Huawei Files Suit In its Fight Against US Ban

[Trik'Stari]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

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.

But it is entirely realistic. The majority of law enforcement personnel, along with the military, would side with the people over the government as a result of wanting to ever leave their bunkers/buildings alive.

 

Hard to get anything done with you have a hundred people with bolt action rifles waiting for you to open the door.

 

The second amendment absolutely paralyzes the military, where it to actually come down to a fight. It comes down to being a deterrent.

 

Which was my original point. The ability to own "military grade" firearms is absolutely necessary to prevent dictatorship. Despite the average civilian owned AR-15 being in better condition than most of the (handheld) firearms that our military fields.

 

Thank you for reinforcing my point. The fight won't happen if the military/government cannot possibly hope to win.

[Stefan Payne]

Locking users of Huawei Phones out of the Google Store/Updates is a pretty bad move.

Google will pay for that in some countrys sooner or later because its Anti-Consumer.

 

They could do that if they'd offer a replacement plan for Huawai stuff. They didn't...

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Hard to get anything done with you have a hundred people with bolt action rifles waiting for you to open the door.

I think you might be discounting too easily what resources your military has if they were to use them. Guns will do very little against what could be used against you.

 

It wouldn't happen because of morality and support of the population over the government not because of fear from people with guns. If that were a thing you'd never send your troops in to combat and they wouldn't go.

 

Access to guns doesn't inherently preserve freedom and democracy, there are more countries in the world that prove this than the counter. 

 

10 minutes ago, Trik'Stari said:

Thank you for reinforcing my point. The fight won't happen if the military/government cannot possibly hope to win.

Well you're only hearing what you want to hear then because that is not at all what I said or meant and you know it. It wouldn't happen because it wouldn't happen and civilians with guns is a zero factor to why.

 

But I have to now divert back to what I said earlier and should have followed, a situation not worth discussing because it will never happen.

[thorhammerz]

2 hours ago, Trik'Stari said:

Hard to get anything done with you have a hundred people with bolt action rifles waiting for you to open the door.

Are the aforementioned 100(+) bolt action rifles capable of fending off flying, unmanned, remote-controlled precision-strike weaponry?

 

For realism, let's assume structural barriers are of no consequence .

[CarlBar]

On 5/30/2019 at 9:33 PM, harryk said:

Those are almost entirely lawsuits company v company. And when both companies are in the US they go to court and argue over the laws and eventually reach a settlement with or without the decision of a judge. 

 

The government can't really take sides when both companies are domestic. But if one company is foreign then its an entirely different story. You can sue a foreign company but you have to choose which jurisdiction to file in. If that company (Huawei) is not based in that jurisdiction then the government (US) can't exactly force them to do anything. They can however ban that company doing trade in their country. 

 

Think of the US government as a big brother (lol bad reference I know), he's not going to stop his two younger brothers from fighting each other but he will beat up any outsider who is bullying his younger brother. Traditionally a nation is responsible for protecting its companies against foreign competition.

 

Pretty much yeah

 

Actually just because they aren't based in the US doesn't make it difficult to fine them. I'm not super boned up on the exact treaties but there are agreements in place that would allow US courts to fine a chinese based company. The world banking system is much too interconnected to make fine evasion for international companies possibble.

 

On 6/4/2019 at 6:32 AM, thorhammerz said:

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 .

 

The thing is they're not, this is hurting US companies pretty hard allready and if it goes on for any length of time it could have devastating long term repercussions because whatever the US goverment does it can't prevent enterprising individuals in Europe and elsewhere from creating new startups offering alternatives to the things the US has cut Huawei off from. The biggest barrier to pushing said companies out of the market right now is getting a big enough company to use your alternative to establish market presence. the US has just forced Huawei to do that eliminating the biggest practical obstacle to those US based companies downfall. And thats assuming investor groups outside the US don;t decide to engage in a little tit for tat and buyout some of the affected companies and move them outside the US, (some US based companies may even move out on their own initiative).

 

Protectionism require the ability to prevent someone from using alternatives. And the US can't do that.

 

11 hours ago, thorhammerz said:

Are the aforementioned 100(+) bolt action rifles capable of fending off flying, unmanned, remote-controlled precision-strike weaponry?

