Schneier Calls US Stuxnet Cyberattack a 'Destabilizing and Dangerous' Action

alphadogg writes "Revelations by The New York Times that President Barack Obama in his role as commander in chief ordered the Stuxnet cyberattack against Iran's uranium-enrichment facility two years ago in cahoots with Israel is generating controversy, with Washington in an uproar over national-security leaks. But the important question is whether this covert action of sabotage against Iran, the first known major cyberattack authorized by a U.S. president, is the right course for the country to take. Are secret cyberattacks helping the U.S. solve geopolitical problems or actually making things worse? Bruce Schneier, whose most recent book is 'Liars and Outliers,' argues the U.S. made a mistake with Stuxnet, and he discusses why it's important for the world to tackle cyber-arms control now."

Comments

Yes, and?

[Quakeulf]

The more involved the more things can go wrong.

Re:Yes, and?

[rubikscubejunkie]

did schnier go rogue? i don't see it.

Re:Yes, and?

[coastwalker]

Schneier is a fool, nothing can stop cyber warfare because there is no way of monitoring it. With all other weapons treaties you have some chance of verifying them but all cyber warefare needs is a laptop and a WiFi hotspot. So it is coming and we all know it. Good time to buy shares in secure products and cyber security businesses.

Sometimes I find it astonishing how naive people can be. And if you see a vulnerability in scum like Kim Barking Mad Teapots North Korea or Ahmadinejad's Iran then we should be doing our best to take them out now whilst we still can.

Re:Yes, and?

[Darth Snowshoe]

Schneier goes commando! Every day!

Re:Yes, and?

[Hatta]

And if you see a vulnerability in scum like Kim Barking Mad Teapots North Korea or Ahmadinejad's Iran then we should be doing our best to take them out now whilst we still can.

Which is exactly the mind set that got us into this position. Neither Iran nor North Korea would be such a big problem for us now if we hadn't sponsored a coup in one, and used the other as a proxy during the Cold War.

The way we deal with them today will set the stage for the next 50-100 years. We can keep fucking with them, or we can work on decreasing tensions.

Re:Yes, and?

[rubikscubejunkie]

Rock on Bruce! he da man!

Re:Yes, and?

[citylivin]

"And if you see a vulnerability in scum like Kim Barking Mad Teapots North Korea or Ahmadinejad's Iran then we should be doing our best to take them out now whilst we still can."

Im pretty sure osama bin laden thought the exact same thing! Hint, its called terrorism if there isn't a war on. That is what is to be expected from america these days i guess.

Re:Yes, and?

[mcgrew]

Or as Scotty said, "the more you overengineer the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."

Re:Yes, and?

[Glarimore]

I wish I had mod points. A million times this.

The US regularly commits acts that if committed against us would cause a full-scale war. It's unacceptable. If you're in power and you abuse those around you, guess what happens when you start losing power and they gain it?

"With great power comes great responsibility." The US over the past 60 years has demonstrated the responsibility of a small child.

As a young person, I'm just trying to be optomistic the future -- because I really do think this country is fucked.

Re:Yes, and?

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

And what's the alternative?

Bombing?

Assassination?

Giving them fat secret Swiss bank account numbers?

Oh, wait. Relying on their good nature as motivation rather than their murderous power hunger. Right. Forgot, sorry!

Re:Yes, and?

[Anonymous Coward]

The US regularly commits acts that if committed against us would cause a full-scale war. It's unacceptable.

It's international politics. It's always been that way and always will be, despite the howling of a few Utopian dreamers. Get over it.
The parent doesn't have a crystal ball, and he's got his head right up his ass about Korea. China was an ally of ours during WWII, and as a way of saying "Thanks for kicking the Japs out of our country" they invaded another Ally of ours, Korea. It didn't have jack shit to do with the cold war. Oh, and just FYI that war never ended, NK still claims the South as their land in rebellion, and is still demanding unconditional surrender. You should go study some world history.

Re:Yes, and?

[steelfood]

No, not even that. They wouldn't be so intent on nuclear weapons if Bush hadn't named them a part of the "Axis of Evil" that included Saddam Hussein's Iraq at the time. Considering what happened to Iraq (and Afghanistan, but not to Pakistan), pursuing nuclear weapons was their only choice.

Re:Yes, and?

[Psyborgue]

That's assuming tensions can be decreased. That's assuming if we decrease pressure, Iran or North Korea would back down. The problem with your assumptions is it assumes everybody is rational and by the same things. In case you haven't noticed, not everybody is. In Iran's case, religion is a big factor. Mutually assured destruction, to people who regularly strap explosives to their chests, is not a deterrent but rather an incentive. In North Korea's case, you have a teenager in charge who has been brought up his whole life as some sort of Messiah. I would trust Rick Santorum or Sarah Palin with ICBMs before I would trust those two.

Re:Yes, and?

[GodfatherofSoul]

That's not entirely the modern problem. We had relations relatively stabilized under Clinton. When Bush II adopted the PNAC world view, severed our relations with NK and Iran, declared his axis of evil, then scaled his foreign policy based on access to nuclear weapons, that basically told every two-bit dictator on the planet that a nuclear arsenal is "U.S. Invasion"-bane. That completely contradicted the message we've been trying to communicate to 3rd world countries for 50 years; nuclear weapons are expensive, hard to secure, dangerous, incite regional arms races, and an irreversible strategic choice.

The new mantra (as perceived around the world) is the US wants nukes and doesn't want you to have them just in case we want to change your leadership. This is all a part of the horrible damage to our image that probably won't ever be righted.

Re:Yes, and?

[butchersong]

Respectfully, this and the other comments above yours are largely untrue. You only have to look at a time line of NK or Iran actions regarding nuclear armament over the past 20-30 years to see that this had little directly to do with US behavior over this past decade. The very idea that countries had to have it pointed out to them that being a nuclear power is a very effective hedge against foreign invasion is really pretty nonsensical.

Re:Yes, and?

[couchslug]

"Neither Iran nor North Korea would be such a big problem for us now if we hadn't sponsored a coup in one, and used the other as a proxy during the Cold War."

What the fuck are you talking about with respect to >>>>Northhttp://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/TimeLine.htm#1950

http://www.sptimes.com/2003/webspecials03/koreanwar/timeline.shtml

"United Nations Secretary-General Trygve Lie comments, "This is war against the United Nations."

Re:Yes, and?

[DesScorp]

And if you see a vulnerability in scum like Kim Barking Mad Teapots North Korea or Ahmadinejad's Iran then we should be doing our best to take them out now whilst we still can.

Which is exactly the mind set that got us into this position. Neither Iran nor North Korea would be such a big problem for us now if we hadn't sponsored a coup in one, and used the other as a proxy during the Cold War.

The way we deal with them today will set the stage for the next 50-100 years. We can keep fucking with them, or we can work on decreasing tensions.

This is absolutely astonishing. We "used" North Korea as a proxy? Really? Crawl out of your political cocoon for a minute, and look at the facts: North Korea is a pariah because it attempted an invasion of South Korea in 1950, supplied and backed by the Soviet Union and Maoist China. The Norks were a proxy, all right, but a proxy used as a weapon against the West and emerging Asian democracies by Stalin and Mao.You DO know this, right? Or are we going to get a conspiracy theory about it? And ever since, they've periodically attacked the South or US forces stationed there. The regime is infamous for kidnapping South Korean citizens for reasons as varied as the need for political prisoners to Kim Jong Il having the hots for a actress he saw in the South. The Norks are as institutionally brutal, corrupt, and totalitarian as any regime in history, and they got that way all on their own. Every time we try to "decrease tensions" with the North... giving them aid, etc... they abuse it, renege on their agreements, and inevitably attack the South in some manner. Did you forget that they sank a ship of the SK Navy a few years ago, literally because they could get away with it? That they just woke up one day and decided to shell South Korea last year?

You can debate the Iranian situation (though I think an Islamist government was inevitable no matter what policy we followed), but to somehow blame us for North Korea is the very height of what Jeanne Kirkpatrick used to call the "Blame America First" syndrome.

Re:Yes, and?

[couchslug]

Damn touchpad...

What the fuck are you talking about with respect to >>>>North
Korea??????

Re:Yes, and?

[u38cg]

nothing can stop cyber warfare

Except applied mathematics, the exploitation of which is all "cyberwar" is. Get it right (hard, but achievable) and cyber war is over.

Re:Yes, and?

[spam4rakesh]

And mentality like this is going to lead humans to their doom. Thanks for having this superiority complex and your need to be to best/top/greatest etc what ever else you may want to put it. Idiot.

Re:Yes, and?

[NeverVotedBush]

Actually, South Africa found a way to reverse their strategic choice and dismantled all of their nuclear weapons.

Re:Yes, and?

[Nyder]

And if you see a vulnerability in scum like Kim Barking Mad Teapots North Korea or Ahmadinejad's Iran then we should be doing our best to take them out now whilst we still can.

Which is exactly the mind set that got us into this position. Neither Iran nor North Korea would be such a big problem for us now if we hadn't sponsored a coup in one, and used the other as a proxy during the Cold War.

The way we deal with them today will set the stage for the next 50-100 years. We can keep fucking with them, or we can work on decreasing tensions.

I don't see us working with them. After all, the president who promised us big change and to be different is busy fucking that shit up with them.

Re:Yes, and?

[borroff]

Why not just call Chuck Norris a wimp? I've never heard of Schneier being described as naive (except, perhaps, by the TSA), much less a fool. While it's possible for very educated and accomplished people to be foolish, I think Bruce's long history of excellent work in the field, his written work, as well as his job history with the US DoD, BT, and Counterpane Security would lead me to at least respect his opinion, even if I disagreed with it.

Re:Yes, and?

[demonlapin]

Counter-example: Libya.

Re:Yes, and?

[radtea]

We can keep fucking with them, or we can work on decreasing tensions.

No, no, no. You don't understand: the existence of tensions is proof that Iran and North Korea can only be dealt with via military action! That's what all the mindless war-monger's in this discussion are saying at least. The simple fact that the world is a rough and dangerous place is absolute and complete justification for all military action of any kind by the United States against anyone for any reason. Any suggestion that there exist alternatives is just Stern Letter Diplomacy, because to a Real American there are only two options: military attack and abject surrender.

You can kind of see how this makes sense. After all, look at the great things that war has done for everyone. Why, Pakistan and India have been at war for decades, and look at how well it has solved all their problems! Have you ever seen two countries so completely free of problems, especially with each other?

And of course, if you do anything other than engage in warfare to solve international disputes you will not produce heaps of dead young men, so alternatives are obviously inferior to war. Can your notion that "we can work to decrease tensions" kill a few thousand young American men? I think not! So clearly it is a second-rate solution.

Re:Yes, and?

[Luckyo]

This is a false assumption. International politics changed massively when we invented weapons of mass destruction. Suddenly wars between countries that both wield weapons of mass destruction became a realistic impossibility. MAD as a concept did something that nothing did in our entire history - mandate peace.

The fact that you mix propaganda (North demanding South's surrender in Korea) with real politics (when talking about international politics) shows the depth of your lack of understanding of underlying issues.

Re:Yes, and?

[downhole]

Thank you! That's pretty much what I was thinking of writing when I saw that post. At least somebody on Slashdot isn't an insane Blame-America-Firster and has some clue about how foreign relations really work. If I had mod points and you weren't already at +5, you'd have them.

Guys, I know America has done some things that aren't pretty, but every American misdeed combined isn't a tenth as bad as what the Soviet Union and Chinese Communists have done. If you ignore their influence and only pay attention to the things that America did to counter it during the Cold War, then you'll end up looking and sounding like an idiot.

Re:Yes, and?

[elbonia]

The US regularly commits acts that if committed against us would cause a full-scale war. It's unacceptable.

What a fucking joke. Cyber warfare has been going on since the early 80s at the height of the cold-war nuclear espionage in which two superpowers were itching to attack each other. It never went to a full-scale war even when it resulted in the deaths of senior officers. So before you try to discuss something learn some history rather than going on an extreme tangent. It's a sad day when quoting spiderman like a child gets rated as insightful.

Re:Yes, and?

[Elldallan]

Of course Iran won't back down, backing down would not be the rational choice thanks to the historical US foreign policy. Iran has been backed into a corner and sees nuclear deterrent as it's only choice to stay in power.
First you staged a coup to overthrow the democratically elected leader and replace him with a despot and when said despot was overthrown by the irate public you "secretly" fund another despot to invade Iran. Later US groups them into the "Axis of Evil" and subsequently invades one of thus named countries without provocation. The past and current US foreign policy seemingly leaves them with only one alternative and that is to get an invasion deterrent, which means getting nukes. And if Iran has nukes that creates a very real possibility that they can ship some to Hamas and/or Hezbollah which could mean that they can possibly deliver nukes into Israel regardless of any ballistic missile shields etc that Israel might have.

