[HN Gopher] Cyber Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facility
___________________________________________________________________
Cyber Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facility
Author : stunt
Score : 218 points
Date : 2021-04-11 15:56 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bbc.com)
| 88840-8855 wrote:
| When this stuff happens here then we call it "Putin job" and
| demand sanctions.
|
| Just for fun, I suggest we say it was "Biden" and demand
| sanctions against the USA. :)
|
| Aaaaaaand let the downvoting begin.
| throw_this_one wrote:
| Downvoting because your comment is brainless lol.
|
| Did Israel say they are going to destroy Iran? Or did Iran say
| they are going to destroy Israel? Answer that question and then
| you will understand.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| Why would the US support sanctions against a country that
| attacked its enemy?
|
| I'm not saying that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is
| always a good strategy, but you seem to be advocating for "The
| enemy of my enemy is my enemy", which makes less sense.
| FpUser wrote:
| >"Why would the US support sanctions against a country that
| attacked its enemy"
|
| Of course it would not. And you can't really blame such
| behavior because every country does the same. Just do not be
| a hypocrite and cry a river when being hacked.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| It's not exactly hypocrisy to complain when someone attacks
| you and not complain when your enemy gets attacked.
|
| I suppose you could say that it's hypocrisy to complain
| about being attacked while also happily attacking other
| countries (which would be relevant if the US was
| responsible for this attack on Iran).
|
| In general though, people and countries like to believe
| that they are in the right, and that there is no
| justification for someone attacking them, whereas if they
| attack someone else it's because they deserved it or it was
| self-defence.
|
| I don't think we should condemn all self-defence as
| hypocritical, but perhaps a better argument for hypocrisy
| in this case is the fact that the US and Israel are both
| nuclear powers trying to prevent Iran from becoming one.
| Even that is an over-simplification, though.
| ffggvv wrote:
| likely israel because they can no longer trust the US president
| to not give away the keys to the kingdom
| mhh__ wrote:
| Famous Iran lover... Joe Biden?
| kowlo wrote:
| Looks like this is descending quicker than usual on the HN front-
| page [1], anyone know why?
|
| [1] https://ibb.co/0hjnyq7
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| More comments than upvotes for the article itself. That usually
| indicates a flame war. And the comments have sometimes tended
| that direction...
| pygar wrote:
| If Iran got close to creating a Nuke wouldn't the US just bomb
| the site? Iran must surely know that it will not get away with
| building nukes either. So what are they doing?
|
| Iran's bark is larger then it's bite. I think it just wants to
| use its nuclear activities as a bargaining chip for sanction
| relief.
|
| So why should the US do anything at all regarding Iran? It can
| destroy those sites easily enough if it needs to.
|
| Why doesn't it just refuse to negotiate and keep Iran poor?
|
| Iran's military threat are, relatively, a mild annoyance, and
| calling their bluff and immediately escalating as trump did when
| he killed Soleimani seems to temper them as any escalation hurts
| them a lot more then it does the US.
|
| I think when we treat Iran as a real threat, as we did with NK,
| it just gives them more legitimacy then they deserve.
| roca wrote:
| > wouldn't the US just bomb the site?
|
| Iran's critical sites are well bunkerized. It's not clear that
| any non-nuclear attack would get through.
| Paddywack wrote:
| > It can destroy those sites easily enough if it needs to.
|
| Is it as simple as that? (1) There is a continuum from dirty
| bombs to full Nukes that makes it a bit more messy. (2) Are
| Nukes not more "hideable" than this? For example, why has NK
| not had theirs bombed?
| baybal2 wrote:
| > For example, why has NK not had theirs bombed?
|
| Because of a country up north.
| yongjik wrote:
| > > For example, why has NK not had theirs bombed?
|
| > Because of a country up north.
|
| ...and another country down south as well. There are fifty
| million citizens of a country officially allied with
| America who would appreciate not having a nuclear war next
| door, thank you very much.
| pygar wrote:
| The size of the sites they need to make the nukes are not
| small. It's more a matter of Intellegence knowing whats going
| on there.
|
| The issue with NK, to my understading, is that any action
| there would lead to SK ( A densely populated country) being
| attacked with a lot regular missiles that would be hard to
| prevent.
| baybal2 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure US will do nothing if Iran will come up with a
| nuke, nor will it change anything in the region at large.
|
| Pre-Syrian-war balance of power was such that any neighbouring
| power had material resources to flatten Israel few times over,
| with, or without nuclear weapons, sans the small detail of
| their military leadership being a complete joke.
| ajcp wrote:
| The real take-away from this is that you have a _very_ competent
| cyber-actor (Iran) getting pancaked _at will_ by an _extremely_
| competent cyber-actor (Israel) in what one would presume to be
| one of it 's most, _if not most_, cybersecure locations (Natanz).
|
| Nation-states using cyber capabilities in this way, and the non-
| response it evokes, is reminiscent of how pre-WWI nation-states
| would conduct policy and international affairs with their armies.
|
| It's something I wish the general public were more cognizant of.
| We need to openly talk about this type of power and conflict.
| Otherwise we're going to have another WWI-type moment, where it
| takes millions of people dying before we realize that the state
| of the game has changed because of new technologies.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| > a _very_ competent cyber-actor (Iran)
|
| Nation state security competence includes locking down USB
| ports so someone can't deploy malware found off the street.
| ajcp wrote:
| The same thing that has plagued the U.S. DoD since the advent
| of USB, but there's no denying that the U.S. is an
| _extremely_ competent cyber-actor.
| rebuilder wrote:
| It seems defense is harder than offense in this context.
| kijin wrote:
| Attacking is often easier than defense. How many countries
| that have ICBMs can reliably block incoming ICBMs?
| emodendroket wrote:
| On paper or in reality?
| spijdar wrote:
| Either, really. Very few have the ability even in theory,
| whether anyone could intercept a bunch of ICBMs launched
| "in anger" seems questionable. Seems like an apt analogy
| talking about cybersecurity defenses.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Well yeah, that's what I mean. I'm not convinced any of
| these actually work.
| GartzenDeHaes wrote:
| Sprinkling HID's or usb's with modified firmware around the
| target organization's parking lot is almost guaranteed to
| work. People get curious and few understand the danger.
| Natsu wrote:
| I wonder if they sealed up their USB ports so nobody would
| randomly plug in a USB key this time?
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| Pretty sure there is a myriad of american working and middle
| class that would outright oppose a draft now more than ever.
| The government would have to go full on chinese censorship with
| the internet to suppress free speech regarding why you
| shouldn't have to go.
| shoto_io wrote:
| There is a new cyber study from HP and a UK Uni.
|
| _"We may be at far greater risk from the internet than was
| ever suspected," Michail McGuire, senior lecturer of
| criminology, said. His new study of the nation-state
| cybersphere shows that we may be closer to advanced cyber
| conflict (cyberwar) than at any point since the inception of
| the internet._
|
| I thought it was far fetched, but incident like this show it's
| not.
|
| https://press.hp.com/content/dam/sites/garage-press/press/pr...
| ajcp wrote:
| > A cyber-treaty won't be coming overnight: As a
| comparatively new area of international relations, there are
| fewer 'rules' and far more grey areas - for example, blurred
| lines between Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) groups and
| Nation States. While there is hope we will one day come to an
| agreement on cyberwarfare and cyberweapons, today there is
| very little in place that can stem the tide.
|
| And there it is on page 1!
|
| Excellent contribution, thank you so much for this.
| Jon_Lowtek wrote:
| _" closer"_ as in _" if you listen to the firewall log, you
| can hear the artillery"_
| waihtis wrote:
| Having competency in red team scenarios doesn't translate to
| having a cyber-proof national infrastructure, as is evident.
|
| They are actually two wildly different problem sets. And the
| latter is boring & unsexy.
| tetha wrote:
| Also in my opinion, blue teaming is harder. Red team has to
| find one weakness to win. If blue team misses any system,
| vulnerability, process, anything, they are in trouble against
| the right attackers.
|
| This can be seen by how many automated infiltration agents
| are around, and how few automated defense systems. And how
| annoyingly succesful they are.
| waihtis wrote:
| Absolutely. The cyber security asymmetry in play. I'm
| actually working on this problem so it's very close to
| heart!
