Will Israel Have A Choice

[Turtle]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18968233

 

I found this article on BBC today about the continuing cyber war. Can somebody with a better understanding of computers than me explain how Iran is getting the updated simatic codes and equipment with such tight sanctions? It seems that they (The West) are cutting any company out of the loop that has anything to do with Iran. Are these stuxnet and other viruses fixes readily available to all or do Iranian computer whizzes have to figure out and fix all their problems?

 

Also we lose some drives and VFD's now and again when we have lightning hits at my place of employment. They are not cheap to replace and I imagine even less so on the black market.

 

as luck has it i also watched a program wherein a security expert explained Stuxnet and i'll wing some corrections. your article is misleading if not outright wrong in several details. first, while Stuxnet could, can and did reside on many Siemens' programmable logic controllers, it was written to only intefere with those controllers running centrifuges used to refine nuclear fuel in Iran. it did however send reports out from all the controllers it infected. according to the fella i heard, it was found by accident and by one of the computer anti-virus/security companys. the iranians had no clue why the centrifuges were over-speeding; in fact Stuxnet was written to give them false diagnostic info as well. it travelled/travels only on thumbdrives, not the net, so it had to be physically carried into the iranian's facilities. as i understand it, no one has figured out just how that was done or who did it.

 

i don't know what VFD's are, but lightning strikes are as lighning strikes do. :lightning :shrug:

 

one thing your article has right is that Stuxnet was so sophisticated that only a state could have made it; the US and/or Israel being the prime suspects. according to "my guy" this was the first use ever of cyber-warfare that destroyed physical assets. it was never meant to be found, but the cat's out o' da bag now boy! as many industrial operations use these Siemens controllers, including power plants and municipal water supplies, there is plenty for all now to worry about.

[LaurieAG]

Can somebody with a better understanding of computers than me explain how Iran is getting the updated simatic codes and equipment with such tight sanctions? It seems that they (The West) are cutting any company out of the loop that has anything to do with Iran. Are these stuxnet and other viruses fixes readily available to all or do Iranian computer whizzes have to figure out and fix all their problems?

The wiki page has heaps of info Deepwater6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

 

Iran doesn't really need to get the updates if it had spare equipment (it increased production since then quickly so it probably did) and keeps any new systems isolated and uninfected. The main disturbing fact was the use of four zero day attacks on MS Windows. Zero day means a major flaw that can be exploited and has been identified but has not yet been used in the wild (i.e. the internet not the lab).

 

The wiki refers to three other different variants of the worm being identified since 2010, one which is purely for intelligence gathering purposes. Worms that attack industrial control systems like Stuxnet should be considered the most dangerous weapons of mass destruction in our time.

[Deepwater6]

Thanks LaurieAG/Turtle - I vaguely remember a PBS radio program about how one of the younger Iranian engineers unknowingly brought the virus in on his laptop or a memory stick now that you say that.

 

A VFD or (Variable Frequency drive) allows adjustments to the speed of motors. We have pumps at our facility that are constant speed and rather than continually shuting off/on to get the flow we want, we can turn a variable speed motor/pump up or down to get our desired flow. We usually do this through our closed SCADA system and PLC network. I'm not an expert on them, but I think that's how they generally work.

 

LaurieAG, - This virus and the ones to come are the face of warfare today. I can just imagine the things that happen we never hear about. I just hope no one gets into our missle network or some other nuke armed country and does real damage or worse.

[Guest MacPhee]

We Can Live With a Nuclear Iran

 

That's a good article. What I got out of it is that Iran's leadership seems to be more interested in expanding it's (for lack of a better term) "soft power" in the region than destroying the world.

 

Imperialism is one thing MacPhee, detruction of a country because they are annoying or weak is something else. You would also need to consider the countries surrounding the target and what their reaction would be if we wiped their trading partner off the map. I don't think Russia will to happy with us if and when this happens.

