Slashdot Mirror


Stuxnet Virus Set Back Iran’s Nuclear Program by 2 Years

masterwit writes "The Jpost article states: 'The Stuxnet virus, which has attacked Iran's nuclear facilities and which Israel is suspected of creating, has set back the Islamic Republic's nuclear program by two years, a top German computer consultant who was one of the first experts to analyze the program's code told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday. Widespread speculation has named Israel's Military Intelligence Unit 8200, known for its advanced Signal Intelligence (SIGINT) capabilities, as the possible creator of the software, as well as the United States.'"

349 comments

  1. And the winner is... by jav1231 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Stuxnet Virus Set Back Iran’s Nuclear Program by 2 Years...LOIC set Mastercard back 2 hours. Advantage, Stuxnet!

    1. Re:And the winner is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but... ANONYMOUS gets to wear the Guy Fawkes masks popularized by the book and film V for Vendetta!

    2. Re:And the winner is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stuxnet Virus Set Back Iran’s Nuclear Program by 2 Years...LOIC set Mastercard back 2 hours. Advantage, Stuxnet!

      Oh come on, they're in different leagues... like the American vs. Canadian militaries.

    3. Re:And the winner is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean,

      Stuxnet 1
      L.O.I.C. 0

      We're just getting started my friend!

    4. Re:And the winner is... by jav1231 · · Score: 4, Funny

      So did you write Stuxnet or are you running LOIC? If the later might I suggest going outside. I mean just to see it.

    5. Re:And the winner is... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >>Stuxnet Virus Set Back Iran's Nuclear Program by 2 Years...LOIC set Mastercard back 2 hours. Advantage, Stuxnet!

      Nah, Jimmy Carter set back the US nuclear program by 30 years by banning breeder reactors. Advantage: Carter, by a long mile. Well, Clinton can take some of the blame too, for killing the IFR over the protests of Dirty Dick Durbin, amazingly enough.

      I mean, good thing we never built breeder reactors, right? If we had, Iran might have a nuclear program by now, using stolen American plutonium!

      (You know all the political mess we are in over waste products, and how California has banned new nuclear until the waste issue is resolved? Breeder reactors use nuclear 'waste' as fuel, burning over 99% of the fuel, instead of the 1% or so efficiency we get from traditional PWR/BWR reactors. IFRs can also burn depleted uranium, and weapons-grade plutonium.)

    6. Re:And the winner is... by Agent__Smith · · Score: 0

      Stopping master card for 2 hours, 200 million dollars
      Stopping a throwback from the 14th century from getting nuclear weapons...
      PRICELESS

      To whoever did this, My hat is off to you. Nicely done. The world owes you a great debt.

      --
      "It seems that we are at the age where life stops giving us things, and starts taking them away..." Indiana Jones
    7. Re:And the winner is... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Stuxnet Virus Set Back Iran's Nuclear Program by 2 Years...LOIC set Mastercard back 2 hours. Advantage, Stuxnet!

      Err, thats "two Jerusalem Post Years", which are sort of like the "Iraqi Information Minister's Years", so in reality it was probably a tie.

      Weake up people. Jerusalem Post is a mouthpiece of Israel's far, far right. Those are the same turkeys who believe in Greater Israel and the like. In their view, should Stuxnet not be handily around to embellish on, they would have to fall back on to their old standby canard of "God's finger" slowing the Iranian centrifuges directly to protect his Jewish children ...

      They make Fox News look downright fair and balanced!

    8. Re:And the winner is... by IB4Student · · Score: 2

      Except that they didn't actually stop Master Card. Just the site was down -- nothing in regards to the actual cards or transactions were affected. So, for two hours, the few people who needed to find an ATM and decided to try using master card's website instead of a different service had to instead use google maps or something.

    9. Re:And the winner is... by geckipede · · Score: 2

      You can't be sure that allowing them wouldn't have been worse. Early breeder reactor designs were inherently unstable, allowing situations where there could be a runaway reaction. Building one and having it blow its top would have been a far worse setback than the path we did take.

      I'd agree completely that what we need need now is solid, proven breeder reactor tech, and the opportunity to get it was wasted. I just wanted to provide an alternative to the "grass is always greener" thinking - it could have been a disaster too.

    10. Re:And the winner is... by socsoc · · Score: 1

      Good point. I often use Google Maps as a substitute for Visa and Master Card cardholder services. Not Discover Card though, I use Mapquest for that.

    11. Re:And the winner is... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >>Early breeder reactor designs were inherently unstable, allowing situations where there could be a runaway reaction.

      You mean back in the 1950s when the first breeder reactors were built? :p Sure, I'll grant you that.

      The modern Type IV reactors safe(r), and since they get rid of most of the waste that causes most of the political problems with nuclear power, I'd say that it was a pretty bad decision by Clinton to kill the IFR research project.

      >>Building one and having it blow its top would have been a far worse setback than the path we did take.

      Sure. And if every reactor in the planet exploded right now, that would be bad, too. But if you're looking at risk levels from nuclear vs. other plants, the numbers just aren't there to support the anti-nuclear crowd. If nuclear killed even a hundredth of the people that have died from coal power (while it has been producing about half the power for our nation vs. coal), we'd have panicked and shut down all of the nuclear sites ages ago. We're fundamentally stupid about it.

      >>I'd agree completely that what we need need now is solid, proven breeder reactor tech, and the opportunity to get it was wasted. I just wanted to provide an alternative to the "grass is always greener" thinking - it could have been a disaster too.

      Sure, and I get what you're saying. But the main reason Carter and Clinton banned breeder reactors was not for safety reasons, but really about concerns over nuclear proliferation. The thinking is that if we had breeder reactors we'd not be able to morally take the high ground when we tried to stop Iran from going nuclear... oh wait. And also certain fears that people could steal the Plutonium coming out of the reactors and turn them into terrorist bombs. (Because, you know, if there's any place in America that is easy to steal from, it's a nuclear plant with all of its barbed wire and armed guards with machine guns.)

    12. Re:And the winner is... by geegel · · Score: 1

      The problem is that breeder reactors (at least the early models) can be used to obtain weapon grade plutonium. They are also much, much more expensive than traditional ones.

      Now with the constant rise in price for nuclear fuel and of course the development of better designs, breeder reactors will most likely become a reality. Of course, that assumes some responsible politicians will avoid knee jerk reactions and that's a big assumption.

      --
      right...
    13. Re:And the winner is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mastercard has a Nuclear Program? Those bastards!

    14. Re:And the winner is... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2

      >>The problem is that breeder reactors (at least the early models) can be used to obtain weapon grade plutonium. They are also much, much more expensive than traditional ones.

      I've never found the fact that they could be used to make weapons grade plutonium particularly convincing. Our nuclear plants are about the most well-guarded parts of our national infrastructure, and the modern breeder designs (like the IFR Clinton killed) keep everything on-site, or even better, do it all inside the reactor such as with Bill Gates' TWR design. They're not that expensive, actually - the optimal way for building them out is to combine Type III+ and Type IV reactors together to create a very efficient nuclear fuel cycle that avoids the expensive of having to deal with nuclear waste.

      >>Now with the constant rise in price for nuclear fuel and of course the development of better designs, breeder reactors will most likely become a reality. Of course, that assumes some responsible politicians will avoid knee jerk reactions and that's a big assumption.

      Well. Yeah, our politicians are still doing their best to shut down nuclear power here in the Central Valley, even when the benefits for the plant extend well beyond power generation. (http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/12/11/2194699/valley-nuclear-group-tries-ag.html)

      Nuclear fuel, though, is only a small part of the total cost of nuclear (20%-ish). Almost all of the cost involves recovering the enormous capital outlays involved in construction.

    15. Re:And the winner is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nah, too cold.

    16. Re:And the winner is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well your username "IgnoramusMaximus" certainly describes you well. And anyone marking your post as 5 Insightful. Slashdot has gone to hell...

    17. Re:And the winner is... by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      What exactly are you saying about the outcome? They should have left Iran alone or that it probably did little damage? I hope it did set them back. Bombing the sites would have probably done more but no one had the guts to do it.

    18. Re:And the winner is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoot the messenger on israel story = +1 Insightful
      Shoot the messenger on wikileaks story = -1 Troll
      Slashdot consistency, how very predictable.

      Posting anonymous for obvious fear of the moderation gestapo

    19. Re:And the winner is... by MrKaos · · Score: 5, Informative

      (You know all the political mess we are in over waste products, and how California has banned new nuclear until the waste issue is resolved? Breeder reactors use nuclear 'waste' as fuel, burning over 99% of the fuel, instead of the 1% or so efficiency we get from traditional PWR/BWR reactors. IFRs can also burn depleted uranium, and weapons-grade plutonium.)

      You are confusing two different types of *FAST* reactors technology, breeder and burner. Roughly, the process Breeder reactors perform combine similar quantities of two other elements with plutonium within the reactor and transmute them into plutonium. In other words Breeder reactors produce about three times as much plutonium that goes in creating a plutonium economy.

      The IFR is a Burner reactor prototyped at Argonne National Laboratory's EBR-II. It achieved a burnup rate of 20% of the fuel before the remainder of the fuel has to be removed and reprocessed. The ambition was to have reprocessing facilities and all other facilities on-site, hence the name Integral Fast Reactor. Given this knowledge your claim that Californian policy on Nuclear reactors is a mess is, at best, not well informed.

      Nah, Jimmy Carter set back the US nuclear program by 30 years by banning breeder reactors.

      No he didn't. While people like to piss on Carter for this decision it is highly ignorant to do so. We have over 70,000 tons of waste plutonium *now* as a result of the once through cycle reactors we have now and still no plan to properly contain it. Had Carter not stepped in and ended the plutonium economy 30 years ago we would have an epidemic of plutonium production. Additionally Breeder reactors are much less forgiving than the once through reactor cycles that are currently in operation. Carter's decision to ban breeder reactors was a wise decision considering the lack of appropriate facilities to contain plutonium available today.

      Well, Clinton can take some of the blame too, for killing the IFR

      Indeed. Killing the research into IFR and it's complementary processes was probably a mistake. However material technology is still not available to make IFR a working proposition, especially as the reactor ages. IFR is only appropriate technology when the lifespan of the reactor matches the decay time of it's waste product. Yes, I am saying we should learn how to build a reactor that lasts 600-1000 years as the decommission of an IFR reactor every 40-60 years severely reduces it's viability and practicality. Still developing the surrounding Integral technologies would be a good step forward until the material technology is available for the reactor as the fuel reprocessing technology is as important as the reactor itself.

      You mean back in the 1950s when the first breeder reactors were built? :p Sure, I'll grant you that...The modern Type IV reactors safe(r), and since they get rid of most of the waste that causes most of the political problems with nuclear power,

      Again you are confusing Breeder and Burner reactor technology. Breeder reactors allow less time to control run away reactions. Since they are cooled with sodium as the age any air that leaks into the system makes them explosive and they contain far more radioactive materials than a reactor like Chernobyl. The only new breeder reactor under construction that I know of is in India, in a flood prone area and sodium and water aren't friends in a nuclear reactor.

      I'd say that it was a pretty bad decision by Clinton to kill the IFR research project.

      Yes it was, because it has great promise for burning up not only pu-239 but also U-238, or depleted uranium, DU.

      if you're looking at risk levels from nuclear vs. other plants, the numbers just aren't there to support the anti-nuclear crowd. If nuclear killed even a hundr

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    20. Re:And the winner is... by IB4Student · · Score: 1

      I have a google maps app on my phone, and I'm generally mobile anyway if I need to find an ATM, so it's easier to just search for it on there than open up the webbrowser and go to the site >_>

    21. Re:And the winner is... by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      If the most aggressive nations on the planet (US, former Soviet Union) can get nuclear weapons, why not a country whose last aggressive war was, IIRC, launched under the Qajar dynasty? For all his bluster, Ahmadinejad probably says what he says for internal consumption.

      --
      SSC
    22. Re:And the winner is... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      You can dismiss him if you like. But he's right. Trusting the Jerusalem Post for objective reporting on Iran is about as naive as trusting the New York Post for objective reporting on Iraq.

      Very few sources in the world are even close to objective. And expecting a newspaper that caters to a specific audience to be objective when reporting on an open enemy of said audience is just nuts.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    23. Re:And the winner is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait a minute- Canada has a military?

    24. Re:And the winner is... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Early breeder reactor designs were inherently unstable, allowing situations where there could be a runaway reaction.

      Indeed, my good man. For the same reason, we wisely banned the steam-powered locomotive. After all, the risk of explosion from the high pressure steam was too great, and who knows what toll those great speeds might have on the human body? It is good that we did not place men, women, and children and risk while we tried to work out the flaws in that newfangled technology.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    25. Re:And the winner is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /quote You have the atypical "reactor-only" view of Nuclear power, not of the entire industrial process. Consider that less than 1% of refined Uranium ore actually makes it into a reactor and that of the remaining U-238 or DU some is used as ordinance, especially in Iraq. Take a look at this quick google image search [google.com.au] and tell me if you think that these children deserve to be counted as victims of the industrial process that produced the du that will be present as a respirable dust for generations to come. This is un-acceptable collateral damage when even US soldiers are warning locals to stay away from tank wrecks destroyed by DU ordinance. /end quote

      So gun deaths are a natural by product of lead mining? Really? I don't think any reasonable person would take that stance.

    26. Re:And the winner is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just wanted to point out that the CANDU reactor (Canadian heavy water reactor) is a reactor that burns plutonium, and also runs on unenriched Uranium. CANDU can also take the waste of a typical US light reactor and use that as fuel too.

      The US plutonium problem is not that apparent if it was simply mixed with fuel for CANDU. Same thing for UK's plutonium problem. The only issue there is logistics (transport) rather than use.

    27. Re:And the winner is... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      What I am saying is that Jerusalem Post is known for ... err ... "stretching the truth" when it comes to topics dear to the Israeli hard-liners' hearts and so their claim of "two years of setback" to Iran's nuclear program should be taken with a gigantic grain of salt.

    28. Re:And the winner is... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Clearly the solution is an interim strategy where we power the country by burning politicians for a few years. Then we can smoothly transition to nuclear for the long term.

    29. Re:And the winner is... by sjames · · Score: 1

      Carter's decision made sense at that time. It doesn't now (but then he never claimed it was right forever, just for the time he made it). We should blame all of the subsequent presidents for not reversing the decision when that became the right thing to do.

      As for IFR, we have actually run such a reactor (minus the reprocessing) already. It need not run for 6000 years to be a net benefit since it is able to actually use some of that surplus plutonium we have sitting in "temporary" storage pools now. That stuff will last 100,000 years unless "burned" somehow. The waste after burning lasts 200-500 years. However, the plant itself does not become such waste, it would become safe in decades.

      The change in time frame changes the entire decision process. All that hand wringing about how to contain something for longer than written history and how to convey the warning to the future all goes away. High school students regularly manage to understand 500 year old English and there's no reason to believe high school students 500 years from now won't be able to read our warning signs. That would easily make doubling or quadrupling the bulk of the waste an acceptable trade-off.

      A big benefit of fast reactors is that they can tolerate a high actinide content in the fuel. That means the Pu can be kept in a 'contaminated' state that makes it worthless for nuclear weapons. It also means that much of the 'waste' we have now is perfectly viable fuel.

      I can understand the confusion over breeder and burner in a fast reactor since it can transmute significant amounts of U238 to plutonium like a breeder. It's just that it then "burns" the Pu rather than producing an excess.

    30. Re:And the winner is... by sjames · · Score: 1

      The current designs would produce plutonium far too "contaminated" with other actinides to be practical for a nuclear weapons program. It would be to the point that it would be more practical to build a new reactor explicitly to produce weapons material than it would be to attempt to purify the output from the breeder.

      The nice asymmetry there is that weapons grade material would be perfectly good input to such a reactor.

    31. Re:And the winner is... by superyooser · · Score: 1

      The Jerusalem Post hosts a range of views, but overall, it is a secular, center-left mainstream media organization, complete with a Zodiac/astrology page. Israel's "far right" never reads JPost, except with dreading curiosity.

      As for "Greater Israel," I did manage to find a JPost column from April entitled Keep Dreaming: The case for a greater Israel. Maybe this is what you're thinking of. But did you read the column? About midway, it reads, "The greater Israel [19th century Zionist visionary Theodor] Herzl envisioned had nothing to do with borders; it had everything to do with morals, ideals and behavior." Moreover, the bottom of the column notes that it was written by a representative of Conservative Judaism, which is a branch of Judaism that tends to be politically center-left. (The word "Conservative" here has nothing to do with politics.)

      In their view, should Stuxnet not be handily around to embellish on, they would have to fall back on to their old standby canard of "God's finger" slowing the Iranian centrifuges directly to protect his Jewish children

      Trusting in God's protection, in fact, has been a sturdy standby for the State of Israel. One could begin a study of this topic with Israel's victory in the 1967 Six Day War, a modern miracle by all accounts.

      Nitpick: The phrase "finger of God" usually has to with one of the following subjects: astronomy (Hubble telescope picture), God's creation of the universe, or God's etching of the Ten Commandments. I'm pretty sure it's not a common phrase in JPost articles.

    32. Re:And the winner is... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      The Jerusalem Post hosts a range of views, but overall, it is a secular, center-left mainstream media organization, complete with a Zodiac/astrology page.

      "center-left"?! Apparently you are confusing the JP with the Haaertz.

      You are probably thinking of the days before Conrad Black bought the thing and David Landau and crew walked out. These days Jerusalem Post is Avigdor Liberman's favorite English language outlet...

    33. Re:And the winner is... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>You are confusing two different types of *FAST* reactors technology, breeder and burner.

      Well, good point. You need both, and most modern reactors do both. Reprocessing reduces the overall waste, but produces a Plutonium stream. If you don't have reactors that can burn them, then that's an issue.

      But the TWR and IFR that I was talking about does both, and without really much risk regarding the Plutonium stream. If you think that terrorists are going to break into a nuclear power plant, you probably haven't been paying much attention to the world around you.

      >>Iran is light years away from producing a Breeder reactor - if that is what you are getting at

      No, rather that the assumption was based on the notion that having excess Plutonium lying around would lead to nuclear proliferation, somehow, and yet Iran is chugging right along with their own nuclear program. Think about what Stuxnet was targeting for a second.

      Proliferation doesn't mean the USSR or First World countries get nuclear capabilities - it means people like Iran.

      >>This is un-acceptable collateral damage when even US soldiers are warning locals to stay away from tank wrecks destroyed by DU ordinance.

      Man, wouldn't it be cool then if we had a reactor like the IFR that could burn the massive stockpiles of DU we have lying around?

      In conclusion, if you think that Carter's ban on breeder reactors and Clinton's ban on the IFR didn't set our technology back by decades, and lock us into the fucked up cycle we have right now, with the largely politician-created nuclear waste problem, you're crazy.

