certainly fallen to Nazi Germany, not to mention Imperial Japan.

 

If we are truly going to consider ourselves a global community, we have to step in for what is right, even if it is difficult, even if those that do not know better claim to not want our help.

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

If we are truly going to consider ourselves a global community, we have to step in for what is right, even if it is difficult, even if those that do not know better claim to not want our help.

Only if what you are doing is right. That's the issue. You are doing wrong, I object and you just don't like that fact that I am objecting to the wrong doings of your country. Do wrong, I see wrong, I call it wrong. I'll never call a wrong action right because you're trying to do it under the name righteousness (of which I am extremely dubious that is the intentions at all and not outright political meddling protectionism of US company market position).

[Trik'Stari]

10 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Only if what you are doing is right. That's the issue. You are doing wrong, I object and you just don't like that fact that I am objecting to the wrong doings of your country. Do wrong, I see wrong, I call it wrong. I'll never call a wrong action right because you're trying to do it under the name righteousness (of which I am extremely dubious that is the intentions at all and not outright political meddling protectionism of US company market position).

So you're saying that it's wrong to take on totalitarian dictatorships that threaten global stability, and have nothing but ill intentions for the rest of the nations around the globe that do not share their ideals and system of government?

 

Whilst I share your concern that my own government is seeing this as more than just "doing the right thing", in fact I'm almost certain of it, I would rather side with them now and take them to task later over whatever they have planned, as we have infinitely more control over them than the Chinese government or the North Korean government. Whether we believe it or not.

 

Most people agree that taking down Nazi Germany was a good thing. Most people would agree that allying ourselves with Communist Russia was a good idea as well, despite all evidence that they viewed us as simply a tool to be used against the Nazi's, as well as a future threat they would eventually have to take down as well.

 

I'm curious as to where you stand. Was it the right thing to do, to ally with Communist Russia, despite the inherent evils of their system of governance that killed FAR more people (their own people. Both during and after the war) than the Nazi's? I ask purely for the sake of the discussions, as I am trying to get a better sense of where you stand, so I might better communicate my ideas and ideals with you.

[leadeater]

Just now, Trik'Stari said:

So you're saying that it's wrong to take on totalitarian dictatorships that threaten and have nothing but ill intentions for the rest of the globe, that do not have anything other than ill intentions, for nations that do not share their totalitarian dictatorship ideals?

But you aren't you are going after a company from a foreign country based on a lot of claims with no given proof that is impacting other countries and companies. Until you can justify the actions words mean nothing. I have no reason to intrinsically trust the actions of the US government because there is no reason to. You're asking me to turn a blind eye to injustice, no thanks.

[Trik'Stari]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

But you aren't you are going after a company from a foreign country based on a lot of claims with no given proof that is impacting other countries and companies. Until you can justify the actions words mean nothing. I have no reason to intrinsically trust the actions of the US government because there is no reason to. You're asking me to turn a blind eye to injustice, no thanks.

It's a corporation based in a communist nation, with a government that has egregious levels of power over both its own people and the companies that reside within it.

 

I'm not sure how much more reasoning you want. If it was a corporation in a nation occupied by Nazi's I don't think you would have the same reservations, despite all the similarities between Nazi's and Communists (in terms of actual real world behavior, not hypothetical ideals that never actually manifest themselves).

 

Nevermind the part where other companies are willingly pulling out of that nation of their own volition, or the part where the lack of basic human rights within that nation gives some corporations the ability to produce things cheaper than anywhere else on the planet (looking at you Apple, which is ironic on multiple levels).

 

China is to IT what some African nations are to diamond mining. If you want a more clearcut example.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Trik'Stari said:

It's a corporation based in a communist nation, with a government that has egregious levels of power over both its own people and the companies that reside within it.

 

I'm not sure how much more reasoning you want. If it was a corporation in a nation occupied by Nazi's I don't think you would have the same reservations, despite all the similarities between Nazi's and Communists (in terms of actual real world behavior, not hypothetical ideals that never actually manifest themselves).

Because that reason is not good enough, you don't free the people by ruining their economy and companies putting the country back in to poverty and increasing resentment towards western governments that allows state propaganda to work. Complex issues have complex solutions.

[Trik'Stari]

15 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Because that reason is not good enough, you don't free the people by ruining their economy and companies putting the country back in to poverty and increasing resentment towards western governments that allows state propaganda to work. Complex issues have complex solutions.

By doing business with them and strengthening their economy you legitimize their government and it's practices. Strengthening their hold over their people.

