Slashdot Mirror


Was Russia Behind Stuxnet?

An anonymous reader writes "Despite the U.S. and Israel being widely assumed to be responsible for Stuxnet, Russia is the more likely culprit, says U.S. Air Force cyber analyst. The nuclear gangsterism of the past 20 years gives it plenty of motive. Quoting: 'So what better way to maintain Russian interests, and innocence, than to plant a worm with digital U.S.-Israeli fingerprints? After all, Russian scientists and engineers are familiar with the cascading centrifuges whose numbers and configuration – and Siemen’s SCADA PLC controller schematics – they have full access to by virtue of designing the plants. ... the observers of the virus could alert the Iranians before full nuclear catastrophe struck. The Belarusian computer security experts who 'discovered' the code seemingly played that role well. They didn't seem too preoccupied with reverse engineering the malicious code to see what it was designed to do.'"

191 of 281 comments (clear)

  1. Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let's all trust the U.S. propaganda machine. It was the Russians.

    1. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Maxhrk · · Score: 1

      According To battlefield 3, Russia is the bad guys. Right?

    2. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But they took out the TSA in Modern Warfare, so that makes them the good guys in my book.

    3. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 5, Funny

      Let's all trust the U.S. propaganda machine. It was the Russians.

      Damn straight it was the Russians! It's all part of the Russian infiltration, Russian indoctrination, Russian subversion and the international Russian conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. Stuxnet is without a doubt the most monstrously conceived and dangerous Russian plot we have ever had to face.

    4. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Besides didn't some Israeli general upon retirement say something to the effect of "LOL I helped kick some ass with Stux didn't I?". The whole thing smelt like Mossad to me. Frankly I honestly don't blame the Iranians for wanting the bomb as pretty much everyone in that region that hasn't kissed US bankster ass or have a bomb has been stomped on, they have the US Navy practically sitting off their coast and US drones buzzing overhead.

      As has been said many times its not paranoia if they really are out to get you and the Neocons made it clear years ago that Iran was on their hit lists. If Iran says something like "We won't accept dollars for oil, only gold" like old MoMo did they'd probably be invaded before the year was out. pretty much the only way to not get stomped on by the US military anymore is to have the bomb. Kinda sad, but that's reality, the MSM is happy to dance to any tune their masters tell them to and its too easy to get the average citizen to believe anything the TV tells them to, just look at that poll where 40%+ thought we went into Iraq over 9/11.

      Iran knows the clock is ticking and if they don't have the bomb some neocon is gonna come into power and squash them like a bug, if for no other reason than they don't get along with Israel and too many neocons are of the "Jesus won't come back if there aren't Jews in Zion! Come back Jesus come back!" variety. i don't know what is scarier, the Mullahs wanting a bomb or the fact that one of the most highly weaponized countries in the west have a large power base that believes the ME policy should be based on 1800 year old words written on a sheep's ass by goat herders about some 2000+ year old dead guy and how he needs a certain race in a certain place so he has a spot to park his fluffy white cloud.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    5. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd almost trust Iran with the bomb right now - the current regime seems to know well enough that you don't initiate MAD, or else they'd have done so with conventional military already. But governments change, espicially in dictatorships like Iran - it only takes one fanatic who believes Allah will grant victory and that bomb is in the next shipping container addressed to New York. Don't even need an ICBM.

    6. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by evanism · · Score: 1

      That was an awesome rant!

      --
      Just bought a new quantum computer, but I'm uncertain how it works.
    7. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Lord+Duran · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your rant is pure demagoguery.

      What you seem to disregard is that Iran is now ruled exclusively by a religious leader, and that his dog Ahmadinejad doesn't just not get along with Israel, but calls out for the destruction of Israel pretty much any time there's an open microphone nearby. He does so even though Israel has never done anything bad to Iran and the two countries even had strong military relations prior to 1979.

      You also forget that Iran spends millions of oil dollars every year funding terrorist organizations whose sole purpose is to harm and kill American and Israeli civilians.

      What your last paragraph is basically saying is that it's OK for Iran to destroy Israel (even if we assume that they could), because Christianity is false. Even if Christianity is false, nobody has the right to destroy another country the way Iran wants to destroy Israel.

    8. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Any conspiracy theory about stuxxnet has to explain this fact : http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=10596

      An Israelian general claims to have worked on Stuxxnet.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    9. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      We can indeed look at whom stuxnet benefited and bet on a country. Unless it's a deception to hurt that same country, all right.

      What the US Government CAN'T do is saying it was LIKELY the russians.
      Either you know name and surname of the hackers, or you don't know anything because russia is a few network hops from anywhere in the world. And even if you had every single packet traced, you dunno if the guy posting from a hacked wifi spot is a russian a chinese, the chief of the secret service of your own country.

      Flags are sacred for us little people. And it's Right they are, people died for them.
      But above a certain threshold flags are things to use to own advantage.
      Above that threshold, people decide to make wars and point you to Russian, Chinese, Israeli, Arab little people so we can kill each other. Let no one profit from wars, those who do are the enemy.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    10. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Lord+Duran · · Score: 2

      I didn't say they can't, I said they don't have the right. I presuppose a subjective moral system that has been the foundation of the free world, which says that you don't harm a country that means you no harm and does you no wrong.

    11. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Lord+Duran · · Score: 1

      Well, since Iran formally denies wanting the bomb, it's hard to say why they want it, but given that the rulership there consists of a religious leader who sanctifies "occupied" Jerusalem and a wacko president who cries out for the destruction of Israel, I'm not entirely convinced what you said is true. And Israel sure as hell won't bet its existence on it.

    12. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Old+Sparky · · Score: 1

      Yes, of course, always trust the Russians more. Just ask the Poles, or the Czechs. Or the Germans.

    13. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      No, that's actually me.

      Or at least claiming that it's me would be less stupid than accusing Russia in sabotaging Iran, its relatively benign (as far as they are concerned) neighbor just to worsen its relationship with US and Israel, countries whose relationships with Iran is already worst possible that could happen without being at war.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    14. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Pax681 · · Score: 2

      Your rant is pure demagoguery.

      What you seem to disregard is that Iran is now ruled exclusively by a religious leader, and that his dog Ahmadinejad doesn't just not get along with Israel, but calls out for the destruction of Israel pretty much any time there's an open microphone nearby. He does so even though Israel has never done anything bad to Iran and the two countries even had strong military relations prior to 1979.

      maybe because pre 1979 Iran had the Shah who was put in business by the CIA and MI6 and thus Israel would be happier with what was perceived "western puppet govt"

      In 1941, Reza Shah was deposed and his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, was installed by an invasion of allied British and Soviet troops. In 1953, foreign powers (American and British) again came to the Shah's aid—after the Shah fled the country, the British MI6 aided an American CIA operative in organizing a military coup d'état to oust the nationalist and democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh.

    15. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A controlling minority in Iran is doing really stupid things. That justifies bombing them back into the Stone Age? I think the Stux virus is a stroke of genius. Whether Conficker was the delivery vehicle, or a USB drive, I don't care. It did the job peacefully of screwing up Iran's fueling program. What's to say it can't be done again? Why spend all of the weaponry when it can be done inside, without the loss of life, without a huge cost?

      The Persian people still have a chance of overthrowing their repression.

      If you use nukes, you open up a Pandora's Box that you probably won't be able to close. You'll give every terrorist idiot a reason to become martyrs using equal or uglier tactics.

      The regime in Iran, if they were to use nuclear weapons, would probably point them towards Israel. It would be the last thing they ever did. Instead, they want to play politics, and taste the power that comes by being India, Pakistan, etc. It's all about their sense of power, and respect, and ego.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    16. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by andydread · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Your rant is pure demagoguery.

      What you seem to disregard is that Iran is now ruled exclusively by a religious leader, and that his dog Ahmadinejad doesn't just not get along with Israel, but calls out for the destruction of Israel pretty much any time there's an open microphone nearby. He does so even though Israel has never done anything bad to Iran and the two countries even had strong military relations prior to 1979.

      You also forget that Iran spends millions of oil dollars every year funding terrorist organizations whose sole purpose is to harm and kill American and Israeli civilians.

      What your last paragraph is basically saying is that it's OK for Iran to destroy Israel (even if we assume that they could), because Christianity is false. Even if Christianity is false, nobody has the right to destroy another country the way Iran wants to destroy Israel.

      First of all there is a BIG difference between stating that "Israel should not exist" and "We are going to destroy Israel." You swallowing the Israeli propaganda talking points hook line as sinker and regurgitating them is not going to convince any reason minded individual here. And how many times has the US and Israel threatned to attack them? Double standards much? Secondly. What's the difference between terrorizing other countries with stuxnet, infiltration and bombing or killing scientists, by a country or supporting a third party (insert terrorist org here) to do you bidding. If I send a CIA agent to infiltrate and blow up an arms depot or if I pay someone else to do it for me? What's the difference? What about the iran contra? Wasn't that a terrorist organization? Did we not support that organization? Why such hypocrisy? Its OK for us to support terrorist organization but no one else should right? And then there is this

    17. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      Plausable deniability, here's an example for the ages.

    18. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      First of all there is a BIG difference between stating that "Israel should not exist" and "We are going to destroy Israel."

      Do you have any idea how idiotic that sounds? Not commenting on the argument as a whole, but obviously "We are going to destroy Israel" means "Israel should not exist" in this context. What else could it mean?

      "We want to kill every Jew in Israel and hand over the land to the Palestinians, but we are not saying Israel should not exist"?

      Grow up. No matter what side of the argument you are on, the intentions of Iran are plenty clear, and trying to argue semantics here just makes your argument as weak as Iran's.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    19. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You don't know shit about Iran and you just open your mouth and spit.

      If you were not such an idiot you would not base your opinions on propaganda. 90% of the Iranian government ministers have a PhD (they "might" be evil but not stupid, even though US is in the hand of blood thirsty warmongers which are 100 times more evil) and the country has at least 10 million university graduates and your picture from the country is possibly a desert with camels etc.!! (which is typical US citizen picture of all middle eastern countries).

    20. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by darkmeridian · · Score: 2

      To be fair, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not call for the destruction of Israel, or for it to be wiped off the map. Rather, he stated that it was time for the Zionist government of Israel to be wiped off the mapâ"in short, he called for regime change in Israel. I'm no fan of this guy, but everyone claiming that he wants another Holocaust is just stoking the propaganda fires against Iran. That's worse than the demagoguery that so offends you.

      The grandparent post did not suggest that Iran can wipe Israel off the map because Christianity is false. Rather, he (correctly) points out that a lot of the neo-con Zionists in America are hardcore Christians who support Israel so all the Jews can go back there and bring forth the Rapture, whereupon they will all die along with the rest of the non-believers in a battle with Satan. I find that disconcerting. And you also falsely assert again that Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map, which it has never said.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    21. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Lennie · · Score: 1

      "even though Israel has never done anything bad to Iran"

      Euh, you don't think that the locations that Israel occupies are of no importants to the people in Iran ? Because of their religion I mean.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    22. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      It really doesn't match our MO. Why be all sneaky like that when you can just blow shit up. Israel seems to be even more in the "blow shit up" mindset than we are. Hell, they've actually blown shit up in Iran. We have too, for that matter, we just didn't talk about it that much. Most people think the last time we tried to blow shit up in there, we crashed a bunch of helicopters. Most embarrassing.

