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."

Comments

Whose enemies?

[mangu]

FTA: "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,"

Define 'enemies', please. From the rest of the world's POV, Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemy with equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

FTA: "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,"

Define 'enemies', please. From the rest of the world's POV, Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemy with equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.

Re:Whose enemies?

[rbrausse]

Define 'enemies', please. From the rest of the world's POV, Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemy with equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

Define "rest of the world" please. Iran and many European countries were trading partners up until 200x.

Re:Whose enemies?

[JBMcB]

Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.

Not according to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed.

Re:Whose enemies?

[mangu]

Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.

No nation whose leader has sworn to destroy another nation has the right to have any sort of weapons at all.

And don't start with that "he was mistranslated' bullshit. Diplomatic language was invented exactly to minimize the possibility of misunderstandings that could lead to war.

But, of course, you cannot expect that a nation who cannot understand the most basic principle of diplomacy, that of safe passage, would understand something subtler, like the proper use of language.

A nation that refuses to use diplomacy is a nation that should be left without weapons.

Re:Whose enemies?

[LWATCDR]

Actually they do not since they signed those rights away when they signed the none proliferation treaty. And they are not making weapons just ask them.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Wyatt Earp]

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

Re:Whose enemies?

[vxice]

"Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemy with equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons" citation please. According to numerous reports by the IAEA there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Re:Whose enemies?

[masshuu]

The US is actively dismantling nuclear weapons. US has moved from huge stockpiles of tends of thousands to thousands now. They also have moved from multiple warheads on a launch vehicle to a single warhead. Just because the US still has nukes doesn't mean they aren't working toward disarmament. The only issue not stopping the US from dismantling all at once is the fact that other countries like Russia still has a shitton of nukes. Might I also note both sides still have teams on full alert, like back in the cold war days, ready to press a button and fire a couple thousands nukes within 1 minute and their entire arsenal in 15 minutes.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Anubis IV]

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?

Re:Whose enemies?

[prgrmr]

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".

Re:Whose enemies?

[JordanL]

Just fine thank you? The US has been reducing nuclear capacity for 30 years...

Re:Whose enemies?

[Anubis IV]

And if I take something you made and give it to someone else who wants to use it for a nefarious purpose, should you be held accountable for your actions as well? I haven't heard about any indications that Siemens sold these to Iran, whereas I have seen it reported over the last year that Iran procured these through illicit channels because they are under embargo for items such as these. Besides, if Siemens sold them to Iran, they wouldn't be helping the creators of Stuxnet. It's bad business to help others destroy the product that you sold to your customer.

Re:Whose enemies?

[luis_a_espinal]

"A nation that refuses to use diplomacy is a nation that should be left without weapons"

-Hillary Clinton said on September 13, 2001: "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us..." -President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Both are from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us

Is that the kind of Diplomacy you are looking for?

Not pretty, but certainly a lot better than chanting the destruction of Israel (not that I agree what has been done to the Palestinians) or who blatantly keep labeling any external they disagree with an 'enemy'. But hey, don't let those details stop your line of logic.

Re:Whose enemies?

[murdocj]

"Siemens should explain why and how it provided the enemy with equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons" citation please. According to numerous reports by the IAEA there is no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

If only I had mod points for +1 Funny.

Re:Whose enemies?

[zonky]

Agreed, reduction has occurred. But you're not naive enough to sit their and pretend that Disarmament was ever the intention of the Nuclear powers under this treaty. The NPT was a political tool to coerce nation states into a public declaration that they wouldn't seek Nuclear Weapons - a damned if they do, and a damned if they don't approach. It completely fails to address the fact that Middle Eastern nation states live next door to a nuclear power who they have been at war at multiple times over the later half of the 20th Century who they distrust.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Wyatt Earp]

Israel didn't sign the NNPT, nor did India, Pakistan, or the DPRK, unlike India , the DPRK and Pakistan, Israel never tested a nuclear weapon, hasn't threatened anyone with one.

Iran signed and ratified the NNPT, so it's supposed to follow the rules.
So bringing Israel into a discussion about NNPT does what exactly?

I see, and the facts show that the US, Russian Federation, UK, France are all decreasing their nuclear stockpiles over time, China really isn't increasing theirs while a number of former Soviet states that had nuclear weapons gave them up (Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine).

So I guess that the nuclear powers are slowly abiding by the stipulation in the NNPT to reduce nuclear stockpiles.

Re:Whose enemies?

[ach1lles]

Couldn't help but notice : SIEMENS is a near-anagram of ENEMIES. Talk about subliminal messaging!

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

Every nation state wants power. The more the better...

Re:Whose enemies?

[mangu]

A nation that refuses to use diplomacy is a nation that should be left without weapons.

Will you obliterate the IDF? or shall I?

What do you mean?

Re:Whose enemies?

[LordLimecat]

Talking about "rights" in such matters doesnt seem to make much sense. Who defines what "rights" a country has? Certainly Iran is free to try to develop a nuclear program, but the rest of the world is free to try to prevent them-- Its a sure thing that once developed they will use them offensively.

IMO youd have to be crazy not to want to discourage Iran from having nukes, whatever your opinion of Israel is-- unless you really do want to spur on WW3, that is.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Noughmad]

On the very same page, it says Jesus said the same thing. I never knew Jesus was a Sith, but our history makes much more sense now.

Re:Whose enemies?

[zonky]

Israel has never publically confirmed a nuclear test - but the Vela Incident has always assumed to be a combined South Africa/Israel test.

The NPT calls for disarmenent, not a reduction in stockpiles - which is sort of the point- the treaty is worthless, other than as a beating stick for large powers over smaller nation states.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Noughmad]

We've always been at war with Iran.

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

No nation whose leader has sworn to destroy another nation has the right to have any sort of weapons at all.

The US swore to destroy the evil empire that was the USSR, The UN should go into the US and take all of their weapons of mass destruction ASAP.

Re:Whose enemies?

[jekewa]

Who is always the aggressor in the Middle East?

Uh, the sons of Adam?

Re:Whose enemies?

[YrWrstNtmr]

The DPRK ratified in 1985, but gave notice of withdrawal in January 2003. As is allowed under the rules of the treaty. And so now everyone has an idea of what they are doing.

Re:Whose enemies?

[vxice]

I'm surprised you had time to come out and reply, shouldn't you be looking for that smoking gun in Iraq? You can not go around assuming the worst, it ends up wasting a lot of time and resources.

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

Just fine thank you? The US has been reducing nuclear capacity for 30 years...

But yet still has the fire power to destroy the world several times over... Not to mention they have been creating larger and larger conventional weapons that rival that of atomic ones.

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.

Not according to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty they signed.

Like the US hasn't ignored treaties they have signed....

Re:Whose enemies?

[DeadCatX2]

Are you fucking kidding? "No one is threatening Iran"? I had to rub my eyes to make sure I wasn't seeing things.

The US and Israel threaten Iran all the time. Journalists usually refer to it as "saber rattling". Mind you, Iran does not have a single nuclear weapon, and yet they are threatened repeatedly by two countries that do have an inventory of nuclear weapons.

If you really want to deal with "regional threats", how about getting Israel to ditch all their nukes? For that matter, how about getting Israel to stop stealing land from Palestinians? The settlements have done more to destabilize the region then any bellicose Iranian rhetoric.

Meanwhile, you seriously think that devout fundamentalist Muslims would really drop a nuclear weapon on their own holy land? Jerusalem is pretty important to them, too. For that matter, what evidence do you have that they want nuclear weapons, as opposed to nuclear energy?

Oh, and by the way, please leave the strawman "traitorous lover of Persians!" at the door. I can dislike Iran while simultaneously standing up against stupid people who wish to exploit the ridiculous behavior of the Iranian government for political gain.

Re:Whose enemies?

[memnock]

Siemens is a company, not a country. While state politics probably play a part in business decisions, really they're most interested in who is going to pay them for something they sell or service. Through the eyes of "capitalists", perceived commercial needs of potential customers will lead the company's decision in what it sells to who. I'm not trying to judge that process, just pointing out that Siemens might not be quick to let one country's (or group of countries') rival status be a deterrent to doing business with either set of countries.

Re:Whose enemies?

[md65536]

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?

Not as big of a deal as when the department store here had a half-off sale on socks for $100! Still kind of expensive, but where else are you gonna save $100 on a pair of socks?!

The US should have made 30,000,000 nukes. Then, they could look like Mother Teresa when they go down to just 10,000,000.

So the US has under 10000 nukes, how cute.
Iran has 0.
But hey, facts are annoying if they don't come in the form of misleading ratios.

Besides, what harm could any group do with only 10000 nukes?

Re:Whose enemies?

[sconeu]

Not to mention they have been creating larger and larger conventional weapons that rival that of atomic ones.

Non Sequiter. Has nothing to do with nuclear disarmament or non-proliferation.

Re:Whose enemies?

[DeadCatX2]

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.

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0607-01.htm

The draft report, which exceeds 100 pages, deals with a range of legal issues related to interrogations, offering definitions of the degree of pain or psychological manipulation that could be considered lawful. But at its core is an exceptional argument that because nothing is more important than "obtaining intelligence vital to the protection of untold thousands of American citizens," normal strictures on torture might not apply

In addition, the report advised that torture or homicide could be justified as "self-defense," should an official "honestly believe" it was necessary to head off an imminent attack on the U.S. The self-defense doctrine generally has been asserted by individuals fending off assaults, and in 1890, the Supreme Court upheld a U.S. deputy marshal's right to shoot an assailant of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field as involving both self-defense and defense of the nation. Citing Justice Department opinions, the report concluded that "if a government defendant were to harm an enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal prohibition," he could be justified "in doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist network."

