No. They will soon flatten Gaza for the increasingly long-range rockets being fired every day from there. This probably doesn't make your news (probably only celebrity weddings and divorces, lol. If you check Israeli news from time to time (I check Ha'arertz to see the Israeli perspective) you will see that rockets or explosive planting attempts happen *every* day. This is why a smackdown will come.
Imaging if someone took all your hard-earned money. Imagine you had a crap credit rating because of identity theft. Imagine someone did this not only to you, but to your family and to anyone else they could find in a systematic way. Imagine that the person did this not for financial gain (like Mafia would), or perverse jollies (as Aonymous would), but because they wanted to hurt your country and its citizens (as in, as a terrorist would). If YOU were affected how would YOU feel? Would you want to government to take action, not at the level of a stolen wallet but direct greater effort to seek out and seize those responsible (as the effort make for terrorism investigations) ?
That has nothing whatsoever to do with an "inappropriate love of money" (although perhaps suggesting this indicates an unhealth obsession with those who may have a "love of money" - and in case if may be a Christian I would suggest checking the Bible's often *misquoted* statement about this - the love of money is not the "root of all evil", it is the root of "all sorts of evil" [quite a difference!] - so there is nothing intriniscally evil about money, possessing it, or working hard to get it).
Open your mind. Cyberterrorism is still terrorism. just because it isn't "traditional" physical terrorism doesn't make this any less damaging to the affected people. What if I was to hack the credit information of YOU and a non-negligible proportion of your countrymen not because I wanted to steal money (although keep the status quo) but to disrupt the life of the citizens as much as I could. And the reason I did this was for a political end, not ordinary criminal intent. Is that not terrorism? (albiet a non-traditional definition, since it is so new).
My bet is that the Israeli government will find this guy and bring him back to prison in Israel where they put the vast majority of real terrorists too (that's why their prisons are overflowing and they could trade so many for Shalit - they don't execute prisoners on the spot as some seem to fantacize). There is no need for assassination or torture or anything like that (and believe it or not the Israelis don't appear to do that for fun).
Ever lived without money? lost your life savings or had them stolen? with the inability to get credit due to problems in the past? what if your credit card was used to buy things from dodgy sites that showed up on your statements? what if this was done not to an isolated person but on a massive scale (a few percent of your citizens). Basically I think you are so dismissive of the effects of this only because it didn't happen to you personally. As I've said elsewhere, ask yourself what you would want yor government to do if this happened to YOU or your family. Then you might feel a little empathy.
Bullshit. If it was YOUR credit card, or your wife's, or child's (if you are older) then you would want your state to take action. If the goal of the heist was not ordinary crime (take a little money) but solely to disrupt your families life then what crime is closest precent to that? that's right, terrorism.
To me it seems that your political views about "funding in a post 9/11 political environment" has overriden your human empathy. As in all such cases the best thing to do would be to put aside your political and worldviews for a while and ask yourself the very simple question, "What should be done if this happened to ME or MY FAMILY?". You should ask yourself this for every act of terrorism (physical or cyber), for every rocket fired into Israel (you'll get to ask this several times per day, although it is so common it won't make news elsewhere), or for every Palestinian home destroyed for settlers (see, injustice is not one-sided). Then you probably would be less inclined to dismiss the effect this has - it is not just some university pank. Even worse, it reflects the poisoned information being given to the youth of the Middle East.
Kick ass post! Very well reasoned and accurate as far as I have seen as an open-minded foreign visitor (from New Zealand) to your country and your neighbours - even meeting some Hezbollah dudes in the Golan (who were total uncool arseholes in my opinion).
I know you are just being modest for the uninformed, but from the statement "(suprisingly many israeli newspapers are left wing and anti-govt before you call bias)" I would remove the word "surprisingly". Anyone who has ever followed the Israeli points-of-view (in addition to others) couldn't miss the fact that Israel has a wide spectrum of opinions (a sign of a very healthy, open, and diverse society in my opinion).
I hope that one day your neighbours value life and liberty as much as your countrymen do. Not all of the citizens of the world are fooled by the pro-terrorist propaganda, or the bullshit from their sychophants elsewhere.
Your reponses are exactly what I expected - given the other posts of yours I could find. Pretty lame and lacking in reasoned substance - very lazy and almost childish responses wrapped in the obfuscative tones of a haughty academic. It seems you think you are a lot smarter than you actualy are (smart takes work).
