"China’s Rear Adm. Luo Yuan [said] the key for Chinese domination in those hotly contested waters could lie in the sinking of two U.S. aircraft carriers. 'What the United States fears the most is taking casualties,' the admiral said, before adding that such an attack on two of the U.S. Navy’s steel behemoths would claim upwards of 10,000 lives."
Retribution with what? If the carriers are taken out the US has no way to project any kind of meaningful force in that region.
Any scenario (unlikely as it may be) that involves china successfully destroying 2 US carriers would also involve their confidence in being able to destroy the rest in their coastal region.
If there is clear attribution for the nuking of a country, the offenders will be glassed by multiple warheads.
Nukes aren't ever a sane response to escalating traditional tensions.
That’s not true. Economic sanctions is the ultimate weapon these days. Look at Ukraine and Russia. Russia is now in its 5th year of sanction from EU and US and others. As a result, a withering economy and massive population outflow for Russia.
Also look at the effects of sanctions against Iran and Venezuela. Both are collapsing.
Imagine the effects of sanction on an economy as big as China.
The Russian economy is growing, not withering: "Although economic sanctions tightened, [...] Russian economy expanded at a 1.6 percent pace in the year just ended," - [1] (or [2] if you think rt.com is fake news).
> massive population outflow for Russia
It is true that Russia population is decreasing, although Poland, Germany, Hungary, Japan etc are decreasing even more [3]. It's hyperbolic to describe this as "massive".
> Sanctions against Russia didn't have much impacts on European/US consumers.
Russia isn't an export/manufacturing powerhouse, unlike China. The one thing that Russia does export that EU consumers are about - oil & gas - isn't subject to sanctions.
Sanctions are always painful to both sides. But it's usually one coutry vs most of the rest of the world. Each country only cuts off ties with that one country, so the relative impact of that action is small. The sanctioned country has its ties cut off by most if not all trading partners, culminating negative effects and adding some synergies on top, yielding a big impact for that country.
> Each country only cuts off ties with that one country, so the relative impact of that action is small
Right... that's my point: the relative impact of cutting off ties to China would be pretty large, given that it's the worlds factory. They would be worse for China, but more painful for everyone else than existing sanctions.
“One of the central hurdles facing the offensive is surprise. The PLA simply will not have it. The invasion will happen in April or October. Because of the challenges posed by the strait’s weather, a transport fleet can only make it across the strait in one of these two four-week windows.“
“There are only 13 beaches on Taiwan’s western coast that the PLA could possibly land at. Each of these has already been prepared for a potential conflict.”
The only assumption that matters is the assumption the USA will defend the country and not look away to prevent a world war. The moment that assumption does not hold true...
There is a serious proposal for the Mainland Chinese to unilaterally build a civilian tunnel to Taiwan. If the Taiwanese bomb it, the Chinese have a pretext for retaliation. That might be tricky.
I think this article is disingenuous. It's telnet on a nonstandard port with hardcoded credentials, that was added back in after being removed when it was spotted in previous security testing.
A telnet service responds to a plain port scan. So it was categorically not hidden. Vodaphone explain this themselves in the linked register article:
>It added the Telnet service was found during an audit, which means it can't have been that secret or hidden: "The issues were identified by independent security testing, initiated by Vodafone as part of our routine security measures, and fixed at the time by Huawei.
A vulnerability is not as damning if it wasn't intentionally inserted to be a backdoor. It being easily discoverable suggests that there was no intention to hide it, and thus it was not intended to be a backdoor.
If conversely the vulnerability was difficult to find externally, was publically unknown, and was seen being used for attacks, that would be suggestive of a deliberate backdoor, and far more damning.
If its not hidden, its not a threat to national security kind of "backdoor". A hidden backdoor will only respond to a secret token, you cant just knock on it and get asked "whats the hardcoded password?"
Is 'The Register'. Being disingenuous is their bread and butter when you tune out the comedic writing style. I used to follow their climate change reporting as an interesting counterpoint as they were biased towards trying to disprove it. These days they more or less ignore climate change as a topic compared to five or ten years ago, if you look at frequency of articles.
I won't deny it's bad, but it's more of a smoking crater than a smoking gun. A genuine vulnerability existed, and it wasn't swiftly remove (apparently due to it being crucial to their manufacturing operations). Notwithstanding the potential for this to be an underhandedly engineered backdoor, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it being more than an oversight similar to others common in the industry.
Huawei's reputation has never been completely stellar, but I'm getting more and more skeptical of these "reports" and the motivation behind them. Rehashed old news fromm 2012 about a telnet port? Really? As always, rehashed old news is great for clicks when it's the correct boogeyman.
Thank you for sharing your story! I believe that is what love is as well.
Love is when you see a very flawed individual and someone with a bad past and behaviors. And you are hopeful for them because of their potential and changed outlook.
Love is seeing them with a significant other and knowing that you have zero chance of ever being with them, because of circumstances or past events, and yet would do anything and everything for that person. And you have done that, giving up all money/time, and taking in personal pains, just so you can see a smile, or knowing they are in a better place.
Love is for an individual totally unrelated to you, isn’t an obligation (family members) or part of lust.
Love is knowing that they will be alright at the end of the day. And you shared something special with them. And if you don’t see them for the next 50 years, you would hope for their happiness every day.
> Love is seeing them with a significant other and knowing that you have zero chance of ever being with them, because of circumstances or past events, and yet would do anything and everything for that person. And you have done that, giving up all money/time, and taking in personal pains, just so you can see a smile, or knowing they are in a better place.
This is pretty toxic tbh. If you really feel this way about someone who has a significant other that they're serious about, the best thing you can do is leave their life (if you really can't get your feelings under control). No good will come from a one sided relationship with someone who not only is unrequited but also happily involved with someone else. It's not fair to any of the three parties involved.
If you really want what's best for them, let them go.
Yeah. As much as I think "toxic" is overused, it's definitely not helpful to you or the person you "love" or the person they love to pine after the "beloved" forever.
I mean, wouldn't you feel weird if somebody had these very strong feelings for you that you just could not reciprocate? Would that make you want to keep the relationship going, or would it make you feel a queasy mixture of guilty, flattered, and uncomfortable?
You’re 100% correct and it is why I’m generally very bullish on America despite the gloom and doom on the right and late stage capitalists on the left. It’s the competitive advantage of being a nation bound by ideas and common purpose than a monarch or ethnicity or religion.
As someone who grew up in Ohio, went to an Ivy, and left the US (but working remotely when I come across interesting projects for companies), I want to offer a different perspective.
>It’s the competitive advantage of being a nation bound by ideas and common purpose than a monarch or ethnicity or religion.
I think the US has become very ossified in this belief (which people fool themselves that the nature of this belief is any different from any other belief), you can see global capital flight to (parts of) the US and brain drain into the US, but in market speak, its a crowded trade, driven out of fear of the current downsides and not future upsides. However the nature of crowded trades is that they have the most tail risk, that some people (like me) cannot stomach.
I'm of the mind that things will get more complicated soon within the next year (well at least for those who have been oblivious all along despite the warning signs), and that people will start to realize that value can be found anywhere if those are willing to seek it out, though it may not be as simple as what we are used to and have come to expect.
It’s a flight to safety for trillions of sovereign funds, amidst worldwide recession (except US) and emerging market collapse. Plenty of future upsides for US, since all the capital is there.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/01/04/well-see...