Very Interesting article on Cyber Attack on Nuke Plant

[Maj3stic~SPARTA~]

Things that make you go Humm!

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/11/26/secret-agent-crippled-irans-nuclear-ambitions/

[custard~SPARTA~]

There is a brilliant write up of this attack in this months PC Pro but it did say that it was discovered before the first of the Zero days and no damage was done.

[Durka-Durka~SPARTA~]

Amazing story, and scary at the same time. I wonder how long it took the people to make the code? To be able to get that much information, even stuff that the IAEA didn't know about, must have been exhaustive. It also explains that one scientist getting blown up the other day, which was probably done by Iran. This must have been years in the making, and yet it went into place over a year and a half ago, which means they were working on this thing long before the nuke facilities were even being built in Iran.

[Durka-Durka~SPARTA~]

There is a brilliant write up of this attack in this months PC Pro but it did say that it was discovered before the first of the Zero days and no damage was done.

 

Just like there are no homosexuals in Iran, lol. Did akmadinnerjacket write that article?

[MedicSN6]

Iran's nuclear program is a huge problem. I'm not trying to induce fear, but Iran having a working nuke, let alone multiple, is a scary thought. The U.S. has demonstrated the ability and the fortitude to use one. We know the dangers and have learned the consequences of doing so. Iran has not. The propensity for them to use it is only rivaled by Northern Korea's.

 

I am no war-hawk and have no desire to go to war with anyone, but what are the consequences of not taking a stand? Reaction is slower than action. That being said,if the time ever comes where Iran is going to push the button, more lives will be lost because of the U.S.'s and its allies inaction, rather than preemptive action.

 

Would it be better to lose <10,000 soldier/marine lives in a war or lose an unimaginable amount of civilian lives first and then all of the soldiers/marines on top of it?

 

I personally don't like the thought of either, but at least soldiers volunteer and are conscious of the possibility of death. A civilian is not.

[SirSmokalot]

i endorse that statement Medic.

 

I'm with ya

[MH6~SPARTA~]

Good to know someone is doing something about Iran's nuclear program.

 

I personally think Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and all the other Middle Eastern countries just as concerned as we are with Iran, should act and invade--with U.S. support. That's just me though. Granted, I don't think the U.S. is in any danger of being attacked by Iran, at least not immediately. If Iran were to finish the construction of a nuclear warhead, Israel or one of Iran's Sunni neighbors would most likely be the first target. (Though maybe not Israel since Muslims consider it a holy site as well)

 

Same goes for North Korea. And, judging from the leaked cables, China partially agrees.

 

Both countries are sorely in need of an ass-kicking in my opinion.

 

 

My 2¢

[custard~SPARTA~]

Just like there are no homosexuals in Iran, lol. Did akmadinnerjacket write that article?

 

No mate, Armoureddinnerjacket can't read. It was in written by the jurno that specialises in there security section and he made out that Stuxnet was supposed to give access not cause damage, that was supposed to come later. His biggest peev was some retard let this into the wild and altho it didn't work others will end up using a variant against us. I actually think it's brilliant but the problem is so will ppl we don't consider allies, there are stories of the Chinese targeting just about everybody.

 

The best thing about the Wiki leaks recently is the Saudi's desperate for the US to bomb Iran, bet that goes down well domestically for them rofl not.

[Durka-Durka~SPARTA~]

No mate, Armoureddinnerjacket can't read. It was in written by the jurno that specialises in there security section and he made out that Stuxnet was supposed to give access not cause damage, that was supposed to come later. His biggest peev was some retard let this into the wild and altho it didn't work others will end up using a variant against us. I actually think it's brilliant but the problem is so will ppl we don't consider allies, there are stories of the Chinese targeting just about everybody.

 

The best thing about the Wiki leaks recently is the Saudi's desperate for the US to bomb Iran, bet that goes down well domestically for them rofl not.

 

 

It's a crazy world, huh?

[custard~SPARTA~]

No kiddin bro

[ragnarok92~SPARTA~]

Am i crazy for thinking china had in on this too? I forget who said it, but someone said "The next world war will be fought not with bullets and bombs, but computers and keystrokes."

