New York Times Reports US and Israel Behind Stuxnet

Oxford_Comma_Lover writes "Confirming heavy speculation in the Slashdot community, the New York Times reports that joint US-Israeli efforts were almost certainly behind the recent Stuxnet attack on Iran's nuclear program." The article stops just short of saying in so many words that Israeli is the doer, but leaves little doubt of its conclusion.

Comments

From the No-**** Department...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone believe otherwise?

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[Anonymous Coward]

For all we know it could be a false-flag attempt at starting something from Iran.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[jmauro]

There was some decent evidence that it was actually a Chinese-Finnish operation

My guess is when it's all declassified in 100 years or so we'll find out it was actually created out of different virus cross breeding and the Internet has been alive this entire time. Yea, I'll be shocked too.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[93 Escort Wagon]

My guess is when it's all declassified in 100 years or so we'll find out it was actually created out of different virus cross breeding and the Internet has been alive this entire time. Yea, I'll be shocked too.

Yes, it might be pretty shocking to find yourself still alive 100 years from now - but I imagine you'll have had plenty of time to adjust in the meantime.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[Gla'funk]

0. Please mod parent up.

1. Yes China did it (not Finland lol, one of the companies is just a Chinese owned company in Finland), it's the suggestion that makes the most sense from a practical point of view. I'd also like to emphasize that Stuxnet is subtle and elegant ---far east sensual finesse--- , attributes in very short supply from the US and Israel in recent years/decades.

2. One should be grateful for Stuxnet no matter who did it but remember it is extremely likely it was China. Yes China has some very serious human rights issues including Tibet but they can also do good and deserve credit when they do (and Stuxnet is not the only thing to be grateful to China and the Chinese people for).

2. It won't ever be declassified, I doubt there are any papers in the first place. Why do people mistakenly assume things can't be decided and organized without paper? The Chinese explanation would be a tight and relaxed (not a contradiction at all) operation without any need for specific documentation or written approval of any kind [SH/BG]. I wouldn't have a single problem running it myself nor would most people with half a brain :3

It's stuff that was most likely put together during a tea break and a few nommy take-out lunches with a very few people at different companies in the same city by the people with the knowledge: a "downwards up run" that when confirmed feasible just required a yes/no answer from a mid-ranking intelligence official with a solid situational awareness (so as not to make anyone get in trouble afterwards) i.e. someone who made sure to cover his/her Chinese ass from on high before giving the go-ahead :)

(Yes this non-Chinese wants it to be true: it's how this kind of stuff is supposed to be done if done right).

3. NYT and almost every news-article from the western world suffers from such a massive confirmation bias it's actually entertaining. It's not news though nor journalism.

*drums stomach*

By the way: congratulations to the people of Tunis and the relatively (compared to batons and bullets) modest but high-spirited and helpful efforts of Anonymous. So far so good.

And no; one won't read much about that angle in any newspapers :3 a hint or slight mention here and there but not much. Doesn't matter but shows how little information there usually is to be found in ordinary "news".

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[ylt]

Of course, Wikileaks may help speed that up.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[h4rm0ny]

Well it seemed very likely to be from Israel. They had means and motivation. Furthermore, there were hints to suggest it was from the virus creators and deployers themselves. Israeli motivations would be to let everyone know who did it, but deny proof. Sort of like a kid in a class winking at a teacher who knows they were the one that threw something, but didn't actually see it.

But the question was more whether it was only Israel that did this, or whether there was US involvement. That the article suggests the US were also involved, is a shame. Israel has been wagging to dog for way too long now, and their behaviour has long been more antagonistic than it would be, if everyone didn't view the US as their pet attack dog. I've mixed dog metaphors horribly. You know what I mean.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[h4rm0ny]

For all we know it could be a false-flag attempt at starting something from Iran.

Really unlikely. For one, Iran doesn't want war. For two, Israel and the US would know it wasn't them and both have far too powerful media control over their populations for a false-flag to work either governmentally or with the publics of those countries. Similar reasons mean Iran wouldn't need to pull such stunts against their own people and they'd either be damaging their own infrastructure or faking the virus, and the virus has already been examined. So that would just leave influencing other big actors such as Russia. And if something kicks off, the big actors are going to be choosing sides according to their own interests, not who is in the right.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[gtall]

According to the article, Israel asked the U.S. for bunker buster bombs and the U.S. refused. That doesn't sound like Israel controlling the U.S. And why would it be a shame for the U.S. to be involved...unless you think it is a good thing that Iran gets the bomb. Once they do, expect several other countries in the mid-east to start their own programs to get it. Why, in 20 years, when they are all nuclear armed, it will be nice bunny world for all.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[Anonymous Coward]

For all we know it could be a false-flag attempt at starting something from Iran.

Really unlikely. For one, Iran doesn't want war.

BAHAHAHAHA *cough* you are F-U-N-N-Y! You mean the Iran that is always talking about wiping Israel off the map and not some other Iran, right? See you at The Funnybone!

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[AmiMoJo]

Has Struxnet actually made the situation any better though? It may have set the Iranian nuclear program back a year or two but it has also strengthened their resolve and given them even more reason to want to develop nuclear weapons. Israel (and maybe the US) have basically declared cyber-war on Iran by attacking its infrastructure and energy production.

At best this will hold Iran back for a year or two but what happens after that? Diplomacy is much harder when you are at war with the other guy.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[Zeinfeld]

It is really rather obvious that both the Iranian and Israeli leadership would rather like to have a war but they need the other side to be seen to start it. Iran has gained tremendously from the Bush invasion of Iraq, not only has the US eliminated Iran's major regional rival, the war has allowed Iran to establish an essentially unbroken sphere of influence in the Shi'ia world.

It is even quite likely that Ahmedinejad is looking for an attack in order to complete the nuclear program. It is unlikely that the religious leadership would want to allow him to complete a nuclear bomb: it would put him above them. If Iran really wanted a nuclear weapon they would have one by now, they have vastly more resources than were available to the Manhattan project in the 40s. Another possibility is that Iran does already have a nuclear bomb but is unable to declare it since that would lead to an immediate attack etc.

In either case it would make perfect sense for Ahmedinejad to incite an Israeli attack which would provide a pretext for withdrawal from the NPT and become a declared nuclear power within a short interval.

A war between Israel and Iran would be a war of attrition with each side aiming to rack up as many civilian deaths as possible. Israel cannot win that game and it would be stupid of them to try. The mullahs have shown themselves quite capable of accepting a million casualties in a war.

The Times report itself says nothing new and nothing that can be believed. All that we know is that there is are sources in US/Israeli intelligence that want to take credit for Stuxnet. We do not even know if the source would even have knowledge of such an operation if it existed.

The motives for wanting to take credit are rather obvious. But if you look at what the attack achieved or was likely to achieve it is very hard to see how it would be in the interests of either to burn major intelligence assets for an act of minor vandalism.

We know that the attack involved four zero days, was written in a modular fashion, probably by multiple authors and had references that might have been intended to lead to a certain conclusion. What we really don't know much about is the payload code. We do not even know for certain what the target was.

For several weeks we were discussing media reports that 'confirmed' that the virus was Chinese on the basis of some 'expert' who had seen an algorithm in Chinese code and erroneously considered it to be uniquely Chinese. The press will repeat any nonsense that is said to them by someone who is convinced they are right.

If the target was indeed the Iranian centrifuges or the Iranian power plant then the only way that it could have possibly been expected to work would be with very deep knowledge of the design and deployment of a top secret Iranian facility. There are only two ways that knowledge could be available to the attacker - if they designed the plant or if they had a source with access.

Looking at the likely result of this attack I cannot possibly see how anyone would wish to let the Iranians know about the intelligence source for the sake of some minor inconvenience to the Iranian program.

A much more likely explanation in my view is the idea that the Russians wrote Stuxnet to damage the nuclear plant they designed and thus require Iran to buy additional services from Russia to repair the damage and to accept the reprocessing proposal (which they did). Such shakedown tactics were common during the Soviet era.

Russia would not have an incentive to take credit for the attack in such circumstances. But some of the US/Israeli hawks would even knowing that the claim was false.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[dloose]

---far east sensual finesse---

This is where you lost me, pal.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[Zeinfeld]

No, the attack does not look at all like a Chinese attack to me.

Stuxnet hit a number of Chinese facilities. It was a blunt instrument. The Chinese have a marked aversion to attacking the homeland.

The Chinese also have a fairly sharp distinction between espionage and malicious damage. They do not see espionage as being at all bad (neither does our side if truth is told). As far as they are concerned, taking Western technology is merely moral restitution for the damage inflicted through Western colonialism: the opium wars, open door policy, Japanese occupation etc.

While the Chinese might well do something like Stuxnet if they had a really, really good reason, I do not think it at all likely that they would cross that line without one. And I do not see why China would consider Iran's activities to be an actionable concern.

The code signing certs were ripped off from two Taiwanese companies. So it is highly likely some Chinese speakers were involved. But those are the type of resource that is traded openly on the black market.

The easiest way for the Chinese or US intel services to create the code signing certs would have been to establish a front operation.

It is really only the Russian intel services that outsource hacking to criminals. I think that if there is an intel link to Stuxnet at all, it is almost certainly Russia.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[Anonymous Coward]

Has Struxnet actually made the situation any better though? It may have set the Iranian nuclear program back a year or two but it has also strengthened their resolve and given them even more reason to want to develop nuclear weapons. Israel (and maybe the US) have basically declared cyber-war on Iran by attacking its infrastructure and energy production.

At best this will hold Iran back for a year or two but what happens after that? Diplomacy is much harder when you are at war with the other guy.

I doubt it.
Israel= biggest..... mistake ...... ever.
That hole will be the end to us all, especially since the US lets them get away with so much.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[humphrm]

It's more dynamic than that. Iran is racing to acquire weapons-grade nukes before their economy collapses from the sanctions. In the US Government's view, pushing the clock gives the sanctions a better chance of succeeding.

Also, as the story points out, there's a second attack coded in the worm - one that hasn't played out yet. So, in theory, the clock might still be pushed back further.

"Diplomacy is much harder when you are at war with the other guy."

You Don't Make Peace with your Friends, You Make Peace with your Enemies

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like the way china is taking over world economies, as opposed to the US model of freeing the shit out of people with laser guided bombs. It's strategy, the moves that seem inconsequential at the time to the unenlightened, but to those can see it -> far east sensual finesse.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[sumdumass]

No, we rejected public health care. This means that rich people can still pay people to find ways to extend their life further then what some government death panel says your worth spending insurance money on.

It's quite possible that within 50 years or so, anyone alive today might have the ability to be alive in 100 years from today.

And yes, rhetoric aside, this is still true regardless of public health care or not. I see no reasons why government wouldn't openly accept anything that extends a person's life if it makes their productive portions of life last longer. (ie 65 year old with the mental capaity of a 35 year old and all the knowledge of 65+ years of experience).

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[squidguy]

Really unlikely. For one, Iran doesn't want war.

Really? Their wacko PM calls for the destruction of Israel and the coming of the Mahdi, which according the Shi'a lore can only happen and the end of days (or whatever armageddon is called). Rank-and-file Persians might not war, but it seems the official policy of the government is one of bellicosity. Meanwhile, they are engaged in an apparent proxy war against the US et al in Iraq and Afghanistan, and appear to be the puppetmasters behind Hezbollah in rocket attacks against Israel.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[squidguy]

well said

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[squidguy]

PS - Ahmedinejad might just be the goatse guy...

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[mug funky]

probably more a matter of Mutually Assured Destruction...

although, Israel has a very powerful friend with lots of nukes. they also have enough of their own nukes to wipe Iran pretty clean if they choose. Iran don't have many friends these days, and lots of enemies.

of course, as soon as they can figure out a way of accomplishing their goals without themselves being destroyed, i'm sure they'll act on it immediately.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[mug funky]

i believe OP has China and Thailand confused.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[hjrnunes]

And you, troll, are S-A-D. I'm only posting because someone might read this and think it's true. Nobody in Iran ever talked about "wiping Israel off the map". What the president of Iran said was that, one day, Israel would disappear from the map.

The talk about wiping was originated by a botched translation by MEMRI, which poses as an independent Middle East translation agency, but even the slightest investigation reveals they have nothing but Israeli connections and staff, so, hardly independent and unbiased.

It's the extremist government of Israel that is the war-monger. Even against the will of the people it represents. And they don't even hide it no more.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[hjrnunes]

Well, i'd rather have a world without nukes, but the fact is that they're here to stay. Now, would I think Iran getting the bomb is a good thing? It depends. If they were the only ones getting it, no. But considering Israel has a nuclear arsenal since some time ago, I think a little equilibrium wouldn't hurt. India and Pakistan are also nuclear, and they're involved in an open conflict, and no nuclear attack occurred. It is naive to think Iran would use the bomb anyway different from any other country* - as a deterrent. Israel knows that once Iran gets nuclear, Iran will become untouchable. Which means Israel will have to rethink its strategy of aggressiveness and complete disregard for the Middle Eastern neighbors, putting Israelis in a very delicate position: no regional allies and one untouchable enemy, which in turn will step up the Israeli lobby in Washington - which, by the way, acts independently of and often against the very Israeli national interest - which, in turn, will drag the US into new embarrassments and hostility in, but not limited to, the Muslim world.

*except the US, which remains the only country ever to have detonated such weapons on the battlefield (if we can even call Hiroshima and Nagasaki that)

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[plover]

Looking at the likely result of this attack I cannot possibly see how anyone would wish to let the Iranians know about the intelligence source for the sake of some minor inconvenience to the Iranian program.

I wouldn't qualify it as a "minor inconvenience." The Pakistanis made the few thousands of P-1 centrifuges that exist prior to the embargo on the parts used to make them, and sold them to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. When Libya gave up their nuclear ambitions, they turned their centrifuges over to the West. According to TFA's guess, the USA shared some with England and Israel for the purpose of testing them for weaknesses in order to figure out an effective method of sabotage. Also according to TFA, 984 Iranian centrifuges were destroyed by Stuxnet. It's estimated that they only have a few thousand, so this is a significant reduction of their overall enrichment capability.

In addition, the second payload of Stuxnet (which did not appear to have the intended effect) appears to have been targeting the reactor at Buheshr. Disassembly of the control codes indicated the worm was intended to overspeed the turbine in such a way that it would destroy itself. That also would not have qualified as a "minor inconvenience".

Someone else also posed the theory that some of the behaviors of Stuxnet were provided as cover for the inside agent. After spending the enormous amounts of money required to develop Stuxnet, would they really leave it to chance that the worm would somehow find its way into the Natanz industrial control systems? By making the behavior of the worm such that it has a plausible way to get onto the Siemens controller, the agent could have simply stuck an infected USB stick directly into that machine, and let the worm propagate all over anyway. Or maybe the agent just infected one machine in the plant, but inside the firewall. Because of the stealthy nature of the worm, there is no way to prove which direction the attack came from.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[elrous0]

You mean like how the U.S. blew up its own World Trade Center, just as an excuse to attack the Muslim world?

Because most attacks aren't instigated by the far-and-away most obvious attacker(s)--but are equally as likely to be coming from anywhere, including from the victim. It's all a big conspiracy, you know.

Re:From the No-**** Department...

[elrous0]

No, the most obvious explanation is that it's coming from the country with the most to gain (Israel), an intelligence service that is highly skilled and has been working to infiltrate Iran's military and nuclear program for years (Israel), and more than anyone wants to stop Iran from going nuclear (Israel). Of course, you can construct any number of other conspiracy theories to absolve them if you REALLY want to believe they didn't do it. But considering that Israel makes no secret that it has a cyberwarfare division, no secret that it wants to stop Iran's program, and hasn't issued any sort of denial that they were involved with this attack--I think your defense is particularly deluded.

Still Speculative.

[Quick Reply]

They probably "almost certainly" did, but the NYT article is still just speculation. The haven't confirmed anything.

Re:Still Speculative.

[mother_reincarnated]

Indeed- all they have confirmed is that people think the US and Israel did it...

The only new bit in the article (to me) was that they think Israel successfully managed to set up a bunch of P1 style centrifuges and test the worm...

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly this.

The new york times editors "almost certainly" rape little children on weekends.

I guess this only goes to show, as long as it is a slow news day, they have no issues with me reporting that "fact" online for all to see.

Re:Still Speculative.

[timeOday]

Did you actually finish the article?

And the American expert in nuclear intelligence, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Israelis used machines of the P-1 style to test the effectiveness of Stuxnet.

The expert added that Israel worked in collaboration with the United States in targeting Iran, but that Washington was eager for "plausible deniability."

How much more direct could a confirmation be? The only question is the veracity of the anonymous source.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

The new york times editors "almost certainly" rape little children on weekends.

I am sure that you are trying to make up a silly example, but how do you know that this is not true.

Re:Still Speculative.

[mother_reincarnated]

How much more direct could a confirmation be? The only question is the veracity of the anonymous source.

They haven't gotten anyone who knows to confirm it... only people who are also speculating.

Note that "an American expert in nuclear intelligence" would specifically not be someone who works in the gov't- If they could claim an anonymous official source they would.

Re:Still Speculative.

[epine]

The haven't confirmed anything.

I think your typing speed and your reading speed are linked together.

The article does a great job of laying out means and motive and avenues of military conspiracy, and furthermore, documents that the means are exceptionally esoteric and that the motives precisely align with recent policy statements on the parts of the alleged conspirators, who I might add have a brazen rap sheet, but who now seem to increasingly fear "three strikes and you're a lout".

Where the article fails hopelessly is explaining what a three year delay actually buys us. What's the leverage point? Is this just a bunch of politicians playing "not on my watch" or will the Risk board change in some interesting way over the short hiatus?

Will the Ahmadinejad faction wane as a result? Will it cause the Iranians a crisis of confidence in foreign technology procurement? This bit the Russians hard after the Siberian pipeline thing. Will the Americans sew things up in Iraq over that time period to enable them to better address the Iran situation when the pot finally boils?

These are the real questions the article fails to address.

Concerning the slow news day knee jerk, I don't understand why the jury convicted Hans Reiser. It was nothing but informed conjecture about an arrogant prick until he cracked post sentencing.

Re:Still Speculative.

[AHuxley]

Where the article fails hopelessly is explaining what a three year delay actually buys us.
It buys 3 years of defectors, active targeting of people and locations, export deal mindgames, hardware tracking, 3 more years of US aid, 3 years of stocking up on next generation US weapons. Politically it keeps the vision of 'evil' alive - Iran is building, only a strong unified political structure can do what it needed.
Iran cannot trust MS or the basic EU hardware and will have to spend up big trying to buy parts and build at home.
Iran is now playing the import game and is again wide open to more software issues.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly! Also remain skeptical of anything David Sanger writes. His journalistic record is sketchy at best.

Re:Still Speculative.

[FooAtWFU]

I think the whole case is one of "We can't prove it, but honestly, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out." Means, motive, and opportunity: what more are you looking for?

Re:Still Speculative.

[rtb61]

Want real speculation, how about this. Will M$ bring all of it's legal, investigative and it's ability to provide cash incentives to seek fiscal redress for the way in which access the source code was used to publicly destroy the image of it's operating system security.

Many countries have recently announced their intent to drop the Windows Operating system due to the security weakness and exploitability as demonstrated by the Stuxnet virus, this will likely end up costing M$ billions of dollars in lost income. If M$ can prove access to it's source code was exploited by government to break the security of the program, regardless of the damage done to the public's perception of the security of the program, than M$ is fully entitled to damages done by the purposeful and malevolent attack upon one of it's core revenue streams.

Re:Still Speculative.

[plover]

Three years is a long time for an unpopular government run by radicals, thieves, and thugs. That's 10% of the lifetime of Iran's revolution. A lot could happen between now and then. Or perhaps nothing will change. But three more years of a bombless Iran can't be a bad thing.

Re:Still Speculative.

[grcumb]

Note that "an American expert in nuclear intelligence" would specifically not be someone who works in the gov't- If they could claim an anonymous official source they would.

That doesn't follow. The way in which an anonymous source is characterised is negotiated by the journalist and the source. The journalist typically wants to make the identity (or more to the point, the validity) of the source as clear as possible. The source wants to hide any detail that can identify them. In this case, because we're talking about a level of secrecy that, if breached, would almost certainly get someone killed, the source clearly didn't want any information released except that they knew what they were talking about.