For members of the military, the report suggested that officials could escape torture convictions by arguing that they were following superior orders, since such orders "may be inferred to be lawful" and are "disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate." Examining the "superior orders" defense at the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals, the Vietnam War prosecution of U.S. Army Lt. William Calley for the My Lai massacre and the current U.N. war-crimes tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the report concluded it could be asserted by "U.S. armed forces personnel engaged in exceptional interrogations except where the conduct goes so far as to be patently unlawful."

Re:Whose enemies?

[Dishevel]

Well then. According to your dipshit logic then I to have a right to become a nuclear power.
How about you recognize a crazy fuck country when you see one.
Iran should never have nuclear weapons.
North Korea should never have been allowed to create nuclear weapons.
Pakistan should never have been allowed nuclear weapons.
India I am not so sure about.
France I am not worried about as their nuclear weapons are really just a tool for whomever invades them next for the auto win.
China and the former USSR were to fucking big to start a war over to prevent them from getting it.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Kreigaffe]

You're still going on about Iraq?

Do you have no clue what was happening in Iraq?

Saddam HAD nuclear ambitions. This is a fact.

Saddam ACTED as if he were hiding things of the nuclear-bomb-development variety. This, too, is a fact.

Saddam WANTED THE WORLD TO SUSPECT HE WAS DEVELOPING NUCLEAR WEAPONS. This is also a fact.

It was just the same with all other sorts of WMDs -- whether or not there were any, Saddam's intention was always to imply that he was hiding them, but never to give any proof that he had any. Proof would have meant the whole world coming down on his head, but through his intentional deceptions he could sow doubt.

Why would he do this you ask? Simple. He wanted to swing a bigger set of balls around. When he spoke, he wanted to speak as if he had horrible weapons at his disposal that nobody knew about. That is power. He lacked the ability to overtly demonstrate or even develop that power, but he DID have the ability to make his enemies unsure of whether he actually had that power or not.

Of course, we all know how that turned out. Gee-dub called his bluff, and now he's dead. And Iraq, and the Middle East, is a better place for it.

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

Not to mention they have been creating larger and larger conventional weapons that rival that of atomic ones.

Non Sequiter. Has nothing to do with nuclear disarmament or non-proliferation.

No comment on the first part of the post hu? figures..

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

Well then. According to your dipshit logic then I to have a right to become a nuclear power.
How about you recognize a crazy fuck country when you see one.
Iran should never have nuclear weapons.
North Korea should never have been allowed to create nuclear weapons.
Pakistan should never have been allowed nuclear weapons.
India I am not so sure about.
France I am not worried about as their nuclear weapons are really just a tool for whomever invades them next for the auto win.
China and the former USSR were to fucking big to start a war over to prevent them from getting it.

So who put you in charge of the world and who can do what in it? What makes you think that the US doesn't make millions of people in other lands suffer and die for PROFIT.... My logic is that the US is not some magic HERO or protector but a nation like any other. The only thing any nation cares about is itself.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Anubis IV]

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.

Re:Whose enemies?

[keeboo]

Who's "we"?
I'm sure my country has no problem at all with Iran.

Re:Whose enemies?

[drpimp]

Meh, you are correct that the former appears to give more media hype, but it's simply semantics. The former implies, with nukes or the like thereof, the implies, kill every last Jew in Jerusalem from existence. No matter how you slice it the end result seems the same right?

Re:Whose enemies?

[sumdumass]

I don't believe the original goal was ever to disarm anyone. IT was to stop Nuclear weapons from becoming the next Sherman Tank in warfare.

And I do not think that Israel having Nuclear weapons is a problem because Israel will end up just as poluted and devistated shall they ever use them. It's basically a last resort burn everything measure and Israel never signed the treaty. Iran on the other hand has and benefited from it.

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

The US still has stock piles of chemical weapons as well... But they will get around to destroying them.. One day.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm

Re:Whose enemies?

[DeadCatX2]

Uhm, no. When I read the translation of his statement, the message that I get is "we want Israel to collapse just like the USSR did".

Calling for regime change in Israel doesn't mean "kill every last Jew in Jerusalem". If regime change did mean genocide, then we would killed all the Iranians back in the 50s when our CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran.

Also, Ahmadinejad is very careful to elaborate a difference between Jews and what he sees as "Zionists". It is a careful elaboration that is often forgotten when it comes time for him to be a pariah. For instance, he will proudly state that there are Jews in the Iranian Parliament. I wonder how many Iranians are in the Knesset.

Re:Whose enemies?

[MikeBabcock]

Do you even begin to understand the concepts of mutually assured destruction?

The non-proliferation treaty only has teeth if those states with nukes maintain an arsenal strong enough to wipe an offending state off the map.

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

destroyed.

Peaceful nations representative by some type of democracy (any form of governance where the people are well represented) which provides for stability, both economically and sociologically, deserve nuclear weapons.

Haha

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, on August 19, 1953 (known as the 28 Mordad coup[1] in Iran), was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States as operation TPAJAX.[2] The coup saw the transition of Mohammad-Rez Shh Pahlavi from a constitutional monarch to an authoritarian one who relied heavily on U.S. support to hold on to power until his own overthrow in February 1979.[3]

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

You do realize that a majority of UN Troops are from the US right? The US also pours more funds into the UN than any other country. If memory serves, the UN was also founded in large part by the US.

My point being is that the UN would be severely weakened without the US. I don't think the UN will start making such demands as "nuclear demilitarization" any time soon... Especially with countries such as Iran and North Korea actively seeking nukes themselves.

At least the countries who do have nukes (at present) understand the concept of MAD.

PS: Get you facts straight... or your point... or your sense of reality.

(can't believe I bothered to reply at all now that it's typed)

I'm sorry I forgot this tag... /SARCASM

Re:Whose enemies?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure it's not the daughters of Eve? I thought behind every great war there was a fight over a woman.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Mashiki]

Oh I dunno. I ran has been threatening everyone in the region for decades. They fund hizbullah and hamas, and give them weapons. How does one steal land that's fairly won in a defensive war? Again how does one steal land from refugees that migrated there to be refugees.

The only reason why Jerusalem is important to them is because it denies Jews and Christians access to temple mount and other sites. It's not holy to them, not in the least. If you're going to make arguments, at least know what you're talking about especially when you move to religious wars.

Re:Whose enemies?

[chispito]

The US swore to destroy the evil empire that was the USSR, The UN should go into the US and take all of their weapons of mass destruction ASAP.

Bringing down a political structure and eliminating an entire people group are more than a little bit different.

Re:Whose enemies?

[scot4875]

If by 'disagree with,' you mean 'have their democratically elected governments overthrown by, to be replaced with dictator strongmen puppets over a 70 year period', then yeah. But hey, don't let those details stop your line of logic, either. If you don't know it happened, you can confidently argue from ignorance!

--Jeremy

Re:Whose enemies?

[scot4875]

Its a sure thing that once developed they will use them offensively.

Yeah, just like India and Pakistan started bombing each other immediately after they got nukes.

IOW: *Citation needed.

--Jeremy

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

The US swore to destroy the evil empire that was the USSR, The UN should go into the US and take all of their weapons of mass destruction ASAP.

Bringing down a political structure and eliminating an entire people group are more than a little bit different.

Yet both involve forcing others to conform to your ideals or die. Plus my reply to grandparent involved nation states, please re-read his post then mine.

Re:Whose enemies?

[LordLimecat]

There cannot and will not be a "citation" until it actually happens. Given the stance of Iran towards Israel, and given the fact that Israel is both highly vulnerable to a nuclear strike and highly capable of a strong counter attack, how crazy would you have to be to want to "see what will happen"?

Re:Whose enemies?

[MightyYar]

Iran has as much right as the US does to make nuclear weapons.

Is that a natural right? LOL.

Re:Whose enemies?

[cavreader]

I know I will be slammed for this but if there is one nation on the planet that actually needs nuclear weapons it is Israel. They are surrounded by countries that have not been shy in announcing their desire to drive the Jew's into the sea. And it is hard to find any country on the planet doesn't have a sizable portion of their population who feel the same way. The Arabs could give a shit about palestine they are just pissed Israel was able to defeat them 3 times in all out war. Let Iran get nuclear weapons because if they do it will guarantee the total destruction of their country should they make the slightest move to use them. The big danger is countries like Iran and NK who would have no qualms about supplying nuclear weapons to non-state actors. But even if they did that as soon as the first nuke detonates it can traced to it's origin pretty easily. A lot of people would die in the first bomb but the response would be immediate and devastating.

Re:Whose enemies?

[DrBoumBoum]

No nation whose leader has sworn to destroy another nation has the right to have any sort of weapons at all.

Besides Iran never sworn to destroy another nation.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Thing 1]

Saddam HAD nuclear ambitions. This is a fact.

Yeah, well, my next-door-neighbor has nuclear ambitions. I think his chances are similar to Saddam's in achieving his goals.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Kreigaffe]

Probably better, assuming your neighbor still numbers among the living.

Saddam did actually have a nuclear program, though.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/ns/world_news-mideast/n_africa/

There's an article from MSNBC. It pretty much says anything that needs to be said. He had nuclear ambitions, and absent intervention (read: bombs.) from more sane nations, would have eventually had himself a nice atomic bomb.
It's honestly not that hard to build one, you know. To build a GOOD one? That.. now that is tricky.. but to just make a bomb that will go kaboom with nuclear force, hell, that's easier than refining the uranium!

