back to article BoJo buckles: UK govt to cut Huawei 5G kit use 'to zero by 2023' after pressure from Tory MPs, Uncle Sam

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has reportedly agreed to a plan that will entirely cut Huawei equipment from the nation's 5G networks within the next three years. The word from Britain late on Friday, strategically via the Guardian and Telegraph, is that Johnson has caved after months of pressure from the backbench of his …

Page:

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          USA a democracy? We're the least democratic country in the whole western world.

          ... not all that high on the "free" index either.

          1. Packet

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            Honestly, do you really believe that?

            The rights you have available to you in the US are the stuff of dreams in other countries, mate

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

              [citation needed]

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

              A characteristic of the US left is their visceral hatred of The Constitution and all that has been built upon it. They are spoiled babies throwing their toys out of the pram, too ignorant to recognise their own fatal shortcomings. This, I am sad to say, is a recurring theme in history, and the current "spoiled generation" are as always worthy of nothing but contempt, along with the deluded activists educators that brainwashed them into believing the bollocks that they do in the first place.

              The idea of free speech is now very widely opposed, a horrifying idea. Of course, just listen to Zuckerberg defending censorship (Zuck, it's indefensible) or Twitter and Alphabet who decide what OPINION can e expressed on their platforms.

              The age of freedom of thought and speech has passed and The Ministry of Truth by technocratic means is upon us.

              1. Jamie Jones Silver badge
                Flame

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                Funnily enough, the parts of the constitution that the American "right" bangs on about most are called "amendments".

                If there was no disatisfaction with the constitution at the time, those amendments would never have been made!

                That aside, your post is complete projectionalist bollocks, of course.

                If you equate the "left" with SJW's complaining about everything, then I'll equate the right with racist anti-semitic nazis.

                Now, if you look at the facts, you'll see the right is far more vicious at trying to shout down freedom of speech they don't like.

                You are also confusing free speech with being unaccountable for what you say. You can't shout bullshit, and then moan about free speech rights when challenged.

                Anyway, how about the standing rock / Dakota pipeline protesters?

                How about the language Trump uses as rallies against protesters?

                You seem to not notice when it's your "team" doing the shouting down.

                You should read this, but you won't: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/portland-speech-milo-antifa-koch/

                Oh, and it's ironic a right wing complaining about private companies being able to decide what they can do within their own companies..... Don't you believe in capitalism, and the free market? What are you?? Some sort of commie?

                Still, when nutjobs post obvious bullshit about 5g causing coronavirus, or that Bill Gates created coronavirus so that he has an excuse to microchip us all, it has to be removed, as it's been proved that there are enough right wing morons that believe anything.

                Like shouting "fire" in a crowded cinema, or "suicide bomber" in a crowded station, free speech has consequences, and until you understand that, you'll continue to be triggered.

                Oh, back to the constitution.. The first amendment relates to *government* censorship.

                The second amendment (origins in racism) is not under attack from background checks, any more than driving is under attack from requiring a driving license.

                Oh, as an aside, the 10th amendment gives the authority of states to impose restrictions on citizens for the "greater good" of the citizens in general.. So no, your ak47 bearing, pug ugly incel small dick protesters are (yet again) wrong about their constitutional rights to infect others being violated.

                FFS, I'm just a stupid Welsh git yet seem to know more about your political system than most right wingers...

              2. veti Silver badge

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                A characteristic of both sides in the US is that they don't much like the constitution. Leftists hate the second amendment, rightists aren't too keen on the first. I think it's probably possible to define every major faction in US politics by identifying "which bit of the constitution they want to repeal".

                Trump and his scum really hate the 14th.

                As for the "spoiled generation", you can apply that description to a generation who have grown up with their private wealth jealously protected.

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                15 downvotes suggest that the "anti-freedom of speech" brigade dwell here as well.

        2. jason_derp Bronze badge

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          "Also USA is a democracy , China aint."

          Well, Wikipedia has a whole article called "Elections in China", so I assume you mean that their elections aren't exactly fair because they have two parties. So if you compare the two, one country has one party instead of (effectively) two, voting itself is manipulated through underhanded means in both, and the power structures of both don't care about the people they govern.

          If democracy is supposed to be something different, I guess the US aint democracy either.