This is something I saw a lot while in University - a common flaw mostly among future lawyers and liberal arts types. Meanwhile, the true mega-minds that I encountered (world-class physicists and chemists) were amazingly open to new ideas, asked open questions far more than they took immovable positions, and didn't try to force their opinions solely by berating their opponent. I learned some good lessons as use it as a yardstick for posts I see online. I hoped to get some interesting points of view from you (and other posters) and reasons why I might be wrong. Facts I could cross-check are especially valuable. Lazy "I read once somewhere and it must be right" recollections don't cut for me. Unfortunately here all I got was insults and some statements that I know are actually libellously false (if you actually care to do the research about them) mixed in with some interesting points. It was disappointing that someone who has as wide a vocabulary as yourself can't frame or participate in reasoned debate. Next time perhaps.
Wow! That is the biggest mis-informed rant I've seen on Slashdot in a long time. I would call "Troll" if it wasn't for the fact you probably actually believe some of the crap you are espousing. Very, very sad in this day and age when a trvial investigation from trusted sources of the Web would reveal most of your rant to be incorrect - of course, you will selectively cherry-pick from the fringe to reinforce your pre-concieved (and incorrect) notions. Like I said, I've been there on the ground for real - have you? didn't think so? I've seen what is going on and doesn't make the news reports. I cross-check my facts rather than rely only on my recollection. I am sympathetic to both the natives (that is Jordanians/trans-Jordanians) and the imported Arab immigrant workers (who came from elsewhere: ask yourself, where was Yasser Arafat born? how many generations can you go back of the 'Palestinians' that were born in the Trans-Jordan region [of course, in the Ottoman Empire]).
Most of all, I would like you to ask yourself why you are full of so much hate? to the Israelis (not all of whom are either Jews or Zionists, although you treat them all identically), and also why you have so much unreasoning venom for other Web users? Let go of the hate amigo, seriously - it'll ruin your life (I just hope it hasn't messed it up already - k:) ).
> Surely diplomatic discourse would be more effective than the threat of invasion.
Tried and failed. Diplomacy? The Iranian regime showed complete contempt for diplomatic norms only a few weeks ago (after their initial terrible show in 1979, storming a foreign embassy, which is totally unacceptable). How do you reason with someone who is "on a mission from God"? You can't, but unfortunately folks like yourself, who haven't been paying attention to what diplomatic means has already been tried (for decades). Holding hands and singing kumbaya sometimes works - but not with these turkeys.
Actually carriers were touted as "on the way out" after WWII. Then they proved useful in Korea. Same deal in the sixties, then too useful in Vietnam. On the way out for Britain in the 80's, then the Falklands came along. Those countries how now learned that they need carriers (and their air complement) more than just about any military asset they have. If anything, Iraq, Afghanistan and this Iranian nonsense have reinforced how useful the carriers are - even if Joe Q Public doesn't always grok it.
Actually it means that China is at risk of not getting repaid 1.5 Trillion dollars if the US decided not to repay. While not repaying has big ramifications for US credit it would be far worse for China. Getting back on-topic, if the US secured Iranian oil this would be a strategic win for them, since China is currently covertly assisting Iran as a means to secure its oil supply. The US dealing to Iran now would change the security (physical and economic) situation for the next few decades at least - the money spent on a war is actually nothing compared to the economic win of getting control of the oil and allowing the US economy to grow, while rate-limiting the Chinese economy. Even if Joe Public doesn't think decades ahead you can bet the Pentagon is. The most suprising thing is that the US has waited so long to start, and is actually trying less violent (sanctions and IAEA inspections) methods to get the Iranians to reform first.
Actually, the USN has 13 carrier strike groups. None of them are expendable, in that none of them are there to be wasted, but the loss of even a few doesn't mean the US would be forced to sue for peace. So no need to be sensationalist, please.
> Yes but the missiles are supposedly anti-radar, so I assume you won't see them coming.
The E-2, E-3, E-8, and SPY-1 can presumably all track these. With Link-16 the helicopter will then know about these. Based on onen-source intelligence a Silkworm missile (or Iranian local equivalent) is not a great problem for a US helo.
True. Plus, one of the reasons we regular folk get these leaked 'shock' results is that the US Navy probably also wanted to scare more money of out the US Congress (since they've been sidelined by Iraq and Afghanistan, but still need to fight pirates and contain China [increasingly assertive in the disputed waters of the South China Sea]). Same deal when the shock report came out of six F-22s shooting down twenty Su-27 (of 72 facing them) but considered a loss since their tanker was lost - leaked to scare more Raptor funding out of Congress.
First, make sure your software is written correctly. That is, use Java with a lot of unit testing and good coverage using something like Cobertura.