      You create more jobs when you blow shit up, too. Keeps our guys who make the bombs in business. Sure people get all mad when you blow shit up, but when has that ever stopped us before? I was stunned when I heard it was probably us. It really is far too subtle for the previous administration. I could see this one maybe doing something like that, but it happened far too quickly for the current administration to be responsible.

      Now I could see it being someone over here who wasn't affiliated with our Government. That would be a bit less surprising.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    23. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by mikael · · Score: 1

      From expatriate workers who have worked in Libya, Saudia Arabia and Dubai, these countries are mostly desert, but the majority of all the populations live in high-density air-conditioned apartment/office block cities, even if they are rather dusty from the desert storms. Like any cities, there is a middle class of doctors, dentists and university staff which is usually Western educated.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    24. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by pangu · · Score: 1

      He was part of the conspiracy, or wishes he was, q.e.d. When 'it's a conspiracy", everything gets folded in to support the conspiracy.

    25. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      What you seem to disregard is that Iran is now ruled exclusively by a religious leader, and that his dog Ahmadinejad doesn't just not get along with Israel, but calls out for the destruction of Israel pretty much any time there's an open microphone nearby.

      Of course, that is exactly what both sides in the US/USSR cold war did. The US even added "one nation under God" to its pledge that is recited in classrooms up and down the country, so clearly there was a religious aspect to it. Iran and Israel/US are having just such a war at the moment, with the US openly discussing military attacks against Iran and Israel assassinating Iranian scientists.

      He does so even though Israel has never done anything bad to Iran and the two countries even had strong military relations prior to 1979.

      Apart from murdering Majid Shahriar and Darioush Rezaie. In 1981 they bombed an Iraqi nuclear power station that was a join effort by Iraq and France, and have pretty much said they will attack Iran's reactors too.

      What your last paragraph is basically saying is that it's OK for Iran to destroy Israel

      Well Israel seems to think it is okay to destroy Palestine. Anyway, I think you need to learn the difference between propaganda and actual covert warfare.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    26. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      Sure, he only wants to replace Israel with an Islamic state. Deporting or liquidating all infidels to do that wouldn't be another Holocaust because the first one never happened either. It may be "propaganda" to take anything he says literally or in isolation since it seems like Middle Eastern leaders like to talk a lot of shit, but the guy is not saying anything even remotely sensible.

    27. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hah. As a veteran, yeah, the Russians WERE the "bad guys". I guess a lot of adults today are to young to remember the Cold War.

      But, today, no. The Russians are no longer the "bad guys". But, neither are we the "good guys". Today, we're just assholes, and the Chinese stand at a crossroads, where they could be the new "bad guys" or the new "good guys". Russia? Let's wait for their next revolution before we decide what the hell they are.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    28. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Uhhhh - you put Pakistan on the same list as India? Odd. India has it's share of inbred tribals, they have their share of corruption, and they have their share of idiots in office. But, Pakistan? They are nothing BUT a bunch of inbred tribals! Power? They know nothing of power, outside of sword rattling.

      And, I strongly suspect that the US military knows exactly how to take out each and every one of Pakistan's weapons, in the event that Pakistan finally rolls over, and allows the Taliban to take control. Pakistan simply doesn't have any real power.

      Today's Iranian government might stand shoulder to shoulder with Pakistan, but they don't have a prayer of joining ranks with India.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    29. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by chrb · · Score: 2

      there is a BIG difference between stating that "Israel should not exist" and "We are going to destroy Israel."

      Do you have any idea how idiotic that sounds?

      No, he is right - there is a big difference between "the European Union should not exist" and "We are going to destroy the European Union". The former merely states an opinion, the latter declares intent of action.

    30. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by chrb · · Score: 2

      The hypothesis that it is more economical for Iran to produce electricity by burning oil has been refuted by the U.S. government's own studies. For an oil producer, it is more profitable to sell oil on the international markets, and use that money to buy or generate electricity through other means. This is even more true as the price of oil continues to rise.

    31. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by nbauman · · Score: 1

      As opposed to a wacko president who cries out for the destruction of Iraq.

      (Is destruction OK if you call it "liberating"?)

    32. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by chrb · · Score: 1
      Could you provide a link to some official statement or documentation from Hamas and Hezbollah which says "the sole purpose of our group is to kill American civilians"? One would imagine that, with such a blatant and explicit sole purpose, they must have talked about it and documented it quite thoroughly, so it should be easy for you to find huge numbers of citations to support this claim.

      nobody has the right to destroy another country the way Iran wants to destroy Israel.

      If no country has the right to seek regime change in another country, what exactly have we been doing in the Middle East?

    33. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by nbauman · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to Juan Cole, whom I trust on Middle eastern affairs, there is no phrase in Farsi that translates to "wipe off the map."

      What else could it mean?

      Democratic elections.

    34. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by nbauman · · Score: 1

      Actually Iran still has a significant Jewish community, of people who have refused offers to leave to Israel. One of the most popular TV series in Iran was a story set in WWII Europe in which an Iranian saves a Jewish woman.

      The Moslem countries were actually a relatively tolerant and accepting home for Jews over 500 years.

      Unlike some religions I could mention.

    35. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by andydread · · Score: 1

      The side of the argument that I am on is common sense and no double standards. Saying something should not exist is not tantamount to "I am going destroy it" No matter how you try to spin it. Claiming that you know the intentions of the Iranian Government without providing solid proof does not make it so. I remember the often repeated mantra that "Iraq has stockpiles of WMD and we KNOW where they are." And "Iraq is a imminent threat" I am sure those intentions were very clear to you also. Even though it was clear to everyone who was engaged at the time that that was a load of crap.

    36. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by ravenshrike · · Score: 2

      I was unaware that the Ebil Dubya was calling for the genocide of all Muslims in Iraq. Thank you for the enlightenment

    37. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by nbauman · · Score: 1

      That's the point. He didn't *call* it genocide, he called it "liberating."

      He only killed 600,000 Iraqis, according to The Lancet.

    38. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by flyingsquid · · Score: 1

      What propaganda machine? The author of the article happens to be employed as an analyst by the Air Force, but he does not speak for the U.S. government in an official capacity. In fact, the official response to Stuxnet has been pretty telling. According to Wikipedia, the White House Coordinator for Arms Control and Weapons of Mass Destruction has said, "we're glad they [the Iranians] are having trouble with their centrifuge machine and that we – the US and its allies – are doing everything we can to make sure that we complicate matters for them." That's not a denial; that's about as far from a denial as you can get without coming out and taking credit. So what's the problem here? The U.S. has publicly stated that they are against nuclear proliferation, and they have covertly taken action that is entirely consistent with their stated position. Or would the world be better off if the U.S. stood by and let Iran, a country currently run by a radical theocracy, develop nuclear bombs and ICBMs?

    39. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by irockash · · Score: 1

      You're right. m.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/12/the-ally-from-hell/8730/4/

    40. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Like it or not, Pakistan is a "nuclear power". I believe it's dangerous for them (and for India, for that matter). But it's a big ego and power cusp in a world where respect often came at the tip of a sword, etc.

      I don't think that Iran and Pakistan share ideologies. Iran's volatility is vastly higher than Pakistan's, and given Pakistan's fragmented loyalties, I express this with great trepidation and fear. Yet Pakistan is a given, Iran, not yet. Whoever pulls the trigger first, will be the first one to evaporate into a post-holocaust crater. This is another price paid. Suggestions that the US should do this are of the most paramount folly, and are lip flatulences of the smelliest sort.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    41. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by cavreader · · Score: 1

      A Russian company was providing on-site consultation at the time and had the access to deploy the USB containing the hack. They also share the US and Israeli objections to Iran developing nuclear weapons. Even the Wiki dumped documents revealed that there are quite a few other countries in the region who are against an Iranian nuclear weapons.The US or Isreal might have undercover assests in the Iranian program but accomplishing that would have been a major undertaking. The Iranians are not dumb and I imagine their background checks are quite thorough when it comes to staffing their high security installations.

    42. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      You mess with the bull, you get the horns.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    43. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      They were never the bad guys. But the veterans would all think they were because demonization of enemies is an ancient practice still done today. If they were just scared teens drafted against their wills to hold a gun in the wrong place at the wrong time, then it's harder to kill them. But that's all the Russian military was. Same as China's military (with some enlistment by farmer's children who could get in to get away from the farm). Russians had a general dislike of Americans no greater than Americans against the French (most didn't really care that the white revolution against the red revolution was backed by the US, because those who knew all the facts know that the US botched it hard enough to actually help the red revolution by backing, exposing, then abandoning the white revolution).

    44. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      That article says:

      "There is always the possibility that this was just a way of magnifying the General's achievements, but it is also possible it is true."

      Which is a pretty good statement. While it does seem likely that Israel is behind Stuxnet, that statement alone is not hard evidence.

    45. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Clsid · · Score: 2

      And what power are you talking about that India possesses? All I see is two countries full of poor people with people at the top having dreams of being a super power. And to make it better, they spend all their time pointing at each other how one is supposed to be a savage while the other civilized. By the way you wrote I suspect you must be from India. In either case, wake up because destroying the thousands of slums and giving people real quality of life should be India and Pakistan first priorities.

    46. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      That's correct, Dubya has never advocated the genocide of Muslims, and ImaDinnerJacket has never advocated the genocide of Jews. Both have (in)famously asserted that certain nation states are evil and as such should not be allowed to exist. The Bush doctrine goes so far as to formally sanctions the use of preemptive nuclear strikes. Genocide may one day be the result of the Bush doctrine or Iran's nuke program, but it is definitely not the intention of either.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    47. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

      No, I am not Indian. I am an American, descended from Native American, Western European, and Eastern European ancestors.

      India does indeed wield some real power, in terms that Americans can understand, apart from their military power. I DO NOT mean to suggest that India is as powerful as some other nations, such as the US, Japan, Russia, or China. I do, however, recognize that India possesses real power.

      Try looking up the Bombay Stock Exchange and/or National Stock Exchange of India. There, you see raw power, as understood and respected by our Wall Street people. NOTICE that I've not attempted to quantify that power, only to qualify it as "power".

      Next, take a look at Bollywood. Again, you see raw power - the power to shape popular culture, just as Hollywood has done in the US, and around the world. Also, again, NOTICE that I've not quantified that power. You may or may not wish to do the research to quantify either the financial or the cultural power that India possesses.

      Further, I point to India's manufacturing power. Chemicals, to home furnishings, foods to textiles, leather to plastics. India has an economy that is somewhat less healthy than the US, but India's economy is growing. Whereas, the US economy has been (at best) stagnant for the last decade.

      To summarize - India is not the backwater nowhere that so many other African and Asian nations are. Or, even some Eastern European nations.

      You must understand what power is, to recognize it when you see it.

      Pakistan or Afghanistan, compared to India, are indeed backwater nowhere countries, populated by inbred tribals with no future.

