Slashdot Mirror
Iran Says Siemens Helped US, Israel Build Stuxnet
CWmike writes "Iran's Brigadier General, Gholam Reza Jalali, accused Siemens on Saturday with helping US and Israeli teams craft the Stuxnet worm that attacked his country's nuclear facilities. 'Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemies with the information about the codes of the SCADA software and prepared the ground for a cyber attack against us,' Jalali told the Islamic Republic News Service. Siemens did not reply to a request for comment on Jalali's accusations. Stuxnet, which first came to light in June 2010 but hit Iranian targets in several waves starting the year before, has been extensively analyzed by security researchers. Symantec and Langner Communications say Stuxnet was designed to infiltrate Iran's nuclear enrichment program, hide in the Iranian SCADA (supervisory control and data acquisition) control systems that operate its plants, then force gas centrifuge motors to spin at unsafe speeds. Jalali suggested that Iranian officials would pursue Siemens in the courts, and claimed that Iranian researchers traced the attack to Israel and the US. He said information from infected systems was sent to computers in Texas."
Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.
Not according to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) established the US, USSR (Russian Federation replaced the USSR in the treaty), UK, France, and China as five "Nuclear-Weapon States". Non-Nuclear Weapon states were prohibited from, among other things, possessing, manufacturing, or acquiring nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. All 187 signatories were committed to the goal of eventual nuclear disarmament.
So the US isn't obligated to give up nuclear weapons right away, but the US is disarming.
SALT I&II
INF Treaty
START I reduced nuclear inventories by 40% - 6,000 warheads for US
New START will reduce the US arsenal to around 1550 warheads
Which the US also signed. Care to explain how they're moving towards disarmenent, as the treaty obligates them to?
I think you must've missed the whole thing about the U.S. going from over 30,000 nukes just a few decades back to under 10,000 today (of which under 2,000 are active). Kinda a big deal, but hey, why keep track of annoying facts like that?
Sure. There's the SALT 1, SALT II, START I, START II, START III, SORT and New START treaties with the USSR/Russian Federation. The US had 32,000 nuclear weapons in the 1960s, and are down to a little over 3,000 weapons deployed, and another few thousand in inventory, being decommissioned or used for R&D, with the full implementation of the New START treaty dropping deployed weapons to 1,550.
It's physically and politically impossible to eliminate 32,000 nukes over-night. And while you may argue with the length of the time table, a 95% reduction in weapons that are manned and ready to use certainly ought to count for "moving".
They also have moved from multiple warheads on a launch vehicle to a single warhead.
That's because they've moved to the "dial-a-yield" nukes (up to 350kT nukes using super-grade Pu-239) on cruise missiles and away from ICBMs. Only Trident subs have short range missiles, rest is moving to cruise missile deployment. It is anticipated that all nukes in US will be moved to cruise missiles only.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W80_%28nuclear_warhead%29
So yes, US has moved away from MIRV because they've moved away from ICBMs. It's all cruise missiles now. Each aircraft carrier has enough nukes onboard to flatted a significant part of this planet.
"No nation whose leader has sworn to destroy another nation has the right to have any sort of weapons at all."
You mean like Obama, Bush, and the entire USA the last 100 years? Holy flying spaghetti monster you sound retarded.
Overt and Covert, there is no difference. Just because the USA doesn't openly boast about destroying nations doesn't mean it deserves nuclear weapons either.
And FYI Iran has tried diplomacy several times, but the elitist, pompous, warmongering USA refuses to sit down at the table unless the USA's greedy ass demands are met.
Oh and the Iran hostage crisis was a CIA plot, just like the Iranian revolution and the overthrow in 1953 of Iran's democratically elected government
You really are a fucking tool.
And don't start with that "he was mistranslated" bullshit"
Perhaps you should educate yourself?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel#Translation_controversy
The Persian language has no idiom for "wipe off the map". That idiom belongs to English.
Also, he was quoting Khomeini. A better translation is "the occupation regime over Jerusalem should vanish from the page of time". Doesn't have quite the same scary ring to it, so some "journalists" decided to spice it up a bit by adding idiomatic language that doesn't exist in the native tongue.
You should also look into the long history of covert CIA ops that the US has taken in Iran. It's not very diplomatic when you engineer the overthrow of the Democratically elected government of another sovereign country.
:(){
Yeah, never mind that they are also underneath four different UN sanctions regarding their nuclear program...
I'm sure it's just hype in the media.