Now, given a correct program the only way it can fail is if it accepts bad input from the user. This means you need to write your program where you validate your inputs as early as possible. If the input is clean your program will not fail except for something out of its control - such as a resource failue (bad network, hardware failure etc). The hard thing is that it is not always possible to validate the input as soon as it is received (which is the ideal case). This means that all parts of your program must validate the input and if something is awry they stop the operation (with an appropriate explanation of why processing is being refused).
he reasons why programs fail and are hacked is that most programmers refused to check their preconditions ("waahhh! it takes extra lines of code and obscures the real work"). Checking preconditions is something that most Java programmers and almost all C++ programmers fail to do, which is why there is so much flaky code out there.
The last thing I like to do is to check that my programs can handle the bad inputs and also resource exhaustion conditions. If you don't check for it then your program will never get it right and will behave unexpectedly given strange inputs (ie. is hackable) or operating conditions. One of the most important things you can do is to log not only what went wrong also log the bad input and information about why the decision to fail is made. Most people are shitty at logging. Assume you will never be able to re-run the program to find the bug (some bugs are rare, and can only be found due to a set of circumstances in the production environment). Hence, you will only be able to diagnose and correct any faults given the information you choose to log at the point the failure is detected.
Does stringent checking preconditions (including inputs), properly logging for diagnoses and good unit testing coverage work? yes, but it as only as good as your design (which I'm sure others will discuss). I've produced systems that handle millions of transactions in the course of a week and they run without fault, regardless of the shit that clients throw at them.
Quite to the contrary, I think the Iranian people are probably more ready than the rest of the Islamic world for democracy. The US made a big mistake in toppling the democratically elected government of Iran in the 50's. I'm just saying that it was a stupid mistake, not imperialism, and that Europe had a big hand in it too. Furthermore, much as I think the people of Iran are capable of democracy, I don't want the current government of Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Thanks for clarifying. We are in agreement here.
If the US is forced to act, it will try to democratize a nation in the process, as it did in Germany, Japan, and is trying to do in Iraq. But despite some gung-ho right wing politicians, US governments, diplomats, and the US military are aware that trying that is costly, lengthy, and risky. Heck, in world history, this is really new territory.
The US is doing what it knows how to do: it talks to the democratic opposition and it imposes sanctions. But "democratic oppositions" often turn out to be the next dictator, and sanctions are slow and risky. In fact, I think there is a good chance that over the next few decades, Iran may reform and liberalize gradually all by itself.
Agreed. Although I'd say the democratic opposition is sometimes ineffectual and usurped by a dictator. Unfortunately given the current path of the Iranian government I don't think the World could wait on the timescale of organic reform in Iran - not with the current weapons program (which, unlike Iraq, appears to be real given the much more concrete evidence the IAEA is finding [and has been a lot more conservative this time, trying not to get egg on its face again]).
Well, as an American, I don't want isolationism, but I sure would like other nations to bear more of the military burden.
Totally with you on this one too (I'm not from the US, and think it is crap that the rest of the World sponges off you for defence - both morally [tut-tutting when only the US has the guts to act when it is clearly necessary] and financially). Thanks for clarifying, it looks like we're pretty much aligned on this.
The Chinese are not paying our debts at all. They are buying a lot of US bonds (lending us money) that a future generation will have to pay back, with interest. They are buying US bonds because that is about the only way they can invest their current surplus (thanks to price controls and State run enterprises).
Web-based services (aka, 'Cloud' services) are convenient and have a lot of advantages (which I won't repeat here unless asked).
One big thing is that the server-side has all the control. I find this great for me as a service provider. This is one reason companies love providing these services.
However, as a user of various services I realise I have no control. If the services I rely on were to disappear tomorrow there is nothing I can do about it and I'm totally powerless to stop it. The service provided may even be profitable for a provider but if it is not proftable *enough*, or there are cost cutting mesures being done by corporate head-office then the service can be axed. Even if the service is critcal to my business
So the lesson to be learned is the same point made by the Free Software advocates. If software is critical to yourself or your business then you must ensure you have complete *control* of the software, all the way down to having the right to modify the source code if you need to. The convience of web-based services will never compensate for the loss of control. It is a strategic business decision to make: control (the long-term strategic view) or convenience (the short-term tactical view). I fully expect lots of sob stories like this to appear until the vendors start pitching back to CIOs that they could regain control by bringing stuff in-house again (for a fee, of course). Using Cloud services is no different to the 'offshoring' fad that the wise avoided for critical capabilities, followed by the realision that it doesn't always work and the resulting 'onshoring' renormalization. Expect a term like 'in-housing' or something similar to appear in trade rags in a couple of years.
Whatever you do: don't lose control of your critical software and services (and use Free Software!).
A totally relevant question. I agree with you that it is unknown as to what would happen.
There are several factors in favor of US direct intervention:
The first is the fact the Iranians see that if the US invades they wouldn't be there forever (case study is Iraq).