      Since Iran was the center of discussion - I'd say that Iran stands somewhere above both Afghanistan and Pakistan, but they run a far distant second place to India. That would remain true if Iran actually possessed India's military power.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    48. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Double posting here - sorry 'bout that. But, you might look in the news for flooding in Pakistan and India, in recent years.

      Pakistan gets hammered by floods, because they have no flood control at all. They lack the education, the will, and the finances to build flood control dams. India, on the other hand, suffers some localized damage during the monsoon seasons - but they don't suffer vast areas and huge populations being destroyed.

      I recall on news article, in which Pakistani people accused India of causing the floods. That accusation alone should give you an idea of the relative power of these two nations. Uneducated Pakis confer upon the superior foreigners the power to cause floods, and to withhold the rains.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    49. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by zazzel · · Score: 1

      A controlling minority in Iran is doing really stupid things. That justifies bombing them back into the Stone Age?

      Yep. Let them kill their religious minorities, their dissenting students & citizens, let 'em hang 13-year-olds (Iran has the highest ratio of death sentences per capita anyways!), let 'em export terror & kill dissenters abroad (like, in Germany). Nothing to see there. Independent country, you know. What does the world care?

      All of the Iranians I met so far are really good people, so I definitely have no hatred against the Iranian people. But they were all refugees, you know? I met them in here in Germany. They had some really not-so-nice stories to tell (They were not Iranian students coming to get their engineering degrees).

      Plus, I kind of remember that Germany had its own "controlling minority", too, at some point in history.

    50. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Well at least you have endorsement by an official and no denial by the government. I agree this is not hard evidence but that makes the Israeli hypothesis more backed-up than any other.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    51. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by migla · · Score: 1

      But, erm... If you bomb them to the stone-age, the oppressed majority of nice people will also be vaporized, in pieces or suffering even more. I agree that we should fight oppression globally, but blowing the oppressed to bits isn't a good solution, in my opinion, even if it would, of course, solve the problem.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    52. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      They would have had more luck blaming it on aliens. It so laughable there only other choices were terrorists but that has been way over sold making near impossible to push anything more down that B$=PR channel, then you have rebels within Iran claiming they felt threatened by Iran using nuclear weapons upon it's own population bit of access access to windows source code and the illogic of the whole premise makes that fall apart. So they went for the golden oldie blame it on the Ruskies , thrown in some twists and swerves with organised crime and corruption.

      Personally I think they would have been better off going with the alien, add in some religious overtones, make use of some of those end of world prophesies and at the very least they would have convinced the tea bagger crowd, you know, "you can fool some of the people all of the time".

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    53. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by bigrockpeltr · · Score: 1

      First of all there is a BIG difference between stating that "Israel should not exist" and "We are going to destroy Israel."

      Do you have any idea how idiotic that sounds?

      occupation101. enough said.

      --
      $ unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes,fsck,fsck,fsck,umount, sleep
    54. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      then all the passive aggressive idiots in europe and asia that let hitler get into power, will finally realize that iran is unstable and let them be bombed back tot he stone age.

      I am no fan of the Iranian government, but comparing them to Hitler is frankly obscene.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    55. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      No, Iran wants it for the expressed purpose of wiping out Israel.

      And Iran knows that if it attacked Israel, the destruction of Iran would follow, regardless of what happened to Israel.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    56. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by sita · · Score: 1

      The Russians are no longer the "bad guys"...

      A country run by the mafia.

      But, neither are we the "good guys". Today, we're just assholes,...

      Granted, we are a bit disappointed that you elected Carter for a second term, but don't be to hard on yourselves.

      and the Chinese stand at a crossroads, where they could be the new "bad guys" or the new "good guys".

      Given your standards of good and bad, I sort of understand you elect people to office who have troubles making the distinction themselves.

    57. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I think he is talking about the fact that both Pakistan and India already have proven nuclear weapons programs, and currently possess nuclear weapons.

    58. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by sita · · Score: 1

      First of all there is a BIG difference between stating that "Israel should not exist" and "We are going to destroy Israel." You swallowing the Israeli propaganda talking points hook line as sinker and regurgitating them is not going to convince any reason minded individual here.

      Theoretically there might be. But Iran is funding Hezbollah and Hamas, who are not just talking about it. I don't see at as an extreme stretch of imagination that Iran would act themselves if they could (perhaps after acquiring the bomb).

      And how many times has the US and Israel threatned to attack them? Double standards much?

      I don't recall either US or Israel calling for dismantling the persian state and replacing it by a non-persian state. Correct me if I'm wrong.

        Secondly. What's the difference between terrorizing other countries with stuxnet, infiltration and bombing or killing scientists, by a country or supporting a third party (insert terrorist org here) to do you bidding. If I send a CIA agent to infiltrate and blow up an arms depot or if I pay someone else to do it for me? What's the difference?

      Hamas and Hezbollah rarely blow up arms depots. That would be totally in order and according to the laws of war. They intentionally target civilians.

      Its OK for us to support terrorist organization but no one else should right? And then there is this

      Notice that in the quoted article the US is choosing not to act through Mujahedin-E-Khalq since it is deemed to be a -- terrorist organization.

    59. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by nowhiz · · Score: 1

      Quick side note: Ahmadinejad couldn't want "another" Holocaust because he denies that there ever was an original Holocaust in the first place.

    60. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Knave75 · · Score: 1

      "even though Israel has never done anything bad to Iran"

      Euh, you don't think that the locations that Israel occupies are of no importants to the people in Iran ? Because of their religion I mean.

      You're right, Mecca and Medina are located inside Israel...

      ....um, I mean, I'm confused.

      Wait, I know, it must be because Israel goes around destroying religious monuments sacred to Muslims, right?

      ...umm, well, let's move on.

      It must be because Israel actively persecutes Muslims through their legal system...

      ........

      Fuck it, we should just attack Israel anyway. We'll think of a reason later.

    61. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by KZigurs · · Score: 1

      Well, apart from Americans pretty much everybody is calling to get rid of Israel...

    62. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Sorry about the bad translation. English is not my primary language and demonyms are bitches to memorize.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    63. Re:Government responsible says, 'Look, commies'. by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      "Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Bomb-Iran"

      - U.S. Presidential candidate.

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  2. Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by douglips · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Centrifuges can't cause a catastrophe, other than of the "oh shit my centrifuge just came apart and shredded my lab" kind. There is not a nuclear chain reaction to go out of control here.

  3. I blame it on Cthulhu by BLToday · · Score: 4, Funny

    That's the only logical explanation.

  4. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by MrQuacker · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, the centrifuge itself doesnt. But if it somehow infects a critical PLC, like say the one that controls reactor rods, or ventilation, or whatever.

    Point being, something other than centrifuges could get infected, and that something could be bad.

  5. Fix the stupid bugs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Governments would be wise to focus on securing the code they use rather than attacking the enemy. We already have attack capabilities and adding hack capabilities may not be nearly as valuable to nations with significant resources. On the technical front though ANY tiny nation or group with even few resources can threaten you if your code is bug ridden.

  6. Yeah, Riiiight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Cause in case of a sheep missing, you trust the wolf on saying it was really the bear. Riiiight. ^^

    The only thing I know for a fact, is that I have not experienced any of it with my own senses, and so everything I think I "know" about this subject comes from other people, probably all of which have also not experienced it with their own senses but gotten it from even more sources, and so on and so on. With everyone in all those chains having their own set of perceptive biases in their senses and brains, and their own interests.
    I can choose who to trust and who not. But most people just trust whatever fits their own model of reality best, disregarding that it might be wrong.
    And the same is true for everyone of you too.

    So unless it has a noticeable effect on me personally, instead of wasting my mental resources on this, I use them for something that has a bigger effect on improving my life and keeping what I have.
    How about you? :)

    1. Re:Yeah, Riiiight... by Kagura · · Score: 2

      Cause in case of a sheep missing, you trust the wolf on saying it was really the bear. Riiiight. ^^

      The only thing I know for a fact, is that I have not experienced any of it with my own senses, and so everything I think I "know" about this subject comes from other people, probably all of which have also not experienced it with their own senses but gotten it from even more sources, and so on and so on. With everyone in all those chains having their own set of perceptive biases in their senses and brains, and their own interests. I can choose who to trust and who not. But most people just trust whatever fits their own model of reality best, disregarding that it might be wrong. And the same is true for everyone of you too.

      So unless it has a noticeable effect on me personally, instead of wasting my mental resources on this, I use them for something that has a bigger effect on improving my life and keeping what I have. How about you? :)

      Great, so you don't even know if Mexico is a real country existing south of the US.

  7. Really? by Acapulco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Beyond the obvious fact that we will never know for sure who actually created it, it seems pretty naive to think a US 'cyber analyst' would say or even think anything different. After all Israel is a close US ally so it isn't like they would be interested in "telling the truth". It's like the boy who punches the other boy behind the teacher's back, of course he is not going to rat itself.

    So how is this a credible source? Maybe if it came from a team of international security researchers with evidence or something I would deem it a valuable piece of analysis.

    I kinda see this "research" as the ones conducted by Microsoft to evaluate IE, or Google to do so with Chrome and, oh surprise, they always come ahead. More like a political thing to say than any actual useful information or analysis being brought to light.

    --
    Slashdot. Unreadable news to annoy nerds. - wonkey_monkey
    1. Re:Really? by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Well only if you assume that US citizens are incapable of talking bad about the US.

      Considering Slashdot is slight more anti-American than the Taliban that's obviously not true.

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    2. Re:Really? by MimeticLie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that this guy is a US Air Force analyst.

      So it's not a case of assuming a US citizen couldn't speak ill of the US; more a case of assuming that if the military is paying him to say this, it wants this version of events propagated (note that the piece doesn't provide any evidence pointing to the Russians. His argument is basically, "Well, they could have. And if we make a bunch of assumptions, they might have wanted to as well".).

    3. Re:Really? by Archtech · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Considering Slashdot is slight more anti-American than the Taliban that's obviously not true.

      Sorry, but I won't sit still for that. As a European who has always tried very hard to be cosmopolitan - a citizen of the world, and a member of the human race, rather than any kind of nationalist - I find that Slashdot is quite sophisticated technically, a bit less so politically, and actually exhibits a quite noticeable pro-American bias.

      Of course there are exceptions: I'm one of them. And there are a few people who blame everything on America. But what I'm saying is that, even among apparently sensible, well-educated, reasonable Slashdotters I find that, on average, there is a slight but very definite US "home team advantage". And that is quite natural, seeing how many Slashdotters are American; there's nothing wrong with patriotism and pride in your country.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    4. Re:Really? by orphiuchus · · Score: 1

      Seriously? Look at the posts above you. The clear majority are blatantly bashing the US, just like every single topic that has anything to do with politics on slashdot.

      Hell, Iran is better liked on slashdot than the US.

    5. Re:Really? by Archtech · · Score: 2

      Seriously? Look at the posts above you. The clear majority are blatantly bashing the US, just like every single topic that has anything to do with politics on slashdot.

      Hell, Iran is better liked on slashdot than the US.