    34. Re:And the winner is... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Carter's decision made sense at that time. It doesn't now (but then he never claimed it was right forever, just for the time he made it). We should blame all of the subsequent presidents for not reversing the decision when that became the right thing to do.

      Ok, I find myself being caught up in mis-information here, Carter never banned breeder reactors he banned reprocessing, here is the history surrounding Carter's decision.

      • 1975 the first commercial reprocessing plant at West Valley, NY, had been shut down for modifications to double its size. The regulators called for complete seismic upgrades and the owners gave up. Another pilot-sized plant had been abandoned without operating. But a full-sized commercial reprocessing plant named Barnwell was under construction.
      • Sept. 25, 1976 speech in San Diego, Jimmy Carter raised concerns about proliferation and promised that he would stop Barnwell until it was"needed" and safe, and only ever allow it to operate if it were on a multi-national basis.
      • President Ford initiated a secret study to set a nonproliferation policy. Ford's statement was finally presented in a campaign speech at Portsmouth, Ohio, just five days before the 1976 election. He said that control of nuclear proliferation had to take precedence over commercial and national economic interests. He called for a delay of up to three years in starting the Barnwell reprocessing plant. Some argue that it was Ford who actually stopped reprocessing, not Carter.
      • On April 7, 1977, President Jimmy Carter announced that the United States would defer indefinitely the reprocessing of spent nuclear reactor fuel. He stated that after extensive examination of the issues, he had reached the conclusion that this action was necessary to reduce the serious threat of nuclear weapons proliferation, and that by setting this example, the U. S. would encourage other nations to follow its lead.
      • President Carter's Executive Order also announced that the U. S. would sponsor an international examination of alternative fuel cycles, seeking to identify approaches which would allow nuclear power to continue without adding to the risk of nuclear proliferation.
      • In early 1982, President Reagan rescinded the Carter policy, allowed programmatic (as opposed to case-by-case) approvals for reprocessing of U.S. origin fuel by the Euratom nations and Japan, and even said that reprocessing could again be considered in the U. S.

      So there you have it. Carters policy was rescinded by Reagan just 5 years after it's inception. Any argument and gnashing of teeth about Carters decision has been a moot point for well over 2 decades. Arguments about breeder reactors must be carried out on the basis of the merits of the technology which is known to be costly to implement and very hard to run safely.

      If you are arguing for the creation of a plutonium economy it still isn't the right thing to do. There is ample reserves of plutonium (as I mentioned well over 70,000 tons) and absolutely no need to create any more so breeder reactors still don't make any sense. We have reached the limits of our existing infrastructure to handle existing pu-239 reserves, still have no proper plan to contain it and Yucca mountain has proven itself to be totally unsuitable.

      As for IFR, we have actually run such a reactor (minus the reprocessing) already.

      Indeed, a 62 megawatt reactor for 30 years, I have read a lot about it. Quite promising if the materials technology becomes available to make it reliable. The ability to utilise existing plutonium and u-238 makes approximately 5000 years of fuel from existing reserves. With such a technology a plutonium economy makes even less sense.

      It need not run for 6000 years to be a net benefit since it is able to actually use some of that surplus plutonium we have sitting in "temporary" stora

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    35. Re:And the winner is... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      Well, good point. You need both, and most modern reactors do both. Reprocessing reduces the overall waste, but produces a Plutonium stream. If you don't have reactors that can burn them, then that's an issue.

      I'll refer you to my response to sjames which should help you understand why we don't need both.

      If you think that terrorists are going to break into a nuclear power plant, you probably haven't been paying much attention to the world around you.

      Again I think you are basing your opinion on a flawed set of assumptions, however I am not going to reveal the details as it would be irresponsible.

      Think about what Stuxnet was targeting for a second. Proliferation doesn't mean the USSR or First World countries get nuclear capabilities - it means people like Iran.

      Stuxnet targets their Nuclear reactor. If it was to target any weapons capability it would have to target an enrichment facility. That means this has delayed Iran's capability to produce pu-239. The only logical conclusion was to delay the *potential* for Iran to produce Nuclear weapons and those that gain the most from such a tactic is Israel.

      NNPT is all about weapons, if Iran has no enrichment facility then they have no capability to produce weapons grade plutonium.

      Man, wouldn't it be cool then if we had a reactor like the IFR that could burn the massive stockpiles of DU we have lying around?

      I think it would be simpler if we didn't use DU in ordinance essentially creating an atomic war against future generations. It kind of makes me ill that you used the word 'cool' in that sentence, like nothing really matters to you except getting an IFR - it's a long way away. Support the creation of a geologically stable waste containment facility if you want to engage in the type of responsible nuclear advocacy that may one day lead to an IFR. None of those kids deserve that kind of suffering.

      In conclusion, if you think that Carter's ban on breeder reactors and Clinton's ban on the IFR didn't set our technology back by decades, and lock us into the fucked up cycle we have right now, with the largely politician-created nuclear waste problem, you're crazy.

      oh dear, again see my other response, I don't think you are in full possession of the facts about Carters decision. The "fucked up cycle we have right now" is a result of a haphazzard ill considered program.

      The bottom line is current breeder reactors are just out of our reach technologically to make work properly which has more of a bearing than any decision Carter or Clinton made. If we had a Breeder program that worked properly we would simply have three times the amount of plutonium we have now. The is no magic bullet reactor that exists today that is going to solve the plutonium and u-238 issue. I think if you spent more time gathering facts and examining the issues you would be able to make a more positive contribution to the discussion. Ignoring the facts whilst refusing to reason the optimal solution just makes it harder to get the right support to actually solve the issues with the Nuclear industry in a permanent and meaningful way.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    36. Re:And the winner is... by sjames · · Score: 1

      We agree on many points. I simply don't want to let perfect become the enemy of good. The lack of stable storage is no reason not to build IFR now and fuel it with the "waste" we already have.

      It already exists and we already have nowhere to put it. While we're failing to put it somewhere we might as well get a few TWhr out of it. Of course, we should also be looking for somewhere to put it when we're done with it.

      I don't think we need to breed more excess plutonium at this time, we have enough.. However, the plutonium that will exist in IFR as it converts U238 for it's own use is not a proliferation danger because of the actinides that would be mixed in. Those act as poisons in a nuclear weapon but cause the IFR itself no problem.

      I agree this is something that must not be left to private industry (though private industry may participate). A secure source of energy for all uses is a matter of national security and social stability.

    37. Re:And the winner is... by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      >>Stuxnet targets their Nuclear reactor. If it was to target any weapons capability it would have to target an enrichment facility

      It (very probably) targeted their centrifuges. Think for a second about what centrifuges do.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet#Speculations_about_the_target_and_origin

      >>Support the creation of a geologically stable waste containment facility if you want to engage in the type of responsible nuclear advocacy that may one day lead to an IFR.

      Which is one of the most irrational stances a person can take on the issue. While you sound like you've read a little bit about nuclear, if you think that the waste problem is anything but a politician made canard, you're lying to yourself.

      If you don't understand why, let me break it down for you:
      1) If something has a long half-life, it's not very radioactive. You either need a lot of it to pose a hazard, or you can just ignore it. It's not like the uranium ore is contained in any way before it gets mined.
      2) If something has a short half-life, or you have a lot of long half-life waste, it's not waste, it's fuel. The problem with nuclear waste isn't the radiation, it's the heat it generates. Which is why India is looking to use all the waste heat it produces to drive a turbine and generate power.

      Or you can just put the MOX or whatever other products you get out of a reactor into a different reactor (ideally on the same site) that burns the 'waste', closing the fuel cycle. If you burnup 99.5% of your fuel, as the IFR does, then you put the remainder in a coffee can and throw it into a cooling pool on site.

      >>It kind of makes me ill that you used the word 'cool' in that sentence

      Yeah, how flippant of me to think that it's cool to dispose of the DU we have lying around. Looking at your other post (which again, is rather uninformed), you seem fixated on the illusory problems surrounding waste, so I'm puzzled why you don't think it's cool also to transmute the fuel into a form that is either entirely non-radioactive or with a shortish (100-200y) half-life.

      I find your notion that a reactor has to last 1000 years to be a rather novel notion. What threat assumption are you acting under, here?

    38. Re:And the winner is... by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      All the more reason to bomb the sites. :p

    39. Re:And the winner is... by superyooser · · Score: 1

      Ha'aretz is solidly in Left field and is outright anti-religious.

      You first said that the JPost was "far, far right." I consider Avigdor Lieberman to be moderately right. His party is almost as compromising as Shas. Try Ya'akov Katz (Ketzaleh) for "far" (i.e. true) right. Baruch Marzel for "far, far" right. Not that there's anything wrong with being right...

    40. Re:And the winner is... by MrKaos · · Score: 1

      We agree on many points. I simply don't want to let perfect become the enemy of good. The lack of stable storage is no reason not to build IFR now and fuel it with the "waste" we already have.

      I think resolving the storage issue is the key to developing the reactor technology because it (storage) is the key area of the Nuclear industry that has been neglected. When Dixie Lee Ray was the head of the Atomic Energy Commission he proclaimed that the disposal of nuclear fuel would be "the greatest non-problem in history" and would be accomplished by 1985, yet here we are in 2010, over twenty years past that date and still there is no High level containment site anywhere. The closest anyone has come is the Swiss and even their project is a multi-decade test project and extremely expensive. Design of the actual facility shows the U.S how it *should* be done.

      I'd envisage multiple reactors in a facility in the belly of a mountain, more like 20 or more in chambers, sequentially built, incrementally getting technologically better to reach the target lifespan. Because it's granite even the pressure vessel can be built into rock and may resolve some of the embrittlement issues that the steel suffers from due to neutron bombardment which limits the reactors lifespan. At the end of the target reactors lifetime the entire compartment is sealed with it's fissile ash and all the reactor components, waste products etc are allowed to cool never to be accessed.

      This is completely in line with recommendations of a nuclear industry panel (Westinghouse, General Electric, Bechtel, Sargent & Lundy, Northern States Power and Commonwealth Edison) commissioned by the NRC and eliminates a majority of the issues with nuclear power. The most pertinent being that the energetic cost of reactor decommissioning consumes a significant portion of the energetic output of the reactor after it has been decommissioned.

      It already exists and we already have nowhere to put it. While we're failing to put it somewhere we might as well get a few TWhr out of it. Of course, we should also be looking for somewhere to put it when we're done with it.

      The issue here is that defeats the Integral nature of IFR and significantly reduces the Net energy output. Storing the fissile ash of an IFR on site is one of the design goals and centralises the logistic issues involved in moving pu-239 around a country. Of course, as mentioned, decommissioning and sealing the activated products of the reactor core would impose an enormous energetic penalty on the reactor and the best way to overcome that is to build the reactor with the decommisioning plan already in place. Building them this way mitigates failure and don't forget this is how the Nuclear industry *itself* says it should be done.

      It seems to me that the entire discussion has polarised into pro or anti nuclear with few people prepared to engage in the mental effort involved in uncovering the actual engineering issues that have to be resolved within the Nuclear Industry. Thanks for considering my POV and being rational.

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    41. Re:And the winner is... by sjames · · Score: 1

      It's the reprocessing that's integral IIRC. The idea is that as the reactor runs, used fuel is withdrawn a bit at a time (in a continuous process), it is processed to separate out the fission products, new fuel is added to make up the difference and it cycles back into the reactor. Because of that, there's no Pu left over.

      The left over fission products would be kept in short term storage long enough for the hottest elements to decay (such as the I-131 and Xe) then it will need to packaged for long term (200-500 years) storage.

      This as opposed to the once through we have been doing which wastes the vast majority of the fissile material.

      Decommissioning the reactor itself is another matter. There does need to be a plan for that, and that's what will tend to be done in place.

      Oddly enough, we may be able to learn a bit about that from Chernobyl. It was done hastily under far from acceptable circumstances yet it seems to be holding (sort of). We can learn a lot from that, especially from the examinations that have been performed in the last few years. It's an excellent opportunity to learn how various materials can be expected to behave post-decommissioning.

      It is unfortunate that nuclear power has become so politicized and FUD ridden. This is a problem that can be solved through logic and reason, not political infighting and rants.

      Ray's mistake was underestimating the destructiveness of the political process. The problem certainly could have been solved by 1985 but for that.

    42. Re:And the winner is... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      I consider Avigdor Lieberman to be moderately right.

      And herein lies the rub. Lieberman is in my book is a right wing wacko who, if given such power, would have tried to ethnically cleanse Israel. He also opposes separation of state and religion which has long been the position of extreme right. Perhaps he is not as extreme as some others who call for outright extermination of Palestinians and for "preemptive" nuking of Iran but a moderate?!

      So if you consider such person a "moderate", I fear that your idea of "moderation" is somewhat faulty...

    43. Re:And the winner is... by MrKaos · · Score: 1
      I don't mind having a discussion but, is there any reason for the narky comments you have inserted throughout your reply? I'll answer your narkyness in kind if I have to but if you don't have anything to contribute aside for looking for a way to insult me then it proves you have no basis for argument.

      It (very probably) targeted their centrifuges. Think for a second about what centrifuges do.

      Perhaps this is your way of agreeing with me, do you realise that the centrifuge is part of the enrichment facility? The wiki article you sent me said;

      There are reports that Iran's uranium enrichment facility at Natanz was the target of Stuxnet and the site sustained damage because of it, causing a sudden 15% reduction in its production capabilities.

      I hadn't read it, so thanks, but it re-iterates the exact point I was making to you.

      Which is one of the most irrational stances a person can take on the issue.

      Why? I provided a perfectly rational explanation for my reasoning in the post I linked you to. If you have some specific criticisms of that reasoning you should offer them.

      While you sound like you've read a little bit about nuclear, if you think that the waste problem is anything but a politician made canard, you're lying to yourself.

      Well I know enough about Nuclear power to understand many of the issues, like the difference between a Breeder and Burner reactor. You have offered nothing with which to explain the basis of you statement about the waste situation being a political situation. Politics are certainly a component (i.e the Yucca debarcle) but waste from the Nuclear industry has a variety of physical properties one of the most significant factors being volume.

      Have a look at this article, it should help you get a better understanding of the waste situation.

      1) If something has a long half-life, it's not very radioactive. You either need a lot of it to pose a hazard, or you can just ignore it.

      Plutonium's half life is 25,000 years and one microgram can cause fatal lung cancer or leukemia when ingested.

      It's not like the uranium ore is contained in any way before it gets mined.

      What do you mean uranium is not contained before it is mined? What do you think Uranium mining entails? If it helps you understand *how* Uranium is contained from it's natural state during the mining process with atypical concentration to get a kilogram of uranium you have to process 500 tons of hard ore and it's not enriched like the products of reactors are. Of that 1 kilo of Uranium about a gram will be U-235.

      To break it down for you 500 tons of rock contain 1 gram of fissile material. I think that's sufficiently contained.

      2) If something has a short half-life, or you have a lot of long half-life waste, it's not waste, it's fuel.

      Keh? You may not be aware, but not everything that has toxic levels of radioactivity can go into a reactor, for example radioactive mine tailings.

      The problem with nuclear waste isn't the radiation, it's the heat it generates.

      Actually no it isn't. The biggest problem with nuclear waste is that radioactive isotopes analogue nutrients so they bio-accumulate in the food chain. That means;

      a) It cannot be detected with the senses (taste, touch etc)

      b) It's extremely toxic to life processes

      To break it down for you once a radionuclide enters the body, the body identifies it as a nutrient and uses it as such. If it is deposited in the bones, in the case of a calcium analogue like strontium 90 as an example, it will continue to emit radiation creating a condition for cancer to incubate (typically 6 year

      --
      My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  2. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The impression I get is that it was waiting to fall apart, so the malware could have been been a net positive in a "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" sense - potentially literally when you're talking about nuclear energy

  3. Success by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Guess what? We're going to be seeing this sort of thing a whole lot more. Compare the expense and risk involved in writing this virus versus firing off cruise missiles or sending planes on bombing missions or an actual ground invasion.

    And to beat it all, no-one even knows who was actually responsible for this. Oh yes, the future of modern warfare and sabotage is most certainly here.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      And to beat it all, no-one even knows who was actually responsible for this.

      True, but we do know that it was a country which can keep secrets.

    2. Re:Success by Fluffeh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh yes, the future of modern warfare and sabotage is most certainly here.

      Absolutely. If anyone ever needed a proof of concept to do something like this, you can't go idly past this one. I totally agree that this will open a LOT of eyes who will all now be in the "Lets do one of those worm things to solve [insert problem], it worked with the Iranian nuclear program..."

      Might be a good time for the CV to start brushing up on writing some malware. Maybe form a small botnet or two just to cut your teeth on... Certainly beats spamming out messages about all sorts of pharmaceuticals as far as a paycheck goes.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    3. Re:Success by cbeaudry · · Score: 3, Funny

      I dont think so.

      We will see this sort of thing only if its politically inconvenient to use standard warfare.

      Because quick and easy, means cheap. Which means, the military industrial complex isn't making profit.

      We wont be seeing this replacing standard warfare anytime soon.

    4. Re:Success by mysidia · · Score: 2

      And to beat it all, no-one even knows who was actually responsible for this. Oh yes, the future of modern warfare and sabotage is most certainly here.

      This is what happens when you use off the shelf bloated (buggy) operating systems to power your infrastructure, rather than using slim custom-built OSes that only run approved code which includes only the functions necessary for that system.

    5. Re:Success by Charliemopps · · Score: 2, Funny

      I absolutely guarantee the US government payed as much for this code as it would have for any comparable attack with hardware. Hell, the company I work for just payed $19,000 for a SQL statement shorter than this very sentence.

    6. Re:Success by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      So definitely not the US then . . . :P

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    7. Re:Success by nitehawk214 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I absolutely guarantee the US government payed as much for this code as it would have for any comparable attack with hardware. Hell, the company I work for just payed $19,000 for a SQL statement shorter than this very sentence.

      Invoice:
      Writing short sql statement: $10
      Knowing which short sql statement to write: $18990
      (assuming it did something useful and necessary)

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    8. Re:Success by timeOday · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Compare the expense and risk involved in writing this virus versus firing off cruise missiles or sending planes on bombing missions or an actual ground invasion.

      In other words, the relative advantage conferred by our overwhelming advantage in wealth and firepower is being tossed out for a level playing field in which we are very vulnerable and, even developing nations can pose a serious threat.

    9. Re:Success by rtb61 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It will just change security. More isolation in systems. Simpler programs only designed to do the job they need to do and absolutely nothing else. More appliances with completely stripped down or even no operating system.

      Basically if you use M$ windows in what is meant to be a completely secure system, than you are a bloody idiot.

      I think the two year setback is also likely wildly optimistic, even including the time already lost, unless of course Iran chooses to stick with M$ Windows.