Yes Iran with nukes is a scary thought but they very reasonably see it as their only remaining option because whatever the US says they can obviously not be trusted. And currently the US is weakened by the financial crisis and the wars in Iran and Afghanistan, can the US really afford another war? I doubt defeating Iran will be as easy as defeating Saddam was and could Israel successfully invade Iran without US military support? And would Russia/China sit idly by or would they ship arms or other resources to Iran?

Re:Yes, and?

[AssholeMcGee]

They do not want to do that, believe it or not, war or impending war makes money. They did this with communism and now it is terrorism. When people realize that this latest plot is nothing more then an excuse to gain more control over its own citizens they will move onto something else, that will be what you have mentioned CyberWar. They will use this as the next possible ploy to can control over the internet,(ie pass laws ect.). The military, private contractors, and large companies, can continue to grow employment, without these "threats" they would have to drastically cut spending, and cut jobs. And government keeps adding new divisions for research and development. If it is not these countries Iran, North Korea, then the US will go after someone other country to keep the ball rolling. After seeing what has gone on in Africa and the US pretty much looking the other way, the whole, deaf, dumb, and blind routine, when the US is involved or gaining resources from Africa, someone should post in a separate story which countries will be next on the list, and not the obvious ones.. These leaks are being let out on purpose, John/Jane Doe will become scared, say to themselves oh my god we need to do something a bill masked as something else gets passed, people will act shocked and angry over this being allowed to pass, there rights have been violated yadda yadda , and they move on to the next thing.

Nonsense!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

How could contributing to the spread of clever computer-intrusion technologies(both with things like Stuxnet, and with the pernicious habit of doing business with the sort of slimy vulnerability-sellers whose customers want to exploit, not patch, them), possibly be a bad idea for a country whose citizens, businesses, government, and R&D capabilities are overwhelmingly dependent on computerized infrastructure?

That's crazy talk.

Re:Nonsense!

[radtea]

The astonishing thing is that anyone in the Obama administration was stupid enough to think that secrecy could be maintained on this indefinitely. Unlike physical warfare, in which the aftermath can be sanitized and obfuscated, software never goes away.

We all know this: full erasure of a worm in the wild is impossible to ensure, because you never know when some vital assumption is going to change. So the Iranians would have caught on eventually.

Add to that the equal certainty that eventually a programming error or assumption violation would result in the worm getting out into the larger would and you have as close to a guarantee as possible that Stuxnet would eventually be discovered and traced back to its source.

Yet it appears the attack was planned on the basis of perpetual secrecy, which is just stupid. I'm sure there are lots of idiots who will say, "But if only the world had been a little different than the way it actually is then THIS PARTICULAR leak wouldn't have happened!" Sure, but some other leak would have.

The militarization of the 'Net by the Government of the United States started under George W Bush and ramped up dramatically by Barrack Obama is one of the biggest disasters in the history of information technology, and the ultimate economic cost is going to dwarf the cost of Bush's idiotic physical wars.

Re:Nonsense!

[luis_a_espinal]

The astonishing thing is that anyone in the Obama administration was stupid enough to think that secrecy could be maintained on this indefinitely.

Who says they were thinking that? Trying to keep it under wraps as long as possible (a reasonable strategy from a tactical/strategic POV) does not imply the belief it can be done so indefinitely.

Your sentence makes a nice target against which to launch a tirade, but barring corroborating facts, it is one built on speculation.

Re:Nonsense!

[tnk1]

Until they admit this attack, it can still be sanitized and obfuscated. It's not like the code has little comments that say: I was written by the US Government and launched by Barack Obama. They just need to deny, deny, deny. I don't see how having software proves anything.

Re:Nonsense!

[darkmeridian]

Nah, all good tricks get compromised. The only reasonable objective would be to avoid disclosure for as long as possible so that the weapons program would have been suitably delayed. But once Stuxnet popped out, which was inevitable, the only problem was trying to avoid ownership. But even if this was disclosed to be an American-Israel project, so what? Israel was about to attack Iran, so who cares?

Re:Nonsense!

[ppanon]

To be fair, it appears that the Chinese have been engaged in computer attacks, against both dissidents/political enemies and economic targets, for at least as long as the USA. While I agree with Schneider that we've entered into a new dangerous phase, I don't think Stuxnet ushered in this age, it's just a highly visible marker that at best/worst raised the bar slightly. What it did do is increase visibility so that every state will now take these risks seriously, and invest accordingly. If only commercial interests were to do do the same, then it would be less of a concern.

Obama's Record

[MyLongNickName]

I voted for Obama based on two things: I hated how George Bush increased deficits recklessly and I hated how the Republican cavalierly meddled in other country's affairs using military might.

I feel like a fool.

Re:Obama's Record

[Mitchell314]

Normally I'd agree with you, but in this case bytes is better than bullets, IMO. If the future of warfare is more about breaking machines and less about killing people, well it is a step up.

Re:Obama's Record

[Pope]

So what? Who did you vote for Senate, House, etc.? The President doesn't run the show himself.

Re:Obama's Record

[poetmatt]

The only difference between machines and bullets is that it's easier to affect a far more widespread amount of machines in a more discriminate fashion.
Disable pacemakers? Shut down a hospital's equipment? These things will kill people too.

Re:Obama's Record

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that until you can't pay for food because your bank computer system is decimated and your credit cards stop working. Cyber warfare has the potential to be far more disruptive than conventional warfare if it's effective... as it could break systems the would lead to panic and riots.

Re:Obama's Record

[Anonymous Coward]

This program started under Bush.

Re:Obama's Record

[Kidbro]

This is possible, but at least it hasn't happened yet. While I'm not particularly happy about the Stuxnet attack, I couldn't accuse it of murdering hospital patients & civilians.
The same can not be said for the gun using meat space branch of the American war machine.

Re:Obama's Record

[dkleinsc]

The President doesn't run the show himself, but because he's commander-in-chief, the President can and does regularly order in the troops without any declaration of war from Congress. For example, the USAF was ordered into Libya even though Congress didn't provide any funding or authorization for that mission.

The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1942.

Re:Obama's Record

[StormyWeather]

And how do you know this program wasn't started under bush. Obama leaked what he wanted you to think nothing more.

Re:Obama's Record

[MyLongNickName]

You realize that Obama has increased troops to Afghanistan and only removed troops from Iraq when forced to by their government? Gitmo is also still open.

Re:Obama's Record

[vawwyakr]

The problem is here in the US, we're faced with a set of false choices. Both sides are lying backstabbing scum bags, it really doesn't matter who you vote for at this point. Obama just doubled down on the proof of this. People who point fingers at one side of the other are just missing the reality of the situation and getting caught up in the gamesmanship that is going on.

Re:Obama's Record

[luis_a_espinal]

So let me get this straight, you thought any US administration was just going to sit by and let Iran gain nuclear capabilities.

Apparently that is his/her line of thinking, and for that, humanity weeps.

I don't understand what in Baal's name these ignoramuses expected when they voted for Obama, that he was going to kumbaya his way to the Ayatollah's hearts, that Bin Laden was going to repent and kill himself out of remorse, that all the jobs that went to China will come back (and with a pay increase to boot), and that all the shit that permeates international reality was going to magically turn into Pandora's bioluminescent flowers and hexapodal bunnies with cute emerald eyes, with Thinkerbell pixie dust poured from over a rainbow in peaceful anarchic harmony?

Uninformed, delutional ideological thinking (be it left or right leaning), that is the stuff nightmares are made of.

I didn't vote for Obama in 2008, but I can't really say he is doing a terrible job, or that he lied. I actually like him more than what the GOP (the party I'm registered for) has to offer, and he has done a decent job considering all current factors.

People who now feel betrayed for voting for him are as stupid as the people who think Obama is the root cause of all evil and that shit will turn to honey once they vote a Repub back into the presidency (specially if he believes Darwin's "On The Origin of Species" is a work of fiction.)

Stupidity of the most grotesque kind permeates both sides of the political spectrum. Such is the ethos of the at-will uneducated simpleton masses.

Re:Obama's Record

[rednip]

I became a Democrat in 2000 not because I was 'in love' with them, but as I thought that the GOP was so utterly broken that the only real choice was the Democratic Party. My old party's ongoing reliance on seemingly conflicting wedge issues (i.e. smaller government that regulates abortion access, etc), unwillingness to make political comprises, party messaging that's created on right wing talk radio, institutionalized voter suppression efforts, and many more reasons convince me that continuing to vote/support Democratic is the right choice.

To create a choice for political parties you should support 'instant runoff voting', from what I understand some democratic leaders already support such a choice. If it's made a campaign issue that could be voted for in the primaries, then it might come to fruition.

Re:Obama's Record

[timeOday]

Again, sounds bad, until you compare to an actual war. Unfortunately this is an inherently political discussion so there's no avoiding pointing out that the odds of overt war (that is, real war) depend heavily on the outcome of the Presidential election.

Re:Obama's Record

[Hentes]

Bytes only delay the inevitable as iran won't stop its nuclear program. The purpose of this sabotage was to buy enough time for Obama to be able to attack after the elections. It's a risky gamble as the dely might not be enough, and bullets are still better than nukes.

Re:Obama's Record

[Hentes]

On a completely different scale. Just like Stuxnet caused the death of two people while an armed attack would cause tens of thousands of casualties.

Re:Obama's Record

[tnk1]

I still think McCain would have been the better president, but honestly, I'm also not really down on Obama personally. What I definitely don't like is where things are going where its becoming super polarized. There *are* decent compromises to be made out there, but no one wants to make them. I'm usually in favor of gridlock, as it prevents the more extreme elements of a party from ramming their pet projects through, but this is more like a situation where only the extreme parts of the platforms are being pitted against one another. Not good.

Re:Obama's Record

[cdrguru]

The problem is, Iran doesn't have the time or expertise to retaliate with anything except bullets and bombs.

You do understand they have to retaliate now, right? We got them where it hurts and cost them a lot of money and time. All of their Islamic buddies are now sitting around talking about how the Great Satan pulled a good one on ole Iran. The disclosure turned a painful incident into a public slap in the face. So now they can either be considered inferior by their Islamic buddies or they can slap back any way they can.

I do not believe for a second it will be a corresponding cyber attack.

Re:Obama's Record

[Cajun Hell]

Both sides are lying backstabbing scum bags, it really doesn't matter who you vote for at this point.

Gary Johnson might be thought of that way by Republicans, except he never actually lied to them. The stabs are right in the Republicans' chests. Their eyes were open and they had blades in their own hands. You might disagree with him, but he is not a scumbag.

Unfortunately, the stabs are also less than a millimeter deep and I don't think they even damaged the threading of their clothing .. unless you vote for him. Push in the blade. Enough people doing that, causes it to matter who you vote for.

Re:Obama's Record

[Anonymous Coward]

That's because Obama is a center-right president, which appeals to historical Republicans, and present-day Democrats. The far left crazies with no party, and the far-right crazies who took over the Republican Party, should have no place in politics in a civilized country.

Re:Obama's Record

[MyLongNickName]

Technically true but practically wrong. The President has much more of an influence on spending than any ten congresscritters combined.

Re:Obama's Record

[Anonymous Coward]

I still think McCain would have been the better president, but honestly, I'm also not really down on Obama personally. What I definitely don't like is where things are going where its becoming super polarized. There *are* decent compromises to be made out there, but no one wants to make them. I'm usually in favor of gridlock, as it prevents the more extreme elements of a party from ramming their pet projects through, but this is more like a situation where only the extreme parts of the platforms are being pitted against one another. Not good.

Holy fuck no, he'd have died of a heart attack or stroke due to the pressures of office and we'd have that stupid fucking bitch running the country. I liked McCain, and would have voted for him if it wasn't for the vagina they brought on as a counterpoint to the black man. If you think she was on that ticket for any other reason, you're a fool.

Re:Obama's Record

[jafiwam]

It will very likely not be a cyber attack, they aren't well equipped for that. More than likely, it'll be a Photoshop attack, which we know they are good at.

Re:Obama's Record

[couchslug]

Better yet, "cyber warfare" will result in more robust systems by devouring the "slow zebra".

We know the ONLY way people will act to secure their systems is if they are punished by the RESULTS of NOT securing them.

We need cyber-attacks to coerce immune responses and coerce more robust OS.

Re:Obama's Record

[poetmatt]

Umm, if those reactors were more populated it could have killed tons of people. An armed attack could cause casualties - we don't know how many. What constitutes an armed attack? A baseball bat? a gun? an army? an army tactical strike? a nuclear bomb?

Which of these also happens to be more expensive? Actual warfare or instigating cyberwarfare? guess what, we're going to get to find out as the US Gov't has basically encouraged it, outright.

There are wars where deaths are minimal, too.

Re:Obama's Record

[Relayman]

So let me get this straight, you thought any US administration was just going to sit by and let Israel bomb the crap out of Iran so that they don't gain nuclear capabilities?

There, FTFY.

Re:Obama's Record

[foniksonik]

That's Funny.

I voted for GW twice because I liked his cavalier meddling. Someone needed to meddle on the behalf of the middle eastern people. Their own leaders were / are killing them and ruining the world for all.