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Can be achieved not only through technological means but also
| sabotage and infiltration.
| [deleted]
| dan-robertson wrote:
| > Nation-states using cyber capabilities in this way
|
| Strictly speaking, Iran is not a nation-state. It is a
| multiethnic state.
|
| The way to avoid this confusion is to write 'state' (problem
| here is that this word also refers to American states) or
| 'country' (I think people might feel like this word is not
| sufficiently sophisticated?).
|
| However the error is understandable as it is particularly
| common in discussions about cybersecurity (or national
| security, where 'national' means the USA). It's especially
| silly in those cases as some typical US adversaries (Iran,
| Russia) are states which are not nation states.
| ajcp wrote:
| This is true, although when I was studying international
| relations "nation-state" was an accepted catch-all for a
| "top-level" polity in international politics.
| tptacek wrote:
| "State-level actor" is, I guess, the accurate schmancy way to
| say "country".
| gen220 wrote:
| Is it not the case that a nation can be multiethnic?
|
| I don't see how Iran's multiethnic populace disqualifies it's
| claim on a national identity (Shia Islam).
|
| On the wiki page for multinational states, I find reasonable
| examples (Russia, Belgium, UK), and Iran is absent. [1] Does
| this have to do with the Kurdish nation claiming territory
| within Iran?
|
| Not trying to say you're wrong, just trying to understand the
| terminology better.
|
| [1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_state
| dan-robertson wrote:
| Nation is a word with two meanings. One is 'country' so the
| answer is yes (note that nation-state is a silly phrase
| under this meaning). You see it in terms like
| nationalisation of industry or national anthem. The other
| meaning is a group of people with (typically) shared
| ethnicity, cultural heritage, language, and often, country.
| For this a multiethnic country doesn't usually fit the
| bill. But to some extent words can mean whatever you want
| them to and lots of groups want themselves to be considered
| nations (either to promote some unity across diverse people
| or to push out undesirable groups) even if they don't
| strictly fit the usual definition.
| parshua wrote:
| What are you even talking about? Not only is Iran a
| nation-state, it is probably one of the first nation-
| states to exist. The Name of the country itself is close
| to 2000 years old, and the language they speak is at
| least 1400 years old. They have had a continuous culture
| for millennia, and identify themselves as a nation, by
| name, culture and mostly the language.
| eternalban wrote:
| > Strictly speaking, Iran is not a nation-state. It is a
| multiethnic state.
|
| Switzerland, Britain, ...
|
| Strictly speaking, you need to consult the dictionary.
|
| _noun: a large aggregate of people united by common descent,
| history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular
| country or territory: leading industrialized nations._
|
| Iran checks multiple boxes on that list.
|
| As for US, is it really a nation or is it a corporate spin
| off? Curious, too, how those 13 bars ended up as 13
| "states"..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company
| dan-robertson wrote:
| So it's complicated because there is a loose definition of
| nation as a synonym of country (eg nationalised industry,
| national anthem, ...) and a second more narrow definition
| which is the one used in the term 'nation-state.' But if
| the former definition of nation is being used then it is
| entirely redundant and writing a long confusing term
| instead of a well understood one is just lazy writing.
|
| Wikipedia gives a more narrow definition of nation-state
| than you (but English dictionaries by their nature tend to
| give broad definitions)
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation_state
| [deleted]
| pengaru wrote:
| Nothing in the article speaks to either Iran's nor Israel's
| cyber competencies, those aren't take-aways, _you_ brought
| them.
|
| From where I'm sitting, Iran is a cyber circus.
| ajcp wrote:
| The article is reporting on an event. We apply analysis and
| context to that event so that we may understand it's
| implications and effects. We then conduct our lives
| accordingly. In that we have taken something away with us
| from the article.
| lovedswain wrote:
| > _very_ competent cyber-actor
|
| Please elaborate on this. As someone with direct exposure to
| this area and in this geography, my experience could not be
| described this way at all.
|
| Let's not forget Iran's first "military satellite" was launched
| with an over the counter unencrypted amateur cubesat
| transponder manufactured by a Californian company
| kodah wrote:
| In my mind, most countries can't figure out how to plan or
| coordinate a cyber-attack. With a limited pool of nations to
| pick from, even being able to coordinate an attack makes you
| relatively "very competent" (among your peers), however, that
| would also be a matter of perspective. It's equally valid to
| determine a criteria of competency and rank/describe
| countries based on those thresholds.
| dfsegoat wrote:
| I am not at all involved in security, but from my novice
| understanding, they appear somewhat competent.
|
| Wiping of a US casino's IT infra in 2014:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/information-
| technology/2014/12/irani...
|
| Breaching of critical power/water infrastructure in 2015:
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/hackers-
| infrastructure-1....
| stunt wrote:
| Iran has been both victim and predator of several
| cyberwarfare operations. They clearly have the experience
| and they are spending a lot of resources for a long time.
|
| A quick search about their operations:
|
| - Shamoon malware was categorized as cyberwarfare and it
| was used against Saudi Aramco, allegedly by Iran.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamoon
|
| - A blackout in Turkey was also linked to Iran
|
| https://observer.com/2015/04/iran-flexes-its-power-by-
| transp...
|
| - Iran is also (allegedly) active in Information Warfare,
| which is much more complicated than technical cyber
| attacks.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/russia-and-iran-tried-to-
| int...
|
| - Israel and Iran are actively attacking each others
| infrastructure for a while.
|
| https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/05/israel-and-iran-just-
| sh...
|
| - Operation Newscaster. Cyber espionage and social
| engineering targeted senior U.S. military and diplomatic
| personnel, congresspeople, journalists, lobbyists, think
| tankers and defense contractors.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Newscaster
|
| - Operation Cleaver. targeted the military, oil and gas,
| energy and utilities, transportation, airlines, airports,
| hospitals and aerospace industries organizations worldwide.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cleaver
| 1cvmask wrote:
| The observer article on the blackout in Turkey caused
| allegedly by Iran is just an opinion piece and claims to
| be one.
| tedivm wrote:
| What you see them doing isn't all that impressive. For the
| most part when you see these types of retaliatory attacks
| they look complicated but the reality is that they're
| fairly low tech.
|
| For the casino hacks they brute forced some passwords and
| then wrote malware with Visual Basic to steal more
| credentials. The technical barriers there are fairly low.
| For the attacks on the water infrastructure they probably
| just scanned looking for open systems and ran off the shelf
| exploits on the ones that looked the most interesting.
|
| Attacking in this way is a lot easier than attacking a
| specific target. If I just wanted to "hurt" a country from
| a PR perspective then there's a lot of attack surface, and
| you only need to get one or two things through to make the
| news. Targeting something like a secure nuclear facility is
| orders of magnitude more difficult.