        3. The_Idiot

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          "Also USA is a democracy" Well - maybe. It depends on your definition of 'democracy'. The US President is not elected by the will of the majority of the people (of course, neither is the UK's Prime Minister). Russia holds elections where people get to 'vote', though arguably the offering of only one candidate limits the 'power of the vote'.

          The US President is not elected by US voters. She or he is elected by the will of a much smaller group of generally older and well connected people. People who currently legally may or may not choose to vote how the electorate in their State told them to (the Electoral college). In short, I would suggest 'democracy' is a marketing catch phrase these days, not a definition. Thoughts?

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            The USA is a REPUBLIC, it is explicitly designed NOT to be a democracy (where democracy is tyranny of the 51%). It is a democratic republic. If you do not understand this and you are from the USA, you failed civics and never read a Federalist paper. If you are from anywhere else, then I am unsurprised.

            If you think the being a "Democratic Republic" is a meaningless term, I suggest you look up how many brutal, bloody communist dictatorships went with the moniker, and then ask yourself why this term was so important for them to cower behind?

            1. The_Idiot

              Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

              @AC

              I respectfully suggest you and Chris the bean counter go sit in a corner and debate your views. He was the one who said, quite emphatically, that the USA _is_ a democracy. However, I would hold to my view. While Person A thinks 'democracy' is a mongoose, and Person B thinks it's a liquid, while Person C thinks it's round and Person D thinks it's a pink petunia - none of them can debate whether something 'is' or 'is not' democracy. Not because the word is meaningless - but because it has _too_many_ meanings. Which pretty much results in it appearing meaningless, and hence not a worthwhile element of discussion, debate or communication.

              1. EvilDrSmith Bronze badge

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                Would have upvoted you apart from that last sentence - the fact that different people have a different understanding of the meaning is why it should be discussed and debated, if only to try an establish a common accepted definition (perhaps then as a first step to more meaningful discussions)

            2. The_Idiot

              Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

              @AC

              "democracy is tyranny of the 51%". I see. So what would you prefer? The 'tyranny of the less than 50%'? The 'tyranny of the Electoral College'? The 'tyranny of the Corporations'? In any system where decisions are made through a process (and even rolling dice can be seen as a 'tyranny' for those who like buzz phrases), there is always a 'tyranny' of some kind. The 'tyranny' of 'whoever decides'. The very establishment of a system of government, _any_ system of government, can be seen as the establishment of a 'tyranny' - at least, seen that way by those who disagree with the decisions imposed by the system. But to each their own marketing language - and their own debates.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                "So what would you prefer? The 'tyranny of the less than 50%'?"

                It's irrelevant what I personally would prefer. Just as much as what you might define democracy to mean is irrelevant. I didn't call the USA a democracy. I know that it's a democratic republic, and importantly I know WHY it is a democratic republic.

                The only thing that matters in the discussion is what the authors of the US constitution understood it to mean and the system of government they created through the US constitution which they designed.

                My position is that enunciated by the signatories of the US Constitution and is unassailably correct.

                1. The_Idiot

                  Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                  @AC

                  With genuine and sincere respect, if the position of the signatories of the US Constitution were 'unassailably correct', then logically, philosophically and legally there would be no such thing as an 'Amendment', no? To amend is to change, to change is to challenge and prevail - and to challenge is to assail. Or am I missing something? After all, I'm an Idiot... :-)

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                    We are (or at least were) discussing the constitution's formulation and definition as a "democratic republic" as opposed to the US Constitution's authors' well documented understanding of "democracy".

                    It was discussed in tedious length at the time that position remains demonstrably correct as it was well documented at the time.

                    My opinion --> irrelevant

                    Your opinion --> irrelevant

                    Federalist Paper --> relevant

                    Constitution of The United States of America --> relevant

                    The amendments have nothing to do with this specific issue, but you knew that. Your pathetic straw man is noted.

        4. seven of five Silver badge

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          "Democracies rarely go to war"

          There is a long list of countries attacked by the US. Or, more precise, by the CIA, which uses the US armed forces as its "enabler".

          1. foo_bar_baz

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            I think the argument goes that two democracies don't usually go to war with each other.

            But yeah, the USA seems to find a lot of wars to fight.

        5. DiViDeD Silver badge

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          USA is a democracy , China aint.