As for his other WMDs, he did have them. We know how much he had at one time, and we know how much he dropped on the Kurds, and we know how much he surrendered, and the latter two did not add up to the initial amount. Now, yes, by the time we invaded it was pretty much safe to say that the lost amount had just gone bad, had fallen apart, were no longer viable.. but as I said, Saddam wanted people to suspect he still had them. His game was bravado. He was counting on the fact that we, and the rest of the civilized world, were loathe to invade and depose him over something that we knew he had but also knew he no longer had -- regardless of how much he acted as if he still had viable stock, he did not believe anyone would invade without hard proof. And, of course, there would never be hard proof. He bet wrong, because we elected a reckless cowboy president. And whatever else you can say about Gee-dub, Iraq is a better place now than it was under Saddam, as is the entire Middle East. There's a lot else you can say about Gee-dub, but his actions however misguided DID make at least PART of the world a better place. That might be a bitter pill to swallow but that's life.

Re:Whose enemies?

[JoshuaZ]

Israel has never publically confirmed a nuclear test - but the Vela Incident has always assumed to be a combined South Africa/Israel test.

That's inaccurate. The Vela incident(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_Incident for those too lazy to go over to Wikipedia) was pair of flashes of light detected in 1979 in the Indian Ocean that was consistent with a nuclear test. But, and this is a big but, no other aspects of a nuclear test were present. No radioactive material was found, no characteristic seismic events occurred, and the flashes were only seen by a single satellite. It could have easily been a malfunction or a meteorite or a series of lightning bolts. It is only once one assumes that it really was a nuclear test that Israel and South Africa become likely responsible. However, after the fall of the South African government, there's been a lot of disclosure of their NBC weapons and while there was a disturbing amount of all three, it seems that there nuclear program was not advanced enough as of that time to have engaged in the test. So, the joint test is extremely unlikely. It is still possible for it to have been just an Israeli test but this runs into its own problems including it requiring Israel to have run a quiet, complicated naval operation very far from their normal areas of operation.

There are serious problems with the NPT, and Israel probably has nuclear weapons, and Israel's activity in that regard is one motivating factor for Iran, but that doesn't make the Vela incident good evidence for any of that. Moreover, Israel's possession of nuclear weapons is not a good reason for Iran to ignore its treaty obligations.

Re:Whose enemies?

[QuantumLeaper]

Last I looked doesn't that include everyone in the Middle East?

Re:Whose enemies?

[GooberToo]

Holy shit, the stupidity on /. these days is completely beyond words. Gosh thanks for telling us what everyone already knows and yet somehow completely ignores the topic at hand.

Fucking idiot.

Re:Whose enemies?

[TWX]

I think that espionage is more likely. Someone in a position to provide enough nuclear material who didn't have permission did so, probably as a result of seeing the wars Israel fought. I would bet that while the US has been good in its record keeping, it may not always have been quite so good, and that between the disassembly of old warheads, the purification of materials, the use of nuclear materials in research environments, and pre-computer record keeping would allow some material to escape.

Re:Whose enemies?

[TWX]

But yet still has the fire power to destroy the world several times over...

No comment on the first part of the post hu? figures..

[citation needed]

Re:Whose enemies?

[Nyder]

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?

Yes, and I trust whatever my government says it will do. After all that worked great for the native americans.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Xest]

I used to believe this too, in fact, I even went to try to argue the point, only when I did, and started sourcing my viewpoint, I discovered I was in fact wrong.

Even the largest conventional weapons don't even come close to nuclear weapons in terms of their destructive power.

See here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions#Rank_order_of_largest_conventional_explosions.2Fdetonations_by_magnitude

Note that the largest conventional explosion of all time sits at 6 - 7kt of TNT, in contrast, something like a MOAB sits at 11t of TNT:

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

In contrast, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima- the first type of nuclear weapon around, well below the yields of modern designs yielded 13 - 18kt:

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

So the biggest conventional weapons are still literally actually orders of magnitude smaller than even the most primitive nuclear weapons, and even when you detonate an absolute shit load of conventional explosive material by accident- so much that you could never even create a viable bomb with it due to it's size, as per those listed in my first link, you still struggle to even approach the devastation of a primitive nuclear weapon.

So no, conventional weapons don't even come close to rivalling atomic ones I'm afraid.

Re:Whose enemies?

[cold fjord]

The US still has stock piles of chemical weapons as well... But they will get around to destroying them.. One day.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm

One day? I guess you're at least consistent.

US gains momentum destroying chemical weapon stockpiles

The U.S. Army has destroyed more than 70-percent of its stockpiles of chemical weapons -- some dating as far back as to the World War I era -- as part of an elaborate, decades-long process slated to be largely completed by 2012, service officials said.

"As of 26 January, 2010, the U.S. has destroyed a 22,322 tons of the original 31,500 tons," said Greg Mahall, chief of Public Affairs for the U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency (CMA).

The U.S. arsenal -- which used to include 31,500 tons of chemical weapons such as Sarin, VX and Mustard agents-- is systematically being destroyed at an increased pace, Mahall said.

Re:Whose enemies?

[rbrausse]

Hmmm........ I wonder what countries didn't sign that agreement

only a few (and someone should nuke Western Sahara, the only unknown quantitiy in the NPT)

Re:Whose enemies?

[rbrausse]

You do realize that a majority of UN Troops are from the US right?

no, mostly Bangladesh and Pakistan (if I remember correctly the UN payments are high enough to finance 2-3 soldiers for every one send on a peace-keeping mission)

Re:Whose enemies?

[Reservoir Penguin]

Do you remember that not long ago part of Lebanon was actually occupied by Israel, and that sponsoring of Hezbollah by Syria and Iran was a response to that and to Israel propping the brutal SLA militia (funny how their officers fled crying to Israel the moment IDF withdrew). Israel and Irann are playing a regional power game, one would be foolish to take one side.

Re:Whose enemies?

[AmiMoJo]

Nuclear weapons are not the reason why the DPRK and Iran want their own, conventional weapons are. In the past decade the US/UK and their allies have invaded two countries, and realistically neither the DPRK or Iran could resist with their conventional military. From their point of view the US manufactured intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and used it to get the UN to agree to their actions, so the same thing could happen to them.

The only thing which can protect them is the threat of nuclear retaliation.

Re:Whose enemies?

[adamchou]

Just cause other countries violate treaties doesn't make it ok for Iran to violate treaties

Re:Whose enemies?

[tehcyder]

So it's lucky that Israel, North Korea, South Africa, India and Pakistan were never allowed to develop nuclear weapons then, wasn't it?

Re:Whose enemies?

[tehcyder]

The central point is that the NNPT was a cosy agreement amongst powerful countries to cement their own military superiority.

Re:Whose enemies?

[tehcyder]

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?

The point is that while the US feels the need for any nukes, it has no logical or moral superiority over any other country that wants nukes.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Stuarticus]

Your signature tells me all I need to know about where your allegiances likely lie... Believe it or not some more open minded people look at Israel as being an oppressive occupying force in Gaza and the West Bank. I don't see why a tech news site has so many pro-Israel nutters on it, I wonder if it's mainly Americans? I've never met anyone in favour of their treatment of the Palestinians IRL.

Re:Whose enemies?

[tehcyder]

Do you even begin to understand the concepts of mutually assured destruction?

The non-proliferation treaty only has teeth if those states with nukes maintain an arsenal strong enough to wipe an offending state off the map.

It's not fucking mutual anything if only one side has the vast preponderance of nukes and can destroy the other while remaining more or less unscathed though, is it, you stupid twat?

Re:Whose enemies?

[tehcyder]

So no, conventional weapons don't even come close to rivalling atomic ones I'm afraid.

Er, so what? If the US stops other countries from having their own nukes, it can then stick to conventional weapons (as, for example, it did in Iraq and Afghanistan).

Re:Whose enemies?

[tehcyder]

Just cause other countries violate treaties doesn't make it ok for Iran to violate treaties

No, it just puts them on the same moral ground as the US, no better but no worse.

Re:Whose enemies?

[SHaFT7]

I agree with you 100%

Re:Whose enemies?

[tehcyder]

A nation that refuses to use diplomacy is a nation that should be left without weapons.

So it's the US v. the rest of the world after Iraq then, is it? Or do you count "shock and awe" as fucking diplomacy?

Re:Whose enemies?

[tehcyder]

The US swore to destroy the evil empire that was the USSR, The UN should go into the US and take all of their weapons of mass destruction ASAP.

Bringing down a political structure and eliminating an entire people group are more than a little bit different.

The Iranian president never said he wanted to eliminate an entire people group, he was talking about redefining political structures too (getting rid of Zionism could be regarded as the equivalent of getting rid of Communism).

Re:Whose enemies?

[tehcyder]

Ah, so your preference is for millions of Japanese to have starved and hundreds of thousands of Americans be killed and wounded instead? Aren't you the humanitarian.

A nice simple choice, as there was no possibility of any other outcome, even with the other Axis powers defeated

Re:Whose enemies?

[jermo]

Uhhh dude, the Siemens PLC equipment used in those centrifuges is a modular component used for any number of things. Saying that Simens sold their technology to Iran for their nuclear program is like saying the American Revolution was brought to you buy the number "7," the letter "A" and the color blue. And to the other freaking idiot who says Iran has the right to make nuclear weapons... well with that logic- lets let Charles Manson out of prison and let him make cults, I mean after all, its about the right to make cults that is important. Charlie Sheen was right... the trolls are taking over!

Re:Whose enemies?

[tehcyder]

No theocracy, especially one with a End-O-The-World cult about it, should have a right to nuclear weapons. If they want to take themselves out, fine. But it won't stop there.

I thought you'd got rid of George W Bush and his pals?

Re:Whose enemies?

[hxnwix]

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.