| stunt wrote:
| If you follow the cyberwarfare space, most of the
| powerful attacks are actually infowar, and social
| engineering, and human intelligence. It's not always as
| technical as Stuxnet (even Stuxnet wasn't possible
| without information operations and human intelligence).
| Intelligence Gathering and Cyber Intelligence are the
| most effective and powerful divisions.
| Veserv wrote:
| Yes, what you observe them doing is not all that
| impressive, but that is all that is needed to attack
| these systems. There is no need to send a cruise missile
| when a light shove is enough.
|
| Essentially every deployed system is so littered with
| security defects in every facet of both design and
| implementation that successful attacks against them can
| be developed and deployed at a cost of just a few tens of
| thousands to maybe a million dollars for a really good
| attack at the high end. Any reasonably-sized state actor
| can deploy literally thousands of times that many
| resources against their adversaries without even blinking
| and we know that the NSA and CIA were independently
| running hacking programs capable of attacking essentially
| every publicly deployed system in the world. Offense is
| so easy and defense is so bad it is ridiculous.
| emodendroket wrote:
| If citing a couple boneheaded moves like that mean they're
| not a competent actor, then who is? Consider:
| https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nuclear-missile-
| code-00000000...
| kps wrote:
| That wasn't incompetence, it was malicious compliance.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| I agree with your wider point but...
|
| Launching a satellite means you can put a warhead anywhere on
| earth and no one can stop it. It's a achievement in rocketry,
| not whatever is on the end of the rocket. The actual
| satellite could be a crushed car for all anyone cares.
| ajcp wrote:
| Given when we're talking about nations states as cyber-actors
| we're working with a pool of ~190. Compared to 90% of the
| other nation-states out there Iran is a _very_ competent
| cyber-actor. Enough so that it may even export that
| capability. This still means there are ~20 that are more
| competent, if not _extremely_ so.
|
| Given your exposure in this geography can you name any of
| it's neighbors who have greater or even equal competency that
| aren't Israel or don't use citizens from an _extremely_
| competent nation-state? They certainly had their way with
| Aramco, so not Saudi Arabia. Egypt? Jordan? Syria? Iraq?
| Perhaps Lebanon? And this just their neighbors. What about
| compared to Portugal or Spain? South Africa? Nigeria?
| Argentina or Mexico?
| lovedswain wrote:
| > Compared to 90% of the other nation-states out there Iran
| is a _very_ competent cyber-actor.
|
| .
|
| > Given your exposure in this geography can you name any of
| it's neighbors
|
| Saudi Arabia targetted at least Bezos' phone
| tptacek wrote:
| This is all pretty silly, isn't it? For the dollar
| figures involved in pulling off a highly-sophisticated
| attack (one that chains multiple zero days, including
| some in obscure products that imply the commissioning of
| vulnerabilities and not just their purchase off the
| black-market shelf as well as some in mainstream products
| with a real bidding interest), you're _still_ talking
| about amounts of money so low that Cape Verde could be a
| _very_ competent cyber-actor if they wanted.
| lovedswain wrote:
| Seems we're both triggered by this emphasis on "_very_",
| or even use of that word at all. Obviously Iran has a
| variety of technical capabilities, such as evidenced by
| their national firewall and internal infrastructure, but
| are there any documented offensive campaigns successfully
| mounted against a foreign target?
|
| The only attacks I know of are low brow phishing, DoS and
| web site defacements.
| tptacek wrote:
| Again, I think it's very silly to point at any country,
| and particularly a country as huge as Iran, and suggest
| that they're somehow limited to "low-brow phishing, DoS,
| and website defacements". Iran can pull a million dollars
| out of their couch cushions any time they want. Do you
| know how much offensive cyber capability 1MM buys? When
| it comes to the stuff we use on HN as a measure of
| sophistication, the answer is: _a lot_.
|
| North Korea can't even feed its own people or keep the
| lights on in 2/3rds of the country. But nobody suggests
| they're unsophisticated cyber actors; that would be a
| demonstrably silly statement. Meanwhile: people routinely
| travel in and out of Iran; if you're not an American, it
| remains a major tourist destination. They have trade
| relationships around the world. They're not a hermit
| kingdom. If they want a world-class "APT" team, or 15 of
| them, all they have to do is decide to have them. (I
| assume they decided that a long time ago).
|
| If you think Iran is unsophisticated or has minimal
| capabilities, I'd suggest you just look at a map, and,
| for bonus points, a GDP ranking, and consider that
| whatever evidence you personally may have collected on
| Iran's capabilities, you're seeing what they've allowed
| you to see.
|
| Myself, I wouldn't even pick a fight with Kiribati.
| ajcp wrote:
| > Again what is this based on
|
| ~170 nations that don't have the capability. Just because
| a 14-year old in Thailand can mount an attack doesn't
| mean Thailand's government or civil institutions have or
| utilize that capability. That makes them less than _very_
| competent at it.
|
| > Saudi Arabia targetted at least Bezos' phone
|
| And a coup that was, likely using off-the-shelf software
| from an Italian company composed of engineers from two
| _extremely_ competent nation-states. That certainly shows
| how easy it is to acquire the capability, if not the
| competency. The KSA has been doing it for years with it's
| armed forces munitions and equipment.
| stunt wrote:
| "Israeli media have suggested that the malfunction was a result
| of an Israeli cyber attack."
|
| "Last July, sabotage was blamed for a fire at the Natanz site
| which hit a central centrifuge assembly workshop."
|
| The same facility was targeted by Stuxnet in 2010.
| imglorp wrote:
| It's in almost everyone's interest to keep Iran from getting
| nukes. So, if any one of them are planning another sabotage,
| there's probably a line.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It's in almost everyone's interest to keep Iran from
| getting nukes.
|
| It's in almost everyone's interest, absent complete regional
| disarmament in WMD, for someone other than Israel in the
| region to get nukes, and Iran is probably the least-bad
| option.
|
| OTOH, it would reduce the possibility of eventually
| convincing Israel to go the South Africa route, but its
| dubious whether that can be managed anyway, short of a
| similar trigger, which doesn't seem likely in Israel for both
| demographic and geopolitical reasons.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| Define "everyone"?
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| Practically every nation on Earth except Iran. Even the
| countries that have friendly relations with Iran would
| prefer to negotiate from a position of power. Notice that
| even after all these years that neither Russia, China, or
| any of the other nuclear powers have "lost" nuclear
| material or technical information to enable Iran to make a
| nuclear weapon. And none of the non-nuclear powers would be
| happy if Iran had nukes but they did not.
| payamb wrote:
| > Practically every nation on Earth except Iran
|
| Including citizens of Iran.
| flyinglizard wrote:
| The "almost" qualifier was intended for you. Other than
| that, more nukes on earth aren't good for anyone,
| especially as Iranian nukes would enable - not restrain -
| their aggression.
| dundarious wrote:
| I don't know, if Ayatollah Khamenei's fatwa against nuclear
| weapons is to be trusted, I can identify somewhat with the
| argument for Iran gaining a deterrent, even though I'd _much_
| prefer total nuclear disarmament in the region (effectively
| meaning just Israeli disarmament).
| vxNsr wrote:
| India and Pakistan aren't in the region?