          That hasn't seemed to matter much, if at all, to merkins over the past 30 years or so as they've fallen over each other to set up cheap manufacturing facilities in China to screw over their home market consumers.

          It may be my memory failing me, but I don't seem to remember that nice Mr Jobs, or any other of our great, democracy loving Captains of Industry deciding that they would not open factories in China because of that country's authoritarian regime and appalling attitude to human rights, even if that factory would enable them to make even more obscene profits.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        Negative modders, which part do you not want to believe?

        * That UK's biggest current threat is Russia not China?

        * That Putin owns Trump? One of them is the leader and one of them leads and one of them is the little butt-bitch, and it's Trump that's the little butt-bitch? Who in that pair do you think leads and who follows? Yeh exactly.

        * That UK needs to protect itself from a US owned by Putin?

        * That UK should play both teams given how uncertain the future is? USA is no longer a supporter of NATO and cannot be relied on for defense. Indeed it may be on the Russian side in any war.

        Look, assume Trump wins, the combination of wave-2 of the corona virus and suppression of mail in ballots, means he'll win by voter suppression or simply take power by a Republican controlled Supreme Court coup.

        Putin will take Georgia & Azerbaijan (telling Trump to end the open-skies treaty means he's planning to make a move, these are obvious next targets).

        Trump already removed Turkey from the favored trading nation status and Putin already did a deal with Erdogen, Turkey owned by Putin, Turkey will leave NATO.

        Putin already controls Syria (Trump withdrew troops and handed it to him). Syrian now owned by Putin.

        Iran is already pushed into Putin arms (Trump and his anti Iran war mongering + Putin lifting sanctions against them in 2016).

        Putin can already move his nukes onto his southern border (Trump cancelled the treaty that stopped this).

        It should be crystal clear to you that Trump is a moron. He has no idea what's going on, he reads nothing, he does not listen to briefings, does not read security reports, he knows more about chocolate cake than world security, and yet 'somehow' he knows in detail exactly which treaty he has to cancel to help Putin at any given time. Of course he gets an order and he follows it without understanding it.

        Not just that, he has no legal basis to cancel these ratified treaties. But he says "this Russian nukes treaty is cancelled" and Putin acts like the treaty is cancelled, and Republicans cower and block attempts to enforce the law. So it is defacto cancelled and US law is powerless. Each time he does it he establishes Putin > Trump > Republicans > US Law > America.

        Republicans can write whatever they like in a law, but Putin will simply ask Trump to cancel it, and then it will be ignored, and Republicans will go along with it and pretend all is well. So those sanctions against Russia that cannot be cancelled (Republicans controlled both houses, and wrote that law and voted it through almost unanimous to prevent Trump blocking it), they will be cancelled, and Republicans will pretend they are fine with it. Lindsey Graham will do his little Trump butt lick, Rand Paul will do his Putin feltch, better to be a Putin bitch than US defender and totally powerless.

        Iraq would be next, Trump would remove troops from Iraq in a timed withdrawal and hand it over to Putin.

        So at that point Putin would have his nukes bearing down on Saudi Arabia, he'd controlled a large part of the worlds oil and gas. He'd control all the pipelines into Europe, he'd have defacto control of the USA. Putin wins.

        You can see why Huawei 5G kit might not be the most important security threat right now. Given the obvious nature of what's happening in the USA.

        It's inevitable.

        It was as inevitable as Republicans trying to keep Corona Virus going till elections.

        As inevitable as Democrats trying to implement mail in ballots so the vote in November would happen despite the virus, to protect the vote.

        As inevitable as Trump trying to kill mail-in ballots.

        As inevitable as wave 2 corona virus is, the ~250k deaths.

        As inevitable as the Republican States cancelling the vote 'for safety'

        As inevitable as the Republican coup.

        It's right there, mod it down, stick your fingers in your ears, say 'la la la I'm not listening' it changes nothing. USA is done, it has a coup, Putin wins all, US becomes Putin little bitch. UK and Europe next.

        Literally the next few decisions made by Justice Roberts seal the fate, and I'm predicting he will go partisan and that's the end. After that it just plays out.

        1. First Light

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          Love your analysis! It reads like an Oliver Stone script.

