US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it • Hacker News Board

Re: US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it

#221

Post by sk5t » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 7:37 PM UTC

wissler wrote: post #195

sk5t wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I had a downvote button, I would exercise it on your steadfast refusal to acknowledge that the Cold War is so-called for the absence of direct military conflict between the armies of the two quarreling states. Wikipedia does not back your definition, as the Wiki entry leaves room for espionage, sabotage, and other actions that one might consider an "attack" but certainly do not force a declaration of war, mobiliza…

Sabotage is not "indirect", it is very direct, and what's more, it's not even listed on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(general_term) You're wrong, but at least you're not a coward.

Surely you don't expect the WP article to list every act that might be compatible with the idea of a "cold war"... I feel you are trolling a bit. Sabotage is still a plausibly deniable act--contrasted with, say, rolling a tank across one's adversary's border.

Stuxnet is a weapon of sabotage, it is fairly direct, and yet it is not the same as an open declaration of war.

Re: US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it

#222

Post by lazugod » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 7:38 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #122

dantheman wrote: post #103

How is this not an act of war? Doesn't congress need approve military actions of this sort?

No, the president would need Congressional approval to have military units in Iran for more than 90 days. In practice presidents almost always ask Congress for advance approval, since having to pull out in the middle of an invasion would be rather embarrassing. The only exception that comes to mind is Reagan's invasion of Grenada, where the US military was in and out easily under the time limit.

So how does that limitation interact with non-personnel warfare, such as viruses and drones and spying?

Re: US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it

#223

Post by dandelany » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 7:48 PM UTC

jpxxx wrote: post #125

andylei wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Both of which condemn the US and Israel. Not Iran. you know, its possible that the US, Israel, AND Iran are all doing bad things. just because Iran is not being condemned by a some media organizations does not mean it has any meaningful high ground. why are you skeptical that iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons? if they weren't, why would they be developing secret enrichment facilities? why would "The IAEA B…

It is a stone cold, dead in the ground for a decade, crystalline clear FACT that Iran has no nuclear weapon manufacturing program, and no plausible capacity to engage in one in the near future. Period, full stop, end telegram. Armed with this certainty, you can now begin to answer the rest of your questions for yourself.

[citation needed]

Re: US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it

#224

Post by nradov » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 8:09 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #70

hieronymusN wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't nearly as terrifying as the Cold War with the USSR. We're not threatened with nuclear war, nor having the near misses that could trigger it (Cuban missile crisis). No one is building bomb shelters in their backyards, because right now the balance of power is very much in the United States' favor. Could things get there with another nuclear enabled power like China? Maybe, in time. Iran is not an existentia…

I disagree, any attempt to shutdown a significant part of our power grid is terrifying to me. We are at a point in our society that we cannot survive without electricity for a large amount of time. Our economy would shutdown, people will starve as easily obtainable food would go away, certain medicines that keep people alive would spoil, hospitals would shut down, and more. We are so deeply ingrained in having electr…

A serious solar storm could damage the power grid more severely than a deliberate attack. If power surges burn out more transformers then it's going to take a long time to bring the grid back in some areas.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/06/solar-storms/ferri...

Re: US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it

#225

Post by jpxxx » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 8:22 PM UTC

jbooth wrote: post #192

jpxxx wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me be clear: there is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has nuclear weapons in its possession. There is no evidence whatsoever that Iran has had an organized nuclear weapons development program for the last nine years. There is some evidence that there was a nuclear weapons program prior to 2003. This is where you start discussing things: with reality and facts. I am insulted that these facts I am offering are bei…

I don't know why I'm jumping in, but. Iran is enriching uranium. A lot of it. This is not disputed. Iran rattles their sabre a lot, and has large domestic oil production, both of those are also undisputed. ... So you're saying you believe their story that they're enriching uranium beyond where it needs to be for nuclear power, just so they can have nuclear power? Even though they already have more oil than they can s…

This isn't battle-chat, jumping in is called a conversation. :)

I do not dispute anything you've said: enrichment is happening, Iran's government is adept at aggressive rhetoric, and Iran would be far better off militarily as a nuclear power. It would be rational for them to be one.

But nothing I have said is incorrect or an opinion. They do not have a nuke, they don't have remotely enough infrastructure or capability to get there anytime soon, and their enrichment activities are not resulting in weapons quality product. That multiple nations and media interests are claiming otherwise is unacceptable.

Their energy policy is not of any interest to me. I am interested in ending this war for the sake of peace.

Re: US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it

#226

Post by kbolino » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 8:25 PM UTC

webXL wrote: post #216

kbolino wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither is any less dead than the other. The cause matters only to the living. My entire point is that fear of the threat in the back of your mind is entirely irrational. You're much more likely to die of cancer, and even then, you're not very likely to die at all. The Stalin quote about "a single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" comes to mind here. I understand your point that terrorism is the result of…

But you have no real control over either, so why make such a big deal of the former? Not true. Even thought they need to be much smarter about it, people with guns, whom our tax dollars fund and who's power and number I fear and would like to limit, can reduce the likelihood of a terrorist ruining my life. Scientists can do the same for cancer, but unfortunately, we have more people who can fight terrorism that who c…

You cannot effect much control over a signal that you cannot distinguish from random noise. There are so many factors that affect the likelihood of terrorism, and yet even in a bad year that likelihood is insignificant.