| dragonwriter wrote:
| As the artificial abstract borders are usually drawn, no,
| thet are in South Asia not Southwest Asia or MENA; and
| this isn't _purely_ abstract, India really is not in any
| meaningful sense part of the region, and Pakistan, which
| borders rhe conventionally-defined region, is only
| tangentially, being more focussed on India, China, and
| Central Asia than the Middle East (except Iran because
| borders.)
| [deleted]
| payamb wrote:
| Iran has no other agenda other than producing nuclear bombs
| and I say this as an Iranian.
|
| Iran has spent tens of billions of dollars in the past
| decade on what the regime's claims "peaceful nuclear
| power", ie to produce electricity.
|
| meanwhile after spending tens of billions and four decades
| what we have is a 1000 MW nuclear power plant, and i assure
| you that's only a shop front so they can argue enriching
| uranium and making centrifuges are necessary to fuel the
| plant.
|
| Iran has 2nd largest natural gas reserves in the world,
| because of sanctions Iran has lost lots foreign investments
| it needed to sell it and/or use it to generate electricity.
| Natural gas costs peanuts in Iran.
|
| We could've made a deal with a foreign company and ask them
| to build and fuel the power plant for 1/4th of the price
| and 5 times the capacity like our neighbours
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant)
|
| just in case you don't know, fuel for nuclear power plant
| is the cheapest item in the bill when you are building one.
| There is no economic benefit (and lots of disadvantage) to
| start from scratch and enrich your own fuel.
|
| I don't want a regime who shuts down an airliner and deny
| it for 3 days have access to nuclear weapons.
|
| do not believe a word from the regime who is killing its
| own people all the time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/201
| 9%E2%80%932020_Iranian_prot...)
| 0xFFC wrote:
| Update: Spelling
| payamb wrote:
| I usually hear this what-aboutism argument from the
| people who benefit from current undemocratic regime.
|
| If another country did/do something wrong, that doesn't
| justify Iran's actions. everyone is responsible for their
| own action and the reality is current Iranian regime has
| killed many thousands of it's own citizens.
|
| Iran shutting the plane down and denying for 3 days is
| not justifiable by any means.
|
| out of curiosity, what is your opinion on 1500 protesters
| who died during 2019-2020 protests? https://en.wikipedia.
| org/wiki/2019%E2%80%932020_Iranian_prot...
|
| should we ignore this too because Israel also killed
| bunch of people?
| 0xFFC wrote:
| UPDATE: spelling.
| payamb wrote:
| > It is ironic how the number decreased from 1500 to 300
| in recent report
|
| even if a single person dies, that matters.
|
| toning it down to 300 doesn't make it look better. each
| one of them is a human who was killed by Iranian regime.
|
| here is Reuters confirming that number
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-protests-
| specialrepo...
| dundarious wrote:
| I don't support the Iranian government, but I also think
| it was shocking that one of their Generals was
| assassinated by the US while visiting a friendly nation,
| Iraq. And Iran's state terrorism in Iraq, Syria, etc., is
| to me hard to distinguish meaningfully from that of the
| US in Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc. Somewhat similarly for
| Israel.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| While visiting a militia in that "friendly" nation. Said
| militia was attacking US troops with Iranian assistance.
| So I don't find it all that shocking. You want to help
| people kill our troops? Don't be surprised if we have
| something kinetic to say about that.
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| I don't. He is not a General. He was the head of the
| IRGC, which is a proscribed terrorist organization. The
| IRGC is the biggest terrorist organization in the world,
| which arguably makes Solameini the biggest terrorist in
| the world.
|
| So, on the one side we have Iran killing it's own
| civilians, Iraqi civilians, Syrian civilians, Yemeni
| civilians etc on a large scale. The annihilation of the
| entire Israeli state is also on their wish list. Men,
| women and children. Driven into the sea.
|
| On the other side, we have the United States, taking out
| a terrorist chief, and a handful of terrorist bodyguards
| with an airstrike.
|
| It is hard for me to draw any sort of meaningful
| comparison between Iran's terrorism in the Middle East
| and the response of the United States to their threats.
| Somewhat similarly for Israel.
| RobertoG wrote:
| There is something I don't understand, all that happened
| 8000 km away from USA, how is Iran a thread to the United
| States exactly?
|
| I was not going to write anything, but the "killing of
| Iraqi civilians" comment, without a trace of irony, made
| me.
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| Wow, that's horrifying.
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| As an Iranian, what do you think about the current
| political regime. Would a return of the Shah be a
| positive thing, in your opinion? Do you have any fears of
| Israeli aggression, or would you support a peace deal? I
| would honestly like to hear what you think about it.
| 0xFFC wrote:
| UPDATE: spelling.
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| There are more then a million Israeli Arabs who enjoy
| full citizenship rights. I fact, they enjoy more rights
| then the average Israeli, being able to enter West Bank
| freely.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| payamb wrote:
| Current political regime the most dishonest, corrupt and
| dysfunctional regime you can imagine.
|
| First thing you need to know is the government itself in
| Iran is nobody, Ali Khamenei has been enjoying full power
| and control for the past 30 years or so. Iran's president
| and minsters can only be appointed by Khamenei's
| approval.
|
| With him being in power he needed a royal force to follow
| his ideology and shut down any voice of criticism, that's
| IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps).
|
| IRGC and Khamenei control as much as 50% of Iran's
| economy, from telecom to oil. needless to say they don't
| answer to anyone, they don't pay any taxes and Khameni
| itself doesn't even do any interviews with the press.
|
| I think majority of Iranians hate the current regime as
| much as i do, for one, It's not possible to change it
| democratically. One person has all the power in country
| and he made a powerful force to back him up.
|
| every time Iranians want to change the country, Khameni
| unleash his dogs (IRGC) and they either kill all the
| protestors or arrest them and sentence them to long term
| prison. I've been shot and spent time in Iran's political
| prison (Evin), my crime? participation in peaceful
| protests
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Green_Movement)
|
| > Would a return of the Shah be a positive thing?
|
| Return of the Shah, reminds of me Russians who are envy
| of the soviet union time, because things were better at
| the time. I personally think democracy is the best way to
| go and no one person should have majority of the power.
|
| > Do you have any fears of Israeli aggression, or would
| you support a peace deal
|
| Enemy of my enemy is my friend, that's how I (and
| honestly majority of the people that i know) think of
| Israel. I think at the moment, Israel is the only country
| in the world stopping the regime from developing nuclear
| weapons and that's a good thing.
|
| Iranians and Israelis historically have been friendly,
| Its only since this regime got the power that has
| changed, and i do understand why, because Iran has been
| threatening to wipe Israel off the map almost everyday.
| 0xFFC wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdxxVxtHK2M
| payamb wrote:
| > This is a complete fabrication and lie. As bad as it
| gets. Iran never said it is going to wipe another
| country. What they said is explained clearly in detail
| here [1].
|
| It's not, Iran has been saying it very publicly:
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/27/israel.iran
|
| https://en.radiofarda.com/a/iran-general-salami-
| threatens-to...
|
| you should be able to read Farsi, so check these 2
| example out of many:
|
| https://cdn.yjc.ir/files/fa/news/1396/4/5/6417989_951.jpg
|
| https://newsmedia.tasnimnews.com/Tasnim/Uploaded/Image/13
| 96/...