          (I guess that dates me). And it's probably true!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            Far, far less grounded in reality than Stone's scripts IMHO. The dude is off his meds.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          Triggered much?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        So yeh, it's difficult to go into denial about it now. He's a Russian puppet. He'll cancel the Russian sanctions next.

        Putin really must be a genius. He's the leader of a country with a GDP smaller than that of Italy yet he controls the USA and by extension the rest of the free world!

        The Russian conspiracy theory is a nothingburger as proven by the unravelling of the politically-motivated, 2 year long Mueller investigation.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          "Putin really must be a genius. He's the leader of a country with a GDP smaller than that of Italy yet he controls the USA and by extension the rest of the free world!"

          How's NATO doing? Exactly.

          Trump cancels Russian sanctions, regardless of US law drafted by Republicans.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            >He's the leader of a country with a GDP smaller than that of Italy yet he controls the USA and by extension the rest of the free world!

            Israel has a GDP of a humus stall and yet dictates US foreign policy in the middle east.

            You just have to be smart where you apply your money and political pressure

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            Y'all need to read a few books..

            NATO is already toast and America couldn't really care less. The USA set up NATO after the Europeans slaughtered themselves and bankrupted themselves. The USA is the guarantor of free trade since WWII through NATO and 11 carrier groups. The moment that the USA says "fuck off" to the retarded liberals in Europe and the CCP then the edifice they created will end. The effect on the USA will be slight and pass quickly.

            * NATO is more or less irrelevant for USA.

            * Russia has problems on it's western front that it needs to fix.

            * Europe is not energy independent (the USA is) and Germany will henceforth be Russia's energy bitch.

            * The EEGs in the EUR are all more or less financially bankrupt. Consumerism and growth cannot save them.

            * The EU is politically bankrupt and at the point of dissolution

            The only bright spot in Western Europe is the UK which, despite the retarded remoaners, is finally cutting the cord to the EU. The rest of the world wants to deal with the UK, so the future is bright until Europe descends into another war zone.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

              Y'all need to read a few books..

              Your post suggests you may need to update your reading material as well. Best without the rose tinted "USA! USA!" glasses.

              First of all, the US energy "independence" only exists if you continue down the 3rd world path of burning fossil fuels, and that's not going to do Miami's real estate any good as it's slowly swallowed by the sea, or Michigan's which has just seen that happen at a slightly more rapid clip.

              Secondly, China has the US by the cojones, and by that I don't mean the supply chain. Not only do they own a massive chunk of US debt, they also did a quick beta test of the mechanism - just for fun, they dropped the Dow over 750 points on the 5th of August 2019. That didn't even take 24h.

              They will probably use that trick again around voting time because the Orange Idiot and his friends have been annoying them for too long and give Putin far too much sway and say. In this respect I trust McConnell even less than Trump because he's playing both sides.

              As irony would have it, China is en route to address climate issues in a different way by using technology the Americans discarded. If they get this going (and signs are they have), there will be consequences for the US which will make their Covid19 crisis and resulting recession a walk in the park, and they're not like third world countries like Iraq - they can bomb right back. In addition, while Trump has been destroying international relationships, the Chinese have been building mines, dams and bridges abroad which come with income and lots of influence.

              So please, go forth with your mighty USA - it has brought us many good things, but with it came a lot of crap. Under current leadership, the latter is starting to have consequences.

              1. Packet

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                Oh look another anonymous coward parroting rubbish.

                Fossil fuels are not going anywhere anytime soon - so slow your roll on that one.

                One country owning another country's sovereign debt doesn't really mean anything without the political will to actually engage with other means (Clausewitz)

                It's a matter of diminishing returns and escalating risk. It seemed like a good idea at first, but at no point does it become 'I say, good lad, we'll take that state and that other one there, then in lieu of payment, thank you very much'.

                If you think China cares about climate change, you're rather mistaken.

                What they are doing is attempting to use leverage by building out things in other countries (as part of their Belt and Road initiative.

                The current world scenario is one of upheaval (long before COVID-19) - and it's exposing rather ugly cracks in the edifices of many a nation (the US included).

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                  Fossil fuels are not going anywhere anytime soon - so slow your roll on that one.