      Well, that may be true - I haven't counted them. But it's a special case, don't you think? The topic is a public statement that many of us find fishy, and so we say so. Even died-in-the-wool American patriots may find it hard to believe, simply on the grounds that "he would say that, wouldn't he?"

      But I disagree that they are "bashing the US". Rather, they are pointing out that *in this specific case* one American has said something that doesn't appear all that credible. Furthermore, if it seems that Iran is better liked than the USA, couldn't that just be that the only context in which they are compared is the apparent US government campaign to demonize Iran as a preliminary to attacking it?

      Now, if Slashdot were ever to discuss - say - religious freedom in the USA and Iran, I feel sure that almost everyone would agree that the USA comes out streets ahead.

      I have always admired Major General Carl Schurz's statement. "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right". Although born in Germany, he was a patriotic American: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Schurz

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    6. Re:Really? by Archtech · · Score: 1

      A reasonable and rational argument about bias on Slashdot? You, sir are in violation of a large number of internet rules and I am afraid you must sit out a two hour ban on Internet usage for being entirely too rational

      Thank you very much indeed. What a charming compliment!

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
  8. I live in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And it's unlikely the government could be bothered with this elaborate conspiracy, the modus operandi seems to be to take Iranian money and just never finish the projects since off the record Russia doesn't really like Iran anymore than anybody else does. Probably what really happened is that USA or Israel tracked down some Russians working on the project and gave them some giant piles of money in order to do plant some virus they'd made. After this went through a lot of Russian scientists got scared because Iran was interrogating everyone to try and find out who was responsible.

    Having said that a lot of people think Iran wont nuke Israel because that'd kill arabs too, or that they're not insane or that USA/Russia has nukes too so it's no different. The main difference is someone like Putin is primarily interested in being a crime boss, he has no inherent desire to wipe some places he doesn't like such as Washington DC off the map. Iran on the other hand does when not slaughtering their own people does foreign policy things that don't really make sense like bombing some Jews in Argentina which had no practical benefit for Iran. They're rather juvenile as can be seen by the way they make their cute little American flag with skulls instead of stars last week. I think it's more likely they'd try to detonate a bomb through the Lebanese border to make things look more ambiguous than launch a traceable missile from Tehran. Yes that'd kill a lot of muslims too, but so did their chaining soldiers together and forcing them to march into gas attacks strategies during the war with Iraq.

    1. Re:I live in Russia by Talence · · Score: 1

      Nuking in general is a losing proposition. The principles of MAD still apply. Nukes are most valuable when never used.

      --
      I plan to plan / Dutch course in The Hague
    2. Re:I live in Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Generally yes, but not always. During the 80s Iran officially hated Israel but bought millions of dollars in weapons from them since Israel was more worried about Iraq then. It's worth noting that the holy ayatollah had more faith in israeli weapons than allah. Some parts of the Iranian goverment are probably satisfied just lording it over their own populace and living the high life. Some of the more irrational ones however who have a history of doing stuff that makes no sense (bombing argentina, denying the Holocaust, trying to kill some saudi diplomat) probably would enjoy the opportunity to forget mad and try bring back the twelth imam to town. The other risk is if the ayatollah or someone finds out he only has a few years to live from cancer or sth and wants some entertainment on his way out. Also as said they might try avoid MAD by some primitive detonation through the insecure Lebanese border.

      Iran is really screwed up worse than the corrupt shah could ever do... at least he liberated woman and stuff, all this trash about the green movement that the opposition suddenly was turned into liberal heroes by the western media really forgot to mention that a lot of these guys who got scammed out of some votes were the same guys slaughtering iranians by the tens of thousands during the 80s.

    3. Re:I live in Russia by bytesex · · Score: 1

      They're being 'juvenile' because they're playing for their own crowd. Iran's leaders are sitting on a time-bomb of youngsters that don't like 'em very much either. By inventing plots they try to keep 'em still.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    4. Re:I live in Russia by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Informative

      Having said that a lot of people think Iran wont nuke Israel because that'd kill arabs too

      Iran couldn't care less about what happens to the Arabs. Iranians are different ethnically, culturally and religiously (Shia vs Sunni), and there's no love lost between the two. Indeed, it is debatable whether Israel is really Iran's enemy #1 (other than in propaganda), or whether their neighboring Sunni majority countries are that.

    5. Re:I live in Russia by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      I live in Russia

      No, you don't.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    6. Re:I live in Russia by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      sitting on a time-bomb of youngsters

      No.
      College students just happen to be a group that in any society is most vulnerable to ideologies that are unpopular in the rest of society, as they still have remnants of teenage rebellion and fad-following, are smart enough to accomplish something as a group, but don't yet have sufficient skepticism to reject crude propaganda. This is why any "revolution" that was entirely based on student organizations is most likely orchestrated by foreign enemies or organized crime, and governments should be always prepared to fight off such "movements" appearing out of nowhere.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    7. Re:I live in Russia by Nimey · · Score: 1

      You say that Russia doesn't like Iran any more than the rest of the world. Are you saying that Russia keeps taking Iran's side WRT nuclear energy and other things for geopolitical reasons, or is it for money, or is there some other reason I'm not seeing?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  9. Occam's Razor by cosm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:Occam's Razor by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      I don't know, I've thought something similar before. If you consider, who else would have such specific knowledge of the Iranian setup? The Russians would have the easiest job of building Stuxnet. Some of the exploits used were bought from the Eastern European black market. What particular reason is there to think that the US or Israel did it?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Occam's Razor by mr100percent · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, the NYTimes reports proof that it was tested in Israel, which makes Russia unlikely.

    3. Re:Occam's Razor by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Occam's Razor Part II: The Razoring

      What do you think is more likely - that the Russian government deliberately disabled Iran, or that the American or Israeli government bought (or otherwise acquired) insider knowledge from Russia?

    4. Re:Occam's Razor by black3d · · Score: 1

      Occam's Razor suggests someone who has access to the internals network and workings of the plant, and in fact built it, is far more able to write code to attack the network than a third party unfamiliar with their systems. So.. if we're going to strictly apply the rule, then YES.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    5. Re:Occam's Razor by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Russia sells products and services around the world. Why would they stuff up a project they got paid for and what to get done?
      Every project Russia brings in on time, on budget ect. is a great showcase to the world - to buy more nation building Russian or Russian related tech.
      Its very simple, you pay Russia, big product arrives and works.
      Stuxnet seems to be very well tested by people with a deep understanding of a subset of German hardware and very closed US software with the desire to create many problems.
      http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/01/with-stuxnet-did-the-u-s-and-israel-create-a-new-cyberwar-era/

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    6. Re:Occam's Razor by martin-boundary · · Score: 4, Insightful
      No, Occam's Razor suggests that the obvious enemies of Iran are the obvious culprits, namely US/Israel.

      Inventing fairytales about Russian double indirection to damage America is way too complicated, and believing an American intelligence analyst about the fairytale existence of a double indirection by Russia just to attack America's reputation (ie not even a real attack) is even more complicated.

      KISS.

    7. Re:Occam's Razor by khallow · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work, because my pet explanation is the only pet explanation that explains the facts. Hence, by property of uniqueness, it's the explanation selected by Occam's razor. Rinse, lather, repeat.

    8. Re:Occam's Razor by lennier1 · · Score: 2

      The code was too sloppy to be Russian.

    9. Re:Occam's Razor by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      What particular reason is there to think that the US or Israel did it?

      Because they have a very obvious motive for doing so?

    10. Re:Occam's Razor by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Which would make them perfect partners. No one will ever really know who did it anyways.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:Occam's Razor by tqk · · Score: 1

      What particular reason is there to think that the US or Israel did it?

      Because they have a very obvious motive for doing so?

      All the more reason to suspect someone else of doing it as it would be obvious who'd have wanted it done. All the more reason to not suspect the US or Israel of doing it as it would be obvious who'd have wanted it done.

      For all anyone knows, it could've been a joint operation including the US, Israel, Russia, the Saudis, and even Iran! That last one could even include both pro- and con- Iranian regime sympathisers.

      Re-read Machiavelli.

      --
      "Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit ..." -- Pink Floyd.
    12. Re:Occam's Razor by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Because they have a very obvious motive for doing so?

      Yeah, that's the reasoning, right? I'm hoping to have some evidence that is a bit stronger than "they don't like Iran, so they did it", though (which we may not get for decades, though).

      To be honest, I'm not even sure the US has the capability for such cyberwarfare. But maybe.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Occam's Razor by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What do you think is more likely - that the Russian government deliberately disabled Iran, or that the American or Israeli government bought (or otherwise acquired) insider knowledge from Russia?

      It's a good question, I'm sure I don't know the answer,

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    14. Re:Occam's Razor by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      Unless Russia tested it in Israel. OoooOOOOOooooh...

  10. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by FrozenFood · · Score: 5, Interesting

    its entirely possible to run an entire nuclear power plant from the control rod insertion to button that opens the front gate off a single Siemens PLC, e.g. their S7-400 with a big CPU. off the CPU comes Profibus which can go directly to input sensors, pnumatic valves, HMIs. The profibus is quite a safe thing, becasue it is just RS485 underneath. The new thing that siemens is touting is profiNET, which as the name implies is just the profibus protocol over ethernet. with control systems running off ethernet is fine, but siemens also do DIN mount 100mb/s ethernet switches where anyone can plug a laptop in and stop/start/upload more code to the entire network with their prodave application.

  11. Propaganda by da8add1e · · Score: 5, Insightful

    all i needed to see was "An anonymous reader writes:" and the-diplomat.com, this is blatant propaganda -100 score It has no newsworthy merit is inaccurate in many ways as has already been pointed out by others (centrifuge's causing meltdown???) i know america is pissed about getting caught red handed with this, and also about the missile shield debacle http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/24/us-russia-medvedev-missiledefence-idUSTRE7AN1NE20111124 that's currently ongoing but how is aggravating Russia going to help in either matter?

    1. Re:Propaganda by Dails · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm pretty sure that nobody was caught with a hand of any color, which is basically why stuxnet was such a significant piece of work. You negate your own credibility by calling this inaccurate propaganda when you, in one poorly-constructed sentence, make inaccurate and baseless accusations.

    2. Re:Propaganda by guspasho · · Score: 1

      I wish this could be elevated above the summary itself. It's quite disappointing that Slashdot would publish such blatant propagandistic crap. An anonymous US analyst claims? Come on. Next, maybe we can just end all court trials when the not guilty plea is entered. Defendents don't lie.

  12. Those PLC controllers by bytesex · · Score: 1

    Were bought with money from an ATM machine, by an employee of the department of redundancy department, who almost forgot his PIN number.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    1. Re:Those PLC controllers by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      "An ATM machine running DSL Linux is connected with a DSL line using ATM mode".
      Once sentences like this started making perfect sense, it's time to legitimize expanding the last word in an acronym.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  13. The Iranians wrote it themselves . . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Their scientists are under a lot of pressure from the government Mullahs to finally get that bomb finished. Faced with insurmountable technical problems, the scientists decided to make it look like their project was sabotaged by their enemies: Israel and the US. So they wrote a virus and infected themselves with it.

    So now their scientists have some more time, and the Mullahs are happy, because they can play the thing up with their own people and the international theater.

    Ditto on that US drone thingie.