 

Sooner or later the embargo's and sanctions do work. I'm trying to find it now, but a year or two ago, a top level North Korean diplomat defected and basically publicly stated that the sanctions were working. The people were starting to stand up against the police.

 

IIRC, he publicly stated that a few years before, black market "flea markets" (I'm not sure what term to use. Basically people meeting together in the back woods to sell shit to one another) were running at the sight of the police coming to stop them. And when he left, reports had changed. They were basically refusing to disband and pushing the police back, telling them basically "fuck off".

 

Trying to find it now. The bigger point being that it was becoming apparent or at least unavoidable that the people were blaming the government, the thing predominant in their lives, rather than some far off government they have little to no knowledge of, and extremely little firsthand experience in dealing with.

 

To be more exact, it isn't the US government that shows up whenever a cow dies to take the meat for the army. It's the North Korean government. Hard to blame that on the US.

 

That is actually a practice within the "DPRK". If a cow dies, after being worked to death, the meat is reserved for the army. Failure to obey results in imprisonment (which is basically a death sentence).

 

Edit: The diplomat in question:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thae_Yong-ho

 

Weaken the government that dominates the people, and eventually it will become apparent to them that it's their government that is the problem, as that is foremost in their lives. Basically, there is a point at which you can become too totalitarian and only cause your own overthrow. Hurting them economically seems to almost always drive them (the government in question) to that point. Because they have little other choice. They can either crackdown harder, or step down themselves. Which as far as I can tell, never happens.

 

Final edit: Just as a side point, the only reason the North Korean regime still stands is because of China's economic power. You want lessons in real evil? Research communist China, Russia, North Korea, and Che Guevara specifically.

[Thaldor]

5 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

By doing business with them and strengthening their economy you legitimize their government and it's practices. Strengthening their hold over their people.

 

Sooner or later the embargo's and sanctions do work. I'm trying to find it now, but a year or two ago, a top level North Korean diplomat defected and basically publicly stated that the sanctions were working. The people were starting to stand up against the police.

 

IIRC, he publicly stated that a few years before, black market "flea markets" (I'm not sure what term to use. Basically people meeting together in the back woods to sell shit to one another) were running at the sight of the police coming to stop them. And when he left, reports had changed. They were basically refusing to disband and pushing the police back, telling them basically "fuck off".

-snip-

Can we do the same with a country that has multiple accounts of war crimes, which systematically denies them and quite probably sentences to death people who bring those crimes to the light. Not to even mention this country has huge power over communication networks and when someone whistleblows them systematically spying on every single country in the world and every single human in the internet, they again go with full force of their legal system against that person like what they were doing was completely okay.

 

Not to mention this countrys legal system has been broken for a good while now. Not as broken as something like NK legal system with labor camps and other, but more refined model which sentences people to lifelong debts that no one can ever pay off. Not to mention it's not a secret that in most cases where there's any kind of powerplay between rich and poor, the rich can always win by lengthening the trial so long that the poor runs out of money and looses the case just because doesn't have money to pay for attourney, and this can happen even if the poorer is completely right.

 

We could write a long list about their problems with their lawenforcements force using and how it mainly comes from the said country having gun laws in some states that allow citizens carry military grade armament and some try to say that it's only those couple states, while basicly there isn't customs or anything between the states so that military grade sniper rifle bought from one can be easily transported to any other state.

 

Not to mention that this country very strongly goes against another quite shitty country for trying to affect other countries politics while at the same time an Orange leading the country openly and publicly tries to affect other countries internal politics actively.

 

So the rest of the world, do we really need to choose between two bad choices or could we just cut them both loose and hope that they both just shut up and learn to be in couple hundred years of isolation?

[thorhammerz]

16 hours ago, leadeater said:

Protectionism of US companies for the pure purpose of maintaining market position is obviously something I don't tolerate, no one else should either.  

What a shocking line of thought, it's almost like the American government is acting for the benefit of American (big business, among other) interests .

[Jito463]

20 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Preferably in a way that cannot be blocked (if possible).

Just to clarify, that's simply not possible.  All that needs to be done, is to find the signal frequency and then jam it with a stronger signal.  There is no such thing as a signal that can't be jammed, unless you can somehow find more power than those who wish to jam it.

[Trik'Stari]

6 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Just to clarify, that's simply not possible.  All that needs to be done, is to find the signal frequency and then jam it with a stronger signal.  There is no such thing as a signal that can't be jammed, unless you can somehow find more power than those who wish to jam it.

Then broadcast on every wavelength possible to make it impossible for currently assumed reliable basic tech to work.

 

Make it beyond obvious (to the Chinese people) that their government is preventing any and all uncensored communication with the outside world.