This part of the intelligence world is very, very small, and the number of people who act as intermediaries between, for example, the IAEA and intelligence circles is even smaller.

Re:Still Speculative.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

It also kicks the can down the road to whoever is (re)elected in 2012. Maybe it's just me but I get the feeling Israel didn't have much faith in President Obama having the will to step up and take action or even back Israeli action if it became necessary.

Re:Still Speculative.

[cold fjord]

If M$ can prove access to it's source code was exploited by government to break the security of the program, regardless of the damage done to the public's perception of the security of the program, than M$ is fully entitled to damages done by the purposeful and malevolent attack upon one of it's core revenue streams.

I doubt they will be able to, even if it's true. Such activity would almost certainly be regarded as a State Secret and shielded as such.

Re:Still Speculative.

[LordLimecat]

"We can't prove it, but honestly, it doesn't take a genius to figure it out."

Yes, but thats been known since the start.

what more are you looking for?

With a headline like this, cold hard evidence would be nice.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that's what they pay me to do. And do you think those bastards would reimburse me for expenses? Hell no! All that video tape and ice cream ain't cheap, you know.

Re:Still Speculative.

[arivanov]

It is based around the speculation that the joint analysis by Siemens and the energy department discovering some of the holes in 2008 was the foundation of Stuxnet. While this may be the case, the tools and approaches at the disposal of a good hacker today would have discovered them all the same.

For frak sake, we live in 2011, nearly 14 years since the original Aleph1 paper "Smashing the Stack for Fun and Profit". However, the entire energy sector continues to write code like the idea of feeding bogus data to their kit is out of this world. The truth is that SCADA systems cannot survive even a rather short assault by a determined hacker. Besides the numerous input validation bugs of their own software they are usually installed on a non-patched and severely out-of date instance of Windows which cannot be updated with any security patches because the vendor has not recertified their software to work on the patched version. In fact, the approach used by Stuxnet with the stolen certificate was a total overkill. In real life most of these systems can be attacked with a 2 year old zero day because they are up to 4 years behind on patches. What makes this even worse is that the same software developers with same practices and some of the same codebase will now enter every home on the coattails of Smart Metering and other similar initiatives.

So coming back to the original article - it is built on the assumption that the Idaho analysis was essential to build the worm. That fails the Occam razor. So the rest of the article is as much of a conjecture as all other similar bits and pieces floating around the net.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Great fucking questions, man.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah you tell 'em, shlomo!

Re:Still Speculative.

[Gla'funk]

This part of the intelligence world is very, very small, and the number of people who act as intermediaries between, for example, the IAEA and intelligence circles is even smaller.

The part of the actual intelligence world that would talk directly with NYT (and if not then the source is by definition not credible) about anything like this unless it was a sanctioned manipulation (by definition not credible) is zero zilch nada.

Re:Still Speculative.

[dbIII]

Where the article fails hopelessly is explaining what a three year delay actually buys us

Iran is changing as their huge baby boom grows up. The vast majority of the population is young and a bit annoyed at the fundamentalist nanny state attitude of the minority that rules.
It's a race between when they get nukes and when the cabal of old mullahs lose power.

Will the Ahmadinejad faction wane as a result

He's a noisy puppet that tried to get popular support so he could get real political power of his own and failed. Remember it's a theocratic nanny state and he's just a sideshow - a student council allowed to dabble in petty things while the staff actually run the place.

Re:Still Speculative.

[phantomfive]

Assuming it actually does buy us three more years, that is an excellent thing. Keep finding more ways to delay, and three years becomes a decade. A lot of things can happen in a decade; Iran is not exactly a stable country politically. Delaying violence

The only thing that surprises me about the article is that the US has a group that is actually capable of such a thing. Especially with all the calls recently saying how we need to be prepared for cyberwar. If this is true, we are more than prepared for it: we are doing it.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Deadline for the US to exit Iraq is end of 2011 and they are *not* interested in drawing up a new force status agreement.

The war in Afghanistan will continue until the Afghanis grow a similar set of balls, or the Americans decide they've had their hands bloodied enough.

Re:Still Speculative.

[ultranova]

If M$ can prove access to it's source code was exploited by government to break the security of the program,

How could the government possibly do that? Did it have submit privileges to Microsoft's code control system?

Or did you perhaps mean "expose existing security problems" by "break the security"? Because if that counts as "breaking" security nowadays, things could get pretty nasty.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

implying the government will let microsoft sue them

Re:Still Speculative.

[h4rm0ny]

Three years is a long time for an unpopular government run by radicals, thieves, and thugs.

True, but I'm less optimistic than you about the American people overthrowing their government in that time scale.

Re:Still Speculative.

[rtfa-troll]

Going with your speculation

a) I'm assuming that this was a military sponsored and authorized operation. If it came from the US it was probably authorized under the "War on Terror". If you get "collateral damage" during a military operation you are typically not going to get any compensation at all.

b) That would be a really fun lawsuit. Imagine Ford delivered a car which had a particularly dangerous fuel tank and the US used that as part of a plot to assassinate a world leader. Would Ford then be able to sue for image damage?

c) Taking b a bit further. This may be a message from the US military to Microsoft. If you do not begin to sort your software out we will screw you. I doubt it has escaped notice that lots and lots of US secrets have been stolen from Windows computers recently.

d) Taking b and c a little further. If they have a vulnerability like this ready for public release, then the Israeli and US government have lots more problems they know of held in reserve. If I were a US "cyber security" planner, I would be desperately trying to think how I could begin to get my country migrated to some more secure systems. This kind of threat might be a beginning.

In summary; the only chance Microsoft will say anything about this is if they are extremely stupid. Possible but unlikely.

Re:Still Speculative.

[rtb61]

Perhaps of M$ were to offer a $10 million dollar reward for proof based upon the likely damages claim, how long would that state secret last, especially when that secret hides a criminal act.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

"what more are you looking for?"

Seems people expect Obama to call a press conference and say point blank: "Neener neener Iran, America and Isreal made Stuxnet"

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Where the article fails hopelessly is explaining what a three year delay actually buys us.

It buys us three years; nothing more, nothing less. Next question.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Saint Stephen]

Um, rational thought? Perhaps you should read The Murders at The Rue Morgue

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence.

+1

Re:Still Speculative.

[aliquis]

I doubt they will be able to, even if it's true. Such activity would almost certainly be regarded as a State Secret and shielded as such.

Yeah, how would someone ever be able to leak the truth?!

Oh wait :D

Re:Still Speculative.

[Rich0]

Uh, MS getting money from the US government is not a legal issue - it is a political one.

The US constitution grants the US government sovereign immunity. Nobody can sue the federal government unless a law is passed allowing them to do so. That makes this purely a political issue at this point. If such a law is passed, then a legal issue is created.

Why would the US allow a company to sue it over a matter considered critical to national defense.

Re:Still Speculative.

[vrmlguy]

Especially with all the calls recently saying how we need to be prepared for cyberwar. If this is true, we are more than prepared for it: we are doing it.

There is a difference between being able to attack and being able to defend. The US, Israel, China and Russia are apparently able to mount attacks quite well but the development of "armor" has lagged significantly.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stuxnet exploits Cisco routing hardware, not Windows... I'm assuming you didn't RTFA.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all about keeping the 'enemy' viable, of course. This way, corporations and governments can continue to play internal factions off against each other for a while - buying them time to plan for war - then suddenly declare that 'something must be done' about this 'evil force' and use it as an excuse to 'bind the people' in some sort of 'you're either with us or our enemy' situation where more civil liberties can be sacrificed in the name of unity.

Then it's another war, another crackdown on dissenters and 'if you're brown, you're going down' mentality...

It's a very familiar pattern.

The question is, will the rest of the world stand by and watch this unfold again? It may seem like 'everybody' is with the Americans in this case and that anybody who isn't is some sort of 'pro-Iranian radical' but the fact is that there are a lot of different viewpoints on this issue, as there are over the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Will people be able to voice dissent without the threat of rendition or government/media attempts to radicalize their viewpoint?

Time will tell.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

You just answered your own question. How do you know there is a source at all?

Re:Still Speculative.

[Zeinfeld]

This part of the intelligence world is very, very small, and the number of people who act as intermediaries between, for example, the IAEA and intelligence circles is even smaller.

The part of the actual intelligence world that would talk directly with NYT (and if not then the source is by definition not credible) about anything like this unless it was a sanctioned manipulation (by definition not credible) is zero zilch nada.

Unfortunately that is not true.

There are many people who leak for many reasons. During the Bush administration the intelligence services were actively leaking against them. That is how Josh Marshall at TPM was getting all that info on Cunningham and the pentagon bribery ring.

This looks to me to be the type of leak that is made to create a certain impression that suits the political interests of the leaker.

But more generally, intelligence people leak because they deal in information and the best way to get information from a journalist is usually to trade.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Zeinfeld]

Stuxnet exploits Cisco routing hardware, not Windows... I'm assuming you didn't RTFA.

Actually it has multiple exploits.

How about this for a deal: Intelligence service offers hackers access to parts of their Windows source code in return for writing the four zero day attacks.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Mr. Slippery]

Unfortunately that is not true. There are many people who leak for many reasons.

"Unfortunately???" Not at all. We are indeed fortunate that there are people in the intelligence world who leak information about illegal covert activities. Democracy depends on them.

Re:Still Speculative.

[catmistake]

Yeah, right. Too bad Microsoft can't sue itself, their OS has been broken since they started calling NT something else! Are you shitting me? Microsoft has no case, even if what is claimed is true, what happened there and everywhere their OS is used is, apparently, expected behavior for that OS, a design intended to promote their product "Windows Defender." For all we know the attack vector was Windows Automatic Update and/or Genuine Advantage.

Re:Still Speculative.

[RegTooLate]

You act like they actually pay for their copies of Windows. Iran is reported to state encouraged piracy.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

The word you are several times looking for is "its". Please return to second grade.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Proof?

Just because the US and Israel have means, motive, and opportunity doesn't exclude various other actors who also have means, motive, and opportunity. If Iran gets a bomb then Israel will almost be forced to attack, which they can't do without the US so the US will be forced to attack. And attacking Iran's nuclear facilities is no small operation; they're in hardened, underground bunkers that are difficult even with US technology to penetrate, so it would have to be a large operation to ensure success. Also, Iran would likely counter with mining the Strait of Hormuz where 40% of the world's oil supply travels through, so the US would need a large naval force to stop that. You're talking at least 2 or 3 carrier groups plus long range bombers to pull this off plus Special Forces insertions to confirm destruction.

China comes to mind; the Chinese have covertly supported the Iranian nuclear program because it keeps the US occupied and gives them room elsewhere. However, the US and Israel bombing Iran would upset the whole region and draw the Chinese in one way or the other. Stuxnet has effectively maintained the status quo of the US and Iran arguing with each other and prolonged this situation several more years. Russia is in the exact same situation here. Both benefit with the situation as is, but neither wants the scenario described above. Both Russia and China, having supplied equipment to the Iranians, have the technical capability, the opportunity, and apparent motive.

Saudi Arabia is the wealthiest nation in the MIddle East and owns the land that is the center of Muslim culture, but Iran is now the dominant regional power. Iran can't push Saudi Arabia while the US is there in Iraq and Afhanistan, and the Saudis are playing a very complex game to ensure the US stays in place at least another decade until they can build up their own forces (see the recent spate of military spending the Saudis are doing in the US; $30B in aircraft and $60B in naval support). They have the resources to buy the technical capability on the open market, the motive, and have had numerous opportunities.

Turkey is a growing regional power as well and the likely contender for Iran to be the dominant Middle East power once the US leaves. They are strong, technically sophisticated, and were a major Cold War battleground so they're no strangers to espionage. They're also not a nuclear power (although the US has stored nuclear weapons there). Iran is unlikely to get a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, but if they have 4 or 5 it would give their military a significant tactical edge over the Turkish military. They have the means, the motive, and certainly have had plenty of opportunities.

Heck, Iran could have done it under a false flag scenario to delay their program. The reality of the situation is that developing a nuclear weapon gives Iran a diplomatic edge, whereas actually having a nuclear weapon is a serious threat to Iran. Recent developments have Iran negotiating with the 5 members of the UN Security Council plus Germany and being hosted by Turkey. Think about that; a weak economic, slowly rising but still not very strong regional power brought the US, Russia, China, UK, France, and Germany, arguably the 6 strongest nations in the world, to the negotiation table to be hosted and facilitated by Iran's most prominent opponent, all on the threat of developing nuclear weapons. If they have one, the US and Israel will be forced to act. So the status quo actually benefits Iran, whereas completing the project does not. Iran certainly has the means, motive, and opportunity.

It's amazing how people are so quick to point to the US for everything in the world, which shows that those same people are quite biased against other countries. Despite what Hollywood would have you believe, while the US is a strong military and economic power, the CIA and the NSA are sadly outclassed by Russian Intelligence, Chinese Intelligence, Mossad, MI6, etc, and they tend to discount all the other players.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, looking at Israel and the US, I think the world would not judge either nation for bombing the shit out of the Iranians if they came out and said they have a nuke. No one really likes the Iranian Government and I think everyone would secretly be fine with their military knocked down a notch, but you can't just go attack someone these days because you don't like them. So I would think the US and Israel would have more incentive to speed up their program so they have an excuse to move in take Iran down a peg or two.

Obama's also got poor approval ratings right now. Reagan and Clinton both had poor approval ratings at the middle of their first term and lost the midterm elections, but got it back when they were up for re-election mainly due to strong Foreign Policy; Reagan with pushing the Soviets down and Clinton with the Bosnian-Serb situation. Obama doesn't have a lot of good foreign policy options for success right now; Afghanistan is a mess and Iraq isn't generating the approval numbers he needs, so maybe he'd secretly welcome a chance to flex his foreign policy muscle to improve his domestic standing. Although that's just speculation.

Re:Still Speculative.

[currently_awake]

The military doesn't advertise its capabilities, politicians do. The only time the military worries about public knowledge/policy is when it affects them directly. If they are publicly calling for cyberwar capabilities (when they already have that) then it's because they want to do something that will directly affect the public. Hardening the internet to block terrorism is done behind the scenes so it's not that. The most probable goal is direct control of the internet for copyright enforcement, and/or control to stop wikileaks type websites.

Re:Still Speculative.

[jambox]

It doesn't need submit access to look at for screw-ups in the code. I believe the US gov has access to a lot of windows source for security/military reasons. They also reportedly gave portions to the Chinese government as part of a deal for them to use it instead of linux. It's oft said but the fact that it's closed source means that there's probably all sorts of bad stuff in it. FOSS code wouldn't get away with it.

Re:Still Speculative.

[tomhath]

The most probable goal is direct control of the internet...

Nah. The most probable goal is to make people like gp poster think the US doesn't have the capability. As you said, "military doesn't advertise its capabilities". But intelligence agencies are well served by you thinking they're a bunch of bumbling fools.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the vector that's significant, it's the target. Can your average botnet change the spin speeds on a specific model of Pakistani uranium centrifuge in a way to maximize damage, and send fake information to monitoring equipment?

Who has an interest in damaging Iranian nuclear weapons infrastructure and a detailed knowledge of Pakistani centrifuges? Who likes black ops? Where are most of the botnet C&C hosts located?

If your short list for suspects includes anyone other than the US and Israel, you're remarkably naive about geopolitics. Try rereading the article.

Re:Still Speculative.

[BillX]

Really? Stuxnet - the one Windows malware with zero payload/effect for 99.999% of infectees - is the one that made every government slap their collective foreheads and say "holy crap! Windows is vulnerable to malware! Who knew?"

Now Siemens, on the other hand, will likely be seeing some very real losses as a direct result of Stuxnet publicity.

Re:Still Speculative.

[plover]

True. It took 8 years to get rid of the previous religious radicals, thieves and thugs, and 8 years to get rid of the thieves and thugs prior to them.

It seems we're pretty much stuck with the thieves and thugs model, too.

Re:Still Speculative.

[sumdumass]

So let me get this straight. What you are saying is that because the governments saw the source code, they were able to find security holes in it that Microsoft had no intention of patching and exploit those security flaws to their benefit.

Am I right? And if so, how is this any different from anyone else who find a security hole in a microsoft system and exploits it before the public or microsoft knows? And yes, part of the NT source code is out there from back when MS servers were compromised.

I mean look up zero day security flaws.

Re:Still Speculative.

[sumdumass]

Don't forget sovereign immunity.

The government is immune from all lawsuits unless it authorizes them somehow by law or the constitution provides something overriding that concept. For the majority of lawsuits against the government, they have to agree to be sued first.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Max Littlemore]

I'm less optimistic than you about the American people overthrowing their government in that time scale.

I think he was referring to Isreal

Re:Still Speculative.

[j0el]

Common access to source code improves security. I cannot believe Microsoft does not know this. I cannot believe you do not know this. Microsoft does not employ enough people to find and fix all their security exploits. They need help.

Re:Still Speculative.

[mug funky]

your mother's bedroom record is pristine.

Re:Still Speculative.

[fishexe]

Exactly this.

The new york times editors "almost certainly" rape little children on weekends.

I guess this only goes to show, as long as it is a slow news day, they have no issues with me reporting that "fact" online for all to see.

Yeah, but nobody will believe your "fact" because you didn't cite "anonymous sources" who are "experts" on the matter.

Re:Still Speculative.

[fishexe]

If M$ can prove access to it's source code was exploited by government to break the security of the program, regardless of the damage done to the public's perception of the security of the program, than M$ is fully entitled to damages done by the purposeful and malevolent attack upon one of it's core revenue streams.

I'm guessing the Iranian nuclear program is not one of Microsoft's core revenue streams.

Re:Still Speculative.

[euroq]

It's oft said but the fact that it's closed source means that there's probably all sorts of bad stuff in it. FOSS code wouldn't get away with it.

I mean no offense, sir or madam, but this is a very immature statement. First of all, some of the brightest engineers and developers in the world created and upgraded Windows. They work very hard on making it good. I don't know why people think that they would create "all sorts of bad stuff", they do their best to create the best. I'm not saying this because I work for, or know anybody that works for, Microsoft. I'm saying this because I'm a paid software developer who works on software, and I think that this attitude is disrespectful of software developers in general. It's also laughable that FOSS software wouldn't get away with it. It's likely the same caliber of people who work on both. We don't have empirical evidence to prove this one way or the other. What I do know is that there is no valid evidence to say that the developers who work on Microsoft software make "bad stuff" as compared to FOSS.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually Clinton got re-elected by moving towards the center. Some think Obama may try to move towards the center, but I doubt it.

Re:Still Speculative.

[he-sk]

In a country that subscribes to the rule of law any and all government actions should be subject to legal recourse.

It's a shame that the US has blurred the concept of the rule of law so much -- all in the name of "national security" (read: corruption).

Re:Still Speculative.

[jambox]

I'm a software developer too you know. As such I know it takes a *lot* of effort and discipline to write secure code and even then, it'll never be perfect. But by definition, closed source software like such that MS sells is *initially* more secure because nobody outside the company (well...) can poke around in the code so there is less scrutiny. This can often lead to defects going undetected for a long time. I'm not slating Microsoft developers at all, it's just the nature of the beast.

Re:Still Speculative.

[jambox]

Yep I know what zero-day flaws are. In any case, having the source to some software makes it a lot easier to find flaws in it. Just because MS have their own code, doesn't mean they know about every single potential exploit; it's way too complex.

I don't know how much of the NT code got out, can you cite a reference?

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

We need to be prepared... because we are beginning a campaign of using cyberwar... and need to be prepared for the consequences of doing so.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

This part of the intelligence world is very, very small, and the number of people who act as intermediaries between, for example, the IAEA and intelligence circles is even smaller.

If there are so few people with this level of knowledge, and clearly a JOURNALIST can figure out who to talk to, then certainly an intelligence agency can find them too. Another possible alternative is that intelligence agencies want this information distributed to display the potential level of U.S. sophistication without ever admitting to capabilities, and so made some vague and unverifiable murmurings to one or more journalists eager to get source information.

At this point I don't trust anything I read, which includes proofreading the text of this post. Who knows what glaring flaws and gaps of logic I have overlooked due to my American indoctrination? I mean upbringing.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

woosh

Re:Still Speculative.