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B2%D8%B4%
| D9%...
|
| These photos show the counters installed in every city in
| Iran, counting down how many down days left to destroy
| Israel. eg wipe it off the map.
| miracle2k wrote:
| If the most powerful actor in Iran is proposing a
| peaceful referendum, wouldn't you agree that this is some
| very mixed messaging then?
|
| https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/424343/Ayatollah-
| Khamenei-R...
| [deleted]
| hajile wrote:
| Nukes means a conventional strike by Israel with the option
| for further nuclear preemptive strikes.
|
| If the US could somehow talk them down, the US ally (Saudi
| Arabia) would be disadvantaged against the Russian one.
| This necessitates either removing the nukes or arranging
| for the Saudis to get some.
|
| Iran's pursuit of nukes is easily one of the most
| destabilizing power projection attempts in the region.
| AndrewKemendo wrote:
| The going theory is that these proclamations when
| attributed to religious proclamations (Fatwa) versus policy
| statements are examples of Taqiya. This view is not without
| controversy as some claim it's just dog-whistling
| Islamophobia.
|
| However I think a more nuanced view is that Iran is both a
| nation state as well as a religious state, so (like all
| nation states) it will protect it's interests however it
| needs to which will include deception. Whether anyone
| thinks that the deception is primarily stemming from
| religious or secular instinct is an exercise for the
| reader.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya
| borplk wrote:
| Keep in mind that "cyber attack" can be a cover for other types
| of attack.
|
| It creates this convenient image of "hackers press a button and
| things blow up" to divert attention away from the reality.
|
| I wouldn't be so quick in believing it being a cyber attack.
| slg wrote:
| Wouldn't both the perpetrator and the victim have to be in on
| that deception? Why would both parties go along with that?
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| It makes one seem mighty, and it makes the other not seem as
| incompetent. If the attack was 'unprecedented', or
| 'unexpected' or 'sophisticated' then the people responsible
| from the victim's team are absolved of their failures and
| mistakes while the other side gets to look good and mighty.
| slg wrote:
| But doesn't the "we weren't expecting it" excuse work much
| better for a physical attack? You always have to be
| vigilant of a cyberattack. It is neither "unprecedented" or
| "unexpected". Meanwhile the victim usually receives very
| little blame after a sneak military attack. "Israel
| launched an unprovoked military attack against a non-
| military target" seems like it would play better both
| domestically and internationally than what basically
| amounts to "they outsmarted us".
| ehsankia wrote:
| That's not quite what happened. First, Iran blamed it on
| cyberattack, then Israeli media took credit for it, because
| why the hell would they not? It's also not even confirmed,
| just assumed:
|
| > Israeli public broadcaster Kan said that it could be
| assumed that the incident was an Israeli cyber operation,
| citing the discovery in 2010 of the Stuxnet computer virus
| slg wrote:
| >That's not quite what happened.
|
| I wasn't saying one way or another what happened. But a
| physical military attack by Israel would be much more
| frowned on by the international community than a
| cyberattack. In that situation, what motivation is there
| for Iran to conceal that to the benefit of Israel?
| dogma1138 wrote:
| It can also be a cover for no attack.
|
| The blackout happened when a previously unused part of the site
| was being brought online it could've been simply a normal
| fault.
|
| Calling it a cyber attack may be beneficial for both parties,
| the administrators of the site get to save face, and the
| Israelis would happily take credit unofficially because they
| know that it would cause a longer delay because now the
| Iranians will be scrubbing their networks.
|
| If they'll also be replacing some equipment such as PLCs it
| opens the site to future attacks if any entity has the ability
| to compromise the supply chain.
| Synaesthesia wrote:
| Keep in mind it's also considered an act of war, not the first
| such attack on Iran and their scientists.
| secfirstmd wrote:
| As ever Israel makes a strong Operational measure but a poor
| Strategic one. What exactly is the end game that it thinks is
| going to happen? There is zero scenario in which Iran is going to
| fully stop trying to build a nuke in the basement. The JPCOA is
| the only show in town.
| Kalium wrote:
| You're absolutely right. The JCPOA is the only show in town.
|
| What do you think Israel's good Strategic measure would be?
| stunt wrote:
| Make sure agreements and cooperation with the west is
| successful and help the vast majority of the public in Iran
| realize that working with the west is in their interest. Over
| time it will help the left parties in Iran to gain more power
| and influence than the conservative and anti-west figures.
| Once you have the public support, slowly and surely push them
| to have peace with Israel. They used to be allies together.
| So it shouldn't be impossible.
|
| But, we just did the opposite. The anti-west parties now have
| an easy story to tell: "We tried, they lied, we shouldn't
| work with them.". We added sanctions too. An economy under
| sanction runs by military and gives more power to the
| military, because only they have the tools to interact with
| the black market and bypass sanctions. Not the liberal, open-
| minded Businessman which is more likely to support more
| interactions with the world.
| secfirstmd wrote:
| Exactly. There are too many missed opportunities for
| bringing in Iran from the fold to mention.
| bjourne wrote:
| Israel has been targeting Iranian civil infrastructure and is
| also believed to be behind numerous assassinations of Iranian
| scientists. Scientists are usually deemed to be civilians. Since
| Israel has already attacked civilian targets and killed
| civilians, it would seem to me that by the laws of tit for that,
| Iran has the right to retaliate against Israeli civilians. In
| fact, Iran's allies such as Syria and Hezbollah should also have
| the same right.
|
| Israel's use of terrorism against what it considers its enemies
| is afaik unprecedented. As is the fact that the rest of the world
| lets Israel get away with it without so much as a peep.
| throw_this_one wrote:
| Did Israel say they are going to destroy the country of Iran?
| Or did Iran say they are going to destroy Israel?
|
| Answer that question and then you will understand why your
| comment is essentially idiotic.
| pepperonipizza wrote:
| Are they still considered civilians when they work for a
| military program that threatens Israel existence? My
| grandfather was a scientist working for the army, he had a
| salary paid by the military and was part of it.
| jchook wrote:
| Reminded of "What is the most sophisticated piece of software
| ever written?" on Quora.
|
| Buckle in.
|
| https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-most-sophisticated-piece-o...
| crocktucker wrote:
| Please enable Javascript and refresh the page to continue
| throwaway4good wrote:
| What?! So I can get my computer infected?!
| IncRnd wrote:
| Yea, that's what someone wrote on Quora, but Stuxnet isn't the
| most sophisticated piece of software ever written - let alone
| that it is not the most sophisticated exploit ever written.
| busyant wrote:
| > Stuxnet isn't the most sophisticated piece of software ever
| written
|
| I think "sophisticated" is in the eye of the beholder.
|
| However you'd like to characterize it, the full scope of the
| Stuxnet attack seems pretty impressive. Especially the part
| where the virus simultaneously increases centrifuge speeds
| while concealing this information from the people monitoring
| the fuges.
| mhh__ wrote:
| Find me another program that requires knowledge _more niche_
| than nuclear refinement processes suitable for the production
| of weapons, and enough HUMINT to know what to target etc.
|
| Stuxnet is probably not the most _sophisticated_ program
| ever, but it 's probably the most information dense.
| pooya13 wrote:
| > suitable for the production of weapons
|
| Where have you seen any evidence that Stuxnet relied on
| information on production of nuclear weapons?
| mhh__ wrote:
| So you're saying they went to all that effort and then
| just picked a random number for what to spin the
| centrifuges up to? All they'd have to do is get a Nuclear
| Physicist from the weapons program in
| luckylion wrote:
| > Find me another program that requires knowledge more
| niche than nuclear refinement processes suitable for the
| production of weapons, and enough HUMINT to know what to
| target etc.
|
| How does that add sophistication to the programming?
