Nuclear Training Software Downloaded To Iran

SixFactor sends in word of a theft of training software for a nuclear plant. An ex-employee of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, in Arizona, allegedly downloaded training software to his laptop while he was in Iran. The software was downloaded from a Maryland-based contractor to the nuclear plant. It contained information about the Palo Verde facility: control rooms, reactors, and design. It was used to simulate situations for training at the site. Why the ex-engineer downloaded the software is not known. What is troubling is this person's ability to access the software after his employment at the site ended.

Comments

Yawn.

[Black Parrot]

Got to make sure everyone is scared of the Iranians, so there won't be an outcry when the bombing starts.

Re:Yawn.

[Kandenshi]

from TFA:

Federal authorities have said the incident did not pose a security risk, and there is no evidence the Iranian government was involved. The information contained on the software was not classified or top-secret, APS officials said.
Well, then I'm not too scared. They did a pretty crummy job of whipping me into a frenzied lust for Iranian blood if they're also telling me that it was just crap that he got ahold of. And that he wasn't neccessarily working for the Iranian government.

Re:Yawn.

[timeOday]

Speaking of which, did you know in the 1970s the US was actively assisting Iran in developing nuclear power, including bringing their nuclear scientists over to train at MIT? Those scientists now form the backbone of Iran's program. Given the stagnation of nuclear power science and technology since then (especially in the US), that knowledge is still very pertinent.

None of which is to say I'd like Iran to go nuclear, nor do I believe their claim of only being interested in power generation (after watching what happened to their neighbor, there's simply no way Iran could not want that protection).

Re:Yawn.

[arivanov]

So what if he was?

Playing the devil advocate - I would rather have them manage their nuclear stations safely correctly and being properly trained then having yet another Chernobyl. So if their nuclear espionage stays within the limit of nicking our safety training software for a nuclear plant I would say: Spy more please. And do it more successfully. Please. Pretty please...

Comment about Freshman Democrat Mitchell

[Antony-Kyre]

It disturbs me that this politician is being quoted as saying that Iran is dead-set on developing a nuclear weapon when there is absolutely no proof that is happening. That would be like saying that Iraq had weapons of mass destructions.

Re:Which bombing?

[xero314]

You need to wake up to what a nuclear equipped Iran means to the world. What, that there will be one more country free from the threat of US invasion. Guess I don't see the down side. The only country to ever use nuclear weaponry is the USA, and no mater how insane we may thing other world leaders are, the out cry that country such and such would be a threat if they had nuclear capability has yet to come true. It might also mean that certain countries stop wasting resources on the defense of an artificially established nation.

Which one?

[ms1234]

Would it be Nucular or Nuclear? If it's the first, then I'm not worried.

Re:None of them were bat-shit insane

[Tickletaint]

Eh? Where are you getting this idea that Iran's leadership is insane? I have yet to read a credible source that gives me any particular reason to think Iran would be stupid enough to initiate nuclear attack. The mullahs are religious, Ahmadinejad hates on Israel—so what? Plenty of Israeli politicians still want to see the Palestinian Authority wiped out. Frankly, maybe a nuclear-armed Iran is exactly what Israeli moderates need to get their government to stop pissing off its neighbors in the Middle East with such impunity.

Consider the time, though.

[Kadin2048]

Well, that's really not too hard to believe -- up until 1978, when the current bunch of crackpots took over, Iran was a fairly strong U.S. ally in the region. Which isn't to say that the Shah was exactly a nice fellow that you'd want to invite over for dinner, but that GE and Westinghouse were working to sell nuclear-power stuff there isn't as untoward as it might sound. It's just like U.S. corporations doing business in China right now. Sure, they may be a bunch of despicable despots, but they're despicable despots allied with us.

The Iranian Revolution is a little before my time, so I'm not sure exactly what the zeitgeist in the U.S. was when it happened, but it certainly seems like we got caught with our pants down -- I mean, we had all those people in the embassy that got caught, because we didn't pull them out before the shit hit the fan; I don't know if that was just the Carter administration being typically asleep at the switch, or if nobody suspected things were deteriorating that quickly, but in either case, it explains why, a few years previously, nobody was really thinking too hard about selling them crap (particularly not when it would have brought a few billion bucks to the U.S, which at the time was seriously rusting). Plus, anything to keep them on our side instead of going over to the Soviets for their nuclear needs -- it's not as though they would have had (or have had, since) much compunction about selling reactors to anyone with the hard currency to buy them.