[plover]

Especially with all the calls recently saying how we need to be prepared for cyberwar. If this is true, we are more than prepared for it: we are doing it.

There is a difference between being able to attack and being able to defend. The US, Israel, China and Russia are apparently able to mount attacks quite well but the development of "armor" has lagged significantly.

You probably would have been interested in hearing General Hayden's keynote to Blackhat last year. In it, he explained how U.S. cyber* warfare policies are aligned with existing organizations. Cyber defense falls to the DHS. Cyber attack is in the purview of the armed forces. Cyber espionage is assigned to the intel organizations (CIA, NSA, etc.) And then he pointed out that attacks, defense, and espionage are all varying facets of exactly the same things.

*He also stated that he thinks "cyber" is a stupid name for this domain, but it's the one we're stuck with.

Re:Still Speculative.

[sumdumass]

Take a look at this.

And BTW, most people I have seen who has analyzed the code, see sloppy comments and otherwise poor programing habits but not really anything necessarily wrong with the available code that would ascribe malicious or lax security goals.

The problem with your liability theory is that if the feds had the same source code the MS has had all along, then anything they find that MS doesn't know about would indicate a lack of due diligence on MS's side to protect their operating code.

What I mean is, if you produce a piece of crap and call it a bacon sandwich, and I get access to that bacon sandwich's raw ingredients and cause something to happen where everyone see it as a piece of crap, as long as you have the same if not more information about that piece of crap then I do, then it's up to you to make it actually into the bacon sandwich that you are selling. If I find security holes, you should have been able to find security holes. If I exploit those holes, unless you pacth them, then you failed to prevent those security holes from being exploited.

In the end, from a courts perspective, what will happen is that because you failed to stop those security holes from being exploited, then you failed to show you didn't want them exploited. Sure, you don't want virus infesting your baby, but this is a little different. You are attempting to show that one entity harmed another by doing something that you didn't know could be done. Then you are saying that they were able to do this because they had access to the same stuff you had access to all along. The obvious answer to this is, if you had the same access and didn't want the code to be exploited, then you should have locked it down.

This is why I brought up a zero day flaw. If a white hat researcher finds a flaw, notifies MS about it, then releases the information to the public 6 months later when it hasn't been fixed only to find people taking advantage of the security flaw, does anyone have a right to sue anyone else? Well, the answer is no. And I don't think this is any different.

Re:Still Speculative.

[sumdumass]

I submit that the perception of the rule of law you are inferring never existed in the first place.

The concept of sovereign immunity and the right of sovereignty was around long before the US became a country and it is evident in some of our very first laws passed as supported by constitutional challenges to them. Furthermore, it's built into our legal system in the sense of needing some sort of standing to sue.

Re:Still Speculative.

[Anonymous Coward]

WHOOOOOOOOOOOSH

Re:Still Speculative.

[he-sk]

The concept of the rule of law has been around since the Romans. Probably even longer, I forget. And the person who is affected by government action certainly has a right to sue -- that's what rule of law means.

I'm afraid I really don't understand your comment. Which laws are you referring to?

Re:Still Speculative.

[sumdumass]

In the first continental congress of the newly formed United States of America, they passed a law allowing warrant-less searches at the borders. This was upheld by the US supreme court as being necessary as a right of sovereignty.

So the concept of the country above the law has existed even back then. The point being, the US cannot have blurred the concept of the rule of law so much -- all in the name of "national security" (read: corruption). It already existed in this form for the entire life of the US and nothing concerning national security or the modern day corruption has changed that. It's little more then a poetic dream to think it was any different at any time the US has been in existence concerning sovereign immunity.

Re:Still Speculative.

[he-sk]

I looked the term up on Wikipedia and I must say I still find it confusing how it meshes with the rule of law. But maybe that's because it's a common law thing. At least now I can trace its history.

In my original reply, I was thinking about National Security Letters and their inherent gag order when I wrote that the rule of law is undermined. One of those NSL went to court in the end, so it's kinda like going two steps backwards and one step forward. Also, in your example (warrant-less searches at the border), if the Supreme Court ruled about it then somebody must have brought a suit, correct?

FYI, In Germany we have the Rechtsweggarantie which means that whenever your rights are infringed by the state you can sue the state.

Re:Still Speculative.

[sumdumass]

FYI, In Germany we have the Rechtsweggarantie which means that whenever your rights are infringed by the state you can sue the state.

That's true in the US to the extent that the US constitution or law passed by congress bars the US government from infringing those rights. It's probably set that way in Germany because of the history of events leading up to WWII. If you could sue for wrong, a lot of things that were done might have been stopped (assuming the government would listen to the rulings and the courts weren't stacked with cronyism rubber stamping the current trends).

It does appear to be a common law thing. However, the government of the US, through either the Constitution, or laws passed, has waived it's immunity rights in a lot of areas. The US attempted to create a limited federal government that was granted abilities as long as they didn't encroach on freedoms blocked by the constitution.

That has long been lost in the shuffle of politics and it's back to the right of kings so to say in which people have manipulated the government and constitutional interpretations to invoke some idea of limitless government capable of everything and anything. In this, you see things happen that makes us all wonder.

if the Supreme Court ruled about it then somebody must have brought a suit, correct?

Well, they did. This is because the US constitution says we are free from all unreasonable searches and seizures and those searches will be supported by probably cause and a warrant. This was the standing needed to sue against the government. However, the court rules that as a right of sovereignty, protecting and controlling what passed through the borders override the US constitution.

Re:Still Speculative.

[he-sk]

Well, they did. This is because the US constitution says we are free from all unreasonable searches and seizures and those searches will be supported by probably cause and a warrant. This was the standing needed to sue against the government. However, the court rules that as a right of sovereignty, protecting and controlling what passed through the borders override the US constitution.

In that case, the rule of law prevailed, didn't it? You may not like the outcome of the court decision, but note that there is a way for you to reverse it. (Constititutional amendment -- although, seeing how difficult that process is, one might argue that it's practically non-existant.)

Re:Still Speculative.

[sumdumass]

Maybe it's a native language difference combined with a note of differing legal systems.

It's not that I don't like the ruling, I really don't care about it outside an historical context. But I can hardly say the rule of law prevailed. Here you have a constitution that makes up the government and grants it all of the power the government hold, then a court comes by and says these unwritten rules supersede the document defining your existence as a country.

It has become the rule of law since then, but I wouldn't say the rules of law prevailed. I would attribute it more to the rules of law being ignored as all laws should be plain and obvious and the government should be limited to it also.

BTW, a constitutional amendment wouldn't change anything in regard to this. The US constitution already states they need probable cause and a warrant to search. The court said something outside the US constitution which also claims to be the supreme law of the land, is more important then the US constitution. So essentially, you could amend the constitution all year long as as long as the rights of sovereignty sit over top of it, it wouldn't make one bit of difference.

When this happens to the US or its allies

[countertrolling]

It will considered an act of war resulting in the real thing, of course.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[gman003]

It still just might cause a war. Sure, Iran can't fight a war with the US, but it can (and probably will) fight Israel. THAT would be nasty.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Titan1080]

Uh. The US barely 'won' against a FAR inferior Iraq, and is losing badly against a stone age country. I'm pretty sure Iran would do just fine, especially seeing as how they have control of 100% of the straits of Hormuz.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[vbraga]

The 5fth Fleet is stationed on Bahrain. Why do you believe that Iran controls all of the Strait of Hormuz?

I'm pretty sure the United States would have a lot of trouble fighting another stone age country, because that is what Iran would become if it engages Israel, the US or one if it's allies.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[gman003]

The US is not fighting a war in Iraq. The US is fighting an occupation. This is a significantly different task, one that the American Army is not designed for. The US Army is designed to crush, to destroy, to annihilate the enemy - and the US Army is possibly the best army in the world at this. Fighting an insurgency is a much different task - it requires completely different training, logistics, organization, even equipment. The two are as different as HTML and assembly language.

The "war" part of Gulf War II was over in weeks. Very few conventional military forces can stand against the US, and none of those are in the Middle East. If the US launched a proper war (go in, kill every soldier, leave the country), the battle would last a few weeks. Think Poland in 1939 - I give Iran about a month of real Total War, before it collapses. And that's assuming the US doesn't use nukes - if it did, I give it about an hour before it becomes the Islamic Cinder Pile of Iran.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[shop S Mart]

Not really, the US military wiped the Iraq military off the map easily, it was the occupation and insurgency that caused problems. I bet Egypt, Syria and Jordan thought they'd do just fine too when they attacked Israel.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the Iraqi minister of information got a slashdot account...

The us didn't barely win the military campaign against Iraq. They rolled over them in short order with obscenely lopsided casualties. Iran would be little different.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[odd42]

Uh. The US barely 'won' against a FAR inferior Iraq, and is losing badly against a stone age country. I'm pretty sure Iran would do just fine, especially seeing as how they have control of 100% of the straits of Hormuz.

Long-term Iraq and Afghanistan "wars" were failures as police-actions (after any major military conflict) in attempts to eliminate civilian casualties, having this goal to maintain legitimacy in initiating the conflicts. Iranian war on the US (the feasibility of which if judged according to the above US difficulties in Iraq/Afghanistan) is not advisable by any sane person.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[filthpickle]

Uh. Wow.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad 'Real War' != Nineteen Thirty Whatever. If the U.S. attacked Iran, Iran and Hezbollah would go nuts attacking Israel w/missiles, rockets, etc. Plus Iran is currently chairing OPEC.....even in 'Real War,' our strategic position is not good.

But...the broader point is that war is terrible and fantasizing about the 'Islamic Cinder Pile of Iran' is bad!

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[morgan_greywolf]

Not so. The U.S. crushed the Iraqi Army and toppled the government of Saddam Hussein very quickly. Occupying Iraq is another matter, one that the U.S. military has never really been good at doing because they've never been equipped or trained for it.

As for the "stone age country," I assume you're talking about Afghanistan. The U.S. is not losing badly in Afghanistan; the U.S. military has not achieved its objectives, sure, but our nation's objectives in Afghanistan primarily revolve around the capture of Osama bin Laden, who may nor may not even be alive. Finding international terrorists as smart as bin Laden is simply not an easy task; other countries seeking Osama bin Laden also haven't captured him either.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[LBArrettAnderson]

You do realize that things like this are attempted against the US *all the time,* right? And sponsored by various governments, no less. You have the whole thing backwards. If Iran is led to believe that it was the US (NYT is not a good source for this kind of information information), *they* will consider it an act of war.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[countertrolling]

We can end these wars, just as soon as General Grievous is killed.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Opportunist]

Ok, "control" is the wrong word here. "Denial of service" is maybe more fitting.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[mikelieman]

Why do you believe that Iran controls all of the Strait of Hormuz?

What would it take? A couple of containers full of Chinese missiles?

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[biryokumaru]

Right, OPEC... I'm absolutely certain that our biggest petroleum source in OPEC, Canada, would side with Iran should we go to war. That makes perfect sense.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Lord Kano]

Uh. The US barely 'won' against a FAR inferior Iraq, and is losing badly against a stone age country. I'm pretty sure Iran would do just fine, especially seeing as how they have control of 100% of the straits of Hormuz.

Hardly. The actual "war" part was over in less than two weeks, for some reason the shot-callers assumed that all Iraqis would be so overjoyed at Saddam's ouster that they would be undyingly grateful to whomever was responsible.

LK

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

And that's assuming the US doesn't use nukes - if it did, I give it about an hour before it becomes the Islamic Cinder Pile of Iran.

And if Iran (or supporters) use nukes?

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Nemyst]

I think you're not getting what the OP is saying... Were the US not to care about public opinion or were they to have the support of the international community in a total war against Iraq, they would utterly annihilate any opposition, be it from Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, whatever. Israel would react swiftly to any attack from Iran (I think their performance is not up to question, with what the Six-Day War showed).

The thing is that this is not the kind of war the US is trying to lead.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll give you twenty containers of anything you want, and I get the 5th fleet.

I like my chances.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Entropy98]

And that's assuming the US doesn't use nukes - if it did, I give it about an hour before it becomes the Islamic Cinder Pile of Iran.

And if Iran (or supporters) use nukes?

How many do they have? How big are they? What kind of delivery systems do they have? Can they launch them before their country is destroyed?

I dont think they or they're supporters have any significant capability.

Of course engaging in nuclear war with Iran would be completely unnecessary and morally reprehensible.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[sjames]

Chairing OPEC wouldn't help them much.

However, I agree fully that war is to be avoided rather than glorified.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

All depends who gets the first move.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[guyminuslife]

They don't have nukes. But lets say, for argument's sake, that they develop them.

First of all, any nuclear weapons that Iran develops are likely to be much smaller-scale than the weapons that have been rusting away in the US stockpiles since the 1950s. Fat Man and Little Boy were big bombs, but they aren't even close to the scale of the arms developed during the Cold War.

Second, a nuclear Iran does not mean the difference between zero nuclear weapons and the stockpile that, say, Russia/Britain/India has. There's a recurring cost and a recurring development time.

Third, and probably most importantly, Iran doesn't have the capacity to send long-range missiles. (This is also the case with North Korea.) They could nuke Israel, but not much further than that. The United States would not see any damage due to conventional deployment; the only way that Iran would be able to attack would be to supply terrorist groups.

But then their country's ash. I don't have particularly high esteem for the Iranian leadership, but they're not stupid, they're not suicidal, and they understand MAD. So it's a moot point. The rationale for wanting nukes is pretty obvious: Iran is in a position where two of its neighbors got invaded in the past 10 years by the Americans, who they don't stand a chance against in a conventional war, and who have been rattling their sabers since 1979. I don't think Iran particularly cares about starting a war, the nuclear program is more of a deterrent against turning into Iraq or Afghanistan.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Mana Mana]

If Truman didn't use atomics against China's forces crossing the Korean border and involving itself during that war, they wont be used against Iran. I can foresee North Korea being nuked in retaliation for nuclear warfare against the USA. Their math is bad enough to think they can profit from doing so.

After a decade of contemplation of the issues I can not understand the reticence the ROK, and the USA have calling the DPRK's bluff. The shit gets worse decade after decade. Videlicet, if Clinton would have attacked the North, as it is claimed he nearly did, in the 1990s we would have resolution without the nuclear issue being a concern.

Ultimately this continuing mess is the South's creation. They habitually coddle their lunatic northern _Korean_ brothers!{1] It's no secret. As a result, the USA not too long ago moved their majority of DMZ forces miles _behind_ the South's. It signaled to the South that when the lead flies eventually, because of your negligence, the brunt of the immediate losses will be yours. Till then the South felt secure in being last (second) to the fight and slaughter behind the USA's lines. FYI, when the North restarts the war it will rain tens of thousands of artillery rounds on Seoul within minutes of major hostilities.

Guy walks into a bar, kicks your date, spits on you, blackmails you for drinks, and then says `fuck you! do as I say or I'll shoot myself in the head.' Go ahead, it's better than this.

[1] The present fury with North Korea is the exception ( Yeonpyeong Island attack, Cheonan sinking ). Will it last? Maybe.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[brainboyz]

And give Israel 100% justification to out-right flatten Palestine? I don't think even Hezbollah is that stupid. Israel cares very little about public opinion when it comes to protecting the state. Iran/Hezbollah starts throwing more than annoyance-level bombs over the border and Israel fires up the bulldozers, gives 2-hour notice to evacuate, and starts evicting every last Palestinian in sight. It would be chaos, and guaranteed that the Israelis wouldn't give a damn. They might nuke Tehran just for giggles at that point.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Cwix]

Iran doesn't have anything that can reach us, they would have to beg Russia of China to do it, which I doubt either would take such a drastic step.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[vertinox]

Right, OPEC... I'm absolutely certain that our biggest petroleum source in OPEC, Canada, would side with Iran should we go to war. That makes perfect sense.

China might be unhappy as Iran is its leading oil import nation and such a move would cause their energy prices to skyrocket.

Of course, they could make up the difference by selling the Iranians weapons.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[AHuxley]

The hope is that the US computers and defensive hardware will become less than perfect when confronted with way too many cheap missile targets.
Add in needed reload and short resetting delays, something might get past.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[theNAM666]

You, are unfortunately, incorrect.

Iraq feel because it was neither prepared nor ready for war. Iran has been preparing for war for close to a decade, apace. War with Iran will be no walk in the cake, it will be real war, with real consequences, including the likelihood of casualty numbers that the United States has not seen since the Second World War. Don't kid yourself.

P.S. My friends from the 101st assure me that your characterization of the narrow nature of US forces and their training and preparation is also largely a pile of poop; US Armed Forces are also one of the largest and most prepared humanitarian response forces, as well.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Sun]

It still just might cause a war. Sure, Iran can't fight a war with the US, but it can (and probably will) fight Israel. THAT would be nasty.

Iran is already fighting Israel. They do most of it by financing, supplying weapons (and using it to gain influence on) Hammas, but sometimes they use a direct agent (Hizbullah). If Israel is behind Stuxnet (no personal knowledge, but it makes sense that it is), then this is not "just cause for war". It is merely a battle in a war that is already ongoing (as is Iran's disregard for signing the no dissemination treaty, and so on and so forth).

Shachar

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The US Army is designed to crush, to destroy, to annihilate the enemy - and the US Army is possibly the best army in the world at this.

Only the Vietnam People's Army surpasses them!

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[iq in binary]

You're kidding, right? The US rolled up Iraq in less than a week not only once, but twice. As far as invasion is concerned, the US has the best track record of any modern military. The "problems" you hear about involve occupation. The fact that you're ignoring the fact that the problems we're facing in our occupation of Afghanistan or Iraq don't even hold a candle to the occupational efforts of other modern militaries is of course typical of the liberal mindset. We were in Japan for 40 YEARS, 4 Decades before they got back on their feet, we were in Germany for 30. We still hold the Philippines, Guam, Somoa, etc..

Iran would be rolled in less than a week just like Iraq was, twice. The only difference would be Israeli troops on the ground with US logistical and heavy arms support as opposed to a full American invasion with US boots, bombs and small arms headed inland.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude... WTF? It's "Do as I say or I'll take out many innocent civilians before offing myself."

And the US troops stationed there were always considered a tripwire force. You really think moving US troops a few miles south makes a real difference? If shit goes down, the US is gonna be involved in all scenarios.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Sattwic]

Isn't this what they said when US troops were about to enter Baghdad?
That the revolutionary guards are so elite and will fight for every street that US army will get bogged down for months fighting a savage urban guerilla warfare with no clear victory in sight?

Well, before the saliva spit by those vocalising that view could dry up in the wind, the US army was smoking out bedazzled Saddam from a pit.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus Iran is currently chairing OPEC.....even in 'Real War,' our strategic position is not good.

Other major OPEC members have been egging the US on to attack Iran, if you've been following Wikileaks.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[The Mighty Buzzard]

There wouldn't be much of an Iranian army left to buy arms by the time they finished haggling over price and delivered the weapons.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[nickdc]

HTML and assembly!? I had no idea... I thought it could be HTML vs CSS or HTML vs PHP or even still HTML vs Java, but HTML and assembly that's preposterous!

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[_Sprocket_]

Iraq feel because it was neither prepared nor ready for war. Iran has been preparing for war for close to a decade, apace.

I'm really curious as to why you seem to portray the Iraqi army as a push-over but somehow Iran isn't. The Iraq-Iran war was a stalemate. Iraq had access to Western and Soviet hardware. Iraq built up the 4th largest army in the world. And while that army was greatly reduced after the Gulf War, I find the characterisation of being "unprepared" hard to accept. Granted - in comparison to what they went up against, the Iraqi forces were ill-equipped. But then that leads to the question of why you believe Iran is in such a better situation?

I should note that I don't believe an invasion of Iran would be a "walk in the cake" either. But I suspect the problems would be more of the same issues we're seeing with Iraq today which is very much removed from conventional warfare.

P.S. My friends from the 101st assure me that your characterization of the narrow nature of US forces and their training and preparation is also largely a pile of poop; US Armed Forces are also one of the largest and most prepared humanitarian response forces, as well.