I voted for Barack because he was the best option and still is. He's very smart, maybe a little too smart.

I'm still happy with my choices.

Re:Obama's Record

[Hentes]

Compared to an armed attack reaching the same goals, that is setting back the nuclear program of Iran by 2-3 years. Cybersabotage, complemented by Israeli covert actions like assassinations achieved th same with minimal casualties. Also, as a pacifist the only casualties I care about are the civilian ones, those who chose to work on creating nuclear bombs knew the risks.

Re:Obama's Record

[MightyMartian]

I'm not quite clear here why I have been modded down. I didn't say that I approved of the fact that probably any President over the last half century would have done exactly the same thing if they could have, I'm merely stating a fact.

There are some real fucking retards getting mod points. Fucking hell you pathetic stunted neocortex-deprived halftards, grab a fucking clue. Making a statement like this is not a judgment call. Grow up you pathetic ideological loons. Reality doesn't give one sweet fucking shit about your political leanings.

No wonder there are so many problems in the world, too many adults have the emotional makeup of brain-damaged eight year olds.

Re:Obama's Record

[coinreturn]

People who now feel betrayed for voting for him are as stupid as the people who think Obama is the root cause of all evil and that shit will turn to honey once they vote a Repub back into the presidency (specially if he believes Darwin's "On The Origin of Species" is a work of fiction.)

Stupidity of the most grotesque kind permeates both sides of the political spectrum. Such is the ethos of the at-will uneducated simpleton masses.

FYI: People who feel betrayed for voting for Obama are few-and-far-between. They are a myth that the right invents to try to convince people that they've been betrayed.

Re:Obama's Record

[foniksonik]

Congress does control the purse however. They can and do decide if they will support military campaigns with funding.

Re:Obama's Record

[tnk1]

Well, strictly speaking, I was only talking about McCain's credentials, but it's true that his age might have become a factor and then the credentials we'd be talking about would be Palin's, which were... less impressive. Still, we actually have a good record of geriatric Presidents actually living through their terms. Presidents in office usually die due to sickness or assassination. That could easily happen to Obama too, and Biden would only be one or two steps up from Palin as President.

Just saying.

Re:Obama's Record

[darkmeridian]

Obama has avoided (or at least delayed) a shooting war with Iran. Israel was going to launch their own strike until we let them in on Stuxnet. We withdrew troops from Iraq pursuant to the Status of Forces Agreement with the Iraqis. Obama increased the troops to Afghanistan, but so what? It's not like they are going to be doing more killing than normal; it's just that these dudes need support because they were undermanned from the beginning. Is toppling the Taliban a good thing, given that they spread to Pakistan?

But what are the alternatives? The Republicans are pressing for war with Syria even though Russia has deployed troops and equipment, and Al Qaeda has been helping the rebels.

Re:Obama's Record

[Nyder]

Normally I'd agree with you, but in this case bytes is better than bullets, IMO. If the future of warfare is more about breaking machines and less about killing people, well it is a step up.

Well, the Stuxnet caused one of them nuclear reactors to do something bad, not planned? Blue Screen of Death that causes an nuclear accident? Is that okay then?

Re:Obama's Record

[Darinbob]

However this cyber attack was most likely initiated under Bush's administration. This was at a time when there were many hard line military hawks who wanted tougher action on Iran.

Re:Obama's Record

[Darinbob]

There is a naivete amongst many voters of all persuasions that a president has a lot of power. Truth is they have their hands tied in so many ways; legally, politically, ethically. All the presidential candidates may say that they'll do X their first day in office but none of them will be able to do it.

Re:Obama's Record

[poetmatt]

You're not a pacifist. If you don't explicitly care about all civilian casualties, which - guess what? It can include scientists in nuclear reactors. What garbage is this crap?

We may have set the nuclear program back 2-3 years, but we also set our global politics back by 20-30, which may bring every country on the planet towards refusing to work with us and basically declaring war on us. Which of these is more significant?

Re:Obama's Record

[Trogre]

Wait, you feel like a fool because you voted for Kodos and not Kang?

I'm not sure that's the correct reason...

Re:Obama's Record

[wrook]

I hate to say this, but Obama's election really cemented my view of how deluded the average person is wrt to politics. It's not just American's either. I live in Japan and when Obama was elected it was treated almost as if it was the second coming. He even won a Nobel Peace Prize ostensibly based on what he was *expected* to accomplish. It's crazy.

Before the election somebody asked him what his stance was on the continued bombing of Pakistan. He replied that he was in favour of it. If I'm to understand the situation correctly (and since I don't pay attention, it's quite possible I've got it wrong), it seems that the US gives Pakistan arms in exchange for the permission to drop bombs on Pakistan. This allows the US to assasinate terrorist leaders. (Again, if I've got this wrong, please reply with better info...)

Whether or not you think this is right or wrong, it's blantantly clear that there was never, ever going to be a major shift of foreign policy. This is pretty much business as usual for the US (whether or not you agree with it -- though I will say that the US has a history of this strategy biting them in the ass).

The interesting question for me is whether Obama himself believed that he would significantly change things. He seems like charismatic and relatively effective leader. If he can't make changes, what does that say about the ability of the democratic system to change government policy? If he never believed that he would change things significantly, what does that say about the level of propoganda in US politics?

To be fair, I don't mean to concentrate only on US politics. I could level these suspisions at pretty much any democratically elected government today.

Re:Obama's Record

[poetmatt]

Is that a joke?

Hospitals and neutral/nonviolent areas are constantly used as collateral damage in real wars.

So, they have found the proof?

[Robert Zenz]

Is there really proof that it was the U.S.? I mean besides that awesome author who has 7 sources which want to stay hidden and that "Of course it was the U.S.!" attitude...

Re:So, they have found the proof?

[crazyjj]

Would you liked a signed letter from the CIA and NSA directors talking about their top secret program? Because, obviously vetted sources in the most reputable newspaper in the U.S., a Congressional investigation into the leak, a Presidential denial of the leak, etc. aren't enough to convince you. So I'm assuming that we need to get Leon Panetta to come over to your house and read you in on the program.

Re:So, they have found the proof?

[AHuxley]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2012/06/israeli-spies-want-credit-stuxnet/53354/
Others want their expertise to rank with the NSA it seems :)

Re:So, they have found the proof?

[Maximum Prophet]

A friend of mine was in the Air Force in the '50s, stationed in France. While he was there, several Soviet generals were invited to tour the facilities, and inspect the bombers. My friend stated that if he had disclosed this information, he'd have been hanged, but here they were giving it away.

Of course, this was a controlled release of info, excluding critical operational details. Deterrence only works if the other side thinks that you have better weapons and will use them. So, yes, sometimes you do have to leave a calling card. The thing is, sometimes it looked like the US Government and the Soviet Government were in a conspiracy against their own respective peoples.

Re:So, they have found the proof?

[ShieldW0lf]

Deterrence is a weasel word. The word you're looking for is "Fear".

Myself, I loosely define conspiracy as an "in" group that acts in secret to further their own aims without regard for the consequences to the "out" group. Which includes pretty much every government and corporation on earth.

Re:So, they have found the proof?

[Maximum Prophet]

Deterrence is a weasel word. The word you're looking for is "Fear"...

No, Arthur C. Clarke talked about this w.r.t. technology. There are fears that are destabilizing, and fears that stabilize. If your "enemy" thinks that you are going to come to him and take his stuff, that fear destabilizes, weapons escalation is destabilizing. If your "enemy" has good intelligence, and knows that your weapons are secure and non-mobile, that fear is stabilizing, he knows he's safe now, but if he attacks those weapons are available.
To paraphase Mr. Clarke, more nuclear bombs, destabilizing. More spy satellites, stabilizing.

That sad part of the human existence, is that if your "enemy" doesn't fear you in the least, and has no reason to believe you will oppose him, he *will* come and take your stuff.

Re:So, they have found the proof?

[darkmeridian]

Game theory got a work out during the Cold War as both sides were trying to make sure that mutually-assured destruction would actually be assured. Nuclear deterrence is a threat; fuck with us, and get nuked. Threats only work if the other side knows about them. A secret threat, even if carried out, is pointless, for obvious reasons. Therefore, during the Cold War, each side exchanged and verified information to assure the other side that they actually had nuclear missiles and bombers and warheads at the sites that they guaranteed in the numbers they claimed. That made is less likely for the other side to call a bluff and launch a strike. And it's not like the location of the bombers was in doubt. It really does look stupid, but there was method behind the madness.

Re:So, they have found the proof?

[Darinbob]

It's a balancing act. The government does want some secrets to leak on purpose while maintaining an attitude that it was supposed to be secret.

Re:So, they have found the proof?

[Darinbob]

Fear that I may end up living in a gutter compell me to go to work every morning. Fear of indigestion keeping me up all night keeps me from eating the entire cake.

No this is where the U.S. made a mistake with Iran

[crazyjj]

The U.S. made a mistake with Iran with that stupid "Axis of Evil" speech. I'm still not sure why that speech isn't recognized as one of the biggest diplomatic blunders in recent history. First of all, lumping Iran and North Korea in with Iraq (who Bush planned to invade) served no good purpose. It was basically an open threat to Iran and North Korea that we were going to invade them next. And, not surprisingly, both responded by ramping up their nuclear weapons programs to a feverish pace (since nukes are basically the only way to ensure that the U.S. can't invade).

Iran was actually getting pretty moderate before that speech, even sending open condolences and holding vigils after 9-11, with fairly moderate leadership. After the speech we get Ahmadinejad and and full-on nuke program. Smart move, George.

I Think You Missed the Point

[eldavojohn]

How could contributing to the spread of clever computer-intrusion technologies(both with things like Stuxnet, and with the pernicious habit of doing business with the sort of slimy vulnerability-sellers whose customers want to exploit, not patch, them), possibly be a bad idea for a country whose citizens, businesses, government, and R&D capabilities are overwhelmingly dependent on computerized infrastructure?

I have to disagree with you here. To ensure that your businesses and citizens and government and infrastructure are sound, you should always be investigating modes for attacks and publishing them. My logic is that if the United States Government is able to develop this, then so is China's, Russia's, India's, etc so get it out in the open already. In fact, your claim almost seems to advocate security through obscurity. If you want to ensure that people aren't pilfering data without your knowledge, publish your exploits and what you see as "contributing to the spread of clever computer-intrusion technologies" could just as well be seen as "telling SCADA and other makers to pull their heads out of their asses and fix this." Also, your statements can apply to every single country now, even third world countries are largely dependent on networking hardware to function.

The reason this is a "destabilizing and dangerous" action was because it was effective -- not because the US Government secretly given hackers a bunch of ways to hack every computer ever made. Also, the US kind of lost the "moral high ground" now when someone hacks their nuclear facilities with the intent of disabling our capabilities. Use an effective cyber attack against a nation state that does not have similar capabilities ... "destabilizing and dangerous" is a definition of what you can expect the repercussions to be.

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I apologize if I wasn't clear; but my point was that possessing electronic offense and improving electronic defense are directly at odds with one another(and, as you note, we are hardly the only country with a supply of adequately smart geeks.)

If you want to use an attack, you need a vulnerability. If you want to use an attack against a really clueful adversary, you may need a really juicy vulnerability, a set of zero-days(as with Stuxnet) or that nifty code-signing trick with Flame, or the like. This is where the trouble starts:

Your attack people now have a direct interest in keeping certain vulnerabilities unfixed. Since much of the world's software is widely used, and has a reasonably publicly visible update process, there is no viable way to sneak out some kind of 'Important vulnerability fix for Win32 systems in the US only'. Either you keep the bug secret, leaving your own people vulnerable, in the hopes that you can hit the other guy before he discovers the problem, or you protect everyone from that vulnerability by getting it fixed.

Having US 'national security' types researching vulnerabilities is a good thing; but only if they do so with the intent of getting them fixed(US-CERT vulnerability reporting, for instance, makes us stronger.) That is how you 'get it in the open'. Things like Stuxnet and Flame were based on vulnerabilities that were kept in the dark(during which time they could have been used against us) for as long as possible.

It's not that I advocate security through obscurity(quite the opposite, in fact), it's that in order to possess good offensive tools you must, necessarily, have knowledge of vulnerabilities that you are concealing. You had to discover them in order to build your attack system, you have to hide them in order to preserve its effectiveness. That's the problem. Possession of useful offensive capabilities implies that you are condemning everyone, your own people included, to security-by-obscurity.

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[shentino]

I see this as a valid reprisal against Iran's refusal to cooperate with UN weapon inspections or whatever.

You can't stay on the moral high ground either if you just sign a non proliferation agreement and then work with nuke stuff behind everyone's back.

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[Sosarian]

I believe that Schneier compared this with desire for secure communications SecCom vs Signals Intelligence SigInt at the NSA in his CryptoGram newsletter.

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, why does America, Russia and China get to have thousands of nukes and Iran can't have any? Does that sound fair? Who has the moral high ground here? And why does Iran want a nuke anyway? Would it be because Israel has them? Is that fair?