      The best hacks are still in hardware, chips built into capacitors, resistors etc. just waiting for that encoded signal to come in via their power feed to initiate intermittent power fluctuations (better than burn out, far harder to fix) and, really destructive when all spares will suffer from the same fault.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:Success by shentino · · Score: 1

      Getting revenge on a site you hate? Priceless.

    11. Re:Success by Pootie+Tang · · Score: 1

      I wish I could say I think you are wrong. Best I can do is hope you are wrong.

      The expense and risk are tricky. One things bombs have going for them is a track record. They may not always achieve your goals, but you have more history to look at.

      The history here isn't good. As a software developer, I wish people wouldn't "do that" as it's a PITA to code against. People will do that, and it helps to keep me employed.

      Long term, will black hats consistently win over white hats, even with things like nuclear energy? So much so that bombs become ineffective?

      As an american, software developer or not, I'm not sure that's in my long term interests.

    12. Re:Success by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      Guess what? We're going to be seeing this sort of thing a whole lot more.

      International law will have to address this within a few years.

      It will be interesting to see what they come up with. I can't imagine that they'll just say it's all OK. Probably they'll forbid it, and everyone will still do it anyway.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    13. Re:Success by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      The best hacks are still in hardware, chips built into capacitors, resistors etc. just waiting for that encoded signal to come in via their power feed to initiate intermittent power fluctuations (better than burn out, far harder to fix) and, really destructive when all spares will suffer from the same fault.

      You mean by damaging sensitive hardware such as centrifuges (by speeding them up and slowing them down quickly) in ways that are not immediately obvious, but will take a long time (2 years) to replace or repair? I know it's not popular here, but try RTFA.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    14. Re:Success by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but they did it with software. He's saying once that can no longer be done, the hardware route is the way to go.

    15. Re:Success by geegel · · Score: 3, Informative

      The latest evidence seems to point out that China might be behind the Stuxnet worm, as an expedient way of sabotaging a nuclear power without the diplomatic drama.

      Of course, this is all highly circumstantial. We'll probably never know with absolute certainty.

      Here's a rather insightful analysis on this hypothesis.

      --
      right...
    16. Re:Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the Zionist terrorists will get away with it too.

    17. Re:Success by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      The only country that doesn't want to stop Iran getting nuclear weapons is Iran itsself. There is no shortage of suspects. Israel, China, the US, UK, every single country in Europe, Australia,Canada, the UN, and every country in the middle east or adjacent do it worried about a potential conflict spilling over. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Russia... ok, it's easier to just list the countries that *wouldn't* want to stop Iran. There is only one.

    18. Re:Success by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      And, frankly, let's just say :

      "whoever did this, THANKS"

      2 more years without war.

    19. Re:Success by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      And just think, it could have all been prevented by *not connecting your scada production network to the fucking Internet*.

    20. Re:Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not like you have a choice though.

    21. Re:Success by dropadrop · · Score: 1

      And to beat it all, no-one even knows who was actually responsible for this. Oh yes, the future of modern warfare and sabotage is most certainly here.

      A perfect future for state sponsored terrorism.

    22. Re:Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      History tells a different story.

      Bogeyman: Communists.

      Soviet: Nuclear weapons. No war.
      China: Nuclear weapons: No war.
      Vietnam: No nuclear weapons. War.
      Korea: No nuclear weapons. War.

      Bogeyman: Muslims.

      Afghanistan: No nuclear weapons. War.
      Iraq: No nuclear weapons. War.

      Certain powers in the USA have already been suggesting invading Iran. If you knew that the USA was planning a war against your country, and that getting nuclear weapons would prevent such a war, wouldn't you be working very hard to get them?

    23. Re:Success by alphatel · · Score: 1

      Any country can claim Stuxnet!

      --
      When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
    24. Re:Success by metacell · · Score: 1

      No, you don't lose your advantage in wealth and firepower because you utilise cyber warfare. The other side is likely to use cyber warfare whether you do or not.

    25. Re:Success by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2

      Certain powers in the USA have already been suggesting invading Iran. If you knew that the USA was planning a war against your country, and that getting nuclear weapons would prevent such a war, wouldn't you be working very hard to get them?

      Such an invasion would, of course, be an improvement for the lives of Iranians, in addition to a good thing for the rest of the world as well.

    26. Re:Success by Vectormatic · · Score: 1

      i wont argue that Iran having nukes would be a good thing, but honestly.. is anyone in the western world (or russia/china etc..) seriously worried that Iran would attack someone once they got a few nukes?

      No matter how many nukes Iran has, the spectre of MAD will always hang over nuclear warfare. the only way Iran would do any significant amount of damage (nuking 1 city on world-scale isnt THAT big) before getting completely glassed by every other country with nukes is with a MASSIVE first strike. And even then, who-ever would launch that strike would know they would be dead within the hour.

      Here in Holland one politician argued for attacking Iran to stop them from becomming a serious threat, well, i say that no matter how many nukes they have, they are never a serious threat. If anything, them having nukes opens them up to being nuked (no-one likes the idea of assymetrical use of nukes, it is always tit for tat).

      --
      People, what a bunch of bastards
    27. Re:Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah, they probably outsourced the coding to India and payed 1/4 of that at most. ;)

    28. Re:Success by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It'd make things far worse in the short term, for a potential improvement in the long time.

    29. Re:Success by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      You assume rational decisions on both sides. MAD falls apart if one side isn't fully rational. Iran's leadership is subject to change, and tends towards extremally devout Muslims. What happens if their leader, present or future, decides that he can't lose because Allah will protect him? Besides, there is more than one way to use a nuke. Nuke + Shipping container comes to mind... it'd be enough to blow up any costal city in the world, and be very hard to definitively trace as the nuke destroys all evidence indicating exactly which ship in that harbor might have concealed it.

    30. Re:Success by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      is anyone in the western world (or russia/china etc..) seriously worried that Iran would attack someone once they got a few nukes?

      You mean besides all of the above?

      Even if you find it hard to believe that Americans are worried about it.. what do you suppose the Israelis think?

      The Iranian leaders are people that Believe, and names military exercises accordingly (mock conflicts with Israel are named "Great Prophet" and so forth)

      Make no mistake.. that nut ball Ayatollah wants to destroy Israel more than anything. He answers to his God and thats what his God wants.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    31. Re:Success by regular_gonzalez · · Score: 1

      M$? Oh, I get it, it's because Microsoft likes money. That's really clever, did you come up with that yourself?
      BTW I also like money so please refer to me as rgu£ar_gonz£z

      --
      Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
    32. Re:Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel is the only possible country that could have done it. Whoever wrote the worm had insider knowledge of Iran's nuclear program. Israel is the only country with a boots-on-the-ground intelligence service strong enough to obtain such knowledge. Israel also has much stronger motivation, as a nuclear Iran means death for Israel.

      Though the US will likely be more motivated in the near future. Soon there will be Iranian medium range missiles in Venezuela aimed at the US mainland. If Iran gets nukes, the US is toast as well as Israel.

      World War III, anyone?

    33. Re:Success by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Extremely simplistic and nieve view of the world. So nieve, its actually a fairly stupid view.

      Soviet: Nuclear weapons. No war.

      Extremely close to war, including all out nuclear warfare. Closest known to date.

      China: Nuclear weapons: No war.

      China is behind Vietnam and Korea. War.

      The reality is, the best way to avoid war, both historically backed and statistically validated, is democracy. The probability of two democratic countries going to war is extremely low. It almost never happens. Next, the probability of a democratic country and a non-democratic country going to war is still low but does periodically happen. Case in point, the current wars. Next, far, far ahead, leaving the other two comparisons in the dust, the majority of all wars, by far, occur between two non-democratic countries.

      So if you want to make a comparison, nuclear has nothing to do with it. Realistically, you must abandon non-democratic forms of governance. Statistically speaking, democracy is tantamount to peace. Inversely, non-democratic governance is tantamount to war.

    34. Re:Success by JerkBoB · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And just think, it could have all been prevented by *not connecting your scada production network to the fucking Internet*.

      It wasn't connected to the internet. That's a major part of the brilliance that is Stuxnet. The worm infected machines all over Europe and Iran, and spread via USB sticks. At some point (or more likely several points), the infected drive or drives found their way into the machines used to program the Iranian SCADA systems, and then the worm moved into its next phase of infection. It's pretty incredible, the way the authors targeted the iranian systems used for uranium enrichment and only the iranian systems.

      --
      A host is a host from coast to coast...
      Unless it's down, or slow, or fails to POST!
    35. Re:Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Such an invasion would, of course, be an improvement for the lives of Iranians, ...

      Citation needed.

    36. Re:Success by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      Just like how invading Vietnam improved life there! Or invading Afghanistan and Iraq made things so much safer! Just these wars give you over a million dead. So there's plenty of opposition to improved lives to be found. If they could speak.....

      --
      SSC
    37. Re:Success by zach_the_lizard · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. "Democracies" not warring with each other is more or less true (although by "democracy" most people mean republics and constitutional monarchies), but there are some very aggressive democratic states out there. The US and Great Britain have been pretty aggressive, including overthrowing popularly elected regimes.

      --
      SSC
    38. Re:Success by Peristaltic · · Score: 1

      Such an invasion would, of course, be an improvement for the lives of Iranians, in addition to a good thing for the rest of the world as well.

      After all, the second Iraq war improved the lives of the Iraqis

    39. Re:Success by Peristaltic · · Score: 1

      Sure. And if you wanted to bully all the Arab countries in the region while establishing dominance, you would also be working very hard to get them. Of course, everyone knows that the government of Iran is peaceful and rational, only seeking nuclear arms to protect itself from the U.S.

    40. Re:Success by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      I wish people would indeed finally go back to making appliances with stripped down or even no operating systems. But that's definitely not the trend, nowadays. Gone are the days where you could power on your VCR and start playing a tape right away. Nowadays, a push of the power button on a DVD player is a signal to start booting up the hypervisor, which then loads several operating systems, because all the programmers just wanted to use the libraries they were familiar with but happened to run on different operating systems. OK, I'm exaggerating right now (I hope), but I'm afraid I will actually be right in a few years. All I know is that it takes 30 seconds for my DVD player to finish saying "Welcome". Even if I only pressed the Eject button to get a disc out.

      Very few appliance manufacturers write code anymore. Or actually connect things in efficient ways. They just slap existing stuff together to get it out to market quickly. Need a function? Find a library that has it. Include the library, call the function. Problem solved.

      - Let's make a toaster that ejects bread when it's brown.
      - We need a color sensor, then.
      - OK, found one. But it only has drivers for Windows.
      - Fine, our toaster needs to run Windows, then. What's the next problem?

      Don't tell me, that toaster actually exists, right?

    41. Re:Success by Evtim · · Score: 1

      Believe, you say. Like the Iranian president who went to war because he got a message from "beyond the stars" Ohh, wait...

    42. Re:Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that islam's law explicitly forbids all forms of governance except a specific dictatorship (the caliphate). It also states that all other forms of government (obviously including any and all current muslim governments) must be resisted and attacked ('jihad', and, while, yes, that INCLUDES "peaceful" means, but it most definitely not limited to it)

      So what you're saying is that we just need to destroy "parts of" islam.

      What do we do with people unwilling to give this up ?

    43. Re:Success by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      I'm actually not entirely sure what you're talking about, but it doesn't sound like it refutes my statements.

    44. Re:Success by operagost · · Score: 1

      SQL injection attack on web site from Bobby Tables: $5,000,000

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    45. Re:Success by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      Iran depends on other countries for almost all of their technology. For Christ's sake, they can't even refine enough gasoline for their domestic consumption so they have to import gasoline. The problem is that Iran cannot just buy new technology to replace the untrustworthy systems, so they have to try to fix it. The Stuxnet virus has penetrated into all of their systems, including the SCADA controllers themselves. Apparently, their systems just keep re-infecting themselves. Furthermore, Stuxnet caused physical damage to a bunch of their centrifuges by cranking them up and down past operational parameters, while keeping the data readouts within normal limits. Therefore, the Iranians have no idea what can and cannot be trusted.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    46. Re:Success by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

      You assume rational decisions on both sides. MAD falls apart if one side isn't fully rational. Iran's leadership is subject to change, and tends towards extremally devout Muslims. What happens if their leader, present or future, decides that he can't lose because Allah will protect him? Besides, there is more than one way to use a nuke. Nuke + Shipping container comes to mind... it'd be enough to blow up any costal city in the world, and be very hard to definitively trace as the nuke destroys all evidence indicating exactly which ship in that harbor might have concealed it.

      A nuke's origin can be traced

      --
      Knowledge = Power
      P= W/t
      t=Money
      Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    47. Re:Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      History proven.

      Almost every country which has been under rule of imperialism has come out the other side both politically and economically stronger.

      Citation needed.

      And by the way, this is not a research paper or a vetted source of information, so saying things like the above only prove you're a fucking idiot who doesn't even understand the proper context for such a statement.

    48. Re:Success by tibman · · Score: 1

      The top half of your post reminded me of Battlestar Galactica (the ship in the show).

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    49. Re:Success by timeOday · · Score: 1
      Yes, you do lose you advantage by initiating conflict where you do not hold the high ground. (Not that I think the US is responsible for this attack).

      Even in international relations there are expectations and informal conventions. For example, by the US deciding not to retaliate or attack after Sputnik, it was accepted that a "flyover" in space does not constitute a violation of "airspace." Everybody is still working out what their rules of cyber-engagement will be. If near-constant, low level, anonymous cyber-warfare becomes the status quo, it will be a drag on the world economy, which is bad for everybody, but especially bad for us.

    50. Re:Success by swb · · Score: 1

      Iran with nukes is like a poker player with just enough chips to intimidate the other players, but not enough to go all-in and force other players to fold and leave the game.

      For example, Iran could attack shipping in the Straits of Hormuz (with conventional weapons), knowing that any counter-attack could escalate to nuclear conflict. They know they can't win an all-out exchange, but they also know that their possession of nuclear weapons makes a conventional counter-attack much less likely.

    51. Re:Success by metacell · · Score: 1

      Good point.

    52. Re:Success by SilverEyes · · Score: 2

      Canada? Really?

      CSIS making one of the most sophisticated worms out there, I doubt it.

      --
      Interesting.
    53. Re:Success by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      the company I work for just payed $19,000 for a SQL statement shorter than this very sentence.

      Was it something like "DELETE FROM *"?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    54. Re:Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sad thing is that your theories fail when looking at muslim states.

      Muslim democracies, like morocco, algeria, egypt, indonesia ... all are involved in at the very least civil wars. ALL are accused of religious repression at least, and MOST of religious genocide.

      None of these states are what I'd call peaceful.

      And then there's Iran ...
      1) muslim
      2) not even a democracy
      3) been involved in several wars, including an attack on a democracy
      4) hostile to ALL it's neighbours (okay, this is 99% because they're sunni and wish to do a little religious genociding of their own in Iran, but still ...)

      OTOH, the day Iran becomes a democracy, it'll probably sign a military alignment pact with Israel.

    55. Re:Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. When you say something like "History Proven" you are speaking as if you know what you're fucking talking about. If you're going to talk like you know what you're about, either back it up with facts, or realize that the world is better off ignoring your weak-minded, worthless fucking opinion and shut the fuck up, word vomit.

    56. Re:Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to tell you, but its not a pet theory, but a well established statistical fact.

      Democracry, statistically, means peace.

    57. Re:Success by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Who wants to diddle with centrifuges, when you can shut down a countries power plants for months. Centrifuges, pfft, no electricity for months, total chaos, real financial destruction and even the possibility of social order break down. Sure the government can communicate within itself but what is the point when they can no longer communicate with an isolated, fearful, hungry, thirsty, general public.

      The only tricky bit is making sure which country gets which electronic components, but with good encoding and high density micro circuitry, each and every batch of components can be uniquely indefinable with it's unique code. Trust no one.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    58. Re:Success by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      You also obviously do no coding and have no idea where the $ use comes from in M$ basic. Also I restrict the use of MS for http://www.msaustralia.org.au/ a charitable organisation that has my full support (I even spent three months diagnosed with the condition turned out just to be a bruised spinal cord). What can I say but get over it dickwad and go here http://www.mssociety.org.uk/ and donate if you really into the pound symbol but if your just a US M$ marketdroid then go here http://www.nationalmssociety.org/index.aspx and donate.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    59. Re:Success by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Eep, before the windrones start picking in me again, might I suggest you are placing Ballmer and Gates in the role of the cylons and that I had nothing to do with it ;).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    60. Re:Success by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Naming the exceptions, which I specifically stated existed, validates everything I said. On what crack-planet do you believe validation, invalidates?

    61. Re:Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahh but if you follow its warp trail, you can find out where an nme ship came from or is going

    62. Re:Success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with that uid how the hell is this new to you? sign up and then forget about the site for a while? anyway welcome to the internet.

  4. SIGINT? by PatPending · · Score: 3, Funny

    "SIGINT" is an appropriate name for this:

    SIGINT is the signal sent to a process by its controlling terminal when a user wishes to interrupt the process.

    Although I would have preferred one of these instead:

    SIGKILL

    SIGSTOP

    SIGSTFU

    Okay, I made the last one up.

    --
    What one fool can do, another can. (Ancient Simian Proverb)
    1. Re:SIGINT? by unity100 · · Score: 1

      signals and intelligence, in army jargon.

    2. Re:SIGINT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry. I thought this was a POSIX forum.

      SIGHUP

    3. Re:SIGINT? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      Uh, it meant something else, for a LOOONG time before computers were around.

    4. Re:SIGINT? by mysidia · · Score: 2

      SIGSTFU

      Okay, I made the last one up.

      This is one we definitely need....

      And it's pretty obvious what it should do, also.... close and invalidate any file descriptors attached to that process that are TTY devices. If there are any pipes (named or otherwise) open for write access, then substitute with /dev/null

    5. Re:SIGINT? by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      They sent an interrupt signal to Iran's nuclear program?

    6. Re:SIGINT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. The trick was figuring out which interrupt had a two year service routine associated with it.

    7. Re:SIGINT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      SIGHUP -> SIGOHNO
      SIGINT -> SIGPWND
      SIGQUIT -> SIGWUT
      SIGILL -> SIGWTF
      SIGABRT -> SIGORLY
      SIGTRAP -> SIGRAEP
      SIGKILL -> SIGSTFU
      SIGSEGV -> SIGOMFG
      SIGTERM -> SIGRTFM
      SIGSTOP -> SIGKTHX
      SIGCONT -> SIGGOGO

    8. Re:SIGINT? by KingAlanI · · Score: 2

      Military jargon like this seem sot be a very weird combination of abbreviation and acronym, in ALL CAPS to boot.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    9. Re:SIGINT? by Gorshkov · · Score: 1

      signals and intelligence, in army jargon.