Policing and counter-insurgency is very different than helping people pick up the pieces after a war or a natural disaster.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Khyber]

I'll take 20 containers of nuclear weaponry over your 5th fleet all day long.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[dbIII]

it requires completely different training

Which many in the armed forces received until Rumsfeld closed it down. It looked like he wanted dumb warriors equivalent to those running with the Afgan warlords instead of real soldiers skilled for many different operations. It's going to take a while to recover from what he dismantled.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Xaositecte]

The US military forces were\are geared up to fight a conventional army, and are capable of doing that spectacularly. The actual invasion and neutralization of the conventional armed forces of Iraq and Afghanistan were unbelievably effective. The actual invasion of Iraq took a little over a month to complete (March 19 to April 30) and was an uncontested success.

The occupation and subsequent insurgency is pretty FUBAR though.

Similarly, destroying the conventional military forces of Iran is within the capabilities of the US without question. It's the competence of our leadership to clean up the mess once we're done having the real war that is in question.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[phantomfive]

The rationale for wanting nukes is pretty obvious: Iran is in a position where two of its neighbors got invaded in the past 10 years by the Americans, who they don't stand a chance against in a conventional war, and who have been rattling their sabers since 1979.

Be careful not to make the US as the center of the world for everything. The US is important, but it is not the only thing.

Iran wants nukes because it will give it more 'influence' over it's neighbors, something Iran has been trying for a long time. They have a sort of feudal relationship with Syria and Hezbollah, and they've been growing their influence in Egypt. At one time, Iran was a world power. They wouldn't mind being one again, at least in the region.

We can see this also in Wikileaks, where leaders of middle eastern countries wanted the US to take out Iran.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[dbIII]

Of course, they could make up the difference by selling the Iranians weapons.

They have been for years, including some classified US targeting systems used in tanks that were sold to Israel and onsold to China. There was an inquiry into that one in 2000. The Israeli government was very unhappy with the criminals that sold the US gear that eventually ended up as thousands of copies in Iran.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[hairyfish]

The US Army is designed to crush, to destroy, to annihilate the enemy - and the US Army is possibly the best army in the world at this.

I reckon the Vietnamese might say different. The US military is designed to win WW2. Unfortunately for them, the chances of that happening again are precisely nil. The hardware maybe the best on the planet, but the tactics, strategy and planning leave an awful lot to be desired.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[fishexe]

The US is not fighting a war in Iraq. The US is fighting an occupation.

Eh? I thought the US was the occupation.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[fishexe]

Right, OPEC... I'm absolutely certain that our biggest petroleum source in OPEC, Canada, would side with Iran should we go to war. That makes perfect sense.

Canada is not a member of OPEC.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[sangreal66]

Uh. The US barely 'won' against a FAR inferior Iraq, and is losing badly against a stone age country. I'm pretty sure Iran would do just fine, especially seeing as how they have control of 100% of the straits of Hormuz.

What war did you watch? The US easily won the war against the Iraqi government. If anything should be in quotes it should be 'war' as it was entirely one-sided. The failure was in creating a stable country in the aftermath, but that is hardly the goal of most wars, and certainly not relevant to the notion of the Iranian government launching a war against the US.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

"it's allies"

BTW wrong word, there's another one.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[nospam007]

"and the US Army is possibly the best army in the world at this. "

Unfortunately the wars they are good at, are no longer been fought.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the US is almost certainly working under China's direction on this. I'd say the goal is to entrench Chinese dependence in the region, while maintaining Chinese "neutrality" in the whole circumstance.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[h4rm0ny]

Hell, I'd take twenty containers of even remotely modern mines against the Fifth Fleet in the Strait of Hormuz. Sure the Fifth fleet can just sit there. Or it can advance incredibly slowly, carefully trying to clear the mines as it goes with varying degrees of success. But for all practical and commercial purposes, the Strait of Hormuz is now closed for business.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[h4rm0ny]

The US is not fighting a war in Iraq. The US is fighting an occupation. This is a significantly different task, one that the American Army is not designed for. The US Army is designed to crush, to destroy, to annihilate the enemy - and the US Army is possibly the best army in the world at this

I think it's the US Air Force and Navy that are designed to annihilate (appropriate choice of word) their enemies, by virtue of raining bombs and missiles down upon them. If the US army isn't for controlling territories, then I'm not sure what it's for, because other than infiltration missions (which is not the general bulk of the army), they've got nothing on a plane load of bombs when it comes to pure destruction.

And that's assuming the US doesn't use nukes - if it did, I give it about an hour before it becomes the Islamic Cinder Pile of Iran.

Remind me again why Iran would like to have nuclear missiles?

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[h4rm0ny]

We can see this also in Wikileaks, where leaders of middle eastern countries wanted the US to take out Iran.

Bear in mind that the leaders in question are often dictators reigning a non-democratic state and can hardly be taken as moral support for action against Iran. In some cases, these "leaders" are actually reigning royal families. In 2011!

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[h4rm0ny]

I'm interested to learn more about this. Can you point me at some information about what Rumsfield did, or at least give me a starting point to Google on. What programs did Rumsfield close down? (Note: Brit here, not US citizen, so may be asking something that's well-known over there)

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[h4rm0ny]

Not really, the US military wiped the Iraq military off the map easily, it was the occupation and insurgency that caused problems

The Iraq military used a technique that the US military were completely unprepared for. They took off their uniforms and went home to look after their family and communities, or in some cases, to go undercover and fight an ongoing resistance. The "wiping off the map" of the Iraq military, in large part [b]is[/b] the insurgency that has deviled the US forces.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[MartinSchou]

It is merely a battle in a war that is already ongoing (as is Iran's disregard for signing the no dissemination treaty, and so on and so forth).

You mean that Iran are being bastards for not caring about nuclear proliferation, whereas Israel are cool for just not signing that treaty?

Also, keep in mind that the non-proliferation treaty came into effect in 1970 - 8 years before the Iranian revolution. From the Iranian perspective it might simply be a case of "no, that was signed by a US puppet government and in no way applies to the free country of Iran". Like the US not wanting to pay taxes to the UK, despite the colonies having signed treaties to that effect before the Revolution.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[DMiax]

Right, about that, where exactly is Israel's signature on the non-proliferation treaties, it must be well hidden because I never find it...

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[DMiax]

It does not need to be total annihilation either. It would be easily won if they could actually behave as if they conquered the country and start a real occupation. With immigration, new buildings, structures and making the rules etc. If they could plan for permanent (not indefinite: permanent) occupation it would be simpler. Even without more violence thing they could really rebuild Iraq infrastructures.

However they cannot do that and must leave a lot of power to a puppet government. They are "always on the verge to go away" and cannot do anything long-term. The big fuck-up was beginning a war that US can easily win, but MUST NOT win because it would simply be a land grab, and unquestionably evil.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

"(as is Iran's disregard for signing the no dissemination treaty, and so on and so forth)"

LOL. Not expressed very well. I think you mean the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, right? In which case Iran is a signatory (hence why they get into such trouble for firing up secret uranium enrichment facilities without notifying the IAEA), whereas Israel is one of the very few non-signatories (Israel, India, and Pakistan).

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

It is merely a battle in a war that is already ongoing (as is Iran's disregard for signing the no dissemination treaty, and so on and so forth).

Whoa, man. You'd consider not signing a treaty an act of war? Not that I'm even sure which treaty you're referring to there that Iran supposedly has refused to sign, but just in general, whether a sovereign nation signs a treaty or not is their decision and theirs alone.

You'd have a point if you talked about refusing to obey a treaty that was signed and ratified, although I'll note that sovereign nations are still sovereign, and the fact that treaties are binding is itself due to a treaty (and one that the USA have not ratified!).

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

attack Russia.

I think USA should attack Russia, it has plenty of natural resources - oil, gas, steel, wood, and plenty plenty plenty more.

I think it's easy for USA to walk all over Russia, maybe it will take 6-8 weeks to occupy most of the territory, and whatever is not occupied in that amount of time is not worth going into anyway.

Imagine: USA taking over the Russian territory, occupying it, forcing the Russians into labor camps just working for the economy of USA.

Then it's China.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Cheech Wizard]

Exactly what 'victory' did (has) the US achieved in Iraq after all these years (other than to plow US$Billions by the pallet load into it and to kill Saddam)?

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[gman003]

I never said they were fighting against an occupation.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty sure that was a joke.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

It already happened to Google. That did not cause a war, even though Google is an American company.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Army is designed to crush, to destroy, to annihilate the enemy - and the US Army is possibly the best army in the world at this.

Only the Vietnam People's Army surpasses them!

No they don't/didn't.

The US didn't lose any battle in Vietnam. When the last combat division left on August 12, 1972 the US won every military engagement they were engaged in. There was still a base that was patrolled by US troops which Nixon said would stay there until all US POWs were returned. South Vietnam ran it's own defense from late 1972 onwards.

Congress then voted in 1973 to end US military funding. In 1975 North Vietnam invaded the Republic of [South] Vietnam and that's when everyone saw the evacuation of the US embassy via helicopters. I'd bet money that if US troops where still there in 1975 there would not have been any such evacuation and pushing of helicopters off carries to make room for people.

And as a historical comparison: the US left Vietnam and it ended up becoming a Communist country, and let's see how well it's developed over the last 3-4 decades. Now contrast that with South Korean where the US stayed and see where they are. Where would you rather live? (And let's not even get into North Korea.)

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Rich0]

Vietnam was a war of equals - the US vs the soviet union+china. It was fought in Vietnam, and often by proxies, but the US constraints in the war were the result of political considerations and a desire to not escalate the war.

The US wasn't really fighting "to win" - or at least not in the usual sense of "win." Propaganda was a big part of the war.

If the US wanted to "win" Vietnam it would have fought much less restricted warfare. For starters, they'd have bombed all strategic targets in the north.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

"But then their country's ash. I don't have particularly high esteem for the Iranian leadership, but they're not stupid, they're not suicidal, and they understand MAD. "

You do realize the Shia Muslims believe that their people have to suffer through a genocide before the hidden Imman will reappear, and that the lands of Israel is prophesied to be where the Shia's will make their last stand, don't you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Occultation

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[khallow]

attack Mars. They have stuff we want. 6-8 weeks tops. Work camps. Then it's, I dunno, Alpha Centauri's turn or something.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to reread your history. In the Vietnam War, the US military reined supreme. They ruled the battle field. Even the much vaunted Tet Offensive was a total disaster for the North Vietnamese. They were destroyed as a military force.

It was only the demise of any public support in the US that led to the negotiation of the Paris treaty.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[khallow]

First of all, any nuclear weapons that Iran develops are likely to be much smaller-scale than the weapons that have been rusting away in the US stockpiles since the 1950s. Fat Man and Little Boy were big bombs, but they aren't even close to the scale of the arms developed during the Cold War.

And what keeps them from developing fusion bombs? Wishful thinking as far as I can see.

Second, a nuclear Iran does not mean the difference between zero nuclear weapons and the stockpile that, say, Russia/Britain/India has. There's a recurring cost and a recurring development time.

So it'll cost them some money to make 50-200 nukes. Too bad they have the money.

Third, and probably most importantly, Iran doesn't have the capacity to send long-range missiles.

This also is easy to overcome. They just need to make those missiles.

But then their country's ash. I don't have particularly high esteem for the Iranian leadership, but they're not stupid, they're not suicidal, and they understand MAD.

Opinion. And the "but then their country's ash" assumes that Iran can't do things with their nukes, like use them on neighbors like Saudi Arabia, and get away with it. I don't see MAD as a given, especially with weak political leaders in the West.

It also assumes that all these nukes aren't used even if the leadership didn't intend them to be used. We already have the India/Pakistan thing which could go nuclear by accident or intent, any time without the will of the respective leadership. If Iran gets nukes, then we'll have the same deal with Iran and Israel.

Finally, this has real ugly implications for proliferation. Iran gets them, then it's more likely that Egypt and Saudi Arabia will get them. We may see proliferation throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Iran also is allied with Venezuela. That's another possible avenue for proliferation (a nuclear South America might cramp the US's style decades down the road, which could be a strategic win for Iran).

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

When did you ever see Iraq testing anti-ship missiles or small ballistic missiles?

There's a lot of iron floating in the gulf that could very easily find its way to the bottom if Iran is anywhere near as competent as they claim to be. That will dramatically change the balance of military power in the gulf region.

It is not clear how much hardware Russia ever sold Iraq, but Iran has ... it's also unclear as to whether hardware that Russia sells to other countries (such as Syria) will find its way into Iran.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Army is designed to crush, to destroy, to annihilate the enemy - and the US Army is possibly the best army in the world at this.

Only the Vietnam People's Army surpasses them!

Oh, and you conveniently forget that the Democrat party, starting in 1973, cut off funding for Vietnam in particular and the US military in general. We didn't "lose" anything. Read your history.

According to general Giap's memoirs, the only thing that kept them going was the anti-war movement.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Frangible]

Iraq had been preparing for war for a very long time as well. There was the Iran-Iraq war, amongst other conflicts, and Iraq purchased a good deal of Soviet equipment, including semi-modern MBTs, MIGs, and Mil Mi-24D Hinds. They were not a terrorist force with only AK-47s and RPG-7s.

Iran's technological base isn't much better. Even in the conflict in Kosovo, where we fought ex-Soviet satellite troops with superior training, experience, and technology, it was very lopsided.

The reality is that there is little Iran could do to prevent US air superiority, nor could they prevail in a ground conflict. Even if Russia would sell them modern technology that could compete with the US, they would not be able to afford enough of it.

It is not at all akin to WWII, where we had inferior technology, little experience, and fought against the then #1 superpower in the world, Germany. Like someone else said, it's more like we're Germany, and Iran would be Poland. Suggesting that Iran is on par with the Waffen SS or DAK is exaggeration on the level of Baghdad Bob.

Though I doubt it'll come to war, anyway.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Frangible]

The US won every battle in Vietnam. It was due to political reasons that we withdrew -- not military defeat. Whether you regard Vietnam as a mistake or not, that is historical fact.

The US military is primarily intended to fight conflicts with other nation states (not "WWII"), but there have been significant changes in training and tactics for its emerging new roles. Further, even after WWII, there was significant anti-insurgency and peacekeeping work done in Germany -- where our tactics were much more heavy-handed than today.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Frangible]

Iran's proxy war against Israel isn't much of a secret, and I'm sure sponsoring and supplying a proxy war could be casus belli. (though I can't think of any instances where it has been, off the top of my head)

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

You are certainly not suffering from any lack of ambition

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Zeinfeld]

Why do you believe that Iran controls all of the Strait of Hormuz?

What would it take? A couple of containers full of Chinese missiles?

Iran has the worlds fourth largest collection of missiles, just behind North Korea.

Iran believes that the shutting down of the straits of Hormuz ended the Iran-Iraq war by forcing the US to force Saddam into offering a ceasefire. They are almost certainly correct in my view.

Regardless of whether they are correct, they have the means to control the straits and deny passage to any tanker through use of surface to ship missiles. Supertankers are big, heavy and expensive to replace. It only takes a threat of attack to force the oil price up into the stratosphere.

It is an open question as to whether the missiles could sink a US capital ship. The previous generation successfully disabled an Israeli cruiser when one was given to Hezbollah.

The disclosure that other gulf states called for an attack on Iran gives Iran the right to retaliate against them. I would expect that rather than focussing on the shipping, Iran would disable the ports.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[russotto]

Exactly what 'victory' did (has) the US achieved in Iraq after all these years (other than to plow US$Billions by the pallet load into it and to kill Saddam)?

The people running Iraq when the war started are not running it any more (most of them are dead), and those running it now are more acceptable to the United States government. That's victory. What more do you want?

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Zeinfeld]

And give Israel 100% justification to out-right flatten Palestine? I don't think even Hezbollah is that stupid. Israel cares very little about public opinion when it comes to protecting the state. Iran/Hezbollah starts throwing more than annoyance-level bombs over the border and Israel fires up the bulldozers, gives 2-hour notice to evacuate, and starts evicting every last Palestinian in sight. It would be chaos, and guaranteed that the Israelis wouldn't give a damn. They might nuke Tehran just for giggles at that point.

What you are proposing here is that Israel start a war on Iran and then use the war as a pretext to commit genocide.

I don't think that the state of Israel would survive very long were it to do that. It certainly would lose the support of most US Jews.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[dcollins]

Actually, Vietnam is in the top 2 for places my girlfriend & I are considering moving to (from the US).

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Zeinfeld]

Making an A-bomb is one thing, miniaturizing the warhead to fit on a missile is a far more difficult problem.

No nation has been able to do that without conducting extensive tests. So that means having to build 50-100 bombs, not just one or two.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Zeinfeld]

Isn't this what they said when US troops were about to enter Baghdad? That the revolutionary guards are so elite and will fight for every street that US army will get bogged down for months fighting a savage urban guerilla warfare with no clear victory in sight?

Well, before the saliva spit by those vocalising that view could dry up in the wind, the US army was smoking out bedazzled Saddam from a pit.

There was a substantial information warfare campaign designed to persuade the Iraqi generals to defect in return for certain guarantees. A significant number did so and there was considerably less fighting than expected.

That strategy worked in Iraq because Saddam was in a much weaker situation politically. The generals were willing to defect because they were not particularly eager to fight for Saddam. A regime change in which they maintained their position and status would suit them rather well.

It is much less likely that the same strategy would work a second time, not least because the Iranians are prepared for it but more importantly because the US went on to break each and every one of the guarantees that they had given to the Iraqi generals. Instead of allowing them to keep their positions, the US abolished the Iraqi army and threw most of the defecting generals in jail. Instead of effecting a quick, relatively bloodless coup, the US created a civil war which claimed the lives of between half a million and a million Iraqis.

It is very clear that a US attack on Iran is not going to be met with support from any segment of the population. It would force the pro-democracy forces to rally behind the regime, they would not attempt to topple it.

The pro-democracy demonstrations occurred in the wake of Obama's presidency because he had ended the policy of confrontation with Iran and made it possible for Iranians to oppose the regime without being disloyal to their country while it was under attack. Compare and contrast the success of that approach with that of Bush and the 'axis of evil' speech promising an imminent attack.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[khallow]

Making an A-bomb is one thing, miniaturizing the warhead to fit on a missile is a far more difficult problem.

That's an interesting opinion. It's worth recalling that these hard problems have been solved before by countries with similar-sized economies to Iran. The Iranian theocracy or other features of Iran's society may make these hard problems insurmountable for Iran, but otherwise a far more problem is a roadbump not a roadblock.

No nation has been able to do that without conducting extensive tests. So that means having to build 50-100 bombs, not just one or two.

Ok. That just means it won't be so much a surprise, if Iran happens to develop nuclear-tipped ICBMs.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

Was the Korean War a "Real War"? Was the Vietnam War a "Real War"?

The U.S. lost both of those wars.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[countertrolling]

The Iraq-Iran war was a stalemate. Iraq had access to Western and Soviet hardware.

Um, so did Iran, through, of all places, Israel. I don't believe Iran and Israel hate each other as much as some people would like you to think. The whole thing could be an attempt to lock China out of the region since now all the overland routes outside of Russia are under control of the allies.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[mspohr]

"The US is not fighting a war in Iraq. The US is fighting an occupation."

The US is not fighting an occupation, the US IS an occupying force in Iraq (and Afghanistan). As such, they are fighting the locals for control of the country. As they are learning (slowly and not very well), this is a difficult task. People take it very seriously when they are invaded by a foreign army and will go to extremes to try to drive out the occupiers.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Zeinfeld]

Not really, the US military wiped the Iraq military off the map easily, it was the occupation and insurgency that caused problems

The Iraq military used a technique that the US military were completely unprepared for. They took off their uniforms and went home to look after their family and communities, or in some cases, to go undercover and fight an ongoing resistance. The "wiping off the map" of the Iraq military, in large part [b]is[/b] the insurgency that has deviled the US forces.

Thats not quite accurate

Large parts of the Iraqi army deserted, but the resistance did not start till much later. The deserters were back at their posts shortly after the shooting finished, they wanted the victor to make good on their promise to pay them.

It was the disbanding of the Iraqi army that was the real tipping point. The soldiers were quite happy working for a different government up to the point where they all lost their jobs.

The original US plan was to go in, decapitate the government and install Ahmed Chalabai, a convicted bank fraudster who led the Iranian backed Iraqi opposition movement. He was pointed out to me as an Iranian agent in the mid 90s, long before the invasion. At the time he was peddling a bogus claim that Iraq had conducted an atomic test.

