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

plasmaguy

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

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

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!

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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!

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

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

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

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

wes

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

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

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

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

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

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?

wes

plasmaguy wrote: »

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

Not really, but the moment nuclear weapons were brought into the region, it will be only a matter of time before someone else gets them. The current situation of some having weapons and others not having them is in the long term unsustainable. Its only a matter of time, before someone else gets such weapons.

Still, I remain unconvinced of a active Iranian nuclear weapons program. They have even stated point blank its against there Religion, and since there a clerical regime, they kind of have to stick to that, or lose credibility, or come up with one hell of reason for violating one of there own Religous edicts.

plasmaguy wrote: »

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

Well, except for South Africa, who gave them up.

plasmaguy wrote: »

You're ok with Iran having them then?

No, but there not building any, and I don't concern myself with claims from basically the same people who made the exact same claims in regard to Iraq. There either liars or incompetent.

plasmaguy wrote: »

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.

Well, firstly I have no idea what you are now bringing Syria into this. Are you suggesting they have a nuclear weapons program?

Also, I am sure you can provide evidence that the leaders of Syria and Iran would have no issues, with most of the population being killed in a nuclear war. Of course, there isn't even convincing evidence of nuclear weapons program for Iran, and I don't think even the US are making any claims about a Syrian nuclear weapons program.

plasmaguy wrote: »

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

I am sure you perfectly qualified to make that statement. Still, as crazy as they may be, the clerics have said that nuclear weapons are forbidden under there branch of Shia Islam.

plasmaguy

wes wrote: »

Not really, but the moment nuclear weapons were brought into the region, it will be only a matter of time before someone else gets them. The current situation of some having weapons and others not having them is in the long term unsustainable. Its only a matter of time, before someone else gets such weapons.

Still, I remain unconvinced of a active Iranian nuclear weapons program. They have even stated point blank its against there Religion, and since there a clerical regime, they kind of have to stick to that, or lose credibility, or come up with one hell of reason for violating one of there own Religous edicts.



Well, except for South Africa, who gave them up.



No, but there not building any, and I don't concern myself with claims from basically the same people who made the exact same claims in regard to Iraq. There either liars or incompetent.



Well, firstly I have no idea what you are now bringing Syria into this. Are you suggesting they have a nuclear weapons program?

Also, I am sure you can provide evidence that the leaders of Syria and Iran would have no issues, with most of the population being killed in a nuclear war. Of course, there isn't even convincing evidence of nuclear weapons program for Iran, and I don't think even the US are making any claims about a Syrian nuclear weapons program.



I am sure you perfectly qualified to make that statement. Still, as crazy as they may be, the clerics have said that nuclear weapons are forbidden under there branch of Shia Islam.

They are not building any? They better not be for all our sakes!

No-one gives a damn about if Iran's rights were infringed or not, seriously.

Iran aquiring nuclear weapons would be a complete nightmare not just for the middle east but with the very real risk of proliferation for the whole world. They are allied with so many nutjobs the world over, Al Sadr of Iraq, Hezbolah, Hamas, and so on, all of who are violent anti western zealots and who have no problem dying for their religion, in fact they see it as a great honour.

It would be uttterly stupid for western intelligence agencies to take the Iranians at their word and not make every effort to find out what they are doing and if they intend to build nukes.

Lets worry about childish concerns about who spies on who another time.

troposphere

wes wrote: »

Well, firstly I have no idea what you are now bringing Syria into this. Are you suggesting they have a nuclear weapons program?

The Israeli's bombed it a few years ago

IAEA: Syria site bombed by Israel 'was likely nuclear'

A Syrian site bombed by Israeli jets in 2007 was "very likely" a nuclear reactor, the UN's atomic watchdog says.

BBC

wes

troposphere wrote: »

The Israeli's bombed it a few years ago

So they don't actually have a program then, what with it being blown up......

plasmaguy

Wes, you are very naive, that's all I will say.

wes

plasmaguy wrote: »

They are not building any? They better not be for all our sakes!