[Athlon64~SPARTA~]

The spent fuel can be refined in to u235 and you know whats that is used for, and as unstable as those countrys are.

 

China was caught a few years ago making counter fit money. they were so good, they were called super bills.

 

I gess thats the reasion for super security in those systems.

China appears to be friendly, buy up to alot of no good, eather there is not any control or coavert goverment opps.

Edited December 1, 2010 by Athlon64~SPARTA~

[Durka-Durka~SPARTA~]

Am i crazy for thinking china had in on this too? I forget who said it, but someone said "The next world war will be fought not with bullets and bombs, but computers and keystrokes."

 

Not sure who said that, but I know Einstein said "I don't know how WW3 will be fought, but WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones."

[BrerRabbit~SPARTA~]

When I read the title of the article the first thing to my mind was "Israelis." Wikipedia has a long and well resourced article on this (Stuxnet) and it sites sources pointing to Israel's Unit 8200 (their NSA) as the culprits. They have the motivation, resources, and know how for this.

 

As for the fear some have expressed over Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon, I dont share it. Frankly speaking there is, unfortunately, little that can be done to stop any moderately rich state from developing such weapons if they are dead set on doing so - the tail end of the 20th Century saw nations like Brazil and South Africa come close to doing so. They voluntarily stopped their programs. And of course we have down right destitute states like Pakistan and N. Korea playing with the nuclear genie. If they managed to develop nuclear weapons you can be damn sure that Iran (which is whether you like it or not a much more powerful - economically, politically, militarily, etc. - regional power than either Pakistan or N. Korea) is going to be able to get such a weapon in the near future. Oh, and lets also not forget that Israel herself has had undeclared nuclear weapons for decades.

 

So why am I not fearful of Iran "going nuke?" I am concerned of course but Im not about to write my congressman demanding the U.S. go to war over it. First, lets talk about the capabilities of these junior members in the nuclear club. What most people dont understand (and I only understand because I try to follow this stuff) is that just making a nuclear bomb that is tested in some underground mine some place is just the first step in an extremely long and difficult process of developing a deployable nuclear weapon. Its all well and good to have Fat Man sitting in a shed on Tinian island, but unless you have the miracle of a B-29 Flying Fortress to fly it to Hiroshima its not going to do much good is it? Well that is just the sort of problem Pakistan, N. Korea, and eventually Iran, face. "Ok, my fellow nuts who've wasted our national treasure on building a monstrosity, now that we have it, how do we make it into an actual and not perceived threat?"

 

These nations have yet to display the technical know how and skill to put a nuclear warhead on the top of a rocked, send that sucker up and have it come down with any accuracy and detonate. "Accuracy BrerRabbit, what on earth do you need accuracy in a nuke for?" Yeah, well actually they do need to be accurate to an extent if you want the thing to be a deterrent and/or threat. Lets just say for yucks that N. Korea has Taepodong working well and they have miniaturized a bomb to fit on top of it, and they have a real triggering device etc., and they were to launch that thing at Tokyo and it ends up detonating east of Honshu in the Pacific because their guidance system is shit. Well its not been too effective has it? And that was assuming they could leap all those other technical hurdles that I just sort of gifted them in that scenario.

 

When the Soviet Union imploded, one thing that came out was that the capabilities of the USSRs strategic rocket forces had been extremely exaggerated thoughout the decades of the Cold War. Exaggerated by the West and the USSR itself. Now Im not claiming it was not a credible threat, but my point is if the Soviet Union's strategic nuke force had huge technological issues how do you think Pakistan's. N. Korea's, and Iran's are going to fare?

 

"What about those nuts giving a bomb to some spooky terrorist group and they set it off in a port, or at the World Series, or sneak one into the Israeli Knesset and set it off!?!?!?!!? OMGWTFBBQ!!!!" Well, such a scenario is I grant possible, but it is only likely to take place on a show like 24, and its real world likelihood is low. First of all its important to remember that any nation states ruling power structure has one real bottom line, which is to remain in power. That is doubly so for dictatorial regimes. Now if say Iran were crazy enough to hand over nuke to a terror cell (just writing those words make my eyes roll because Im sure its a fantasy) and they were able to carry out an attack on Israel, just what do you think the response would be? How long before Tehran were a burning cinder? How long before say the full weight of the United States strategic nuclear mega tonnage comes raining down on them? Believe me, they know this. Hell, forget America's response, how about Israel's. "Hmmm .... Im losing the chess match here ... I know I'll use my pawn to take his bishop ... yes, that allows his queen to then check mate me and I lose but ah fuck it!!!!" Now there are truly crazy regimes in the world and N. Korea is the most bat shit crazy of the bunch, but that does not mean they are crazy enough to throw themselves off a cliff. Also, despite how its often portrayed, Iran isnt nearly as crazy as N. Korea. In short, what is there to gain from handing a nuke over to a terrorist cell? Nothing.