      Not quite - Signals Intelligence, without the 'and'. It refers to intelligence derived FROM signals (think WWII ULTRA intelligence)

    10. Re:SIGINT? by unitron · · Score: 1

      So, Signal, Shut The File Up, then?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    11. Re:SIGINT? by JamesP · · Score: 1

      or SIGBUS

      When you get a SIGBUS take the bus and go home =)

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  5. Heh. 2 years...just in time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    to be a wedge issue in the next US elections. /rolls eyes

  6. Go Stuxnet! by Kid+Zero · · Score: 1

    This takes out a country's nuclear capability for two years. It's bloodless and painless, unless you are an Iranian Atomic Engineer.

    1. Re:Go Stuxnet! by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2

      It also saves a *whole lot* of Iranian civilian lives.

    2. Re:Go Stuxnet! by unitron · · Score: 1

      And if, back in 1980, Saddam Hussein had thought that Iran had nukes, that would have saved a *whole lot* of Iranian lives as well.

      They don't want 'em just because they think it'll get 'em chicks.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  7. MISSION: by transfatfree · · Score: 1

    SUCCESS!

    1. Re:MISSION: by fractoid · · Score: 0

      This was a triumph?

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:MISSION: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm making a note here: Huge Success!

    3. Re:MISSION: by MokuMokuRyoushi · · Score: 1

      It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.

      --
      Humans are terrible replicators of Godly things.
  8. How's this under YRO? by c0lo · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Just asking.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    1. Re:How's this under YRO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know.... maybe submitter is running their own U235 enrichment centrifuge in his basement and was affected by the worm?? who knows....

    2. Re:How's this under YRO? by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 2

      Protecting our Second Commandment rights?

    3. Re:How's this under YRO? by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      Second commandment rights?

      You shall have no other gods before Rick Astley?

    4. Re:How's this under YRO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How about the fact that countries like the US and Israel are supposed to operate under laws. Distributing a computer virus is illegal. For that matter, the US and Israel aren't actually in a state of declared war against Iran. Even if you could claim that a targeted attack against Iran is reasonable, Stuxnet dealt quite a lot of collateral damage to other countries. You know how every time some kid writing a virus in their parents basement gets prosecuted, they always say that they've caused millions and millions of dollars of damage for all those windows pcs they infected and had to clean up, etc. By those same metrics, Stuxnet has caused billions of dollars of damage, and not just in Iran. So, when countries are pulling this kind of crap, it's a matter of everyone's rights. And, the virus spreads online, so it's an online issue... Hence YRO.

    5. Re:How's this under YRO? by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      the virus is benign unless you happen to be running the exact hardware configuration in the exact location (well, ip) as the Iranian centrifuges...

      it's not like anyone suffered beyond maybe the bandwidth required to update their AV software.

    6. Re:How's this under YRO? by masterwit · · Score: 1

      How's this under YRO?

      Just asking.

      Hell I have no idea. When I saw this story I was thinking more in the lines "cyber-warfare" as the media dubs it.

      Perhaps TDG (technology does good) is better haha

      --
      We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
    7. Re:How's this under YRO? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, because viruses have always caused millions and millions of dollars in damage according to prosecuting authorities when it's some 14 year old kid who wrote them. When it's a government (one of the "good guys" at least), then there was no collateral damage. I mean, there's no way it could have screwed up control systems using the same hardware outside Iran, or that people with infected systems would need to spend time and money cleaning up the virus. It's "benign" after all.

      Let's not forget that, if you or I created a "benign" computer virus and released it, it would be a crime. By what established principle is it not a crime for the US or Israel to do the same?

      What about acts of sabotage against Iran in the first place? By what principles are they ok? If Iran pulled the same thing to target the US, you'd probably be calling loudly for war right now. Even more so if they were having US nuclear researchers assassinated in the streets as recently happened in Iran. Why is it ok to do it to Iran. I admit, the political situation in Iran is terrible at the moment, but the fact that powerful, dangerous countries like the US are behaving like outlaws with such wide public support is the thing that truly terrifies me.

  9. How wasteful we humans are. by MarkvW · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The Iranians build bombs to destroy people. Their enemies work to to destroy Iran's capability to build bombs.

    It's one big testosterone-saturated circle-jerk.

    What a lot of wasted effort.

    1. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wasted effort, to stop a regime hellbent on removing another country's inhabitants from the map via absolutely any means possible, from having the biggest, nastiest weapon ever conceived?
      br Not in my book.

    2. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're absolutely right, you should fly to Teheran and give that Immadinnerjacket a piece of your mind! He just needs to hear your persuasive, modern arguments against building bombs and he'll have no excuse but to bow to your superior insight and sensitivity.

      goodluckwithtthat

    3. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      too late, Israel got the bomb decades ago

    4. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by zonky · · Score: 1

      If i lived in Iran, I'd want nuclear weapons too, to counterbalance the threat to Iran, of Israel's weapons program.

    5. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by orphiuchus · · Score: 2

      And they haven't used it.

    6. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by orphiuchus · · Score: 1, Troll

      If the Arabs(and some Persians) put down their weapons today there would be peace in the region. If the Israelis put down their weapons there would be no more Israel.

    7. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      If I were the president of the country in the middle of this map, it would be almost criminally irresponsible of me not to develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. The US tends to attack countries that have oil, don't have nukes, and refuse to play ball.

    8. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by kanto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm tired of this monotonic "they're out to get us and they're missiles just got modded +1 Not Funny". As far as I know Iran isn't a particularly bad country for that neck of the woods; shouting "death to X" there doesn't literally mean you're going to kill someone, you could yell it a vending machine when it swallows your quarter. Yeah, they're backwards, but at least in many cases they seem less backward than their neighbors.

    9. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MarkvW meant "wasted effort" as it applies to wars and conflict in general.

      And no, Iran is not hellbent on removing Israel from the map or they would have already taken steps towards that. Iran is just sabre-rattling and wanted to be important in the circle-jerk that MarkvW describes.

    10. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      If someone says they're going to kill you, you don't hand them a gun, and you do what you can to make sure they don't get a gun.

    11. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Israel never removed a country's inhabitants from the map. They also haven't vowed the destruction of another country in the region, unlike a certain other regime in said region.

    12. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by wmac · · Score: 1

      Iranians have not attacked any country in the recent history while they have been attacked by Iraq (supported by Europe, US and even Russia).

      US has occupied two of their neighboring countries. They have every right to prepare themselves to defend. Otherwise the greedy US might want to own their oil and everything else.

      Besides there is no evidence that they are building nukes.

    13. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by wmac · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      They have been successful in killing hundreds of thousands Palestinian without those nukes.

    14. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by wmac · · Score: 1

      Yes, if they put down their weapons their oil and countries will be owned by US and its allies. If they don't put down their weapons, US will attack, kill hundreds of thousands of their people (aka almost 500,000 in Iraq, several hundred thousands in Afghanistan) and again own their oil.

      By having nukes, Iran can stop US and other greedy western countries from thinking about their oil.

    15. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by zonky · · Score: 1

      Bases in Kuwait as well.

    16. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      That narrative is unfalsifiable and ridiculous.

    17. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by jc42 · · Score: 1, Informative

      OTOH, here in the US, I've often heard teenage girls vow to kill someone in revenge for a minor social slight. For some reason, people don't get all upset about "terrorist teenage girls" when they hear this, and they don't seem to worry at all about those girls getting access to weapons.

      (And in Alaska, some of those girls grew up carrying and using weapons. ;-)

      This puts it all in some sort of perspective, I suppose.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    18. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Wasted effort, to stop a regime hellbent on removing another country's inhabitants from the map via absolutely any means possible, from having the biggest, nastiest weapon ever conceived?

      Which country are you talking about? On the one hand you have a country that hasn't started a war in over 300 years and had an actual democratic government before we overthrew it (Iran) and on the other you have a country formed by forcibly taking land from native inhabitants, and who's people have been involved in conflicts for basically their entire existence (Israel).

      Everybody knows what the real problem is in the region, it's just that some people won't admit it because of ulterior motives. We backed the wrong country.

    19. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      Mmm, not sure the second amendment agrees with you. You go see the police may be or go buy a gun and wait for them. that makes you a law abiding citizen. hitting them with your car while they're going to the store to buy their gun makes you a jerk.

    20. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      why can;t BOTH to put their weapons down? some people tend make it seam like the Arabs are causing havoc in the middle east, and thus are savages that we need to either control or exterminate (a deja vu ...). And by the way that IS antisemitic.

    21. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If the Arabs(and some Persians) put down their weapons today there would be peace in the region. If the Israelis put down their weapons there would be no more Israel.

      So true. Yet so many don't understand.

    22. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by afabbro · · Score: 1

      I'm tired of this monotonic "they're out to get us and they're missiles just got modded +1 Not Funny". As far as I know Iran isn't a particularly bad country for that neck of the woods;

      Neck of the woods = Planet Earth. And yes they are.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    23. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by afabbro · · Score: 1

      If i lived in Iran, I'd want nuclear weapons too, to counterbalance the threat to Iran, of Israel's weapons program.

      Israel has never launched a war of aggression. On the other hand, its Muslim neighbors have launched four wars against it with genocidal aims.

      Who is the threat again?

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    24. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      Applying your logic : "getting rid of all the assholes (on both sides) that think like you would achieve world peace" ... see how that sound?

    25. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel cannot stand alone, regardless of how many weapons it has.

      Without US aid, Israel will cease to exist.

      The Arab countries know this, and this is one of the major reasons that
      the US is hated in the middle east.

      I don't think it's worth what it is costing the US, myself, and sooner or later
      anyone who isn't a Jew but is American is going to agree, no matter how
      much the Jews spend on propaganda ( cough ... NPR ... cough ).

    26. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      This isn't hitting their car. It's sabotaging the die from which they plan to produce thousands of guns, all intended for you and/or your friend.

    27. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Israel never removed a country's inhabitants from the map."

      They did. By locking them up in a ghetto. Yes, they have not _kill_ them (yet).

      "They also haven't vowed the destruction of another country in the region, unlike a certain other regime in said region."

      Yup. They just keep on genociding, why waste time on public vows and declarations?

    28. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      well thank you that's thoughtful. but still illegal :)
      Let's say Dexter got caught by the police ... what would happen to him?
      from your standing the guy is wrong to try and kill you. from somewhere else may be your the bad guy and he had a good reason to try and kill you. If your on the other side of the barrel there is only one conclusion : (you are wrong and the guy holding the gun is right) OR (||) (you are right and the guy holding the gun is wrong) -> (P) OR (-P) that statement is always true. that is why we need a third party.
      If it was for me ... nobody deserves the right to have a nuke. but who am I to prevent others from having one if I own one? what makes me so special that I deserve to have one? This is a situation where we need a rule with no exception, a rule that is applied blindly without the need to think of a "what if ...". no nukes for any one, NO exception.

    29. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Israel attacked first in the Six Day War? You know, when they destroyed the Egyptian Air Force on the ground in Operation Focus?

    30. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by toutankh · · Score: 0

      So is your previous one about Arabs putting down weapons...

    31. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by toutankh · · Score: 0

      and sooner or later
      anyone who isn't a Jew but is American is going to agree, no matter how
      much the Jews spend on propaganda ( cough ... NPR ... cough ).

      Well as it happens there are also many Jews who don't really like the idea of an Israel nation, so you probably meant "Zionists".

    32. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The entire area was owned by the British, and largely backing the Axis due to their support of the genocide. The British gave the land to Israel, who were the ones forcibly taking said land. Not like that's never happened before in history, but people make a big deal out of it because it's Israel. I hope you're not in the US, otherwise you should get out of there, since if you are, you took the lands of native people forcibly as well.

      Probably a bad idea to put a bunch of Jews in the center of a bunch of people who hate Jews, but it's not like the only reason they want to kill Jews is because their "homeland is being invaded". They were of that mindset long before Israel existed.

      Also, Iran didn't exist for the last 300 years, but if you count the Persians as "Iranians" for this example, most definitely started the second Russo-Persian War.

      Israel hasn't started a war, either, just to point that out - they just get embroiled in the whole "Arab Muslims tend to hate Jews" thing constantly, since they're surrounded by a bunch of countries that really, really don't like Jews (just look at the laws regarding Judaism in some of these countries). The only one that you can even possibly consider them starting a war (the Lebanon war) was a retaliation to a Lebanese assassination attempt on one of their ambassadors.

    33. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 0

      Israel doesn't have nukes. It just has lots of friends who have nukes, most of whom would be willing to use them if push came to shove and a country decided to go on a killing spree.

      I would have no qualms about destroying a knife factory owned by Dexter, if Dexter weren't killing other serial killers, but rather random people. Dexter is only an interesting show because he's an exception to the rule (serial killers are bad people doing evil shit); Iran is not an exception to the rule (Rule #1 of world politics: Don't give nukes to someone with absolutely no reservations about detonating them), in that they'd be willing to use a nuke the moment they get it assembled.

    34. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1
      As if the Palestinians aren't killing (and attempting to kill) Israelis? Please, do apply the same standard to them.

      They have no plans to commit genocide on Palestinians, either, and if you think they do, you're a fucking moron. Not only are the Jews just not into that kind of thing (wonder why?), they're not morons. They know that even considering that idea is really, really bad, because if it ever happened, they're done as a country.

    35. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by flyingkillerrobots · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes. Hundreds of thousands. Try 7,500, 1,500 of whom were killed in intra-Palestinian fighting. If you are going to claim "well, the Israelis are tergeting primarily civilians," note that the Israeli civilian casualty rate is some higher than that of the Palestinians, despite that most of the intense fighting has been in Palestinian cities.

      --
      "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations..." -Winston Churchill
    36. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel follows a policy of neither confirming or denying that they have nuclear weapons. They've pledged not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the region, but have also qualified that they don't believe possessing nuclear weapons to be "introducing" the weapons and that only a public declaration of possessing them constitutes "introduction". So, either they have nuclear weapons, or they're running a really good bluff that they do have them but just can't say so. Either way, everyone works under the assumption that they do, or in the case of all the actual experts on the matter who will talk about it, knows with 99% certainty that they do.

      Personally, I would prefer it if no-one had nuclear weapons. The odds of Mutually Assured Destruction working as a deterrent if every country and large interest group in the world has nukes becomes less and less likely. In the long run, it's pretty unlikely you can stop that from happening, however. At least, not through means of assassination and sabotage. Nutjob hawk types always scream about how "their kind only understands violence" because they themselves only understand violence. In the long run, however, the hippies are probably the ones with the more sensible strategy. Countries who completely ignore the sovereignty of other nations just don't make a lot of friends. Going around breaking other peoples fingers periodically on the chance that they may punch you someday is pretty much guaranteed to ensure that they will indeed punch you when you get the chance.

    37. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I hope you don't live in the US, England, Germany, or nearly any other country. Because let's face it: there isn't a fucking place on Earth that hasn't been forcibly taken from the people who (formerly) own(ed) it at some point in history. Anglos took over the Saxons, Norway took over England, Germany at one point owned Europe, the USSR owned everything east of Germany, China isn't a historical state either, Japan wasn't unified a while ago, India wasn't a state, the USA wouldn't exist, Mexico was owned for quite a long time (didn't even get to keep their language)...the list goes on, of how blind you are to history if you think one group of people has never moved in on another group's turf. It's new to history for such a global issue to be created over 8000 square miles, though.

      I also said remove them from the map - outright genocide hasn't happened by their hands, despite the sequestering of land. As it turns out, they are, by a longshot, better than the Spaniards, the then-future-Americans, the Normans, the English, the Japanese, the Germans, the French, the Dutch, the Chinese...

    38. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Lewis+Daggart · · Score: 2

      We don't give teenage girls nukes!

    39. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by kenshin33 · · Score: 1
      I wasn't asking if you'd destroy the factory of knives (KNOWING what I know I wouldn't arrest him either. And I insist on the word KNOWING)... I was asking what would happen to him if he got busted by a cop (other than his sister)? . At some point he was even hesitating to kill Doakes, in the end it was that chick who killed him.
      Killing is evil no matter what the reason. There are reasons to justify it, but that doesn't make it less evil.
      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
      https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Iran_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
      Iran is suspected of trying to build one. Israel allegedly has is already. India has it. That said, this is extremely dangerous stuff (nukes), Hiroshima and Nagasaki should have convinced every one to get rid of all nukes, and drop any nuclear weapons program. and therefor there should be NO EXCEPTION TO THE RULE. NO one is ALLOWED to PRODUCE nukes.

      It just has lots of friends who have nukes, most of whom would be willing to use them if push came to shove and a country decided to go on a killing spree.

      lot of friends == USA, that's it. Israel or any other country or anything for that matter is worth protecting with nukes. Country_1 shoots nukes && .. && country_n == no more inhabitable earth (for n very small)

    40. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you could rewrite your first two sentences so that they make some semblance of sense, we'd be able to understand what you're trying to say there. Although I suppose that might be a deliberate attempt at weird passive voice obfuscation.

      Also wanted to mention that, in the last thousand years or so, Jews have probably been persecuted more by Christians than by Muslims. Let's not forget that for quite a long time, Jews were completely exiled from England. Let's also not forget that the Nazis most certainly weren't Muslims.

    41. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      not to forget ...who/what ever is in the cross fire

    42. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      It's also "criminally irresponsible" for the US to invest itself so heavily in defending this PoS slab of sand and totally wrecking our regional policy efforts for the past 20-30 years; including the hypocrisy of raging against nuclear weapons when the 5th largest arsenal belongs to the most incompliant (and 100th largest) nation. Israel, do what the hell you want, but do it with your own money and your own prestige. Stop dumping the foreign aid we give you back into influencing our foreign policy to defend your deplorable standards.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    43. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by kanto · · Score: 2

      Neck of the woods = Planet Earth. And yes they are.

      O no they ain't? Pfft, it's a global world, I get it. So in comparison tell me something that the Iranians are doing internationally that's so much more horrible than what the US or Russia have been up to? They don't like the west being in their face all the time and they're frank about it; as I've said before, they've been fucked over by GBR and the US. Saudis, Pakistan etc. promise co-operation and at the same time do everything in their power to disrupt peace in the region.

      At least Iran educates women unlike many countries and have had at times a somewhat civilized democracy. They have oil so we yell "satan", they yell "infidel" and nones the wiser; thanks in advance for modding me down.

    44. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      The sister thing this season really got me going, TBH haha. She's starting to seem more like him, and I think they're gonna run with that next season. Glad you brought that up.

      Anything done to prevent an evil greater than the evil of said preventative measure is a good deed in my book. One murder (obviously is a criteria too) prevents hundreds, no problem. Carry on. A real cop might arrest him, but there's a very real possibility that a real cop would understand and let him go. Cops, like anyone else, don't mind if their job is done for them by a guy doing thorough research. A few less crazy psychopath killers to deal with, a few less chances to die on the job.