An actual invasion of Iran would face two major problems: Russia and China. Neither would allow the US to invade a country that provides it with critical resources.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[phantomfive]

Indeed, I am not saying we should follow their advice, merely pointing out that they view Iran as a threat, and it is not without reason.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[countertrolling]

Iran is already fighting Israel.

Gee, that's gratitude for ya... I don't believe things are as they seem.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

The US Army is designed to crush, to destroy, to annihilate the enemy - and the US Army is possibly the best army in the world at this.

Only the Vietnam People's Army surpasses them!

Actually it was the People's public relations department that surpasses them. The Viet Cong was annihilated during the Tet Offensive and was rarely seen afterwards compared to before. The North Vietnamese Army was decidedly beaten again and again whenever it tried to stand up to the US Army, both in the early days of the war and the final days of US involvement. The NVA did not win until *years* after the US had fully withdrawn and after the US decided not to intervene when they invaded the south. The North Vietnamese victory was one of politics and public relations, not victory on the battlefield.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq was very well armed and about as prepared as could be expected for nation without a tradition for modern warfare. Of course, this was during the first gulf war when we handed them their dicks. Iran isn't even remotely prepared for a combined arms, kinetic conflict. They'd get torn to pieces.

Of course, good luck occupying the country without going Roman on them.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Kevin Stevens]

I don't think the US has any concerns about being attacked by an Iranian nuclear weapon. However, a nuclear armed Iran would alter the balance of power in the middle east, away from US interests.

Perhaps most importantly, you have an unstable country that hates Israel and is right next door. A leader of a failing gov't that is also a religious extremist might lob a nuke at Israel either as an attempt at a saving throw for his regime, or a last act in the name of religion or his own glory. A nuclear weapon lobbed at Israel, especially by a muslim country, would almost definitely lead to a larger regional war in the middle east, which isn't good for anyone, and could possibly lead to another world war.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Chris Mattern]

You mean that Iran are being bastards for not caring about nuclear proliferation, whereas Israel are cool for just not signing that treaty?

Well, yes. Nations are free to sign or refuse to sign treaties as they see fit. Breaking signed treaties is another matter.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[currently_awake]

Sometimes the simple solution is best. Just mining the shores of Iran with underwater contact mines would suffice to stop oil tankers. Imported missiles are costly, where mines are easily and cheaply built at home.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[currently_awake]

The only thing that controls land is boots on the ground. Period. You can drop all the smart bombs you want but it won't stop your enemy from shooting back at you, that's what the german army found out in stalingrad. If you declare war on Iran they will close the straights and block oil going to the USA, and the only ways to stop that are: 1-Occupation, or 2-make a deal. Given that the government is a bunch of right wing nutjob religious fanatics(see Iran/Iraq war) I wouldn't count on a deal happening on favourable terms.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[_Sprocket_]

Um, so did Iran, through, of all places, Israel. I don't believe Iran and Israel hate each other as much as some people would like you to think.

Keep in mind that the whole deal was being brokered by the US; the Iran-Contra affair. Isreal was essentially a conduit for the movement of arms to a specific faction of Iran. I don't think this shows any particular favor of Isreal towards Iran.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[_Sprocket_]

attack Russia.

You're just trying to get someone to make a Princess Bride reference.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraqis had no will to fight. Iranians do.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[modecx]

The US military is also perfectly capable of defeating whatever insurgency exists--but when you let politicians direct ROE (Rules Of Engagement), you're practically guaranteed to never accomplish that mission.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[theNAM666]

I think you're probably working with outdated information. Neither the Iran-Iraq conflict nor the Gulf War provide useful examples, because by the time of the US operation against Iraq, Iraq's armed forces were substantively less prepared in terms of both training and equipment.

In addition-- they simply caved, showing little resistance and no cohesion behind Hussein. The regime toppled. I don't think that's going to happen in Iran.

And in contrast, Iran is now spending roughly a quarter of it's GDP on military expenditures. A lot of that is indeed the nuclear program-- but a lot more is weapons programs of all sorts. The Revolutionary Guard and the military are spread throughout -- and generally control -- most areas and most of society.

This isn't the puppet dictatorship of Hussein, it's an aspiring regional superpower, preparing for a regional confrontation in which it might well be willing, as Avner Cohen points out, to use nuclear force and/or to sacrifice large portions of its population. Could it roll over and die? Sure, maybe. But unlikely. More likely its going to take a lot of blood just to prevent absolute disaster.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[mug funky]

what makes a war difficult to win is keeping civilians alive.

if it turned into a nuke fight, the US would win without question.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Zeinfeld]

Making an A-bomb is one thing, miniaturizing the warhead to fit on a missile is a far more difficult problem.

That's an interesting opinion. It's worth recalling that these hard problems have been solved before by countries with similar-sized economies to Iran. The Iranian theocracy or other features of Iran's society may make these hard problems insurmountable for Iran, but otherwise a far more problem is a roadbump not a roadblock.

Who else has nuclear missile capability?

The UK developed their own bomb but gave up on missile delivery. Israel stole their technology from the US. The Soviets and Chinese certainly stole some stuff but had the resources to build missiles regardless. It took the Soviets another decade to build a missile after getting the bomb and they didn't start building a real stockpile until the Kennedy era.

Pakistan and India have the bomb but have not demonstrated the ability to miniaturize it to fit on a delivery system. North Korea's delivery system tests have failed repeatedly.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[fishexe]

Pretty sure that was a joke.

Pretty sure the joke was in saying Canada would support Iran, and biryokumaru actually believed Canada was part of OPEC.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[_Sprocket_]

I think you're probably working with outdated information. Neither the Iran-Iraq conflict nor the Gulf War provide useful examples, because by the time of the US operation against Iraq, Iraq's armed forces were substantively less prepared in terms of both training and equipment.

I haven't seen any assessment that claimed Iraq's armed forces were in such a state of disrepair. In fact, during Desert Shield, the concerns seemed to be quite the opposite.

In addition-- they simply caved, showing little resistance and no cohesion behind Hussein. The regime toppled. I don't think that's going to happen in Iran.

While this isn't true across the board, I agree that things would have been considerably rougher for US and allied forces if there wasn't a large amount of defection. But keep in mind that there were forces that stood their ground and, where they did, they were defeated.

And in contrast, Iran is now spending roughly a quarter of it's GDP on military expenditures. A lot of that is indeed the nuclear program-- but a lot more is weapons programs of all sorts. The Revolutionary Guard and the military are spread throughout -- and generally control -- most areas and most of society.

Data that I'm finding seems to indicate closer to 3 - 5% of their GDP:

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=ms_mil_xpnd_gd_zs&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&idim=country:IRQ:IRN&tstart=567993600000&tunit=Y&tlen=21&hl=en&dl=en

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/ir-iran/mil-military

It should be noted that, beyond the debatable manpower numbers, Iran is noted for it's arsenal of rockets and missiles. But what seems to really get everyone's attention is "asymmetrical forces" which, again, is not conventional warfare.

This isn't the puppet dictatorship of Hussein, it's an aspiring regional superpower, preparing for a regional confrontation in which it might well be willing, as Avner Cohen points out, to use nuclear force and/or to sacrifice large portions of its population. Could it roll over and die? Sure, maybe. But unlikely. More likely its going to take a lot of blood just to prevent absolute disaster.

Again - you seem to be really eager to downplay the strength of Iraq but sell the strength of Iraq. I don't see why Iraq's regime was any more fundamentally flawed than Iran's or vise versa.

I do agree with your point about the willingness to sacrifice population. We've seen that willingness during the Iran-Iraq war. And we've seen Iran's investment in chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons as well as rocket and missile weaponry as another lesson learned from that conflict.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[khallow]

While I don't think your rebuttals are significant (after all, the approaches that the UK and Israel took to obtain ballistic missiles, get or steal the capability from an ally, are available to Iran as well), it's worth noting that missile technology in particular is just not that hard. Take a look at SpaceX.

They developed a rocket that can put ten tons in orbit for what I understand is a bit over half a billion dollars. If you sacrifice most of your payload for more delta v, that's enough to put a modest sized warhead anywhere on the planet with modest accuracy (I doubt it's good enough to take out hardened missile silos, but probably good enough for cities or military bases). Cryogenic propellant (in SpaceX's case, liquid oxygen which boils off over time) generally is a bad choice, but there's solid, hybrid, and hypergolic propellant choices that allow you to keep a fueled rocket on a launch pad indefinitely. And there's plenty of information out there on these technologies.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[fishexe]

I never said they were fighting against an occupation.

Sure, but that's the standard meaning of " is fighting " except for a small list of commonly accepted object nouns for which "fighting" means "participating in", such as battle, war and skirmish. Occupation is not one of them. May I suggest waging as a more accurate verb choice?

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[fishexe]

I never said they were fighting against an occupation.

Sure, but that's the standard meaning of "[subject] is fighting [object]" except for a small list of commonly accepted object nouns for which "fighting" means "participating in", such as battle, war and skirmish. Occupation is not one of them. May I suggest waging as a more accurate verb choice?

(slashcode eliminated the variables from the other post)

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Zancarius]

Vietnam was a war of equals - the US vs the soviet union+china. It was fought in Vietnam, and often by proxies, but the US constraints in the war were the result of political considerations and a desire to not escalate the war.

The US wasn't really fighting "to win" - or at least not in the usual sense of "win." Propaganda was a big part of the war.

If the US wanted to "win" Vietnam it would have fought much less restricted warfare. For starters, they'd have bombed all strategic targets in the north.

This is exactly right. Vietnam was largely a political war, and it was fought more so in Washington than it was by generals. The consequences of that? Well, the regular, scheduled bombings were part of the reason we lost a number of B-52 crews if I'm not mistaken--and that was something thought up by politicians, not generals.

Interestingly, the Korean War was as much of a proxy war as was Vietnam (actually, more so). There's a fair amount of evidence after the release of certain internal Soviet documents in 2000 that Stalin was directly involved in supporting the North. It's not much of a surprised then that the Korean War ended shortly after Stalin's death. Surprising? Not at all.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Zancarius]

Be careful not to make the US as the center of the world for everything. The US is important, but it is not the only thing.

Finally, some sense in this thread! While it bugs me more when my own countrymen can't seem to see passed their nose (e.g. "where's Europe?!"), it bugs me just slightly less when other individuals (probably from the US as well) seem to think that every other nation's reaction is because of US policy without realizing that there are many, many more reasons. The world is too complicated a place, and both political sides here in the US seem to share the same sort of American-centric philosophy at differing extremes.

We can see this also in Wikileaks, where leaders of middle eastern countries wanted the US to take out Iran.

I want to say it surprises me that people forget this (and other facts) so quickly. It doesn't, but I really wish it did.

This is also along similar lines that many of us in the West don't fully appreciate the split that exists between the Sunni and Shia sects of Islam, and they most certainly don't like each other. From Saudi Arabia's perspective, not only would their motives be backed by the uncomfortable notion of having a total nutjob nearby, but also partially by this ideological split.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[ibsteve2u]

The great strategic weakness of America's right? As soon as somebody says something they disagree with, they dismiss it as "the liberal mindset". Sadly for us, they think they're smarter than China, too.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Xaositecte]

Eh, that's because there are really only two forms of war that can effectively defeat an insurgency.

Total War, and the subsequent genocide of the native population, is a proven effective military tactic that will eliminate an insurgency. It is completely within our power to accomplish, even without the use of large-scale munitions (I.E. Nukes) - but it's also the sort of thing I'm glad the politicians are forbidding. It's a pretty monstrous thing to do.

Winning Hearts and Minds - I know the phrase is synonymous with failure in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it's the only other proven effective way of successfully resolving a war. I.E. Germany, Japan, and Italy post-WWII, the populations were successfully convinced that we had their best intentions at heart, accepted the reconstruction, and are now both outstanding members of the international community.

We've also failed at this an awful lot. It's tricky to pull off, and I doubt we can pull it off in Iran either.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[ormondotvos]

Can't believe the level of chauvinistic stupidity here. You think there aren't any containers with nukes en route to San Diego or Miami? Are you SURE? Because if you miss your guess, radioactive fallout would cover the USA, dimwit. Look at the prevailing winds. Have you noticed that storms in San Diego tend northeast? You do NOT want to bluster around these days. China might be storing bombs IN San Diego. They control a lot of property there, and lead for shielding is cheap. As for Israel, they seriously do not want any war there at all. They're strong, but a tiny area, and there are many enemies. STOP thinking bombs and missiles. They're last century. Think power lines, diseases, panic. supply lines for food, etcetera. You saw the way the USA came apart after 9/11. You think we're any psychologically stronger with no enemy in sight, just a cloud of nukedust coming? As the man said, we'd be surfing a wave of fear pee.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have particularly high esteem for the Iranian leadership, but they're not stupid, they're not suicidal, and they understand MAD.

Not suicidal, and they understand MAD? This is a theocratic country that sent kids into minefields. This is a country that believes martyrs go straight to heaven to claim their share of virgins. MAD to them is the best possible outcome. You have to seriously consider the possibility that they build nuclear weapons precisely to achieve this goal.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[drinkypoo]

Not so. The U.S. crushed the Iraqi Army and toppled the government of Saddam Hussein very quickly. Occupying Iraq is another matter, one that the U.S. military has never really been good at doing because they've never been equipped or trained for it.

No, it's simply a difficult thing to do. If you look at history most successful occupations involve mass murder. We're trying not to do that for a change. Panama demonstrated that you can't hide acts of that magnitude any longer.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[drinkypoo]

You'll note that there has been a bit of testing to get up to this point. It's not that it's something they absolutely cannot do, but it's something one absolutely cannot do in secret, and so far, they have not managed it.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

Hizbullah isn't a direct agent of Iran, although they have close ties and Iran funds them. They have different missions.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[modecx]

Well, there's two things which could be done in Afghanistan, and possibly Iraq, short of total war, which would help to ensure victory.

For example, under McChrystal's command... If known insurgents did not have weapons in their hands, the orders were not to fire. Even if they had just shot at some marines, then dropped the weapon... No fire. Weapons at their feet, evil grins? No fire.

Another example of ROE under McChrystal : If you are in a situation where you are under fire from the enemy... if there is any chance of creating civilian casualties or if you don't know whether you will create civilian casualties, if you can withdraw from that situation without firing, then you must do so.

Alright, so there's a perception that the forces have to shoot at everything that moves to win. I don't think that's true at all. In Afghanistan, it's all about perception. Overly restrictive ROE puts the taliban at an advantage. The taliban is shooting at US forces, and they just run away, and the people see this. So, the Afghan people see the taliban as the stronger force. The taliban then 'protect' villages from the drug traders.

Take the ROE advantage away from the taliban, and you cut their balls off.

Here's a few issues which would help shorten the war: If they have their weapons on the ground, and they jeer and sneer at you as you roll by, you preemptively blast 'em. If they're launching mortars and shooting out of a village full of civilians, you target their positions the best you can, and you crush them with the a weapon justified for that particular engagement--and you don't require permission to engage to go through many multiple levels of command. That doesn't mean you have to shell the village with artillery or level it with an airstrike--just use common sense, which apparently isn't common amongst commanders.

In the case of Germany and Japan--what choice did they have but to go along with reconstruction? It is, after all, infinitely better than bullets and bombs flying every which way. Afghans? They're more or less used to living in ruin. More ruins? What do they care? Wanna impress them? Build Wal-Marts.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[khallow]

You'll note that there has been a bit of testing to get up to this point. It's not that it's something they absolutely cannot do, but it's something one absolutely cannot do in secret, and so far, they have not managed it.

They haven't been testing missiles in secret. And once they get nuclear bombs, why would they attempt to test those in secret?

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Entropy98]

We were talking about Iran, not China...

Iran doesn't even have nukes yet..

Any country attempting to smuggle a nuke in a cargo container would risk war if they were found out.

And missiles are still important, sure you could smuggle a nuke into port citys, but the retaliatory strike could lay waist to ALL your cities in MINUTES.

Yes, the USA came apart after 9/11, I was quite surprised to see how scared and panicked everyone was at the time and still is. Sure a country would be wise to use that against us, but again we were talking about Iran and their capabilities.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[hairyfish]

Define "battle". A major VC tactic was to inflict damage then disappear, not a tactic that fits in within the US's WW2 definition of a "Battle". And regardless of reason, the Vietnamese won the war. Whether of men, money, firepower or will, they won and the US lost.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

I will not talking about political side (that's so called "proxy", who gained the independence of Vietnam, or who's just a puppet, etc...) The political side will never get acceptance of people have opposite ideal.

Vietnam was a war of equals - the US vs the soviet union+china.

Soviet and China were aided North Vietnam but only Soviet actually participated in fighting, not in the South battlefield, but helped the North's air defence force and trained the air force.

The NVA have never had more than hundred aircraft in active, didn't have any helicopter equal to South's American aid UH, did not have real navy force (they had very weak coastguard ships).

All the battle in the South Vietnam were NVA/VC infantry vs. American/RVA infantry+helicopter+air force.

The weapons that American left behind when they withdrew from VN was largely use by VPA (Vietnam People Army) to fight with Polpot.

For starters, they'd have bombed all strategic targets in the north.

They did. Hanoi, Nam Dinh, Hai Phong (these largest cities in the North were bombed, tons of bombs).

But may be the South seemed not to be won if against to NAV/VC (remember LamSon 719), or Americans afraid of Soviet and China would send their troops to the war, or actually they did not know *what really happen in their enemy inside* (I don't know name of any spy operations in the North Vietnam by the US).

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Rich0]

The US occasionally did bomb strategic targets - usually for political reasons (the North would walk out of talks, the US would bomb Hanoi, etc).

If the US actually wanted to fight to win some of the things it would have done would include:

1. Unrelenting air campaign all the way to the northern border.

2. Full army invasion of the north - keep marching and be sure to occupy all the major cities (Hanoi, etc).

The US wanted to fight a contained war, and there is no such thing. If somebody is shooting at you, you bomb their capital until there is no government building left, and then you occupy it so that YOU are their government. You also can't be afraid of killing Soviets or whoever might be on the ground in the combat zone.

Oh, it would have turned into a mess like Iraq no doubt. And I'm not arguing the merits of the war itself. But, if you're going to fight a war, fight it to win. Don't mess around with people who are shooting at your soldiers/etc.

The US fought Korea with tactics like I describe, and that is why South Korea is still a democracy. On the other hand, Korea really did come close to getting out of hand.

If you're going to fight, fight to win. By all means avoid the fight if you can.

Re:When this happens to the US or its allies

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, I'm lazy to create an account.

1. Firstly, do you accept my point that that can not compare like American vs. Soviet+china?

2. I must correct that I'm not against your opinion that the US don't want to invade the North. But, *not because* that they 'don't want to win'. (that's confusing!?) Explain in the following.

3.

1. Unrelenting air campaign all the way to the northern border.

2. Full army invasion of the north - keep marching and be sure to occupy all the major cities (Hanoi, etc).

One of largest air operations in history by US and Hanoi proved that they could not be defeated with strong air defence. Almost military targets were not destroyed. Large number of tactical aircraft and not so small B-52 were shotted down. That why US have never easily operated air bombing as other wars.

And I said above, the US did not have importance informations about the enemy's, due to unsuccessful spying in North. Also, S.Korea is a well trained force. They are the most elite force that against VC in Vietnam war. But RVA was not.

I don't exclude the political reason, but also economical reason. The South VN owns the most economical important regions of VN. But the economical meaning did not importance to US to pay high cost to 'win':

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm

Also in book "Anatomy of a War" by G. Kolko also have similar conclusion (I *did* read this book but not own the copy).

Truman also hoped that assisting the French in Vietnam would help to shore up the developed, non-Communist nations, whose fates were in surprising ways tied to the preservation of Vietnam and, given the domino theory, all of Southeast Asia. Free world dominion over the region would provide markets for Japan, rebuilding with American help after the Pacific War. U.S. involvement in Vietnam reassured the British, who linked their postwar recovery to the revival of the rubber and tin industries in their colony of Malaya, one of Vietnam's neighbors. And with U.S. aid, the French could concentrate on economic recovery at home, and could hope ultimately to recall their Indochina officer corps to oversee the rearmament of West Germany, a Cold War measure deemed essential by the Americans. These ambitions formed a second set of reasons why the United States became involved in Vietnam.