The second factor is that the Iranian people are not a monolith behind their government. All the Iranians I have met (who I really like, especially going to Nowruz [New Year] parties) have been at great pains to point out how great Iran is but the people are not the government (reworded, "Don't judge the people by the government" [means may hate the government]).
The third factor is that the Iranian country, and especially the miliary, is actually in quite a mess thanks to decades of sanctions. Without arms coming from Russia or China the Iranian military would crumble pretty quickly. The only reason that Iraqi insurgents lasted so long is the Iranians were supplying them. Same with the Afghan Taliban where the Pakistan ISI equips them. In the case of friendless Iran (because they have pissed off all their neighbours) their only real source would be China - and I don't think China would risk the ire of the World just for the money.
That said, I think that direct intervention in Iran is unlikely at this time. What is far more likely IMHO are extensive strikes coupled with covert assistence to any rebel groups the US can find. This is a much cheaper way of doing things. If the Iranians react badly only then would a Coalition be formed to sort it out (particularly if WMD were actually found - since Iran is getting reasonably close now, although the recent wave of 'terrorist' (that is, likely Mossad, CIA) explosions may slow things down again).
Actually, there are a lot of reasons. Having just been on the USS Missouri at Pearl Harbor three weeks ago and looked at the dents from kamikazi I can see that luck had a factor, in addition to a huge amount of AAA (making both kamikazi and regular attacks, well, suicidal:) ). I don't think the US carrier armored decks were designed to stop kamikaze (since they weren't thought about at design time pre-war), but were intended to limit shell damage and self-damage from aircraft mishaps.
First of all. No need to call me an idiot. It makes you look totally unreasonable. Plus, I have a PhD in Astrophysics so on relative terms I could call you the same thing, but I'm not the asshole throwing insults like "idiot" around - and no need to curse if you are confused.
Second. One of the things you are wrong about is that the Israelis did not get their purported nukes from the US. They have a research facilty at Dimona and Merdechai Vanunu spilt the beans on. So, you are clearly misinformed and making stuff up in your own head to suit your preconception.
Third. If the Israelis really wanted to attack Iran it would have already happened. Years ago. They are trying not to attack Iran but folks like you don't get it all all. You always blame the Israelis because it fits your preconceived world view - and no matter what facts I come up with (or a recollection of my travels as a neutral throughout the Middle East - I've been on the ground there and seen what's going on for myself). For myself I try and collect facts and then assign blame where the facts take me. Sure, the Israelis do a lot of dumb and bad things (settlers, ugh!) but it is pretty clear that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is a very, very dangerous thing for everyone. Once you understand how the Iranian government factions work (do you?) then you'll understand that once they get nukes there will be a lot more trouble in the Middle East than now. Do you want that? Is your preconcieved notion of Israel as the Bad Guy so strong that you'll overlook all the worse things that Iran is doing?
Fourth. Regarding the missile firing. Any country has the right to build weapons for self-defence. What matters is how the weapons are intended to be used. Please tell me since when it has been official Israeli government policy to declare that "Iran should be wiped off the face of the Earth"? Yet it is official Iranian policy. It is not the building and testing of weapons that matters, it is what they are *intended* to be used for. Again, your preconceived notion that Israel is the Bad Guy is stopping you from collecting facts from all sides and only then taking an objective view.
Fifth. The article you posted has a legal opinion by a professor that it would be legal for Israel to conduct a disarming first strike on Iran. Big deal. How is this legal opinion of an independent academic become official government policy? Of that's right, you have a preconcived notion that Israel are always the Bad Guy (and by implication that whatever Iran does must be blameless).
What I'm trying to say is how about you take a step back. Do some more research and read it properly (exceeedingly bad form to mistake some academic's legal opinion as government policy). Whatever you do try and remind yourself that you have an existing bias, accept that you do (as I have to do) and look for evidence that *contradicts* your existing opinion. Looking for, and selectively remembering stuff that reinforces your existing view is not really helpful. As a scientist we're trained to try and find ways to falsify our existing view, and receive the counter-evidence with an *open mind*. That way we can make progress and rid ourselves of any incorrect views we have formed.
So, I'm prepared to hear with an open mind any valid reason why it would be good for the World that Iran should possess nuclear weapons? Please drop the anti-Israeli obsession (not strictly relevant to a discussion on why Iran should get WMD), cursing, and personal insults for the discussion and I'll be very interested to hear what you have to say.
> To be blunt, I think carrier advocates are greatly discounting the problem of fighting in the Persian Gulf.
I take your point but I think you fail to understand how the US Navy has been training for this for decades - and with a particular sharpening of focus in the last decade. I remember the First Gulf War when folks predicted a bloodbath where the fourth largest army in the world would tear the Coalition a new one. While the war was hard fight (most people don't understand/appreciate how dangerous it was), but the reality is Iran would be an easier fight - especially after years of sanctions.
