Anyone else surprised that Stuxnet isn't getting more attention?

hatrickpatrick · 03-06-2012 5:31pm #1

I realize everyone already assumed it, but I would have thought an apparent confirmation that Stuxnet was commissioned by Obama and created by US authorities would have gotten far more attention on forums and in the media? Bit surprising given the amount of hype it got when it first emerged.

For anyone who missed it, article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/world/middleeast/obama-ordered-wave-of-cyberattacks-against-iran.html?_r=3&pagewanted=2&seid=auto&smid=tw-nytimespolitics&pagewanted=all

Essentially, the Stuxnet Worm was part of a wider campaign of cyberattacks against Iran called operation "Olypmic Games". The operation began in Bush's later years, and the first version of Stuxnet was most likely ordered by Bush, however Stuxnet updated itself 3 times during its campaign, with later variants probably ordered or authorized by Obama's administration.

Now I'm not making this particular thread to comment on the ethics or politics of the worm, I'm sure Stuxnet itself has been done to death here especially as most people assumed it was created by the US ever since it became public knowledge.

I'm just wondering, is anyone else surprised by the lack of coverage? Apart from that NYT it hasn't been headline news anywhere, I wasn't even aware this had been exposed until yesterday when someone posted it on a fairly obscure message board at GameFAQs. Since then it's already slipped completely from the Google News homepage, and in general has received rather muted coverage.

Anyone find this kinda surprising, given how explosive the worm itself was when first revealed? It was discussed endlessly in the press. I would have assumed that confirmation of its origin would be equally explosive.

Which brings me to another question: Could the muted response imply that the NYT article isn't considered reliable, and that at most it's now "claimed" rather than "confirmed"? I've always regarded the NYT as a very credible source but this lack of a media rush is a little bizarre, I also note that the Wiki article on Stuxnet has been very slow to incorporate the story (although it is now tagged with a "this article is out of date, please help improve it) message...

what do you think?

eth0 · 03-06-2012 8:13pm

Creating stuxnet was a stroke of pure genius. A lot of talent and research went into making that thing

hatrickpatrick · 03-06-2012 8:22pm

eth0 wrote: »

Creating stuxnet was a stroke of pure genius. A lot of talent and research went into making that thing

Agreed. although I don't approve of the politics, I have to say I'm amazed by the amount of clever tricks it was able to pull off, in particular the fact that it was able to trick the computers into thinking the motors were running at normal speeds when they'd just been hijacked. Reminds me a bit of that scene in Ocean's Eleven with the spoofed CCTV footage.

You'd have to wonder just how much money went into it

Eggy Baby! · 03-06-2012 10:19pm

Wasn't Flame (that very advanced malware discovered recently by scientists) created by Israel to screw with Iran?

My friend told me yesterday that he believed all malware has roots in the Cold War- that the Soviets and the USA initially conceived malware to target each other and that it was proliferated and copied by hackers and other fraudsters.

Blowfish · 04-06-2012 12:51pm

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

My friend told me yesterday that he believed all malware has roots in the Cold War- that the Soviets and the USA initially conceived malware to target each other and that it was proliferated and copied by hackers and other fraudsters.

During the cold war most machines connected to the Internet would have been Unix based, yet the vast majority of malware targets Windows based vulnerabilities.

Naturally, that's not to say they weren't above using the Internet for espionage.

KyussBishop · 04-06-2012 1:55pm

It's another great example of US hypocrisy, in that they consider cyber attacks against the US an "act of war", yet they treat it as an acceptable action for they themselves to take against a country that is doing nothing wrong.

JustinDee · 04-06-2012 6:08pm

Yeah the big bad US is the only country out there fighting a cold proxy war . . .

Eggy Baby! · 04-06-2012 6:29pm

JustinDee wrote: »

Yeah the big bad US is the only country out there fighting a cold proxy war . . .

Why do you attempt to justify US actions by saying "They're not the only ones doing it"? He's talking about US hypocrisy, not Russian, Chinese or Iranian.

Sand · 04-06-2012 7:03pm

I don't think people are ignoring it, but its been pretty blatantly obvious that Iran is lying when it claims its not developing nuclear weapons, and its blatantly obvious that Israel, the US, the gulf states and most of Iran's neighbors all view the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran as being a really bad thing.

Its not a coincidence that Iranian scientists connected to the weapons programme have suddenly become accident prone, and neither is it a coincidence that Israelis diplomats have been killed. Meanwhile, the prospect of air strikes against the facilities are being openly discussed - not on moral or legal terms, but on practical terms: i.e will it work?