This is fascinating stuff, but not entirely supported your links:

After the end of the Cold War, plans called for Ohio to be retired in 2002, followed by three of her sisters. However, Ohio, Michigan, Florida and Georgia instead were slated for modification, to remain in service carrying conventionally-armed guided missiles, and were designated SSGNs.

A number of the original ALCMs equipped with the Mod 1 later had their warheads removed in order to use them with conventional explosives (the CALCM conversion), and under START II only 400 ACMs would retain their warheads and the rest would be removed, apparently with all remaining ALCMs converted to CALCMs and their warheads removed to the "inactive stockpile". With the fall of the START II treaty it is not clear what the current plans are, but it is highly likely they will take place as originally planned in order to remove the ALCM from service. Mod 0 armed Tomahawks are currently stored onshore, but there are/were plans to make this the primary US Navy nuclear weapon.

Do you have newer/clearer info?

Re:Whose enemies?

[tehcyder]

Real world politics doesn't work like a school playground. No one would have taken Saddam Hussein's threats at face value, he would either have had to put up or shut up. The US knows the nuclear strength of Israel, India and Pakistan (I assume fairly accurately), they don't just say "ooh, you say you've got nukes, so we're scared and won't argue with you".

Re:Whose enemies?

[tehcyder]

Couldn't help but notice : SIEMENS is a near-anagram of ENEMIES. Talk about subliminal messaging!

There's another term for "near-anagram" which is "not a fucking anagram at all".

Re:Whose enemies?

[Xest]

On the contrary, if you read the IAEA reports you'll actually see there's not enough evidence to say that Iran is NOT making nuclear weapons because Iran has refused access to key facilities where IAEA inspectors believe nuclear weapons could be being made.

When Iran blocks access to facilities capable of producing nuclear weapons, it's not a fair assumption to believe that they may in fact be building nuclear weapons.

Sure we don't have absolute proof Iran is making nuclear weapons, but Iran's actions are most certainly not that of a state trying to demonstrate it's nuclear process is entirely peaceful as it claims. Even Mohammed El Baradei who was fairly lenient on the Iranian regime when he was in charge of the IAEA got fed up with them towards the end and started to suggest it's quite possible they could have a covert nuclear weapons programme- from someone like him who usually gives the benefit of the doubt, that's quite damning in itself and he wouldn't have made such comments without having a reasonable belief that that's the case.

But either way what is certain is that what you claim isn't true- that there is no evidence. There is evidence, it's just quite weak (it does go beyond mere refusal of access- Iran hasn't accounted for some quantities of enriched nuclear materials, and refuses to do so for example), what there also certainly isn't is evidence to the counter- that their programme is entirely peaceful.

Personally? I think Iran is in the wrong either way, if it really is entirely for civilian purposes it's nuclear programme then why be so difficult about proving it? Why not just allow inspectors full access and account for all the enriched uranium and embarass it's detractors by proving them wrong? Why create massive international tension over something as simple as allowing objective international inspectors access? It's playing on people like yourself to defend it with their naivety, often bred from anti-American sentiment that Iran is relying on to keep the pressure away from it's overly secretive nuclear programme.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Xest]

Did you actually read the post I was replying to? -

"But yet still has the fire power to destroy the world several times over... Not to mention they have been creating larger and larger conventional weapons that rival that of atomic ones."

Er, so what nothing. I was just pointing out that his suggestion that conventional weapons rivalling atomic weapons is completely and utterly wrong, nothing more, nothing less. Try following the thread next time, that way you wont have to get all pissy over nothing.

Re:Whose enemies?

[bossk538]

I'm probably going to get modded down, but this same BS argument that the DPRK and Iran want their own nukes to stave off any potential invasion by US/UK gets trotted out over and over again. Even if those country had the means to deliver a nuclear payload to Washington or London (which in itself is no mean feat), the response would be so devastatingly overwhelming, they would have to be suicidally insane to even consider it. Besides which, a few nukes would not be a "great equalizer" against a superior conventional force, as they have too tactical applications to be effective, besides being costly and bringing all the negative repercussions associated any nuclear weapon.

Re:Whose enemies?

[mldi]

Don't pretend Iran is on some kind of moral high ground compared to the rest of the world... or even on a level moral ground. The difference between Iran and other nuclear weapon equipped countries? Other nuclear weapon equipped countries aren't nuking an entire country they don't necessarily like as soon as they get a decent chance just because.

Re:Whose enemies?

[AmiMoJo]

You are thinking with a cold war mentality. The threat of nuking Israel or other allied countries, as well as US cities, would be enough to stave off an invasion. No elected leader is going to risk getting nuked, even if it is only one city out of hundreds in his country. Okay, the US has anti-ICBM defences but would anyone be willing to bet that they are 100% effective? What about parts of the world not covered by them?

I think even the threat of nuking say Baghdad would be enough to hold off an invasion. The political ramifications of attacking when you know that the response could be nuclear are too great for any democratic government to contemplate. There isn't even mutually assured destruction since the US/UK position would be freeing civilians from a regime they deem unacceptable, i.e. they would not want to nuke cities. There would most likely be air strikes against the missile launch sites and maybe the odd nuke for purely military targets, but I really doubt it would turn into a full scale nuclear war.

Even assuming there was a good chance of nukes flying towards Iran look at what happened to Saddam and his party members. If the Iranian leadership knows that the result of any invasion will be death for themselves anyway there is a very real chance they would push that button.

Obviously the Iranians know all this and see such weapons as their best defence. Their main problem is developing and testing such weapons secretly so that there is no chance to pass a UN resolution authorising strikes against their facilities before they are ready. The DPRK is one step ahead in that regard and now safe from US invasion.

Re:Whose enemies?

[cavreader]

The US use of torture has been greatly overblown. Did the US water board, slap around, or isolate individuals in an attempt to extract information. Yes. Did they humiliate and verbally demean prisoners. Yes. Has it been systematic and used widely. No. I think the main reason the US has been willing to push the boundaries was to instill fear into those who would attempt attacks against the US or US personnel. Does anyone really think that if the US really wanted to they could have kept their rendition and interrogation methods totally secret? Why let any of this information see the light of day? The government as a whole can't keep a secret worth a damn but the CIA certainly has the capability. Why did the Germans in WW2 drop their guns and sprint west as fast as possible towards the US and British lines when the Russian were approaching at the end of the war? Fear. Why has the number of direct terrorist actions against Isreal diminished? Fear. Those contemplating action against Isreal know what happens if they are identified. Isreal has demonstrated their effectiveness and long memory on more than one occasion. In fact I am sure those same terrorists are ashamed of the fear hiding under their masks of defiance. Before Afghanistan/Iraq US enemies did not really fear the US on a personal level. They knew if they were caught by the Americans nothing of a fatal or particular painful nature would happen to them. Now they have doubt and fear. And let's list what real torture involves. Electricity to sensitive body parts, starvation, brutal beatings, getting hung upside down from the ceiling and having the soles of your feet hit with truncheons, threatening and torturing freinds and family members until you supply what ever information they are seeking, having fingers and toes cut off one at a time over long periods of time, repeated fake executions, being stripped and tied over a bench to be sodomized by packs of wild dogs. Egypt used this particular method after Sadat was assasinated and the victims of this horror spawned the first leaders of the Brotherhood and later Al-quida. There is "torture" and then there is "TORTURE". Torture of any type is deplorable and should be eliminated but we do not live in a perfect world. Maybe someday.

Re:Whose enemies?

[smelch]

Sure we do. They signed a fucking treaty. Why do you think its ok for people to sign an agreement they have no intention of keeping? Further, we're still tense with the Russians. As in, we are in a MAD situation with them still. We built up a bunch of nukes to make sure if we died, they died too, then decided this isn't a good thing. So we all got together and the countries with big stockpiles agreed to work to disarm, and the people without nukes agreed to not get them. Iran agreed to not get them, we worked with the Russians to ease our nuclear stockpiles, then Iran starts getting them despite agreeing not to. In what stupid fucked up world do you live where that is not a problem? We're making agreement after agreement to disarm ourselves and Russia, and you're going to say "Since you have nuclear arms still the Iranians should have them." Fat lot of good that will do them. When they get enough to be useful as a deterrent, we will have to raise our stockpiles again to account for their nukes, which will make them want more, and all of a sudden we're in another nuclear arms race instead of disarming. So shut up with you ignorant, childish platitudes. You're nothing but fluff.

Re:Whose enemies?

[smelch]

Yes, because if there is one thing people respond to more than nuclear weapons, its words. Or maybe in the real world the nukes do the controlling for us, but agreed to disarm in the hope that we might not destroy the world in an effort to control.

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

Yes it's only taken them how many years now to destroy those World War I era weapons?

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

But yet still has the fire power to destroy the world several times over...

No comment on the first part of the post hu? figures..

[citation needed]

You need a citation to know that 10,000 atomic weapons is enough to destroy the world? fuck it... you win man... No really... good job, the US gets to keep it's 10,000+ stock pile and everyone else can keep their 0 stockpile...

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

Holy shit, the stupidity on /. these days is completely beyond words. Gosh thanks for telling us what everyone already knows and yet somehow completely ignores the topic at hand.

Fucking idiot.

Your welcome!

Re:Whose enemies?

[smelch]

I'm pretty sure we didn't fire a shot in the cold war. Was that not entirely and completely a diplomatic action? This whole thing is about the fact that Iran wants to militarily crush Isreal, not just beat them peacefully. I'm pretty sure at no point was our goal to flatten Russia and drive them in to the sea.

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

Yes the Iranians are the new Nazi's... They even invaded Poland last week and are quickly moving toward France as we speak.