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[tqk]

I see this as a valid reprisal against Iran's refusal to cooperate with UN weapon inspections or whatever.

Sadaam Hussein was fighting UN weapons inspectors tooth and nail, yet he didn't even have WMDs. Perhaps he just didn't want his adversaries to know how weak he was? Considering all the sabre rattling the US's done recently, I'd be holding my cards close to my chest too were I Iran.

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[Cajun Hell]

Either you keep the bug secret, leaving your own people vulnerable, in the hopes that you can hit the other guy before he discovers the problem, or you protect everyone from that vulnerability by getting it fixed.

That's what public key cryptography is for. The bug doesn't have to be a secret if it's designed to only be triggered by an attack signed by the right secret key.

[paranoid]And Windows 8 certification means that mass market hardware is required come with the keyring for checking that signature. They're fixing the very problem you're complaining about.

Security and insecurity are subjective. Not subjective in the sense of being a fuzzy judgement call, but subjective in the sense of "secure for whom from whom?" Windows 8 will be "secure," in it's own very special way.[/paranoid]

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[Anonymous Coward]

"You can't stay on the moral high ground either if you just sign a non proliferation agreement and then work with nuke stuff behind everyone's back."

If you are serious, you are about as clueless as it gets.

There is no such thing as "moral high ground" any more.

The only thing that matters is power. And no one with any actual intelligence
can blame countries for wanting to have nukes, because that is the ONLY
guarantee against being buttfucked by the US in the event US corporations
have decided you have something they want.

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[shentino]

I don't have a beef with Iran having nukes per se. Rather I have a problem with them agreeing to a treaty and then slyly defying it behind everyone's backs.

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[Teun]

It sounds very fair because the other nations have a standard of morale making it very unlikely they would use those weapons in any offensive way.

The Islamic militants of Iran are, like de crooks in N. Korea, a totally different kettle of fish.

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[shentino]

Iran wanting nukes is not what I have a problem with.

What I have a problem with is two bit countries signing treaties they have no intention of abiding by.

Iran sucks because they lied their asses off.

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding, americans are really stupids, they already used them on japan, they're scarier than iran.

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[0123456]

Rather I have a problem with them agreeing to a treaty and then slyly defying it behind everyone's backs.

[citation needed]

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[Nyder]

I don't know if Iraq had any sophisticated WMDs or not. I know they had very primitive means they'd used in the past to deliver chemical weapons and did have some stockpiles of said chemicals but Obama's Director of National Intelligence (James Clapper) has claimed that Sadam had WMDs shipped to Syria before the invasion. Just google his name and you'll get articles about this. Honestly I could care less about it but I thought I'd point out that there is far from a consensus on WMDs in Iraq at the time of the US ground assault.

In case you missed the last decade or so, We invaded Iraq, there was NO WMD's, nothing. It was a lie by Bush and his cronies, to get us into a war that made plenty of money for him and his cronies.

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[Teun]

Chances the Israelis would've attacked a pre-nuclear Iran were about Zero.

Why would they?

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[Luckyo]

There is a fairly interesting problem here that you both are missing. We now have a precedent where US/Israel attacked a country through cyber warfare means semi-officially without declaring war.

It's now entirely feasible for anther country to do the exactly same thing to US and US will be hard pressed arguing that this constitutes the act of war because of precedent it set itself.

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[BitterOak]

That's what public key cryptography is for. The bug doesn't have to be a secret if it's designed to only be triggered by an attack signed by the right secret key.

Ummm, bugs aren't designed. By definition, they occur as a result of a mistake. You may be confusing bugs with vulnerabilities. And I'm not sure that putting deliberate vulnerabilities in our infrastructure systems is a good idea, even if they are protected by public key cryptosystems.

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[downhole]

I do have a problem with Iran having nukes, but I'll put that aside for now. Even though I don't like them, complaining because they lied is silly and naive. Every country that has ever existed has done it and will continue to do it. Every country in the world both actually signs treaties and abides by them exactly as long as they think that it is in their best interests to do so, and no longer. International agreements have no meaning in the way that legal contracts within a nation do because there is no court or police force to enforce them (no, the UN/ICC/whatever doesn't count as they have no police/military force). At times, international agreements work well, but this is generally because the country or countries in question think that it's in their best interest for it to appear to be working well, or the issue is basically trivial. If either changes, the country in question will go back to doing whatever it feels like.

Re:I Think You Missed the Point

[Elldallan]

The NPT treaty was signed and ratified by the puppet the US put in charge through a coup. Honestly how can anyone expect that the Revolutionaries would honor ANYTHING the previous despot had ever said or promised or be surprised when they refuse to honor any deals/treaties brokered by said despot?

kind of absurd

[circletimessquare]

all countries are doing this, and have been doing this, for years

i never understood this "single out the USA for what everyone does" nonsense

it seems like a defect in one's ability to keep perspective to me

Re:kind of absurd

[jythie]

Well, partly people single out the US because it is so powerful. When weaker nations do stuff the impact is limited, when the US does something it can be kinda scary because no one can really stop them... and that makes everyone a bit nervous.

This includes people in the US. While there has been a lot of rhetoric about not needing a 'balance of power' in the world, in the end, such balance ends up being good for citizens. In a way, as citizens, out greatest ally is people on the outside who counter our government because we generally do not have the leverage to do so.

Though I agree, there is a serious disconnect between the reality of what every country does and the cleaned up mythology that people tend to view government actions through, so when stories like this come up people are shocked because political speeches and press reports rarely give a good idea of what actual international politics is like. This is bad all around.

Re:kind of absurd

[AHuxley]

No, most pasts of the world left this to university networks, private isp's, botnets, telcos/banks with backdoors over a short time...
Their security services could be running many legal compromised savants, gangs, political groups - but it was always a distant, deniable, criminal or just hijinks.
This is new in its directness.

Re:kind of absurd

[Hatta]

i never understood this "single out the USA for what everyone does" nonsense

I'm not one to quote scripture often, but a good cliche is a good cliche.

âoeWhy do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brotherâ(TM)s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, âLet me take the speck out of your eye,â(TM) when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brotherâ(TM)s eye."
Matthew 7: 3-5

Re:kind of absurd

[circletimessquare]

wtf?

you consider hostile foreign powers as an effective power counterbalance in domestic politics?

do i laugh that you believe this or cry?

in point of fact actually, there is the circle the wagons effect. foreign threats are used by extemist demagogues domestically to fire up their base. this is true in iran, china, russia, all countries... and the usa. in point of fact, this idiotic nonsense:

"In a way, as citizens, out greatest ally is people on the outside who counter our government because we generally do not have the leverage to do so."

reveals you to be quite utterly clueless

Re:kind of absurd

[circletimessquare]

excellent

micromanage the usa's outrageous use of stuxnet, before we can, for example, talk about mass murder in syria

how about we criticize ALL governments in proportion to their individual crimes?

i am not defending the usa, go ahead and criticize it, the usa does plenty wrong in the world. but have you notices what some other fuckers are doing? i am saying that the criticism of the usa should be proportional to what the other governments are doing. take stock of that, and the usa is down your list of concerns

there is only one defensible moral position: a global perspective. all other local positions are parochial and flawed

so no, you don't single out the usa for criticism, unless you wish to have a point of view that is useless on the world stage. because you aren't concerned with the world stage. you're concerned with mocormanaging the usa's moral image and keeping your criticisms at home

good for you

now never talk about international affairs again. that's by your choice. you have chosen to have an imbalanced point of view. therefore, you cease to matter, by what you have chosen to focus on: the usa, rather than world

Re:kind of absurd

[jythie]

There is a large range of other governments out there that 'counter' us. The UK, EU, and NATO are all common examples of foreign power blocks that have at one time or another acted as a counter to unilateral US behavior. Historically even Russia had utility in this regard since they could provide consequences for US actions, though they have started to fill that role again.

As for clueless.. it is called actual history of foreign relations and is part of many state modeling systems used by both our government and others. So if you want to call the CIA clueless... *shrug*

Re:kind of absurd

[Hatta]

All nations are flawed, obviously. But the US is our nation, and we're responsible for its flaws.

Re:kind of absurd

[circletimessquare]

"In a way, as citizens, out greatest ally is people on the outside who counter our government because we generally do not have the leverage to do so."

you are saying that you have an international viewpoint that is different than your own governments. what makes your individual point of view more valid that the government's? because you say so?

what if my individual point of view is that the usa should attack iran (it's not, just an example). the government if israel agrees with me. but the us govt won't attack. so i say

"In a way, as citizens, out greatest ally is people on the outside who counter our government because we generally do not have the leverage to do so."

what an ignorant clusterfuck

Re:kind of absurd

[Hatta]

Just as we are responsible for US domestic policy, we are also responsible for US foreign policy. Iran is never going to listen to my criticism of their foreign policy, but my representative in Congress (at least in theory) might.

I can at least make it clear that I will never vote for anyone for whom nuclear disarmament is not a priority. Once we no longer pose a nuclear threat to Iran and other countries, we'll have a lot firmer ground to stand on when we try to get others to disarm.

Re:kind of absurd

[circletimessquare]

"oh, loving Iran won't hurt me, all I have to do is get rid of my entire nuclear stockpile, then perfectly trsutworthy perfectly well intending Iran will happily not build nukes. and rainbows and flowers and unicorns"

reality

^
|
V

you

not quite working in unison huh?

i think you need to base foreign policy decision on something other than wishful thinking. sorry for that slight problem

Re:kind of absurd

[Hatta]

We've been escalating tensions with Iran for 60 years. Still hasn't worked. The real naivete here is believing that hostility will be met with anything but hostility.

Re:kind of absurd

[circletimessquare]

this is the country you want to play nice with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932010_Iranian_election_protests

and this:

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

Article 2

The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:

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

it is a THEOCRACY. a bunch of grumpy old men, who believe they have a monopoly on the word of god... with nukes?

no fucking way

it's not about islam, i'd feel the same way if it were a jewish or christian theocracy

and no, israel and the usa are not the same. even if the leader is devout and religious, the only valid parallel is if the pope decided on who could run in us elections and retained final authority on all us govt matters

i don't trust a theocracy with nukes. you may, but as far as i am concerned you are a deluded naive fool in your approach to world affairs

Re:kind of absurd

[Hatta]

I don't trust anyone with nukes. That's why I advocate complete disarmament. As long as the US has nukes, other countries will seek nukes to defend themselves against the US. Do you really think "Do as I say, not as I do" is going to work against a theocracy?

Re:kind of absurd

[circletimessquare]

oh, the ol' "i'm against nukes but since the usa has them, everyone else deserves to have them with my blessings" routine

awesome

what an ignoramus

if you were honestly against nukes, you would be loudly denouncing iran getting them AND insisting the usa get rid of them

but apparently, you are happy just to say the usa should get rid of them and then iran will happily follow along because iran is made of cotton candy and kisses

which is fine, everyone deserves to be stupid. just please be logically consistent and stop saying you don't trust anyone with nukes. you apparently trust iran with them. otherwise, you'd be decrying them getting them

Re:kind of absurd

[Hatta]

I think developing nukes is a bad idea for everyone. However, I don't get a say in how sovereign nations other than my own conduct their defense. And if I did, calling for others to disarm before we have disarmed ourselves is simply hypocrisy.

but apparently, you are happy just to say the usa should get rid of them and then iran will happily follow along because iran is made of cotton candy and kisses

Iran is clearly made of rusted old barbed wire. If we handle it with a clenched fist, we only hurt ourselves.

Re:kind of absurd

[circletimessquare]

so apparently, you think, when commenting on international affairs, that:

1. you can only talk about the actions of the USA. it's not your right to question anyone else. syria can machete women and children, but the usa is bad too, so you can't hazard an opinion on those actions, it's not your right. your nationality is more important to you than your humanity
2. that how others nations behave is simply a reflection of how the USA behaves. other nations aren't made of living breathing people, they are just cardboard cut out character reflections of what the USA does. iran doesn't have it's own thoughts or agenda, it's just a mirror of the USA

1. makes you blind, 2. makes you condescending

why do you even bother commenting in international affairs? you've utterly hobbled your mind and heart to do or say anything useful

Re:kind of absurd

[Hatta]

1) I can absolutely talk about the actions of Syria, Iran, etc. I just don't think it's terribly productive for me to tell Iran what it should do. Out of curiousity, what do you think I should be saying, and what practical difference would it make if I said that?

2) Nations are made of living breathing people, obviously. If you haven't noticed, people don't respond well to hypocrisy. On an individual level, people will treat you poorly if you treat them poorly. There's nothing about that fact that means I think that other people are "cardboard cut out character reflections" of my actions. The same goes for international relations.

The real question here is why I bother talking to someone who can't stop setting up and knocking down the same straw men over and over. Nothing I've said could possibly be construed to imply either of the two numbered points you've made. All you're really doing here is illustrating your own intellectual dishonesty by trying to put words in my mouth.