      That's likely why nobody other than Iran is all up-in-arms about this whole thing. Nobody cares that a crazy regime isn't getting nukes soon, regardless as to the method.

      Suspected != has, and you know that. The greatest bluff of all time is what this will go down to be, when the truth isn't going to damage Israel's position in the region.

    45. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by quokkaZ · · Score: 1

      Really? What do you call the 2006 Lebanon War, a good neighbor policy?

    46. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      The fucking people living in the middle east hated Jews before they moved in. You have to be a retard if you didn't understand that from the context given by the second paragraph. Oh, wait, AC, right.

      In the last thousand years, until recently, there were no Jews in the Muslim world because all the Jews in those areas were slaughtered and persecuted even longer ago and Jews didn't move back in. Even the Muslim world has calmed its ways a bit in this last millennium.

      You can't even legitimately bring Nazism into this on the Christian side, given their shifting associations depending on their mood. Nazism is a "religion" (read: cult) in its own right, separate from Christianity. They even prayed to that shithead.

    47. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by kenshin33 · · Score: 1

      Well he seems to be longing for a companion, be it his sister. but that would be too perfect and there would be no tension no stress and could kill the story (IMHO).
      indeed Suspected != Has. One has to get proof to shift suspecting to asserting. (if anyone is doubting that, the WMD fiasco with Irak should clear that up).
      Iran doesn't have them either, they're suspected of trying to get their hands on one.

    48. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Nyder · · Score: 0

      ...

      Probably a bad idea to put a bunch of Jews in the center of a bunch of people who hate Jews, but it's not like the only reason they want to kill Jews is because their "homeland is being invaded". They were of that mindset long before Israel existed.

      ...

      I was under the impression that everyone hated Jews because they go around saying they are god's children and better then everyone else?

      Or is it everyone else is just sick of "jewish comedy"?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    49. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Cyberax · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "As if the Palestinians aren't killing (and attempting to kill) Israelis?"

      Yes, they do. Though they kill about 100 times less civilians than Israel.

      "Please, do apply the same standard to them."

      Of course. Palestinian terror should be stopped.

      "They have no plans to commit genocide on Palestinians, either, and if you think they do, you're a fucking moron."

      Who knows? Israeli army might have these plans and is just waiting for a good moment to enact them (say, for a nuclear strike on Israel by someone).

      Right now Palestine is living under apartheid conditions. Citizens of Palestine are not allowed to have their own country, foreign trade (even though they have access to seaports), etc. And yet they are also not citizens of Israel.

      Or how about recent demolitions of Arab houses in Jerusalem (because they don't have permissions) while at the same time building settlements (without any permissions - which is A-OK).

      Or the way Israel is sabotaging peace talks - every time there's at least a hope for a good result, Israel does something to disrupt it. Like shooting rockets at wheelchairs, changing pledge of allegiance, etc.

    50. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That narrative is unfalsifiable and ridiculous.

      It's very easily falsifiable -- provide one example where Israel launched a war of aggression.

    51. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No white Americans are setting up a settlement village in the Navajo nation, paid by the US government and backed by their firepower.

      Having done something awful is awful, but it's way less awful than keep doing it.

    52. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      Heh, maybe right now in 2010 they arent. But go back 150 years and that is EXACTLY what we we doing.

    53. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, Iran didn't exist for the last 300 years, but if you count the Persians as "Iranians" for this example

      "The name Iran has been in use natively since the Sassanian era [651 AD] and came into use internationally in 1935, before which the country was also known to the western world as Persia."

      You seem to be purposely trying to mislead readers over the nature of Iran as a country.

      [Iran] most definitely started the second Russo-Persian War.

      "Fath 'Ali Shah, constantly in need of foreign subsidies, relied on the advice of British agents, who pressed him to reconquer the territories lost to Russia and pledged their support to military action."

      So they were retaking land that Russia had taken from them 13 years earlier, at the end of the war Russia started with Iran (Persian). This is basically just continuing a war, definitely not something warlike. Also, they were put up to it by the British. Geez.

      And as if 200 years of not starting wars wasn't enough to indicate that these aren't hotheaded people that go around making trouble for no reason.

      I hope you're not in the US, otherwise you should get out of there, since if you are, you took the lands of native people forcibly as well.

      Maybe you are thinking of Canada. I don't think anybody is under the impression that U.S. is a non-violent country that is all nice to their neighbors (or anybody else). If anything, you've shown why the world should be more concerned with the U.S. having nuclear weapons than Iran.

      Put aside your agenda and look at the facts; Iran historically is a far more peaceful country than either Israel or the U.S.

    54. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by toutankh · · Score: 0

      I agree with mostly all of that, and I don't think it contradicts my point. There has been slaughtering of Palestinians civilians and refugees by Israelis though, although no genocide (I guess it's a matter of scale).

      Further discussing what you meant exactly by "removing from the map" is of no interest to me, and does not change the facts that (i) people in the region have been slaughtered by Israel and still are sporadically (last operations in Lebanon come to mind) and (ii) exodus of Palestinians has been taking place since the creation of Israel.

    55. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by jovius · · Score: 3, Informative

      There were Jews and Arabs living in the area long before it became the modern Israel. The problems today are the result of mass exodus and the (violent) expansion of Jewish settlements. The resistance and politics on either side has grown into a ultranationalistic psychotic fantasy. Nobody actually cared about the opinion of the people already living there when the borders were first drawn, so the first war was inevitable. Jewish nationalism was condemned by many a notable jew at the time.

      It's sad how boths sides play politics exploiting their own people. Every death is used to promote selfish agenda, every military action is because of safety. Of course they don't own the people, but that's the convenient illusion to work with. We most probably end up to a single state and a similar struggle as in South Africa.

    56. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US tends to attack countries that have oil, don't have nukes, and refuse to play ball.

      Like Canada.

    57. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Really? What do you call the 2006 Lebanon War, a good neighbor policy?"

      Self defence against a country unable to control the people along its border that were constantly attacking Israel.

    58. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us are *very* afraid of those Alaskan girls!

    59. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by _dew · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      ...The US tends to attack countries that have oil, don't have nukes, and refuse to play ball.

      Your comment was probably cut out. I will help you and finish it for you
      ...and threatens to distinguish millions of people

    60. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Competition is part of evolution. By saying wars are wasteful you're also saying nature is wasteful. Genetic arms race has been an essential part of life for eons, weapons of war are just the same deal evolving at a massively faster pace - but its nature is no different. People wishing for peace and "ethics" are basically putting themselves above nature itself, which is nothing more than arrogance.

    61. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ahem. Loose lips sink ships.

    62. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 2

      The largest killer of Palestinians is the Palestinians themselves, then the Lebanese, followed by Jordan.

      (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_casualties_of_war).

      Never let facts get in the way of a good prejudice, hey?

    63. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Archtech · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The point is not whether one group of people has ever forcibly conquered or displaced another. Almost all of history consists of that. But all the examples you cite are well in the past - at least before 1900. The point is whether supposedly civilized people should have set out to do such a thing in the 1940s - during and after the Nazi era. We rightly condemn the Nazis for setting out to conquer, displace, and sometimes exterminate indigenous peoples - then acquiesce smilingly when the Jews do the same thing. That's a classic double standard.

      By the way, I feel I should mention that:

      1. There is no evidence that Iran is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, and much that it isn't.
      2. It is against Iran's interests to have a nuclear weapons program, as that would provide Israel and the USA with a classic casus belli for an aggressive war against it. (Exactly as happened in Iraq).
      3. Iran has signed the NPT, and has complied with its rules. The NPT explicitly allows signatories to seek and acquire peaceful nuclear power generation.
      4. Israel (like India) has not signed the NPT, yet has not only pursued the acquisition of nuclear weapons; it is said to have over 100 of them, ready for use at any time. This is in flagrant breach of international law, yet no one seems to care.
      5. The USA, as revealed by Wikileaks, intends to supply Israel with fissionable material. As Israel has not signed the NPT, that is a violation of both international law and the NPT.
      6. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the state of Israel should be removed from the map. That would be achieved if, for instance, all the immigrant Jews were to go back to Europe, North America, and wherever else they came from, and the Palestinians were given back their homes. He did not call for the killing of anyone, let alone the genocide often falsely attributed to him.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    64. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by unitron · · Score: 1

      Israel never removed a country's inhabitants from the map.

      Haven't read our Old Testament, have we?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    65. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by unitron · · Score: 1

      ...provide one example where Israel launched a war of aggression.

      How about every time they took over any of the land in that area of the world, starting in the Old Testament and going up to 1948.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    66. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 0

      Wow - the stupid, it burns.

      There has been a continuous Jewish presence on the Levant (i.e., present-day Israel/Palestine) since the Old Testament period. Jews and Muslims co-existed throughout much of the Islamic world for centuries. For much of that period of time, it was easier to be Jewish in the Islamic world than to be Jewish in the Christian world.

      Most of the people who carried out the Holocaust were nominal Christians, even if some corners of Nazism flirted with varieties of neo-Paganism. And the pogroms were definitely carried out by Christians.

    67. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      Right, North Korea's possession of a nuclear arsenal hasn't kept the US and South Korea from responding to its recent... oh, wait.

    68. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      *cough* Lebanon *cough*

    69. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by wmac · · Score: 1

      There are at least 2-3 countries in between. Don't you want to check the map?

    70. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your literacy is exceeded only by your familiarity with history.

    71. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Maybe this "hate jews" is just a sane reaction to Israel being established by force by messily removing a people from their land? I mean, do you look at Indians fighting the settlers in north america and think "my god what insane hateful animals attacking those peaceful settlers"? If someone kicks you out of your home I guess you will just live in a tent nearby and help them carry their groceries up the stairs?

      Muslims and Jews have a history of peaceful co-existence for many hundreds of years. The current bad blood is a modern phenomenon that can explained by consequences of establishment of Israel rather than any religious mumbo-jumbo. 15% of Palestinians are christians and they dont feel any better about Israel than do Moslem Palestinians.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_under_Muslim_rule
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain

    72. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by js_sebastian · · Score: 1

      Oh and they also didn't slaughter anyone living there in order to create their artificial country. Not to mention anything in Lebanon (e.g. slaughtering refugees in Sabra and Shatila),

      The sabra and shatila massacre was conducted by lebanese christian militias, as retaliation for gemayel's death. Of course, this is a nitpick, since the israeli army allowed, and even assisted the massacre.

    73. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by js_sebastian · · Score: 1

      2. It is against Iran's interests to have a nuclear weapons program, as that would provide Israel and the USA with a classic casus belli for an aggressive war against it. (Exactly as happened in Iraq).

      Who is "iran"? It is definitely against the country's interests to have nuclear weapons while being considered dangerous by the rest of the world (because it might yet get them invaded). But the whole nuclear controversy serves a political/propaganda purpose for the country's rulers.

      6. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the state of Israel should be removed from the map. That would be achieved if, for instance, all the immigrant Jews were to go back to Europe, North America, and wherever else they came from, and the Palestinians were given back their homes. He did not call for the killing of anyone, let alone the genocide often falsely attributed to him.

      Many of those "immigrant" jews were born in israel, and the homes they live in did not exist yet at the time israel was founded. Mass deportation is a war crime closely related to genocide, largely because you cannot achieve it without some carnage. People do not just stand up and leave their homes and entire possessions, unless you convincingly demonstrate to them that you are willing to slaughter them if they don't leave. That's what the whole debate is about armenia and turkey... the turks do not want it to be called genocide, but a lot of people were killed to force the rest of them to leave (and many more died along the way). Anyone who advocates removing an entire country off the map is a dangerous fascist in my opinion, and a wannabe war criminal.

    74. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      The point is not whether one group of people has ever forcibly conquered or displaced another. Almost all of history consists of that. But all the examples you cite are well in the past - at least before 1900. The point is whether supposedly civilized people should have set out to do such a thing in the 1940s - during and after the Nazi era. We rightly condemn the Nazis for setting out to conquer, displace, and sometimes exterminate indigenous peoples - then acquiesce smilingly when the Jews do the same thing. That's a classic double standard.

      Israel was not formed by wholesale extermination of Palestinians. Jews were people without a homeland at all. Israel came about solely because of the Nazi era - WW2 was over before Israel was created - from British-controlled territory.

      By the way, I feel I should mention that:

      1. There is no evidence that Iran is seeking to acquire nuclear weapons, and much that it isn't.

      Seeking to make their own enriched material is a sure sign they're going for it. They can have power generation without running centrifuges, which was supposed to be the deal with Russia - then it came out they had quite a few centrifuges operational.

      2. It is against Iran's interests to have a nuclear weapons program, as that would provide Israel and the USA with a classic casus belli for an aggressive war against it. (Exactly as happened in Iraq).

      Against their interests, yet in their goals.

      3. Iran has signed the NPT, and has complied with its rules. The NPT explicitly allows signatories to seek and acquire peaceful nuclear power generation.

      So did North Korea. Look how that turned out.

      4. Israel (like India) has not signed the NPT, yet has not only pursued the acquisition of nuclear weapons; it is said to have over 100 of them, ready for use at any time. This is in flagrant breach of international law, yet no one seems to care.

      First, there's no proof they actually have them. Not one iota.

      I guess there's a reason why nobody seems to care, yeah?

      5. The USA, as revealed by Wikileaks, intends to supply Israel with fissionable material. As Israel has not signed the NPT, that is a violation of both international law and the NPT.

      I would like to see a link on this, as I haven't seen it.

      6. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the state of Israel should be removed from the map. That would be achieved if, for instance, all the immigrant Jews were to go back to Europe, North America, and wherever else they came from, and the Palestinians were given back their homes. He did not call for the killing of anyone, let alone the genocide often falsely attributed to him.

      He did, however, say that said removal from the map would be by any means necessary.

    75. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Archtech · · Score: 1

      People do not just stand up and leave their homes and entire possessions, unless you convincingly demonstrate to them that you are willing to slaughter them if they don't leave.

      And that is exactly what the Jews forced the Palestinians to do. Having been a victim does not constitute a licence to victimize someone else.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    76. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by daid303 · · Score: 1

      The dutch however, just create new land.

    77. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Archtech · · Score: 1

      "Israel was not formed by wholesale extermination of Palestinians..."

      Well, that is a matter of degree. A lot of Palestinians were killed when they refused to leave their homes; and it is reasonable to believe that the Israelis intended for many of the others to die as a result of being ejected from the good agricultural land and sent away into desert regions. But it is true that the present regime in Israel and Palestine more closely resembles South African apartheid.

      "Jews were people without a homeland at all..."

      That's an interesting remark. It seems to imply that you believe every "people" should have a "homeland" that is uniquely, and permanently, theirs. But how does that fit in with the theory that it is perfectly OK to eject the current people from their "homeland" and take it for yourselves? Moreover, what exactly is "a people"? Surely you do not believe that there are distinct "races", each with its native soil? Apart from being very close to the Nazis' own ideas, that is surely a concept that science left behind decades ago.

      It also raises the question of "who is a Jew?" Is a Jew a person who embraces the Jewish religion, or a person of Jewish parentage, or both? If it's a matter of religion, where is the connection with Palestine for someone whose ancestors came from Poland or Spain? Or if it's someone who can prove descent from Jews who left Palestine after the unsuccessful rebellion against Rome, what gives them the right to reclaim the land their ancestors supposedly occupied 60 or 70 generations ago? That is not a precedent I imagine most white Americans would wish to see established.

      "Israel came about solely because of the Nazi era - WW2 was over before Israel was created - "

      Exactly. So why did the Jews have to flee Europe precisely when the people who had persecuted them were all dead, in prison, or being hunted down like dogs? And why did any of them have to leave the USA, which is such a paradise of racial tolerance?

      "...from British-controlled territory..."

      Yes. And the British remember that it was accomplished by a sustained campaign of wholesale terrorism against military and civilian targets alike - even if you don't. Clue: try searching for "King David Hotel Bombing".

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    78. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by js_sebastian · · Score: 1

      People do not just stand up and leave their homes and entire possessions, unless you convincingly demonstrate to them that you are willing to slaughter them if they don't leave.

      And that is exactly what the Jews forced the Palestinians to do. Having been a victim does not constitute a licence to victimize someone else.

      There is no such thing as "the jews". The people who live in Israel today are mostly not the same ones who initially moved into the new state when it was founded. You cannot blame them for anything that happened in 1948 any more than you can blame germans today for what the nazis did just a few years earlier: I would think that not having been born yet should count as an absolute defense against any accusation... Unless you are the wolf from Aesop's fable, who just wants an excuse to eat the lamb.

    79. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who knows? Israeli army might have these plans and is just waiting for a good moment to enact them (say, for a nuclear strike on Israel by someone).

      Isn't Hamas' stated goal to destroy Isreal? I think that Israel is being pretty reasonable considering the level of animosity they experience.

    80. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by vxice · · Score: 1

      "Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group." From wikipedia. It includes any attempt to destroy their future or the demographics. That includes the destruction of workshops and factories even water sanitation facilities in the Gaza strip then refusing to allow the materials to repair them. You can't fish legally fish more than 3 miles off the coast and in practice you are often shot at even as close as on shore. Israel has admitted they are attempting to punish all Gazans to root out Hamas. They will suffer for years the affects of malnutrition. Government Rabbis the other day stated that it was immoral to give housing to Israeli Arabs. 1/3 of Gazan farmland is within the 'security zone' of the Gaza boarder and thus farmers are shot at for attempting to farm. Jerusalem is majority Arab and Israel is attempting to change it. Jews learned quickly that people don't like gas chambers but other methods were equally effective for genocide that wouldn't attract attention. On top of all that their entire justification for removing the Palestinians is a dusty old scroll says they above all other humans have the exclusive right based on ethnicity and religion to occupy the land.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    81. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by vxice · · Score: 1

      "I hope you're not in the US, otherwise you should get out of there, since if you are, you took the lands of native people forcibly as well." Sorry that wasn't me. That was my great great great... grandpa. Are you suggesting that I am eternally less of a person for something I didn't, by my race did? What I am doing now is living in a country that is supporting genocide RIGHT NOW, 1/3 of Israel's military budget comes from the U.S. We shield them from any UN resolution. I can't do anything about what my country did well before I was born, but I can do something about what they are doing now.

      --
      every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
    82. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      "well, the Israelis are tergeting primarily civilians,"

      Yeah, I keep hearing this too. Then I see a portable rocket launcher set up in an elementary school courtyard and think, "Oh, that's why." (BTW, Israel did NOT attack the rocket launcher set up next to the elementary school. They allowed it to fire all of its rockets into Israeli neighborhoods instead of risking Palestinian children. What monsters!)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    83. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The US tends to attack countries that have oil, don't have nukes, and refuse to play ball.