Stuxnet is an interesting part of that struggle which is clearly going on, but its a fairly low-key part of it: nobody died. The US is constantly under attack by state on state cyberwarfare, and China is heavily suspected as being behind most of them. Claims that the US would view any cyberwarfare attack as being an act of war is clearly posturing - cyberattacks are very difficult to trace so who would the US be at war with? The US would be intensely dumb to not develop and employ its own response.

Personally, I see Stuxnet as a very clever tool which did a really good job in hindering the proliferation of nuclear weapons which is an admirable objective. If the news is quiet, I'd presume its because most people see it as a non-story on those grounds.

On a longer term scale, there are certainly questions as to developing ethical rules around the employment of these tools but enforcement would be next to impossible.

JustinDee · 05-06-2012 8:12am

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

Why do you attempt to justify US actions by saying "They're not the only ones doing it"? He's talking about US hypocrisy, not Russian, Chinese or Iranian.

I don't.
Just don't suffer from tunnel-vision and am not myopically obssessed with any one of the main superpowers.

KyussBishop · 05-06-2012 8:27am

JustinDee wrote: »

I don't.
Just don't suffer from tunnel-vision and am not myopically obssessed with any one of the main superpowers.

It's a pretty arrogant and superior 'tunnel-vision' argument which suggests that everyone else but you is 'myopically obsessed' with criticizing the US; it's such a lazy argument: "well 'x' does that too, why don't you criticize them as well??!?

"

If you want to start a topic about cyber attacks committed by China, Russia or Iran etc. then go ahead; this one is about Stuxnet, which US officials are increasingly acknowledging involvement with (even to the point that Obama may have directly ordered it).

JustinDee · 05-06-2012 8:34am

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's a pretty arrogant and superior 'tunnel-vision' argument which suggests that everyone else but you is 'myopically obsessed' with criticizing the US; it's such a lazy argument: "well 'x' does that too, why don't you criticize them as well??!?"

The same people post thread after thread of regurgitated pieces about the big bad west and NEVER about the rest.
Now that is obssession.
Lazy to point that out? I think not.

KyussBishop · 05-06-2012 9:05am

JustinDee wrote: »

The same people post thread after thread of regurgitated pieces about the big bad west and NEVER about the rest.
Now that is obssession.
Lazy to point that out? I think not.

It's one of the classic lazy arguments used to try and discredit or downplay anyone who is critical of the US, for any reason; people don't have to balance out posts critical of the US, with equal weight posts which are critical of Russia, China, Iran etc..

Lets have a look at what is implicit behind that argument as well:
It implies people are supportive of China, Russia, Iran etc. due to not criticizing them
It implies people are hypocritical for only criticizing the US and not these other countries

Instead of hiding behind such a lazy argument, with these implicit criticisms, why don't you directly challenge people with these implicit arguments?
Do you think people that are critical of the US, but who don't actively go out of their way to criticize China/Russia/etc. are hypocrites?
Do you think they support China/Russia?
Do you think they have no criticisms of these other countries?

If not, what are you saying? If you remove those implicit arguments, there is nothing left to your main argument, except some petty complaints that people should be criticizing other countries instead of the US.

JustinDee · 05-06-2012 12:07pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's one of the classic lazy arguments used to try and discredit or downplay anyone who is critical of the US, for any reason; people don't have to balance out posts critical of the US, with equal weight posts which are critical of Russia, China, Iran etc..

Lets have a look at what is implicit behind that argument as well:
It implies people are supportive of China, Russia, Iran etc. due to not criticizing them
It implies people are hypocritical for only criticizing the US and not these other countries

Instead of hiding behind such a lazy argument, with these implicit criticisms, why don't you directly challenge people with these implicit arguments?
Do you think people that are critical of the US, but who don't actively go out of their way to criticize China/Russia/etc. are hypocrites?
Do you think they support China/Russia?
Do you think they have no criticisms of these other countries?

If not, what are you saying? If you remove those implicit arguments, there is nothing left to your main argument, except some petty complaints that people should be criticizing other countries instead of the US.

Firstly, this is an internet forum. Not a courthouse or a parliamentary chamber, so you can relax with the high-horse anonymous outrage.

"Do you think people that are critical of the US, but who don't actively go out of their way to criticize China/Russia/etc. are hypocrites?"
- Generally in this forum, yes. This would appear to apply to any aggressor/tansgressor, be they Hamas (in hilarious threads talking about 'democracy' and 'UN sanctions/critique', Iran or insipid defence of government-run networks used as sources instead of being correctly identified as propaganda elements.

"Do you think they support China/Russia?"
- From reading through the forums, the usual suspects tend to conveniently ignore them when banging on about aggressive or underhand foreign policy.

"Do you think they have no criticisms of these other countries?"
- Not on this forum anyway hence the incessant parp from people who are in fact of 'the west' themselves. Maybe they just aren't wiki-ing or googling as if they already knew the intrinsic elements of a subject hard enough?