 

The more you make them crack down on their own people, the more they will rebel against the system.

[Trik'Stari]

20 hours ago, Thaldor said:

Can we do the same with a country that has multiple accounts of war crimes, which systematically denies them and quite probably sentences to death people who bring those crimes to the light. Not to even mention this country has huge power over communication networks and when someone whistleblows them systematically spying on every single country in the world and every single human in the internet, they again go with full force of their legal system against that person like what they were doing was completely okay.

 

Not to mention this countrys legal system has been broken for a good while now. Not as broken as something like NK legal system with labor camps and other, but more refined model which sentences people to lifelong debts that no one can ever pay off. Not to mention it's not a secret that in most cases where there's any kind of powerplay between rich and poor, the rich can always win by lengthening the trial so long that the poor runs out of money and looses the case just because doesn't have money to pay for attourney, and this can happen even if the poorer is completely right.

 

We could write a long list about their problems with their lawenforcements force using and how it mainly comes from the said country having gun laws in some states that allow citizens carry military grade armament and some try to say that it's only those couple states, while basicly there isn't customs or anything between the states so that military grade sniper rifle bought from one can be easily transported to any other state.

 

Not to mention that this country very strongly goes against another quite shitty country for trying to affect other countries politics while at the same time an Orange leading the country openly and publicly tries to affect other countries internal politics actively.

 

So the rest of the world, do we really need to choose between two bad choices or could we just cut them both loose and hope that they both just shut up and learn to be in couple hundred years of isolation?

I'm having a hard time following your points, I assume because of language barrier. 

 

My response:

 

My nation is not supposed to be, and was NEVER intended to be, a single nation with one overarching set of overriding laws. A lot of this has become problematic because of SOME of the results of our civil war. Namely that one state is now able to force law upon another, by way of getting enough of the other states to agree. This is a problem. While the ending of slavery in the US was a good thing, the means by which it was accomplished, the precedent it set, and the reasoning behind it (which had NOTHING to do with morality) were not great.

 

We were intended to be a nation, made up of smaller nations. The idea being that we help one another when possible, and we do not attempt to govern one another. This turned out to be difficult for so many reasons that I cannot explain it here beyond saying that slavery was ended as an economic weapon against the more wealthy southern states, by the northern states, who wanted the south to pay more in taxes for rebuilding after the revolution.

 

As for allowing citizens to walk around with "military grade" firearms (an inaccurate statement if ever there was one. The average civilian sport rifle is of higher quality and maintenance than your average military provided firearm), that's a necessity to prevent dictatorship.

 

I'm sorry but any student of history cannot disagree. IF a population does not have the means to overthrow their government, they are doomed to an egregious totalitarian dictatorship, end of fucking story. This has been proved time and time again, throughout history, and to pretend that it's not still relevant, is a sign of either ignorance or bias in favor of totalitarianism (or authoritarianism if you prefer).

 

A government should live in abject fear of its people. They should not be able to hire bodyguards on either their own dime, or that of the taxpayer. Then you might actually see some good changes take place, purely out of the desire to protect oneself. Not to mention the worst members of society disappearing from government because the rewards are not worth the potential risk.

[leadeater]

42 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

As for allowing citizens to walk around with "military grade" firearms (an inaccurate statement if ever there was one. The average civilian sport rifle is of higher quality and maintenance than your average military provided firearm), that's a necessity to prevent dictatorship.

 

I'm sorry but any student of history cannot disagree. IF a population does not have the means to overthrow their government, they are doomed to an egregious totalitarian dictatorship, end of fucking story. This has been proved time and time again, throughout history, and to pretend that it's not still relevant, is a sign of either ignorance or bias in favor of totalitarianism (or authoritarianism if you prefer).

In regards to the US military there is no civilian militia that could stand any chance against them, that's a long gone situation and is in the far realms of fantasy now. You may want to point to insurgents in the middle east being able to survive long enough however the operating rules is to not cause total destruction and to preserve life, rules which would be different in a revolt to overthrow a government. The only chance would be a faction of your military breaking off and supporting the revolt otherwise no chance, not matter what.

 

For my country sure, we don't have jack in terms of military.

 

Wouldn't happen anyway so that's another reason for it to be a non issue.

 

1 hour ago, Trik'Stari said:

Make it beyond obvious (to the Chinese people) that their government is preventing any and all uncensored communication with the outside world.

They know already, it's not a secret to them or us. Many Chinese travel around the world regularly and get educated in a wide range of foreign universities. The Chinese people aren't all that isolated from the rest of the world which is why they know they are living under heavy censorship.