| mhh__ wrote:
| How doesn't it? Programming doesn't matter, even in a
| program that is classically _sophisticated_ like a big
| compiler that 's still only an implementation of an
| algorithm from a book rather than some divine poem that
| only exists in that compiler
| luckylion wrote:
| I'd agree if you'd say that the Stuxnet operation was
| very sophisticated. That is, coming up with a plan,
| infecting the right machine in the right plant at the
| right time so an unknowing technician would accidentally
| become a carrier for it, then finding a way to make him
| drop by at the target next, learn enough about the target
| without having access to be able to write code to
| identify it with confidence among lots of similar
| machines etc, but most of that is classical intelligence
| work and has nothing to do with programming, tech, or
| Stuxnet specifically.
|
| If someone sews on a hidden pocket to a jacket to be used
| in an extremely complex intelligence operation, that
| doesn't make it "the most sophisticated seam in history".
| kortilla wrote:
| > Find me another program that requires knowledge more
| niche than nuclear refinement processes suitable for the
| production of weapons
|
| Every piece of software used for these centrifuges in day
| to day operations? Stuxnet is just a worse version of the
| normal software operating machinery and it used a non-
| standard install mechanism.
|
| Having HUMINT to target a specific configuration is not
| sophisticated either. Those are just activation conditions
| which are used all over legitimate and illegitimate
| software.
|
| Extracting secrets from processor caches based on timing is
| far more sophisticated and it didn't even require HUMINT.
| mhh__ wrote:
| > Stuxnet is just a worse version of the normal software
| operating machinery and it used a non-standard install
| mechanism.
|
| No it's not. Stuxnet was specifically tuned to ruin the
| centrifuges under the noses of the presumably well-
| trained operators and scientists using them. If the PLC
| suddenly stopped or sped up to the point that it
| triggered some kind of failsafe then the game is up.
|
| > Extracting secrets from processor caches based on
| timing is far more sophisticated and it didn't even
| require HUMINT.
|
| Implementing spectre is really not that hard. Also, the
| secrets aren't extracted from the caches (in the
| archetypal spectre implementation at least, the
| vulnerabilities are popping up all over the place):
| Spectre is an attack against the branch predictor and
| speculative execution - the cache is just the side
| channel to exfiltrate data (specifically having each byte
| value map to a cacheline which you can then time the
| latency of).
| jonplackett wrote:
| Does everyone agree with that assessment? Surely Linux is more
| complicated than Stuxnet? Or does that not count as a 'single
| piece'?
| crazygringo wrote:
| Sophisticated != complicated
| throwaway4good wrote:
| I thought Biden wanted to re-enter the JCPOA agreement with Iran?
| Surely the Israelis wouldn't do something like this without
| having coordinated with the US if not directly ordered by the US
| ...
| monocasa wrote:
| The Isrealis have always embraced being a bit of a loose cannon
| geopolitically. It's smart; it let's them punch oabove their
| weight if they're careful about it (which they normally are).
|
| My bet is they did this with the US's knowledge, but not
| involvement or approval. Israel doesn't want Iran going into
| the JCPOA without their nuclear program being set back as far
| as possible to square one. The US knows that it's an uphill
| battle to get the Iranians at the table at all, and would defer
| dismantling of their nuclear program to the outcome of the
| negotiations.
| atlgator wrote:
| Stuxnet 2.0
| snurfer wrote:
| Nice. So JavaScript/Ajax frameworks?
| atlgator wrote:
| MVC too
| brap wrote:
| Now with GraphQL
| disk0 wrote:
| stuxnext.js
| pooya13 wrote:
| > Iran, which insists it does not want nuclear weapons
|
| The bias in BBC phrasing still amazes me. Using "Iran insists it
| does not want nuclear weapons", which is technically a true
| statement, instead of the more accurate one "There is no evidence
| that Iran seeks nuclear weapons", which acknowledges the
| investigation and authority of the international atomic agency.
| robert_foss wrote:
| I wonder if it is Israel again. Maybe with the blessing of the US
| this time?
| [deleted]
| PartiallyTyped wrote:
| isn't stuxnet speculated to originate from the US and Israel ?
| benja123 wrote:
| Yes - it is suspected to be a joint project. We will never
| really know though as neither side will ever admit to it.
| naltun wrote:
| Yes. John Bowden wrote a great book on this very virus and
| goes into details on this.
| topynate wrote:
| FYI, you appear to be shadowbanned.
| dxdm wrote:
| How so? I can see their comment just fine, but I'm
| reading this on a 3rd party app.
| topynate wrote:
| I had to vouch for the comment to reply to it. I also
| looked back through the history and saw some perfectly
| acceptable comments showing as dead.
| ehsankia wrote:
| Why would Biden give the blessing now of all times, right
| before the deal. Why would he not wait and see how to deal goes
| first? The place just opened it's not like it'll pump out bombs
| within a day.
| ur-whale wrote:
| >Maybe with the blessing of the US this time?
|
| Has Israel ever done _anything_ without the US 's blessing?
|
| Just wondering.
| slibhb wrote:
| Developing nuclear weapons for one...
| YinLuck- wrote:
| You have the order reversed there.
| vijayr02 wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident
|
| > The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States
| Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air
| Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy motor torpedo
| boats, on 8 June 1967, during the Six-Day War. The combined
| air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers,
| seamen, two marines, and one civilian NSA employee), wounded
| 171 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.
|
| You'd _hope_ that was done without the US 's blessing...
| Udik wrote:
| Planting cellphone-spying devices around the White House?
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/12/israel-
| planted...
|
| Although, judging from the consequences (none) you could say
| that even that had the US's blessings.
| recuter wrote:
| Well, 40 years ago it attacked the Iraqi nuclear facility
| with the help of Iran and prevented Saddam from getting the
| bomb..
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
| abhiminator wrote:
| > On 7 June 1981, a flight of Israeli Air Force F-16A
| fighter aircraft, with an escort of F-15As, bombed the
| Osirak reactor deep inside Iraq.
|
| Well, the fighter jets and weapons system platform (a pair
| of Mark-84 unguided bombs fitted to each aircraft) they
| used in those airstrikes were made by aerospace companies
| in the United States (General Dynamics and McDonnel
| Douglas), so I think American companies did have a role to
| play, however indirectly.
|
| There's no denying Israel wouldn't exist today (at least
| not the form it presently exists) if not for the timely and
| generous support and assistance (militarily, monetarily and
| in spirit) from the United States of America -- just an
| observation!
| recuter wrote:
| Certainly. And Czechoslovakia. ;)
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| one of the rare occasions that Israel has taken
| independent action. From what i've read, some of Carters
| cabinet were furious but he refused to issue sanctions
| against Israel.
| bushbaba wrote:
| And another in Syria
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Outside_the_Box
| recuter wrote:
| And those are just the ones on wikipedia.
| [deleted]
| BariumBlue wrote:
| This (and the recent ish attack on the IRGC ship) is most likely
| the doing of Israel to prevent the JCPOA from being reestablished
| and from Iran getting any sanctions relief.
|
| If Iranian lawmakers believe these attacks were by the US (they
| possibly do believe that), they will be less willing to enter an
| agreement with the US, and Israel furthers it's goal of isolating
| it's adversary, Iran.
| adrr wrote:
| JCPOA failing means no IAEA inspections. I don't understand
| Israel's rational around stopping the IAEA inspections if they
| don't want Iran as a nuclear power.