Who...

[avtchillsboro]

WhooRah!!

Huge disappointment to some

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the NYT was unable to definitively blame the US & Israel, this is a huge disappointment to them and their fellow "blame the US" & Israel crowd.

Re:Huge disappointment to some

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't you be proud that US and Israel pulled off what is obviously a very ingenious act of sabotage? Or do you feel that whoever did it (and it couldn't possibly be US and/or Israel) deserves shame?

Re:Huge disappointment to some

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people speak as though they actually believe that there is a large chunk of the US that wants to blame the US for all sorts of problems. I have a hard time understanding how this could be believed, so I like to tell myself that it's just trolling... but I've seen the accusation enough that I fear there are those who truly think that those who criticize the US/Israel (whoever) are doing it solely because they like to criticize.

Do such people truly exist?

Re:Huge disappointment to some

[Anonymous Coward]

Some people speak as though they actually believe that there is a large chunk of the US that wants to blame the US for all sorts of problems. I have a hard time understanding how this could be believed, so I like to tell myself that it's just trolling... but I've seen the accusation enough that I fear there are those who truly think that those who criticize the US/Israel (whoever) are doing it solely because they like to criticize.

Do such people truly exist?

It depends on your point of view. Assume that the US is always right, and every sane person knows it. If anyone says America is not right, they must be at least one of the following:

* A lier.
* Insane.
* Out to destroy America by using propaganda to take the will to do the right thing away from Americans.

If you believe this, "blame america first" is exactly how you would describe a person who lacks your "perspective".

I have lived in five states in the past decade, and the three in the southeast have many people who think this way. "think" might not be the right word. It is more of a matter of faith.

Palin's talk about "American Exceptionalism", or Reagan's speeches about "America as a city on a hill" are ways of expressing the idea that America is guided by god, and incapable of error.

Re:Huge disappointment to some

[AHuxley]

ingenious act of sabotage? They messed with a MS driven usb product?
Script kiddies and perl coding UFO hunters play with MS everyday.
Iran should have had its own networks, own software, own sealed production lines.
They went cheap and saved time. The mistake was noted.
Real ingenious acts enter fiction and are exposed as been reality many decades later.

Re:Huge disappointment to some

[lyml]

Iran should have had its own networks, own software, own sealed production lines.

No country does that, pretty much all countries do what Iran does for turbine production ie. buy them from Siemens, develop using windows workstations (because Siemens development environment is windows based).

Color me impressed

[moogied]

You really have to hand it to Israel, they continue to be the very best at cloak and dagger style work. Yes, I consider this C&D due to its ingenious nature. Spread a massive virus across as many systems as you can, and nestle a chunk a code in it to only activate on the correct system. This not only requires the method to spread it, but far more impressive is the fact that it required the correct code for there machines. This means they do 100% have spys inside of Iran's nuclear systems and gives a butt load more credit to the statements made by Israel and America about Iran's nuclear goals. Well done

Re:Color me impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

Erhm, The US's own intelligence reports indicate there is no credible evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Nobody denies that Iran has a nuclear program of some sort, the dispute is whether or not they doing it for the purpose of building weapons. The thought that they might be building one is why we're so determined to stop them from enriching uranium that could be used for weapons.

Re:Color me impressed

[drolli]

Or you have to have spys in the Companies providing the parts. Siemens does not have a strong culture of being paranoid, especially not against western/pro-western secret services, with which they probably collaborate anyway when it comes to identifying industrial espionage from other services. I am pretty sure that the BND (German secret service) can ask them for plans and details quite openly (i guess you don't produce parts relevant for nuclear technology or military infrastructure without having liaison officer assigned to you), and probably also for the source code of the embedded SPS modules. For sure the same holds true for the manufacturer of the turbines. Since the Western secret services collaborate on an less prominent, informal level (see e.g. the BND agents in Baghdad during the war which reported back to the NATO headquarters, where obviously - no records exist - they helped clearing military targets in Iraq, despite Germany no being officially involved in the war).

I would guess that actually several secret services collaborated in this, but the "Cui Bono?" points to Israel.

Re:Color me impressed

[SheeEttin]

This means they do 100% have spys inside of Iran's nuclear systems

Uh, no. This means they do 100% have people who studied the systems Iran is using. (Which I doubt would be too hard to figure out, if you just do a little asking around and/or research into some purchases or shipping.)
Spying in the sense of "having someone on the inside" is overrated these days. You're either using informants or telecommunications (Internet or otherwise).

Re:Color me impressed

[meerling]

They don't. Even the pseudo-journalists were able to easily identify the company that made the systems Iran is using, and even which models Iran bought. Somehow I don't think anybody with a major wild hair for screwing them over had any more difficulty in finding that out.

Re:Color me impressed

[morgan_greywolf]

The thought that they might be building one is why we're so determined to stop them from enriching uranium that could be used for weapons.

Well, if you knew just how crazy the Ayotollah is, you'd probably want to prevent any possibility of him having nuclear weapons under his control, too.

Re:Color me impressed

[Opportunist]

Well, how crazy is he?

Re:Color me impressed

[morgan_greywolf]

Well, he forbids Iranians from staying in hotels used by Buddhists, prohibits the wearing of neckties, and banned the teaching of music to children. Sounds pretty nuts to me.

Re:Color me impressed

[ae1294]

Well, how crazy is he?

He's selling all Wacky Inflatable Tube Men for 80% off! That's right Wacky Inflatable Tube Men NOW 80% off!! Get yours today!

Re:Color me impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize that GWB is no longer the chief executive?

Re:Color me impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

This means they do 100% have spys inside of Iran's nuclear systems

Ehh.... not sure about that sparky. Yea, they probably do have someone/people inside Iran's program, but probably not to the degree that we think.

As far as stuxnet, aside from needing some damn good programmers, all they really needed was the accurate information on the Nuclear program. Hardware and software engineering spec's, software versions, configuration, possible exploit vectors..... Essentially, steal the keys to the patent office, break into all the foreign offices designing the hardware/software that Iran was getting, and design around the implementation they're using. The rest just relies on the predictability of human beings. People at all levels of security, take computer security for advantage. I'm pretty sure Israel was counting on that, rather than going the full route and having that 1 spy plant the 'virus' a-la movie style tactics. Human being are predictable. Everyone in the intelligence sector knows this.

Re:Color me impressed

[plover]

Someone had an interesting theory that the USB-autorun flaw that Stuxnet exploited was added to the worm as part of a cover-up. If the attackers were going to the trouble of investing millions of dollars in creating Stuxnet, they probably didn't want to leave it to chance that the Natanz plant would get infected. They'd want to be absolutely sure. So they gave the worm to a sympathetic inside agent, who made sure it got onto the control system. The worm's activity provided the cover, and made it possible for the agent to plant it without risking personal discovery.

An interesting theory, anyway.

Re:Color me impressed

[BlackSabbath]

I'm sorry dude but you can't just say that without a citation.

Re:Color me impressed

[emton]

They don't need to have spys in the company itself, all equipment exported to Iran are under Export Control https://my.tennessee.edu/portal/page?_pageid=43,618777&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL So Siemens needs to report all equipment exported to Iran to the German government, and this is relatively easy to access this information. As a spy, all you would need to do is to see who is exporting and what to Iran. Of course you need the experts to tell you what kind of equipment can be used...

Re:Color me impressed

[10101001 10101001]

This means they do 100% have spys inside of Iran's nuclear systems and gives a butt load more credit to the statements made by Israel and America about Iran's nuclear goals.

I don't think there was every a lot of doubt about Iran's nuclear goals. Just like there's little doubt Saddam had goals of creating and possessing chemical weapons. The real question is, how likely is it that they'll succeed or even go through with it? If Saddam had created chemical weapons, would it have stopped the US from invading? Likely not; instead, it would have almost certainly mean he'd be minimally deposed and at worst killed. Similarly, a nuclear weapon wouldn't be much deterrent to bombing Iran; the threat of a sudden drop off in oil supply from any sort of military attack on Iran is enough of a deterrent already. And nuking Israel would just remove the excuse/distraction the Iranian government uses for their oppression. No, the ability to make a nuclear weapon would be bragging rights (just like North Korea). Making one would just make them a further target for sanctions and leave them to worry that someone in their own regime might steal and use the nuke on Iran (as the heavy crackdowns in Iran after the election showed, it's not one big happy family or even well controlled family). Overall, I think it's very unclear if Stuxnet did any real good at all, except further cement animosity towards the West.

Re:Color me impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

Spread a massive virus across as many systems as you can, and nestle a chunk a code in it to only activate on the correct system

Hmm. I wonder if MS can claim prior art here?

Re:Color me impressed

[treecat]

I have been called worse.

I support the United States, the Constitution of the United States of America, our military.
I do not support the current President or his policies.
To do so would be to forswear all that my Dad, his brother, and dozens of my relatives and older friends fought for during World War II and Korea.

In my opinion the current President is a domestic enemy of the Constitution of the United States.
If I sound like a patriot, a supporter of the Tea Party movement, a small-"r" republican, and a small-"c" conservative, it's because I am.
To another comment above: I'm well aware that GWB is no longer in office. In my opinion he was no closer to being a conservative than is President Obama.

If the President, or any member of his Administration, does something I consider laudable, I will certainly offer approbation.
Otherwise he, his Administration, and everyone in the House and Senate is open to criticism when such is warranted.

Re:Color me impressed

[DrugCheese]

Of course! An intelligence agency ran by an intelligence agency, of course it's super cloak n dagger.

Re:Color me impressed

[Opportunist]

Sounds pretty nuts, but dangerous?

Re:Color me impressed

[drolli]

I think helping the secret service very motivated will help with the paperwork for the next export.

Re:Color me impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

"...their machines..." Please return to second grade.

Re:Color me impressed

[rogerz]

Yes. congratulations are due to all involved in this righteous endeavor. And, to those who say "the U.S. would consider this an act of war ...". Well, of course. It is an act of war. So what? In this case, it is self-defense (and, no, I won't argue that point here), and self-defense is entirely justified.

Re:Color me impressed

[Falconhell]

Well, if you knew just how crazy the Ayotollah is, you'd probably want to prevent any possibility of him having nuclear weapons under his control, too.
--

I feel much the same about crazy US christians controoling nuclear weapons.

Re:Color me impressed

[Falconhell]

Put your analyst on danger money baby!

All you needed yo say was you were a tea bagger, the rest of the lunacy would have been understood.

You should be proud to have an excellent individual like Obama as your president, after the joke that was GWB.

Re:Color me impressed

[Zancarius]

Or you have to have spys in the Companies providing the parts. Siemens does not have a strong culture of being paranoid, especially not against western/pro-western secret services, with which they probably collaborate anyway when it comes to identifying industrial espionage from other services. I am pretty sure that the BND (German secret service) can ask them for plans and details quite openly (i guess you don't produce parts relevant for nuclear technology or military infrastructure without having liaison officer assigned to you), and probably also for the source code of the embedded SPS modules.

I would guess that your latter suggestion is more correct (following the first sentence, that is). Rather than corporate spies operating under a wing of the government, I would imagine that it instead works akin to: The government sees a specific need of certain operational details related to Company A and B's products; the government sends a liaison officer or representative of their intelligence agency; officer talks with the board of directors about national security and offers payment; the board of directors gets the officer in touch with whomever he needs and then they all go on vacation in the Bahamas for a few weeks.

So yes, absolutely. I'd wager that you're 100% correct. After all, why assign a spy to a company in your own country when you can simply operate directly face-to-face and offer various benefits in exchange for knowledge? (Admittedly, the benefits part may not even exist--I'd imagine certain agreements could be reached just on the pretext of national security alone, among other things. And some companies already have existing government contracts on secretive programs--to extend those wouldn't be much of a stretch.)

Re:Color me impressed

[drinkypoo]

How about the theory that the software was hidden inside the systems somehow when they were delivered, and all this malware stuff is just a ruse to keep people buying compromised hardware instead of making it themselves?

Nothing 'counter' about that post

[mother_reincarnated]

In this case whoever did it seems to have averted war at least for a few years.

Re:Nothing 'counter' about that post

[benjamindees]

In this case whoever did it seems to have averted war at least for a few years.

At times, it has frustrated me that the majority of people really think this way... with such a limited, uncritical, and reactionary world-view.

Lately I just feel sorry for you.

Re:Nothing 'counter' about that post

[mother_reincarnated]

Lately I just feel sorry for you.

Thanks! It's nice to know someone cares.

Re:Nothing 'counter' about that post

[biryokumaru]

I'm confused... being thankful that war is averted is limited and reactionary? What's the proper response?

Re:Nothing 'counter' about that post

[twidarkling]

It's not averted. It's delayed. Simply pushing back a war is not a solution. You are sticking your finger in the dike and telling me that you're fine, you just had a good night's sleep. Your finger isn't going to save the dike, and a good night's sleep has nothing to do with it.

The *proper* response is work towards resolving the issues between two parties, and eliminating the chance of war. Pissing off one side further to simply buy a few years peace is not going to help anything.

Re:Nothing 'counter' about that post

[iq in binary]

The thing about situations like this is that resolving issues ultimately comes down to who has more bargaining chips. If Iran all of a sudden realizes that push is going to come to shove BEFORE they have the capability to use their trump card, capitulation is suddenly much more likely.

Sometimes a good mediator isn't afraid to deflate one party's ego so that they can come to realize that their ass is grass if they don't sit down, shut up, and take the deal that's being offered to them. This is one of those situations where one party's ego is far bigger than the pile of chips they have in front of them. If efforts aren't made to knock that party's ego down a few notches, a peaceful resolution is not likely.

Re:Nothing 'counter' about that post

[plover]

The *proper* response is work towards resolving the issues between two parties, and eliminating the chance of war.

What gave you the impression that actual, honest negotiations are even possible? Ahmadenijad needs the tension with Israel to stay in power. If he's not seen as the strongman leading the holy fight against the Jews who oppress their Palestinian brothers, then he'll become dogmeat, and the revolutionary guard will find someone else willing to play that role.

His job is to rattle sabers and blame Israel for all the ills his impoverished followers suffer. When the international pressure gets too high, he pretends to talk peace -- as long as it doesn't go too far. Once that's gone far enough, he then goes back to talk war to his own people, and as long as they don't actually do something so awful that would get them invaded by the U.S., he can play the vacillation game for a very long time.

For this, he is paid handsomely. A resolution of issues would put an end to his personal gravy train, and possibly his life. He won't let that happen.

Re:Nothing 'counter' about that post

[khallow]

Simply pushing back a war is not a solution.

Maybe you ought to think about that. Eras of peace only occur because someone pushed back wars.

The *proper* response is work towards resolving the issues between two parties, and eliminating the chance of war.

It's worth keeping in mind two things. First, delaying wars often help resolve issues (if they exist) between two parties. The Cold War didn't become a hot war (sure there were a number of ugly wars that killed millions, but there wasn't a single ugly war that killed billions). I think this was because the USSR never attained enough of an advantage to win (at least in their minds) a nuclear war. And second, a lot of wars don't start because of issues, but because one party thinks they can get more by playing the war game instead of the peace game. The Cold War ended because the USSR fell apart, not because issues got resolved. Most people alive today may be alive only because a lot of people for decades pushed back war successfully.

Re:Nothing 'counter' about that post

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ. How do you even sleep at night? Someone has to constantly be attacking your perceived enemies and forestalling inevitable warfare in order for you to even be alive? Get a fucking grip.

Re:Nothing 'counter' about that post

[khallow]

Why don't you read my post first before you reply.

One thing for sure

[countertrolling]

You'll never be able to trust anything more complex than a simple light switch ever again. Wait till all this crap gets into your "smart grid". It'll be comedic to say the least.

Re:One thing for sure

[brusk]

Why would you trust a light switch? It could, for example, be made of a memory alloy designed to deform under certain conditions and change the state of the circuit--or perhaps to zap you the next time you touch it.

Re:One thing for sure

[KingFrog]

OR it could be a memetic alloy terminator *disguised* as a light switch...

Re:One thing for sure

[rtfa-troll]

Formed plastic explosive connected via a brittle plastic coating designed to wear out after 1000-2000 switchings. The whole thing making a shaped charge designed to project fragments of the metal switching mechanism up at a 30 degree angle. Can we even trust the rocks in the back of the cave???

Israeli is the doer?

[dangitman]

.... Israeli is the doer...

Do this implode the horrible consequence that human are the thingifier? Slashdot are the grammarmaker!

Re:Israeli is the doer?

[brusk]

What's wrong with doer? It's a perfectly good English word--it was quite old already when Shakespeare used it.

Re:Israeli is the doer?

[dangitman]

What's wrong with doer? It's a perfectly good English word--it was quite old already when Shakespeare used it.

Regardless of the appropriateness of "doer" the most obvious fault is with "Israeli." Presumably we are are talking about the actions of the government of Israel. In which case "Israel is the doer" would be appropriate. If your were talking about the people of Israel committing the act, then "Israelis are the doers" would be an acceptable phrase.

Much better would be "The alleged culprit is the government of Israel."

Re:Israeli is the doer?

[morgan_greywolf]

There's nothing wrong with the word 'doer', however saying "Israeli is the doer" doesn't quite make sense. That would be like saying "American is the doer."

Perhaps they meant to say that "the Israelis are the doer" or "the Israeli government is the doer" or simply "Israel is the doer".

Re:Israeli is the doer?

[tolstoise]

Doer is a perfectly cromulent word

Re:Israeli is the doer?

[TangoMargarine]

Or if there's a big war and there's only one Israeli left, that would work, too: "The Israeli is the doer."

Re:Israeli is the doer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cromulent is a word used by the schoolteacher, Miss Hoover, in an episode of The Simpsons, in which she defended one made-up word by making up another: "It's a perfectly cromulent word." Since it is used in an ironical sense to mean legitimate, in reality, it is spurious and not at all legitimate. The user assumes common knowledge of the inherent "Simpsons" reference. It has come to be used with tongue in cheek, or with the intent to insult high talkers, English majors and otherwise insufferable people who feel the need to correct others.

Re:Israeli is the doer?

[iq in binary]

The beautiful thing about language is the inferences that can be naturally made and understood in certain phrases because of your continued use of a language. Saves everybody time, and it makes grammar snobs like you seem annoying, which hopefully keeps your arrogant ass out of the gene pool.

Re:Israeli is the doer?

[dangitman]

Without "grammar snobs," language wouldn't exist as more than a series of grunts. The beautiful thing about language is that we can refine it and use it to perform amazing tasks if we use it precisely.

Re:Israeli is the doer?

[cold fjord]

Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Re:Israeli is the doer?

[myowntrueself]

Without "grammar snobs," language wouldn't exist as more than a series of grunts.

I think you just described the English language.

Learning other languages has taught me how disorganised and chaotic English is, especially the spelling but including the grammar.

When my ESL friends worry about their mistakes in English I say: "Its ok, you can't possibly butcher English any worse than its native speakers already do."

NO

[monkyyy]

im sticking to the theory of one lone hacker, either not connected to a government, or paying off jail time did it; till the almost is out of the picture

as no one in government know computers, otherwise their nonsence laws would be enforceable or abusable

OpenBSD IPsec

[Mysteray]

Jason Wright, the OpenBSD developer funded by NETSEC to work on IPsec (and allegedly put in backdoors for the FBI) went to work at the DHS cyber security lab that the NYT is saying helped do Stuxnet http://nyti.ms/grd51X http://bit.ly/feB9ZV

SecTor 2008 gives his speaker bio http://www.sector.ca/speakers2008.htm

Jason Wright is a cyber security researcher at the Idaho National Laboratory working with SCADA and Process Control system vendors to secure critical infrastructure assets. He is also a semi-retired OpenBSD developer (also known as a "slacker") responsible for many device drivers and layer 2 pieces of kernel code.

I am not making this up.

I'll have to put it in a blog post this evening. See homepage link.

Re:OpenBSD IPsec

[Anonymous Coward]

So basically anyone who has worked with SCADA must must have had a role in creating Stuxnet?

