Re: Russia's "eye-watering" military toys

[juan]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 00:13:07 -0700
Steven Schear  wrote:

> With advancing commercial tech, open hardware and software, the
> practicality of effective, open, smart weapon and dual-use becomes
> eminently more likely.


To some degree maybe. However, with advancing manufacturing
techniques and complete state control over supply chains, the
ability of individuals to play with hardware will probably
become non-existent - unless of course they work for the state
or its private accomplices.





> 
> Warrant Canary creator
> 
> On Jul 7, 2017 7:40 PM, "Steve Kinney"  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 07/07/2017 09:52 PM, juan wrote:
> 
> >>> On a related note, I see that the japanese are 'partners' or
> >>> forcibibly buy that kind of stuff. I assume that any weapon
> >>> that americunts sell is fully backdoored so I kinda wonder
> >>> what kind of retard can buy stuff from them...Well, the japanese
> >>> and many other seem to be just that kind of retard.
> 
> >> 
> 
> >   Are you? One obvious thing here is that what the russians
> >   produce is also backdoored. Another obvious thing is that you
> >   can trust the russians as much as you can trust americunts.
> 
> I would not be so sure.  In the case of weapons earmarked for U.S.
> use, I would bet heavily that there are no (deliberately installed)
> back doors in their C systems:Our military leaders may be
> passionately ignorant and profoundly neurotic, that they are not
> actually stupid. Lockout functions that take significant time and
> effort to defeat (when enabled) I take for granted, even though for
> decades the unlock code for all U.S. nuclear warhead firing circuits
> was a string of zeros.
> 
> In the case of weapons eligible for export, I would only be a /little/
> less confident that back doors are not included:  One wants one's
> allies' weapons to work as advertised, and the blowback from
> discovered back doors would be very costly.
> 
> As is done with proprietary trade secret operating systems etc., these
> back doors would be called "bugs" or "design flaws" when discovered,
> and this hard to disprove canard would be widely accepted as fact.
> But when (not if) back doors weapons systems are discovered, that
> would be Bad For Business:  Quality really counts when defending the
> interests of one's own billionaires from the servants of hostile
> overseas billionaires.  The consequences of back doors
> discovered /and/ exploited could include personal reprisals against
> parties considered responsible and major realignments of global power
> dynamics.

Re: Russia's "eye-watering" military toys

[juan]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 22:39:51 -0400
Steve Kinney  wrote:

> 
> 
> On 07/07/2017 09:52 PM, juan wrote:
> 
> >>>   On a related note, I see that the japanese are 'partners'
> >>> or forcibibly buy that kind of stuff. I assume that any weapon
> >>>   that americunts sell is fully backdoored so I kinda wonder
> >>> what kind of retard can buy stuff from them...Well, the japanese
> >>> and many other seem to be just that kind of retard. 
> 
> >> 
> 
> > Are you? One obvious thing here is that what the russians
> > produce is also backdoored. Another obvious thing is that
> > you can trust the russians as much as you can trust americunts. 
> 
> I would not be so sure.  In the case of weapons earmarked for U.S.
> use, I would bet heavily that there are no (deliberately installed)
> back doors in their C systems:Our military leaders may be
> passionately ignorant and profoundly neurotic, that they are not
> actually stupid. 

I don't expect the weapons that the gentlemen at the
pentagon use to be backdoored or sabotaged. Why would they
sabotage their own systems and shoot their own feet?


> Lockout functions that take significant time and
> effort to defeat (when enabled) I take for granted, even though for
> decades the unlock code for all U.S. nuclear warhead firing circuits
> was a string of zeros.

Ha, I didn't know that one. Not sure what to make of it...I
guess reality is crazier than fiction, as usual. 

> 
> In the case of weapons eligible for export, I would only be a /little/
> less confident that back doors are not included:  One wants one's
> allies' weapons to work as advertised, and the blowback from
> discovered back doors would be very costly.


I don't know...For starters I'd suggest the US has no
allies. But regardless, it seems semsible to only export
weapons that can't easily be used against you. So backdooring
them is the obvious thing to do.

If your 'customers' manage to disabe the backdoors, tough luck.
But the thing is, the people who can disable backdoors can
probably build the weapons themselves, so they are not likely
to buy from you. On the other hand people who have to buy a
complex system most likely can't audit it.


> 
> As is done with proprietary trade secret operating systems etc., these
> back doors would be called "bugs" or "design flaws" when discovered,

"Bugs" are the perfect, 'plausibly deniable' way to fuck users.



> and this hard to disprove canard would be widely accepted as fact.
> But when (not if) back doors weapons systems are discovered, that
> would be Bad For Business:  Quality really counts when defending the
> interests of one's own billionaires from the servants of hostile
> overseas billionaires.


Maybe, so the pentagon will sell, say, sabotaged radars to the
'good' dictators so that they can bomb the 'bad' dictators, who
bought stuff that's less capable than what the 'good' dictators
have. 



> The consequences of back doors
> discovered /and/ exploited could include personal reprisals against
> parties considered responsible and major realignments of global power
> dynamics.

I don't know...I guess that could happen. But for the time
being it looks as if the US can get away with virtually
anything.



> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Re: Russia's "eye-watering" military toys

[Steven Schear]

With advancing commercial tech, open hardware and software, the
practicality of effective, open, smart weapon and dual-use becomes
eminently more likely.

Warrant Canary creator

On Jul 7, 2017 7:40 PM, "Steve Kinney"  wrote:



On 07/07/2017 09:52 PM, juan wrote:

>>> On a related note, I see that the japanese are 'partners' or
>>> forcibibly buy that kind of stuff. I assume that any weapon
>>> that americunts sell is fully backdoored so I kinda wonder
>>> what kind of retard can buy stuff from them...Well, the japanese and
>>> many other seem to be just that kind of retard.