We should bomb them now before they have a chance to do something we don't like because they are evil godless, soulless monsters. Never mind the fact that WE are exactly the same, WORSE honestly. We went into their democrat country and installed a brutal dictator. Now we're unset that they don't like us and our best friend, who we have armed with our very best atomic weapons! Gee... if I was them I wouldn't be in the least bit worried that we wouldn't come back to finish what we started... Namely to rape their natural resources and leave them to die...

It's always the same, we are the good guys and everyone else are monsters bent on destroying the world.... grow the fuck up...

Re:Whose enemies?

[smelch]

Oh stop with this bullshit, you know as well as everybody else that we didn't start that war and that was real war, not sissy bitch fights like we have now. Remember the bombing of London? Remember the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor? But if you want to reduce WWII to these spats in the middle east go ahead. We'll continue thinking you're a retard.

By the way, the fact that we dropped one and they didn't surrender shows that we needed both. And as I recall we were figthing that war for defense and, if I am correct, have not taken over Japan. Instead of attacking us for using nukes, you should blame Germany, Italy and Japan for making us defend ourselves that way. Iran on the other hand has occupational aspirations in the middle east and their existence is not threatened.

Re:Whose enemies?

[smelch]

I count the UN resolutions he didn't abide by, basically flipping us the bird after punishment for invasion of another country, to be diplomacy. I count the constant attempts to inspect his facilities to be diplomatic. In fact, in 1991 didn't we push Iraq back out of Kuwait then let them keep their government with diplomatic sanctions? Jesus Christ you really are a moron.

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

I'm pretty sure we didn't fire a shot in the cold war. Was that not entirely and completely a diplomatic action? This whole thing is about the fact that Iran wants to militarily crush Isreal, not just beat them peacefully. I'm pretty sure at no point was our goal to flatten Russia and drive them in to the sea.

We had the exact same goal and it was discuses at length... but we couldn't do it because they had the bomb.... That might be why Iran would like to have a few.... They know that just as soon as the oil starts drying up that we'll be coming for them...

Re:Whose enemies?

[elrous0]

You mean the same noble Jews who forced Palestinians into walled-off ghettos, forced farmers off their land so they could be settlements on the West Bank, and slaughtered thousands of unarmed innocent civilians in Beruit?

Yeah, I imagine they're pretty distrustful. That's not to even mention the fact that the Israelis are a bunch of religious fanatics. Do religious fanatics with nuclear arms make YOU comfortable?

Re:Whose enemies?

[KingMotley]

I refuse to believe in any intelligence report where they repeatedly misspell the topic of the report, namely chemical materiel, haha.

A better motto would be: Intelligence Reports for those with sub 80 IQs written by those with sub 80 IQs.

Re:Whose enemies?

[ae1294]

I refuse to believe in any intelligence report where they repeatedly misspell the topic of the report, namely chemical materiel, haha.

A better motto would be: Intelligence Reports for those with sub 80 IQs written by those with sub 80 IQs.

Sub 80 IQ? do you even know what that means? Some how I don't think you do....

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_U.S._chemical_weapons_topics

Re:Whose enemies?

[Kreigaffe]

Unfortunately I think real world politics work more like a school playground than you think.

Some of the people Saddam wanted to intimidate with the unknown-unknown of his WMD capabilities were people who lived within his borders, anyway.

Besides.. you said it yourself. He would have had to put up or shut up. That.. that's playground politics, man. That's exactly what happened, in fact. He couldn't put up, so he shut up (read: was deposed and killed, since when you expand the playground the stakes get a little higher).

Re:Whose enemies?

[m1xram]

Israel is a U.S. ally. They are surrounded by religious fanatics who will chop your infidel head off. Too bad we couldn't send them some F22s.

Re:Whose enemies?

[m1xram]

The difference is Iran will use nukes. They believe it is necessary to cause as much bloodshed as possible so the Mahdi can return. Even if you don't believe it Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does.

Re:Whose enemies?

[m1xram]

Thanks man, America sincerely appreciates that.

Re:Whose enemies?

[Dishevel]

Realizing that there are fully intolerant fucks out there who want to force their religious view into law and being against the killing of people for cartoons in no way expresses any support for a country that attacked the US.

Not buying it the propoganda...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the US government and Isreal did callude with Seimens to make the stuxnet virus, taking great pains to hide its source, introduction, and its operation in the Iranian systems... Then why would they have it sending data directly back to a site in Texas? The would have also been careful enough to redirect the data through relays in other parts of the world to conceal their identity...

Re:Not buying it the propoganda...

[dnahelicase]

If the US government and Isreal did callude with Seimens to make the stuxnet virus, taking great pains to hide its source, introduction, and its operation in the Iranian systems... Then why would they have it sending data directly back to a site in Texas? The would have also been careful enough to redirect the data through relays in other parts of the world to conceal their identity...

Well, depending on what part of Texas, they might have been sending it there as some sort of copyright claim. You don't want "virtual copies" to exist on other computers that aren't licensed. Probably depends on what sort of EULA Siemens and Uncle Sam worked out...

Re:Not buying it the propoganda...

[Anonymous Coward]

It is true that Mahmoud is a lunatic, but it is also true that the militaristic U.S. leadership becoming increasingly unapologetic, brazen, and belligerent ("Yeah, I did do that...so what?") towards its own citizens as well as other nations.
 
Examples at home include "free"-speech zones, warrantless wiretapping and other fishing expeditions and profiling, regular DHS harassment, and the President being able to call hits on American citizens. Examples abroad are much more explicit - a Hellfire missile up their ass.

The mention of Texas evokes the whole "Cowboy" way of doing things, and is not accidental whether or not the attacks actually originated there.

-- Ethanol-fueled, incognito

Re:Not buying it the propoganda...

[jekewa]

Plausible deniability.

Whether it did go to Texas first, last, or in the middle, it's possible to deny that as an actual end-point. It can be excused away by identifying the Texan who's compromised PC is relaying the worm's payload...

Re:Not buying it the propoganda...

[Leekle2ManE]

I find the claim that they traced it to Texas dubious as well. From what I recall of our (US) military/gov't comms, the most that Iran would have discovered is that the data trail led to a European or Arabian (Israel?) location where we have assets before the trail disappeared when it started bouncing off of secure (about three layers of cryptography) comm satellites. If they were able to trace the data trail through all the satellite jumps it would have led them to Virginia, SC, La or a number of other places other than... Texas. Granted, it's been over twelve years since I was involved in gov't comms, but I would think they would have made things easier since then.

Having said that, if there was a data trail to Texas, I wouldn't put it past some nutjobs in Texas trying something like this and thinking they were being patriotic. But the folks I have in mind wouldn't be working hand in hand with Israel either.

Re:Not buying it the propoganda...

[tehcyder]

If the US government and Isreal did callude with Seimens to make the stuxnet virus, taking great pains to hide its source, introduction, and its operation in the Iranian systems... Then why would they have it sending data directly back to a site in Texas? The would have also been careful enough to redirect the data through relays in other parts of the world to conceal their identity...

So your argument is that it can't be true because no Intelligence Service would ever make a stupid mistake like that?

You might want to consider the logic there.

Re:Not buying it the propoganda...

[tehcyder]

But I thought we were supposed to differentiate between peaceful nuclear power and the development of nuclear weapons? Oh no, that depends on whether it's our friends doing it or not.

Potential FUD

[ackthpt]

I view everything which comes through government channels from Iran as Potential FUD. The rigged election, suppression of protests, detentions, disapperances, etc. of political opponents smells worse than when the Shah was running the country. For all we can tell they didn't really have a worm at all, but failed to read the owners manual properly.

Re:Potential FUD

[Thing 1]

Is there some government channel you consider FUD free?

C-SPAN. Watching them make law is akin to watching a butcher make sausage. Once you've seen it, you don't want any more of it.

C-SPAN is still FUD: it doesn't show the back-room deals. (I guess that's where the butcher ... um, knows the sausage?)

Re:Potential FUD

[AmiMoJo]

The worm has been independently studied by computer security experts and shown to have probably originated from Israel and the US. There is no need to take Iran's word for it, there are plenty of other sources or you could just download it and have a look yourself.

I'm sure it's nothing...

[darien.train]

People send all sorts of crazy data to Texas all the time. I believe they publish it in their schoolbooks.

Nobody expects CSIS

[WillAffleckUW]

Another successful black flag operation by the dreaded CSIS - Canadian Security ftw!

Iran just got p0wnd!

Re:Nobody expects CSIS

[bp2179]

I thought it was NISA? http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=insecurity

Re:Nobody expects CSIS

[MonsterTrimble]

Nobody expects the Canadian Inquisition!

Nah, doesn't have the same ring.

They just found this out?

[hammarlund]

I heard that on the radio many months ago.

texas?

[demonbug]

He said information from infected systems was sent to computers in Texas.

Anyone else get an image of an SNL-esque GWB cackling in front of his computer as his screen lights up with ill-gotten Iranian data?

Wrong in so many ways.

Obviously propoganda

[Taelron]

So let me get this right, they spent all this time and money to design, develope, and deploy this software. To conceal it and hide its presence, but you now want us to believe that they simply configured it to send data to an IP in Texas? If the stuxnet really did phone home with information, the developers would have programmed it to send to relays in other parts of the world to further hide its origin. If it DID send data to a Texas IP, I'd think any logical thinking person would realize its someone else trying to cast blame on the US... More FUD from Iran...

Re:Obviously propoganda

[dreadlord76]

See, that's exactly what they want you to think. They know you will think that way, therefore, they did it so you wouldn't think that it's them. Of course, you know that they know what you will think that way, so you know not to believe it, and therefore, it is them. Then again......

