Russia's "eye-watering" military toys

[juan]

On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 00:13:07 -0700
Steven Schear <schear.steve at gmail.com> 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" <admin at pilobilus.net> 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.
> 
> >> <I know, I know, stating the obvious dept.>
> 
> >       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&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.