Because there's a non-trivial element of the current USG (and probably a decent sized portion of American voters) who think we'll be at war with PRC within the next couple years, at some point when the next Taiwan invasion windows open (April and October each year). From that perspective, this is prudent policy. If you don't think this is likely, or don't care about broader historical or geopolitical trends, then yes it's very annoying.
That doesn't explain it, though. In this case and the TikTok case, nobody has been able to cite exactly what all these "personal data" are. Not once have I seen a citation of what TikTok has "stolen" from users, somehow defying data sandboxing implemented on mobile devices.
This fake hysteria over drones is even worse, considering that the drones don't have the means of sending arbitrary data to remote servers.
It can't send "whatever it wants." The user has to grant access to various categories of personal data.
And whatever it sends can and would have been sniffed by now. It's incredible how much time people have to expend on way-more-obscure snooping than that.
It has your location and your phone number and flight logs. The later are systematically sent to the Civil Aviation Administration of China along with your phone number which is a unique ID in China. I am not talking about hypotheticals, I am talking about what's happening right now in 2025 in China and that will happen all around the world as governments tighten the grip.
There is nothing to prepare for because the only possible war between the USA and China is a nuclear war and such a war has no victor. Both countries are "prepared" in terms of nuclear weapons.
The USA is clearly not prepared to sacrifice any of its own cities to prevent an invasion of Taiwan.
All this sabre rattling and military buildup only serves to put money in the pockets of the military industrial complex and/or build military capabilities for each country to exert its will within its own sphere of influence.
> There is nothing to prepare for because the only possible war between the USA and China is a nuclear war and such a war has no victor.
I think there are 2 false statements here. First, you could have conventional conflict alone, the same way you had WW2 without extensive use of chemical weapons.
Second, there are possible paths to have a winnable nuclear war, actually, the US did have one a couple of decades ago and it won. I do agree that saying this out loud though is dangerous because the reason for nuclear taboo is also based on the perception of "end of world" it has.
> Second, there are possible paths to have a winnable nuclear war, actually, the US did have one a couple of decades ago and it won.
Well yeah because at that time they were the only one who had a nuclear bomb. That situation didn't last long.
I think it's really great that it's such a taboo, otherwise these things would be used a lot, incurring all sorts of pollution, mass casualties and chances to escalate. It's a good thing that these have not been used since WWII though I do think their existence as a deterrent has brought us a bit more peace.