> The huge vulnerability here is that kill enough carriers and you've neutered the US navy.
Three carriers would sting. It would hardly neuter the USN. Perhaps you would receive a smug satisfaction if the US stumbled. I don't believe they will, and I think it is Iran who are currently making the mis-steps in the World's eyes with their crazy proclamations.
As bad as the government of Iraq is, you simply cannot compare it to the government of Saddam. Ever. Not if you understand what it was like: army designed to cow the people, now the army understands it there to help the people. The US made pretty bad decisions at the beginning of the occupation. It didn't help that everyone was just itching for them to fail, but they succeeded against all odds (and the constant interference of Iran).
1. Ever heard of the Tudeh? Regardless, nationalisation of oil (a strategic asset that even *you* depend on) was never going to be popular when wresting from incumbent rights holders.
2. Bullshit. The problem became the corruption and repression of the Shah's government. Not directly as a consequence as the Mosaddegh coup. But you are reading history as you wish.
3. Meh. It is of historical interest and affects the present. What matters is the present. In case you haven't noticed, the World (especially the Middle East) can change radically in the course of a single month.
"lastly: you are an apologist for the obviously corrupt government system.". Actually no - the system is bad and needs changing - an a planned and rational way. However, that doesn't mean I accept your recipe for inaction without question - hence I challenged it.
Slashdot Mirror
No. They will soon flatten Gaza for the increasingly long-range rockets being fired every day from there. This probably doesn't make your news (probably only celebrity weddings and divorces, lol. If you check Israeli news from time to time (I check Ha'arertz to see the Israeli perspective) you will see that rockets or explosive planting attempts happen *every* day. This is why a smackdown will come.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with an "inappropriate love of money" (although perhaps suggesting this indicates an unhealth obsession with those who may have a "love of money" - and in case if may be a Christian I would suggest checking the Bible's often *misquoted* statement about this - the love of money is not the "root of all evil", it is the root of "all sorts of evil" [quite a difference!] - so there is nothing intriniscally evil about money, possessing it, or working hard to get it).
My bet is that the Israeli government will find this guy and bring him back to prison in Israel where they put the vast majority of real terrorists too (that's why their prisons are overflowing and they could trade so many for Shalit - they don't execute prisoners on the spot as some seem to fantacize). There is no need for assassination or torture or anything like that (and believe it or not the Israelis don't appear to do that for fun).
Ever lived without money? lost your life savings or had them stolen? with the inability to get credit due to problems in the past? what if your credit card was used to buy things from dodgy sites that showed up on your statements? what if this was done not to an isolated person but on a massive scale (a few percent of your citizens). Basically I think you are so dismissive of the effects of this only because it didn't happen to you personally. As I've said elsewhere, ask yourself what you would want yor government to do if this happened to YOU or your family. Then you might feel a little empathy.
Bullshit. If it was YOUR credit card, or your wife's, or child's (if you are older) then you would want your state to take action. If the goal of the heist was not ordinary crime (take a little money) but solely to disrupt your families life then what crime is closest precent to that? that's right, terrorism.
To me it seems that your political views about "funding in a post 9/11 political environment" has overriden your human empathy. As in all such cases the best thing to do would be to put aside your political and worldviews for a while and ask yourself the very simple question, "What should be done if this happened to ME or MY FAMILY?". You should ask yourself this for every act of terrorism (physical or cyber), for every rocket fired into Israel (you'll get to ask this several times per day, although it is so common it won't make news elsewhere), or for every Palestinian home destroyed for settlers (see, injustice is not one-sided). Then you probably would be less inclined to dismiss the effect this has - it is not just some university pank. Even worse, it reflects the poisoned information being given to the youth of the Middle East.
hear! hear! wish I had mod points for you - great post.
I know you are just being modest for the uninformed, but from the statement "(suprisingly many israeli newspapers are left wing and anti-govt before you call bias)" I would remove the word "surprisingly". Anyone who has ever followed the Israeli points-of-view (in addition to others) couldn't miss the fact that Israel has a wide spectrum of opinions (a sign of a very healthy, open, and diverse society in my opinion).
I hope that one day your neighbours value life and liberty as much as your countrymen do. Not all of the citizens of the world are fooled by the pro-terrorist propaganda, or the bullshit from their sychophants elsewhere.