Re:OpenBSD IPsec

[slimjim8094]

Yeah, except Stuxnet attacks Windows hosts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

Re:OpenBSD IPsec

[Mysteray]

No.

If you read TFNYTA, it says specifically this lab helped to do it. If you followed the links, you'd see a slide presentation of the lab doing a security assessment of Siemens SCADA system like those used in Iran for enrichment and slides describing attacks on SCADA systems.

Jason Wright transitioned away from OpenBSD IPsec development to work on SCADA security at this lab.

Re:OpenBSD IPsec

[Mysteray]

What are you saying? That no one could be smart enough to work on multiple operating systems?

Re:OpenBSD IPsec

[Anonymous Coward]

Please, dont accuse a guy just like that for your nerdy fun. Some islamist might just take it up further, unless that is your objective..

Re:OpenBSD IPsec

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that nobody could simultaneously be smart enough to hack OpenBSD and dumb enough to use Windows. ;)

Ok, that joke was old a decade ago; getting my hat now...

Re:OpenBSD IPsec

[Mysteray]

Apparently Iranians use Windows in their A-bomb factory. Go figure.

Re:OpenBSD IPsec

[jovius]

The outcome of Stuxnet and similar stings is that the verification work becomes more difficult, and so the folks who cry A-Bomb cannot be countered with facts. Besides the confrontational attitude strentghens the position of the Iranian government. The surest way of unifying the republic's opposition members and mainstream politics is to attack them from outside.

Re:OpenBSD IPsec

[Mysteray]

I don't get what you're saying.

How many years did verification set back Iran's nuclear program?

Or are you saying the world should be happy with accurately verifying the rate at which Iran develops a full scale indigenous uranium enrichment capacity?

Are you seriously suggesting that now, after 30 years of hoping, some sort of democratic or political change inside Iran is likely to change their nuclear program?

Confirming?

[MikeV]

Since when is the media considered factual confirmation? "Hey, let's all go out and look at the Inquirer to get proof that aliens exist!" While it is almost certain that the attack did originate from the suspected nations, a better wording would be, "supporting /* speculation" rather than "confirming" seeing as NYT is certainly not the fount of truth and honesty in reporting and fact-finding. Now excuse me while I go study on Wikipedia...

Re:Confirming?

[bill_mcgonigle]

seeing as NYT is certainly not the fount of truth and honesty in reporting and fact-finding

Oh, c'mon now, it's not like Jayson Blair over at one of Murdoch's rags. Oh, wait...

Re:Confirming?

[bsquizzato]

Really seemed to me that half of the article's argument for Israeli and American involvement in this was that they are happy to announce Iran is having setbacks due to the worm. And ... why would they not be no matter who was involved? That's not convincing evidence.

like if say, someone blew up a ship of our ally?

[hildi]

and killed dozens of sailors? or, say, shelled their islands killing 4 people? like that kind of act of war that brought on armageddon? you mean we would go and bomb them into the stone age? oh .. ok. coz im pretty sure we would 'write them a very stern letter', or in Obama's days, "work closely with our partners to blah blah blah blah" i love the 'work closely with our partners' thing. where the hell did that come from?

Insertion

[lseltzer]

There are a few important aspects of the story that didn't get covered by the NYT. One is that there was no mention of the origin of the 4 zero-day Windows vulnerabilities and another is the insertion method. Obviously Stuxnet wasn't just blasted out on botnets. Someone got it very close, probably into a facility or more than one facility, or perhaps into a government office or contractor. That's one of the aspects of this that always told me it was a state actor with quality human intelligence capabilities. Actually, my wild guess before is that a contractor from Siemens or someone like that spread it. Which brings up another aspect of this: This story can't be good news for Siemens's customer relations, especially with their government customers.

Re:Insertion

[AHuxley]

Siemens? They helped with "Nokia Siemens" via the ability to monitor, control, and read local telephone calls.
The only issue was the use of Mircosoft. Never let Mircosoft near any of your real world systems.

Re:Insertion

[plover]

Ummm... no. Flaws in Siemens' software (including exploiting default passwords in their package, and great difficulty in changing the passwords once deployed) were an important component in the worm's ability to insert the actual command codes into the industrial control systems. And if you'd have read TFA, you'd have seen that in 2008 Siemens met with Department of Homeland Security officials to go over the security of the SIEMATIC PCS 7 industrial control systems. The DHS had the most intimate knowledge of the weakness of Siemens' systems possible, having been asked to evaluate them for security flaws!

Given the sophistication of the worm, and the determination of the attackers, it's quite likely that it would have been written to infiltrate whatever systems they were running. Windows XP just happened to be very easy to target. But had it been a UNIX or Mac system, they would probably have found a way to get their malware installed anyway.

Re:Insertion

[lseltzer]

In fact there was an actual rootkit in the SCADA systems themselves. That's what TFA is referring to when they say "2-level explosive" or something like that. The SCADA rootkit hid itself in part by first monitoring the data flow and then, while in attack mode, feeding fake data back to the monitoring PC. Stuxnet has to win 1st place in the malware hall of fame.

Re:Insertion

[catmistake]

Perhaps the attack vector was a "friendly" one... Quite possibly it was Windows Update that inserted the code.

Re:Insertion

[Anonymous Coward]

I just thought the article was somehow funny in the following regard.

As we know, Israel has not signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). We also know Israel has nuclear bombs, even though they insist on keeping up a quite silly theater of ambiguity.

The funny thing was how the article mentions it so casually that there now is a row of uranium enriching P-1 centrifuges in Natanz, a nuclear research facility.

"People claim I sell dope, but I don't have any comment on that... and by the way, how do you like these 5 meth lab trailers and a ton of seeds I just bought..."

Re:Insertion

[Zancarius]

Which brings up another aspect of this: This story can't be good news for Siemens's customer relations, especially with their government customers.

I think it would only be a concern for Siemens if this were something that affected their hardware (and software) in legitimate installations. Harming Iran's nuclear program--or at least helping to--isn't something that's going to give anyone elsewhere in Europe (or the Americas) a second thought when purchasing from them. What it does show is that there was likely cooperation between a few more nations (Germany and Russia were mentioned in another article a couple months back), which suggests to me that the concern over Iran has been building among many, many parties.

Yes, it does demonstrate the capacity for cooperation with various government agencies, but that's something all large companies do to varying extents.

With our allies (yes, this includes Russia, as much as that might surprise those of you who still cling to archaic fears and beliefs), there's a great deal more diplomacy that occurs behind the scenes that we will probably never see. Stuxnet is a good representation of the fruits of these efforts

Manifesto included

[meerling]

I have to agree with those that think this article was a bunch of innuendo and unsubstantiated statements.

"...when it began circulating around the world, unexplained, in mid-2009. .."

I found it extremely funny when they mentioned that the worm had no explanation of it's purpose, as if that were somehow indicative of a covert and malicious nature.
So, does anybody out there know of any worm, virus, trojan, or other malware that actually comes with a manifesto to explain it's existence/purpose?

By the way, all the pundits saying it would take the resources of a government to create that worm know very little about what it actually takes to make one. It did however take very intimate knowledge of the code running on those systems, so the creator probably has a copy of the source code on those machines, or the equivalent. (I'm pretty sure it's too large to be memorized by a single person.)

Re:Manifesto included

[Anonymous Coward]

I found it extremely funny when they mentioned that the worm had no explanation of it's purpose, as if that were somehow indicative of a covert and malicious nature.
So, does anybody out there know of any worm, virus, trojan, or other malware that actually comes with a manifesto to explain it's existence/purpose?

Most all of them do. Send spam. Monitor keystrokes. Host illicit server.

Stuxnet's purpose? "Do nothing, unless Siemens Step 7 is installed." Yeah, I'm sure this is garden variety malware.

Re:Manifesto included

[careysub]

... By the way, all the pundits saying it would take the resources of a government to create that worm know very little about what it actually takes to make one. It did however take very intimate knowledge of the code running on those systems, so the creator probably has a copy of the source code on those machines, or the equivalent. (I'm pretty sure it's too large to be memorized by a single person.)

How about the part where they actually test it to see if it works on real controllers hooked up to gas centrifuges?

This isn't a botnet or credit card info swiping program - you have to have access to hardware that only people with 9 digit budgets and up can acquire.

So I'd say you know very little about it actually takes to make one that does its job successfully.

Re:Manifesto included

[plover]

By the way, all the pundits saying it would take the resources of a government to create that worm know very little about what it actually takes to make one. It did however take very intimate knowledge of the code running on those systems, so the creator probably has a copy of the source code on those machines, or the equivalent. (I'm pretty sure it's too large to be memorized by a single person.)

Did you RTFA? It claims Israel acquired some of the centrifuges that Iran is using, got them working, then tested the worm's effect on them. That's a lot more than the resources of Joe Hacker. Not just anyone can run down to Pakistani-Centrifuges-R-Us and buy a dozen of them to test with.

When you look at the instructions Stuxnet was sending to the centrifuges, they're brilliantly designed exactly to cause them to fail. After lurking for a couple weeks, they over-speed them for a few minutes, then drop them down to almost stopped speed, then bring them back to a fairly normal operating speed. The overspeed period stresses the already stressed components, occasionally beyond the breaking point. The underspeed periods act like a mixer, stirring up any U-238 that had already been spun out of suspension. Returning them to normal speed allayed suspicion that they were faulty.

There is no way one guy is going to know exactly what values it would take to create such a precise scenario. It takes massive resources to pull that off.

Re:Manifesto included

[Gla'funk]

Access to the physical hardware is a false assumption.

0. If you run light and dirty then you simply make the deployment the test. Probably wouldn't cost you much more than few free meals and some interesting junk and freebies if it failed (everyone gets their pay from doing "real" stuff anyways).

Ask yourself; how many people would notice Stuxnet if it didn't succeed? Very few if you ask me. How many would have any more solid proof (not rumors built upon rumors) if it did not succeed? Nearly no one. It's no different than right now.

1. If Iranians can build it then a lot of countries can build a test mock-up, most likely on the dirt cheap because the physical properties of resonance are not dependent on the controller (the controller is just manipulated to cause it).

Siemens, lots of money, required bureaucracy, they all become red herrings with this and other things in mind. No overkill required :) Pass directly through go but do not go full retard :3

Re:Manifesto included

[Jaxoreth]

So, does anybody out there know of any worm, virus, trojan, or other malware that actually comes with a manifesto to explain it's existence/purpose?

I thought the "Vote for Dukakis!" HyperCard virus was pretty self-explanatory.

Re:Manifesto included

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you RTFA? It claims Israel acquired some of the centrifuges that Iran is using, got them working, then tested the worm's effect on them. That's a lot more than the resources of Joe Hacker. Not just anyone can run down to Pakistani-Centrifuges-R-Us and buy a dozen of them to test with.

When you look at the instructions Stuxnet was sending to the centrifuges, they're brilliantly designed exactly to cause them to fail. After lurking for a couple weeks, they over-speed them for a few minutes, then drop them down to almost stopped speed, then bring them back to a fairly normal operating speed. The overspeed period stresses the already stressed components, occasionally beyond the breaking point. The underspeed periods act like a mixer, stirring up any U-238 that had already been spun out of suspension. Returning them to normal speed allayed suspicion that they were faulty.

There is no way one guy is going to know exactly what values it would take to create such a precise scenario. It takes massive resources to pull that off.

Well, we had already figured out it took a nation-state. But take your first claim, needing several centrifuges. We know for a fact the Dr. Khan has been selling the designs to several countries. He may have sold the same designs to other countries we're not aware of. And it's also possible that Khan wasn't the only spy to steal those Dutch designs, their security was never that good.

Next, who would like such an "accident"? We know from Wikileaks that most of the Middle East wouldn't mind if Irans nuclear program had a little mishap, not just the USA and Israel. And there are plenty of oil-rich countries there that have the money. It's not exactly a secret that messing with rotation speeds causes Uranium enrichment to fail. So, saying that it took a state-size actor doesn't really narrow down the list of suspects.

it means they have spies in Russia

[hildi]

considering that 1. Massive numbers of Jews left Russia to go to Israel in the past 20 years 2. Massive numbers of those Russians know a shitload about computers and 3. Massive numbers of them keep contact with their buds in Russia and 4. Russia has been helping Iran with its 'civilian' nuclear program for a long time. Now, 4 is probably at the behest of the CIA, who pays the Russians big bucks to go "help" Iran. Thank god, is all I have to say, because of the Russians weren't inside Iran's program watching it, then the Chinese would be, and that's the last thing we need, a China-Iran alliance.

Re:it means they have spies in Russia

[Zeinfeld]

considering that 1. Massive numbers of Jews left Russia to go to Israel in the past 20 years 2. Massive numbers of those Russians know a shitload about computers and 3. Massive numbers of them keep contact with their buds in Russia and 4. Russia has been helping Iran with its 'civilian' nuclear program for a long time. Now, 4 is probably at the behest of the CIA, who pays the Russians big bucks to go "help" Iran. Thank god, is all I have to say, because of the Russians weren't inside Iran's program watching it, then the Chinese would be, and that's the last thing we need, a China-Iran alliance.

You mean like the Shanghai Cooperation Treaty?

China has been allied with Iran for decades.

Re:like if say, someone blew up a ship of our ally

[Ethanol-fueled]

Iran has oil. North Korea are just a joke.

Lawyers

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that companies in the US can obtain compensation from the government for the damage done to their computer systems and their efforts to remove the worm? Can Siemens sue the US government for trashing its customers worldwide?

Re:Lawyers

[Cwix]

Prove the government did it.

The government would claim state secrets and walk away.

How long will it be?

[Johnny Fusion]

Now albeit through anonymous sources that government powers are developing malware, how will it be either through legislation, treaty or "gentleman's agreement" that anti-virus software manufacturers will have to look the other way for certain payloads? Is this already happening? Certainly the Third Amendment tells us we don't have to use our homes to quarter soldiers, but will the government use its citizenry's hard drives and bandwidth to host a weapon?

Re:How long will it be?

[Opportunist]

Government taking my hard drive?

From my cold, dead hands!

Re:How long will it be?

[Anonymous Coward]

They'd be fools to ask an AV to ignore a signature. These tactics will only work covertly* and so the risk inherent in telling third-parties what not to look precludes such actions.

*A non-covert worm wouldn't do them any good. A mass DDOS using USA's computers would be more effectively implemented with mainframes sitting on the backbones.

Re:How long will it be?

[Anonymous Coward]

hehe, I think once the AV companies know about your attack to a point they have a signature you can't beat the gig is up and its time to find a new bug. Besides, the AV companies are so international generally I don't think anyone of any intelligence trusts data to them, at least not knowingly-- you can almost always count on all countries more clandestine branches to be fairly xenophobic in nature.

Re:How long will it be?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ding!

If this story is true, then the whole cyber terrorist, cyber warfare thing was in fact the establishment pulling another false flag psyop.
Such operations creating fear, are then used to crack down on Americans for example by extending the "patriot act" or creating new bullshit like "online id"
Furthermore what source can be trusted with the truth anymore with the stakes so high? Where the stakes are chainsawing the constitution, hiding corruption behind state secrets, etc.

Re:How long will it be?

[JamesP]

If you put the security of your industrial installation in an anti virus, I'm sorry, but you are REALLY REALLY FSCKING STUPID

Beyond the network requirements and rigging a shotgun pointed at the user to the IE icon (unnecessary given the 1st step, but still fun)

You should

1 - ONLY install from trusted sources
2 - the minimum set of drivers (for example, skip sound installation if not needed)
3 - keep it updated IF POSSIBLE

And unless needed, once it's set, NO CD, NO USB, NO NETWORK

I have to say I'm impressed

[Sarusa]

1) I didn't think the US was sophisticated enough to help with something like this, much less keep its Facebook privacy settings. Maybe the US contribution was just 'click on google.ir?'

2) This is much, much preferable to Israel bombing (or even nuking) bits of Iran. Shutting down their nuclear bomb program this way is far better - of course it also lets the cat out of the bag.

Re:I have to say I'm impressed

[Entropy98]

2) This is much, much preferable to Israel bombing (or even nuking) bits of Iran. Shutting down their nuclear bomb program this way is far better - of course it also lets the cat out of the bag.

Much preferable, but much less effective.

Re:I have to say I'm impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

1) I didn't think the US was sophisticated enough to help with something like this, much less keep its Facebook privacy settings. Maybe the US contribution was just 'click on google.ir?'

Remember that the US government and military has millions and millions of people working for it; it's bigger than the population of Vancouver. I'll bet that there are probably a million people working for it who can't manage their facebook settings, but it only takes a dozen Ph D security researchers with a top secret clearance to do something like this.

Re:I have to say I'm impressed

[luckymutt]

1) I didn't think the US was sophisticated enough to help with something like this, much less keep its Facebook privacy settings. Maybe the US contribution was just 'click on google.ir?'

2) This is much, much preferable to Israel bombing (or even nuking) bits of Iran. Shutting down their nuclear bomb program this way is far better - of course it also lets the cat out of the bag.

1) You're joking, right? Oh yeah, the U.S. has never had a sophisticated covert program.

2) yeah, your spot on with that one.

Re:I have to say I'm impressed

[Anonymous Coward]

There are different components of "the US", and certain parts (including the NSA and parts of the CIA) are quite competent, but (not coincidentally) you don't read so much about them in the papers.

How long will it be?-IBM

[Anonymous Coward]

I have an IBM "Deathstar". They'll never get anything out of that.

Not Just Israel and USA

[geoffrobinson]

I'm currently working my way through the article, but I'm sure a collection of sane countries helped out on this. I would guess the Saudis, the Brits, and the Germans helped out in some form or another.

Again, the question of blowback

[Anonymous Coward]

Are worms like this engineered to stay within a targeted ecosystem (i.e. networks involved in Iran's nuclear infrastructure) or can we expect 'blowback'? And if the weaknesses it exploits have been patched or fixed, does this mean there was corporate involvement, or notification after the fact?

So - if you want to be a "real" nuclear power...

[NotQuiteReal]

...you need to build all your own shit, from the ground up.

For now, anyhow. Maybe, in the future, it will be OK to buy your infrastructure off of Craig's List and eBay... (or various Euro conglomerates) but for now, if you want the job done right, do it yourself.

In this case, I think a Simpson's quote, from Nelson would be appropriate - "Ha Ha".

Better than the alternative

[Myria]

What would you rather have, Israel and the US bombing Tehran, or the CIA and Mossad making a computer virus to disable centrifuges? I think I'll open door #2, thank you very much.

Either way, you have collateral damage; I just think the world is better off with fried OS installations than fried humans.

Counterproductive?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stuxnet looks like it's bought Israel and The West time to try alternatives to military action before Iran develops the bomb. But the main alternative is regime change, and encouraging home-grown counter-revolution is hard, as the US found with Castro and Saddam. Here you've got the tougher nut of a authoritarian theocracy.

Now you've got a humiliated Iran, who will be even more determined to develop nuclear missiles and to export terrorism as a way of balancing their feeling of powerlessness.

So I see two endgames: regime change via military action, or a treaty driven by concessions from Israel and the West. The latter will have to involve resolving any perceived Western hypocrisy over Israel. This would include Israel also giving up her nuclear capability, even though form suggests that Iran can't be trusted as much as Israel not to use nukes provocatively.

Blame all this on the Italians. They started the ball rolling in 135.

Isn't it interesting...

[Loopy]

...that NYT does all this work on StuxNet and so little on the current US administration and its allies?

Re:Isn't it interesting...

[Jeremi]

Gee Loopy, didn't you read the part in the article about how Stucnet was developed by the current Administration and its allies?

Re:like if say, someone blew up a ship of our ally

[arth1]

North Korea are just a joke.

That's what MacArthur thought.

The funny thing about modern war is that everybody loses. The victor loses too. That the enemy lost more doesn't negate your own losses.
And right now, I don't think the US could afford "winning" another war.

Uncritical bullshit...

[benjamindees]

1) While technically impressive, this is not "cloak and dagger" by any stretch of the imagination. Everyone knows Israel did it. They broadcast the code all over the world. "Cloak and dagger" implies some degree of stealth or misdirection.

2) If Israel had a spy in Iran's nuclear systems, why would Stuxnet have leaked out? Why wouldn't all the centrifuges just quietly self-destruct? It didn't take espionage to get the technical specs on Iran's centrifuges. They were reported to the IAEA. Sure, it's not impossible, but seems unlikely.