Re:Obviously propoganda

[LWATCDR]

Yes it is the old they are so brilliant but made one stupid error trick that is so popular on TV shows and bad spy novels. In Texas it was sent to the one eye man stroking the his pet armadillo that has a laser mounted on his head.
And it was both the US and Israel at fault.
What they don't know is that it was Canada, Sweden, and Ireland that pulled this off.

Re:Obviously propoganda

[Thing 1]

Ah, but see, I've spent a lifetime developing an immunity to Iocane powder...

Re:Obviously propoganda

[TWX]

But more importantly, never get involved in a land war in Asia...

*thinks about it for a minute*

Aw crap...

Re:Obviously propoganda

[tehcyder]

In Texas it was sent to the one eye man stroking the his pet armadillo that has a laser mounted on his head

How the fuck do you know so much about Agent Obvious?

yours, the CIA.

Re:Obviously propoganda

[ae1294]

But more importantly, never get involved in a land war in Asia...

*thinks about it for a minute*

Aw crap...

Well never get involved in one land war in Asia, nothing wrong with getting involved in three at the same time!

Re:Obviously propoganda

[LWATCDR]

Because we in Swedish secret police make it our business to know everything.

Well good luck with that

[Sycraft-fu]

Something tells me if Iran wants to put on a show trial for Seimens in the IRanian courts, it'll just result in Seimens exiting from IRan and they will no longer be able to purchase any new or replacement hardware, should they need it.

Re:Well good luck with that

[TWX]

Russia has been having some crop problems again, especially since that series of large wildfires they had. If anything, a desire for cheap grain might well keep Russia from selling anything to anyone that the US doesn't want them selling to...

Iranian Idiot

[TheJodster]

What the hell does Siemens have to do with the code running in their SCADA systems? Siemens sells PLCs and SCADA software. YOU hire someone to program it for you. At no point in the transaction does Siemens have a copy of your code or architecture unless you GIVE it to them... dumbass.

Re:Iranian Idiot

[donotlizard]

I'm sure that Siemens, like Honeywell, Schneider Electric, Allen Bradley, etc., employ programmers, electricians and project managers who integrate control systems of varying scale.

Re:Iranian Idiot

[plover]

What the hell does Siemens have to do with the code running in their SCADA systems? Siemens sells PLCs and SCADA software. YOU hire someone to program it for you. At no point in the transaction does Siemens have a copy of your code or architecture unless you GIVE it to them... dumbass.

Because a significant part of the stuxnet hack was to modify their SCADA programming environment so that it would embed the malicious payload in the SCADA instructions without revealing its existence to the SCADA programmers. Coincidentally, the Department of Homeland Security had supposedly just finished "reviewing the Siemens source code for security flaws". Could there be collusion? Sure. The bigger question is if anyone will care if Iran tries to sue them? Doubt it. It's not like Siemens execs are going to fly to Tehran to stand trial in front of those useless crazies.

Re:Iranian Idiot

[V for Vendetta]

Form what I've read, Russian contractors implemented the Siemens machines in Iran.

Meta-Google Ad Commentary Alert!

[darien.train]

Not sure what google adverts the rest of you are seeing on this story but mine are hilarious. http://i.imgur.com/U6jCz.png This is why I don't turn it off (as well as supporting /. ad revenues).

Re:Meta-Google Ad Commentary Alert!

[game kid]

Yeah, I'd totally evaluate my dongle with that "Persian Princess".

Re:Meta-Google Ad Commentary Alert!

[mangu]

Yeah, I'd totally evaluate my dongle with that "Persian Princess".

Me too. I would take her to a weekend in the King Solomon Hotel in Israel.

Re:Meta-Google Ad Commentary Alert!

[darien.train]

Do your illegal malware-infected centrifuges got you down?

Meet a new sexy friend on IranianPersonals.com while you take a load off in one of your mortal enemy's best hotels! While you're there you can get a new and improved Siemens SmartSCADA system for next to nothing! You can even reinfect it again with all-new driverless USB thumb drives!

Re:Meta-Google Ad Commentary Alert!

[tehcyder]

"Meet Your Persian Princess" so she can get married to you for a Green Card and then rob your bank account to pay for her boyfriend back home to come to the United States. When he gets here he can recover his girlfriend and rob your house. Sounds like a match made in heaven.

Oh dear, bitter are we?

Probably true. *sigh*

[macraig]

I wish it weren't so believable. Unfortunately the United States government (at the least) has become more adept at spinning its bad behavior to sound good rather than becoming adept at actual good behavior. So much for principles....

Actual FUD

[jekewa]

Fear-mongering is a tried-and-true motivator. Worked for Hitler. Worked for Stalin. Worked for Bush.

Too many leaders, world and smaller-group, who can't motivate and bring their people up through their own efforts try to defer their failures by bringing the other guys down.

Sadly, millions of people listen to their rantings, buy into their fear, and support their mongering.

Re:Actual FUD

[Sooner Boomer]

Fear-mongering is a tried-and-true motivator. Worked for Hitler. Worked for Stalin. Worked for Bush

Looks like you're trying to make it work for you too.

Re:Actual FUD

[ackthpt]

Fear-mongering is a tried-and-true motivator. Worked for Hitler. Worked for Stalin. Worked for Bush

Looks like you're trying to make it work for you too.

Whenever you hear leaders speak you should consider everything they say to be potential garbage - they have their motivations - whether astro-turfing the massacre of innocents or to elevate their own stars. Sometimes they are upfront and honest, while others it pays to have a critical mind (unless you want to remain happy, because ignorance is bliss - until it's you being rounded up, that is.)

Re:Actual FUD

[jekewa]

Not at all. Each of those guys was an arguably fine leader, until they went off.

Hitler pulled the Germans out of the depression returning Germany to a prosperous state, even bringing the world the Volkswagen. Then he went nuts and invaded most of Europe, and slaughtered millions of people because he didn't feel they fit his weird mold of what a person should be. It was (in part) this fear-mongering that brought out a hatred of the gypsies, gays, Jews, and frankly any non-Arian that he used to really ramp up his world domination efforts.

Stalin likewise brought the Soviet Union back to prosperity after the depression, after a few failed attempts, and even eventually did a great job of fighting off the back-stabbing, Hitler-led Nazis. He then used the fear of a US-led world domination threat to become the counterpart super-power, including the introduction of the Iron Curtain. Fair enough, the US was no less fear-mongering at the time, with its own Cold War issues. While the US had McCarthism, Stalin had the KGB. At least the way it's been portrayed outside the Iron Curtain, it's a pretty powerful fear-based motivator.

Bush (the younger), whatever you think of his policies, used the attacks on the 11th of September (in part) to build a ferver that has led to full-scale military action against a few questionable countries, rivaling a cost and scale of World War II, and that doesn't seem to be slowing down. All manner of fear and mongering continues out of this one, the least of which is a fear and misunderstanding of most things Islam, Arab, or, well, really anything "over there."

I, on the other hand, am not trying to scare anyone, or blame anything on "the other guy." I'm just pointing out a few guys that have done that; by far, not a comprehensive list, either.

Re:Actual FUD

[drinkypoo]

Maybe like a dozen VWs rolled off the line before they were converted entirely to wartime production. Hitler did get his, though.

Re:Actual FUD

[Unequivocal]

Winner of Godwin's law prize!

Re:texas?

[MrEricSir]

Wrong in so many ways.

Especially the part where GWB knows how to operate a computer.

Re:Please...

[zill]

The public education system still hasn't improved, I see.

making crap up?

[raist21]

Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but I was under the impression that the controller's were part of a closed network, hence the reason for sneaking the stuxnet virus in via USB. Why on earth would it be trying to report back to anywhere?
Either, I have my facts wrong, or somebody is just making crap up to point a finger.

Re:making crap up?

[optymizer]

This is plausible, IMO, if their internal network is configured to disallow all incoming connections, but allows outgoing HTTP/HTTPS connections via a proxy (who can live without the Internets in this age?). You can't exploit services remotely, because the ports are being blocked, so the only strategies left is to either bring the virus into the network via USB (i.e. infect the entire country and hope that someone will bring it to the internal network), trick someone to download and install it (which is difficult when you don't know who has access to the network) or attack the actual firewall (fat chance, plus the IDS would raise red flags, assuming it could detect malicious packets). As soon as the virus gets in, it could easily make requests to a server in Texas via the proxy.

Re:making crap up?

[Swave An deBwoner]

"We don't have default passwords like you do in your country."

Re:making crap up?

[tehcyder]

if their internal network is configured to disallow all incoming connections, but allows outgoing HTTP/HTTPS connections via a proxy (who can live without the Internets in this age?).

Well, hopefully, people at work running fucking nuclear power stations.

Re:making crap up?

[TemporalBeing]

This is plausible, IMO, if their internal network is configured to disallow all incoming connections, but allows outgoing HTTP/HTTPS connections via a proxy (who can live without the Internets in this age?). You can't exploit services remotely, because the ports are being blocked, so the only strategies left is to either bring the virus into the network via USB (i.e. infect the entire country and hope that someone will bring it to the internal network), trick someone to download and install it (which is difficult when you don't know who has access to the network) or attack the actual firewall (fat chance, plus the IDS would raise red flags, assuming it could detect malicious packets). As soon as the virus gets in, it could easily make requests to a server in Texas via the proxy.

Secured networks do not allow Internet access period. It's called a one-way gateway. Data can go one direction, but it cannot return. Thus, data from a lower security network can get to a higher security network, but it cannot go vice versa. So again, it wouldn't be able to get to the Internet from where it was doing the damage even if the networks were connected.

German security consultant confirms Israel connect

[Anonymous Coward]

German control system security consultant confirms Israel connection

the guy who analyzed stuxnet:
http://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_21st_century_cyberweapon.html

Re:texas?