When viewed in the context of the period, the U.S. actions may have been a little shortsighted, but they're not as bald-facedly hypocritical as some people today like to make them seem.

Ultimately, the critical mistake of U.S. policy during the latter part of the 20th century was to think that the enemy of our Enemy (and that's how we really seemed to think about it; Enemy with a capital 'E,' that's E that rhymes with C and that stands for Communism) was our friend. In time, I think we're going to look back on the halcyon days of the Cold War with nostalgia, when we had an enemy who was basically rational and we could sit down over a negotiating table and talk to, or pull out a map and point at.

Re:Consider the time, though.

[Kadin2048]

I'm with you on pretty much everything you said. Only thing I'd point out is that India didn't use the NPT in quite the way I think you're suggesting -- they were never a signatory to it in the first place, and thus opted out from any assistance from the west, in return for never promising not to make weapons.

That was sort of the deal behind the NPT: sign it, agree to no bombs, and we'll help you build a peaceful programme -- just sign on the dotted line and Westinghouse will be there on Monday, basically; the alternative is to not sign, get left out of the nuke-power club, and do what you can on your own, locked out from the rest of the world.

India basically chose the second path, although because they're good allies with the West, they did end up getting a certain amount of assistance in various indirect forms (and I think in the near future they'll probably be buying Uranium from NPT countries like Australia, even though that ought to be against the rules). So they were never under any formal obligation not to build weapons, and no U.S. or other NPT-country firms can build reactors there as a result.

I think the era of the NPT is almost to an end. What India showed is that it's possible for a country to develop nukes entirely on its own, without Western assistance. Now that it's happened, the NPT countries are going to be the ones breaking the rules, because with the cat out of the bag, they're just losing money by not being in on the plant-building in non-NPT countries. You can bet that GE and Westinghouse would really like to get in on India's new plants, and they're going to be lobbying pretty hard to do it.

Re:Consider the time, though.

[wannabgeek]

All of which is utterly laughable given the way India, Pakistan and now North Korea and Iran have stayed in the NPT long enough to build up a domestic nuclear industry and then quit just before detonating their first bomb.

FYI - India never signed the NPT, nor did Pakistan. NPT is a discriminatory agreement by any standard. There were no commitments from the nuclear nations about disarmament but bound the non-nuclear members to commitments that they would always be unarmed.

Re:Consider the time, though.

[saforrest]

I think we're going to look back on the halcyon days of the Cold War with nostalgia, when we had an enemy who was basically rational and we could sit down over a negotiating table and talk to, or pull out a map and point at.

I think you're generally being pretty reasonable in your post, but I think with this last bit, particularly "basically rational", you're just buying into the conventional propaganda line.

Sure, there are no shortage of religious zealots who are raving lunatics. But people like this have always been created by a larger political context of rational political opposition — even the original Zealot, from which we get our term for hysterical and unreasoning devotion to a cause, lived at a time when there were a lot of reasons why Jews might not like Romans so much.

I think the thing that makes the Cold War distinct from the current situation is the level of mutual understanding, at least at the level of leadership. Both sides in the Cold War more or less understood how its opponents' power structures worked and could be manipulated. In the current conflict, partly through willing ignorance that understanding just isn't there to the same degree: I just don't get the sense that most of the American authorities in Iraq could tell you about what distinguishes Shia from Sunni, for instance, or the historical context of the dispute over the Shatt al-Arab.

The consequence is that the other side acts in "unexpected" ways, which are then described as "irrational".

Re:Consider the time, though.

[Opportunist]

Erh... just one correction. The borders drawn in the near east were completely arbitrary. The winners (read: European imperial nations) simply cut lines into the map, not caring about tribal borders or local population. That's one of the reasons why there are ethnic groups (like the Kurds) that are split up by borders running exactly through their lands.

There was nothing "fixed". Actually that drawing of borders was the beginning of the sabre-rattling in the area. The local population fought alongside the allies in WW1 for their freedom and got another occupying force instead. Wouldn't you kinda hate your "liberators" in that case? We cheated 'em!