      How did this idiocy get modded up? Who has the US attacked that has oil? We've been over this before. Afghanistan has essentially none. Iraq, at peak production, was generating US$20B/year in oil. We're spending $300B/year there. Think hard. 15 years of peak production to pay for 1 year of war. Even if we took all their oil (and we're not taking any) they don't have enough in the ground to repay us. We clearly didn't go there for their oil.

    84. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      The Iranians build bombs to destroy people. Their enemies work to to destroy Iran's capability to build bombs.

      These two things are not equivalent on any scale.

    85. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Evtim · · Score: 1

      But you will soon give the nukes to a deranged woman, more dangerous and foolish than all teenagers combined. Sarah Palin, if you are wondering what I am talking about....

    86. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by ArcherB · · Score: 2

      They have been successful in killing hundreds of thousands Palestinian without those nukes.

      Another poster shot down your hundreds of thousands comment. So, for your enjoyment, here are Palestinians launching rockets into Israeli neighborhoods from a boys school on their own territory.

      You tell by the distance from the school that the Palestinians are sincere with their stated goals of wanting peace and safety for their people. I mean, that launcher is at least one meter from the school. The only way to be closer would be if these "militants" had babies in backpacks as they ran back and forth launching the rockets.

      What saintly people you support.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    87. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right now Palestine is living under apartheid conditions. Citizens of Palestine are not allowed to have their own country, foreign trade (even though they have access to seaports), etc.

      That's very much the fault of the paliestinians. Instead of spending their money improving hteir own country, creating businesses, and educating their population, they purchase munitions and try to "throw israel into the sea".

      And yet they are also not citizens of Israel.

      Again, their own decision. The palestinians do not *want* to be israelis.

      Please don't blame others for what the palestinians choose to do.

    88. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by MiniMike · · Score: 2

      "As if the Palestinians aren't killing (and attempting to kill) Israelis?"

      Yes, they do. Though they kill about 100 times less civilians than Israel.

      Certainly not for lack of trying. Also nice job trying to equate the two sides- most if not all Palestinians are killed trying to commit acts of terror (or are unfortunately nearby), while most Israelis killed were civilians who were hit randomly by snipers, or victims of random shelling of civilian areas. Hardly equatable. Just because the Israelis have bomb shelters in their houses and bullet-proof school buses (yes, they actually had to bullet-proof their school buses!) doesn't mean it's OK to shoot at them.

      "Please, do apply the same standard to them."

      Of course. Palestinian terror should be stopped.

      "They have no plans to commit genocide on Palestinians, either, and if you think they do, you're a fucking moron."

      Who knows? Israeli army might have these plans and is just waiting for a good moment to enact them (say, for a nuclear strike on Israel by someone).

      "Who knows?" Really, is that your argument? Using that logic, you could make any crazy claim. If they wanted to commit genocide on the Palestinians, they have had plenty of chances- and they've probably killed fewer Palestinians than other Palestinians have.

      Right now Palestine is living under apartheid conditions. Citizens of Palestine are not allowed to have their own country, foreign trade (even though they have access to seaports), etc. And yet they are also not citizens of Israel.

      There are plenty of 'Palestinians' who are citizens of Israel- living in Israel. Are the Israelis supposed to give citizenship to people who don't live in Israel? If the Palestinians want their own country, they need to stop attacking Israel, and elect better leaders. Those two just might be connected...

      Or how about recent demolitions of Arab houses in Jerusalem (because they don't have permissions) while at the same time building settlements (without any permissions - which is A-OK).

      OK, show me a civilized country where you can build a house without permits? Arab houses build with permits are not demolished. The Israeli construction has the permission of the local government, which again is usually considered sufficient. Israeli buildings without permits are also demolished.

      Or the way Israel is sabotaging peace talks - every time there's at least a hope for a good result, Israel does something to disrupt it. Like shooting rockets at wheelchairs, changing pledge of allegiance, etc.

      Israel sabotages the peace talks? Are those actions (btw, wtf are you talking about, please provide reference) really more damaging than, say, shooting mortars and missiles randomly into civilian areas like the Palestinians have been doing for years?

    89. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      "That's very much the fault of the paliestinians. Instead of spending their money improving hteir own country, creating businesses, and educating their population, they purchase munitions and try to "throw israel into the sea"."

      When was the last time Palestine was not blocked from sea by Israel?

      About businesses - quite a lot of them went down since the wall was built. Before that, there were a lot of small Palestinian businesses working with Israeli customers.

      "Again, their own decision. The palestinians do not *want* to be israelis."

      No. There's no easy way for a Palestinian to become a citizen of Israel even if they want it.

    90. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      "Certainly not for lack of trying. Also nice job trying to equate the two sides- most if not all Palestinians are killed trying to commit acts of terror (or are unfortunately nearby)"

      Lie. Most Palestinian victims are now 'collateral damage'. During the last war with HAMAS, about 2/3 of killed were civilians, many of them children.

      Total killed: 1,417 (PCHR),[29] 1,166 (IDF)[30]
      Militants and police officers:
      491* (PCHR),[29] 709 (IDF)[30]
      700(Hamas)[31]
      Civilians: 926 (PCHR),[29] 295 (IDF)[30][30]
      Total wounded: 5,303(PCHR)[29]

      "while most Israelis killed were civilians who were hit randomly by snipers, or victims of random shelling of civilian areas."

      Total killed: 13
      Soldiers: 10(friendly fire: 4[27])
      Civilians: 3

      So you see, HAMAS actually seems to inflict far less collateral damage.

      "There are plenty of 'Palestinians' who are citizens of Israel- living in Israel. Are the Israelis supposed to give citizenship to people who don't live in Israel?"

      When what the fuck Israel does in Palestine?

      "If the Palestinians want their own country, they need to stop attacking Israel, and elect better leaders. Those two just might be connected..."

      And who are you to judge which leader is better for their nation? Would it be OK if Israel was occupied by the League of Arab Nations and Arabs told you that you'll have your own country when you learn to elect good leaders?

      "OK, show me a civilized country where you can build a house without permits? Arab houses build with permits are not demolished. The Israeli construction has the permission of the local government, which again is usually considered sufficient."

      Aha, sure. Have you tried to do this?

      "Israeli buildings without permits are also demolished."

      Yes? So all these illegal settlements are being built with permissions from the Palestine Autonomy?

      "Israel sabotages the peace talks?"

      Yes, that's what it looks like.

      "Are those actions (btw, wtf are you talking about, please provide reference) really more damaging than, say, shooting mortars and missiles randomly into civilian areas like the Palestinians have been doing for years?"

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7794577.stm
      http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hamas-declares-end-to-cease-fire-israeli-gov-t-sources-fear-violence-is-unavoidable-1.259846
      etc.

    91. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's good that our leaders are armed with more information about the military capabilities and intentions of other nations than you are. It is frightening that people like you might be able to vote in any country. Proliferation by Iran will result in Israeli mitigation of this threat. To date, this mitigation has been effected with cyberweapons. Israel would desire to not be required to use nuclear weapons to remove the threat, but if conventional forces fail, they will use them. If you are a leader of a nation and know that developing nuclear weapons will result in nuclear attack by one of the most capable air forces in the world, how could it be anything than "criminally irresponsible" to engage in such brinksmanship. The history of recent US military intervention: Grenada-no Panama-no Libya-yes Lebanon-no Syria-no Iraq-yes Yemen-no Pakistan-no Iran-no Somalia-no Afghanistan-no So the only country that has oil and has been "attacked" by more than surgical airstrikes or platoon-level SOF DA is Iraq. If "playing ball" means not proliferating nuclear weapons, I would hardly consider it a derogatory term.

    92. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by __aaxtnf2500 · · Score: 1

      The reason the US and Korea have never militarily engaged the North Koreans militarily had nothing to do with nuclear weapons, it's because the major population center of South Korea is within range of North Korean artillery behind the DMZ. If war broke out, Seoul would be flattened before you could evacuate 5% of the population and you would have the greatest loss of life in the shortest amount of time in human history. That would be a good thing to prevent, no? Oh yeah, the North Koreans have 100,000 SOF troops that are trained to infiltrate and conduct broad-spectrum combat operations everywhere in South Korea if war broke out.

    93. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by chrisG23 · · Score: 1

      In the last thousand years, until recently, there were no Jews in the Muslim world because all the Jews in those areas were slaughtered and persecuted even longer ago and Jews didn't move back in. Even the Muslim world has calmed its ways a bit in this last millennium.

      This is a very common misconception. It is not true. Until about the beginning of the 20th century (1900 ad) Jews lived in the Middle East and in other Muslim countries in the area in relative peace.

      Animosity between Arab and Muslim countries (Iran is a Muslim country but IS NOT an Arab country) increased greatly in the last century for a variety of reasons. The creation of the state of Israel and the handling of some of the non-Jews living in that reason prior is one of the issues. Israel has done what it thinks is best* to ensure the continued existence of the state of Israel, and as they still exist 60 years later, they have been successful so far. Israel puts its own interests above the interests of the region. Why should they do anything else? Why should any nation state do anything else?

      *This includes maintaining a very strong military, which they have used to defend themselves from foreign aggression as well as to be aggressors in preemptive wars and doing preemptive military strikes that they felt were in the interests of Israel. Includes using assassination as one of their options. Includes developing strong alliances with countries that can help them (most notably the USA). Includes expanding their borders into areas that are strategically significant.

    94. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by chrisG23 · · Score: 2

      Name three countries please that the US has attacked that have oil, that don't have nukes, and that refuse to play ball.

    95. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by LintFiend · · Score: 1

      The Palestinians would be better off if they took one of the many peace offers that were made (Camp David most importantly, which FYI gave the Palestinians E. Jerusalem). The Palestinians want it both ways: they don't want peace, but are angry about living in total war (and losing).

    96. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      I'll be honest with you: I confused your post with someone else's, and thought you'd written that *Israel* hadn't attacked any country in recent history. (The risks of late-night posting.) You're right about Iran; they are, generally, defensive in their stance.

    97. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by marga · · Score: 1

      The difference is the timeframe where this has happened.

      It is now generally agreed that what went on in the American continent was not right. The massacre of the indigenous inhabitants is not something that many people are proud of today, and each country has their own processes of restoration of SOME of the land to the original peoples.

      That such an usurpation would be started in the 20th century by the same people that apologise for their actions in the Americas, with conditions similar to the ones that were so hated about Apartheid in South Africa is something that does not cease to shock me.

      So, yes, it's not the first and probably won't be the last unfair usurpation of land, however, the conditions under which it has happened make it specially nasty.

      --
      Margarita Manterola.
    98. Re:How wasteful we humans are. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting remark. It seems to imply that you believe every "people" should have a "homeland" that is uniquely, and permanently, theirs. But how does that fit in with the theory that it is perfectly OK to eject the current people from their "homeland" and take it for yourselves?

      Then it's not ok that the Palestinians ejected the Jews in the 7th century, or you're putting forth a double standard.

      Seriously, you have to get over this point. People take land by force, regardless as to the time in history. Palestinians have told Jews to GTFO, Jews and Persians have told Christians to GTFO, Romans kicked out Christians, Christians kicked out Jews, among hundreds of other times the area has changed hands. Think of the place as the grandest king of the hill game ever conceived, and you'll see that is exactly what this area has always been, and it's not going to change any time soon.

      Or if it's someone who can prove descent from Jews who left Palestine after the unsuccessful rebellion against Rome, what gives them the right to reclaim the land their ancestors supposedly occupied 60 or 70 generations ago?

      What gives Palestinians the right to claim land that they themselves hadn't owned in the last thousand years either? Seriously, just go to Wikipedia and check out the article on "Palestine", if you think the area was anything other than conquered by a foreign power repeatedly for the past 2000 years.

      Exactly. So why did the Jews have to flee Europe precisely when the people who had persecuted them were all dead, in prison, or being hunted down like dogs? And why did any of them have to leave the USA, which is such a paradise of racial tolerance?

      Simple. It was their homeland, and given to them in full ownership, according to the people who owned the area previously.

      For the question of "Who is a Jew", just look at Israel's definition (Law of Return) for a 100% confidence interval of "Yes, is a Jew". Good luck on getting anyone to decide beyond that, though.

  10. Hey, what about the Russians??? by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know why people think the only strong suspects are Israel and the U.S.

    If you think about it, Russia not only has a number of potential motives (was paid off by one of the other arab nations like Saudi Arabia, annoyed at Iran for some reason, wants to make money selling the "fix" to the problem...), they have countries with many hackers that are well known for ability and also not as prone to speak out about what they are doing as a team (and this was a team effort) of U.S. hackers would be. On top of THAT, Russia also has (had?) engineers on site, which they could have used as an attack vector even unknowingly.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Hey, what about the Russians??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever they are, they have many thanks from the rest of the world.

    2. Re:Hey, what about the Russians??? by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Russia has actually repeatedly try to mediate the standoff by promising to do all the uranium enrichment necessary for nuclear power in Russia and then send the enriched uranium to Iran, all at a cost of course. The argument was that Iran could use the uranium to generate nuclear power ,which is their projects ostensible goal, without Iran getting any of the technology necessary to make a bomb. It never really made any progress.

    3. Re:Hey, what about the Russians??? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      I think it was Russia. For one, they have that capacity and I suspect that theirs is far more advanced than ours. Second, they have the access since they've been more aligned with Iran than us and would probably have more luck inserting such a virus. Third, Iran had been lying to the Russians about the status of their nuclear program. Fourth, the timing is also about right as this would be relatively shortly after we informed the Russians what the Iranians were up to.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    4. Re:Hey, what about the Russians??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I'm a bit cynical to say this, but Russia seems to love nothing better than undermining U.S. power. I doubt they'd take the initiative to set back Iran's nuclear program like that.

    5. Re:Hey, what about the Russians??? by bhiestand · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I'm a bit cynical to say this, but Russia seems to love nothing better than undermining U.S. power. I doubt they'd take the initiative to set back Iran's nuclear program like that.

      No, that's not cynical, it's just a bit off. Russia loves undermining US power, plenty of evidence of that, and the associated back and forth, ever since Brest-Litovsk.

      The point is that Russia doesn't want to see Iran actually acquire nuclear weapons. That's some bad juju for everyone, including Russia. Russia wants the US to expend considerable effort and resources trying to prevent Iran from going nuclear, and they want to keep Iran there as an anti-West nation, but they do want the US to succeed in this objective.

      --
      SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  11. Two years...? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

    Okay, so the F'n A says that they've been set back two years. The main reason cited is that they ahve to wipe all their machines etc to ensure the malware is gone.

    This is where my ignorance on the topic begins... So they have malware that attacks the Iran nuclear facility. It targets them without really hurting anybody else. How can this realistically take two years to clean up? Again, I'm being dense here, but the target is so specific I don't see how they can't just change a couple of things and avoid any more damage. Am I being really dumb or only just kind of dumb?

    --

    "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    1. Re:Two years...? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

      There's a whole gigantic facility (possibly two) that needs to have all its machinery removed and replaced with a different type, and you really believe it's a plug and play type of deal? (Stuxnet only affects a specific machine, the Siemens S7-300, and only when attached to specific variable frequency drives [centrifuges] - this is why Stuxnet is known to be a targeted operation. The Windows infection is just meant to use way to get itself onto those specific machines, and it does no real harm on Windows machines. When attached to the variable frequency drives, it messes with the operation of the centrifuge, preventing it from enriching uranium, but largely not affecting other operations. See why people think the US and Israel did it, because of the complexity, yet?)

      Put it this way; the whole interior may need to be redesigned and reworked to accommodate a new type of centrifuge. This building probably took 5-10 years to design, top to bottom, and is likely to take 2+ to rework, redesign, and get the equipment delivered, installed, and fully operational.

    2. Re:Two years...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Doesn't it physically damage the centrifuges by spinning them up and down rapidly? If it did that, well I'm guessing the centrifuges aren't exactly something you could pop down the street and pick up at your local Radio Shack. Something I heard from someone who may have heard it from a relative who read it in Playboy, only for the articles..

    3. Re:Two years...? by surfdaddy · · Score: 5, Informative

      A VERY interesting article with a lot of detail from (I know) Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/26/secret-agent-crippled-irans-nuclear-ambitions/ A bit more detail that I'd read elsewhere. I strongly encourage everybody to read this. Quite an admirable job. But then you think that of course this could happen to control systems in the US as well. We all know countries and organizations that might be happy to attack. I'm sure this sort of thing will only grow in the years ahead.

    4. Re:Two years...? by unitron · · Score: 1

      Something very interesting in that article--apparently Stuxnet used 4 zero-day vulnerabilities in Windows 7, including a couple that apparently no one else had found so far, which leads one to wonder, considering all the lead times involved, if perhaps those ZDVs were placed in Win7 on purpose.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  12. So the "cyberwar" begins by iONiUM · · Score: 1

    Well I hate the word "cyberwar", but I wasn't really sure what else to call it. It seems that warfare has finally taken place at the computer level. It will be interesting to see where it goes from here..

    Personally, I'd prefer war this way. Less lives lost.

    1. Re:So the "cyberwar" begins by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Personally, I'd prefer war this way. Less lives lost.

      You think attacks against computers are incapable of causing lives to be lost?

      People need a supply of food to survive.

      What happens if an enemy infects the banking system and manages to shut down all ETF Transactions, Wire transfers, the ATM network, and causes a nationwide blackout and bricking of key infrastructure components?

      And we haven't even gotten to the possibility of trojan horses messing with weapons systems and causing them to self-destruct or activate targetting the country that owns them.

    2. Re:So the "cyberwar" begins by Kenshin · · Score: 1

      What if Skynet becomes self-aware and launches nukes?

      --

      Does it make you happy you're so strange?

  13. If Only by Auto_Lykos · · Score: 1

    Diplomatic discussion on Stuxnet wasn't top secret and would show up in the WikiLeaks cables.

    This is one event that we could use secret info being leaked to the public on. (At least for geeks)

    1. Re:If Only by orphiuchus · · Score: 2

      Oh, I think its best if nobody knows who did this.

    2. Re:If Only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      and have a bunch of islamo fascists target that country specifically, all for your GEEKY satisfaction.
      now I know why geeks are kicked around like football in US high schools. Because they are disconnected from reality, living in a world of bits and bytes alone.

    3. Re:If Only by Auto_Lykos · · Score: 1

      True, but a bit of selfish wishing can't hurt.

  14. Dark horse candidate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "First post" posts on Slashdot sometimes appear with frightening speed, suggesting the work of a tight-knit group of hackers who might've pulled off Stuxnet as a skills development exercise.

  15. Problematic Approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The problem with this approach and other similar forced social and technological engineering attempts by the west against Iran, is that it forces Iran to become more independent and self-reliant. It is true that there is a temporary short-term win, however in the long run it creates a scenario of technological escalation.