This is something I saw a lot while in University - a common flaw mostly among future lawyers and liberal arts types. Meanwhile, the true mega-minds that I encountered (world-class physicists and chemists) were amazingly open to new ideas, asked open questions far more than they took immovable positions, and didn't try to force their opinions solely by berating their opponent. I learned some good lessons as use it as a yardstick for posts I see online. I hoped to get some interesting points of view from you (and other posters) and reasons why I might be wrong. Facts I could cross-check are especially valuable. Lazy "I read once somewhere and it must be right" recollections don't cut for me. Unfortunately here all I got was insults and some statements that I know are actually libellously false (if you actually care to do the research about them) mixed in with some interesting points. It was disappointing that someone who has as wide a vocabulary as yourself can't frame or participate in reasoned debate. Next time perhaps.
Most of all, I would like you to ask yourself why you are full of so much hate? to the Israelis (not all of whom are either Jews or Zionists, although you treat them all identically), and also why you have so much unreasoning venom for other Web users? Let go of the hate amigo, seriously - it'll ruin your life (I just hope it hasn't messed it up already - k :) ).
> Surely diplomatic discourse would be more effective than the threat of invasion.
Tried and failed. Diplomacy? The Iranian regime showed complete contempt for diplomatic norms only a few weeks ago (after their initial terrible show in 1979, storming a foreign embassy, which is totally unacceptable). How do you reason with someone who is "on a mission from God"? You can't, but unfortunately folks like yourself, who haven't been paying attention to what diplomatic means has already been tried (for decades). Holding hands and singing kumbaya sometimes works - but not with these turkeys.
Actually carriers were touted as "on the way out" after WWII. Then they proved useful in Korea. Same deal in the sixties, then too useful in Vietnam. On the way out for Britain in the 80's, then the Falklands came along. Those countries how now learned that they need carriers (and their air complement) more than just about any military asset they have. If anything, Iraq, Afghanistan and this Iranian nonsense have reinforced how useful the carriers are - even if Joe Q Public doesn't always grok it.
Actually it means that China is at risk of not getting repaid 1.5 Trillion dollars if the US decided not to repay. While not repaying has big ramifications for US credit it would be far worse for China. Getting back on-topic, if the US secured Iranian oil this would be a strategic win for them, since China is currently covertly assisting Iran as a means to secure its oil supply. The US dealing to Iran now would change the security (physical and economic) situation for the next few decades at least - the money spent on a war is actually nothing compared to the economic win of getting control of the oil and allowing the US economy to grow, while rate-limiting the Chinese economy. Even if Joe Public doesn't think decades ahead you can bet the Pentagon is. The most suprising thing is that the US has waited so long to start, and is actually trying less violent (sanctions and IAEA inspections) methods to get the Iranians to reform first.
Actually, the USN has 13 carrier strike groups. None of them are expendable, in that none of them are there to be wasted, but the loss of even a few doesn't mean the US would be forced to sue for peace. So no need to be sensationalist, please.
> Yes but the missiles are supposedly anti-radar, so I assume you won't see them coming. The E-2, E-3, E-8, and SPY-1 can presumably all track these. With Link-16 the helicopter will then know about these. Based on onen-source intelligence a Silkworm missile (or Iranian local equivalent) is not a great problem for a US helo.
True. Plus, one of the reasons we regular folk get these leaked 'shock' results is that the US Navy probably also wanted to scare more money of out the US Congress (since they've been sidelined by Iraq and Afghanistan, but still need to fight pirates and contain China [increasingly assertive in the disputed waters of the South China Sea]). Same deal when the shock report came out of six F-22s shooting down twenty Su-27 (of 72 facing them) but considered a loss since their tanker was lost - leaked to scare more Raptor funding out of Congress.
First, make sure your software is written correctly. That is, use Java with a lot of unit testing and good coverage using something like Cobertura.
Now, given a correct program the only way it can fail is if it accepts bad input from the user. This means you need to write your program where you validate your inputs as early as possible. If the input is clean your program will not fail except for something out of its control - such as a resource failue (bad network, hardware failure etc). The hard thing is that it is not always possible to validate the input as soon as it is received (which is the ideal case). This means that all parts of your program must validate the input and if something is awry they stop the operation (with an appropriate explanation of why processing is being refused).
he reasons why programs fail and are hacked is that most programmers refused to check their preconditions ("waahhh! it takes extra lines of code and obscures the real work"). Checking preconditions is something that most Java programmers and almost all C++ programmers fail to do, which is why there is so much flaky code out there.
The last thing I like to do is to check that my programs can handle the bad inputs and also resource exhaustion conditions. If you don't check for it then your program will never get it right and will behave unexpectedly given strange inputs (ie. is hackable) or operating conditions. One of the most important things you can do is to log not only what went wrong also log the bad input and information about why the decision to fail is made. Most people are shitty at logging. Assume you will never be able to re-run the program to find the bug (some bugs are rare, and can only be found due to a set of circumstances in the production environment). Hence, you will only be able to diagnose and correct any faults given the information you choose to log at the point the failure is detected.