                  And that is exactly the crux: you just missed what is going on globally. Climate change has simple accelerated events (and Covid19 screwed up the timing) but there's more happening than just green energy. I would have preferred the US to be part of it as that would be globally less fractious, but that ain't gonna happen under Trump - and thus the consequences are his to bear too.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                    "And that is exactly the crux:"

                    No. it's not. Your are wrong, and were I predisposed to use several hours I could crush your childish non-physical view of the world idiocy.

                    Green energy isn't, and the fallout is the antithesis of eco-friendly.

                    You have been drinking too much Green New Deal Kool-Aid. Also, I have a some land down in the glades I would like to sell you.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                      No. it's not. Your are wrong, and were I predisposed to use several hours I could crush your childish non-physical view of the world idiocy.

                      LOL. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog, you know zip about me. However, taking this personal reveals a rather vast level of insecurity associated with those who still battle with zits. On the plus side, that means you have many years left to finally attain that wisdom you presently think you have. You'll find that wisdom and attitude live in the same place - the more you have of the one, the less there's room for the other.

                      Green energy isn't, and the fallout is the antithesis of eco-friendly.

                      Then speak, yea imagined master of da universe, which part of the sentence there's more happening than just green energy irks you so? There's a scale that at the top end reads "comprehensive reading ability", and at the bottom it reads "unwarranted attitude". You appear to be very much at that bottom end, "bottom" also indicative of the end from which you choose to communicate.

                      We agree on that very thing that prompted you to announce you would "crush" my world view. I'm not going to spell out what that makes you, but it rhymes with the chemical element referred to as "B" in the period table.

                      Maybe if you applied that alleged intellect to analysing which sources of energy work, which don't and which have a long term future, mix in climate change and then why certain currencies maintain their hold and level in a market that is all but hollowed out and then maybe, just maybe (unlikely, but we live in hope) you'll see what I saw some 5 years ago and which then, much to my surprise, recently popped up in global energy reports again.

                      Talk to me in five years again, because by then it will have become publicly visible.

                      That is, if you survive that long with that worldview. I'll stick with mine, thanks.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                        Yeah, your right of course. What the fuck would I know? I only spent 15 years working in PGS. But hey, your green credentials give you credence I am sure. No, I am not going to even attempt to prove my credentials either.

                        CO2 driven climate change is not a thing in physics, only in politicised science - but that's an argument for another place. It doesn't matter because it's not CO2 that is at issue for electrical generation by "renewable technologies", it's physics and engineering + the very real issue that the burning of trees for power (I think still the largest of the available and approved renewable technologies in use, you can look up the actual value) is the antithesis of "Green".

                        I've read plenty of the bollocks about wind turbines and PV being cheaper than FF but the reality (Ed. reality is when engineering happens) is that they're not - we even built some wind parks - courtesy of subsidies - they made no economic sense whatsoever under any probable scenario. Their purpose was virtue signalling by politicians spending somebody else's money. Wind turbines are very heavy on steel and concrete (things you doubtless despise due to CO2 generation in production) and the blades are toxic. Wind Turbine PGS don't last long and are expensive to dismantle (if that even happens) - the concrete stays in the ground for the most part. Same for solar in all but specific use cases, plus PV solar production is hideously toxic. PVs are, IMHO, a waste of quartzite that has better utility in other industries.

                        Unreliable technologies can't power western industrial society any time soon, and if you think the third world want to stay in power poverty and develop their economies based on uneconomic and unstable technologies, you haven't been paying attention.

                        Bring on fusion (10 years away, for sure) or even Gen IV Fission, but oh wait, Green ideology is against those too, especially for those brown people.

                        While I hesitate to refer to polemics, the Planet of the Humans documentary is accurate with respect to what the renewable energy generation industry is and it's actual environmental impacts.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                "First of all, the US energy "independence" only exists if you continue down the 3rd world path of burning fossil fuels, and that's not going to do Miami's real estate any good as it's slowly swallowed by the sea, or Michigan's which has just seen that happen at a slightly more rapid clip."

                That quote is fucking hilarious.