 

"But Ahmandinejad is a new Hitler!!!!" Well, first I think this gives Mr.-Business-suit-and-shirt-but-no-tie Ahmandinejad waaaaaay too much credit. He is without a doubt a firebrand, a provacatuer, and likely a nut, but we have national political personalities who fit that description right here in the good old USA. "But we dont put our nuts in power Brer!!!! Jeeez!!!" Well, I think we do and have done, but this brings me to my next point about Mr.-I-take-style-cues-from-Miami-Vice Ahmandinejad ... he is NOT the man in charge over there. He is subordinate to the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenie. Now, Im not saying "I dont worry about Ahmandinejad because hes under the authority of a mullah," but what I am saying is that much of this hand wringing over the personage of Ahmandinejad is unfounded. Ahmandinejad is being portrayed as a Hitler like figure by forces in the US that want to make people unduly fearful.

 

Caution, diligence, and strength of purpose are all called for when setting our national policies with regards to the new nuclear club members or "rogue nations." Fear however should never be the basis of foreign policy. Anyway, its a huge topic but I thought Id offer a somewhat dissenting opinion to the what seemed to be the majority here.

[MH6~SPARTA~]

Iran and North Korea wouldn't need sophisticated ballistic missiles to deploy their nuclear warheads. They could just as easily use a truck. That is, if their intended target was a neighboring country, which it most likely would be. On the other hand, I know N. Korea is trying to construct a reliable missile (Taepodong), which could theoretically reach Alaska; whether they'll ever succeed or not is another issue entirely. (Personally, I doubt it)

 

And Iran can always use their "defensive" bomber, right?

 

But yes, most sane people would understand that any act of aggression, especially involving nuclear weapons, would quickly be countered by the rest of the world.

 

But then again, Kim Jong-il isn't what I would consider a sane person, and is on his way out of this world--never know if he may decide to go out with a bang. There is also the issue of bratty little N. Korea being babied by grandpappy China. Kim Jong-il thinks he can't be touched, and as a result he may do something rash.

 

Not saying any of this will actually happen--that Iran or N. Korea will develop and deploy a nuclear weapon--but it is still a possibility, however slight.

[Durka-Durka~SPARTA~]

Where there's a will, there's a way. Ask bin laden.

[BrerRabbit~SPARTA~]

Iran and North Korea wouldn't need sophisticated ballistic missiles to deploy their nuclear warheads. They could just as easily use a truck. That is, if their intended target was a neighboring country, which it most likely would be. On the other hand, I know N. Korea is trying to construct a reliable missile (Taepodong), which could theoretically reach Alaska; whether they'll ever succeed or not is another issue entirely. (Personally, I doubt it)

 

And Iran can always use their "defensive" bomber, right?

 

But yes, most sane people would understand that any act of aggression, especially involving nuclear weapons, would quickly be countered by the rest of the world.

 

But then again, Kim Jong-il isn't what I would consider a sane person, and is on his way out of this world--never know if he may decide to go out with a bang. There is also the issue of bratty little N. Korea being babied by grandpappy China. Kim Jong-il thinks he can't be touched, and as a result he may do something rash.

 

Not saying any of this will actually happen--that Iran or N. Korea will develop and deploy a nuclear weapon--but it is still a possibility, however slight.