 

So it seems the choices are:

 

1.Continue to negotiate with Iran and offer them technical assistance in exchange for an open door policy on it's nuke program and hope they agree.

2.Strike first with percision guided bombs and continue to do that every two yrs. as needed to keep them down.

3.All out invasion of the country to assure we get all material and weapons out of there.

4.Leave them alone.

 

As the article refers to, attacking the country risks galvinizing the population and other countries against us. I thought it a big missed opportunity not doing more in the green movement uprising around the election. I'm sure the CIA was doing what it could but with all the other regime changes around the world that one looked promising before they crushed it.

 

A sensible post, making valuable points. My own view is this:

 

1. The quickest way to end the Iranian problem would be for the US to destroy Iran. That would be the Ancient Roman solution - make Iran a desert, and call it peace.

2. However President Obama can't do that, because if he ordered a US nuclear attack on Iran, he'd get impeached.

3. But it'd be different if Israel did the nuclear attack. Then the US could just tut-tut, and make loud protests in the UN Security Council, for the sake of form. Send relief aid to Iran, help bury the Iranian bodies, decontaminate the topsoil from radioactive fallout, and so on. This seems an unlikely scenario, but I wouldn't entirely rule it out.

4. Alternatively, the CIA could send in a hit squad, to kill the Iranian government leaders. But the CIA don't seem very good at that kind of thing - look how long they took to rub out Bin Laden. Not to mention Fidel Castro and the cigars.

5. So most likely, nothing will be done for the time being. As usual.

6. I can't help deploring this lack of positive action by the US. Such pusillanimity shows the US has lost its touch. After all, there wouldn't even be a USA, if you hadn't got rid of Chief Sitting Bull, and the other troublesome Native North American leaders, killed all their buffaloes, and penned the Indians up in Reservations.

 

How come you've got so wishy-washy about strong action these days?

Edited July 25, 2012 by MacPhee

[LaurieAG]

Hi Elly, welcome to hypography,

 

I myself thinks that the parties will not act violently, because it they do so, there would be many unexpected consequences. Thus, they have to refrain from doing thoughtlessly, at least in this period of time.

 

It would be good if they abided by the old do unto others as (you would have) others do unto you. It just continues the cycle of violence if you do something terrible to people because some other people did something terrible to you in the past.

[Deepwater6]

Not only is Iran slowing down their enrichment, they seem to be ramping it up. As usual they will not give UN inspectors full access. If Israel decides to strike it should be soon.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19424097

[belovelife]

thats really lame

[Deepwater6]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/16/politics/israel-netanyahu-interview/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

 

Israel is asking for a red line that Iran cannot cross. The situation should come to a head one way or another very shortly.

[lawcat]

Zbigniew Brzezinski

I acknowledge that this is a question that might be asked on a cable channel, but how do you assess the percentage chance that the United States will attack Iran to delay or stop its nuclear-weapons program, and what about the chance that Israel would do so?

 

I think the chance that Israel will do it is greater. I doubt that we would do it just like that, because I think no matter how deep our concerns over that issue are, the fact is it’s easy to start a war, and we know that it’s very hard to end it. Suppose we do get into a war with Iran. How do we end it? How long will it last? Who else is going to be in it with us to help us? How will it play domestically over the longer haul? But the Israelis may be guided by different logic, and certainly [israeli prime minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak do convey the impression, if not of eagerness, then at least of impatient determination to strike.

 

If there were to be such an attack, spin out what you think would happen in terms of stability of the region and the world at large.

 

Well, I have said this publicly. I think, first of all, the Iranians will not really retaliate very effectively against Israel. They’ll try, but it’s going to be fragmentary, marginally painful but not decisive. The Iranians will be absolutely convinced that this was done in connivance with us. They’ll retaliate against us, and what are their options? They may not be able to close the Strait of Hormuz, but they’ll certainly try. We’ll keep it open, but the cost of energy will skyrocket anyway, inevitably. For one thing, insurance rates will go up, and there may be some other damages. That will be bad for the global economy.

