Stuxnet sibling theory surges after Iran says nuke facility shut down
theregister.com
theregister.com
This incident seems to be the opposite: a big one day event timed to make a splash and be quite obvious...
They packed the thing with so many exploits that the virus was ubiquitous and very obviously nation-state produced.
The point is that it did its damage in a very under-the-radar way so it took a long time for anyone to even realize what they were dealing with.
Does it? Someone blew up my secret nuclear enrichment facility isn’t exactly an endearing pitch.
Which triggers the question, how did France obtain leniency from international powers when it gave the nuclear bomb to Israel in the 1960ies? Who decides what is legal? And who decides that Iran’s facility is not “slated for immediate removal”, given it seems USA is down to targeting cigarette smugglers with drones in other countries, and nuclear bomb seems a bit more threatening?
What you're describing are acts of war.
If it was that easy, Israel would have done it.
You create an account to just post some political comments or to stir the hornet nest?
You mean like killing enough scientists who work at the facility that it ends up with its own Wikipedia article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Iranian_nucle...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Air...
Anyway Iran with the bomb is a good thing if you don't want another war in the middle-east.
Which Iran did.
They would like to have their sanctions removed while keeping their nuclear program - there is no scenario where Iran will stop short of having ICBMs.
Perhaps this isn't aimed at us westerners - and instead it's aimed at Iranians.
The message being "Yet more evidence that our country is under constant assault by the forces of evil who are threatened by our growing strength. They are the cause of any problems you see, support our homeland security and military"
There's also a message for possible allies in the region: "As you can see, Western countries don't respect our sovereignty, any respect they claim to have for yours is an illusion, show solidarity with us fellow autocratic religious oil-producing countries"
And "evil" is entirely subjective, one can easily say that Israel is evil for human rights and international law violations, and a similar argument can easily be made against the US, Turkey, UK, France, Saudi Arabia Iran as well.
The government there doesn't choose its narrative based on what's true or believable. When you think of it as a mafia that controls the country and presents a caricature of representative government while stealing and killing, things start to make more sense.
“In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." - Churchill
why there are fights 24/7?
A) They don't want to play economic ball with Uncle Sam.
B) The country can't be conquered by conventional means so can "act out" as much as they like.
C) They aren't really that bad, US propaganda is just really, really effective.
>B) The country can't be conquered by conventional means so can "act out" as much as they like.
E) Their Revolutionary Guard is extremely powerful politically. It's not clear the civilian government is capable of fully reigning in the Revolutionary Guard, and the Revolutionary Guard's political power is propped up by the prospect of war.
It's fascinating reading, i encourage you to look up the details yourself.
"Israel appeared to confirm" vs "evidence is thin".
Nothing particularly unique, for almost any empire in history has operated worked that way. Just as almost any empire eventually had to resort to increasingly more covert, corrupt and criminal enterprises to support itself. At some point, it inevitably will all come crashing down.
In the case of America, several generation will ask themselves how they could have been so dumb to let it get that far. No entirely fair, because their parents didn't really have the power to influence (let alone stop) any of it. Not without completely destroying the same system that also supported their way of life. Many people in the Soviet Union at some point knew at some point that the system was doomed, but nobody know how to change that reality for the better.
A lot can be learned from reading books written by Russians, about the collapse of the Soviet Union. Or books by Germans, after the end of World War II.
In fairness, it's hard to blame current day Americans for not clearly seeing what's going on, considering the level of cultural, institutionalized and commercial brainwashing (including deliberate division and diversion) that has been part of every aspect of life there, for decades (if not a century).
Still, there will come a day that Americans will have a rude awakening about reality and how those who run their country (be that government or private interests) have ruined their future and well being for a long time to come, just as the Russians and Germans once had.
Lol. No nation in over a decade likes this idea except for maybe North Korea. Sure Israel has always been the most vocal, but Iran having the bomb is an international liability.
Even the Sunni Arabs stripes have changed. Common enemies make strange bedfellows. Also, the Iranians have been willing to flex against their neighbors more recently. See the 2019 Abqaiq–Khurais attack.
My bet is that there's likely been a lot of international cooperation behind this and every other attempt. The Israelis likely take the blame to help others save face.
Consider the US/EU/Russians/Turks have called out Israelis after umpteen assassinations. No punitive actions have materialize.
Instead, trade has flourished with the aforementioned parties, and now we have the Abraham Accords, and the Saudi's might even open their door.
Only one nation has ever demonstrated and itchy trigger finger when it comes to these weapons.
Maybe you could make a case that having these weapons would make them more hostile/expansionist/aggressive. It certainly has merit considering what the US has been up to since 1945.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...
Definitely not weird at all.
But.... Why?
Why do some nations with weapons get to decided who else should and shouldn't have them?
If you subscribe to the MAD theory then every nation or organisation should have a stockpile and that would create world peace over night.
The reality is that most of the non-nuclear states are largely happy with the arrangement of living within the US nuclear umbrella and acknowledge that more nuclear weapon states do not benefit the common good, the nuclear weapon states have no interest in losing their monopoly (and are arguably breaking the treaty by failing to pursue disarmament).
The difference between Iran and North Korea is that the political system in Iran is much more nuanced, and makes it much harder for them to pursue a "lets acquire a nuke at all costs" policy, so they have to play it smart, and acquire the ability to build a weapon without actually doing it.
The difference between Iran and say India is that both the US and Israel justifiably see Iran as an antagonist, and in addition Israel is able to command significant political capital in Washington.
- Israel justifiably sees Iran as an antagonist, and they have a significant influen
As far as I know, India recognizes Pakistan's right to exist, and doesn't regularly threaten to wipe Pakistan off the map / drive all of its citizens into the sea.
There is no should or shouldn't. This is power, and those with power make, change, and break the rules as they wish.
Just consider that the US flagrantly violated the Iran deal, and nothing punitive happened.
Sure, there's an NPT on paper, and yes we have a far smaller stock pile of 4k nukes... but how can the US get away running nuclear tests in 1992, 30 years after an NPT which "obligates the nuclear weapons states to liquidate their nuclear stockpiles and pursue complete disarmament." How did the US pull off nuke research in 2003 or actually building new bombs in 2007? Why did no one else start pounding their chests demanding sanctions or IAEA inspectors?
Simple: The "rules" don't apply to the US or most major powers.
But Iran or any other middle east countries are too religious and follow Islam which is violent in its fundamental principle. Even if exceptional leaders emerge and manage to make progress in women rights, individual libery etc(Example saudi arabia for providing driving license to women) it will short lived as in the case of Turkey. The reason is state can not be separated from the religion according to Islam. For this fundamental reason Islamic countries possessing nuclear weapons is very dangerous to entire world and non muslim country should approve.
Even more outrageous is when well read muslims migrate to other countries they expect their religious rights to be respected. This is very sad state.
You have a bunch of overworked underpaid and under qualified engineers in charge of deploying a nuclear facility with a ton of political pressure, and some crazy ass deadline.
On day one, your systems compeletley fold... Because of reasons. Do you admit fault and face political regime consequences?
Or... Do you blame it on a "system fault caused by hackers"