                None of it is remotely grounded in any physical reality. Florida is not being flooded by rising oceans, nor will it any time this century, if ever. Fossil fuel burning is not a third world path, it is the basis now and for the foreseeable future of western industrial civilisation. It is very much a first world path and will remain so until physics changes, or we invent something as energy dense or denser than fossil fuels. I hear Fusion is 10 years away, but I'm not holding my breath. The gas supply in the Permian Basin is, from an economic standpoint, inexhaustible. There is no "Peak Oil" either. We will actually have solved cold fusion before it runs out. The US no longer needs the Middle East and Europe doesn't get a free pass any more. The world order is changing, and the loony left free ride that Europe has been surfing is over.

                Whether you like it or not, Bretton Woods created the world trading order after WWII. 11 carrier groups are what maintains it. The USA wrote the WTO rules, and the WTO will disintegrate the second the USA decides for it to be so. It doesn't matter how much debt China has, their problem is internal and when it pops, and it will, the global fallout will be biblical. The USA along with their trading partners Canada and Mexico will all do just fine.

                The demographics dictate how things will go, and Europe has already butt fucked itself through lack of population growth and profligacy based on protection they got for free from the USA. Grennell has sent the bill to Germany & Co and Germany are squealing again this week. Stiff bickies. Europe is past repair, so welcome to your new reality, it's going to get ugly from here on.

                The sooner the UK start looking West rather than East, the better off they will be.

                Stay tuned and bookmark this page.

                Disclaimer: I am not an American, I just happened to have read more than a PHP syntax manual

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                  Florida is not being flooded by rising oceans, nor will it any time this century, if ever

                  https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2019/08/08/analysis-sea-level-rise-is-combining-with-other-factors-regularly-flood-miami/ - and that was last year. There's a more recent analysis of the impact on real estate that is ALREADY happening, not some distant let-the-next-generation-worry-about-that future.

                  Fossil fuel burning is not a third world path, it is the basis now and for the foreseeable future of western industrial civilisation. It is very much a first world path and will remain so until physics changes, or we invent something as energy dense or denser than fossil fuels

                  It already exists, and has for some 50+ years. It just wasn't interesting to develop because at the time there was more profit in other solutions. However, climate change comes at a cost too, and if there is something that can offer energy at a price point competitive with fossil fuel, all hell will break loose. I give it 5 years, max. Trump just accelerated what is happening.

                  Oh, and Europe's in on this one. Oops.

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                    Europe ... that's hilarious. Europe is dead in the water and won't be recovering any time soon. Pissing money into wind turbines and solar won't change that - it's demographics.

                    Investing borrowed money in dead-end solutions without engineering merit for virtue signalling purposes has only negative effects on the economy in the long run, and the supposed CO2 benefits (whatever that means for you) are unmeasurable and by definition incalculable, so that makes them a waste of effort and money.

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                    "I give it 5 years, max."

                    Does this mean we'll have fusion power in 5 years, or is there some other technology that is going to break the laws of physics? It is unclear to me what you meant.

                    I am genuinely interested to know which technology you think will be an economic and engineering replacement for coal and gas (at whatever mix of the two) in your 5 year time frame.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                      That'll be Thorium based nuclear power then, and those 5 years will be a rough guess on how long it will take the Chinese to improve upon the two plants they should have online by now (not sure if the virus got in the way of the schedule there, but they should have opened the second one in February). I think the last one is a joint project with France or with a group of European countries, but the Chinese have a whole University branch on this and hold patents on materials and coatings to deal with the rather aggressive nature of a liquid fluoride salt heated to some 750 degrees C.

                      I can see why this could make a difference - if you look at the whole picture there's a lot of boxes this ticks, not in the least because it's also far less polluting in terms of resulting waste.

                      I would separate the "fossil replacement" idea differently, though - energy and manufacturing.

                      Thorium could be a good replacement for energy needs as it is literally a rare earth mining waste product, but it will not replace fossil fuel as a source of the raw material for, for instance, plastics (it's maybe worth observing that petrol is actually a waste product in that context - it cannot be split further for anything else but as a fuel/cleaner). I am not sure what percentage of oil use is for energy and which part for raw materials.

                      1. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                        Re: Thorium. Yes. I mentioned it further up as "Gen IV Fission". I'm all for it, but you should do the math on how many reactors dispersed globally we'd need to build to replace even a small fraction of the energy generated by coal & gas ... The amount of energy generated by Gen IV nuclear in 2025 will be a rounding error in the global electricity generation mix.