Don't agree with me? I'll live.

KyussBishop · 05-06-2012 12:43pm

I'm combative in my posts sometimes, and often impatient with lazy arguments that try to shut down discussion, but that's perfectly within acceptable discourse in my opinion; I'll certainly live if you disagree.

JustinDee wrote:

"Do you think people that are critical of the US, but who don't actively go out of their way to criticize China/Russia/etc. are hypocrites?"
- Generally in this forum, yes. This would appear to apply to any aggressor/tansgressor, be they Hamas (in hilarious threads talking about 'democracy' and 'UN sanctions/critique', Iran or insipid defence of government-run networks used as sources instead of being correctly identified as propaganda elements.

"Do you think they support China/Russia?"
- From reading through the forums, the usual suspects tend to conveniently ignore them when banging on about aggressive or underhand foreign policy.

Oh okey, so I and others critical of the US, support Hamas, Iran, China, Russia, etc. then?

That is the most intellectually vacuous and lazy argument (short of the "anti-semite" one when it comes to Israel) that can be used to try and shut down criticism of the US; if that's what your "why don't you criticize other nations too!?" argument boils down to, then it's just another (light) form of attacking posters instead of their arguments.

JustinDee wrote:

"Do you think they have no criticisms of these other countries?"
- Not on this forum anyway hence the incessant parp from people who are in fact of 'the west' themselves. Maybe they just aren't wiki-ing or googling as if they already knew the intrinsic elements of a subject hard enough?

Right, so you just assume this about people without knowing at all.

So lazy an argument that you don't even bother to ask people if they are critical of these other nations, you just assume that can't be the case in order to bash their arguments; you, in fact, don't even care if they are critical of these other nations, you actively don't want to know because it would undermine your attempts to smear their arguments.

That's what it boils down to, just a 100% intellectually dishonest method of trying to diminish and distract from other peoples arguments.

JustinDee · 05-06-2012 1:11pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Oh okey, so I and others critical of the US, support Hamas, Iran, China, Russia, etc. then? . . .etc . . . etc

No. I said in my view that these folk were hypocrites. Not supporters. They conveniently ignore them and focus on their own 'cause du jour' or favourite agenda. See what I mean?

Not lazy. Not dishonest. Not distractions. None of these melodramatic descripts of yours apply actually.
So you can reel the proverbial neck in and can the amateur psychology lessons, thanks.

KyussBishop · 05-06-2012 1:41pm

Okey, what you said was limited to an accusation of hypocrisy and not of supporting; an accusation of hypocrisy implies double standards, and for double standards to apply, people have to hold criticisms of the US, and not hold the same criticisms against China/Russia etc..

You don't ever bother to find out what other people think of these other countries, you just assume they don't have criticisms of those countries, and the fact that you make that assumption without any basis, means you don't care what other people think of those other countries, and you actively don't want to know because it's easier for you to just spit out the accusation of hypocrisy instead of engaging in any actual argument.

By your absurd notion, every argument criticizing the US, must be immediately balanced with an equal arguments against China or Russia etc., lest the person be labelled a hypocrite.
Doesn't matter if they think certain analogous Chinese/Russian policies are reprehensible as well, if they don't voice it every time they criticize the US they're hypocrites!

Again, that is a lazy, dishonest and baseless argument. What is most particularly lazy about it, is you could just ask if people are critical of these other countries as well, yet you just assume and launch into an attack instead.

Eggy Baby! · 05-06-2012 2:11pm

I'm sure that if we solely criticised Russia, Iran or China and called them hypocrites for using malware, Justin would have nothing to say.

JustinDee · 05-06-2012 3:32pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Okey, what you said was limited to an accusation of hypocrisy and not of supporting; an accusation of hypocrisy implies double standards, and for double standards to apply, people have to hold criticisms of the US, and not hold the same criticisms against China/Russia etc . . . etc . . . etc

In other words, pro-agendaic so yes, "double-standards". Hence the repetitive and subjective posting of the same line by the same people almost every time.

When you see a particular anonymous acronym on the web purporting to be allegedly not only interested but some form of expert in politics, geo-politics or a particular nation, it would help their case if they wish to be seen as fair dinkum, to discuss all sides of their areas of alleged concern, I would have thought. Since so much concern about these issues, feel free to start threads on, for example, lack of elections or even an opposition in Gaza and what happened in the purge there following Cast Lead?, discuss Putin and the Russian media, who killed Hariri in Lebanon?, Press TV and Russia Today - Free press?, chat about dissidents and activists in China,
Otherwise don't be surprised if ever considered as being too stuck on one viewpoint every time the same 'it's just the west's fault' and regurgitating what retroactivtly suits, when it clearly is bloody well isn't. The nearest a lot of these experts get to the likes of the Middle East is flipping well flying over it en route to Asia or Sth Africa.