They don't have active nuclear weapons program. Also, even if they did, while it certainly wouldn't be a good thing, its hardly the end of the world.

plasmaguy wrote: »

No-one gives a damn about if Iran's rights were infringed or not, seriously.

I think the Iranians give a damn, and Russia and China have blocked anymore UN sanction, also seem to give a damn. Also, India is still trading with them, via various work arounds, to avoid unilateral US and EU sanctions.

plasmaguy wrote: »

Iran aquiring nuclear weapons would be a complete nightmare not just for the middle east but with the very real risk of proliferation for the whole world.

Nice hyperbole right there. While Iran getting weapons isn't a good thing, the fact remains there is no weapons program.

plasmaguy wrote: »

They are allied with so many nutjobs the world over, Al Sadr of Iraq, Hezbolah, Hamas, and so on, all of who are violent anti western zealots and who have no problem dying for their religion, in fact they see it as a great honour.

There hardly the only people allied with deeply unpleasant people. A lot of the people with Nuclear weapons are similarly aligned with deeply unpleasant sorts and the world is still here. Nonetheless, there is still no such program, so nothing to worry about.

plasmaguy wrote: »

It would be uttterly stupid for western intelligence agencies to take the Iranians at their word and not make every effort to find out what they are doing and if they intend to build nukes.

There a clerical regime, so invoking religious law and going back on that would be disastrous for the regime. The West likes to bang on about it being a clerical regime, when it suits, but then ignores it, when its inconvenient for them. Ignoring the nature of the regime, when it suits is imho evidence of people who want war regardless of the reality of the situation.

Also US intelligence has said there not building a weapon:
U.S. Says Iran Ended Atomic Arms Work
Special Report: Intel shows Iran nuclear threat not imminent

So even what is surely hugely biased US intelligence doesn't seem to believe there is an active nuclear weapons program.

plasmaguy wrote: »

Lets worry about childish concerns about who spies on who another time.

Hardly childish concerns as you put it. Also, its bit more than spying, what with sabotage, backing terrorists, and the murder of civilian nuclear scientists. All of those things are deeply dangerous and could kick off a very real war in the region, as opposed to the US latest claims of imaginary WMDs.

Such a war may result in Iran actually starting a weapons program.

wes

plasmaguy wrote: »

Wes, you are very naive, that's all I will say.

The only people who are naive, are those who believe the same liars who brought, us the utterly disastrous Iraq war, that resulted in a great deal of death and destruction. Now, some seem to be eager for a repeat of that disaster, but personally I am against it.

Look, I am under no illusions about the Iranian regime. There really rather brutal.

However, I am under no illusions about the West either, who are pretty damn brutal themselves, and are just as happy as Iran, to torture, murder and support terrorists, when it suits there interests.

There are no good or bad guys, just various people who want power with competing interests, who are all perfectly capable of killing when it suits.

Eggy Baby!

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.

So the Iranian regime would nuke America/Israel then chill out underground while there is a retaliation, and then surface? I know you seem to hate the Iranian regime but nobody wants to see their own people die for no reason whatsoever- in the case of the regime it would be their fellow Muslims who are dying for no purpose whatsoever. Nobody, even Hitler, is that crazy/stupid.

And Iran is building nukes because it is isolated and the prospect of war with it is being bandied around freely by the West and Israel. It is not a prospect of when or if there will be war with Iran, but how. Its government has been overthrown by the CIA/MI5 in the past so it has every reason to feel isolated. Why would Iran give away its only bargaining chip to terrorist groups?

cyberhog

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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?

Now it seems Israel wants the credit for creating Stuxnet.

Last week The New York Times published a story claiming that the US administration was behind the the development and deployment of Stuxnet. Israel, it appears, begs to differ.

read more: http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/view/26241/stuxnet-was-our-idea-says-israel