Does stringent checking preconditions (including inputs), properly logging for diagnoses and good unit testing coverage work? yes, but it as only as good as your design (which I'm sure others will discuss). I've produced systems that handle millions of transactions in the course of a week and they run without fault, regardless of the shit that clients throw at them.
Quite to the contrary, I think the Iranian people are probably more ready than the rest of the Islamic world for democracy. The US made a big mistake in toppling the democratically elected government of Iran in the 50's. I'm just saying that it was a stupid mistake, not imperialism, and that Europe had a big hand in it too. Furthermore, much as I think the people of Iran are capable of democracy, I don't want the current government of Iran to have nuclear weapons.
Thanks for clarifying. We are in agreement here.
If the US is forced to act, it will try to democratize a nation in the process, as it did in Germany, Japan, and is trying to do in Iraq. But despite some gung-ho right wing politicians, US governments, diplomats, and the US military are aware that trying that is costly, lengthy, and risky. Heck, in world history, this is really new territory.
The US is doing what it knows how to do: it talks to the democratic opposition and it imposes sanctions. But "democratic oppositions" often turn out to be the next dictator, and sanctions are slow and risky. In fact, I think there is a good chance that over the next few decades, Iran may reform and liberalize gradually all by itself.
Agreed. Although I'd say the democratic opposition is sometimes ineffectual and usurped by a dictator. Unfortunately given the current path of the Iranian government I don't think the World could wait on the timescale of organic reform in Iran - not with the current weapons program (which, unlike Iraq, appears to be real given the much more concrete evidence the IAEA is finding [and has been a lot more conservative this time, trying not to get egg on its face again]).
Well, as an American, I don't want isolationism, but I sure would like other nations to bear more of the military burden.
Totally with you on this one too (I'm not from the US, and think it is crap that the rest of the World sponges off you for defence - both morally [tut-tutting when only the US has the guts to act when it is clearly necessary] and financially). Thanks for clarifying, it looks like we're pretty much aligned on this.
The Chinese are not paying our debts at all. They are buying a lot of US bonds (lending us money) that a future generation will have to pay back, with interest. They are buying US bonds because that is about the only way they can invest their current surplus (thanks to price controls and State run enterprises).
One big thing is that the server-side has all the control. I find this great for me as a service provider. This is one reason companies love providing these services.
However, as a user of various services I realise I have no control. If the services I rely on were to disappear tomorrow there is nothing I can do about it and I'm totally powerless to stop it. The service provided may even be profitable for a provider but if it is not proftable *enough*, or there are cost cutting mesures being done by corporate head-office then the service can be axed. Even if the service is critcal to my business
So the lesson to be learned is the same point made by the Free Software advocates. If software is critical to yourself or your business then you must ensure you have complete *control* of the software, all the way down to having the right to modify the source code if you need to. The convience of web-based services will never compensate for the loss of control. It is a strategic business decision to make: control (the long-term strategic view) or convenience (the short-term tactical view). I fully expect lots of sob stories like this to appear until the vendors start pitching back to CIOs that they could regain control by bringing stuff in-house again (for a fee, of course). Using Cloud services is no different to the 'offshoring' fad that the wise avoided for critical capabilities, followed by the realision that it doesn't always work and the resulting 'onshoring' renormalization. Expect a term like 'in-housing' or something similar to appear in trade rags in a couple of years.
Whatever you do: don't lose control of your critical software and services (and use Free Software!).
There are several factors in favor of US direct intervention:
The first is the fact the Iranians see that if the US invades they wouldn't be there forever (case study is Iraq).
The second factor is that the Iranian people are not a monolith behind their government. All the Iranians I have met (who I really like, especially going to Nowruz [New Year] parties) have been at great pains to point out how great Iran is but the people are not the government (reworded, "Don't judge the people by the government" [means may hate the government]).
The third factor is that the Iranian country, and especially the miliary, is actually in quite a mess thanks to decades of sanctions. Without arms coming from Russia or China the Iranian military would crumble pretty quickly. The only reason that Iraqi insurgents lasted so long is the Iranians were supplying them. Same with the Afghan Taliban where the Pakistan ISI equips them. In the case of friendless Iran (because they have pissed off all their neighbours) their only real source would be China - and I don't think China would risk the ire of the World just for the money.
That said, I think that direct intervention in Iran is unlikely at this time. What is far more likely IMHO are extensive strikes coupled with covert assistence to any rebel groups the US can find. This is a much cheaper way of doing things. If the Iranians react badly only then would a Coalition be formed to sort it out (particularly if WMD were actually found - since Iran is getting reasonably close now, although the recent wave of 'terrorist' (that is, likely Mossad, CIA) explosions may slow things down again).