KyussBishop · 05-06-2012 4:04pm

KyussBishop wrote:

Okey, what you said was limited to an accusation of hypocrisy and not of supporting; an accusation of hypocrisy implies double standards, and for double standards to apply, people have to hold criticisms of the US, and not hold the same criticisms against China/Russia

You've pretty much ignored a wide part of my post, and even the part above that you quoted; your entire argument rests on the assumption (as highlighted in the bit you quoted) that people do not think China/Russia etc. are at fault for the same criticisms applied to the US.

That people think like that, is 100% clearly unsubstantiated (and the opposite, that they are critical, is the most likely assumption for most posters), and you are too lazy to even posit equivalent examples of Chinese/Russian examples, to ask people if they would apply the same criticisms.
You assume they would not, effectively putting words in their mouths, just so you can rail against their arguments without actually engaging those arguments.

What's your solution then; how can you ever not be a hypocrite by your standards, when criticizing the US? For every thread about the US, do you have to create a separate thread stating how China or some such does the same thing?

If all you have to do to not be a hypocrite, is express criticism of similar Chinese/Russian policies, then you have no excuse for not asking posters what their opinion is on those cases, before lazily making assumptions just so you can rail against them.

nacho libre · 05-06-2012 4:13pm

It's interesting to note how media outlets like the BBC often warn of the threat posed from Chinese cyber warfare, but the tone of theirs reports greatly differ when it comes to the wests use of cyber warfare.

plasmaguy · 05-06-2012 4:33pm

Because China isn't a democracy and mass-murders people who ask for democracy such as in Tianamon Square maybe? Iran is little better and the real power lies with the un-elected clerics and army.

I would not trust Iran with the bomb for several reasons so anything that undermines their efforts to get one can only be good and encouraged.

As for it being illegal, act of war, etc, most forms of espionage are illegal and a low level act of war against its intended target, so there's no real hypocrisy here since everyone is at it.

nacho libre · 05-06-2012 5:07pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

Because China isn't a democracy and mass-murders people who ask for democracy such as in Tianamon Square maybe? Iran is little better and the real power lies with the un-elected clerics and army.
.

So in others words your defending the double standard in the reporting of cyber warefare, despite the likes of America appaling human right abuses over the years and disseminating lies as a pretext to starting wars. Yet you single out a nation that has not started a war against any of its neighbours, and have concluded there building nuclear weapons because those you identify with say so- this despite their said track record of being economical with the truth.

plasmaguy · 05-06-2012 5:26pm

Unfortunately the Iranians don't have the guts to start wars or declare war. They usually fight proxy conflicts and arm and train fighters and militias as they did with Al Sadr, Hezbollah, Hamas, and also are doing in Syria. They were also caught sending arms to Afghan rebels.

And this is why many people fear the Iranian government getting the bomb, because they are sneaky and you can't take what they say at face value. There is actually very little to stop them smuggling a nuke to Hamas, Hezbollah or any number of enemies of the West, nothing at all. And when that nuke went off, they could claim complete innocence and you'd have the usual crowd on here saying "yeh but there is no proof Iran was responsible and it's all the Wests fault because of some spurious reason or other".

Because the West is to blame for some things (Russia, China and others are to blame for a lot of bad things as well, eg Tibet, Chechnia) doesn't mean its right Iran should be allowed develop nukes.

And when the Iranians say they don't want a nuclear bomb, again, I wouldn't take them at face value.

If Iran did develop the bomb and it was used, people would ask of Obama, why didn't you do something?

The Iranians have been evasive in showing the UN around their facilities so in those circumstances, its only right to gain access another way.

If the Americans and Israeli's believe Iran poses a serious national security risk, which they seem to do, then yes, its perfectly acceptable to use all forms of espionage.

KyussBishop · 05-06-2012 7:20pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

And this is why many people fear the Iranian government getting the bomb, because they are sneaky and you can't take what they say at face value. There is actually very little to stop them smuggling a nuke to Hamas, Hezbollah or any number of enemies of the West, nothing at all. And when that nuke went off, they could claim complete innocence and you'd have the usual crowd on here saying "yeh but there is no proof Iran was responsible and it's all the Wests fault because of some spurious reason or other".

Nuclear weapons are traceable back to their source (even after detonation, due to leftover residue); it would be complete suicidal idiocy for Iran to try and pull that off.
If Israel or the US got even a hint that Iran might have been the culprit, you can bet there will be no delay in retaliation.