Re:Consider the time, though.

[bm_luethke]

"Which isn't to say that the Shah was exactly a nice fellow that you'd want to invite over for dinner, but that GE and Westinghouse were working to sell nuclear-power stuff there isn't as untoward as it might sound."

The Shah himself wasn't that bad - at least compared to the normal rulers in that region (by our standards he sucked big time). I've never been that angry we supported him, more angry in how our support materialized. Enough to keep him in power with no opposition, but then dropping it at the first opportunity for a radical anti-western violent govt.

"I don't know if that was just the Carter administration being typically asleep at the switch, or if nobody suspected things were deteriorating that quickly,"

There is a little bit of all of that. Like most intelligence failures you can not blame it on one point and you can also point to people who "knew" what was going on (whether they actually knew or were just lucky is up to debate - same thing with Iraq's WMD program). Not a big fan of Carter presidency - in fact I think his handling of the hostages was horrid. However, the buildup to it - eh. Reasonable assumption, grossly incorrect. We will most likely never know exactly all the information he had (and the level of verifiability of it) so *really* difficult to answer the level of incompetence on his end.

"Ultimately, the critical mistake of U.S. policy during the latter part of the 20th century was to think that the enemy of our Enemy (and that's how we really seemed to think about it; Enemy with a capital 'E,' that's E that rhymes with C and that stands for Communism) was our friend."

You can not really call it "shortsighted" - that assumes too much. At the time it wasn't just communism or capitalism (depending on your side) but total annihilation due to a nuclear war. In that light the Islamic Fundamentalism we are seeing, while bad, is a candle to the flame - at least at this point. I can not say we necessarily made the wrong decisions, nor can I say we made the correct ones. I will say that though failure was much more extreme I think we also had a MUCH larger percentage chance of success - as one of the saying goes about counting on the fact that the Russian/Americans love their children as much as we do - the people we are currently fighting celebrate death. We hope that enough of them love their children as much as we do and can stop them - otherwise we are screwed regardless of what we do (short of genocide against radical Islam and if it comes to that that we see the difference between radical and non-radical).

Re:Consider the time, though.

[Richard_at_work]

Article IV of the NPT has an obligation for nuclear weapon states to reduce their nuclear weapons stocks to a point where disarmament is a conclusion. NWS signatories have not held to this obligation as they have no final plans for total disarmament.

Contradictory statements

[megamerican]

From this article and another article it appears that the media and officials are saying two different things. At the beginning of the article I linked it says that he downloaded designs for control rooms, reactors, etc, but later in the article a statement from public officials says that only training software was taken. There is a HUGE difference between designs and training software. The beginning paragraph is extremely misleading and overstating the problem. I don't see how getting a hold of training software will get Iran any further along in developing a nuclear reactor.

This is from the article I linked. "The investigation has not led us to believe this information was taken for the purpose of being used by a foreign government or terrorists to attack us," said Deborah McCarley, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Phoenix. "This does not appear to be terrorist-related." AZCentral is more concerned with reactions from politicians think about something they know no more about than any of us.

Why is AZCentral interviewing politicians about this case and not people involved in the investigation? AZC doesn't even mention that Palo Verde has already changed their system to not let anyone gain access to any files after they are no longer employed by them. This story really isn't a big deal. If he was able to steal classified information on designs of a nuclear reactor, that'd be one thing, but this is just another case of the media trying to make it a bigger deal than it really is.

Re:None of them were bat-shit insane

[Tickletaint]

You have to separate rhetoric from hard-nosed pragmatic reality. American foreign policy in recent years (particularly, I hate to say it, since the present administration began replacing knowledgeable experts in Middle Eastern policy with morons with little understanding of regional nuance, culture, or even language) seems to mistake the populist bluster of Islamist politicians for real intent to obliterate Israel. This is rubbish. Iran is not suicidal. Its leadership is not composed of fools with death wishes.

You want a nation with nuclear capabilities that actually is run by a psychopath, you'll have to look outside the Middle East for that.

troubling

[__aahlyu4518]

"What is troubling is this person's ability to access the software after his employment at the site ended."