Re:kind of absurd

[circletimessquare]

1. i get it. if a guy stabs a woman in the street in front of you, you're not saying anything, you don't know him. but if your brother jaywalks, you will read him the riot act and rain high holy indignation on him. because you know him. so your "morality" isn't actually dictated by right and wrong, it is dictated by affiliation and proximity

2. hypocrisy: every single nation that ever existed and ever will exist will commit wrongs. therefore, inaction is always justified, because you can always point to a wrong a country has done, and therefore declare it is not capable of criticizing anyone else based on that, it is a hypocrite

the other problem is that we aren't really talking about hypocrisy. every action a nation does is under it's own unique set of conditions. it is not comparable to any other nation's actions, taken under another unique set of conditions. meaning, morally speaking, you must condemn a nation base don its actions uniquely, irregardless of what any other nation has done. this realization leads you to the mindblowing conclusion you can criticize the USA and Iran at the same time, without any conflict or hypocrisy, unbridled by the completely bullshit premise that the wrongs of one nation binds you in your ability to comment on any other's

Re:kind of absurd

[Hatta]

1. i get it. if a guy stabs a woman in the street in front of you, you're not saying anything, you don't know him

You just can't stop building straw men. Do you really think that the relationship between two individual citizens of the same nation is analogous to the relationship between a sovereign nation and a citizen of a hostile nation?

If so, you are too stupid to bother talking to.

If not, you are too intellectually dishonest to bother talking to.

Good day sir.

Re:kind of absurd

[circletimessquare]

i heard you pushed a kid in the lunch line when you were in 4th grade

for this grave in justice, you have forfeited your right to criticize anyone else the entirety of your life

deal with the mote in my eye as soon as you take this plank out of yours

friend, the only straw men being demolished here are yours, in how you think about international affairs and ANY nation involved in them. all you see are straw men! your entire argument is one giant straw man fest between nations and their ability/ inability to criticize each other based on these fake props: "the USA did {XYZ}. therefore, the USA can't say anything about Iran doing {ABC}, it's a hypocrite." straw men galore!

Re:kind of absurd

[Hatta]

So your position is that I should behave the exact same way towards Iran that I would towards a man who stabbed someone on the street? You don't see anything wrong with that?

Re:kind of absurd

[circletimessquare]

no. my position is you should evaluate iran's actions according to your moral principles. and you should evaluate the usa's actions according to your moral principles. one doesn't have anything to do with the other, no matter how many straw men you construct

Re:kind of absurd

[Hatta]

my position is you should evaluate iran's actions according to your moral principles. and you should evaluate the usa's actions according to your moral principles

I agree entirely for once. What did I say that made you think I felt otherwise?

Re:kind of absurd

[circletimessquare]

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2925479&cid=40370389

NIMBY?

[mister2au]

The argument put forward is not really that using these methods are "making things worse" - although that is opening gambit.

The real guts of the argument is that cyberattacks "will lead to the militarization of cyberspace, and the transformation of the Internet into something much less free and open" .. for that argument, I have some sympathy

Ultimately, this boils down to don't do your dirty work in the air, on the ground and at sea but not in my playground ...

Re:NIMBY?

[mister2au]

Ooops - i meant "actually do your dirty work in the air, on the ground and at sea but not in my playground" not "dont do that" .. quite different ;-)

No Disrespect, But...

[l0ungeb0y]

Bruce Schneier is NOT a diplomat and has fuck all experience in dealing with international affairs. And what sort of Diplomacy are we supposed to use when "Stern Letter Writing", "UN Inspections" and threats fail? Obama showed quite a bit of creativity and tact in performing an elaborate Cyber-Attack that left our best Security Researchers stumped for months and seems to have worked quite well in derailing their bomb making efforts.

Would Schneier prefer we have gone ahead with Israel's agenda and bombed the suspected weapons making facilities and risked killing people -- even civilians? Or is he just the sort of Freedom Loving Pacifist that would have us dawdling around writing more "Sternly Worded Letters" until Iran finally trotted out a bomb and wiped out an entire city full of people?

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[radtea]

Or is he just the sort of Freedom Loving Pacifist that would have us dawdling around writing more "Sternly Worded Letters" until Iran finally trotted out a bomb and wiped out an entire city full of people?

Ah, cowardice and fear-mongering, the ever-eager fellow travelers of the security-industrial complex!

When you have an actual argument, do please make it. Until then your reliance on invalid assumption and misleading innuendo makes you look pretty stupid. After all, everyone knows that war is dead last in terms of efficient, effective ways of solving international disputes, just as interpersonal violence is the least effective and inefficient way of solving private disputes. If you don't advocate interpersonal violence you can't consistently advocate war: they are equally stupid, and likewise largely ineffective, and always hideously inefficient.

With regard to the "Iranian bomb": Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. We know this from a very simple piece of evidence: they don't have them.

The Israelis have been accusing Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons for twenty years. It took barely four years to build them from scratch the first time, with much of the basic technology being invented along the way, by a nation with far fewer technological advantages than those enjoyed by modern Iranians simply by virtue of being modern. There is no possible way any nation-state could pursue nuclear weapons today for more than five years and not have them.

Ergo: the "Iranian bomb" is fear-mongering propaganda invented by cowards to justify looting the productive economy for the benefit of the dead-weight loss security-industrial complex. Good luck with that!

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[should_be_linear]

And what sort of Diplomacy are we supposed to use when "Stern Letter Writing", "UN Inspections" and threats fail?

As an EU person, may I suggest to our US friends another option: when "Stern Letter Writing" and "UN Inspections" threats fail in Iran, to provide healthcare for poor people in US?

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[DerekLyons]

Bruce Schneier is NOT a diplomat and has fuck all experience in dealing with international affairs.

I've been pointing this out for years - Schneier has pretty much no experience or knowledge in 90% of what he pontificates about.

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[dbIII]

I think to Schneier this sort of thing is like going as far as using mustard gas - a line that shouldn't be crossed because then you get it coming right back at you from the other side.
Of course it's an analogy and I'm sure nobody is stupid enough to reply that gas is far worse because it's a completely different thing. I'm just giving an example of another line that most nations will not cross for fear of backlash.

Also, get a grip on reality. Iran gains nothing by nuking Israel but various leaders there have gained a lot of political influence by rattling sabres and selling a few Shah era rockets at a discount to anyone that hates Israel. It's almost all talk. The nukes are more likely to be used in standover tactics against nearby Arab nations which is why the Saudis are shit scared of Iran getting nukes.

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[gl4ss]

hmmh. Israel apparently did sponsor bombing of civilians in Iran.. which did more to slow down their progress than anything done to the control sw - it didn't only RISK killing scientists but it was 100% intentional killings. at least outright bombing of the facilities would be "honorable" over the table attack(in other words, regular old school dirty and mean WAR). Now, what are they going to do if Iran starts harboring cyber villains? seems it's ok for USA to do that and piss on international agreements whenever they want.

"we have to start a war to prevent war" is just stupid nonsense. How about actually enforcing the trade embargoes first? there's a shitload of things you can do which are stronger than sternly worded letters. and pray tell, which country would Iran be attacking which they would deem worth starting "Total War" over for? as soon as something like that would start going down the guard would be fucked by their own citizens - they mainly need the bomb for politics which are done inside Iran. everything the Iranian government(revolutionary guard) does is to cement their flaky hold on power.

and Obama? please, according to the reports(unverified) he just let it go on. and behind the scenes someone got paid shitloads of money for coding sw which ultimately was just for delaying and getting some "un-patriotic" iranians killed and fired from their jobs.

you know what would have REALLY hurt Iran? stealing all their offshore cash. should have targeted some other computer systems.

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[Hatta]

Bruce Schneier is NOT a diplomat

All the more reason to trust that his analysis is accurate and not propaganda.

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[NeutronCowboy]

After all, everyone knows that war is dead last in terms of efficient, effective ways of solving international disputes, just as interpersonal violence is the least effective and inefficient way of solving private disputes.

I take it you haven't been introduced to certain members of Homo homo sapiens, who will do whatever the hell they want, until someone physically stops them. They're the sociopaths, serial killers and assorted anti-social people who will happily skin their mother if they can make a buck off of it, save the world, or get their jollies off. At that point, physical violence is the most efficient way of solving the dispute.

With regard to the "Iranian bomb": Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons.

Ahem?

We know this from a very simple piece of evidence: they don't have them.

Oooohhh.... the "I can't see it, therefore it will never exist" approach. They've been trying as hard as hell to get a nuke, but have been thwarted repeatedly by various people. See for example the bombing of the Ossiriak reactor, or, you know... Stuxnet.

It took barely four years to build them from scratch the first time, with much of the basic technology being invented along the way, by a nation with far fewer technological advantages than those enjoyed by modern Iranians simply by virtue of being modern.

Odds are that there was a lot of help given by the US. Up to and including the total lack of bombing research reactors and assassination of senior researchers. Makes it significantly easier. Furthermore, nukes are a 40s technology. Any country with 40s technology can build one. The trick is the manufacturing of it, which is pretty obvious and sensitive to sabotage and lack of raw materials.

The attempt of Iran to get a nuke is very, very real. Real enough that Iran is willing to sacrifice its economical future to keep its "research" and "science" reactors.

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[chill]

...ntil Iran finally trotted out a bomb and wiped out an entire city full of people?

What on Earth gives you the idea they will do anything like that?

If Iran were to nuke a city, say Tel Aviv or New York, they would be annihilated. The response from the United States would make the Allied bombing of Dresden in WW2 look like a Sunday picnic. Iran knows this.

Iran has no hope of attaining Mutual Assured Destruction parity with the U.S. Their only hope of having a bomb is "if you invade us, we'll make you pay the price". It isn't an offensive threat to the U.S.

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[gtall]

With regard to the "tree falling down": the tree is clearly not pursuing a path to fall down. We know this from a very simple piece of evidence: it hasn't fallen.

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[Whorhay]

When the parent was talking about it only taking four years to build the first time around I think he was talking about the USA's Manhattan Project during world war II. Which produced a Nuke in around four years. Admittedly the US then probably had more resources to pump into the project than Iran does today, and there were some incredible geniuses on board. But much of the knowledge to build a nuclear bomb is now available to the public and has been for decades. And as backwards as many of us think Iran is they no doubt have their own smart people and it is suprising that they don't have a working bomb yet.

It could be that they do or have the ability to manufacture crude nuclear bombs but are trying for something more complex or powerful to showcase.

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[cdrguru]

Yes, the US was able to build a nuclear weapon in less than four years from scratch. But we did not have any restrictions on mining uranium and we could dedicate any percentage of the federal budget to the project we wanted to. It was fairly cheap to do, considering labor costs in those days, but still it was a huge endevor at the time.

Iran doesn't have minable uranium resources within their borders, so anything they obtained had to be from outside. They have been saddled with building huge underground bunkers for the operation from the beginning because doing anything in the open simply invited destruction from opposing powers. I would say they have had a much harder time than the US did during WW II to build anything.

Twenty years? OK, they have not had a nuclear weapons program for twenty years although they might have had aspirations for that long. It is only in the last four or five years that it has become blindingly obvious to everyone that they are going ahead with enrichment on a scale that it far beyond what is needed for electrical generation or research reactors.

For the US it could be considered to be immaterial if Iran has nuclear weapons. They have limited delivery systems and what they do have we can pretty easily take out. Unfortunately, they have two big opponents in the Middle East that would be extremely uncomfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons - Saudia Arabia and Israel. While they are unlikely (ha ha ha) to cooperate on dismantling Iran's bomb program, both are capable of inflicting significant damage well in advance of Iran having the capability of a nuclear strike on their countries. The real question is when might such an attack take place?

My guess is we have given Iran a new objective - retaliation at all costs. The only thing that is more powerful than their desire to rid the planet of Jews is their inability to appear weak in the face of other Islamic countries. We have made them look weak with (now) a rather public slap in the face. I don't think they can afford to wait much longer before doing something, anything they possibly can, to inflict billions of dollars in damage to the US.

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[butchersong]

I'm not so concerned with Iran using nukes directly. My concern is that they tend to be behind a good deal of the guerrilla/terrorist type activity in the region (syria, iraq etc). My biggest concern this is a portable nuke handed off to a jihadist group that proceeds to make it's way toward Europe or the states. How reasonable a concern is that? I'm not sure at this point.

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Obama showed quite a bit of creativity and tact in performing an elaborate Cyber-Attack that left our best Security Researchers stumped for months [...]

I, too, am impressed. I had no idea Obama had such mad programming skillz, not to mention the time to do it.

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[chill]

Hmmm. Pakistan and North Korea worry me more on that front than Iran does. Iran is a theocracy, but they don't come anywhere near the level of batshit crazy that is found in the Pakistani and Afghani tribals.

Always remember, they're Persians and not Arabs, like all their neighbors. That difference will never be forgotten and tempers their actions.