 

A truck. And just how exactly is said truck going to reach Seoul or Tel Aviv or Yokohama? Dont take offense MH6, but its just that sort line of reasoning that makes the discussion of these topics so often spill over into the realm of the absurd. It is feasible, I grant you, for N. Korea to park a nuke close to the DMZ and close to Seoul and then detonate such a device hoping to do as much splash damage as possible to the S. Korean capital. An unpleasant end game for all I think. Now, everyone knows, including the N. Koreans, that if the Korean conflict goes hot again it will be the North that loses. Of course, the cost would be dramatic and tragic as S. Korea will suffer horribly, Japan will likely get hit as well, and theres always the ever present worry that war on the Korean peninsula would expand and bring in the Chinese (much less likely now than in the past but still a serious concern). So you see, all involved have a stake in that not being the end game. The fear is often put forth that if pressed against the wall the North will go ape and attack with everything including nukes - and I think its a valid concern, so the key then is to avoid putting them against a wall.

 

Now the North would LOVE to be able to have a credible nuclear threat that was projected. Something they could use at range, something that is a great trump card and bargaining chip; i.e. a nuclear tipped missile that can hit Pearl Harbor, or Yokohama, or Peking, or Seoul. The fact is though that they are not anywhere close to having that capability. They want that capability and that deserves our attention and concern. But they dont have it, and wont have it for years if ever at all. But you cant equate the long term potential threat of a nuclear armed missile with a nuke Ride-On truck. Because one is a valid topic for discussion and the other is an episode for 24.

 

Now the issue of a bomber. Sure, its far more feasible for Iran or N. Korea to get a nuclear weapon into the shape of a bomb and deploy it with a bomber. The problem here is of course bombers are extremely easy to counter. Prepping said bomber for flight, taking off, flying to target all without discovery and being intercepted and countered is a tricky thing to pull off. For the North Koreans, sure maybe this is a feasible and even likely strategy they could use if the shit hit the fan, but again to what end? Just because they might make use of such a strategy and assuming they would essentially commit national suicide, this can not be the basis of a preemptive attack on our part. If potential action by an adversary where a valid jumping off point for war the world would have been a nuclear wasteland long before many of us here were born. In Iran's case, a bomber nuclear threat is even less a credible vehicle against their most likely target, Israel.

 

Part of the problem is we really cant lump N. Korea and Iran in together. They are very different nations with very different concerns regarding US strategic policy. N. Korea is the crazy damn religious cult that took over a home at the end of the block, they are extremely difficult to deal with, armed, dangerous and everyone knows that its going to be tricky as hell to get them out of there. Iran is a different ball of wax all together with a very different set of circumstances and history. The real issue is that culturally, economically, politically, Iran is a player in the Mid East and it is almost certainly destined to become the regional power there. There is very little we can do to thwart that, but we can and should do everything we can to make the eventual outcome as livible for us. This includes trying to persuade them from not joining the nuclear club. But do I think its worth my nation going to war over a perceived and yet unacted upon potential threat of them stuffing a bomb into a truck or trying to fly a Persian Fat Sultan bomb to Tel Aviv? No, no, no.

Edited December 1, 2010 by BrerRabbit~SPARTA~

[BrerRabbit~SPARTA~]

Here's something I found from the Brookings Institute by doing a quick Google search. This gives you an idea of what Im talking about between the difference between having a nuclear device and then having a deployable weapon. For the USA, the richest and one of the most technically advanced nations EVER, between 1940 and 1996 the cost of deploying nuclear weapons ate up %57 of the total money spend on nuclear arms, while just building/developing the nukes was 7%. Oh and targeting and controling the nukes was another 14%. We spent on our nuclear arms programs as a nation in that period $5,821.0 billion !

 

Those numbers I think show how N. Korea, Pakistan, and Iran have made just the first, smallest, and least expensive step in what is a long, pricey, and technically difficult road to having a credible nuclear arm. Again, one thing to blast sand into glass in New Mexico, its yet a whole nother deal to cook Hiroshima.

 

source

Edited December 1, 2010 by BrerRabbit~SPARTA~

[MH6~SPARTA~]

A truck. And just how exactly is said truck going to reach Seoul or Tel Aviv or Yokohama?

For Iran? Like any kind of other civilian freight, or like any of the countless vehicle-borne IEDs.

