Tell me you haven't worked in network infrastructure without telling me you haven't worked in network infrastructure.
> Next, consider that the authority of US sovereignty ends at US borders. The US legally cannot unilaterally do anything to anything outside of its own borders.
I mean, sure, officially, when all laws are followed and in a friction-less plane this is correct. However the United States does all kinds of shit unilaterally outside it's own borders, literally all the time, not the least of which every war we've been in post WWII, and incalculable numbers of other tom-fuckery carried out on all levels of secrecy and non-secrecy by all manner of organizations identified by three letters, most commonly the CIA.
Am I wrong, though?
>I mean, sure, officially, when all laws are followed and in a friction-less plane this is correct. However the United States does all kinds of shit unilaterally outside it's own borders, literally all the time,
You can just say we went and blew up Nordstream, you know.
Yeah. Congestion makes a single-node Internet unusable.
Laughably wrong. The rest of your comment was ignored for good reason.
There are some good reasons people have given here why we aren’t doing it, as I suspected, but I’m sure borders aren’t on the list.
Next, consider that the authority of US sovereignty ends at US borders. The US legally cannot unilaterally do anything to anything outside of its own borders.
Next, consider that both North Korea and more importantly China have no damns to give about what the US wants.
Next, consider the first point again. Any actions made domestically can and likely will be circumvented by people who do not agree with them. An obvious example is people running their own DNS servers configured in defiance of US government orders.
So to answer your question:
Is it legally feasible? No.
Is it politically feasible? No.
Is it logistically feasible? No.
Is it physically feasible? No.
Is it good that this isn't feasible? Yes.