    If you don't like that one, I'll half-bake another wacko conspiracy theory the next time this story pops up again.

    Maybe I could make the "27 Club" responsible . . . ? Robert Johnson, Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain and Amy Winehouse are not really dead, but are writing viruses on Marlon Brando's island near Tahiti . . .

    --
    Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    1. Re:The Iranians wrote it themselves . . . by black3d · · Score: 2

      Considering they have told their people that carrion birds circling over their decimated, poorly irrigated land are "zionist vulture spies", this would hardly surprise me.

      --
      "The true measure of a person is how they act when they know they won't get caught." - DSRilk
    2. Re:The Iranians wrote it themselves . . . by ksd1337 · · Score: 1

      Maybe I could make the "27 Club" responsible . . . ? Robert Johnson, Brian Jones, Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain and Amy Winehouse are not really dead, but are writing viruses on Marlon Brando's island near Tahiti . . .

      You forgot Tupac! How could you forget about Tupac?!

  14. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know. This seemed like a pretty specifically targeted piece of hardware.

    Dumbing it down a whole bunch here, but say that the virus modifies the CENTRIFUGE_MAX_SPEED variable from X to X+100 or something. It's affecting a specific piece of software. It's not as if the ventilation or reactor rod system run on the same software, and even if they did it would be doubtful that they would be affected by the same command.

  15. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

    Sure, it's far-fetched, but not outside the realm of possibility.

    You sound like those people who think crystal energy is realize because of the quantums when you say stuff like this.

    Here's a hint: If you know this little about a technical topic, don't pretend you have any idea what is, or is not, in the realm of possibility.

  16. Re:Still haven't gotten over 1945... by Dails · · Score: 1

    This would, in fact, be news to everyone. This sentence:

    a massive wave of anti-Russian propaganda cooked by the rampant Nazi lobby inside the GOP.

    is SO ridiculous that it sounds like something you'd say while playing the Steve Jackson game Illuminati, where you frequently say things like "The FBI, using the Boy Scouts, will try to control the South American Nazis aided by 10 million dollars from the Swiss Bankers."

    What terrifying is that you might actually believe your point of view to be common sense accepted by everyone. Yikes.

  17. tinker tailor soldier spy by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    Could this be part of a marketing campaign?

    "In the bleak days of the Cold War, espionage veteran George Smiley is forced from semi-retirement to uncover a Soviet agent within MI6's echelons." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1340800/

    Just joking...

  18. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Except that's not how you do it. If your PLC is controlling vital equipment you A) use a password . B) Have the PLC set so that online (means when the PLC is running) program changes are not allowed and C) run redundant PLCs so if there is ever a switch of code in one of them (by a worm etc.) that PLC is locked out and measures taken. However when controlling a Centrifuge one probably wouldn't use redundant PLCs. When it comes to profibus vs. Profinet I would say that the fieldbus has very little to do with security. Most modern PLCs have an ethernet connection for talking to higher level systems anyways no matter which bus you use at the field level. Also anyone WHO can write a virus for a PLC is capable of buying one of the many different devices for connecting to a Profibus or MPI port of a Siemens PLC. /Industrial-programmer (not in nuclear area)

  19. Why assume a nation-state is behind this? by Darth+Cider · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's just assumed that Stuxnet is SOOOO advanced that only a nation-state could devise this zero-day infiltration into the centrifuge system of Iran.

    Why assume that nation-states are behind it, and not corporations? A lot of companies would be hard hit if Iran became a threat to stability. Even major defense contractors, who profit from building weapons, would see little upside in a conflict with Iran.

    The news and the internet buzz all say that it has to be a government backed thing, but what if it is simpler than that? It is far simpler to imagine that a private concern is behind it. They can pay for the talent. They have as much at stake as any government.

    1. Re:Why assume a nation-state is behind this? by Darth+Cider · · Score: 1

      No, there is a kind of conflict that even weapons dealers don't profit from. The kind that sends the stock market crashing to new lows. The kind that ruins all of one's trading partners. A conflict with Iran would be terrible for business for everyone in the free world. If my point wasn't clear, that's my point again - that the ones who really have the most to lose in a conflict with Iran would be private enterprises, not nation-states.

    2. Re:Why assume a nation-state is behind this? by Darth+Cider · · Score: 1

      Wrong. A conflict with Iran would not profit even defense contractors. The war in Iraq was different - it was profitable because there was no threat to international security. A conflict with Iran, which would be presumptively nuclear, would be an armageddon scenario, and markets would crash. Weapons builders would not fare better in such a conflict than if there had been no conflict. I don't think it's clear to people that private enterprises have more to lose than governments in such a scenario. They have more to gain from Stuxnet than governments do.

    3. Re:Why assume a nation-state is behind this? by russotto · · Score: 1

      It's just assumed that Stuxnet is SOOOO advanced that only a nation-state could devise this zero-day infiltration into the centrifuge system of Iran.

      Well, there are others who would have the means -- Siemens, for instance. Building Stuxnet would have required someone familiar with PC viruses and someone with extensive knowledge about the PLCs used for centrifuges, but that's not an impossible bar for a private entity. But the motive for a private concern to screw with Iran is pretty weak, and the infecting of the Iranian computers (if done by USB keys left for employees to find) would require actually having people on the ground in Iran to do it. Further, building such a virus as a private concern can get you in a lot of hot water with your own government (even if you are trying to screw with an enemy), which makes it even more unlikely.

  20. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by donscarletti · · Score: 1

    Well, if your idea of "catastrophe" is becoming critical and levelling a city block, then you are absolutely correct, an enrichment centrifuge cannot do that. However, that centrifuge is filled with uranium hexafluoride, which is a horrible corrosive gas that can burn through metal and will kill you if you touch or ingest it in the tiniest quantities, then I can think of quite a lot of catastrophic things that can happen, especially in a confined space with thousands of workers.

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  21. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by kestasjk · · Score: 1

    Thousands of workers monitoring a centrifuge cascade?

    --
    // MD_Update(&m,buf,j);
  22. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by Zoshnell · · Score: 2

    As long as one of them isn't Gordon Freeman, a cascade event isn't likely to occur...

    --
    "Do you suppose that's why God lives in the Heavens? Because he lives in fear of His creations?" - Steve Buscemi
  23. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by kno3 · · Score: 1

    Sorry if I am wrong here, but are you not just producing wild theories here? Surely you don't know what Stuxnet intended to do, so how could you rule that it could not have caused a nuclear catastrophe?

  24. It was me! by FenixBrood · · Score: 1

    How do you know it was not me? That I created stuxnet and make it look like the US/Israel so everybody thinks it was the Russians. Nobody would not suspect it. I didnt try to reverse engeieer the program and the Siemens parts can be bought over ebay.

  25. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is. For a start, the centrifuges aren't full of uranium. They are full of uranium hexafluoride, a gas. No possibility of it going critical. The worst case scenario would be that containment is ruptured and the gas escapes - it's nasty stuff, about a ten on the flesh-melt-o-meter, and will quite happily burn though walls and boil the skin off of anyone who gets in it's way. If that happens it'll kill a few workers and completly destroy the centrifuge, but that's all. No boom.

  26. Friend Computer says, 'Look, commies'. by EdZ · · Score: 2, Funny

    Citizen! It's always the Commie Mutant Traitors!

  27. yeah. by unity100 · · Score: 1

    Just FYI, it's not any party that would ever ally with the west.

    and thats the reason behind the anti-russian, anti-putin propaganda.

  28. nuclear gangsterism? by Hadlock · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really? "nuclear gangsterism"? This is a pretty specific phrase, out of a specific book. It doesn't exist anywhere else on the internet but in summaries about that book, and in this slashdot article. Anyone care to comment on how this phrase ended up in the slashdot summary?

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
  29. Iran's oil supply is declining by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Interesting

    http://crudeoilpeak.info/iran-crude-oil-decline-to-2016

    They'll be able to continue exporting for a few years, 5-10. Then their internal consumption hits production and starts declining. This is when the shtf and people start dying.

    So... What choices do they have? Given the history of the external manipulation of their country they appear quite rational.

    --
    Deleted
  30. "that would never happen" - famous last words by decora · · Score: 1

    may i recommend the following article, for a nice list of dead people who thought "this could never happen in a million years"

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

  31. as far as you could throw one by nibbles2004 · · Score: 1

    its quite funny speaking from Europe, as the majority of the post's so far seem to portray Russian as some benign country and the US as evil. As a european we distrust the Russian's a lot more than the American's, i.e never accept a cup of tea from a Russian.

    1. Re:as far as you could throw one by Archtech · · Score: 2

      As a european we distrust the Russian's a lot more than the American's [sic]

      As another European, I disagree. I don't trust any rich and powerful country that could blot out my country any time it felt like it, and whose government is strictly interested in looking after those people who look after it (clue: not necessarily the voters). Either Russia or the USA (or China or the UK or France or Israel or India...) could be bad news for the citizens of another nation, and anyone who trusts the powerful to act against their own interests out of sheer altruism needs his head examined. It may be true, of course, that Russians are more inclined to tell it as they see it, and less inclined to dress things up in fancy moral terms, than Americans (or many other "Westerners").

      Thucydides nailed this more than 2400 years ago:

      "...[R]ight, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must".

      If you haven't read about the Melian Dialog, you really should: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue (the complete text is at http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm). It tells you almost everything you need to know about international politics.

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    2. Re:as far as you could throw one by zAPPzAPP · · Score: 1

      We do?
      Didn't know that.

  32. And who delivers that proof? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    That is the problem with conspiracy theories, once you start believing in them, you can't stop believing in them. Why believe one piece of "evidence" over another? To many conspiracy theorists are just haters who hate their own country and believe nothing it says and believe everything the other side says without question.

    See the drivel posted by AHuxley below. Russia doesn't like Iran, it has been fighting Muslims for decades. Sure, it might be smiling at the US problems in Afghanistan but that doesn't mean it thinks the enemy of its enemy is its friend.

    Proof? Russia supplied planes AND pilots to the countries surrounding Israel. However there was a tiny detail that showed their TRUE reasons for being involved. The planes flown by Arabs were just a little bit obsolete. The modern planes had Russian pilots and flew with Russian orders. Russia has NEVER sold tech it itself couldn't easily defeat (and by that Israel or any western nation) to any country they didn't trust to keep the peace. Why do you think America won so easily in Irak? Irak was fighting with hopelessly outdated tech payed with premium dollars. Only the west is stupid enough to sell current generation tech to unstable nations. The Russians KNOW who their enemies are.

    So, selling a nuclear reactor for lots of money but also making sure it is never quite effective makes perfect sense. They been doing that for decades.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:And who delivers that proof? by vakuona · · Score: 1

      No one sells tech they can't defeat. That would be stupid. America won't sell its latest and greatest to Israeli's even (the F22). Or to Japan, South Korea, or Britain, who are some of its hardcore alies.

  33. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by buchner.johannes · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry if I am wrong here, but are you not just producing wild theories here? Surely you don't know what Stuxnet intended to do, so how could you rule that it could not have caused a nuclear catastrophe?