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[tibman]

I have to nit-pick a bit, sorry. It didn't take just four years the first time. It took genius and a LOT of money too. The time is mostly spent processing the fuel, which is currently where Iran appears to be. If they stop at reactor levels, great! If not... the "i told you so!"s will be out in force. Even then, what will happen to the plutonium waste products from the reactor(s)?

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[darkmeridian]

"With regard to the "Iranian bomb": Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons. We know this from a very simple piece of evidence: they don't have them."

That's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard. In 1944, the US was pursuing nuclear weapons AND DIDN'T HAVE THEM. What are you, retarded?

The second dumbest part of your argument was claiming that any nation could get a nuclear bomb in five years even if the world's superpowers are actively trying to stop you from getting them. Iraq and Saddam was trying to make a nuclear bomb but utterly failed, so that blows a big hole in our argument off the bat. Anyway, the US spent an absurd amount of money on the Manhattan Project. Nowadays, Iran not only has to try to make the bomb, but it also has to deal with sanctions and embargoes and all sorts of other actions meant to stop them from making nuclear bombs. I mean, you're talking about Iran, a country that sells oil but gets embargoes against importing gasoline into the country because it doesn't have its own refineries. In other words, they can't make gasoline or their own automobiles; what makes you think they can make a nuclear bomb when the US is trying to stop them?

Re:No Disrespect, But...

[dbIII]

The history of hatred and war between the peoples in that part of the world pre-dates the Roman Empire

It looks like we've got somebody here that can't even tell the difference between Persians and Arabs that had the audicity to bring up "history" :(
Most of that sabre rattling is about "sending a message" to the Arabs that they are on the same side. Also I do not think your cold war comparison is relevant because either the USA or Russia could have gained territory if it turned into a "hot" war, while all Iran would achieve by nuking Israel is handing it to Syria on a plate.

Re:No this is where the U.S. made a mistake with I

[Anonymous Coward]

Smart move, George.

Intentional move, with successful outcome. The POTUS needs an outside enemy so the people will forget to debate internal issues.

You Are Spreading Lies

[eldavojohn]

Iran was actually getting pretty moderate before that speech, even sending open condolences and holding vigils after 9-11, with fairly moderate leadership. After the speech we get Ahmadinejad and and full-on nuke program. Smart move, George.

You are flat out wrong. The candle light vigils held for 9-11 victims were entirely citizen events and had nothing to do with the government. I have two Iranian citizens as good friends and they are completely different people than Ahmadinejad and, worse, their nutjob supreme leader. Your insinuation that Iran the nation state sent open condolences and held vigils after 9-11 is laughable and erroneous -- some of the leadership did condemn the attacks but that's as far as it went. Hate the nation not the national. Hate the religion not the religious.

Your blame on George is also largely misplaced. They had deals with Russia to improve their nuke program long before him and the leaders have always wanted the ultimate weapon. I know life would be simpler if everything was George W. Bush's fault but, unfortunately for you, we must face reality.

Re:You Are Spreading Lies

[crazyjj]

If you had read my statement more carefully, you would note that I said "Iran was actually getting pretty moderate before that speech", that means the people as well as the government. Yes, before that speech the people held vigils and the government sent condolences. It was only afterwards that they ramped up their dormant nuke *weapons* program and elected nutjob (by a 62% margin) to lead the country.

Before dipshit got up and made his "Axis of Evil" speech, the people were quite sympathetic to the U.S. and their leader was Mohammad Khatami, a reformer and moderate. Guess what happened to him after W. had his "We're coming for you next, Iran" cowboy moment?

Re:You Are Spreading Lies

[should_be_linear]

some of the leadership did condemn the attacks but that's as far as it went.

What else should they to? After all, it was only one building and few thousand victims of attack. Comparing to hundrends of thousend civilians killed and wounded by US Army. If Iranian condemnation of attack (they were not involved in) is too little, what is Obama supposed to do in Iraq, about mindless attacks he is directly responsible for?

Re:You Are Spreading Lies

[dbIII]

Iran as a whole probably is more moderate. Remember that the last election of Ahmadinejad had to be blatantly rigged.
It's a bit of a race between when the old generation lose power and when the nukes are ready.

Stop and consider the source...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only one source who says they have "evidence" and keeps pointing the finger at the US and Israel about Stuxnet, Flame, and other Trojans, and that is Kaspersky, which is a Russian AV company. Nobody else out there, be it Panda, Symantec, McAfee, or independent researchers makes these conclusions. It might just be me, but it appears that there might be a political agenda here.

Russia has a lot to gain by making the US appear at fault for these Trojans. There is a battle now for who runs the Net, either the US or the UN. With enough propaganda, it is possible they can wrest control of the Internet from ICANN. Result: You think SOPA/PIPA were bad, now think of some country you never lived in dictating the rules and fees for your website in your own country. Post a snide comment about the rulers in Thailand, in a few hours, your domain and IP have been pulled. Unlike the US which caves into international pressure and is smart enough to not fool around with anti-US sites (Pravda, Al-Jazeera), there is no stopping a UN backed replacement for the ICANN to do whatever it pleases. Unlike the US where the paid for fat-cats will back off when sites like Google shut down, China and Russia don't kowtow to public opinion, and PIPA/SOPA/ACTA and all that other stuff can easily become the de facto world law just because the one ruling body says so.

Re:Stop and consider the source...

[Anonymous Coward]

> You think SOPA/PIPA were bad, now think of some country you never lived in dictating the rules and fees for your website in your own country.

Nice FUD you've got there.

> Post a snide comment about the rulers in Thailand, in a few hours, your domain and IP have been pulled.

Yes, because Thailand runs the UN... oh wait they don't. The UN has actually criticised Thailands 'you may not insult the king'-law.

> Unlike the US which caves into international pressure and is smart enough to not fool around with anti-US sites (Pravda, Al-Jazeera), there is no stopping a UN backed replacement for the ICANN to do whatever it pleases.

Only the security council has the power to make binding decisions, and it just so happens that the US has a veto power on that council. Al-Jazeera is not anti-US.

> Unlike the US where the paid for fat-cats will back off when sites like Google shut down, China and Russia don't kowtow to public opinion, and PIPA/SOPA/ACTA and all that other stuff can easily become the de facto world law just because the one ruling body says so.

Yeah, because China would totally support PIPA/SOPA/ACTA...

Re:Stop and consider the source...

[coinreturn]

There is only one source who says they have "evidence" and keeps pointing the finger at the US and Israel about Stuxnet, Flame, and other Trojans, and that is Kaspersky, which is a Russian AV company. Nobody else out there, be it Panda, Symantec, McAfee, or independent researchers makes these conclusions. It might just be me, but it appears that there might be a political agenda here.

Perhaps because Panda, Symantec, McAfee have contracts with the US Gov to provide Stuxnet, Flame, and other Trojans?

Nobel Peace Prize winner

[MobyDisk]

I wonder if that Nobel Peace Prize burns in his hand yet.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize winner

[mathimus1863]

Two options: take military action against Iran to prevent them destabilizing the region, and possibly starting a war. OR write a computer virus that stops them from destabilizing the region without violating any airspace, starting wars, or killing anyone.

If doing nothing and letting Israel bomb Iran possibly leading to war is your version of "peace", then I'm glad you're not in charge. Life isn't always pleasant, sometimes you have to pick the lesser of two bad situations. In this case, no one died, no one got invaded, no bombs were dropped. That may not be worthy of a peace prize in itself, but it certainly doesn't violate one.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize winner

[alexo]

I wonder if that Nobel Peace Prize burns in his hand yet.

Why should it? He's in good company.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize winner

[Hatta]

Two options: take military action against Iran to prevent them destabilizing the region

Since when is a sovereign nation developing defensive capability "destabilizing"? Attacking a sovereign nation when it exercises its right to defense is far more destabilizing.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize winner

[MobyDisk]

All of what you say might be true. But it sure has to hurt making those kinds of decisions with a Nobel Peace Prize hanging over your conscience. (Where does he keep it?)

I would also like to offer some perspective here:

First is your assumption that Iran is destabilizing the region. Is Iran destabilizing the nation by building weapons? From their perspective, isn't the US the the destabilizing force since it keeps invading their neighbors? I know that isn't Obama's fault, but if he accepted that prize he needs to push for peace, not start attacks.

Did he attack? Well, Barack Obama is the one who likened cyber attacks to military action. So in his own words, he attacked. It may very well have been the right thing to do, but he can't pretend it wasn't an attack. Another hit against that shiny medal.

Also, the peace prize wasn't issued to him for Iran. It was issued in the hopes of his actions on Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Guantanamo, ... I think he has failed to earn his medal in those regions.

Maybe Obama has done all the right things. But I don't see him as earning a peace prize for any of them.

Now, the rhetorical question under the hood here: Would Israel really have bombed Iran if we hadn't deployed Stuxnet?

Re:Nobel Peace Prize winner

[HornWumpus]

The Nobel committee are more and more obviously hacks every day.

I bet they wish Krugman would just shut the fuck up.

They must hate becoming a joke.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize winner

[butchersong]

He can just blame Bush since this program began before his presidency.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize winner

[Pastis]

A nuclear weapon isn't defensive. At best, it is persuasive or counter-offensive.

Defensive technologies would be: a shield, a satellite with lasers, etc.

Re:Nobel Peace Prize winner

[darkmeridian]

Yes, and that's why Nazi Germany should have been allowed to rearm and militarize after World War I. After all, a sovereign nation has a right to defense, and attacking them is destabilizing.

Re:No this is where the U.S. made a mistake with I

[localman57]

First of all, lumping Iran and North Korea in with Iraq (who Bush planned to invade) served no good purpose.

It makes good theater. Destro, Cobra Commander and Zartan all had different aims and ambitions, but they pretty much just got lumped together as Bad Guys too. The American public dislikes subtlety.

No enforceable treaty is possible on this.

[anwyn]

There is no way to prove whether a nation is engaged in offensive cyber warfare. It will always be possible to say those things were done by criminals and malefactors. "The secretary will disavow all knowledge of your actions." If those leaks had happened in China, the leakers would be shot and their families billed for the bullets. Therefore, if a treaty is signed, it will be a one-way treaty partially enforceable in the West only.

It would be colossally foolish to sign such a treaty.

I can not imagine such a treaty being ratified.

Therefore, baton down the hatches a storm is coming.

Re:No enforceable treaty is possible on this.

[mcgrew]

I don't think a baton down the hatches is going to keep the water out.

The Mistake?

[Maximum Prophet]

The real mistake was getting caught, or was it? The article says "Stuxnet didn't just damage the Natanz nuclear facility; it damaged the U.S.'s credibility as a fair arbiter and force for peace in cyberspace"

Was the US government ever seen as a "fair arbiter and force for peace in cyberspace". Yes, many Americans played that role, but the official government?

Deterrence only works if the other side thinks that you have better weapons and will use them. It's entirely possible that "Getting Caught" was a calculated risk, planned from the beginning. Unofficial channels may have sent the messge, "We were easy on you this time, back off, or next time we take off the gloves." Certainly, after you get caught, that's the way you want to spin it.

Re:The Mistake?

[Hatta]

Was the US government ever seen as a "fair arbiter and force for peace in cyberspace".

The US has never even been a fair arbiter and force for peace in meatspace.

Re:The Mistake?

[Hatta]

Ok then, when? Name one instance where American foreign policy has been guided more by what is fair than by what would benefit powerful American interests the most.

Nobody ever won a war by following rules

[Overzeetop]

The pacific portion of WWII ended because we annihilated two cities - civilians and all - and threatened to to turn the island of Japan into a wasteland. War sucks, and shouldn't need to exist, but it does. Good? Bad? Think of it this way - do you want to be the country that doesn't have nuclear weapons because they're "against the rules," or do you want to have them because - rules or not - people are much less likely to fuck with you if they know you can destroy them?

Re:Nobody ever won a war by following rules

[lexa1979]

you're talking about Iran here right ? Nice to help people finally understand why Iran wants nuke...

Re:Nobody ever won a war by following rules

[crazyjj]

The pacific portion of WWII ended because we annihilated two cities

Yeah, except there is just one problem with that Iran = WWII-Japan analogy. Iran never attacked us, isn't at war with us, and has absolutely no imperial ambitions. But other than that, sure, Iran is exactly like Imperial Japan in 1945.

Re:Nobody ever won a war by following rules

[camperdave]

The pacific portion of WWII ended because we annihilated two cities - civilians and all - and threatened to to turn the island of Japan into a wasteland. War sucks, and shouldn't need to exist, but it does. Good? Bad? Think of it this way - do you want to be the country that doesn't have nuclear weapons because they're "against the rules," or do you want to have them because - rules or not - people are much less likely to fuck with you if they know you can destroy them?

The problem with that line of thinking is this: If you know a country can destroy you, you are not going to leave them alone and HOPE that they don't. No, you going to take steps to eliminate that threat.

Re:Nobody ever won a war by following rules

[hort_wort]

has absolutely no imperial ambitions

Except for the whole annihilation of Israel thing... other than that... no, I guess not.