| BariumBlue wrote:
| Iran has military ties and grants aid to Hezbollah and Bashar
| Al Asad the Syrian dictator (both are neighboring enemies of
| Israel), has missiles that could potentially threaten Israel,
| and has publicly threatened death and hellfire upon Israel.
|
| I am certain that nuclear weapons or not, Israel considers
| Iran enemy #1 and a real threat to be dealt with. A stronger
| Iran (via sanctions relief) is not in their interest.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| I did some digging and it seems both countries have been
| threatening each other for decades. Israel has repeatedly
| blocked their nuclear program and has threatened offensive
| action if it continues. Not just recently but even in an
| article from 2006.
|
| It seems both sides are throwing threats around and it
| seems unfair to only mention Iran's threats.
|
| https://m.dw.com/en/israel-threatens-iran-over-nuclear-
| resea...
|
| https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-israel-iran-iran-
| nuclea...
| kortilla wrote:
| The discussion is about Israel's rationale - not whether
| or not Iran's aggression is justified.
| [deleted]
| yurielt wrote:
| Why are you downvoted is ridiculous well we know who the
| cowards are in this at least
| ls-lah_33 wrote:
| What's even more strange is that at one stage even some high
| ranking members of the Israeli military saw the benefits of
| the nuclear deal.
|
| https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israeli-
| militar...
| LegitShady wrote:
| IaEA weren't allowed to inspect military sites, sampling done
| by Iranians then sent to IaEA. It was a joke of an agreement.
| adrr wrote:
| Has any country developed nuclear weapons with inspectors
| present?
| LegitShady wrote:
| The inspectors are not present
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| How would we know if inspectors don't?
| stunt wrote:
| Monitoring some military sites wasn't part of it, unlike
| their nuclear facilities which were monitored 24/7 by IAEA.
| However, the IAEA inspectors could still request access to
| military locations. So it was kind of on-demand, but Iran
| had the right to refuse.
|
| I'm not an expert, but most of the experts said it was the
| most comprehensive inspections regime on their supply
| chain, and any location in Iran except a few military sites
| which they could still request access.
|
| The goal was to start cooperation and also the idea was to
| help an already weakened political party in Iran which is
| in favor of partnership with the west to gain more success,
| popularity, and public support, so over time the more
| conservative and anti-west parties and figures would lose
| their power and influence.
|
| But we just gave their conservative parties the easiest
| propaganda excuse ("They don't honor their own
| agreement.").
|
| Iran is actually quite reactive if you read their history.
| Iran is the devil we made, so everyone can make money out
| of it. Can you even count how much worth of arms sells are
| going to the Middle East every year? Not to mention oil
| market is on the table too. And those that are making big
| money will lobby everywhere to make sure that Iran remains
| "the threat". Peace with Iran isn't financially clever.
| payamb wrote:
| Let's not forget that Iran had and possibly still have
| undeclared nuclear facilities
|
| https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-u-n-inspectors-find-
| radioa...
| bjourne wrote:
| Israel is a heavily militarized society with a strong
| military-industrial complex. Relatively speaking, it is more
| powerful than the American military-industrial complex. Thus
| what you get is policy that favors the weapons industry and
| those in the military community but which is not beneficial
| to Israel as a whole. The Palestinians aren't enough of a
| punching bag so Iran needs to be painted as the great Satan
| to sell more military equipment.
| eloff wrote:
| That's a little one sided don't you think?
|
| Iran's despotic leader has publicly stated that they would
| love to wipe Israel off the map. They're a much larger and
| more populous nation with massive petroleum reserves and
| one of the top ten largest militaries in the world by
| enlisted count. Israel is completely justified in seeing
| Iran as an existential threat.
| bjourne wrote:
| Who wouldn't love to wipe Israel off the map? Israel was
| created by wiping _Palestine_ off the map so wiping
| Israel off of it seems more than fair. :) Hopefully,
| Palestinians and Israelis can learn to live in peace and
| as equals some day.
|
| The wipe Israel off the map quote comes from a speech
| held by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005. The quote is a
| mistranslated Arabic figure of speech taken out of
| context and has been regurgitated by Zionist lobbies for
| over 15 years now.
|
| There is no inherent basis for a conflict between Israel
| and Iran. Iran isn't an Arab country, doesn't have any
| territorial claims in the Levant, and the Palestinians'
| version of Islam isn't even compatible with Iran's. Who
| benefits from keeping the conflict going? The Israeli
| arms industry. You can ask the same thing about US trade
| tariffs on China. Who benefits?
| AzzieElbab wrote:
| " Who wouldn't love to wipe Israel off the map?" - if you
| ever want an example of self hypnosis, go no further
| SuoDuanDao wrote:
| I've heard that Saudi maps literally just show ocean
| where Israel is. But because Israel and SA are both
| friends of the Americans, that amount of literal
| demapping is tolerated.
|
| I wonder, given the greater cultural similarities and
| Iran's success in the Yemeni civil war, whether Israel
| will throw in with Iran against the Saudis once the US
| presence in the region becomes irrelevant.
| eloff wrote:
| > There is no inherent basis for a conflict between
| Israel and Iran.
|
| One word. Hezbollah.
|
| I need say no more to refute that.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| > Hezbollah
|
| Hezbollah is the Israeli's fault. That's what they got
| for trying to annex southern Lebanon.
|
| I have no sympathy.
| splintercell wrote:
| Your comment is a great metaphor of the precise thing you
| are arguing against. "Who wouldn't love to wipe Israel
| off the map?" then a few paragraphs about Ahmednijad
| never said that, this is a miscommunication, there's no
| animosity between Israel and Iran (Iranian propaganda
| repeatedly talks about wiping Israel off the map, just
| check up Wikipedia on Ahmednijad).
| selimthegrim wrote:
| How did "remove occupation regime from the pages of time"
| turn into "wipe off the map"?
| payamb wrote:
| https://static2.rokna.net/thumbnail/SkVEB41uf6ga/NS2RJzVA
| pQ3...
| nerdponx wrote:
| Do sanctions even do anything if the leader is indeed
| despotic? It's not like typical Iranians can go out and
| protest.
| koheripbal wrote:
| Sanctions and trade deals are not all-or-nothing
| mechanisms. They can be increased/decreased to
| incentivize nations to alter behavior. They are
| especially effective when you can selectively punish
| industries within a nation that support the leader, to
| help provide more economic resources to opposition
| leaders.
| [deleted]
| howmayiannoyyou wrote:
| Israel -- politically divided, pluralistic society,
| democratic government & leader in exporting high-tech,
| pharma & healthcare advancements. Iran -- repressive,
| despotic regime & leader in exporting terrorism.
| babesh wrote:
| You conveniently failed to mention the Gaza Strip and the
| occupied territories where the people have no vote and no
| rights. So it is a democracy for some and a despotic
| regime for others.
|
| Frankly both these states are acting out of self
| interest. Leave morality out of it. It's probably mostly
| true for both peoples as well.
| [deleted]
| flyinglizard wrote:
| Gazans can, in fact, vote. They voted in Hamas who took
| away their right to vote but back when Israel disengaged
| and left them to their own devices, Gazans could indeed
| vote.
| babesh wrote:
| Can they vote for seats in Israel's government? My
| understanding is not.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Of course not. That's what happens when Israel doesn't
| rule over that territory any longer. Can Israelis vote on
| the government of Gaza?