Sure, he shouldn't have had access anymore. But how much more secure would that have been. If you're employed there, you can download it. And you would still have it after your employment ends.

People are overly concerned with security, to a degree that it is becoming rediculous.
If people can read it, hear it or see it, it can be reproduced to a non-secure form anyway.
Sure, you must have ways to make it more difficult/near impossible to get there without inside help, but don't get silly.

.Torrent?

[KoldKompress]

Anyone got the .torrent to the software?
for.. training purposes. You know.

Re:None of them were bat-shit insane

[quantaman]

I mean realistically, what actual irrational actions have they taken?

Carting british sailors off was one thing that wasn't particularily rational, at any stage of the operation. In the end it gave them some very positive media results but it could have gone very badly very quickly just as easily. It was risky for sure but I think it was a calculated risk. For one I do think the risk of an indicent was fairly low, they specifically targeted the British and knew the British rules of engagement, chances are they were given orders not to open fire, or if the capture did turn into a shootout both sides would probably look for a way to avoid war (a large conflict is in the interests of neither country). As for benefits they wanted to warn the British and Americans from going too close to their waters, and I suspect they accomplished that. The final reason is a fairly familiar one. Ahmadinejad was elected, the Iranian parliament is elected, now they don't have the final say in government and candidates need to be approved to run for office, but from what I can tell the Iranian elections themselves are fair. Thus like any western election Iranian politicians need to watch the polls, and Ahmadinejad isn't particularly popular since the economy isn't doing very well, thus the British hostage show was probably very much designed to help his polling numbers, not the purest of motives but as rational as many western politicians.

As to them trying to obtain a Nuke I really doubt that any of those nukes will be used. First they know if they ever use any of them on Israel the US will push the button as well, and then the US will invade and make sure they kill every member of the regime they can find to set an example. Open Nuclear conflict isn't in Iran's interest anymore than anyone else

I think if someone says they really don't care if someone destroys them, as long as thier ideals are promoted, you have to take them somewhat seriously when they mix those words with nuclear weapons I'm not 100% sure they would use them but I think the likleyhood is honestly grater than 50% because it achieves many long-term goals. I'd put it more at about 15%. At the end of the day I really think the rhetoric is just rhetoric. I find it disturbing that that's the kind of rhetoric that the people want to hear but I doubt that many Iranians actually want a nuclear conflict. As to their long term goals I really don't think it does much for them. The only thing I can think of is that the elimination of Isreal is probably necessary for the Islamic superstate but I think they still have enough other problems (including the Sunni/Shia split) that they realize it's not worth it.

I am ever more sure that if there is a limited exchange between Iran and Israel there will not be any attack from the US or any other country in response. Why would there be when those countries had lready pounded the heck out of each other? In that sense it seems like we wouldn't need to be concerned if you were a total isolationalist, but even then you have to be concerned about the effect on the climate and just sheer human suffering if nothing else. I don't think Iran has that much interest in a direct conflict with Israel, at the end of the day there aren't really many tangible benefits that Iran gains with the elimination of Irsael. In fact I think that the existance of Israel actually causes the rest of the middle east to rally around Iran as a kind of champion, thus Iran has to talk big to keep their respect but taking actual action doesn't really help them.

Didn't the p5 keep their obligations under NPT?

[jeswin]

This is ironical, since one of the provisions of the NPT was assistance and technology transfer to non-nuclear states for peaceful purposes in return for their undertaking not acquiring nukes. Iran should not have to obtain such data clandestinely (That too, and operation manual!). The reality is that nuclear weapon states (P5) has done little to transfer technology , and even less on their commitment to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

Btw, the NPT is flawed and fundamentally flawed. Discriminatory to the naivest, I am not sure how anyone could even suggest something like - 'I CAN, but you sire, CANNOT'. Justice and equality.

What is needed is complete disarmament, or transfer of nukes to common control against possibly an asteroid or comet. Until then, I refuse to say that some nukes are good and some are bad.

Murderous Dictator is the word you're looking for

[Nicolas MONNET]

Which isn't to say that the Shah was exactly a nice fellow that you'd want to invite over for dinner,

Shah was a murderous dictator, he was put in place in 1953 when the CIA deposed democratically elected Mossadegh.