Since we are so caught up in double standards in this thread: What if Israel did the same thing to Iran? Israel who, having not signed onto the NPT like Iran, have a very sizable stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Why don't we enact sanctions against Israel also? A nation which we definitely know does 'secretly' develop nuclear weapons, which is demonstrably a warmongering threat to several nations in the region, which is likely responsible for murdering civilian scientists in another country?

By what standard, can you justify sanctions or an attack on Iran (a country where there is no proof they are developing nuclear weapons), that does not 100% apply to Israel as well? They are the 'good guys', Iran are the 'bad guys' hmm?

hatrickpatrick · 05-06-2012 7:26pm

Sorry to be a buzzkill but could we keep this thread about the Stuxnet revelations and the incredible lack of media coverage thereof?

There are plenty of other threads in which we can discuss the ethics of the cyberattack itself...

EDIT: BTW I didn't post this as an anti US thread or with that in mind, I was merely wondering why a public admission that the US government was behind it, didn't get more media attention. Purely because when the worm first surfaced, everyone was clamoring to point fingers about it...

KyussBishop · 05-06-2012 7:36pm

Excuse the derailing of the thread, figure I'll only need to get drawn into that side-argument once and that's it.

It's my impression that the US admins more direct admission about Stuxnet is relatively recent, even though there've been fairly strong hints dropped about it since it was uncovered; a lot of the interest towards it seems to have come from more tech-oriented news sites.

Here's an article on a more recently discovered 'Flame' malware, which is a very advanced virus deployed against Iran, similar to Stuxnet:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/05/flame

troposphere · 05-06-2012 8:34pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Which brings me to another question: Could the muted response imply that the NYT article isn't considered reliable, and that at most it's now "claimed" rather than "confirmed"? I've always regarded the NYT as a very credible source but this lack of a media rush is a little bizarre, I also note that the Wiki article on Stuxnet has been very slow to incorporate the story (although it is now tagged with a "this article is out of date, please help improve it) message...

The journalist from that NY Times article has a book coming out tomorrow. He said his information came from 18 month investigation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIpcmoUB5kg

plasmaguy · 05-06-2012 10:54pm

KyussBishop wrote: »

Nuclear weapons are traceable back to their source (even after detonation, due to leftover residue); it would be complete suicidal idiocy for Iran to try and pull that off.
If Israel or the US got even a hint that Iran might have been the culprit, you can bet there will be no delay in retaliation.

Since we are so caught up in double standards in this thread: What if Israel did the same thing to Iran? Israel who, having not signed onto the NPT like Iran, have a very sizable stockpile of nuclear weapons.

Why don't we enact sanctions against Israel also? A nation which we definitely know does 'secretly' develop nuclear weapons, which is demonstrably a warmongering threat to several nations in the region, which is likely responsible for murdering civilian scientists in another country?

By what standard, can you justify sanctions or an attack on Iran (a country where there is no proof they are developing nuclear weapons), that does not 100% apply to Israel as well? They are the 'good guys', Iran are the 'bad guys' hmm?

Of course nuclear weapons leave a residue, but I don't think it would be so easy to say from that residue this nuclear weapon was made in Iran for example, as nuclear weapons have similar ingredients the world over. As for the chance of finding a detonator made in Iran for example, good luck with that, if it was exploded by a nuclear weapon. The other point is Iran could use it against a country that is not an ally of America, what happens in that situation? Although most countries in the region are American allies, luckily for them! There's also the question of an arms race and other countries in the region wanting their own nuke, just in case. You very often find that, when one country gets a bomb or starts developing one, a neighbour feels a similar need to develop one, eg Pakistan and India.

There is also the question of proliferation, ie Iran selling nukes and knowhow to countries around the world who are also anti American and allied with Iran and there are plenty of those countries. One of the scientists who helped develop the Pakistan nuclear weapons program has made no bones about going around helping other nations develop the knowhow.

I'd be in favour of a world with no nukes but without any real prospect of that happening soon, certainly stopping as many new countries as possible developing them makes a lot of sense. I live by the maxim that you don't hand the world over to the next generation in a worse state than you got it, and a world with more countries with nuclear weapons is not a good situation.

Defending Iran's right to have a nuclear weapon because Israel has one is also an immature argument for reasons stated above. We simply do not want a situation where every country has a nuclear weapon or every country in the middle east has a nuclear weapon. For instance, there would be nothing to stop Assad in Syria using a nuclear weapon as a last resort against a revolutionary city in Syria and no-one from the outside would stop him as he didn't attack the West and so on. Equally so for Gadaffi who probably would have had used a nuke against Benghasi if he had one, and there would be little anyone could do since it was internal. I don't think the US would have used a Nuke on Tripoli as retaliation for example.

nacho libre · 06-06-2012 11:54am

plasmaguy wrote: »

If the Americans and Israeli's believe Iran poses a serious national security risk, which they seem to do, then yes, its perfectly acceptable to use all forms of espionage.