    Lets review Technological Escalation ala'Iraq:

    Attack Vector: IED v1.0 - Road side bomb with detonator fuse wire, bomber hides in near buy building, waits for US tanks to go past, presses red button
    US Countermeasure: Train soldiers to look for suspicious packages or mounds of garbage were wire or some such are leading away from mound, once detected fire at location where wire ends up.

    Attack Vector: IED v2.0 - Same as v1 but now uses a wireless trigger mechanism based on childrens walkie-talkies to set-off explosive. As before waits for US tanks to go past, presses red button
    US Countermeasure: Provide signal jamming equipment on-board all patrols and tanks.

    Attack Vector: IED v3.0 - Same as v2 but now uses continuous signal trigger mechanism to set-off explosive. As before waits for US tanks to go past, presses red button, but now signal stops and explosive goes kaboom!
    US Countermeasure: Same as before but instead of jamming the signal, all terrestrial signals are replicated, allowing the tank/patrol to pass by without being blown up.

    Attack Vector: IED v4.0 - Same as v3 uses continuous signal trigger mechanism to set-off explosive. Signal begin sent is encrypted and uses a random sequence number, As before waits for US tanks to go past, presses red button, signal stops and explosive goes kaboom!
    US Countermeasure: Pray...., play crappy rock/death metal music while driving around bagdad.

    Attack Vector: IED v5.0 - Same as v4, but now they have time to refine the design of the ordinates, remember the movie coneheads with Dan Akroid? Well it turns out for a really good focused explosion, all you need is a piece of steal in that shape packed with C4, with the pointy end aim at the direction you wish the explosive to fire - Armoured penetration as per and 09' pentagon report is roughly successful 85% of the time.
    US Countermeasure: Pray....

    Attack Vector: IED v6.0 - Same as v5, but made to be more weather resistant, with added proximity sensors, modern cars aren't made with as much steel and Iron as patrol cars or tanks - so it makes for a good differentaitor which can be use with a proximity fuse.
    US Countermeasure: N/A

    Do you really want to force your enemies hand like this?

    1. Re:Problematic Approach by shadowofwind · · Score: 1

      Do you really want to force your enemies hand like this?

      It has been quite profitable for those in the military/contractor revolving door who have been responsible for this strategy. Although in theory its people higher up the chain who decide the policy, they do so based on the expert advice of people who are neither entirely honest nor interested in the long term.

    2. Re:Problematic Approach by cowwoc2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More sophisticated = more costly. If the end-result of this game is raising the cost for Iran to seek nuclear weapons then it's a win in its own right.

    3. Re:Problematic Approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Countermeasure: Same as before but instead of jamming the signal, all terrestrial signals are replicated, allowing the tank/patrol to pass by without being blown up.

      Attack Vector: IED v4.0 - Same as v3 uses continuous signal trigger mechanism to set-off explosive. Signal begin sent is encrypted and uses a random sequence number, As before waits for US tanks to go past, presses red button, signal stops and explosive goes kaboom!
      US Countermeasure: Pray...., play crappy rock/death metal music while driving around bagdad.

      Wouldn't jamming countermeasures defeat this and all the more advanced systems? If you swamp the band with noise, the explosive can no longer receive it's signal and explodes before any tanks can roll past it.

      My understanding is the current paradigm is JUST the cellphone bombs, for the simple reason that the US can't get away with jamming the entire GSM spectrum in Iraq/Afghanistan. That and apparently stuff like pressure plates - which defeats the "wire going to a building thing".

    4. Re:Problematic Approach by khallow · · Score: 1

      Do you really want to force your enemies hand like this?

      Yes. I'm puzzled why I wouldn't want to force a foe into a much harder path.

    5. Re:Problematic Approach by tokul · · Score: 1

      Do you really want to force your enemies hand like this?

      That's how asymmetric warfare works. US can't find valid targets for counter attack and is forced to stay in defense. With every IED version increase the other side is more and more exposed and eventually US will find its target. IED should stay at v4 in order to avoid increased dependency on technology and increased exposure. Upgrade to v5 is not needed. v4 works and US does not have counter measures for it. Other side can go to v6 or v7 only when they are ready to fight US in open.

    6. Re:Problematic Approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cost is negligible, the h/w is VERY cheap, there is nothing involved that you can't get from a radio-shack for under $50usd.

      As for Iran, it may in the short term raise the initial capital requirement and time to completion requirement for building a nuclear facility. The problem however is once its done, the people that built it, the organisations that supported them will have complete knowledge of the entire cycle, not just bits of it.

      I think what Buffet and Co are doing with their uranium enrichment market, is a good step in the right direction for non-proliferation, it allows countries to develop nuclear energy facilities, but doesn't give them the incentive to figure out how to purify and process nuclear material (pre/post use)

      One of the biggest fears that the US and Israel have at the moment is Iran's missile capabilities. Mind you what they have are just refits and refinements to ex-soviet, Chinese and North Korean technology, but given time and motivation they could probably start coming up with their own refined designs.

      In short: don't force your enemy's hand, don't back them into a corner, otherwise they will have nothing to loose, hence you'll have nothing and no one with which to negotiate.

    7. Re:Problematic Approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats exactly the countermeasure US troops had, it worked for them, however that lead to the final v4. Continous signal, random sequence number, OFDM signalling - Essentially a random sequence number encrypted and sent within the noise sprectrum via OFDM. what are they going to jam? what are they going to replicate? how does one detect a random signal within noise?

    8. Re:Problematic Approach by sponga · · Score: 1

      Send in the drones, no joke.

      By 2020 or something like that 2/3 of all military vehicles will be autonomously driven, have fun blowing up empty vehicles though.

      The reality is that drones and terminator bots will be developed at some point and deployed by the thousands. Have a bot sitting on some remote mountain top in Afghanistan in a freezing storm ready to confront anybody in the area.

      Also you were good up until Version 4.0, but the jammers you talk about are called the 'Buffalo' system and you should look up the technology in it.
      So please stop making up myth's about the 'Cryptological' signals because the Buffalo has shown time and again it disables that.

      Ver. 5.0 - Lol you mean 'Shaped Charges' is what you are trying to say and they have been around a long time as per Army manual training. Just took the illiterate idiots awhile to understand the tech, good luck using that against an empty vehicle with a drone.
      But I am sure they will resort to tactics of killing their own civilians or blowing themselves up, quick apply some version number to that or just turn a blind eye and be vocally quiet over it as usual.

      Ver. 6.0 - now you are just making up shit, 'steel and iron' oh ok yeah so now the terrorist can discriminate between friendly heavy metal vehicle and light one. LOL ok whatever you wanna make up, nevermind the 18 wheelers/buses/kaboos driving over them all day.
      Does ver. 6.0 work like in Afghanistan where the Taliban blew up that bus loaded with people, lol who are you kidding buddy with this silly version crap. It's just Guerilla warfare and hiding with the civilians

      Version 4.0 and above have been defeated by the BUFFALO because they make signals obsolete, as in there is no cellular or other radio service around when the US patrol comes driving through. Funny sometimes the locals would talk about how they knew the Americans were coming into the area when their cellphones would cut off.
      What good is encryption when you cannot even send the signal, I don't expect an answer but it is fun to make up stuff. Also version 1.0 with the wire is and always has been the favorite method as described by EOD teams.

      Say you got a version number for people who suffer from isolation and are only taught religious hatred to the point they are willing to blow themselves up.

      DARPA - LIVE IT, LEARN IT AND LOVE IT
      You can laugh at the scientist and engineers behind the stuff they develop, but one day these things will be flying into the windows of buildings and driving trucks with nobody inside across mountain ranges.

    9. Re:Problematic Approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think about the concept of a decapitation strike, and why as an invader you wouldn't want to take such an option.

      Its really the same approach, regardless of what happens you want to minimize the cost of having to control a group of people. If you force them into sophistication, you're only creating more cost for yourself.

    10. Re:Problematic Approach by jpapon · · Score: 1

      Force the enemy's hand Um, really? I don't see what you're saying... Should we have our troops not try to protect themselves with technology? You seem to be implying it's better to blown up by v1.0 than later versions... And shaped charges weren't a result of "escalation" unless you think armor is "escalating" the war. What would you have our troops do? Walk around in tshirts and shorts?

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    11. Re:Problematic Approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The IED v4 was based around the following process: Continuous signal, random sequence number, OFDM signalling - Essentially a random sequence number encrypted and sent within the noise spectrum via OFDM.

      What are they going to jam? what are they going to replicate? how does one detect a random signal within noise?

      It beats GSM gold codes by a long shot, far less power - has an issue of proximity for the bomber, but that whack-jobs love that kind of action, they film the explosions from close up and post them up on the net.

    12. Re:Problematic Approach by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      By 2020 or something like that 2/3 of all military vehicles will be autonomously driven, have fun blowing up empty vehicles though.

      ...

      WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    13. Re:Problematic Approach by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Of course you do.
      It's easy to bemoan the consequence of escalation in the theoretical manner you describe, but the fact is that each step involves a lag in which the defense beats the offense, which means that a) your guys aren't getting blown up for a while, and b) you have more opportunities to kill the guys building the bombs.

      So the choices are just letting your guys get blown up continuously, or escalating which at least provides interruptions in the stream of deaths, meanwhile letting Darwin act inexorably on the bombmakers as their 'resources' for testing are far less (and far more dangerous personally) than the US's. Finally, it's just possible that you'll either reach a technological point that exceeds their capacity to respond or even raise the stakes high enough that you exceed the enthusiasm of the bomb-setters or -makers.

      To suggest that you would even consider not escalating is absurd. Aside from simple human nature (Jim, looks like there's a bomb on the road up ahead? It's ok Jake, we're not going to follow that wire because it might cause the IED makers to develop better detonation methods! Jim, doesn't that mean we're going to get blown up? Yes Jake, it does.), it's illogical.

      --
      -Styopa
    14. Re:Problematic Approach by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      US Countermeasure: N/A
      Actually, I believe the US would then use the Dresden scenario and stop caring about holding cities w/ ground troops.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    15. Re:Problematic Approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Version 4.0 and above have been defeated by the BUFFALO because they make signals obsolete, as in there is no cellular or other radio service around when the US patrol comes driving through. Funny sometimes the locals would talk about how they knew the Americans were coming into the area when their cellphones would cut off.
      What good is encryption when you cannot even send the signal, I don't expect an answer but it is fun to make up stuff.

      You're incorrect.

      Version 3.0 was described as being a dead man's switch in that the IED detonates when the signal is no longer detected by the trigger mechanism. The obvious counter measure is to detect the signal and reproduce it so that when the attacker disables the signal, the IED does not detect a loss of signal and thus does not detonate.

      Version 4.0 was described as being a remote dead man's switch that uses a secret modulation code to prevent spoofing of the signal. The same technique is used for military GPS anti-spoofing measures (because you don't want the enemy to redirect your guided missiles).

      You could insert other techniques into this list such as use of direction finding antennas that can ascertain whether a remote signal is being detected from an unknown location. Use of frequency-hopping spread spectrum methods can make it harder to detect the remote trigger signals.

      The problem (mostly for attackers and civilians) with the dead man's switch approach is that it is highly volatile and dangerous. Attackers don't want to blow themselves up by accident (or detonate the IED too early/too late) because a battery runs flat or a glitch occurs in the logic. There are ways to counter this including the introduction of hold times (only detonate when the signal drops out for more than 5 continuous seconds) however this could decrease the accuracy of the IED. Multiple signal generators and receivers could also provide high availability of the signal until such time that the signal is deliberately disconnected.

      There are countermeasures against even the most technical IED detonation systems - but they come in vastly different forms. For example, covertly introducing taggants to the supply chain of the attacker's explosive manufacturing process and using ion mobility spectrometry to detect trace taggant particles. Many forms of intelligence gathering can also assist with limiting the ability for attackers to use complex IEDs.

      Fortunately a typical attacker using IEDs is uneducated, lacks resources and will probably never read this comment due to lack of internet access.

    16. Re:Problematic Approach by khallow · · Score: 1

      Think about the concept of a decapitation strike, and why as an invader you wouldn't want to take such an option.

      Not sure I understand what you're talking about. A decapitation strike would just make things easier since it would disorganize the defenders.

      Its really the same approach, regardless of what happens you want to minimize the cost of having to control a group of people. If you force them into sophistication, you're only creating more cost for yourself.

      Why do you think allowing a foe easy attacks on you "minimizes" the cost of control? Forcing a foe into sophistication, when they have at best limited resources for such sophistication, can be a winning strategy. For example, in your "Attack Vector IED" examples, while "v6.0" was more sophisticated and harder to defend against, it also was beyond the capabilities of most insurgents.

      Also, it makes no sense to encourage easy "v1.0" attacks. So that aspect seems a no brainer to me. We could have a lot of simple v1.0 attacks or much fewer v6.0 attacks with lower overall losses for "our" side. Deliberately losing a war does reduce control costs, but it's not even remotely a healthy strategy.

    17. Re:Problematic Approach by mlts · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that it takes resources to get this stuff done. V1 may be easily accomplished by pretty much anyone with the ability to pop firecrackers, but by the time one climbs up the chain past v4, it is requiring the knowledge of a demolition expert, and supply chains to move the mines (by the time they get to v4, they are not IEDs; they are pretty much mines.) Even though it doesn't take that much in electronics, it does take a lot of sophistication.

      The result regardless is fewer mines on the roads. This is means an objective was accomplished.

    18. Re:Problematic Approach by chrb · · Score: 1

      You missed:

      Attack Vector: IED v1.5 - bury the wire.
      US Countermeasure: None (?) - no way to detect buried wire or differentiate from regular urban cables

    19. Re:Problematic Approach by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      What's the alternative, to just keep getting blown up by dumb IEDs? You even admit it yourself. The IED v.6.0 is much more expensive to make, and harder to deploy, so the overall number of successful IED attacks has gone down as a result of the cat and mouse game. Sure, Stuxnet isn't going to knock Iran's nuclear program out forever, but it's better than nothing. Now Iran will strengthen its computer infrastructure against attack, but so what? Their nuclear program already got pushed off track by a while, and it's not like leaving them alone was a much better alternative.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    20. Re:Problematic Approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you really want to force your enemies hand like this?

      No, but Mossad doesn't mind putting Armageddon on hold until President Palin can push the button.

    21. Re:Problematic Approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you suggesting that we should have just sucked it up and kept getting blown up by the v1.0 wire to a pile a garbage bombs?
      I can't see how sticking our heads in the sand and letting them go on building nukes (or blowing us up with IEDs) is going to improve the situation.

    22. Re:Problematic Approach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Attack Vector: IED v6.0 - Same as v5, but made to be more weather resistant, with added proximity sensors, modern cars aren't made with as much steel and Iron as patrol cars or tanks - so it makes for a good differentaitor which can be use with a proximity fuse.

      US Countermeasure: Crush the country economically to prevent the obtaining of high-tech proximity sensors and gadgets, forcing insurgents to fall back to Attack Vector 2, which about the limit of what somebody working on their own with hand-gathered technology is going to be able to drum up. They're not all Tony Stark, dude.

  16. its important to keep in mind by nimbius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    regardless of how awed the media is in the wake of the stuxnet worm, things like this only work once, and only under certain conditions. In any functional nuclear program there exists a very strict information systems security policy to prevent exactly this type of malicious activity from occuring. I also wouldnt be surprised if the "two years" assertion is an overstatement to placate the middle east.

    Iran will likely switch from windows controllers for their Siemens PLC's to hardened linux or BSD, taking a page from chinese internet security experts and refusing to trust western code that cannot be independently evaluated. and if we remember the cold war, irans woes feel like washingtons foreign policy from the cold war being flexed all over again

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:its important to keep in mind by santax · · Score: 1

      Ahhh... would that be the reason we got that fed-story about how openbsd ssh has a backdoor. With all the stuff in wikileaks and happening to Assange, this would actually be a perfectly good time to get paranoid.

    2. Re:its important to keep in mind by Yossarian45793 · · Score: 1

      For Iran to do what you propose would require that they had a large workforce of highly skilled IT people who are both willing to work for the Iranian government and considered trustworthy by the Iranian government. Iran is not exactly known for its leading edge science and technology. The article itself states that IT in Iran is abyssmal. They may be well advised to try to do as you say, but they probably can't.

    3. Re:its important to keep in mind by santax · · Score: 1

      Well, the article might be biased. With 20 million people on the internet, the 2nd most in the whole middle eastern, there are bound to be some really good techs there.

    4. Re:its important to keep in mind by MrQuacker · · Score: 1
      taking a page from chinese internet security experts and refusing to trust western code that cannot be independently evaluated.

      They want to steal it and copy it, not evaluate it.

    5. Re:its important to keep in mind by Gumbercules!! · · Score: 1

      Iran has very limited options. China can buy PLCs from any company or build PLCs at will (many are built in China already).

      Iran can only get them from North Korea, who can only get what they can basically steal from China. They can't get support on them, either, as Siemens won't do a house call to Tehran. Hence they can't patch the systems and get the virus out.

    6. Re:its important to keep in mind by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      Most good techs have the money and motivation to leave.

    7. Re:its important to keep in mind by santax · · Score: 1

      And you base that on? Looked at the US? The NSA and CIA have lots of good techs. Being a good tech and having good money doesn't mean you have good ethics.

    8. Re:its important to keep in mind by industrialsecurity · · Score: 1

      Two years might not be a bad assessment if they "just" change their Siemens PLCs. Keep in mind that other things were targeted like their VFDs (motor controllers). The engineering detail required for a nuclear program to make a "small" change like that is a huge amount of work.

    9. Re:its important to keep in mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      windows controllers for their Siemens PLC's

      Okay, PLC stands for Programmable Logic Controller. The idea that Iran was using "windows controllers for their...controllers" is nonsensical.

      At any rate, the Windows systems involved in Stuxnet were workstations used by Iran to write and load code for the PLCs. So far as I know, every PLC vendor out there requires a Windows PC for programming.

    10. Re:its important to keep in mind by mlts · · Score: 1

      Don't underestimate Iran. Iran has some very skilled people, and their main university, IUST has actually written some significant parts of the Linux kernel (IIRC, SMP code in the late 1990s.)

      If you want to see Iran not be a threat, make the illusion of an enemy about to take over their soil evaporate. With this gone, the hard-liners will have to keep order through fear, and eventually what might happen there would be like what happened in Eastern European countries in the 1990s after the Soviet bloc collapsed -- a good chance of a moderate Islamic republic being formed, a country more interested in rebuilding Persia of old as opposed to blind hatred and fanaticism. The hard-liners exist because they use other countries' saber rattling of why they have to be in power as opposed to moderates.

      As for Internet infrastructure, Iran's is arguably the best in the Middle East except for Israel's (and possibly UAE's). So, they are not a backwater by any means.