Actually, there are a lot of reasons. Having just been on the USS Missouri at Pearl Harbor three weeks ago and looked at the dents from kamikazi I can see that luck had a factor, in addition to a huge amount of AAA (making both kamikazi and regular attacks, well, suicidal :) ). I don't think the US carrier armored decks were designed to stop kamikaze (since they weren't thought about at design time pre-war), but were intended to limit shell damage and self-damage from aircraft mishaps.
Second. One of the things you are wrong about is that the Israelis did not get their purported nukes from the US. They have a research facilty at Dimona and Merdechai Vanunu spilt the beans on. So, you are clearly misinformed and making stuff up in your own head to suit your preconception.
Third. If the Israelis really wanted to attack Iran it would have already happened. Years ago. They are trying not to attack Iran but folks like you don't get it all all. You always blame the Israelis because it fits your preconceived world view - and no matter what facts I come up with (or a recollection of my travels as a neutral throughout the Middle East - I've been on the ground there and seen what's going on for myself). For myself I try and collect facts and then assign blame where the facts take me. Sure, the Israelis do a lot of dumb and bad things (settlers, ugh!) but it is pretty clear that Iran possessing nuclear weapons is a very, very dangerous thing for everyone. Once you understand how the Iranian government factions work (do you?) then you'll understand that once they get nukes there will be a lot more trouble in the Middle East than now. Do you want that? Is your preconcieved notion of Israel as the Bad Guy so strong that you'll overlook all the worse things that Iran is doing?
Fourth. Regarding the missile firing. Any country has the right to build weapons for self-defence. What matters is how the weapons are intended to be used. Please tell me since when it has been official Israeli government policy to declare that "Iran should be wiped off the face of the Earth"? Yet it is official Iranian policy. It is not the building and testing of weapons that matters, it is what they are *intended* to be used for. Again, your preconceived notion that Israel is the Bad Guy is stopping you from collecting facts from all sides and only then taking an objective view.
Fifth. The article you posted has a legal opinion by a professor that it would be legal for Israel to conduct a disarming first strike on Iran. Big deal. How is this legal opinion of an independent academic become official government policy? Of that's right, you have a preconcived notion that Israel are always the Bad Guy (and by implication that whatever Iran does must be blameless).
What I'm trying to say is how about you take a step back. Do some more research and read it properly (exceeedingly bad form to mistake some academic's legal opinion as government policy). Whatever you do try and remind yourself that you have an existing bias, accept that you do (as I have to do) and look for evidence that *contradicts* your existing opinion. Looking for, and selectively remembering stuff that reinforces your existing view is not really helpful. As a scientist we're trained to try and find ways to falsify our existing view, and receive the counter-evidence with an *open mind*. That way we can make progress and rid ourselves of any incorrect views we have formed.
So, I'm prepared to hear with an open mind any valid reason why it would be good for the World that Iran should possess nuclear weapons? Please drop the anti-Israeli obsession (not strictly relevant to a discussion on why Iran should get WMD), cursing, and personal insults for the discussion and I'll be very interested to hear what you have to say.
I take your point but I think you fail to understand how the US Navy has been training for this for decades - and with a particular sharpening of focus in the last decade. I remember the First Gulf War when folks predicted a bloodbath where the fourth largest army in the world would tear the Coalition a new one. While the war was hard fight (most people don't understand/appreciate how dangerous it was), but the reality is Iran would be an easier fight - especially after years of sanctions.
> The huge vulnerability here is that kill enough carriers and you've neutered the US navy.
Three carriers would sting. It would hardly neuter the USN. Perhaps you would receive a smug satisfaction if the US stumbled. I don't believe they will, and I think it is Iran who are currently making the mis-steps in the World's eyes with their crazy proclamations.
As bad as the government of Iraq is, you simply cannot compare it to the government of Saddam. Ever. Not if you understand what it was like: army designed to cow the people, now the army understands it there to help the people. The US made pretty bad decisions at the beginning of the occupation. It didn't help that everyone was just itching for them to fail, but they succeeded against all odds (and the constant interference of Iran).
2. Bullshit. The problem became the corruption and repression of the Shah's government. Not directly as a consequence as the Mosaddegh coup. But you are reading history as you wish.
3. Meh. It is of historical interest and affects the present. What matters is the present. In case you haven't noticed, the World (especially the Middle East) can change radically in the course of a single month.
"lastly: you are an apologist for the obviously corrupt government system.". Actually no - the system is bad and needs changing - an a planned and rational way. However, that doesn't mean I accept your recipe for inaction without question - hence I challenged it.