81–89 of 89 posts
the net positive is that cyber-security is brought to the forefront for the US gov, more importantly this will be a great movie staring colin farrell as an Israeli ruby developer that came up with the plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_8200
This stuff isn't new -- it's just new to most people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As opposed to other sabre-rattling brutal countries that fund terrorism and _already_ have nuclear weapons.
Just because North Korea and Pakistan have nukes doesn't mean we should open the floodgates and let anyone have them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Iran doesn't get nukes until later So, we're not going to change the end-game, we're just going to piss of Iran....and you think that's good? Consider things from the Iranian's perspective. Back in the day, they were establishing a legitimate democratically elected government. The US overthrew that government and pushed a brutal dictator into power, who tortured and murdered many Iranians. From their perspective, the…
So, we're not going to change the end-game, we're just going to piss of Iran....and you think that's good? All I want is for nobody to get nuked. I think it's more likely that nobody will get nuked if Iran doesn't have nukes. But you're right that Stuxnet is a dirty move that erodes trust, that's why I'm conflicted. We have a terrible track record of getting large scale systems secured, even in areas where those syst…
"Big satan" and "little satan," the Iranians have entrusted us with that title, so we are also building trust here by reinforcing the image they have projected onto us.
They were right.
But I'm all for eroding trust: trust that should have never been there to begin with. Erode as much trust as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because North Korea and Pakistan have nukes doesn't mean we should open the floodgates and let anyone have them.
Why just those? Others have a lot more, with better reach.
It's not having nukes that is the problem, it's what people think you will do with them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's seemingly safe to believe that there is a very high probability that the US and Israel are behind Stuxnet. I guess, if you're willing to take the word of unidentified people who may or may not even exist. Though you did include a lot of weasel words in that sentence...
Quite a few of the people quoted in the article are identified, seem to be in position to know what they're talking about and definitely exist. By "weasel words" you mean OP (and NYT) don't state as facts things which are, while very likely, not confirmed to be facts?
The people identified in the article don't know anything. The people who are the basis for the allegation are unidentified.
>By "weasel words" you mean OP (and NYT) don't state as facts things which are, while very likely, not confirmed to be facts?
No, I mean the sentence is written in such a way that it can't be falsified. That's perfectly reasonable in this case, especially since the article doesn't include anything that would qualify as actual proof.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why just those? Others have a lot more, with better reach.
Because the others aren't "sabre-rattling brutal countries that fund terrorism". It's not having nukes that is the problem, it's what people think you will do with them.
I'll go first: US's Beirut Car bomb in 1985 that killed scores of women and children.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Beirut_car_bombing
You go next...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because the others aren't "sabre-rattling brutal countries that fund terrorism". It's not having nukes that is the problem, it's what people think you will do with them.
Show me one that doesn't fund terrorism. I'll go first: US's Beirut Car bomb in 1985 that killed scores of women and children. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Beirut_car_bombing You go next...
Are you seriously unable to distinguish between countries? Are you unable to distinguish between single (or even rare) occurrences and repeated? Between countries that feel bad about such occurrences in their past and those that celebrate them?
Do you really think that saying "So and so is not so bad - after all the US did it one time." is a good argument?
It's seemingly safe to believe that there is a very high probability that the US and Israel are behind Stuxnet. According to Wikipedia, if this is true than 2010 had the first occurrence of cyber-warfare between nation states in our history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet
The first occurrence? Very unlikely. It goes back farther than you'd think. The first incident that I've heard about was in 1982. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage for details.