    There was an analysis by German researchers that he bases his information on.
    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/how-digital-detectives-deciphered-stuxnet/all/1
    http://www.ted.com/talks/ralph_langner_cracking_stuxnet_a_21st_century_cyberweapon.html

    --
    NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
  34. on the other hand. by decora · · Score: 2

    typically the output of centrifuges is chained together. the output of the last centrifuge is much more enriched than the first. and where does the output of the last centrifuge go? to some holding tank? what if that last centrifuge has an accident that affects the holding tank? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_centrifuge

    we dont know the specific layout of their centrifuge operation. what if they are using some sort of arrangement we dont know about?

    yes it is incredibly, massively unlikely. on the other hand.

    that is the same attitude held by the various managers and dead people you can find described in this article:

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

    1. Re:on the other hand. by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      we dont know the specific layout of their centrifuge operation. what if they are using some sort of arrangement we dont know about?

      Well... someone knew exactly what kind of layout the Iranians were using,
      because the trojan's code was designed to only attack 1 specific hardware layout.

      And while the worst case scenario is uranium hexafluoride everywhere, the most likely (and actual) scenario
      is that the specific changes in RPM (as induced by the trojan) created vibrations that ruined the centrifuges' bearings and rotor.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
  35. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Well, the centrifuge itself doesnt. But if it somehow infects a critical PLC, like say the one that controls reactor rods, or ventilation, or whatever.

    Point being, something other than centrifuges could get infected, and that something could be bad.

    When it comes to industrial plants one things that is becoming more and more common are completely independent shutdown systems. The SCRAM system for Nuclear reactors is one such system, and is one of the first ones that was well speced and required by regulators. You'll find many refineries without such systems, but you won't find a Nuclear reactor.

    The bottom line is that these things sit separately and monitor the plant. Sure you can go in, push buttons, start stretching the operating envelope from the PLC, but when things start getting heated the reactor will shutdown.

  36. nuclear catastrophe from a shutdown operation? by decora · · Score: 1

    how could running an experiment that simulated an 'emergency shutdown' possibly lead to a criticality accident? no, that would never happen.

  37. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    its entirely possible to run an entire nuclear power plant from the control rod insertion to button that opens the front gate off a single Siemens PLC

    Sure it is. If you want to run afoul of every government regulation world wide regarding the control of nuclear reactors. Given how much government interest is being taken in reactors recently I doubt anyone is stupid enough to even attempt something like you're suggesting.

  38. suicide bombers do not care about MAD by decora · · Score: 1

    and neither did Hitler (the ultimate 'suicide bomber')

    we cannot trust any government with nuclear weapons, but every government will eventually have an arsenal. what is the solution?
    find a spaceship to fly to another planet, and study the human mind and social organizations so as to create systems which minimize the chance for a repeat of the self-immolation events like World War II, and the coming nuclear holocaust.

  39. occam's razor doesn't work w intelligence agencies by decora · · Score: 3, Interesting

    the FOIA sites at fbi.gov and cia.gov are full of bizarre, unbeilevable stuff.

    is it likely that the US military deliberately administered LSD to people to see if it would be a good mind control drug, and that one of them leaped out of a window and died? no, but it happened.

    is it likely that the Nazi government was thoroughly penetrated with Soviet agents? no, but it was.

    is it likely that Israel and it's neighbors would go to war in 1967? No, but they did.

    is it likely that Israel would repeatedly shoot and napalm a ship flying a huge US flag? no, but it happened.

    is it likely that the head of the US OSS would come up with a plan to invite NKVD officers to the US for 'joint exercises' with US law enforcement? No, but it happened.

    is it likely that the Department of Justice would charge someone with Espionage for telling a journalist that North Korea would probably test a nuclear weapon? No, but it happened.

  40. except that Israel is full of Russian ex-pats by decora · · Score: 1

    there was a huge migration of Jewish people and other people out of Russia to Israel after the fall of most european communism, and the Soviet government was no longer around to prevent people from leaving it's constituent countries.

    if you read enough spy history you will realize that every country has agents penetrated into every other country's intelligence service. Sometimes they are double, sometimes even triple agents. it can take decades for the truth to ever come out.

    There was a Czech agent, for example, during WWII, who everyone thought was some big anti-Nazi hero. Turns out, he wasn't. he just made a bunch of shit up and fooled everyone - he had actually been a Nazi agent and was trying to cover his ass (play both sides) when they lost. His name was Agent A-54. This is only known because Czech researchers and academics went back into the archives and figured it out. Their books are as yet untranslated into English. And they were only published a few years ago, 60+ years after the fact.

    Anything connected to Espionage or intelligence services is suffused with copious amounts of propaganda, PR work, and bullshit. it can take decades to figure out what really happened.

  41. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by kno3 · · Score: 1

    Thank you for pointing this out. Really interesting research.

  42. Volkswagen, Mitsubishi, GM, IBM, all died in WWII by decora · · Score: 1

    oh wait. WWII was actually pretty awesome if you were a corporation. the nation-states needed you to make bombs, guns, airplanes (flying guns and bombs), etc. even if you are run by war criminals, use slave labor, participate in the holocaust, mass-execute civilians, and perpetrate genocide, you don't get shut down after a war. no, instead, your directors and executives continue to operate in the new 'liberated' government, and they run a PR campaign if some pesky human right whiner dares to complain about it.

    the US stock market usually falls because of fraud and corruption coming to an apex (a bubble). good book: "Devil take the hindmost, A history of financial speculation" by edward chancellor.

  43. ever heard of cat bonds? by decora · · Score: 3, Informative

    its short for 'catastrophe bonds'. hedge funds buy and sell them so they can get rich when there is a hurricane, tornado, or 9/11 style event. people will absolutely profit from this war.

    secondly, the stock markets do not crash during wars. they crash when investors realize theyve been being scammed and duped by fraud for years on end by 'financial professionals'. (1929, 1987, 2008).

    thirdly, the bond markets go apeshit during war. governments love LOVE LOVE to borrow money during war. that means bonds. bonds out the ass.

    fourthly, we now have these things called 'credit default swaps', which are essentially gambling on the bond market. they will go super triple-dog ape shit when there is a war with iran, and the investment banks that hold them like JP Morgan, Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Paribas, etc etc etc, will make tons of money.

    and since JP Morgan is feeding intelligence to the US government (if you dont believe me, do a search for 'jp morgan' in the wikileaks files) they have even more of an inside edge.

    and i wont even get into 'mortality swaps' and 'longevity swaps'.

    1. Re:ever heard of cat bonds? by jpmorgan · · Score: 1

      That's now how catastrophe bonds work. If you buy catastrophe bonds you lose money when a disaster strikes, because your bond is what pays for all the rebuilding and insurance claims.

      If you own catastrophe bonds, you have a vested interest in the world being peaceful and boring.

  44. yes i will comment. by decora · · Score: 3, Insightful

    why do people write shit for slashdot? because they are intensely interested in a subject.

    why are they intensely interested? because the subject moves them emotionally.

    you have an inherent conflict of interest. you need to be emotionally detached to be a good reporter, but you wouldnt be writing in the first place (for free no less) unless you had some emotional spark that inspired you to do it.

    normally, editors will balance the emotions of the reporter, but slashdot editors often leave stuff in that a newspaper editor might remove. on the other hand, newspaper editors are increasingly beholden to their corporate masters these days. so whatever.

    when i wrote a story saying an innocent man was innocent, people said i was being too emotional. well, i disagreed, but i cant disagree that it is right to question authors about this type of thing. its the nature of writing.

  45. Stuxnet was designed solely to destroy centrifuges by SolemnLord · · Score: 2

    That really glosses over the importance of the centrifuges. They are massive, expensive machines to replace, and they directly handle the material. If failure occurred during operation (which was exactly what Stuxnet was designed to do), then on top of losing the machines, the nuclear material itself would be lost. The centrifuges are a critical part of the entire program, and their loss set Iran back years. It's unlikely that "full nuclear catastrophe" was ever a plan, given Stuxnet's precise design. Iran under a nuclear fog makes for bad PR, after all.

    For those of you who haven't read it, here's a great summary of the unravelling of Stuxnet, the key players, and conclusions made. Or you could listen to the US cyber analyst blame "them Ruskies".

  46. Jihadis are as dangerous as Kamikazes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wish I still had my mod points with me that I didn't use - this would have been flamebait. The US destroys other countries all the time with nukes or other WMDs? Where? When?

    If the US wanted to, they could have nuked the entire Muslim world after 9/11, given the popular mood in the country. They didn't, but instead, the Bush administration started pushing the Religion of Peace hogwash. I'm not suggesting that they should have wiped out any country the way Iran wants to do to Israel, but they should definitely have destroyed the military capability of Iran & Pakistan along with that of the Taliban. Today, the Obama admin continues that tradition. Democrat or Republican, both sides are ass kissers of one jihad side or the other. The Republicans brownnose the GCC emirs & sheikhs, who in turn fund anti-US activity throughout the Muslim empire, while the Democrats brownnose Hizbullah, Hamas and the Baathists.

    No Muslim country should be having nukes. It's a major problem that Pakistan has it, and it'd be made worse by Iran getting it as well. With Communists, while they were evil, they were at least rational - they had the will to survive, and didn't have any martyrdom fantasies. When was the last time you heard of any Communist suicide bombers? The case of the Jihadis are different. Ahmadinejad is busy waiting for the Mahdi - the 12th Imam of the Shias, who he thinks is alive in a well in the Iranian city of Qum, and wants to have armageddon in order to accelarate his return. The Jihadis are not just evil, but irrational about it as well - they want to kill us and themselves, so MAD does not work here. You seriously want this regime to get the bomb just because of your rabid envy that only Western powers and their non-enemies - Russia, China & India - have it? And you think nuking other countries is funny, like you're playing a game of Civ?

    The moral system you are alluding to, as understood in the context of the UN, is best exemplified by a fictitious island that has 10 men and 2 women. They have a vote on whether the men can rape the women @ will. The women object, but are outvoted, say 9-3 and so the 'fun' begins. So are the women immoral for not wanting to be raped? After all, theirs is the overwhelmed minority, which the island community has by & large rejected.

    Substitute the 2 women with Israel & the US, and substitute the men with Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Hizbullah, Hamas, Fatah and al Qaeda, and you'll get what I mean.

    1. Re:Jihadis are as dangerous as Kamikazes by rainmouse · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the US wanted to, they could have nuked the entire Muslim world after 9/11, given the popular mood in the country.

      Not without facing enforced disarmament and decades of sanctions from the rest of the developed world. This is a very bad American stereotype you are bandying around here. 'We can do what we want because we got the bomb and people should be grateful we don't just nuke them into the stone age..' There is a whole world out there and America becoming a rogue nuclear state would not go down well with the rest of it.

    2. Re:Jihadis are as dangerous as Kamikazes by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh - I think you're wrong there. Faced with the done deed, the rest of the world wouldn't have done shit to the US, not even sanctions. And, be honest - which nations, exactly, would have had the power to do anything about it? We have, in the lineup, China, Russia, the UK, India, France, and the rest of Europe. Which of them could have led a coordinated effort to punish the US for nuking any number of mideast nations after 9/11? Which of them would have WANTED TO?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:Jihadis are as dangerous as Kamikazes by chrb · · Score: 2

      Why would the U.S. nuke some of its closest allies in the Middle East, including countries and governments that it has pledged to protect, and who in turn supply the U.S. with large amounts of oil? It makes no sense.