Gee, you've gotta wonder why they're not such big fans of the US of A.

Re:Yawn

[arivanov]

While Israel has been in numerous wars, they've never initiated a war .

Nope.

1956 - Israel invades Egypt jointly with France and UK to take over the recently nationalised Suez Canal. So the truth is that Israel invaded a neighbouring country first, unprovoked and for solely mercantile reasons. From there on it was a more or less tit-for-tat affair all the way to the 70-es.

Enemy of the enemy? Heh.

[Moraelin]

You know, much as I can enjoy a piece of revisionist bullshit, I just have to rain on your parrade there. There are a ton of countries, Iran included, where the USA didn't just happen to have a friend, but actually installed a puppet dictator. The Shah was only your friend because a bloody CIA coup deposed the democratically elected government and installed him. _Again_. That's all.

And understanding that, also gives you the key as to why those people hate you now. It's not just some people that inexplicably forgot their old friendships, it's some people who hate you for what you did to them. That pseudo-friendship only lasted as long as the USA-installed puppet lasted. The dictator might have been your faithful puppet friend, but the people ended up hating not only him, but also the foreign power that installed and kept him in power. Gee, big surprise there. And as soon as they managed to free them of him, by brutal revolt, gee, who would have guessed that they're no longer your friends? Completely unexpected surprise that ;)

And, generally, if we're talking about that period, the USA was bloody active installing and backing dictators left and right. That's champions of democracy at work for ya. Sure preferred a brutal tyrant to an elected government. _Especially_ if that government happened to be left wing or get in the way of western colonial interests.

It started right after WWII, e.g.,

- South Korea: got saddled with an inept totalitarian regime, where the "president" hadn't even lived in Korea before. Just because, god forbid, you can't let them maybe vote for a left-wing government. (The current favourite was actually left wing.) Got to give them our version of "democracy" instead.

- Vietnam: the USA actually prevented them from holding democratic elections and backed an inept dictator instead. Again, out of fear that the left might win.

And it continued throughout the 20'th century, with some of the most brutal third world dictators installed or helped by the USA. If you happen to be on our side, here, let us teach you how to torture and terrorize dissidents. And god forbid if you happen to _not_ be on our side. Then we'll stage a coup and replace you with some puppet that's on our side. And teach _him_ how to torture and terrorize disidents.

Gee, I wonder why a lot of people ended up hating the USA. You'd think they'd appreciate the support and training it gave to their dictator's secret police more.

Re:Let's tone down the hysteria a notch or two

[moeinvt]

"There are literally thousands of nuclear 'accidents', ranging from thousands of tonnes of highly radioactive water . . . transport accidents, to thefts, to black market transactions by power plant workers."

Thousands? Don't you think that's exaggerating a bit? In addition, the term "nuclear accident" conjures up images of Chernobyl, by far the worst and unrepresentative "accident". Wikipedia lists maybe "dozens" with a continuum of severity stretching almost to the realm of insignificance. The paranoia about such things is probably justifiable, but classifying the following as a "nuclear accident" seems like quite a stretch.

"February 15, 2000 - The Indian Point nuclear power plant's reactor 2 in Buchanan, New York, vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a steam generator tube failed. No detectable radioactivity was observed offsite."

You're talking about "thousands of tons of water", these guys are talking about a "small amount of steam", and the article is talking about some training software. I think we're letting political FUD and media hype obscure rational thinking. Mention "nucular" and "Iran" and you've got the story for the day.

Re:Murderous Dictator is the word you're looking f

[b0s0z0ku]

People don't own something just because they were born within 300 miles of it. Before the Western oil companies sank hundreds of millions of dollars into the area in order to develop that oil, it didn't exist -- not in any meaningful way.

That's a problem to be solved by international arbitration, NOT by deposing democratically elected leaders and putting thuggish princelings back in power. Not just from a humanitarian standpoint, but from a pragmatic one as well -- the coup against Mossadegh lead to the 1979 revolution, which lead to the 80s Iran-Iraq war in which we armed Hussein's Iraq, which lead to a strong Iraq that could bully Kuwait... etc. And now it's 2007 and we're mired in the Iraqi situation.

-b.