You're quite right, just because America has a chequered record, along with Russia and China, doesn't mean Iran should have nuclear weapons.

However, again i ask you, why do you accept what Israeli and American politicians say at face value, when they've proven to be economical with the truth in the past in order to start conflicts?

Iran, for all the rhetoric of mad mullahs, have proven to be savy at maintaing their hold on power, i'm not inclined to believe they do something that would invite their own destruction. There is also the fact the Ayatollah has repeatedly ruled out the acquiring of nuclear weapons as unislamic. Fatwas are something that can't esily be rescinded under islam. Furthermore the view of the Israeli and America politicians, who insist that Iran is intent on building a nuclear weapon, is at odds with the assement of the American intelligence community. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/23/world/la-fg-iran-intel-20120224

hatrickpatrick · 06-06-2012 12:22pm

Do people think Iran has never heard of Mutually Assured Destruction, out of interest?

Iran knows bloody well that they can't use nukes on any of their close neighbours, OR on the US, without facing obliteration in response.
IMO any nuclear weapons program in Iran is for the purposes of deterrent, IE to prevent other countries from f*cking with them. If you look at Iran's history over the last several decades, this is neither unreasonable nor undesirable.

Remember that Iran wouldn't be so screwed up in the first place had it not been for a regime change and overthrow of democracy imposed by external forces. In that context, don't you think it's understandable that they'd want a trump card, to be able to say "just stay the hell away from us and leave us alone"?

I'm no fan of nukes, but I do believe in the old saying that if one side has them, the other side pretty much has to have them as well to avoid being trampled all over.

plasmaguy · 06-06-2012 1:11pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Do people think Iran has never heard of Mutually Assured Destruction, out of interest?

Iran knows bloody well that they can't use nukes on any of their close neighbours, OR on the US, without facing obliteration in response.
IMO any nuclear weapons program in Iran is for the purposes of deterrent, IE to prevent other countries from f*cking with them. If you look at Iran's history over the last several decades, this is neither unreasonable nor undesirable.

Remember that Iran wouldn't be so screwed up in the first place had it not been for a regime change and overthrow of democracy imposed by external forces. In that context, don't you think it's understandable that they'd want a trump card, to be able to say "just stay the hell away from us and leave us alone"?

I'm no fan of nukes, but I do believe in the old saying that if one side has them, the other side pretty much has to have them as well to avoid being trampled all over.

So would you be in favour of every country in the world having nukes just because they feel threathened by someone? That would be a recipe for disaster.

Iran has nothing to fear if it doesn't develop nuclear weapons and doesn't attack anyone. So why develop nuclear weapons then? It's illogical.

Venezuela for example is a country that has a lot to fear from America, should they be allowed develop nuclear weapons too?

What about Mexico, etc etc.

There are enough nuclear weapons in the world as is. This is not an issue of me being pro western or pro american or anything like that, its a case of being anti nuclear weapons and ensuring that as few nations as possible has them.

In my view only the 5 security council members should have them, that would be just about allowable.

As has been said, the fear with Iran is not so much them using the bomb but rogue elements in the country proliferating know-how and perhaps even a bomb.

hatrickpatrick · 06-06-2012 1:28pm

plasmaguy wrote: »

Iran has nothing to fear if it doesn't develop nuclear weapons and doesn't attack anyone. So why develop nuclear weapons then? It's illogical.

That's where your argument fails. You're talking about a country which has had its democratically elected government overthrown by the CIA in the not too distant past. I'm not in favour of anyone having nukes, but if that's what it takes for Iran to be able to properly defend itself and deter that kind of sh!te from happening again...

VinLieger · 06-06-2012 3:21pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's where your argument fails. You're talking about a country which has had its democratically elected government overthrown by the CIA in the not too distant past. I'm not in favour of anyone having nukes, but if that's what it takes for Iran to be able to properly defend itself and deter that kind of sh!te from happening again...

You completely ignored the very legitimate concern of Iran selling and/or proliferating the technology or bombs to non governmental forces(polite way of saying terrorists), or just radical factions within the iranian government running off with them

Eggy Baby! · 06-06-2012 4:11pm

Because China isn't a democracy and mass-murders people who ask for democracy such as in Tianamon Square maybe? Iran is little better and the real power lies with the un-elected clerics and army.

That's a pretty bad excuse to be especially suspicious of China- "Because they're not a democracy"

Iran has nothing to fear if it doesn't develop nuclear weapons and doesn't attack anyone. So why develop nuclear weapons then? It's illogical.