    4. Re:Jihadis are as dangerous as Kamikazes by hey! · · Score: 2

      Bullshit. Nuking the entire Muslim world would have been entirely possible in the context of the times.

      Sure. So would nuking France. Or Great Britain. Or even ourselves (you do know we have more than twice the Muslim population of Djibouti; genocide starts at home). Nobody is saying it wasn't *physically* possible to nuke anyone, or *everyone* for that matter.

      The real question is whether it was *politically* possible. The answer is no. In part this is because *George W. Bush* had too much sense to even consider that, but the *main* answer is that Americans as a whole would not have stood for it. Religious tolerance has been a basic American value since the founding of our country, and modern Americans as a whole have little enthusiasm for genocide. A somewhat smaller number would have opposed it purely on the obvious grounds that it would have been a disaster for ourselves (disrupting oil supplies, destroying the international economy, risking a global environmental radiological disaster and possibly climatic disruption that could disrupt agriculture even in this country).

      That's not to say that *some* Americans don't hold to mainstream values of religious tolerance, dislike of pointless slaughter, and pursuing enlightened self-interest. In a nation of three hundred million the lunatic fringe is loud enough to make a lot of noise.

      For that matter, we have our share of people who can't distinguish between things that are *possible* and things that are *advisable*, as can be readily seen in this discussion. Naturally one wouldn't entrust them with making more difficult distinctions, like between *right* and *wrong*. The primary mental defect of these people seems to be that when they feel the impulse to take some action they are incapable of considering whether it has any unintended consequences. In the old days before political correctness we had a name for such people. We used to call them "fools".

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:Jihadis are as dangerous as Kamikazes by HBI · · Score: 1

      I think you are ruling out something that was entirely possible in the context of that particular moment in time. Claiming that a president holding 91% approval - and an angry nation behind them looking for vengeance - would have found it impossible to steel the nation to apply the nuclear option to certain countries in the Middle East is wishful thinking. It would have been done if the president was willing to do so, and willing to go on record saying so. The context of September-December 2001 was perfect timing.

      Recrimination afterward does not count. I only am speaking toward the order and execution to accomplish same, and the short-term sale to the American public.

      Insisting that no president could do this is wishful thinking again. I have counterexamples: Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, both of whom applied the "madman strategy" of Kissinger during their terms at critical junctures. They were on record as willing to use the nuclear arsenal of the United States to completely obliterate the Soviet Union, and threatened as much in public ways.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    6. Re:Jihadis are as dangerous as Kamikazes by celle · · Score: 1

      "Not without facing enforced disarmament "

      Done dreaming yet. Real power is firepower. The US has it, the world doesn't.

      "decades of sanctions from the rest of the developed world."

      Which has large dependencies on the US. We go down you do too. So you better figure out which side you're on.

    7. Re:Jihadis are as dangerous as Kamikazes by Politburo · · Score: 2

      They aren't counterexamples because nation-state conflict is completely different than what happened on 9/11.

      You can insist all you want, but the American public was not up for nuking Afghanistan after 9/11. You'd have seen that 91% evaporate pretty quickly, a majority of Americans believe that the US should only use nukes only in response to a nuke attack.

    8. Re:Jihadis are as dangerous as Kamikazes by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      If the entire world (including Canada and Mexico) were to simultaneously declare war on the US, the US would be able to defend itself indefinitely, so long as the anti-nuke coalition did not nuke the US. China has troops sufficient to cause massive problems, but can't land them in the US. The combined navies around the world are about equal to a single US fleet (of which there are 6). The *only* possible option for the US to lose is if the world launched coordinated infrastructure attacks at great loss in a war of attrition, which they would not have the patience for or will to follow-through on.

      This isn't a "US is great" post, but I think it leans more to the "we spend waaaay too much on defense" argument. But I've never seen a reasonable scenario where the world could take out the US (or the subsets, where people claim we need to arm up for China to such).

  47. Not exactly Russians... by genka · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... but Russian immigrants living in and working for Israel. The name "Stuxnet" can be transliterated to "will rot" in Russian. Which was exactly what the Iranian equipment did.

    1. Re:Not exactly Russians... by Ryn · · Score: 1

      How do you figure that? I definitely can't figure out how Stuxnet translits into "".

    2. Re:Not exactly Russians... by Ryn · · Score: 1

      I guess /. lost the Russian word. But as another Russian I can't figure out how you translit it into "sgniet"

    3. Re:Not exactly Russians... by genka · · Score: 1

      Russian for "will rot" is . All letters, but "x" sound close to the English lettes in stuxnet, and x sounds different, but looks the same.

  48. Arabs, Shias, Sunnis and other Mohammedans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While the differences between Iranians and Arabs, Shias and Sunnis are real, it's a mistake to think that they never collude. For instance, Tajikistan, whose language is a Farsi derivative, is allied to Iran in spite of being a Sunni country. Likewise, Azerbaijan, whose people are of Turkic origin, just like Turkey, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, is allied to Turkey again in spite of being a Shia country.

    It's also worth noting that Iran, despite being Shia, backs Sunni organizations like Hamas, in addition to its own proxy Hizbullah. Similarly, during the 80s war between Iran and Iraq, while much of the Arab world, except Syria, backed Iraq, Libya chose to back Iran. These things are not set in stone. While locally, Shias and Sunnis can't stand each other and often either riot or carry out terrorist acts (e.g. Sipah e Sehaba in Pakistan is a Sunni terror organization that takes it out on Shias), they have no problems allying with the other type of Muslims outside their countries when it comes to a war against Infidels.

    1. Re:Arabs, Shias, Sunnis and other Mohammedans by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      I find all of this discussion about shia and sunni hatred of each other very interesting, including GP comment about it being obvious to anyone lives in M.E. Assuming the GP anonymous coward actually meets that criteria it would seem likely that he is unable to differentiate between personal beliefs ("I'm shia and hate sunni"/"I'm sunni and hate shia") and reality.

      While there are real divisions in Islam, and Sunni vs Shia is one of those (although it is not really that simple and as a blanket 'sunni' or 'shia' isn't that meaningful), there are other divisions as well and sometimes other divisions take priority.

      But talking about a country as being either sunni or shia is misleading to say the least. Officially, Saudi Arabia is Wahabi Sunni (yes, there are divisions among Sunni) but the population is not exclusively Sunni. And, in fact, you can walk across a street and go from a Sunni neighborhood to a Shia neighborhood. All of this without constant shooting, bombings, etc. Sure, the neighborhoods have their characteristics, but the same can be said about black vs white in US cities.

      Strangely, for those who are not religious extremists, what religion you follow isn't the sole determinant in how they respond to you. Kind of like how in the US the KKK is largely comprised of white men, but not all white men share their views.

      In general, the real world is more grey than black and white.

  49. Why in hell would they do it? by Hentes · · Score: 1

    The Russians aren't afraid of other countries gaining nuclear capabilities, in fact most of the new nuclear powers use Russian technology and materials. If the Russians would be that concerned it would be a lot easier for them to just not sell materials/technology to everyone who asks.

  50. Are they rational actors, or not? by swb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It all kind of depends on how rationally the mullahs operate.

    I'm pretty sure that the concept has been communicated to the Iranians, either semi-directly through back channels or through other third parties that any use of a nuclear weapon against the US or its "close allies" will result in overwhelming nuclear retaliation, the kind that might cause one to question the future of Persian culture centered around Iranian geography.

    It's long been rumored that the Israelis have indirectly communicated that any NBC attack will result in nuclear retaliation against all Arab capitals and major Islamic religious sites, allowing for a certain group restraint among Arab countries not wishing to see their capital vaporized should a neighbor's anti-Israeli action get too heated.

    And don't think for a second that the Soviets or the Chinese would say a word -- poking a stick at the US via Iran is valuable to the Soviets and the Chinese, but it's not worth trading nuclear strikes with the US.

    One would think that Iranian leaders would take this into account when doing the calculus on nuclear weapons. Are they even worth having, outside of defensive use within their own immediate political theater? Would the cost of development be better spent on something else -- a home-grown cruise missile, long-range missile, some other expenditure?

    That being said, the mullahs may not be rational -- they may be given to magical thinking and have some kind of literal belief in religion that might cause them to not care. We've certainly seen enough rank-and-file religious nuts blow themselves up.

    1. Re:Are they rational actors, or not? by Reziac · · Score: 2

      According to someone I know who lived in Egypt and Saudi Arabia... the leaders do indeed indulge in 'magical thinking' of the sort where "if we have what Western Country A has, we too will be a [insert desired status here]."

      This is why Egypt built the Aswan dam, to the complete (and accurately predicted) detriment of their farmland and fisheries. Egypt used to feed half of Europe; now it has to import most of its own food, and the dam is almost entirely to blame (because it destroyed the critical farmland and delta nutrient replacement that derived from the Nile's annual flood pattern). But even tho Egypt's leaders were told that would happen, they HAD to have a dam, to prove Egypt Is A Modern Country Too.

      I expect it's the same with arms: "If we had a nuclear bomb, we'd be Big Bad Boys in the World too, and everyone would Respect Us like they do America and Russia."

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Are they rational actors, or not? by sita · · Score: 1

      It's long been rumored that the Israelis have indirectly communicated that any NBC attack will result in nuclear retaliation against all Arab capitals and major Islamic religious sites, allowing for a certain group restraint among Arab countries not wishing to see their capital vaporized should a neighbor's anti-Israeli action get too heated.

      Not needed. Saudi and other dominant Arab states are natural enemies with Iran, they would probably not be too unhappy with Israel trying to level the playing field somewhat.

  51. Re:AGAIN? by budgenator · · Score: 1

    The rabbit hole is always deeper than it looks and nobody ever does anything unless their are two or three other plausible suspects

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  52. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    Well, if your idea of "catastrophe" is becoming critical and levelling a city block

    Let us at least try to use the proper terminology.

    In the context of fission, "critical" means, more or less, "producing as many neutrons as we consume".

    In other words, when a nuclear reactor is producing power, it is "critical". "Critical" does NOT imply "levelling a city block" (well, the nuclear plant a few miles away doesn't level a city block regularly, though it is critical basically all the time)....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  53. Reminds Me of The Office by dcollins · · Score: 1

    From last week: Dwight displays a porcupine in his drawer and blames it on Jim. Jim calls animal control and relays questions:

    JIM: Does it look rabid?
    DWIGHT: Yes.
    JIM: Did you get get stuck with a quill?
    DWIGHT: Yes.
    JIM: And what is it's name?
    DWIGHT: Henrietta.
    JIM. Aha. [snaps phone shut]
    DWIGHT: Dammit!

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  54. Why would they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It doesn't make the slightest sense. A strong Iran is in Russia's interest. If Russia wanted to keep Iran from building a bomb they could just stop supplying nuclear fuel and know-how. Or they could sabotage those plants in much more direct ways because they have access.