N. Korea on the other hand could use just use artillery or bombers.

 

I honestly doubt it'd be that hard to smuggle a weapon into another country, especially in a civilian freight transport. Granted, it depends on how concealable the warhead is. If it's the size of a car in itself it might be hard to hide. Still though, crazier shit has happened in the past. Just because something sounds implausible doesn't make it impossible. It's when you dismiss the implausible as impossible that it happens to bite you in the ass.

 

Also: So much text.

[BrerRabbit~SPARTA~]

Also: So much text.

 

Complex topics demand rigorous discourse.

 

The Nuclear IED. I think those words alone sum up how silly the idea is. But heres my bullet point questions to you about such a thing.

 

1. What does said nation have to gain, other than national suicide, by the use of the Nuclear IED? How is the deployment of this "weapon" in anyway beneficial to the country of origin? ("They are bat shit crazy" will not be considered a valid argument.)

 

2. Such a weapon would involve a rather long time to target, does this not add tremendous (dare I say unacceptable) risk to the launching country? That is to say, as the Nuclear IED in cargo container rounds Cape Horn on its way to whatever doomed port of call, if the plot to send such a device were discovered or the device itself discovered, wouldnt the country of origin expect immediate and complete annihilation? ("They are bat shit crazy" will not be considered a valid argument.)

 

3. How does an adversary's potential use of a stratagem like the Nuclear IED (be it real or imagined) justify preepmtive war? You may not have raised preemptive war MH but others have and its sort of the subtext to a lot of this discussion so Im asking. ("They are bat shit crazy" will not be considered a valid argument.)

Edited December 1, 2010 by BrerRabbit~SPARTA~

[MH6~SPARTA~]

Complex topics demand rigorous discourse.

 

The Nuclear IED. I think those words alone sum up how silly the idea is. But heres my bullet point questions to you about such a thing.

 

1. What does said nation have to gain, other than national suicide, by the use of the Nuclear IED? How is the deployment of this "weapon" in anyway beneficial to the country of origin? ("They are bat shit crazy" will not be considered a valid argument.)

 

2. Such a weapon would involve a rather long time to target, does this not add tremendous (dare I say unacceptable) risk to the launching country? That is to say, as the Nuclear IED in cargo container rounds Cape Horn on its way to whatever doomed port of call, if the plot to send such a device were discovered or the device itself discovered, wouldnt the country of origin expect immediate and complete annihilation? ("They are bat shit crazy" will not be considered a valid argument.)

 

3. How does an adversary's potential use of a stratagem like the Nuclear IED (be it real or imagined) justify preepmtive war? You may not have raised preemptive war MH but others have and its sort of the subtext to a lot of this discussion so Im asking. ("They are bat shit crazy" will not be considered a valid argument.)

 

It wouldn't be an IED. It'd be a nuclear bomb, transported across land (be it van, truck, train, bicycle, whatever). There'd be nothing improvised about a nuclear warhead. But I digress.

 

1. I don't know man, they hate Israel something fierce. They're bat shit crazy that way.

 

2. It'd be a risk that's for sure. Just like launching a ballistic missile or bomber squadron would be a risk. There's a reason the Cold War was what it was; if one country fired a nuclear weapon at the other, the other could retaliate before it even landed. Mutually assured destruction, sounds familiar doesn't it. Like suicide bombers. Again, bat shit crazy.

 

3. Not saying it would. I'd have no qualms about going to war with Iran or North Korea regardless of whether or not they could manage to enrich weapons-grade uranium. It would just give us a reason to (or rather, a reason the rest of the world wouldn't condemn us for--though we are the U.S., so they probably would anyway). All in all, they are bat shit crazy.

 

P.S. - They are all bat shit crazy.

 

But anyway, it's 5 o'clock. Work is over, and this thread has successfully entertained me long enough to avoid doing work for the rest of the day, and for that I thank you Brer. It was fun trying to think up hypothetical scenarios to refute your points, even if all I could think up could be the plot of a bad TV show. (Though you have to admit, nuclear artillery doesn't sound THAT far fetched when it comes to N. Korea).

 

I may love to argue just to argue, but you must admit it's a good way to pass the time (just have to make sure things don't get too heated--which I hope they didn't).

 

[Athlon64~SPARTA~]

Well they don't have it yet, and it turns out that china is not supporting them like they thought. and good thing theirs enough control in the world to keep things stable for the time being.