 

But much worse, we will drive the Europeans into the hands of the Russians, who will be rubbing their hands. The Russians are very worried that the price of energy, which oscillates between $90 and $120 right now, is not sufficiently high to meet their budgetary expectations. But if the price of a barrel goes up $200, they’ll be sitting pretty. The Europeans will be totally dependent. The Chinese will be hurt; so will the Japanese. That will not help the global economy either. Secondly, they can certainly attack some of our military facilities nearby, and they can destabilize Iraq in no time flat by stimulating a Shia‑Sunni collision. Next, they can certainly make life uncomfortable for us in western Afghanistan, which had been very stable. That means that our disengagement from Afghanistan will be very costly or difficult and so forth. But then there are all sorts of other possibilities involving terrorism or whatever, which will simply mean that the region and the United States are going to be intertwined in warlike instability that may last for a long time.

 

So the broader inflammation of the whole Middle East region could result?

 

That’s right. And you certainly have to face the fact that you’re not being confronted with a situation in which you have no choice. We have a choice. We have a choice of avoiding that and of convincing the Israelis not to do it. It’s not like Pearl Harbor, where we were attacked and had to respond. Last but not least, I don’t exclude the possibility of negotiations succeeding, provided they are real negotiations.

 

Which they haven’t been so far?

 

Which they haven’t been so far. They have to be based on the principle that Iran is entitled as a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatory to have a nuclear-energy program, and they have a right to enrich but at a very low level. I think something along those lines is workable, but if the idea is that the agreement has to involve some sort of a humiliating arrangement for Iran that puts it in a cage quite apart from the arrangements for every other NPT signatory, then they probably won’t accept.

 

Last but not least, I think we certainly have the means and even a moral obligation to do for the people in the Middle East, and particularly for the Israelis, what we have been prepared over the years to do for the Europeans, and then for the Japanese and the Koreans. Namely, we should give them a really binding, reliable commitment that they are fully covered by the American nuclear deterrent, by stating publicly that “any threat to Israel, or worse, direct action against anybody in the Middle East would be viewed as an action directed at the United States, with all of the consequences that might entail.” We succeeded in protecting the Europeans and deterring the Soviets. We have protected successfully the Japanese and the Koreans. We certainly can do it for the Middle East.

 

http://nationalinterest.org/article/interview-us-fate-us-hands-7339?page=3

Edited September 17, 2012 by lawcat

[lawcat]

A sensible post, making valuable points. My own view is this:

 

1. The quickest way to end the Iranian problem would be for the US to destroy Iran. That would be the Ancient Roman solution - make Iran a desert, and call it peace.

 

That would be disasterous.

 

How come you've got so wishy-washy about strong action these days?

 

There are quite a few people prepared to do just that. I think Mit and his American Century is one group that would nuke Iran, and many others. But it would be tactical imo, rather than creating "make Iran a desert."

[Moontanman]

I agree that carpet nuking Iran would be disastrous but the threat of doing so might be the only reason Iran wouldn't use it's nuke if they had one. Personally I think Iran and it's leaders are smarter than that, at least I hope so, at this moment in time nuclear weapons are nothing but phallic symbols to be waved at each other. No country on the planet could get by with using them without extreme results from everyone else. Even the all powerful USA knows it's nukes are useless in anything but a retaliatory strike and even that would bring down the rest of the world on their heads.

 

Israel is a wild card, the USA's support for them is unreasonable and based on religion and guilt from WW2, right now the only reason a nuclear bomb would be used is for retaliation for the same or maybe religion, that is why Iran and Israel are so dangerous, they are both basically theocracies of rival religions. Here's to hoping they are not as batshitcrazy as they seem...

[lawcat]

I agree that carpet nuking Iran would be disastrous but the threat of doing so might be the only reason Iran wouldn't use it's nuke if they had one.