-googles-
Um yeah, turns out that Iran outnumbers Israel 10 to 1 in about every way. If they really wanted to "wipe it off the map", as the nonsensical translation is so fond of saying, then they probably would've already done it by now.

I really wish the US would stop freaking out about Israel all the dang time just because they wrote a book. You don't hear it rushing to defend Azerbaijan all the time.

Re:Nobody ever won a war by following rules

[0123456]

I'm pretty much convinced (but his is my opinion) that the bombs were dropped because the Americans had them and they had an excuse to do the ultimate experiment, and to do a repeat experiment to see if their improvements worked.

Your tin-foil hat is coming off. While I agree that the Japanese would soon have surrendered without the bombs, the US military was ready to drop a new one on another city every week or two after the initial attacks, but the President said 'no more'. If there had been some grand conspiracy to test new bomb designs, they'd have kept dropping them for as long as possible.

Re:Nobody ever won a war by following rules

[crazyjj]

Except for the whole annihilation of Israel thing

Yeah:

1) I don't believe that for a second. That's bullshit Israeli propaganda if I've ever heard it.

And, most importantly

2) The U.S. *IS NOT* Israel.

Re:Nobody ever won a war by following rules

[HornWumpus]

AC post is full of nonsense. He/She should do some research.

The Japanese offered conditional surrender, which was unacceptable. They wanted to keep large parts of China and Korea.

Even after the second bomb there was blood in the Emperors palace before they surrendered. Attempted coup led by Tojo.

Re:Nobody ever won a war by following rules

[butchersong]

Iran is directly responsible for the deaths of many many US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan though I agree that doesn't rise to the level that would cause us to go to war with them. If you don't think the Persians have ambitions of empire though I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:Nobody ever won a war by following rules

[crazyjj]

Iran is directly responsible for the deaths of many many US troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan

And how many Iranians died the U.S.-funded coup in 1953? How many of their nuclear scientists have we killed inside their own country?

If you don't think the Persians have ambitions of empire though I have a bridge to sell you.

Iran hasn't invaded a country in hundreds of years. Remind me again how many countries the U.S. Empire has invade in just the last decade?

Re:Nobody ever won a war by following rules

[Trogre]

Well, that and having every woman on the planet wearing a burqa.

Re:Nobody ever won a war by following rules

[Overzeetop]

Absolutely. And that's why we oppose them getting the bomb (aside from the fact that their president is batshit crazy), too.

I didn't say is was right, or proper, or in the best interest of world peace, or...whatever. We live in an imperfect world. I don't have to like it, but i do have to live with it. The sooner we get over the whole "good guy never breaks the rules" bullshit and realize that the "bad guys" will always break the rules, the sooner we will be on an even footing. The challenge is determining which rules to break and which ones to keep for your own moral sanity.

Re:I don't understand

[AHuxley]

Like the legality of Sputnik in orbit over 'your' airspace, it opens a new area to weaponise.
Today "power plants", soon the billing/pension/social security systems? Add or remove 20% with direct debit/deposit in some parts of the world?
If a country votes the wrong way in the UN? Make the sitting gov fall with a wave of cyber "thingy"?

Re:No this is where the U.S. made a mistake with I

[tqk]

First of all, lumping Iran and North Korea in with Iraq (who Bush planned to invade) served no good purpose.

Ah, you don't understand how the US works. Much like, "Invasion is the means by which the US teaches its citizens geography", invasions are also the beta testing ground for US munitions manufacturers. Does stealth work? Invade Iraq. Bunker busters? Afghanistan. Does mobile infantry help? Invade VietNam. Does jet tech. help? Korea. Etc.

I'm not really sure how Afghanistan fits in, but "Combat Hospital" is my favourite show (if that means anything). HAND.

What constitutes "war"?

[akboss]

"War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."- Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz Launching air strikes, drone attacks, stuxnet are all of these not an act of war? If say North Korea launched air strikes on US soil wouldnt we be upset just a little? How about if they only used drones to hit their enemies on our land? How about if they unleashed stuxnet towards our nuclear plants? But it is ok for us to do it?

Stupidest thing I ever heard

[KingTank]

How the hell would you enforce a "cyber-arms" ban? It would be easier to ban actual arms. Like a worldwide gun ban.

Sounds Like a Flimsy Conspiracy Theory

[eldavojohn]

You said in your original post:

It was basically an open threat to Iran and North Korea that we were going to invade them next.

Which is sort of incorrect, the speech was given on January 29, 2002 and Iraq was invaded on 19 of March 2003. So let's look at Mohammad Khatami who was in office from 2 August 1997 – 3 August 2005 and I'll leave it to the reader to decide if it was the speech of George W. Bush on in January of 2002 or the ongoing "Operation Iraqi Freedom" that started in 2003 and was still going on when he left office that was the primary motivation for him being replaced by someone that would scare the US. The endless Iraq War is a bigger blunder! Not his stupid speech and Republican rhetoric! Actions speak louder than words.

George W. Bush is a moron, I agree with you here. But I don't want history rewritten to say that the greatest political blunder was his Axis of Evil speech -- look at the freaking invasion of Iraq, for the love of Allah!

Guess what happened to him after W. had his "We're coming for you next, Iran" cowboy moment?

What in the hell are you talking about?! The US wasn't even in Iraq when he made this speech! You are rewriting history, you are fudging timelines, adding dialogue, cheap rhetoric and twisting facts to align with your ideals and your reality just like a politician!

Re:Sounds Like a Flimsy Conspiracy Theory

[crazyjj]

The cowboy moment was the speech COUPLED WITH the invasion. If you label someone part of an "Axis of Evil" and a few months later invade one of the three members, it sends a pretty clear and unambiguous message to the other two that they had damn well better prepare to be next. And that's EXACTLY what they did.

Re:Sounds Like a Flimsy Conspiracy Theory

[Anonymous Coward]

If you label someone part of an "Axis of Evil" and a few months later invade

Hint: January 29, 2002 to March 19, 2003 is actually 14 months difference.

Obama is the Bush who isn't a coward

[dbIII]

Some earlier Presidents wanted the same sort of extralegal measures done but they went to great lengths to deny they ever had anything to do with it. Congratulations folks - you got somebody ordering the same sort of shit that Bush, Reagan (and even Clinton) pretended "just happened" only this time he's not being a coward about it.
You don't just roll back from GITMO etc in a decade no matter who is in charge. Conservative lawyers are about keeping things rolling with the minimum of change and that's who you've got USA. So what you've got now USA is what you would have had if Bush wasn't an AWOL coward on holiday all of the time.

Sure, in isolation it was a bad call but given

[divisionbyzero]

the alternatives, invasion or air bombardment, it seems reasonable.

Re:No this is where the U.S. made a mistake with I

[divisionbyzero]

The U.S. made a mistake with Iran with that stupid "Axis of Evil" speech. I'm still not sure why that speech isn't recognized as one of the biggest diplomatic blunders in recent history. First of all, lumping Iran and North Korea in with Iraq (who Bush planned to invade) served no good purpose. It was basically an open threat to Iran and North Korea that we were going to invade them next. And, not surprisingly, both responded by ramping up their nuclear weapons programs to a feverish pace (since nukes are basically the only way to ensure that the U.S. can't invade).

Iran was actually getting pretty moderate before that speech, even sending open condolences and holding vigils after 9-11, with fairly moderate leadership. After the speech we get Ahmadinejad and and full-on nuke program. Smart move, George.

Agreed. But instead of being shunned for being the author of one of the most damaging speeches in American foreign policy history he gets a blog, a contributors spot on CNN, and gets to publish seven books.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/davidfrum.html

Re:I don't understand

[tqk]

As far as I know, power plants are not connected to the internet.

According to those who showed up for a related discussion a month or two ago, this cannot be assumed today. Management wants to be able to monitor this stuff from their home peecee.

The virus thingy only attacks powerplants. So there is nothing for it to do if it is on the internet.

Stuxnet "walked" across the airgap on a contractor's usb key.

Correct me if I am wrong, I think this is all just media sensationalism about 'omg the hackerz!".

The last I heard, it set back Iran's uranium enrichment program two years. I imagine it likely fanned the flames of Iran's policy makers, so when the hammer eventually falls, it's *really* going to fall. Good work, cyberwarriors! Gun, meet foot.

Hold on a moment

[theRunicBard]

The wold will inevitably rely on cyberwarefare soon enough, much like how everyone uses computers now. And most people don't understand how a computer works so they just buy "friendly gadgets" that only expose the buttons and are otherwise cute, little boxes. If we apply that logic, aren't we going to end up designing Megaman soon?

Was a good call with limited info

[Mabhatter]

This was just a routine Cloak and Dagger Op. During the Cold War the CIA and KGB did "monkey wrench" ops like this all the time. Most of the time they didn't bother telling the Prez... So he couldn't accidentally apologize!

In the grand scheme from the Prez point of view, this was the right way to go. Americans aren't really willing to start another war, and the intel in Iran's Nuclear program is so sensational and political the truth is long lost. The CIA wants to throw a digital wrench in the works that Iran claims don't exist is better than letting Israel invade their airspace with US made planes again. Iran isn't being honest with neighbors like Syria either, so "outrage" over breaking something they claimed they wernt doing is minimal.

The bigger problem is that the military and other orgs are utterly irresponsible With their "toys". They ended up giving foreign hackers something high-end and new to hack our OWN computers with. This leads to looking for "terrorists" under every beach towel because there is all this irresponsible stuff going on even the President and industry leaders aren't warned is coming.... Because these idiots turned stuff loose and tried to cover it up.

Act of war

[alexo]

Has the US formally declared war on Iran?

MAD...not crazy

[ElitistWhiner]

Crazy is today's relevant metaphor for the United States military - industrial complex MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, theory-driven policies for gaming ultimate zero-win war scenarios. Zero-war scenarios have yet to disarm nuclear technologies. Stuxnet, Flame, drones, et. al. advance the state of politics without the incursion and loss of life on the battlefields of nation states who have nothing left to lose but treasury of its future, youth.

"Discriminate fashion" is the key feature

[Cajun Hell]

Disable pacemakers? Shut down a hospital's equipment? These things will kill people too.

But that's not what this particular software does. If someone wants to repurpose Stuxnet or Flame to target pacemakers, they're going to have to do the work to make it so.

OTOH if you make bullets intended to kill only bad guys and someone else decides to repurpose them for killing cute puppies and children, the bullets are just fine as-is, and ready to use.

Disclosing this is dangerous and destablizing

[cdrguru]

While the wisdom of pursuing the attack can be debated, a larger question of disclosing it publicly needs to be addressed. Let's just say that doing it was of questionable benefit and it probably should not have been done.

However, once it was done I would say that as a major component of any covert military operation there was an extreme need to keep it secret. Forever. Disclosing this has more or less committed Iran to a course of action to retaliate. There is no escaping that fact - they have to retaliate, probably on a larger scale. We cost them millions of dollars so they have to cost us billions. Failure to retailate will make them appear to other Islamic powers that they have faced the Great Satan and blinked, which is not a posture they can afford.

You can argue that it was theorized already that the US might be responsible. The difference is that before disclosure it was just a theory and it is difficult to justify retaliation based on a theory. Unfortunately, what disclosure has done is made it impossible to ignore any longer. It is the difference between thinking your wife might be being unfaithful and coming home to find her in bed with someone else. It is no longer possible to ignore the situation and it demands action.

Disclosure of this sort of military secret - and it cannot be termed anything but that - is clearly treasonous. I would put it on the same level as telling Germany at the height of the U-Boat campaign that we had cracked their code and knew where the subs were being sent. The result would have been a change in strategy and tactics as well as a tremendous loss of life. This disclosure will certainly lead to a significant loss of life as well.

So because some people blabbed about this we are now going to face an attack, probably within the continental US and probably pretty soon. I believe the timing will correspond to the Iranian position on the US Presidential election. Attacking before November pretty much puts Obama out of office, so if they believe Romney would be a weaker opponent the attack will be before the election. Personally, I would suspect Obama to be the weaker opponent for Iran and therefore the attack will be sometime in early 2013.

In order to cause the required amount of damage to the US, it is going to have to be a nuclear detonation. While Iran has a shortage of bomb-grade materials, other powers do not and will almost certainly share for an enterprise of this nature. A air or missle attack would be hopeless for Iran and there are too many potential avenues of discovery for a smuggled weapon. So the likey route for the attack will be by cargo ship in a encircling harbor. The Chesapeak Bay might be a great place for this with the opportunity to shower Washington DC with radioactive water and debris.

In short, if you live in a harbor area on the East coast you might want to take a trip until, say April of 2013.

Well, let's just stop cyberwar for them.

[ka9dgx]

The main reason that cyberwar is a threat is because we haven't worried about code complexity, as long as systems worked, we figured it was good enough. There are now projects in play that offer ways to manage this complexity, and reduce the number of trusted lines of code for any given function to tractable numbers. I'd even go so far as to say that it's possible to have a computer that is usable, secure and networked, with active users.