Our ridiculously outsized counterterrorism efforts are akin to putting a shroud around the Earth to block out cosmic background radiation. It would cost more money than we can fathom, and in the end we probably couldn't even measure the benefit. Meanwhile, the radiation you absorb from living near a nuclear plant or an old testing site is orders of magnitude greater, and yet you probably won't ever suffer a harmful effect from it.

My argument isn't that terrorism isn't real, or it isn't a threat. My argument is that it's such an insignificant threat that it fails to justify our existing efforts, nonetheless ever-more-expensive new efforts.

Re: US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it

#227

Post by berntb » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 8:30 PM UTC

Cadsby wrote: post #205

berntb wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parallel comment by salimmadjd has a point about Pakistan maybe being even worse than Iran, when it comes to terror support (I do doubt that Saudi A as a country is worse). I might stand corrected, there. >>Every powerful country kills the civilians/citizens of other countries To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war, etc. Democracies generally don't do that.

You are leaving out a rather glaring example. Neither atomic bomb, dropped by the one and only country ever to use them, were dropped on military targets. The "Democracies" of the world kill many innocent civilians, an order of magnitude in fact than any terrorist related event if you really want to compare the two. Not because the people running them are cartoonishly evil or anything, it simply reflects the massive…

I wrote: To explicitly target civilians is serious because it breaks the laws of war

Got the answer: "kill many innocent civilians"

Sigh, it is illegal to target. In a war, civilians will die. My point was that some sides do try to avoid civilan casualities. You didn't argue against my point, you made a spin.

Then, someone isn't morally right by being weaker, so different strength have nothing to do with it.

The nuclear bombs over Japan was 1: a long time ago, 2: a complex choice (e.g. military production in cities, different standards in WWII, the target selection process, etc, etc). You condemn without discussing that.

And so on.

I am sorry, but I must say that you write simplified propaganda. Please increase quality, I want a better HN. :-(

Re: US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it

#228

Post by kbolino » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 8:30 PM UTC

terangdom wrote: post #209

kbolino wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither is any less dead than the other. The cause matters only to the living. My entire point is that fear of the threat in the back of your mind is entirely irrational. You're much more likely to die of cancer, and even then, you're not very likely to die at all. The Stalin quote about "a single death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic" comes to mind here. I understand your point that terrorism is the result of…

The former has a large political impact. How many dissidents a year do you think you need to kill to suppress any opposition?

Targeted acts of terrorism are different than indiscriminate attacks, and a coordinated series of attacks is different than an isolated incident. If the group of potentially affected people is very small, or the number of attacks very large, then the probabilities are drastically increased and a larger response is justified.

Re: US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it

#229

Post by berntb » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 8:31 PM UTC

tkahn6 wrote: post #185

salimmadjd wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Iran is probably the worst country on the planet when it comes to supporting terrorism. Really? Sounds like rewriting the history again. Everything I read pointed 911 to pakistin intelligence and Saudis

That's a strawman in that 9/11 isn't the only terrorist attack to happen in the 21st century.

Thanks, now I understood what the gp wrote. :-) I have too little experience with conspiracy theories.

Re: US and Israel created Stuxnet, lost control of it

#230

Post by kbolino » Fri, Jun 01, 2012, 8:51 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #215

kbolino wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My original response was more thoughtful, but I felt that summed up my point better. The question is not what's possible, but what's likely and how much it will cost. If the likelihood is low and the cost is small, then you cannot justify extravagant preparation. An attack against civilian infrastructure is terrorism no matter who does it. It may be a singular event, part of a chain of attacks, or a prelude to a full…

You continue to not really be thinking about my point, insisting on framing it in a pre-canned terrorism argument. I am explicitly talking about high-cost events, and at best you can call the probability unknown , for things like a biological attack or a computer attack that perhaps even accidentally ends up taking out some very important part of the infrastructure. We already have good reasons to be concerned that a…

What is your point then, exactly?

Are you arguing that there are eventualities which could be disastrous, and they need not be the product of willful malice? Then of course I agree with you.

Is your point that we can and should take all possible precautions against such eventualities, regardless of cost? That's where I take disagreement. We are, after all, arguing in the context of a larger discussion here.

Our efforts at preparedness must be in proportion to the risk, which is derived from both the potential cost and our best estimate of the likelihood. Bad things happen; it's terrible, it sucks, but it's unavoidable. We can and will bankrupt ourselves trying to swat every fly. It doesn't matter that a disaster could be catastrophic if we create a catastrophe by trying to avert every disaster.