>> 

>   Are you? One obvious thing here is that what the russians
>   produce is also backdoored. Another obvious thing is that you
>   can trust the russians as much as you can trust americunts.

I would not be so sure.  In the case of weapons earmarked for U.S. use,
I would bet heavily that there are no (deliberately installed) back
doors in their C systems:Our military leaders may be passionately
ignorant and profoundly neurotic, that they are not actually stupid.
Lockout functions that take significant time and effort to defeat (when
enabled) I take for granted, even though for decades the unlock code for
all U.S. nuclear warhead firing circuits was a string of zeros.

In the case of weapons eligible for export, I would only be a /little/
less confident that back doors are not included:  One wants one's
allies' weapons to work as advertised, and the blowback from discovered
back doors would be very costly.

As is done with proprietary trade secret operating systems etc., these
back doors would be called "bugs" or "design flaws" when discovered, and
this hard to disprove canard would be widely accepted as fact.  But when
(not if) back doors weapons systems are discovered, that would be Bad
For Business:  Quality really counts when defending the interests of
one's own billionaires from the servants of hostile overseas
billionaires.  The consequences of back doors discovered /and/ exploited
could include personal reprisals against parties considered responsible
and major realignments of global power dynamics.

Re: Russia's "eye-watering" military toys

[Steve Kinney]

On 07/07/2017 09:52 PM, juan wrote:

>>> On a related note, I see that the japanese are 'partners' or
>>> forcibibly buy that kind of stuff. I assume that any weapon
>>> that americunts sell is fully backdoored so I kinda wonder
>>> what kind of retard can buy stuff from them...Well, the japanese and
>>> many other seem to be just that kind of retard. 

>> 

>   Are you? One obvious thing here is that what the russians
>   produce is also backdoored. Another obvious thing is that you
>   can trust the russians as much as you can trust americunts. 

I would not be so sure.  In the case of weapons earmarked for U.S. use,
I would bet heavily that there are no (deliberately installed) back
doors in their C systems:Our military leaders may be passionately
ignorant and profoundly neurotic, that they are not actually stupid.
Lockout functions that take significant time and effort to defeat (when
enabled) I take for granted, even though for decades the unlock code for
all U.S. nuclear warhead firing circuits was a string of zeros.

In the case of weapons eligible for export, I would only be a /little/
less confident that back doors are not included:  One wants one's
allies' weapons to work as advertised, and the blowback from discovered
back doors would be very costly.

As is done with proprietary trade secret operating systems etc., these
back doors would be called "bugs" or "design flaws" when discovered, and
this hard to disprove canard would be widely accepted as fact.  But when
(not if) back doors weapons systems are discovered, that would be Bad
For Business:  Quality really counts when defending the interests of
one's own billionaires from the servants of hostile overseas
billionaires.  The consequences of back doors discovered /and/ exploited
could include personal reprisals against parties considered responsible
and major realignments of global power dynamics.
















signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Russia's "eye-watering" military toys

[juan]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 11:12:40 +1000
Zenaan Harkness  wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:16:15PM -0300, Juan wrote:
> > On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 06:21:07 +
> > Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> > 
> > > http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/16/do-we-really-want-a-new-world-war-with-russia/
> > 
> > 
> > I couldn't find any 'serious' source for the claim that the
> > russians jammed that aegis thing. On the other hand I
> > wouldn't be too surprised if those anti-missile missiles didn't
> > work as advertised. 
> > 
> > 
> > On a related note, I see that the japanese are 'partners' or
> > forcibibly buy that kind of stuff. I assume that any weapon
> > that americunts sell is fully backdoored so I kinda wonder
> > what kind of retard can buy stuff from them...Well, the japanese and
> > many other seem to be just that kind of retard. 
> 
> You said it above, Japanese 'partners' "forcibly" buy that kind of
> stuff.
> 
> The twin terrorist attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the
> occupation of Japan by America to this day, (and presumably certain
> "behind closed doors" written agreements the Japanese may still be
> bound by), leads of course to that which appears undignified/
> retarded.
> 
> On the other hand, when Russia is your ally, and a substantial part
> of your budget goes to Russian military hardware, you would surely
> -want- to have your missile defence and offense systems hooked in
> with your ally's systems, as a force multiplier - "mesh networked
> radars" comes to mind.
> 
> 



Are you? One obvious thing here is that what the russians
produce is also backdoored. Another obvious thing is that you
can trust the russians as much as you can trust americunts. 

Re: Russia's "eye-watering" military toys

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:16:15PM -0300, Juan wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2015 06:21:07 +
> Zenaan Harkness  wrote:
> 
> > http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/16/do-we-really-want-a-new-world-war-with-russia/
> 
> 
>   I couldn't find any 'serious' source for the claim that the
>   russians jammed that aegis thing. On the other hand I wouldn't
>   be too surprised if those anti-missile missiles didn't work as
>   advertised. 
> 
> 
>   On a related note, I see that the japanese are 'partners' or
>   forcibibly buy that kind of stuff. I assume that any weapon
>   that americunts sell is fully backdoored so I kinda wonder what
>   kind of retard can buy stuff from them...Well, the japanese and
>   many other seem to be just that kind of retard. 

You said it above, Japanese 'partners' "forcibly" buy that kind of
stuff.

The twin terrorist attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the
occupation of Japan by America to this day, (and presumably certain
"behind closed doors" written agreements the Japanese may still be
bound by), leads of course to that which appears undignified/
retarded.

On the other hand, when Russia is your ally, and a substantial part
of your budget goes to Russian military hardware, you would surely
-want- to have your missile defence and offense systems hooked in
with your ally's systems, as a force multiplier - "mesh networked
radars" comes to mind.