Capability based security offers one part of the approach to making this possible by limiting the side effects of any given piece of code in an effective sandbox.
Microkernel based operating systems are the next part by not trusting driver code, and reducing the attack surface to manageable levels
Allowing the users to make use of the above 2 parts completes the picture, as they can then choose what they want to risk for what rewards.

I've recently learned of the Genode project which looks to be good enough to get this done. They hope to be at the "eat our own dog food" / self hosted stage before the end of 2012. They've been at it a while, and seem to really know what they are doing. I'm working on getting my own copy up and running in a virtualbox so I can see just how it all works in practice.

Let's fix computer security and make cyberwar impossible.

Re:Stuxnet was approved by Bush initially

[0123456]

Obama said yes to it anyway for the same reasons as Bush did, so please NYT, stop making this political.

But Obama is the Peace Prize President. Of course his actions should be held to a different standard than Bush.

Sadly, the left seem to think that things which were evil when Bush did them are wonderful when Obama does them.

Hypocrisy from the USA? Unpossible!

[Anonymous Coward]

You see, several times in the past, the USA have whined and whinged about China cyberterror attacks.

Turns out they were officially doing the same thing themselves.

Moral high ground? Nuked.

Re:Hypocrisy from the USA? Unpossible!

[Luckyo]

Nay. West has automatic moral high ground because it's moral by nature, and anyone opposing moral country is clearly immoral. There is no need for further justification.

(Notably the same argument was and is used in all superpowers).

Re:Hypocrisy from the USA? Unpossible!

[Phrogman]

US "Morality" is buried under half a million dead in Iraq for a war started by GW Bush having a dream that God told him to invade Iraq and finish what his dad started, and based on lies that there were WMDs, while the true purpose of the war was to enrich companies like Haliburton. Whats thousands of US dead just to prop up corporate profits in the long run?
You had some moral high ground during WWII, The Korean War, and the Cold War but lost it starting with Vietnam (and the Phoenix project), and completely during the Iraq war II.

Re:Hypocrisy from the USA? Unpossible!

[Luckyo]

Or did you? Most forget that concentration camps were not common knowledge until they were actually conquered, causing massive shock to soldiers who entered them.

Reality is, morale of one in position of strength is that strength is moral. Weakness is immoral. Weakness that dares to oppose to wishes of strong is so immoral, it needs to be suppressed in name of morality.

So you hate the USA?

[Anonymous Coward]

They've signed SEVERAL treaties. For example NAFTA. They ignore that one to put a protectionist tax on Canadian Softwood Lumber.

And they're abrogating their treaty under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Pact.

So I guess since you hate Iran for lying their asses off, you hate the USA for doing it too, right? Or is it only *small* countries doing this you have a problem with?

Re:So you hate the USA?

[shentino]

Just because the pot is the one calling the kettle black doesn't make the kettle any shinier.

Now mind you, I'm not turning a blind eye to the pot either.

kill one out of every 10 banks?? Good start ...

[RobertLTux]

you of course mean devastated but don't forget that a good number of folks will quickly revert to "offline" type transactions.

Most reputable newspaper???

[HornWumpus]

This wasn't reported in 'The Onion' it was reported in the 'New York Times', which has been a yellow DNC mouthpiece for decades. They are about as reputable as Fox News.

They ran this story to give Obama a boost in the polls. They needed no facts.

Re:Most reputable newspaper???

[CowTipperGore]

Indeed. All that DNC work that Judith Miller and the Times did in the lead up to the Iraq invasion was something. /sarcasm

Re:Most reputable newspaper???

[HornWumpus]

You wouldn't know it now, but the Democrats were for the invasion before they were against it.

Re:Most reputable newspaper???

[CowTipperGore]

Which has shit all to do with this thread. Calling the Times a "yellow DNC mouthpiece" completely ignores what happened there less than 10 years ago. I don't disagree with their reputation problem, but making it a partisan issue is wrong.

Re:No this is where the U.S. made a mistake with I

[argStyopa]

Par for the course, /.

Obama orders an attack on Iran. = "It's Bush's fault!"

Sure, you're credible.

Re:No Disrespect, But... [EXPLAINED]

[l0ungeb0y]

Have any of you calling me an idiot ever considered that the real enemy for Obama was Israel and the Congressional War Hawks who have been calling for Military Action against Iran for most the last decade?

By conducting this Cyber-Attack he not only derailed the Iranian Nuclear effort -- but he staved off Israel's promised Military Assault and quieted the voices at the Pentagon and Congress that were all for a Joint Offense with Israel against Iran.

Sometimes the "victory" isn't against the commonly perceived enemy -- but the enemy within. Personally, I applaud Obama for this effort. No blood was shed, no bullets fired or missiles launched and Israel's planned offensive did NOT happen and as such the US did not have to get involved in yet another war in the Mideast.

Sorry I had to spell it out for you -- but of course, the mob here who hopped on me to call me an idiot wer just utter idiots too stupid to see what I was talking about.

Maybe someday some of you will come to understand that just sitting there talking about it and writing letters only GOES SO FAR. At some point, action must be taken. And the action that Obama took was a far better action than Israel and some members of Congress wanted to conduct. Because if Obama hadn't done this, others would have made actions that would have forced the US to use traditional military action.

It's not your Disrespect, But... your ignorance

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA. Schneier questioned the the use of Stuxnet, not because he didn't see it as the humane alternative to bombing, but because of the blow back effect it had on the rest of the world's computer infrastructure. His real point was that, yes, we need to engage in diplomacy about cyber-warfare.

Cyber-warfare is not new, look at what the CIA did to the USSR's gas pipeline way back in the day. It's just now becoming a commonly understood concept.

Re:Lesser of two evils ...

[tibman]

Probably because it blurs the line a bit more. It's easy to see that bombing someone would be bad instead of negotiating. If someone prefers negotiation over all else, they would probably prefer open bombing to cloak & dagger stuff. They can atleast march against bombing.

really...

[publiclurker]

And just how many nuclear capable countries have the current bunch of war mongers invaded for a quick buck?

Re:really...

[demonlapin]

Reread his comment. They already figured this out; they didn't need GWB to point it out to them.

Re:really...

[ppanon]

I think his point was that until GWB decided invasion and regime change was a good way to secure resources in countries that didn't want to trade for them, those countries didn't really take the possibility of a US invasion seriously. The US had had its nose bloodied in Vietnam and Somalia, and had held back from outright invasion during Gulf War I. The US had only seemed to be recently successful at invasion as part of an international peacekeeping force in Bosnia/Kosovo, already torn apart by civil war. Until Bush went into Irak for oil, the cost proposition for rogue states of developing a nuclear program just wasn't worth it.

Re:really...

[demonlapin]

Bush went into Irak for oil

Since you write this, I'm going to assume you're a total fucking idiot. Price of oil on 9/10/2011 vs today? Yeah, we totally invaded Iraq for oil.

Re:really...

[ppanon]

I didn't say it worked out as intended.

Re:Quibids girl is achingly hot.

[tibman]

The US doesn't need to make weapons grade any more and it probably doesn't.

Re:No this is where the U.S. made a mistake with I

[crazyjj]

Oh, you think I'm an Obama fan? Don't get me started, pal. Not everyone in this country is either a Democrat or Republican, just idiots like you.

Here's my problem...

[Mysticalfruit]

Now that the cat is out of the bag that we're using offensive cyber weapons against other sovereign nations to whom we are not currently in a state of war with, it opens us up to attack.

Let's say tomorrow the US announced that it was going to modernize it's nuclear weapons systems and had to build infrastructure to facilitate this, what leg would we have to stand on Iran developed offensive cyber weapons to prevent this?

Worse than nuclear war?

[gelfling]

I am dubious of his conclusion though I am willing to hear his summation on this point.

Transcending to another socioeconomic paradigm

[Paul Fernhout]

Good point. And here is a way to move past this false choice:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
"Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. I discuss that at length here: http://www.pdfernhout.net/post-scarcity-princeton.html
    There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all."

Problems of the MAD doctrine

[Paul Fernhout]

"International politics changed massively when we invented weapons of mass destruction. Suddenly wars between countries that both wield weapons of mass destruction became a realistic impossibility. MAD as a concept did something that nothing did in our entire history - mandate peace."

A related essay I wrote: "Problems of the MAD doctrine, their consequences, and positive alternatives"
http://groups.google.com/group/virgle/msg/e34f9013282af9d7
"The policy of "Mutually Assured Destruction" (MAD) with strategic nuclear weapons policy is based on decision makers being rational and not wanting their own country destroyed (were they to use their nuclear weapons and receive reprisals or even just spreading radiation). This essay explores a few reasons why this MAD policy will ultimately fail due to irrationality or other reasons for bad decisions by humans or the bureaucracies they inhabit. This reasoning is also applicable to understanding why any similar policies about bioweapons or drones or nanotech and so on could also fail. Then the consequences of this are explored, and some alternatives suggested (including sharing information leading to healthier local communities and ultimately creating space habitats) ...."

Re:Problems of the MAD doctrine

[Luckyo]

You argument is dependent on the fact that nothing is permanent. Certainly, it's likely that at some point, MAD will fail. However having seen WW2 and the sheer amounts of violence that industrial age can produce, it's arguably a lesser evil even when eventually failing, in addition to the fact that it hasn't failed in a long time and instead forced countries to enter economic warfare instead. This economic warfare tied superpowers together so tight, that in addition to military MAD, essentially all superpowers are also tied together by economy MAD which resulted from prolonged peace.

Re:True, but not acceptable.

[ppanon]

And that makes you accept secret hostilities?

Because you have been abused so long, you accept abuse?

Not at all. It's just an observation. The original post was

The U.S. government has decided it can act in secret to destabilize other societies. That should frighten you.

I was just clarifying that this was not a new choice, but rather a long-held and often-used policy. It's always been shadowy part of the big stick that Teddy Roosevelt talked about. It is a not-surprising outcome of a desire to achieve geo-political goals within the framework of a democratic republic that is naturally reluctant to support outright warfare.

Or to put it another way:
The USA is a bully! Run! - AC
You're noticing now? - me

The US gets away with a lot of stuff because most countries just don't have the resources to call them on it and risk it escalating to a hot war. Back during the Cold War, they mainly kept those activities to states that appeared to be shifting left politically because it could be justified to 1st world allies using the "Domino theory" and the Soviets clearly played the same game. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, "islamofascism" and "terrorism" are the new bogeymen and justification. However due to the USA's large economic and military power, capitulation or asymmetric warfare are the only two possible results whenever it engages in conflict with any other country, with only a few possible exceptions (Russia & China), so it's a self-fulfilling/self-entertaining prophecy. Balancing out that economic power was the original drive for the creation of the European Common Market and its successors.

It's going to be really interesting to see how the dynamic changes as China continues to modernize and assert its power over the next two decades. If China's recent use of cybernetic attacks is anything to judge by, they're probably going to start playing the same game. The USA's reputation as the Cold War knight in shining armour defending freedom and justice took a big hit internationally in the last decade, so it's going to be a lot harder to play the same game against China that they did against the Soviets, especially if the USA finds it hard to disengage from, and stays distracted by, the "War on Terror".

Which isn't to say that islamofascism and terrorism aren't a risk. Islamofascists and terrorists are winning the same type of converts that the Soviets did; they exploit the victims of the inequalities of opportunity and misery that many in the USA and other first world nations either turn a blind eye to or deliberately exploit. However you fight dangerous ideas by showing why they are flawed and by fixing the real underlying problems, not by trying to silence those who voice those ideas. You would think the country of the 1st Amendment would understand that.

Don't agreee

[xenobyte]

For once I don't agree with Bruce Schneier... I don't think the US *created* Stuxnet, but maybe they customized it and used it against Iran.

On the principle of making cyberwarfare I think it's a valid way to fight that doesn't cost too many lives and in this case was guaranteed not to have any collateral damage in the form of civilians hurt.

Let there be no question about it: Iran must be prevented at all costs from acquiring nuclear weapons. If that fails we must revive the cold war strategy of a first strike in order to eradicate their capability to wage war. Fortunately the lunatics in charge are easily provoked so the obvious strategy must be to make them attack with nuclear weapons (which of course should be intercepted before they do harm), and then strike back with a similar and now justifiable nuclear attack that efficiently both destroys the megalomanical regime and their capability to create more nuclear weapons. Hopefully what rises from the ash is a new and more reasonable regime, like we saw it in Japan after they got hit by the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

seimens industries

[peawormsworth]

Its no surprise that the US and Isreal would be involved with damaging Iranian production. Its all they talk about. However, I would be pissed if I was Germany, because the virus attacked Siemens products. It really makes this company look weak on security like Microsoft.

I'd say it worked out exactly as intended.

[publiclurker]

Remember, it's not about cheap oil for people, but profitable oil for the oil companies.

It's certainly cheaper

[peoples_champion]

It's definitely cheaper than say hmm.... invading Iran, kudos mr president, saving some gd ole benjamins in a time of financial downturn.