    11. Re:its important to keep in mind by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      I base this on observations among German technicians doing business in Iran and personal travels in Iran.

      It's not an issue of ethics. The NSA and CIA pay a lot better and don't require you adhere to the laws of the Islamic republic.

    12. Re:its important to keep in mind by santax · · Score: 1

      I can understand that, but orthodox Muslims might prefer those laws. It's all a matter of personal believes and preferences.

    13. Re:its important to keep in mind by SadButTrue · · Score: 1

      The union of orthodox and intelligent is pretty small though....

      --
      grape - the GNU free, open source rape
    14. Re:its important to keep in mind by santax · · Score: 1

      You got me there.

  17. This just in, by jordan_robot · · Score: 1
    Mission Accomplished!

    (two thumbs up)

  18. Windows for refining uranium??? by halfdan+the+black · · Score: 0

    Only an idiot would use Windows for something critical. Only the crown prince of the kingdom of idiots would refine uranium using Windows? Honestly, what would posses someone to do something as absolutly insane as controlling a uranium centrifuge using freaking MS Windows????

    1. Re:Windows for refining uranium??? by afabbro · · Score: 1

      Only an idiot would use Windows for something critical. Only the crown prince of the kingdom of idiots would refine uranium using Windows? Honestly, what would posses someone to do something as absolutly insane as controlling a uranium centrifuge using freaking MS Windows????

      I doubt Windows actually controls the centrifuges. On the other hand, all of the data, research notes, statistical analysis, etc. is probably sitting on a file share and accessed through people's desktops.

      --
      Advice: on VPS providers
    2. Re:Windows for refining uranium??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apache attack helicopters use NT4 for ordinates managment, this includes ALL firecontrol mechanisms.

    3. Re:Windows for refining uranium??? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      These things (the Siemens S7-300 units) do actually run Windows; the S7-300 would be controlling the centrifuge.

    4. Re:Windows for refining uranium??? by wickerprints · · Score: 2

      Clippy: "I see you're trying to enrich some uranium. Would you like some help with that?"

      Iranian nuclear technician: "*#@&$* Clippy must DIE"

    5. Re:Windows for refining uranium??? by Garabito · · Score: 1

      No, they don't. They run an embedded real-time OS, just like any decent PLC would do.

      However, the software environment to develop applications for them (Step7) does run only on MS Windows, and so does WinCC, their SCADA software (used as UI to the nuclear facility operators to control the process). Both Step7 and WinCC are developed by Siemens and targeted by Stuxnet. Replacing WinCC with other software that can run on any other plattform has its costs but is doable. Replacing Step 7 is not feasible, as it would need a lot of propietary information on Siemens S7 PLCs internals. It's like making Linux drivers for some propieary piece of hardware, but a lot harder.

  19. Many won't admit this but ... by ryan.onsrc · · Score: 2

    ... I would argue that this is *proof* that a transparent national defense (as promoted by the pro-Wiki-Leaks crowd) is a very bad idea. Assuming that the U.S. is behind this (a bold assumption yes, but is highly likely), for some-one to "leak" information on this, would be a travesty.

    And no: this is not flame-bait ... I just making a "case in point" observation here.

    1. Re:Many won't admit this but ... by zero0ne · · Score: 1

      The travesty would be if the US did this and all the discussions, memos, meetings, names of programmers etc were all just classified secret...

      Place blame where it is needed. US security regarding classified information is significantly lacking... The fact that you could burn to a CD or copy to a USB drive on a classified network is completely ass backwards.

  20. Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Great - so they were delayed 2 friggin years. Woop-de-doo. Now they'll get it sorted out and get back on track, and the problem is EXACTLY the same as it was beforehand.

    There are only two ways to stop Iran from pursuing this - either convince them somehow it's not something they need/want to do, or use military force to make it something they CANNOT do. This did neither.

    Frankly, I don't think there is any practical way out of this one. I have a hunch Iran wants nuclear weapons to be able to tell the rest of the world to bugger off - any non-nuclear power is a candidate for invasion, but a nuclear power is a different story and it's a good guess Iran wants to become non-viable as an invasion target. Given that, why would they do anything other than exactly what they say they are going to do - i.e. pursue whatever they want to? They want to be independent and non-dependent - even if they really don't want nuclear weapons, nuclear power is a good option for that and refining their fuel elsewhere just makes them a client state of the rest of the world.

    Here's an interesting mental exercise - put yourself in Iran's shoes. Which course would YOU pursue? You've had a front row seat for the invasion of Iraq, been listed (effectively) as an enemy of the US, and you want to ensure your state remains its own state and not beholden to some other power. What is your best option? Trust to the good intentions and honorable behavior of others, or develop your own power/capabilities internally?

    Iran probably is a danger due to their radical leadership, but expecting them to act in any interest other than their own, as THEY see it, is a pipe dream. And slowing their program by two years does absolutely nothing to change the larger picture and larger dangers, which play out over decades not years.

    1. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But why go through the trouble of actually developing nukes, instead of faking it? It is possible to get enough explosive together, set it off underground, and make the world think that the shock wave was from a nuke. In fact, certain mining operations have to be careful to stage their explosions when they demolish the side of a cliff, so as to prevent other countries listening to the shock waves from thinking it was an underground nuke test.
      So if they fake a nuke test, then build up some missiles and pretend, they would have still accomplished their goal of preventing foreign invasion.

    2. Re:Uh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are assuming the current government in Iran will last decades. Khameini is old, and when he dies, the Islamic republic may go with him.

    3. Re:Uh... by unitron · · Score: 1

      "Here's an interesting mental exercise - put yourself in Iran's shoes. Which course would YOU pursue? You've had a front row seat for the invasion from Iraq*...

      There, fixed that for you.

      *circa 1980

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  21. Why Would We Do That? by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    If we wanted to take away their toys, we'd just bomb them into the ground. Nope, I bet it's Russia. They like all that cloak and dagger crap. On this side of the pond we favor a more direct approach.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  22. Exactly along the lines of my point by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The argument was that Iran could use the uranium to generate nuclear power ,which is their projects ostensible goal, without Iran getting any of the technology necessary to make a bomb. It never really made any progress.

    Oh hey, suddenly this proposal magically looks all the better to Iran! Perhaps Iran is finding out how hard it is to say "no" to a solution a Russian REALLY wants you to agree to...

    all at a cost of course.

    Now do you see why Russia is a pretty good candidate suspect in all this?

    Pardon me, someone is at the door with free tea samples.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  23. 'They' also killed Dr. Majid Shahriari by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    He was purportedly the lead Iranian scientist trying to eliminate stuxnet.
    https://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/12/02/world/middleeast/AP-ML-Iran.html

  24. Conspiracy theories by KingAlanI · · Score: 2

    Iran actually would have plausible reasons for blaming *this* on the Jews. :P
    Russia maybe not, but Israel definitely (duh!), and the US maybe (Logically, Americans who feel an affinity towards Israel would have that extra reason to be concerned about, and want to do something about, Iran's nuclear behavior)

    This action of buying time, whoever did it, could come in very handy.

    --
    I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
    1. Re:Conspiracy theories by mlts · · Score: 1

      People point the finger at the US or Israel, but until we find out for sure, it wouldn't be farfetched that someone else did it who didn't like Iran or the West and would love to see the powers duke it out and change the balance of power in the Middle East.

      A couple scenarios:

      There is bad blood between Sunnis and Shiites. It could be that someone who didn't like Shiites, nor the West could have done this in hopes of mutual annihilation.

      Russia and China would gain because Iran might ask either power to station there for protection, in return for oil rights. Faking a US/Israel attack would gain both of those countries a critical foothold in the region, not to mention oil.

      Another country in the ME wouldn't mind oil prices permanently rising with the loss of Iranian oil fields if a protracted conflict happened.

      A group of anti oil people in the US with an ability far better than the skiddie level could have done this.

      It might not even be politically motivated. There are a lot of antisocial people out there who would love to "watch the world burn".

    2. Re:Conspiracy theories by KingAlanI · · Score: 1

      I did only say 'plausible', and I did repeat a mention of Russia, but I hadn't thought of other actors, or false-flag or general-chaos motivations
      +1 Interesting to you.

      --
      I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
  25. Liability by Sooner+Boomer · · Score: 1
    ...Hell, the company I work for just payed $19,000 for a SQL statement shorter than this very sentence.

    Yeah, well, that was after you lost the lawsuit and had to pay up. Next time, write better code!

    --
    Chaos maximizes locally around me.
  26. What about everyone? by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

    Really - does *anyone* out there but Iran want them to have nuclear weapons? Is there a country out there that doesn't at least have one or two decent enough engineers to do this type of work? While many of their engineers may not be immediately trained to do this type of work it isn't *that* hard to do. After all, look at the number of teenagers that do it - they aren't that worldly and have a vast knowledge of the world that a 30+ year old does, they just have motivation to do it. Most then age into engineers that do not do that type of work but excel in more mainstream activities - it isn't like that ability goes away either.

    Well, I guess Uzbekistan is probably pretty low on the list, but I bet you can't come up with a country that doesn't at least have two or three capable of doing this (which is all it would take) and would not like to find Iran with a nuclear arsenal. Indeed, I would be happy if it *were* the US that did this as it would be uncharacteristically competent of them. I'll buy Russia or China well before even Israel for the same reason - they would have had to have been hit with the Clue Bat to get this to work out and not be leaked by this point (and no, this has nothing to do with Wikileaks as that has tended to be more an isolated incident that is stirring up all the traffic - though there is a good joke there about secrecy). I would look to, as you say, countries that specialize in this type of thing and that is mostly a short list - however it isn't *that* hard either so I wouldn't limit it to them.

    --
    ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    1. Re:What about everyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all, look at the number of teenagers that do it - they aren't that worldly and have a vast knowledge of the world that a 30+ year old does, they just have motivation to do it.

      99.999% of the "teenagers that do it" are using downloaded tools that automate everything. They are just being snidely.

      Is there a country out there that doesn't at least have one or two decent enough engineers to do this type of work?

      You assume much and your ignorance shines.
       
      This is getting boring.

  27. What about program crashes? by gringer · · Score: 1

    I prefer the Signal Search Group of Veterans (SIGSEGV). They're a bit harder to ignore, and are really good at messing with your memory.

    --
    Ask me about repetitive DNA
  28. Neo-Con Conspiracy Plot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take that you maslim heithens!

  29. Ah, the Lobby again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...is that you, General Electric? Or Siemens?

    1. Re:Ah, the Lobby again by ShakaUVM · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >>...is that you, General Electric? Or Siemens?

      Is that you, shill for the coal mining industry?

    2. Re:Ah, the Lobby again by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      Good 'ol clean coal. For whatever reason, many people today actually believe all coal energy is clean. The reality is, even clean coal is dirty and especially dangerous to coal miners.

      IIRC, more people die every year from coal than from the entire history of nuclear energy, even including Chernobyl.

    3. Re:Ah, the Lobby again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clean coal is a sick joke.

    4. Re:Ah, the Lobby again by SilverEyes · · Score: 1

      And if you count all years, I bet more people have died from coal than from nuclear, period (including Hiroshima and Nagasaki).

      --
      Interesting.
    5. Re:Ah, the Lobby again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be betting the longshot. Given how much uranium coal dumps into the atmosphere each year (hint: more than Chernobyl) the number of additional deaths caused by coal power are in the millions.

  30. Maybe, but it will set back iranian democracy by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now the incumbents could claim with proof -a tenuous proof, if you like- that the opposition is in bed with the US and Israel and against their own country. Nobody likes collaborationists. They managed to set back the enrichment program, but strengthened the hand of conservatives far more. Time will tell if this isn't another pirric victory like in 1953.

    --
    Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
    1. Re:Maybe, but it will set back iranian democracy by rogerz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You show little understanding of the Middle Eastern psyche. Read Bernard Lewis. Incompetence is not rewarded, it is is looked on with disparagement. Being strong and saving face are critical. Indeed, the regime has been extremely reluctant to admit *any* impact from the attack. If they were going to pursue your strategy, they would bemoan the actions of the "imperialists". I bet they never will, because of the culture of "face".

      --
      If humans are mostly water, and beer is mostly water, then humans must be mostly beer.
    2. Re:Maybe, but it will set back iranian democracy by Kyusaku+Natsume · · Score: 1

      But the "face" issue has been addressed already by the Iranian regime when they say that they have taken successful countermeasures against this attack. Since the reports of iranian failure come only from hostile western media and by the nature off the installations there is no way to verify who is saying the truth, nationalism and flag wrapped iranian theocrats wins.

      --
      Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
  31. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can the people who made Stuxnet virus be considered terrorists or cyber-war criminals?

    1. Re:Question by James+McGuigan · · Score: 1

      You can only be a terrorist or a criminal if you are fighting for the enemy. I guess it depends which side of the propaganda fence you are sitting on

    2. Re:Question by mbkennel · · Score: 2

      No, they're not terrorists. Terrorists want public, indiscriminate carnage for political purposes.

      And they're not criminals. Criminals have distinct motives.

      The people who made Stuxnet are military saboteurs.

    3. Re:Question by Peeteriz · · Score: 1

      If it was made by military saboteurs, then wouldn't such a targeted action be an act of war?

  32. Re:they missed my disclaimer by masterwit · · Score: 1

    Well, the article might be biased.

    My original submission had a disclaimer...

    Come to think of it that is not my description or quote at all :) Funny. (mine wasn't stellar either)

    I just couldn't find any other source at the time...

    --
    We should start a new Slashdot and return control to the geeks. It actually wouldn't be that hard to get some users to
  33. California dreamin'... by harvey+the+nerd · · Score: 1

    Next door Nevada has plenty of pre-excavated sites, where a little nuclear spill would not even be noticed. So don't worry about California's environemntal demands.

  34. Jews playing with fire when hurting Iran! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    When the US Navy shot down the iranian Mecca pilgrims' A-300 plane and Reagan refused to apologize for the 270 deaths, iranians hired the palestinian "Black September" militant organization with a letter of marque and reprise to take vengance in their stead. The result was Lockerbie, which the west so conveniently blamed on Gadhafi's underdog Lybia, west not being strong enough to take on Iran, which just won the 7 year war against Saddam's Iraq.

    I wonder if Iran will resort to the palestinian connection again? How many bendy buses with how many pax do you exchange for a nuclear fuel programme on an eye for eye bomb-vest basis? It should also be noted that at least four iranian nuclear scientists were murdered by motor-cyclist bomb planters in the last year, with obvious Mossad clues.

    I think jews are playing with fire, because Iran is not a country that ever gives up. In the seven year war against Iraq, iranian kids volunteered to walk onto minefields to clear the way for persian troops. Nobody believed this in the west but the BBC actually filmed kids stating it is their utmost duty towards motherland and islam and they said they wanted to bind themselves in pairs or trios with wire, so they would not run away if scared and bring shame to their families with such a cowardly act.

    All in all, iranian people are the scariest possible mixture of russia's extreme battlefield patriotism and japanese self-sacrifical fanatism. Yet, persians are not the dumb and lazy arabs of Iraq, they are good at math and sciences. Attack Iran and you won't need the Maya calendar to end the world in 2012, it will just escalate nicely into WWIII.

    1. Re:Jews playing with fire when hurting Iran! by unitron · · Score: 1

      Somebody mod this up!

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

  35. Right but they play hardball too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as the US back 100% Israel no matter WHAT, then Israel can play hardball and completely fuck up the diplomacy in the region, and use the palestinian as their plaything and blame them (if you really want to place a blame, look the number of Palestinian death due to the conflict since 1980, and the number of Israeli death, there is a factor 100 between both). If they could not play hard ball, maybe there would be a normalisation in the medium or long run. At the moment ? No chance. Compound this that blaming Israel is easy for the neighbor countries, because of the palestinian plight, when in reality those neighbor country 1) don't care about palestine, 2) use israel as a rethoric in politic but basically would not care otherwise 3) only a minority of idiot really think those country want to supress Israel from the map face. On the governement level it is mostly propaganda.

    So everybody in the region is playing with the Palestinian, either way, even some of the palestinian themselves play hard ball, because if the situation was normalized they would lose power. In the very end, the average palestinian is the one which lose, and lose a big deal. Out of all those death mentionned above, the majority isn't terrorist getting killed by Israel, not by a long shot.

    My opinion ? The conflict will not end. Too much itnerrest for everybody in the region to make it go on, even from Israel. My solution ? Remove all palestinian , move them to another corner of earth, say middle of australia, move all Israeli to anotehr corner , like central canada, then transform the whole region in a macadam / glass parking lot so that nobody can ever settle it again, or claim it out of religious ground. Radical, but it would certainly work.

  36. Group Effort by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

    by US and Israel. I think this is why Knesset member Lieberman is so concerned about Wikileaks; something they have confirms this program.

  37. Blowing Smoke by anorlunda · · Score: 1

    In order to make such an explicit prediction as a "two year delay", that German consultant must have had access to extraordinarily detailed information.

    How many centrifuges are in operation.
    How many years scheduled to completion.
    How many centrifuge-years were lost to the Suxnet worm.

    I believe it more likely that the aforementioned consultant was blowing smoke just to bask in the press attention.

  38. stuxnet 2.0 by zanderx · · Score: 1

    Version 1 set the Nuclear program 2 years back, ver 2.0 will eat the nuclear fuel?

  39. Awesome,! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    We have 2 years before we need to deal with a super power that has nuclear capabilities, and also no respect for any other nation that might think differently then they do.....I will be sure to enjoy as much travel time now, before all hell breaks loose.

  40. Already responded to in like fashion? by Anonymous+Admin · · Score: 1

    There is no reason to believe that your machine and/or network is not equally compromised. Have you verified the code in your motherboards or nic's eproms? Do you know there isn't a trojan or backdoor hardwired in? Did it come from China's intelligence service or a foreign 'consultant' working at the factory? It may just start acting strange one day, and even after you find out the cause, You may never know who was behind it. It is complete foolishness for a country to outsource the foundation of its security.

  41. There's no speculation better... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...than widespread speculation.

  42. Merlin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Conspiracy Alert!
    Stuxnet could be an attempted solution to the Merlin failure.

  43. only partly correct by juan2074 · · Score: 1

    The virus may have set back a part of Iran's nuclear program -- the uranium enrichment part. But that is not all there is. If you knew the extent of Iran's nuclear capability (and how long they have had that capability), you would be surprised (or alarmed).

    The media tells you a different story. That's great for people who want to believe Iran does not already have any nuclear weapons. And they ignore or downplay North Korea and Syria in that area too, while pretending Israel does not have nuclear weapons either. Maybe it's better if most people didn't know about these things.

  44. What sounds a little closer by uninformedLuddite · · Score: 1

    to the truth is that all of the propaganda isn't working (including the wikileaks psyop) and the bean counters have decided that the public need another two years of conditioning before we will accept an attack.

    --
    The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.