    And if the Israeli military is not involved they're certainly playing their role well. They seem to be quite proud of Stuxnet -- rightfully so, except that they should have concealed it longer. That "the US defence and intelligence communities" might have been "caught with their pants down" is not an argument. Not everything Israel does is vetted by the US. Frankly, if I were an Israeli official I would prefer not to involve US agencies, because they have little to contribute and are a security risk.

    1. Re:Why would they? by sita · · Score: 1

      It doesn't make the slightest sense. A strong Iran is in Russia's interest.

      And strong talibans were in the interest of the US. Russia has a huge soft underbelly. It is not unthinkable that Iran could turn on its benefactor in the future. It's not that they are united by common values and interests. Iran is only in bed with Russia because it offers the best deal, not because it respects Russia in any way. What if it switches to China? (Similar reasoning goes for China, but Russia is probably more vulnerable.)

  55. CLASSIFEID INTELLIGENCE NEWS by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Trust us! We'll give you 25% MORE smoke and mirrors that the other brand of perception management!"

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  56. Propaganda... Go watch "Dancing With The Stars". by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ahmadinejad doesn't just not get along with Israel, but calls out for the destruction of Israel pretty much any time there's an open microphone nearby

    You're aware this was a (I assume deliberate) mistranslation of what was actually said? Google "Iranian mistranslation". It is however convenient for those who want war to repeat the propaganda.

    He does so even though Israel has never done anything bad to Iran

    You have evidence there have been no covert attacks? Your sources are clearly better than most. There are strange explosions happening in Iran at strategic sites. You think they are accidents? Who is the most likely culprit? Who is the most likely culprit for stuxnet?

    You also forget that Iran spends millions of oil dollars every year funding terrorist organizations whose sole purpose is to harm and kill American and Israeli civilians.

    Perhaps they see themselves as freedom fighters.

    You are looking for simple black and white, good and evil; like the movies, and the people who's agenda that serves will be more than happy to serve it up to you on a platter. You should just go back to staring slack jawed at the TV and let your superiors get on with whatever it is they want to do. The very last thing you should ever do is question what you are told.

    --
    Deleted
  57. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    OMG... Seriously? "Nuclear Catastrophe"? I hope you mean "uranium hexafluoride" contamination & exposure to factory workers.

    Educate yourself:
    http://chembase.com/pdf/readme.php?cbid=Uranium%20hexafluoride
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_centrifuge
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zippe-type_centrifuge

    A centrifuge cascade would manifest itself as aluminum or carbon fiber centrifuge rotors impacting their casing/containment. Centrifuge design is specifically intended to isolate and contain such a rotor detonation to prevent the shrapnel from "taking out" the closest neighbors.

    It was largely because of the illegal importation of 7000 series aluminum pipe that a "WMD seeking Iraq" was concluded to be a viable justification for invading them & their dastardly "Oil for Euro's" program.

    Other technologies which are considered "too neato" for Iraqi(& Iranian I'm sure) possession include vacuum pumps & magnetic bearings.

    I'm no nuclear engineer, but I would bet you could just as easily use an air foil bearing from a supercharger. Just about any air compressor can be used to pull a strong vacuum if you put enough in series and add a "cold trap" so unless Air Conditioning unit's are banned they are pretty much fucked there.

    http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iraq/al_tubes.html

    Read all about it. They even have dimensions and tolerances. If you manage to get yourself a nuclear power plant or a very large set of jumper cables maybe "you too!" can refine weapons grade uranium.

  58. Re:Stuxnet was designed solely to destroy centrifu by russotto · · Score: 1

    That really glosses over the importance of the centrifuges. They are massive, expensive machines to replace, and they directly handle the material. If failure occurred during operation (which was exactly what Stuxnet was designed to do), then on top of losing the machines, the nuclear material itself would be lost. The centrifuges are a critical part of the entire program, and their loss set Iran back years

    IIRC, it was more subtle than that. It changed the speeds of the centrifuges, not enough to actually destroy them, but enough to ruin the batch. Seems a little too subtle for Russia.

  59. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    You little slut! You dare insult me? You have no idea who you're dealing with, do you? I have the true power under my belt!

    We will only believe you if you pen a 3 page description of what you are wearing and what you had in your tea.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  60. Stuxnet's Authors are mostly unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Despite what the gentle readers may have read in the New York Times (based entirely on speculation and interesting coincidences), and despite what you may know about what is in the code (a mysterious registry entry noted by Symantec that MIGHT refer to the date of execution of a certain person in Iran), we really can not know for certain who was behind this malware. Some of this stuff may have been planted by others to throw everyone else off the trail.

    There are means, motives, and opportunities for many who wouldn't like to see Iran armed with nuclear weapons. If you want to speculate, there are many nations to choose from.

  61. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  62. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by Shoten · · Score: 1

    Actually, no it can't. The Stuxnet virus was incredibly specific; the only PLCs it affects are ones that control variable frequency drives (which are used to spin things very, very quickly with a high degree of control over RPM) made by one of two manufacturers. Control rods do not spin at thousands of RPM and are not controlled by var-freq drives of any make.

    So technically yes...something other than centrifuges could get infected, and in fact did (that's how Stuxnet came to light in the first place). But I've seen control systems that were infected by it, and I can tell you first-hand that, for systems where the full suite of intended targets are not present, it's entirely harmless and has no impact on operations whatsoever.

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  63. Re:Volkswagen, Mitsubishi, GM, IBM, all died in WW by gtall · · Score: 1

    Well, to be fair, it wasn't so awesome if you were a German, Soviet, Japanese, French, Italian, Romanian, Czech, Chinese, Philippine, etc. corporation. Many of the their "directors" ("leaders of the revolutionary blah, blah, blah in the case of the Soviets) wound up not among the quick by WWII's end.

    If you were an American corporation, you got "managed" by the government and were not in control of your output or your profits.

  64. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by donscarletti · · Score: 3, Informative

    What I said was completely correct, it can not go critical nor can it level a city block. The specific term for a block levelling reaction is I believe is "high yield prompt criticality excursion", which sounds terrible and didn't need to be said. Criticality is something achieved in nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs, it is not achieved in centrifuges, even when they fail, thus there is no energy release beyond the normal energy released by nuclear decay. Furthermore, that plant you live near does not blow up precisely because it is designed not to, with moderators and coolants. Should its fuel rods be stacked together outside by some guy who wants to make a fort, the situation would be quite different (though 5% enriched really doesn't have much ability to actually blow up).

    --
    When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
  65. I don't buy it at all. by SeaDuck79 · · Score: 2

    Russia is actually working WITH Iran on their nuclear program - have been for a couple of decades now. That's the reason they didn't take part in the coalition in the first Gulf war; they were trading nuke parts for oil. This is just misdirection on the part of the U.S. - a denial that is a form of confirmation. I recently spoke to someone who works at a DoD facility devoted to cyber-security. Our conversation was going fine until the word Stuxnet left my lips. At that point, he didn't utter another word. And I wasn't asking him for information, just expressing my admiration for the handiwork - whoever's it was. Another denial that looks like a confirmation.

  66. Great points and links, Johannes by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
    Great links, Johannes, although I've already studied this extensively, including some outstanding studies on it (Symantec's especially good), and studied the code, and first of all would definitely suspect any article, as in the posted article, which includes any reference to that fraudster BSer, Richard Clarke and his entirely phony Cyber War book. (If the Chinese are such a god almighty security threat, why do those frigging corrupt politicians keep shipping them all the strategic assets of the USA, specifically on the military side (1) Clinton's handing over the over-the-horizon missile targeting technology to the Chinese in the '90s; Bush's giving them that precision ball bearing plant in Ohio in the '00s, allowing the advanced development in aviation, ground and subsurface vehicles, etc., (2) the biopharmaceutical manufacturing, (3) chip and computer manufacturing, (4) munitions manufacturing, (5) derivatives processing, (6) and generally speaking, the bulk of production assets and capital [as in investment] assets?)

    And the extraordinary sophistication of the code, the P2P network, command-and-control routines, tech specs to Siemens tech, Profibus tech, Vacon tech, Fararo Paya tech, etc., not to mention all those exploits covered in various studies and the fine links Johannes provided, stridently points to the USA (w/possible Israeli and Euro collaboration).

    And what the bloody hell is a cyber analyst?????? Geez Louise........

    (Prefinanced propaganda books: "The Watchers" --- "Cyber War" ---- "Tiger Trap" --- "Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy" ---- of course, in each of these the authors make some serious boo-boos, which allows for enlightening further research, e.g., bottom of page 190 or 191 in Javers' Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy leads to Jeffrey Starr, his connection to Goldman Sachs' Business Intelligence Group [and WTF he's on loan from the DIA??] which leads to following Starr's family history and further employment as Washington lobbyist for no. one private security firm and global privatizer, G4S; plus in the Tiger Trap Wise screws up on pp. 88, 101, 105, 106, etc., which further lends credence to Sibel Edmonds' expose of an internal, secret arms operation involved in the secret selling of nuclear tech (Wise doesn't mention this, but his serious mistakes point in that direction), etc., etc.)

  67. And Richard Clarke, BSer extraordinaire... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    and his flakey book, Cyber War is mentioned in flakey article.....

  68. Nation-states are owned by corporations, douchebag by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
    ....so your points are completely nonsensical and invalid as obviously collaboration and collusion were most likely involved (at least with Siemens, but perhaps with Vacon, Profibus, Fararo Paya as well????).

    Plus, countries where top flight hardware/software hackers are presently jailed, Netherlands, Sweden & USA, most probably had captive talent which they utilized. Please avoid chronic cluelessness in the future......

  69. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by FrozenFood · · Score: 1

    I agree, thats not how you do it, But wasnt stuxnet expoliting the functionality of a windows PC talking to a CPU? a la prodave. AB PLCs come to mind, there was a website going round that explained if you password protect the PLC and then tried to unlock it later, the password would be send back to compare against in the programming software. They probably fixed that, but next time im on a PN-DP site, im going to try to find the easter egg HTTP site on the PN CPU!

  70. Slashdot Experts by lewko · · Score: 1

    Anyone who knows anything about nuclear reactor security or international espionage isn't going to be posting here.

    What we have instead, are a bunch of armchair experts whose real world exposure to nuclear plant operation is from watching The Simpsons. It's quite hilarious watching them argue with each other while the first group, if any of them are reading this, would be shaking their head and smiling.

    --
    Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
  71. Re:Full Nuclear Catastrophe? From a centrifuge? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

    They are full of uranium hexafluoride, a gas. No possibility of it going critical.

    I have a small hobby. I occasionally fact check interesting things nuclear advocates say on Slashdot. The problem with this hobby is it scares me. For example; uranium hexafluoride, it turns out, crystallises as a solid at room temperature (so could easily form a critical mass) an there have even been experiments with using it directly in nuclear reactors which means it must be able to go critical.

    Please explain how my understanding is wrong. I would really appreciate being wrong.

    --
    =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  72. Re:Propaganda... Go watch "Dancing With The Stars" by the+entropy · · Score: 1

    And even if there weren't covert operations. How does "organizing a military coup to overthrow a democratically elected government" not count as doing harm to a country?