Because people listen to people who have nukes. Hence why the USA dropped them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki- for terror, to get unconditional surrender off the Japanese (the Japanese were willing to surrender anyway but that's beside the point).

If you were Iran, what would you do? One of your enemies is a massively nuclear-armed state who has surrounded you with military bases and armies and the other is essentially an extension of the former and is secretly harbouring vast amounts of nuclear warheads and has a documented history of pre-emptive aggression. Give them a gift basket and hope they play nice?
Build up your army only for it to be destroyed and routed in a pre-emptive strike in the first ten minutes? Become a democracy? (I'm being sarcastic)

KyussBishop · 06-06-2012 4:58pm

Catching up on some RSS feeds, here is a very relevant (and interesting) article touching on all aspects of discussion in this thread:
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/01/tough_guy_leaking/singleton/

hatrickpatrick · 06-06-2012 7:07pm

VinLieger wrote: »

You completely ignored the very legitimate concern of Iran selling and/or proliferating the technology or bombs to non governmental forces(polite way of saying terrorists), or just radical factions within the iranian government running off with them

Doesn't that fall under M.A.D too though? I don't think the Iranian government is quite stupid enough to do something that idiotic. They're not as primitive as people like to think, they'd have the common sense to see how dangerous that would be for themselves as much as their enemies. No?

plasmaguy · 06-06-2012 7:31pm

Iran is an ally of Russia by the way.

Let's imagine a scenario where Iran sells a bomb to a terrorist organisation, who explode it in the middle of London.

Then the US threathens Iran, although, in the days and weeks after no-one could be absolutely certain where the bomb came from. It could have come from Pakistan, India and so on, so bombing Iran could be premature.

Then the US threathens to bomb Iran in retaliation and Russia because they are allies of Iran, say they will stand up for Iran.

You are into WW3 terroritory.

So far the nuclear armed states have been pretty responsible when it comes to proliferation apart from a couple of Pakistani scientists.

Could we really say the same about Iran, a nation with close ties to any number of terrorist organisations committed to the destruction of Israel for one.

When or if there is a government in Iran that doesn't routintely say Israel should be wiped from the map, then maybe Iran could be trusted with a bomb.

But at the moment what most people see in Iran is a bunch of lunatics intent on getting the bomb at any price and not giving up that ambition even though their economy will be brought to its knees.

There are other and far cheaper ways to develop peaceful nuclear power if that is what Iran really wants, and the main one is to buy already enriched fuel from nuclear states.

The middle east is the most volatile region in the world and you really want to limit nuclear proliferation in that region. While Israel having nuclear weapons is not ideal, allowing more countries do the same is not an attractive proposition to say the least.

If Iran gets the bomb, Iraq will want one, then Kuwait, then SA, then the UAE, Qatar and so on.

plasmaguy · 06-06-2012 7:42pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Doesn't that fall under M.A.D too though? I don't think the Iranian government is quite stupid enough to do something that idiotic. They're not as primitive as people like to think, they'd have the common sense to see how dangerous that would be for themselves as much as their enemies. No?

They are allied with Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and a number of other terrorist organisations and countries in the region and have said they are committed to destroying Israel.

Secondly, these organisations, Hezbollah for example, wouldn't even have to use the bomb, just the threat alone would be enough. You could find a situation where a Lebonan government already strongly influenced by Hezbollah decide to arm themselves with a bomb.

In a couple of years Iran might have a couple hundred nukes pointing at Europe, including western Europe.

As for the suggestion the Iranians aren't nuts, etc, its run by clerics who believe martyrdom is the way to heaven, so I don't think they'd care too much if they were killed or not just so long as they got in the first strike.

The whole middle east is full of terrorist nutjobs.

Eggy Baby! · 06-06-2012 7:59pm

When or if there is a government in Iran that doesn't routintely say Israel should be wiped from the map, then maybe Iran could be trusted with a bomb.

Actually that was a commonly quoted mistranslation by Ahmadinejad. He said: ""the regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"", I believe: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/the-biggest-lie-told-to-t_b_70248.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jun/14/post155

[In a couple of years Iran might have a couple hundred nukes pointing at Europe, including western Europe. /QUOTE]

That's absolutely ludicrous scaremongering.

If Iran gets the bomb, Iraq will want one, then Kuwait, then SA, then the UAE, Qatar and so on.

Most of those are puppets of the USA.

plasmaguy · 06-06-2012 8:20pm

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

That's absolutely ludicrous scaremongering.

There's little point having only a few nuclear weapons to be honest, as you said yourself, if they used one, they'd be wiped out by the rest unless they had enough to ensure a M.A.D. situation.