 

For realism, let's assume structural barriers are of no consequence .

 

The thing a lot of US people seem to sadly forget is that all these foreign militia's where in war-torn unstable countries with a massive black market in military arms. Whilst the equipment available generally wasn't as good as US standard issue, it's still vastly more powerful than anything a private citizen in the US has access to. Pretty much every tom dick and harry in those places has a fully automatic military grade rifle, and full blown machine guns, grenade launchers, man-portable mortars, shoulder launched rockets and SAM's are fairly common as well, as well as access to military grade explosives. Hell given the supply caches that occasionally get raided there can be times the milita's have the exact same kit the US military's infantry have.

 

They may not do very well against the US military, but throw them up against say a standard US police department and even with SWAT backup for the police they'd roll right over the police like they weren't even there.

[mr moose]

On 6/5/2019 at 10:56 AM, Trik'Stari said:

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.

 

Can you image the chaos that would ensue if the population of china became out of control?  This is why the Chinese government maintains such a tight control over everything.  There are just way to many people to let them truly be free (at the moment), the country would end up in the toilet a lot worse than it is now if that happened.

 

When you look at Chinese sociopolitical evolution over the last 50 years, it is obvious that they are moving toward a US style democracy, however they have to do it in very very very very baby steps.  

[thorhammerz]

41 minutes ago, mr moose said:

When you look at Chinese sociopolitical evolution over the last 50 years, it is obvious that they are moving toward a US style democracy,

Yes, but only because they have been guaranteed global market access, and safe (in the sense their tankers / cargo-ships aren't going to be shot at) global resource procurement - wealth has for the first time been able to flow (or trickle) down to the masses. Neither factors are guaranteed in the coming decades (Chinese domestic consumption growth is somewhere between a myth and a joke, and for all stuff they export they tend to import all the primary/base resources, and top of their external food and oil dependency) - and if the pie is about to become a whole lot smaller, the ones at the top will do what they must to maintain access to the remainder.

 

A China that is economically functional, but prone to fractures (1800's style economic imperialism anyone? buy your slice of China before it's gone!), or a China that is poor but unified (by force) - the current state of the US-China trade negotiations should indicate as much which option the Chinese leadership will prefer, considering the American demands amount to inducing large-scale social domestic unrest.

Quote

however they have to do it in very very very very baby steps.  

They'd have to find a way to smooth out the ridiculous geography-based socio-economical divide between the coast and the interior first. Perhaps possible if they continued to pour gobs of money into it, but resources are finite by nature, and there are a lot of people they'd need to put on some form of government subsidy.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, thorhammerz said:

Yes, but only because they have been guaranteed global market access, and safe (in the sense their tankers / cargo-ships aren't going to be shot at) global resource procurement - wealth has for the first time been able to flow (or trickle) down to the masses. Neither factors are guaranteed in the coming decades (Chinese domestic consumption growth is somewhere between a myth and a joke, and for all stuff they export they tend to import all the primary/base resources, and top of their external food and oil dependency) - and if the pie is about to become a whole lot smaller, the ones at the top will do what they must to maintain access to the remainder.

 

A China that is economically functional, but prone to fractures (1800's style economic imperialism anyone? buy your slice of China before it's gone!), or a China that is poor but unified (by force) - the current state of the US-China trade negotiations should indicate as much which option the Chinese leadership will prefer, considering the American demands amount to inducing large-scale social domestic unrest.

Some of this I agree with and Some I do not, but for the sake of not having a pointless discussion neither of us can win, I'll agree there is a lot of poor people in China that means it is teetering on the verge of internal turmoil.  By opening up internal trade to a free market and privatization it what lead to their manufacturing prowess and the fact the have the worlds largest market by purchasing power I would be very wary of trying to force it to crumble internally.

 

1 hour ago, thorhammerz said:

They'd have to find a way to smooth out the ridiculous geography-based socio-economical divide between the coast and the interior first. Perhaps possible if they continued to pour gobs of money into it, but resources are finite by nature, and there are a lot of people they'd need to put on some form of government subsidy.

Just another reason they have to maintain tight control over not only the economy but social unrest.   Like most studies show, places with largest divide between he rich and the poor have the highest crime rates.