Iran does not have a nuke. Isreal wants to bomb their energy facilities to reduce Israel's own fears. It's a "preventive act." Preventive wars are war of agggression. Wars of agreession are crimes, and we've been doing it for awhile, and the public supports it. This is not good.

 

Long time ago we had good people. We have smart people, but we don't have good people leading the country. A good man, Robert Jackson at the Nuremberg Trails said:

 

This inquest represents the practical effort of four of the most mighty of nations, with the support of 17 more, to utilize international law to meet the greatest menace of our times-aggressive war. The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. The common sense of mankind demands that law shall not stop with the punishment of petty crimes by little people. It must also reach men who possess themselves of great power and make deliberate and concerted use of it to set in motion evils which. leave no home in the world untouched. It is a cause of that magnitude that the United Nations will lay before Your Honors.

 

But the ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law. This trial represents mankind's desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world's peace and to commit aggressions against the rights of their neighbors.

 

 

I am convinced with the domestic and international culture at this time, nuclear war is inevitable. It has to happen, 'cause military and political leaders are running wild.

[Deepwater6]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/06/world/meast/iran-currency-protests/index.html?hpt=wo_c2

 

As the article describes the value of the rial has been decimated. The sanctions are starting to take their toll. The ire of the protests seemed to be focused toward the president. They must understand that is misguided blame, and he has no real power anyway, or at least I would hope they do. Never the less it seems the sanctions are starting to hurt.

[LaurieAG]

As the article describes the value of the rial has been decimated. The sanctions are starting to take their toll. The ire of the protests seemed to be focused toward the president. They must understand that is misguided blame, and he has no real power anyway, or at least I would hope they do. Never the less it seems the sanctions are starting to hurt.

 

The Australian currency has also dropped which is unusual considering the US QE.

 

Other things must also be considered i.e. with the US $ British pound and the Japanese yen all very close to zero interest rates the old Yen Carry Trade has expanded to the US and British currencies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carry_(investment)

 

That's the major problem with QE, how can your economy benefit when carry speculators strip the QE grease out of the bearings of the global financial system and the US SEC has given an undertaking to continue to pump the grease in. This is not going to end well for non speculators.

[lawcat]

Iraq buys $4.2 billion in Russian weapons-document

 

The deals, disclosed in a Russian government document issued at a meeting between Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, give Russia a big boost at a time when the future of its arms sales to Libya and Syria is uncertain.

Iraq had been all but off limits for Russia's defense industry after the U.S.-led invasion of 2003 which ousted Saddam Hussein, one of Moscow's biggest weapons customers.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/iraq-buys-4-2-billion-russian-weapons-document-141633988.html

 

 

 

And now, both Iraq and Iran find security interest in military trades with Russia.

[LaurieAG]

Hi Lawcat,

 

I am convinced with the domestic and international culture at this time, nuclear war is inevitable. It has to happen, 'cause military and political leaders are running wild.

I don't know about nuclear war but the change from rule of law (all equal under the law) to rule by law (do what I say or I will punish you because I'm bigger and more powerful than you) heralds a new dark age.

[lawcat]

Hi Lawcat,

 

 

I don't know about nuclear war but the change from rule of law (all equal under the law) to rule by law (do what I say or I will punish you because I'm bigger and more powerful than you) heralds a new dark age.

 

Nazism is on the rise in central east Europe again. Russia is investing heavily in military again, they are surrounded by NATO and feeling pressure. China is feeling pressure too. They are investing in military, navy to protect themselves farther from the shores of Hong Kong. NATO's conquering oil countries on the south of Russia, which is something Hitler tried to do to secure oil supply for the mechanization. There is talk of "preemptive" strikes between Israel and Iran, in other words bombing because I fear--it's madness.

 

There is very little decency in Western policy lately and there is nothing more important than decency in foreign relations. War's start because of lack of decency, and the situation to me looks very gloomy.