3) For the US, war is basically a right-wing welfare program, so there is constant pressure for lucrative new targets. Israel is perpetually engaging in economic warfare against basically everyone. The scare-mongering with respect to Iran's nuclear power program is just typical, sabre-rattling, lies exactly like those told about Saddam to drum up the Iraq invasion. An energy-independent Iran poses the same threat as Saddam's pricing oil in Euros and state gas subsidies: hastening the end of petrodollars and cheap oil for the US.

I like how the Slashdot commenters

[compucomp2]

are either denying the obvious/equivocating ridiculously i.e. "this is not confirmation, so we can't take it as fact, even though it's almost certainly true" or flat out justifying the sabotage. If some Chinese hacker group (which would clearly be some shadow arm of the EVIL COMMUNIST PARTY) did this to an American government institution, the masses here would be calling for immediate war against China.

The Western hypocrisy is strong with Slashdot, as it has always been. It loves to get on its soapbox and be sanctimonious when non-allied nations try to defend themselves against Western imperialism, but it's clear that when it's your team doing it, it's all good, just like in a sports match.

Re:I like how the Slashdot commenters

[dbIII]

It's hyper-nationalism where even the libertarians that dream of revolution bay for the blood of anyone that does anything to insult or inconvenience the government or institutions. It's not really hypocrisy, it's as if nowhere else really matters so there's no way to get around it rationally. Might makes right so long as your own tribe has the might. Juvenile and downright medieval but they are convinced that is the correct way so there is no getting around it.

Re:I like how the Slashdot commenters

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel firsters chew on this:

http://972mag.com/orthodox-publication-openly-calls-for-death-camps/

Re:I like how the Slashdot commenters

[Anonymous Coward]

This frustrates me too. I work with quite a few Iranian engineering and all of them are good people, none of them are the crazy extremists that the media makes them out to be (and i have travelled to Iran in the past and everyone i met was polite and well mannered), and the only reason they moved to the UK was because of all the bullshit that the west pulls on Iran constantly. Most Iranians are exactly the same as most westerners. They are proud of their country and want to get on with life. Its not hard to see why they are a bit bitter after 31 years of the west jerking them around.

I really hope that we are able to have some seriously political progress with dealing with Iran, and i personally think Europe does a much better job of dealing with them than the US.

Re:I like how the Slashdot commenters

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should this surprise anybody? Politics is a game and war is an extension of politics; this is just another play. GO TEAM!

Re:I like how the Slashdot commenters

[khallow]

There's a simple rebuttal. Iran deserves the bullshit that the west pulls on Iran constantly. Drop the theocracy, put in a real democracy. That'll drop a significant portion of western bullshit right there. And if they start observing international law (the lack of which is why the Shah got in back in the 50s), that'll drop most of the rest.

Siemens vs. Idaho Lab

[bill_mcgonigle]

The big thing in this article that stuck out for me was that Siemens participated with the Idaho National Lab to do a security audit of their software.

We now know that cooperating with the US Government in this regard is giving up your customers to them, effectively.

What if the Siemens gear were a few generations ahead and automatically updated itself online? Would they be barred from issuing some fixes? Did Siemens even get a full report of what was found? Was their participation in this exercise a requirement for some other business contract?

We've read previously that Stuxnet used 4 0-days in Windows to propagate. So, we can assume that part of the US Government knows about holes that affect its citizens' economic and real safety, has DHS/US-CERT in place, but does not disclose? Does CERT know about these and sit on them or are they in the dark as well?

I'm not necessarily arguing that the ends weren't justified, but it's important to understand just how everybody's relationship is structured here with regards to computer security.

Re:Siemens vs. Idaho Lab

[simp]

Actually almost all process control vendors participate to some extent with National Lab. Nothing secret about it, go to the webpage and sign up for a 5 day red team/blue team session on how to hack scada equipment.: http://www.inl.gov/scada/training/index.shtml

If you are a process controller vendor and you haven't sent your security staff to Idaho then you are out of the game. Because the rest of the process control world will break into your systems while laughing their asses off.

Re:Siemens vs. Idaho Lab

[rtfa-troll]

The big thing in this article that stuck out for me was that Siemens participated with the Idaho National Lab to do a security audit of their software.

We now know that cooperating with the US Government in this regard is giving up your customers to them, effectively.

a) we don't even "know" that this was the US. We guess. The New York Times often has a specific pro-USA / pro-right wing bias in it's reporting. This might, for example be designed to claim responsibility for something that was sub-contracted out to the Chinese, but since it worked the US military-industrial complex now wants the credit.

b) the attack was cleverly targeted and stayed well away from western/Nato countries. Clearly, if the story is correct and you are a company which is fully aligned with US military/industrial interests this should be pretty reassuring.

c) After this, however, you would not want to be buying network equipment or systems, such as Windows, to which the Russian or Chinese government has privileged access. Everybody should be seriously reviewing their security measures. You should specifically not learn a narrow lesson from this, but a broad one. Watch out for governments who might not like you.

What if the Siemens gear were a few generations ahead and automatically updated itself online? Would they be barred from issuing some fixes? Did Siemens even get a full report of what was found? Was their participation in this exercise a requirement for some other business contract?

We've read previously that Stuxnet used 4 0-days in Windows to propagate. So, we can assume that part of the US Government knows about holes that affect its citizens' economic and real safety, has DHS/US-CERT in place, but does not disclose? Does CERT know about these and sit on them or are they in the dark as well?

The US Government is not homogeneous. This split in responsibilities and the conflict of interest it entails has long existed and was very clearly demonstrated in actions such as the "Clipper chip" and the creation of the various crypto standards. There are parts of the government, such as the NSA, which are fighting for overall superiority, for example in cryptography; they may even do this at the slight cost of risk to US business interests. There are other parts, such as NIST which are specifically dedicated to protection of US business interests. Transfer of information between these groups may even be illegal (e.g. NSA agents cannot give away military secrets to NIST) and is definitely not complete.

I'm not necessarily arguing that the ends weren't justified, but it's important to understand just how everybody's relationship is structured here with regards to computer security.

The media companies are fucking the consumers. That is the main thing you need to know. All other forms of computer security are minor issues discussed between small groups which have little or no influence on the mass market. If you want to do serious computer security at the level where the threat from the US govt matters, you need to start talking about dedicated secure operating systems etc. etc. You need to be sure that those operating systems have been seriously reviewed at design and source code level by people who have your interests at heart and are not under influence of any large government or commercial interest aligned against you. That is a hard thing to do and is probably only available to small parts of the military of a number of rich or large countries.

Re:Siemens vs. Idaho Lab

[bill_mcgonigle]

If you are a process controller vendor and you haven't sent your security staff to Idaho then you are out of the game. Because the rest of the process control world will break into your systems while laughing their asses off.

I understand that SCADA systems are notoriously weakly implemented, but is there something about SCADA that resists independent security analysis?

Actually Iranian leaders doesn't believe in MAD

[Anonymous Coward]

... I don't have particularly high esteem for the Iranian leadership, but they're not stupid, they're not suicidal, and they understand MAD ...

No. Some in the leadership do not believe in MAD. However they are not suicidal because they believe god will intervene and protect them from a nuclear attack. Like some ultra-fundamentalist christians they welcome an apocalyptic war because it means the return of the mahdi for the Ahmadinejad types and jesus for the comparable christian extremists. Some of Ahmadinejad's public statements:

2005: "Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi,"

2009: “They [U.S.] have devised all these plans to prevent the coming of the Hidden Imam because they know that the Iranian nation is the one that will prepare the grounds for his coming and will be the supporters of his rule.”

2010: "the Mahdi will come here, accompanied by Jesus Christ" to liberate Palestine and allow the millions of Arabs of Palestinian descent to move there in his wake.

MAD only works with rational people who are not expecting divine intervention.

Re:Actually Iranian leaders doesn't believe in MAD

[Anonymous Coward]

You're quoting the religious words spouted by the front-man intended to keep the revolutionary faithful to the calculating thieves that run Iran. Ahmadinejad will say whatever he has to in order to keep the zealots following him. He'll do whatever it takes to stay in power, and to stay personally wealthy.

And now that he has the tiger by the tail, he knows the only thing he can do in that position is to not let go! If he softens or weakens, the Revolutionary Guard will throw him against the wall.

The forecast in Iran is for continued crazy, with a chance of bloodshed.

Four zero-day attack vectors and maybe more seeds?

[yo303]

I'm sure they wish they had a refuge from this deluge of centrifuge subterfuge.

and....

[Nihn]

anyone surprised by that? cause I'm not. If some psycho get a hold of nukes and launches everyone else will launch, and I don't want to witness that. And if I am not mistaken the country in question has a past history of unreasonable violence over territory. So you can call me whatever but who ever is doing it needs to keep it up, if for nothing else than to delay the inevitable.

This just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

The entire American nation is 99% dicksuckers. All you have to do is look at their media programming...how could you go wrong?

False dillema

[Arker]

The third alternative would be to simply stop the provocative rhetoric and let them be.

Umm yea...

[bm_luethke]

Isn't this the same people who told me the Tucson shooter was influenced heavily by Palin, the Tea Party people, and was a right wing zealot? If they can't even get that right why believe them now on highly secret and very competent spy stuff?

Frankly if they *were* responsible for this more would be happy than not - given Iran's govt isn't this how we would want them to act instead of bombing them (and surely no one here thinks a nuclear weaponized Iran is a Good Idea)? Iran's Nuclear program makes few happy outside of Iran and such an easy crippling of it with little to no others damaged is more competent than I think most of the western world is capable of. Indeed should we even believe them as to how much it crippled Iran?

It seems to me that the vast majority of what we "know" about this is from people who can't figure out if a person with extensive postings on the internet a 10 minute search points out is a Lefty, Righty, or a Nihilist why should we believe them on things that take months of research into highly secret areas that leaking information results in long term prison sentences? As far as I can tell they have done extensive research of speculation on the internet and printed it as something more - well yea, those are some of the more likely to be suspected but there are others. They are months behind reading comments here and seem to have about the same level of insight into the thing (which is nothing more than speculation).

Re:Umm yea...

[Falconhell]

Only a fool would claim the violent rhetoric from US right wingers did not fuel the recent shootings in Arizona.

If there one thing the US has no shortage of it is fools.

Re:Umm yea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah truth hurts some people eh?

A fool had mod points.

yes! just like a german jew

[hildi]

1. its illegal for you to marry a non-'common sense american'

2. you are not allowed to work

3. your house/apartment has been taken from you and you live in a walled ghetto

4. your money has been 'kept for safety' by a special bank for 'common sense americans' only

5. your place of worship got burned down last year

6. several of your friends are dead

7. within 6 years, everyone you ever knew or loved will be a skull in a mass grave

8. you live in a one party state without any elections, with one single labor union controlled by the state, a massive military industry based on slave labor, and a dictatorial leader who has corrupted the entire court system, and replaced the constitution with laws that specifically single out 'common sense' americans for death or imprisonment

yes. i can see very much how being a "common sense american" is JUST LIKE being a german jew in 1939.

Re:yes! just like a german jew

[Ethanol-fueled]

Wow, that hyperbole is just retarded. Looks like a reverse-smear campaign.

Re:yes! just like a german jew

[h4rm0ny]

Well "jew in 1939 Germany" is an analogy like to inflame a few people for some pretty elementary reasons, you have to admit that one. Try something more modern like being anti-piracy on Slashdot. That can feel as hard work as being a common sense person in San Diego, trust me. ;)

Mod parent up.

[rtfa-troll]

People who are seriously religiously insane tend to spend their time at the Mosque praying. Even if there's some multiple personalities involved, at least one of the guy's personalities has to be pretty calculating to have got to the level of power he has got to in the place he got there.

Re:like if say, someone blew up a ship of our ally

[feepness]

The funny thing about modern war is that everybody loses.

That's why they invented the term "Pyrrhic" after WWII.

How long? It was several years ago.

[dbIII]

"gentleman's agreement" that anti-virus software manufacturers will have to look the other way for certain payloads?

That has already happened with the Sony rootkit.I think it was f-secure that had heated discussions with Sony for about a week before releasing the information to the press and their virus definition - and that may have only been because there was a non-commercial fix by then. All of the others were silent but some were reported as corresponding with Sony on the issue. The company that did release information to the press had most definitely been asked to enter a "gentleman's agreement".

Kudos

[Anonymous Coward]

I highly doubt it was anyone but the usual bored teenager that wrote it, as I would assume that if you were to wage cyber-warfare as a nation, the least they could have done was to make the nuclear plants blow up completely. Now that would effectively have stopped their nuclear program rather permanently...

If the explosions were combined with an Israeli attack on Tehran to wipe out the theocratic power structure, taking advantage of the chaos, then we would have something worth building on. If you cut off the head of a snake, even an evil one like Iran, the rest will die. And Iran has since 1979 seriously been asking for it.

Re:How long? It was several years ago.

[Johnny Fusion]

Well a gentleman's agreement between corporations are lubricated with money. Between a government and a company? I assure you Uncle Sam would appeal to patriotism and expect one to lay back and take it while thinking of their country with nothing more to ease the experience. Probably even given threats as to what would happen if one did not cooperate.

Normal US citizen denial

[Anonymous Coward]

In these slashdot comments... Americans denying that their country would ever do anything like this.

Re:How long? It was several years ago.

[dbIII]

Tell me then how much money you think Sony gave to the antivirus companies to look the other way? Are you suggesting bribery was involved?
I don't think it was.
I think it was a situation of "might makes right" with the large corporation of Sony possibly making threats involving expensive legal action where the one with the deepest pockets wins instead. That makes it very similar to what an organisation connected to a government would do.

Re:like if say, someone blew up a ship of our ally

[h4rm0ny]

Ahhh, General Pyrrhus, hero of D-Day. We will never forget you.

How hard is it to spell...

[agw]

"Siemens" as "Siemens" consistently in a single article? Where do people get "Seimens" from?

LOL

[das3cr]

And somehow the NY times has some credibility?

Not with me they don't. Pretty easy to make up anything they want and publish it as fact when Neither of the Gov'ts involved will be willing to say "yup .. we did it" LOL

Obvious!

[win32api]

Clear as the sun!, US is behind it.

NYTroll article

[davev2.0]

To me, this looks like some reporters decided on a conclusion ( "The U.S. and Israel did it!") and then went and dug up a bunch of information that kind of supports their conclusion but doesn't actually prove it but didn't examine any other possible ideas, then published it as "We can't prove it but this is exactly what happened, honestly, it the truth!"

Well, no...

[Chris Mattern]

...they actually didn't report that. But we all *know* who did it, so that makes it okay to say they did, right?

Re:Four zero-day attack vectors and maybe more see

[JamesP]

Wow, that got my head spinning...

Conundrum

[anorlunda]

Fascinating. It appears that the Western Democracies are simultaneously the most vulnerable to cyber attack, and the most capable of launching cyber attacks.

That creates an unique and fantastic challenge and conundrum for our diplomats responsible for negotiating treaties regarding cyber warfare.

Perhaps my great grandchildren will get to read the actual story of how they navigated that narrow path. For now, we can only hope that Tom Clancy might be inspired to write one of his marvelous novels around this theme. I'm sure it would make fascinating reading.
 

No response to potential leak?

[skyraker]

Where is the uproar over the possibility that there was another leak involved with American intelligence efforts? Leaks like this have been happening for decades, so why the uproar over wikileaks?

Re:So - if you want to be a "real" nuclear power..

[Rich0]

Yup - this is why most countries try to source all their military supply chain from friendly countries, if not 100% domestic. The US won WWII because it could build ships/tanks faster than anybody could destroy them. It started out WWII much weaker than their opponents. The US could meet almost all of its production needs domestically, and geographic barriers protected the means of production.

Now, I'm not sure how likely a protracted war between equals would be in the future. If a war is fought and won in six months it doesn't really matter whether the US can build replacement microchips or whatever - the whole war is fought from inventory. However, in a protracted war the ability to continue building fancy high-tech weapons will probably help determine the outcome. If the US can only field 1970s-era tech due to supply constraints they will suddenly be on parity with many nations out there...

Re:like if say, someone blew up a ship of our ally

[Phaedra]

Hey, someone mod this guy Funny! That crack just made my day and me without mod points. :-(

poor assumption

[Anonymous Coward]

you don't need the source code to write exploits, it doesn't even really help, it is more of a distraction.

most exploits are for Windows.
but Linux, BSD and even OSX provide source code.

you'd think more people would attack those easier open source targets.

Re:poor assumption

[Zeinfeld]

You don't need it to write the typical exploit.

But Stuxnet was not a typical exploit. It went into areas that had really not been attacked before.

People do attack those Open Source targets. Widely used and reviewed Open Source code is rather less likely to be of help than looking at proprietary code that very few people have seen.

Mitnick certainly went to great lengths to obtain source codes so it is pretty clear that they have a value in that community. Even if the value is to have something that other people do not.

first Canada!

[OrangeTide]

Canada would be far easier to take over than Russia with nearly the same level of natural resources.
Plus it's closer, which is important given how much Americans complain about commute times to work.

Re:first Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia is going to be easy to take, why bother with Canada, it's already supplying everything USA needs from there at market prices, it's not like US will benefit much more from owning the territory, when in fact the same corporations are used to extract and sell the resources.

On the other hand taking Russia makes sense - there is plenty of work force there that can be used as slaves and the companies that are operating there are not US companies, they are Russian companies, and what good is that for the USA? No no no, take Russia, get rid of their companies, their government, put US government in place, put US companies in place, it's a great idea, easy too.

Re:first Canada!

[Anonymous Coward]

why take Russia for slaves when we already have Mexico?

We could fill Russia with McDonalds and strip malls, it would be glorious!

Final losing battle of Vietnam War?

[Anonymous Coward]

That battle took place in Washington DC.

The US is its own worse enemy. We probably have no business fighting wars when we aren't able to complete them.
Despite what the anti-American international community says, the US are not imperialists. To be an imperialist you need to claim control over those you conquer. US policy is to wash your hands of any victory or defeat once it becomes politically unpopular.
This is why we laugh whenever Ahmadinejad refers to the US as an imperialist nation.

Re:like if say, someone blew up a ship of our ally

[Zeinfeld]

WWII was certainly a pyrrhic victory for the British Empire.

It was the best outcome that was available given the circumstances, but it was a national disaster even so.

That is one reason why people like David Brooder show themselves to be senile fools when they advocate starting a war to cure the economy. The US economy only benefitted from WWII due to a massive increase on the input side of the economy: married women started to do paid work.

If you look at every other war that the US has been involved with the result has been a massive increase in debt.

Speak English much???

[Anonymous Coward]

"Israeli is the doer"??? Wheres your English skills....

Re:Speak English much???

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are yours?

My Big Gov't will kick your Little Gov't's ass.

[Heretic2]

I want that, on a T-Shirt. Does Stuxnet have a logo?

Henceforth, I'm referring to this as...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Operation Screaming Fist".

Duh...

[crhylove]

Mossad is behind almost all the terrorism in the world today. There is ample evidence that they perpetrated 9/11 for instance. Mossad being the bad guy in nearly any situation should come as no surprise to anybody.

The irony of tools of abundance in the hands of...

[Paul Fernhout]

... those thinking in terms of scarcity: http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. I discuss that at length here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html

There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all.

So, while in the past, we had "nothing to fear but fear itself", the thing to fear these days is ironcially ... irony. :-) "

Standard Evil Zionist Plots Troll

[Alimony Pakhdan]

The NYT is not The Guardian but sometimes comes pretty darn close in terms of semi bizarre attributions of the secret powers of Israel. The US part of the article has the standard plausible deniability of sources but the Israel parts are sheer conjecture yet somehow we are supposed to just accept that the Israelis can setup a test lab of P-1s to match the production environment in Iran. America cant even ship P-1s to England without the units getting damaged, but Israel can build a working test lab of them. Right... These sorts of articles border on accusations of secret Jewish cabals. A way to dog whistle for "Jew World Order" or "Zionist Occupation Government" folks who consider themselves far to reasonable to openly admit to believing in such nonsense.

This thread was a good source...

[Anonymous Coward]

So we have confirmed there ARE people who care what the NY Times writes...