[donotlizard]

Or how to navigate the Internets.

Thank you

[ALeavitt]

While I can not speak on the behalf of anybody else, as a member of the civilized world allow me to just say thank you Siemens, Mossad, the Pentagon, and anybody else who may have been involved in keeping the world safe by keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of genocidal dictators and oppressive theocracies.

Re:Thank you

[keeboo]

(...)the Pentagon(...)
have been involved in keeping the world safe by keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of genocidal dictators and oppressive theocracies

You mean the military guys from the USA?
The same self-serving country which promoted oppressive right-wing dictatorships in Latin America because of US' fear of Communism?

Yeah, nice kind-hearted guys indeed, they really work hard to make the World a better place.

Re:Thank you

[MightyYar]

Yeah, nice kind-hearted guys indeed, they really work hard to make the World a better place.

Maybe, but they also don't use their own citizens as a goddamn shooting gallery.

Seriously, you can't even have a fucking discussion board like Slashdot in Iran. Who the hell do you think you are kidding comparing the US to Iran?

Re:Thank you

[seyyah]

While I can not speak on the behalf of anybody else, as a member of the civilized world allow me to just say thank you Siemens, Mossad, the Pentagon, and anybody else who may have been involved in keeping the world safe by keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of genocidal dictators and oppressive theocracies.

So Ahmedinejad is "genocidal"? Explain, please.

Re:Thank you

[cavreader]

The US has had nuclear weapons since 1945 and have never used them since WW2. Ditto for the Soviet Union,England,France, and China. There have been plenty of opportunities but MADD does work. Let any middle-east country get hold of nuclear weapons and then sit back and watch them supply non-state actors who think MADD really isn't that bad. There is no reason in the world that any of the middle eastern countries should be trusted with nukes. Their religious dogma, belligerent diplomacy, willingness to incite hatred of the west as a means to control their citizens and excuse their failures, and issuing proclamations that are totally unsupported by any facts such as blaming this attack on Israel and the US without a single shred of proof.

Re:Thank you

[AmiMoJo]

If anything I'd say this little cold war between Iran and Israel/the west is actually encouraging them to produce nuclear weapons. North Korea is in the same situation. When the US and its allies decide to invade there is little you can do to stop them, unless you have your own nuke to act as a deterrent.

The best thing would be to work with Iran to build reactors for power generation only and keep an eye on them, but for political reasons that is hard to do. Siemens involvement was a good way to do this but now Iran is unlikely to trust any western equipment which only makes their programme less open to scrutiny. People wet themselves when they see Iran put a satellite in orbit because ICBMs are basically the same as conventional rockets and experience with space hardened technology is essential to create them. You can't just say "sorry, you can't progress any further", at least not if your goal is to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Re:Thank you

[MightyYar]

I'm presuming you are a Waco wacko? Ruby Ridge maybe? While I think both situations could have been handled better, the people getting shot in Iran don't have any weapons - let alone a stockpile.

Re:Thank you

[MightyYar]

America is a far larger threat

To who? The peace-loving dictator of Iraq? The equal-opportunity Taliban? The great leader of Libya? The US has some fairly indefensible actions in the past, but I'm not sure who you are so concerned about in the present day.

Re:Thank you

[tehcyder]

What genocide in particular has Iran committed?

I don't think you can count the pointless slaughter of the Iran-Iraq war.

Re:Thank you

[tehcyder]

Still, maybe if Iraq had actually had nukes in 2003, the Pentagon wouldn't have decided to invade.

But...but...they were just about to produce all those WMDs and unleash hell on an unsuspecting world. We only got in their in the nick of time, they were literally minutes away from nuking London, Paris, Moscow, Beijing and Washington, if they'd, er, actually had any nukes.

Sometimes, in world policing, you can't make a shit-omelette without wiping a few chicken arses.

Re:Thank you

[tehcyder]

Iran has not attacked ANYONE and has a more democratic society than the UK - where the Head of State is still an undemocratic MONARCH.

Yes, I'm sure Iran is a lot more democratic than the UK, Sweden, Netherlands and other places with residual monarchies.

I've nothing against Iran, but that's a pretty feeble argument.

Re:Thank you

[cavreader]

No, Because their is no genocide going on. Population is growing and the economy is one of the better ones in the middle east. If you have a complaint at least make it an honest one without trying to invent your own version of the dictionary just because it sounds good.

Re:texas?

[Desler]

But he heard there were rumors on the Internets!!

Re:texas?

[game kid]

Ah, but that's what black sites are for. No need to navigate the internets when you can beat its rumors from people!

Re:Probably true. *sigh*

[Riceballsan]

How do you tell if a politician is lying, his lips are moving. It is impossible to know the answer on this one, because no matter what the truth is the result is the same, The US would deny it whether it is true or if it is a lie, and Iran would blame the US whether the evidence points to it or not, and if Iran found no evidence they would lie and said they did. There is no one that would have access to the evidence on either side that would be both trustworthy and able to admit who he is without his life being destroyed by his political party and then discredited anyway. While I agree it is absolutely in the nature of the US to do this, there are thousands of possible suspects.

The fact is, the US government is a corrupt organization that many many people hate, Iran is also a corrupt organization that many people hate. China, Al-Qaeda, there are dozens of governments and organizations that would want to see the US relations with other countries sink further then it already has. Could the US have done it, absolutely, could they have been framed, just as possible. Honestly as a terrorism attack on the US I think this would be brilliant, why actually waste manpower getting your side killed, when you can dupe 2 parties into fighting eachother.

That will teach them that...

[uira]

Nobody messes with Texas!

RA

[Is0m0rph]

Rockwell Automation's CEO just saw dollar signs flash before his eyes. Iran should have paid the extra money and went with RA PLCs not that Siemens crap.

Disarmament

[gd2shoe]

The only issue not stopping the US from dismantling all at once is the fact that other countries like Russia still has a shitton of nukes.

And non-treaty members, and noncompliant members, and Iran (soon)... Total nuclear disarmament is theoretically possible, but the world is far to broken for that to happen in the foreseeable future. As long as we have warmongering megalomaniacs in politics anywhere, nuclear war is never more than a few years away.

The other day...

[sdguero]

I went to the gun store and told them I wanted to buy some ammo so I could kill all their employees. They sold me blanks, I'm totally going to sue.

-Iran

Re:The other day...

[Swave An deBwoner]

That's really +1 funny (but I have no mod points).

However don't be fooled into thinking that blank cartridges are foolproof. See the "Safety" and "Fatal accidents" sections in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blank_(cartridge) for examples.

I fear the lawyers with beards.

[gavron]

While astonished that an Iranian spokesman used the word "Israel" instead of some clever euphemism, I'm even more astonished that they are going to court.
I'm sure Siemens and the United States and Israel will be devastated by this outcome and will rush to settle. Never fight an angry warthog in court.

Truly this is horrible. This will definitely sour the relations between the parties. What with the whole hostage thingie, the desire to wipe Israel off the face of the map, nuclear weaponry ambition. Lawyers everywhere, SUIT UP! Iran is going to court.

I hope this gets settled in record time just like SCO v IBM.

The only court I'm aware of where venue and jurisdiction for Iran to "air their innocent grievance" are just and proper is currently the one I'm sitting on.
Iran is welcome to kiss it.

E

Unblock Slashdot, Iran

[bill_mcgonigle]

You could have known about this three months ago.

Re:Probably true. *sigh*

[mlts]

Bingo. Yes, the knowledge to do Stuxnet isn't exactly stuff you find on the street, it wouldn't be hard for a blackhat organization to obtain this information. This could be a group of people who didn't like Iran, the US, or Israel to do something like this, just for kicks, or like the Joker, "to watch the world burn."

What one has to do is figure out likelihoods. Unlike most things, it is possible to fake an attack and have it look like it came from a completely different source.

Re:Stuxnet

[gd2shoe]

Stuxnet doesn't attack windows systems. It propagates using Windows systems, but tries to get its payload installed on very specific NON-WINDOWS systems. Jump to conclusions much?

Muslims bomb their holy sites

[mangu]

Meanwhile, you seriously think that devout fundamentalist Muslims would really drop a nuclear weapon on their own holy land?

Yes, I do, I'm sure they would!

Re:Muslims bomb their holy sites

[DeadCatX2]

What a stark demonstration of ignorance.

Look deeper. Most of those query results are not Muslims bombing mosques.

Of the ones that are, by and large they are committed by fringe lunatics blowing up other people's holy lands. For instance, a Shi'a blowing up a Sunni mosque probably doesn't view the Sunni mosque as holy land.

None of them are religious leaders like Khomeini, who is ultimately the man who calls the shots in Iran.

Re:Muslims bomb their holy sites

[DigiShaman]

Last I checked, Christians and Jews weren't the ones sending their children off with BOMBS strapped to their chest. Only when the mission has been successful, the mothers weep with pride and joy among their community as to what a great little martyr he became. Fucking savages!!!

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Re:Muslims bomb their holy sites

[V for Vendetta]

Last I checked, Christians and Jews weren't the ones sending their children off with BOMBS strapped to their chest.

That might only be because at that time bombs weren't available.