[Trik'Stari]

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

In regards to the US military there is no civilian militia that could stand any chance against them, that's a long gone situation and is in the far realms of fantasy now. You may want to point to insurgents in the middle east being able to survive long enough however the operating rules is to not cause total destruction and to preserve life, rules which would be different in a revolt to overthrow a government. The only chance would be a faction of your military breaking off and supporting the revolt otherwise no chance, not matter what.

 

For my country sure, we don't have jack in terms of military.

 

Wouldn't happen anyway so that's another reason for it to be a non issue.

 

They know already, it's not a secret to them or us. Many Chinese travel around the world regularly and get educated in a wide range of foreign universities. The Chinese people aren't all that isolated from the rest of the world which is why they know they are living under heavy censorship.

You mean other than the multiple guerrilla civilian militias that have stood against them (the US military) and arguably won. Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm 1.0 and 2.0 (2.0 still ongoing as far as I know). Yes those were backed by foreign governments, but see my next point.

 

Thinking that significant portions of the government and military wouldn't stand in favor of a rebellion within the US is just foolish. Nevermind thinking that our military would stand a chance against the most heavily armed population on the planet, after failing multiple times to conquer dirt farmers in third world countries.

 

All I can say is "good luck leaving your barracks let alone your base". To quote a Democrat recently, "you think you can stand against nuclear weapons?". The government would have to go for wholesale slaughter and destruction of their own people. Something their own backers would never be able to stomach.

 

Not that it was their fault, more the civilians in charge of them, but either way the point still stands.

 

What proportion of their population is actually aware of how much they are routinely lied to about....well, everything? I don't have enough information to even ballpark that figure.

 

How well does that proportion of their population convey this to the other proportion of the populace that doesn't have first hand experience? Probably very minimal considering the consequences of violating said censorship.

[Drak3]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

The only chance would be a faction of your military breaking off and supporting the revolt otherwise no chance, not matter what.

Which is extremely likely: the US military is largely made up of individuals with the core belief of protecting the individual liberties of the US citizenry, and there isn't an oath of loyalty to the US government when joining the US military.

 

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You may want to point to insurgents in the middle east being able to survive long enough however the operating rules is to not cause total destruction and to preserve life

You realize that the same would remain true for a revolt, right? What good is destroying one's own infrastructure?

 

And the insurgents in the middle east are doing so with weapons and equipment of questionable functionality and minimal training.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

You mean other than the multiple guerrilla civilian militias that have stood against them (the US military) and arguably won. Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm 1.0 and 2.0 (2.0 still ongoing as far as I know).

All similar situation to what I pointed to, if you actually want to attempt to overthrow your government and a willing miltary force to prevent it then no you have an extremely near zero chance without a faction of your military to support it.

 

But since it's not a situation that would realistically happen so not even worth discussing or considering. Your military is your citizens after all and I don't ever foresee a situation get to that point because there are so many points that would prevent it.

[Trik'Stari]

4 minutes ago, leadeater said:

All similar situation to what I pointed to, if you actually want to attempt to overthrow your government and a willing miltary force to prevent it then no you have an extremely near zero chance without a faction of your military to support it.

 

But since it's not a situation that would realistically happen so not even worth discussing or considering. Your military is your citizens after all and I don't ever foresee a situation get to that point because there are so many points that would prevent it.

You're wrong to a degree that is quite disturbing but not at all surprising.

 

I doubt very much that most of the military would be willing to follow orders to completely wipe out all life within certain population centers. Nevermind the absolute refusal to accept such action, on the part of the government backing civilians.

 

You realize our military in total numbers less than 2 million (most of which are not trained for combat beyond basic training), and the gun owners are nearly a hundred million?

 

Those odds are so ridiculous it isn't worth contemplating. Most of the military, and almost all of the law enforcement would switch sides merely out of desire to preserve their own lives.

 

But, as you said, it wouldn't happen. In any event the government attempted to do something egregious enough to cause such a rebellion, the likelihood is that the military or law enforcement would tell them "go fuck yourself, we aren't committing suicide, these people know where we sleep".

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

I doubt very much that most of the military would be willing to follow orders to completely wipe out all life within certain population centers. Nevermind the absolute refusal to accept such action, on the part of the government backing civilians.

Um this is actually what I said. I was pointing out that the 2nd amendment situation to the specific point raised about a well armed militia being able to overthrow your government is unrealistic in a modern context. There is no picking up civilian armament and fighting back successfully by that alone anymore, hence needing support from a faction within your military. It's just simply not applicable the way it gets raised. 

 

I disagree only with the specific point you raised and it's relevance to the modern context.