US and Israel developed Stuxnet Worm (anybody here surprised?)

[TalkingDog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=stuxnet&st=cse

Over the past two years, according to intelligence and military experts familiar with its operations, Dimona has taken on a new, equally secret role — as a critical testing ground in a joint American and Israeli effort to undermine Iran’s efforts to make a bomb of its own.

Behind Dimona’s barbed wire, the experts say, Israel has spun nuclear centrifuges virtually identical to Iran’s at Natanz, where Iranian scientists are struggling to enrich uranium. They say Dimona tested the effectiveness of the Stuxnet computer worm, a destructive program that appears to have wiped out roughly a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and helped delay, though not destroy, Tehran’s ability to make its first nuclear arms.

“To check out the worm, you have to know the machines,” said an American expert on nuclear intelligence. “The reason the worm has been effective is that the Israelis tried it out.”

[Hugabear]

1. How is that not an act of war?

Seems to me that should be an act of war, or at the very least a violation of some sort of international law

[TalkingDog]

2. I think it's legal as long as we're doing it.

(sarcasm thingy)

[malaise]

4. Ding ding we have a winner n/t

[upi402]

5. The new rule of law - same as the old rule of law

The golden rule... "He who has the gold, makes the rules".
but we wont have the gold for much longer. And I worry about retaliation due our gold-havin' rule-makers' actions!

[Warren DeMontague]

6. You mean an international law like the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

That sort of international law?

[BzaDem]

7. Apparently, some think it's perfectly fine for one country to violate the NPT, but when another

country responds with a computer virus, then they have a problem.

[TalkingDog]

11. I'm assuming sarcasm, but if not

Breaking the law to keep people from breaking the law was sorta our complaint about the last administration.

[Warren DeMontague]

16. No, it sorta wasn't.

But perhaps you can point me specifically to what law you think was broken, here.

Or, maybe you would have preferred the Israelis to disable those centrifuges militarily? :shrug:

[walldude]

17. Yeah, apparently some people think,

that they have no right to tell another country what weapons they are allowed or not allowed to have. Apparently some people think that railing against nuclear proliferation while you are sitting on the worlds largest nuclear stockpile is... hypocritical.

What assholes.

[NuclearDem]

18. Iran signed a treaty saying they wouldn't develop nuclear weapons

But--voila!--lookie what they're doing!

The US had nuclear weapons long before the NNPT was written. The US hasn't expanded it's arsenal, which was the goal of the treaty.

[walldude]

19. Oh and we've never broken a treaty...

And that does not answer my question. Ok they signed a treaty. Why should they not have a right to break it? We invaded and pretty much leveled the country next to them. On false pretenses. The US decided to invade Iraq and made up whatever excuses they needed to do so. 9/11, WMD's, Saddam. We don't even know how many people were killed, hundreds of thousands?

Put yourself in their shoes. Say we didn't have any WMD's to play the MAD game, and some country invaded Canada. Would you not think about arming yourself to the teeth to make sure they didn't get any ideas about making you next?

[NuclearDem]

21. I see where you're going with this

But if the US casus belli (false or not) for the war with your neighbor was to find WMDs...why would you all of a sudden start developing WMDs yourself?

Before they started it, the only cause the US could find to invade Iran was maybe some weak ties to Islamic fundamentalism...and after Iraq, I doubt Congress would buy that as an excuse anymore. But now Iran has not only broken a treaty, but they've painted a giant target on their country for the entire international community.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. You probably would. And if you were one of the myriad countries in Iran's neighborhood

(not just Israel, btw) who expressly DON'T want them to get nuclear weapons, wouldn't you consider means by which to interfere with the process, and if those means didn't necessitate a military strike or people getting killed, wouldn't that be preferable?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. As I understand it, it is neither

Whether it should be is a valid question.

On a practical level, anything keeping nuke out of Iranian hands is a good thing.

[breadandwine]

3. Fact 1 and Fact 2:

While everyone is claiming victory against Iran, Stuxnet only destroyed a fifth of Iran's centrifuges and did not stop Bushehr. Iran just announced that it has 40 kilograms of uranium enriched to 20 percent, only a short hop away technologically from further enrichment to bomb grade at a site small enough that it could be hidden anywhere. If you think malfunction in a few centrifuges is no different from war, you are welcome to trade that in for the real thing. The real problem is that unlike his brother who died leading the Entebbe rescue, Netanyahu is a coward who doesn't have the guts to take out Iran's nuclear program. So he is going around leaking that he already won.

[kickysnana]

8. And we cannot put that genie back in the bottle.

How long before it boomerangs back here?

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. Soo... I thought cyberterror was bad.

:shrug:

[TalkingDog]

12. What you said. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Whereas violating the Non-Proliferation Treaty is harmless campus hijinks. nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

20. When they recompile the virus to target US infrastructure...

... let's talk again.

[Warren DeMontague]

23. The way I see it, if Iran is really developing nuclear weapons, there are a range of options

ranging from "do nothing" to "military attack".

If these reports are true, this was not "do nothing" but it also, AFAWK, didn't result in anyone getting killed. Personally, I think that probably deserves some praise.

[lumberjack_jeff]

27. One of the options; "write a virus" didn't require "... and then brag about it."

[stranger81]

28. Yeah, but it's only terror if it's directed at us. Or people who look like us.

See how that works?

[NuclearDem]

13. Is anyone else happy that this is at least the lesser of two evils?

It was not too long ago Republicans wanted to invade or bomb Iran to stop their nuclear program...I'd say a computer virus that doesn't cost any lives is a fair middle road.

And I believe the term here is "information warfare"...not cyberterrorism.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Don't even bother.

No point.


But yes, I agree.

[Statistical]

22. Computer virus to slow their progress is preferable to military action. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

24. Agreed.

Of course, some people don't see the necessity in doing anything, although very few people in Iran's immediate neighborhood seem to share that view.

[Odin2005]

26. Thanks, TPTB, you just proved to the world WHY Iran is getting nukes.

To keep us from attacking them.