                        Therein lies the problem with the Green movement and people who actually believe renewables (wind, solar, tree burning) are a viable long term solution to electricity generation for western civilisation, never mind the developing world.

                        The proponents of these techs cannot (or will not) do the math, don't understand physics, think engineering is irrelevant and most of all, think socialist economics and the labour theory of value is a viable model for humanity.

                      2. Anonymous Coward
                        Anonymous Coward

                        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                        The product mix in oil refining is pretty much determined by market requirements and the type of oil being refined. Oil refining also means we don't have to slaughter the remaining whales.

                        People forget that for every 1000 kg of new steel (about 75% of total steel produced globally), burning ca. 770 kg of coal is needed. 1806 million tonnes of steel produced a year means 1390 million tonnes of 7813 million tonnes of coal produced (17.7%). It's a big chunk. I don't think banning coal is going to happen any time soon.

            2. EvilDrSmith Bronze badge

              Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

              >* NATO is more or less irrelevant for USA.

              Possibly, but from the NATO website:

              "The principle of collective defence is enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.

              NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States."

              So the first NATO member to ever obtain military assistance in a conflict through NATO was the USA - clearly not an organisation that the US thought irrelevant at that time.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

                Quickly looks at calendar - yep 2020 and 9/11 was in 2001, so quite some time ago really.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

            "Trump cancels Russian sanctions, regardless of US law drafted by Republicans."

            Which ones? I haven't noticed precisely, so you'll be able to list them for me, right?

            Or was that a prediction?

        2. anonymous boring coward Silver badge

          Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

          "Putin really must be a genius. He's the leader of a country with a GDP smaller than that of Italy yet he controls the USA and by extension the rest of the free world!"

          Compared to Trump he is a genius. In case you haven't noticed, Putin is extremely crafty.

          And then we have piss-gate.

    1. Warm Braw Silver badge

      Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

      I don't think my personal data is at much risk from the Chinese government (at least for now) as it is from the Five Eyes, so I've not been terribly concerned about the data capture issue - the traditional telephone network is full of holes already.

      What seems rapidly to have become a bigger risk is the use of economic sanctions to achieve political ends - and it's not just China we have to be concerned about: the US is behaving just as badly. It would be very unfortunate it the national communications infrastructure became degraded as a result of an embargo on spare parts, or suppliers being placed on "entity lists". If we were part of some larger economic alliance we might have a bit more clout but trying to practise market defence on our own is going to be quite tricky.

      1. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        If we were part of some larger economic alliance we might have a bit more clout but trying to practise market defence on our own is going to be quite tricky. .... Warm Braw

        Ah, but you are not on your own and alone, Warm Braw. All here hear the pain and many would believe the future able to be fundamentally and radically enabled for Future Virtualised Realisations ....... with Novel Surroundings. Ideally Heavenly Spaces but Oft Hellish Places to Quench too.

        All one only really needs is an extremely engaging and almighty addictive tale to trail with each instalment for injection and onward infection of information, designed overwhelmingly for mutually beneficial positive effect offering and delivering an Advantage Leading AI.

      2. Danny 14

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        You are dead wrong about the UK. We dont have any companies or manufacturing left for the government to spy with.

      3. Proton_badger

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        Indeed, anybody with sensitive data should use safe protocols on top of the network. As you suggest: No network can be trusted.

    2. Bo Lox
      Mushroom

      Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

      All these China lovers here, and only loved by those who hate Trump. For the record, I dislike both.

      For those of you only born yesterday and not possessing any significant world history (UK and US school history lessons don't count...even if they might exist), China has been copying western tech for decades, it's the quick and obvious route to catch up. Our spies do it too for our benefit. It's a fact of life.

      As for Wah-way, surely no large tech company in China is not free of the reach of the State and its spies. And before you cry...it's exactly the same with US companies, and no doubt UK companies.

      1. Stork Silver badge

        Re: Is it wrong to be in favour of this?

        Well exactly - that is why you need encryption of the traffic, not matter which hardware it runs over.

        Biggest theoretical risk is that a hostile power could switch the network off. But as the Huawei code has been inspected and nothing worse than sloppy code found, could we not expect that to be a similar risk no matter the equipment vendor?

        I think this is purely political and without technical reasons. And I do not find the Chinese leaders terribly cuddly either, not even Winnie-the-Pooh

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020