I don't think you fully understand what you are saying, here.
There is no such thing as "the best software." Code is code and if there is any developmental security risk, then that risk needs to be removed and/or mitigated out. The issue on that level, is not the software, rather the process for developing the software.
No, that's not true. Where on earth do you get the idea that there's "no such thing as the best software"? I use firefox cause I think it's better than explorer. Others might think differently, but they're not all equally good.
Question: Would you allow the Tactical Weapons Control & Avionics systems to be developed (coded) and engineered in the Ukraine? Of course, not. Why? For a billion reasons, but mostly because you don't want coded routines in the software that controls the targeting, tracking and firing systems to put American pilots in a position of receiving unexpected results in battle.
1) Horrible analogy, as the Ukraine isn't subject to US laws, removing a massive incentive that US companies have to act appropriately.
2) Assuming that the Ukraine
was subject to US law and that they
did make "the best software" for our planes, then I would expect the responsible agency to conduct an analysis of the expected risk involved in letting that particular company develop the software, and then compare that with the expected benefit of the improved software in order to make a decision.
To put that in concrete terms: Say there's a developing country looking to build its air force. If it uses its own inferior technology, they predict they will lose 500 pilots a year to equipment malfunctions. If they purchase US technology, they can cut that number to 10. Yes, they're taking a risk by purchasing the US software, but can you see why it would be a good idea to do so?
Similarly, would you allow, in a mission critical election for the White House, one party to have behind closed door privilege and access to the code that delivers votes to each respective candidate? Of course, not - and for the exact same principles, though the actual reasons may differ.
That's not what happening. If you want to be taken seriously, cut the hyperbole.
That's a cute cop-out, but it does not answer the question - which is the typical response from those who can't answer direct questions.
Given that you get those kind of responses a lot, ever stop to think about what that might mean?
That's very dangerous thinking and it demonstrates a level of disengagement from reality.
Do you need proof that getting hit by a moving freight train might hurt just a little? Or, would you naturally take precautions against getting hit by one before it happened?
More terrible analogies.
No I wouldn't need proof, because I can deduce what happens when you get hit by a train from seeing videos of it, reading news stories about it, and simulating such a thing on a small scale with a model train.
In this case however, you have absolutely no evidence to support your claims.
Again, I ask you: If the Republican party can manipulate the vote so easily, why did they let their candidates get their asses kicked in 06?