Once they get one, there is nothing to stop Iran from making more and and more, nothing at all, please be realistic about that, and because it is a highly secretive country, we wouldn't even know how many they had.

A belief that Iran would stop making nukes after they had built a few or even a few dozen is naive in the extreme. Even a few dozen would not be a nice thought.

By the way, Iran is not a proper democracy, the real power lies with the clerics and the Army to a lesser degree. The president has some power, but even then its limited and elections tend to be rigged as the last one was leading to bloody crackdowns against peaceful protesters. A lot of Iranians are not happy with the state the country is in and would like to see a proper democracy, not one ran by the clerics.

Eggy Baby! · 06-06-2012 10:58pm

By the way, Iran is not a proper democracy, the real power lies with the clerics and the Army to a lesser degree. The president has some power, but even then its limited and elections tend to be rigged as the last one was leading to bloody crackdowns against peaceful protesters. A lot of Iranians are not happy with the state the country is in and would like to see a proper democracy, not one ran by the clerics.

I know that. What relevance does that have to the nuclear situation?

Once they get one, there is nothing to stop Iran from making more and and more, nothing at all, please be realistic about that, and because it is a highly secretive country, we wouldn't even know how many they had.

Except of course, money. Iran would simply go bankrupt.

Channel Zero · 07-06-2012 1:12am

I'm not really surprised OP.

Although it is an act of war and illegal under international law, and of course total hypocricy on their behalf as usual, if it means stalling the hardliners in AIPAC somewhat and if it contributes to stopping Romney getting in, perhaps it's the least worst 'option' at the moment.

VinLieger · 07-06-2012 1:18am

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

I know that. What relevance does that have to the nuclear situation?
Except of course, money. Iran would simply go bankrupt.

Its relevant since they would be the ones with the finger on the button, religious zealots who advocate suicide with their own nukes? yeah how could that possibly be a bad thing?
And on the money issue, so they go broke making one, im sure they could easily find someone willing to buy the tech off them.

Channel Zero · 07-06-2012 1:30am

There are plenty of religious zealots itching for war in this world. And they're not 'evil mooslems' believe it or not.

wes · 07-06-2012 9:57am

VinLieger wrote: »

religious zealots who advocate suicide with their own nukes?

I am sure you can show a statement where anyone in power in Iran has said that, right? Your not just making that up, surely you can back that up with a clear statement from the supreme leader of Iran, where he advocates such a policy..........

VinLieger · 07-06-2012 2:30pm

wes wrote: »

I am sure you can show a statement where anyone in power in Iran has said that, right? Your not just making that up, surely you can back that up with a clear statement from the supreme leader of Iran, where he advocates such a policy..........

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-4709371-503543.html

Iran's supreme leader apologized to extremists from Iran's Islamic student movement Friday for not being able let them travel to the Gaza Strip to become suicide bombers in the fight against Israel.

If he was against it he would come out and say it except he just apologises by saying we cant let you go there to do this right now.

wes · 07-06-2012 2:50pm

VinLieger wrote: »

If he was against it he would come out and say it except he just apologises by saying we cant let you go there to do this right now.

Very clever, I see what you did there. You said the following:

VinLieger wrote: »

religious zealots who advocate suicide with their own nukes?

No mention of nuking anyone in that article. You provided a link that doesn't back up your claims of anyone advocating suicide using nuclear weapons, which is what I asked for proof of.

Its something you clearly made up.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 07-06-2012 2:52pm

he clearly meant he doesnt like the idea of religious zealots who advocate suicide having their own nukes, there is no way you did not get that.

wes · 07-06-2012 2:56pm

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

he clearly meant he doesnt like the idea of religious zealots who advocate suicide having their own nukes, there is no way you did not get that.

No, I clearly didn't get that. It seems pretty clear to me that the claim was that Iran would use nuclear weapons.

Maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick on this, if thats the case, then I apologise.

plasmaguy · 07-06-2012 3:29pm

wes wrote: »

Very clever, I see what you did there. You said the following:

No mention of nuking anyone in that article. You provided a link that doesn't back up your claims of anyone advocating suicide using nuclear weapons, which is what I asked for proof of.

Its something you clearly made up.

So you're fine with an Iran allied with Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria and several other terrorist gangs, having nukes? You're ok with that.

Nukes are not something you can roll back by the way. Once a country has them, that's it, they have them for good.

You're ok with Iran having them then?

You do realise that governments like Syria and Iran have vast underground and secured bunkers so that even in the event of a nuclear strike against their county the clerics and the government of these countries would survive. I doubt they would care too much about the ordinary citizen on the street.

Don't you get that the clerics of Iran are nuts?

Anyone else surprised that Stuxnet isn't getting more attention?

Comments