Get a Grip

[Nom du Keyboard]

Hey, Iran, get a grip! You're throwing accusations all over the place without anything to back them up. Yeah you lied totally about your nuclear intentions and yeah someone pretty darn good gave you a good screwing over these last couple of years for it. Consider that this alternative was probably why bombs haven't been falling out of the skies on you yet. But your habit of blaming everything on The Great Satan and The Little Satan was old decades ago. Everything bad that happens to you is never your fault. Now you think you've found someone new to blame simply because the truth is: You really don't know how it happened, or who really did it, so you bluster about throwing mud and hoping that something will stick. As the saying goes, when you speak a thousand words then maybe one of them is true. Consider that you earned this insult and, like I said, be glad that it was a computer worm rather than cruise missiles and JDAMs.

yes, they would bomb their holy land

[circletimessquare]

it would hasten the return of the the mahdi, the hidden imam. if you are promised salvation at armageddeon, and you are a true believer, maybe you can hasten salvation by hastening armageddeon. you have to kill some people to save them right?

if that sounds like religious fundamentalist self-fulfilling prophecy kookery, well yes, yes it is

you do realize that iran is a theocracy, right? power is invested in a bunch of grumpy old men who somehow have a monopoly on interpreting the willpower of god. that's their government. that bothers me. not because its muslim, but because its FUNDAMENTALIST. a fundamentalist christian theocracy with nukes would bother me too (and this is where some of you call the usa that, and reveal yourselves to be complete morons unworthy of commenting on world affairs)

Article 1

The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur'anic justice, in the referendum of Farwardin 9 and 10 in the year 1358 of the solar Islamic calendar, corresponding to Jamadi al-'Awwal 1 and 2 in the year 1399 of the lunar Islamic calendar (March 29 and 30, 1979], through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of eligible voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by the eminent marji' al-taqlid, Ayatullah al-Uzma Imam Khumayni.

Article 2

The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.the return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man's ascent towards God;
4.the justice of God in creation and legislation;
5.continuous leadership (imamah) and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam; ...

http://www.iranonline.com/iran/iran-info/government/constitution-1.html

you can say all you want about the usa and israel. they both do plenty wrong in the world and the middle east. but regardless about how you feel about the usa and israel, do you really want a THEOCRACY armed with nuclear weapons in this world?! does that somehow neutralize or make up for the sins of israel and the usa? how's that work?

there's a lot of strange people out there, who, in their hatred of the usa and israel, will embrace and excuse the behavior of far worse entities. i don't understand that thinking. and when i say "far worse entities," don't take my word for it: a few years ago some people in iran voted, and their votes were ignored, and they protested, and they were brutally crushed. ask an IRANIAN what they think of their government, that freely ignores them, they whom the government is supposed to represent

so in your hatred of the usa and israel, don't move to embrace entities far worse

do you know its actually possible to dislike the usa, israel AND iran at the same time? try it. then you will find yourself adhering to actual principles, rather than moronic chest thumping tribalism. its not a football game. you don't have to pick sides. you can actually reject all sides. just don't be a complete moron and embrace and defend the murderer because you dislike the rapist

What the Duck?

[kelemvor4]

Don't the trade embargoes prevent Iran from legitimately obtaining Siemens SCADA systems in the first place? How are they going to sue Siemens for this even if Siemens was involved?

Re:I see

[cavreader]

The hostage crisis was a CIA plot? What alternative universe are you living in? The 1953 event happened over 57 years ago. Should we still be protesting Germany for their actions is WW2? That's only a few years earlier after all.

Oblig. Nelson tag?

[siglercm]

Why has no one tagged this story "haha"???

HA-ha!

Re:Probably true. *sigh*

[Thing 1]

What one has to do is figure out likelihoods. Unlike most things, it is possible to fake an attack and have it look like it came from a completely different source.

Exactly. Just like 9/11.

Thank you for the nifty two-edged sword

[DrVomact]

While I can not speak on the behalf of anybody else, as a member of the civilized world allow me to just say thank you Siemens, Mossad, the Pentagon, and anybody else who may have been involved in keeping the world safe by keeping nuclear arms out of the hands of genocidal dictators and oppressive theocracies.

While I'm reassured that Stuxnet only works on those evil Iranian centrifuges, aren't you at least a little apprehensive about what modified versions of this virus might do? Like maybe withdraw the control rods from nuclear reactors in your country, and making them spew radioactives all over the neighborhood. Being able to control industrial machinery with malware is a pretty scary concept, at least to me. While I'm sure that governments have known about this possibility for some time, letting an example of this loose where script kiddies can analyze it strikes me as more than a bit unwise.

Re:Thank you for the nifty two-edged sword

[tehcyder]

Has anyone come up with a good conspiracy theory about the timing of this and Fukushima?

Why does Iran even bother?

[swb]

What use will they get out of a nuclear weapon?

They won't use it; any actual hostile detonation, either public or via subterfuge is almost guaranteed to result in a potentially culture-ending retaliatory nuclear strike.

Any strategic use as a threat or bluff or other lever to achieve a military or diplomatic goal is likely to result in pre-emptive conventional strikes with the point above communicated in no uncertain terms.

Iran will never develop enough strategic delivery systems to participate in a MAD style long term confrontation, either.

It strikes me that Iran would have been much better off investing those resources in conventional weapons systems and military forces. Homegrown, cheap and plentiful cruise missiles and man-portable missle systems would have been far more effective.

Re:Why does Iran even bother?

[Doc Ruby]

Libya today demonstrates the value of nukes that you really can't use. Because Kadaffy gave up his nuks programme, and now can't use it to defend from NATO airstrikes giving rebels the chance to overthrow him.

I'm glad Kadaffy doesn't have those nukes. But Iran must be absolutely certain now of the value of having them.

Re:Why does Iran even bother?

[tehcyder]

Whilst Iran might not be able to produce enough nukes to obliterate its enemies, all it really has to do is have enough to make it fairly certain that a couple will get through. If there was much of a chance of Tel Aviv or New York being nuked, I think that would give pause to those intending to attack Iran.

More of This, Please

[Doc Ruby]

I hope it's true that the US and Israel got Siemens to attack Iran's nukes programme. I certainly prefer that to either Iran having nukes, or any shooting war to interfere with that. I'd love to finally hear for once that the US spook programme is actually doing something smart to disarm an actual threat to us, especially coming out of Iran - instead of collaborating with Iran on arms deals, drug deals and any other deal the Iranians benefit from. I'd be really happy to hear that Israel was finally earning some of the many $billions the US has shoved at Israel for decades, despite Israel's using that money to go far beyond self defense into serious abuse that costs even more $billions from the US to cope with. And I'd be please that a giant German corp was using its ongoing business with Iran to help disarm the threats that the embargoes don't keep from growing.

If I were an Iranian I might feel differently. If I were a powerful Iranian, benefiting from that tyranny and desperate for nukes to protect me from foreign enemies and even my own people, I sure would feel differently. But I'm not. I'm an American, and I hope that my country, Israel and a German corporation have done serious damage to Iran's nukes programme without firing a shot.

The Saudi Arabian Govt Was Involved

[Required Snark]

I don't know if Siemens was involved, but I doubt it. I believe that the US and Israel were involved. I also think that Saudi Arabia was involved.

Specifically, I think the Saudis found out much of the specific information about how the Siemens devices were used and how the system was configured. This was key information that an Arab government would be more likely to get then the US or even Israel. The worm was exclusively targeted at a very specific configuration, which is why it has not caused a lot of trouble in other organizations.

The Saudi monarchy is scared spitless of Iranian expansion in the region. They don't want an Iranian nuclear weapon because it will give the current Iranian regime more political credibility in the Islamic world. If they can help derail Iran's weapons program without any political cost to themselves they would jump at the chance. I think they oppose Iran right now as much as Israel does and for similar reasons.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

I highly doubt it

[Opportunist]

I worked for Siemens for a while. I know the quality of their code. If Siemens made the worm, it would not have worked until at the very least the 5th generation.

Who'd have thought that a record of shabby bananaware quality would be an excuse?

Would Siemens even know they were "helping"?

[gatkinso]

Easy enough for NSA or Mossad to get a couple of bright developers hired at Siemens. Or simply take their training courses.

Why would they go through Siemens management for this? That would be silly.

Re:Probably true. *sigh*

[Thing 1]

I said nothing of the sort, o wise AC. I agreed that figuring out likelihoods will put you much closer to the heart of the matter than solely relying on images and sounds.

Re:Who cares?

[ae1294]

Who cares what about Iran's rights? This is geopolitics and thermonuclear war we are talking about, not kindergarten share time. The current nuclear weapons situation is stable. A constellation of countries possess them and their interests and ideologies mean that they will, for the foreseeable future, keep each other from ever using them.

Iran getting the bomb would make this situation less stable, and therefore we should prevent it from happening. Period.

Yes... the do as we say, not as we do approach. The U.S. is the daddy and mammy nation for the whole planet. ...

The U.S. excels at making every situation less stable. Look at any of its foreign policy moves over the last 100 years, above or below board.... Maybe we can figure out how to install a puppet government in Iran that relies on us to survive... wait we did that and it totally fucked up the whole area. Turn on your TV or read the newspaper, every nation in the Middle East and North Africa is rebelling against those the U.S. supported or put into power directly. Look at Iraq a war, where we basically fought against ourselves, Hussein was our man. How about the Afghan war where we supported and armed the brutal and murderous Taliban just because we didn't like the commies. Look at Latin America where we pulled the exact same shit. Installing non-democratic brutal dictators. Yes the U.S. is wonderful and always in right. How could anyone hate us? We bring freedom and justice wherever we go. HONEST.

The U.S. is not some kind of HERO nation. It's just a nation like any other and has no right to invade or bully anyone. It's alright though because China is the next superpower and America is about to get ass raped. Just like they have been doing to others for years... What goes around comes around.

The sad thing with America is that all the hate they have created in the world isn't going to go away after they fall from power. But hay as soon as the Chinese take over all of you true believer patriots can eat a bullet and not worry about starving people willing to strap a bomb to themselves...