| random314 wrote:
| Israel courts have jurisdiction over Palestine. As does
| Israel's army. Palestinian land records are not
| recognized by Israel. Palestine is a part of Israel,
| where the people cant vote in Israel's elections. Israel
| is an apartheid state like erstwhile south Africa and
| Palestine is a bantustan.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| West Bank Palestine? Perhaps. Gaza (which was the
| context)? I doubt it.
|
| Don't conflate the two situations. They aren't the same
| at all.
| koheripbal wrote:
| Israel courts have zero jurisdiction in Gaza. Gaza's
| government, police, and politics, are completely
| independent from Israel.
| babesh wrote:
| You can't leave people to their own devices when another
| military controls entry and exit into a territory.
| koheripbal wrote:
| Actually, Gaza shares a large border with Egypt, and
| aside from the inspection of vehicles, there is open
| traffic and trade with Egypt.
| babesh wrote:
| Also this means that the people in the occupied
| territories can't vote.
| yurielt wrote:
| Israel is an apartheid's regime the fact that they let
| gay people exists does not make them less of an apartheid
| regime that takes lands and resources from the people in
| there they are an ethnoreligious state where the goyim
| are seen as cattle and don't have full rights please stop
| defending an apartheid state
| goodluckchuck wrote:
| They obviously don't believe that IAEA inspections are very
| effective. Considering that Israel has made nukes of their
| own... they would know.
| adrr wrote:
| They did so without IAEA inspectors monitoring them and
| significant help from the west. UK provided samples of
| plutonium and highly enriched lithium for nuclear weapons.
|
| I am not aware of any countries that have developed nukes
| while under NPT with active inspections. North Korea kicked
| out their inspectors and it took them 3 years after that to
| get a bomb.
| Udik wrote:
| If Israel cared about the risk of Iran becoming a nuclear
| power, then the JCPOA would have been gold for them. No, I
| think nuclear weapons are just a great excuse to isolate Iran
| from the international community and destroy its economy. If
| you have a quarrel with your neighbour, do you prefer him to
| be rich and respected or poor and ignored?
|
| Proof is, again, that the strongest campaigner _against_
| keeping Iran 's nuclear research under strict checks has
| always been Israel.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| benja123 wrote:
| Israel is not against a nuclear agreement in principal. They
| want to make sure it has enough teeth that it can and will be
| enforced and that it doesn't expire like the current one
| does.
|
| This is the same reason most of the gulf states are against
| the nuclear deal in its current form.
| PEJOE wrote:
| Do you have a source where I could read more about Israel's
| goals with the JCPOA? Even with the sun setting, the idea
| seems to be to keep reimplementing a new agreement under
| threat of future sanctions, just like you refi a TLB, and
| the Israelis should understand this.
| Udik wrote:
| Israel is clearly enjoying a great moment for inflicting damage
| on its arch-enemy. If Iran reacts, it's going to get the blame
| for attacking (because history always begins _after_ Israel 's
| latest offensive action) and the US will find a much hoped for
| excuse not to re-enter the nuclear deal. So Iran can only
| endure the humiliation and suck it up. So far they've shown an
| incredible patience.
| cronix wrote:
| > the US will find a much hoped for excuse not to re-enter
| the nuclear deal.
|
| Can you elaborate? All the indications I've seen clearly
| point to the US wanting to reenter the deal. Biden denounced
| Trumps withdrawal numerous times during the campaign and
| vowed to bring the US back into the agreement. It was part of
| his presidential platform that he ran on, and he lifted
| several sanctions put in place by the Trump Administration on
| Iran when he initially got in office (first 2 weeks). If the
| US really wanted an excuse to stay out, this seems an odd way
| of going about it vs not saying anything at all and silently
| continuing Trump's policies.
| payamb wrote:
| Iran very much need the money. Iran will show patience as
| long as it's needed to unblock the money they have in foreign
| banks.
|
| Once that's done, they'll use that money to make more
| missiles and arm the militia in middle east.
| [deleted]
| benja123 wrote:
| I am going to have to disagree. Iran recently attacked an
| Israeli ship, but more importantly it continues to arm
| terrorist groups (note I am Israeli, so I am probably not
| objective here, but yes I believe Hamas and Hezbollah are
| terrorist groups. Some of you may think differently on that.
| We can agree to disagree) that are against Israel's
| existence. Those groups are constantly either attacking or
| trying to attack Israel.
|
| Now you can argue Israel is also attacking those groups and
| you wouldn't be wrong. It's almost impossible to figure out
| who started each round. We only ever hear a very small part
| of the story.
|
| It is a circle of violence that will hopefully one day end.
| coliveira wrote:
| > it continues to arm terrorist groups
|
| That's all the US does, day and night. And they even say
| this publicly (although always implying that it is a good
| thing).
| stunt wrote:
| > Iran recently attacked an Israeli ship
|
| I think you already tried to say it, but remember Iran
| attacked an Israeli ship after 12 attacks to Iranians ships
| in 2020 by Israel. And 4 other Iranian ships were attacked
| in 2021 which two of them happened after Iran tried to
| retaliate by attacking an Israeli ship.
|
| Israel clearly believes that the best defense is a good
| offense, but that strategy makes it harder to have any
| dialogue or peace.
| koheripbal wrote:
| Let's also remember Iran attacked Saudi Arabia directly
| not too long ago.
|
| They are hardly the victim.
| Udik wrote:
| > terrorist groups [...] that are against Israel's
| existence
|
| I think this is an oversimplification useful to justify
| Israeli aggressiveness. It's _also_ part of the self-
| deluded statements of those groups. If Israel was
| interested in peace and justice, it could act like the
| adult in the room and try to heal the wounds that are at
| the root of the violence. Let 's not forget that Israel is
| practically an apartheid state (but conveniently outside
| its fuzzy borders, so it can keep pretending it's not) and
| that it's been steadily appropriating more land from
| Palestinians since it's been in existence.
|
| _If_ Israel were interested in peace and justice. My take
| is that it 's not interested, because that would put an end
| to its expansion and unchecked power in the region.
| luma wrote:
| It's interesting that even on HN anything that approaches
| an anti-Israeli statement is immediately downvoted.
| Israel is an apartheid state, and that statement requires
| no qualifications.
|
| I'll accept the inevitable downvotes as validation of
| both things said above.
|
| edit: aaaand flagged. The super-downvote.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Israel is not only an apartheid state, it is a literal
| ethnostate as the basis of its constitution which
| consecrates it to a single ethic/religious group. It is
| guilty of ethnic cleansing and Israeli politicians
| routinely call for genocide.
|
| But it is fine because it's a US ally.
| sprafa wrote:
| unfortunately this is 100% true and 100% agaisnt US
| common opinion, apparently.
| luma wrote:
| Attempts to control internet discourse on all matters
| that intersect with Israeli foreign policy is presumed to
| be an important tactic for Israel's cyber teams. It's
| safe to assume that this venue is no different from other
| major social media outlets in that regard.
|
| My other reply pointed this out directly, along with
| noting that I'd likely be downvoted. Instead the response
| was flagged as a super-downvote and now is no longer
| visible. Israel leverages social media as a weapon and is
| unwilling to accept a critical view of their actions.
|
| edit: lol, right on cue.
| radycov wrote:
| From a rationally objective and internationally legal
| perspective, the military occupation of Gaza enforced
| through land, sea and air entirely deserve violent
| retaliation against the occupying force. The Gaza strip is
| not your land and grand delusions about your moral
| superiority because you are a historically persecuted
| people is simply not going to wash. Nor for that matter is
| silencing critics using fake antisemitism tactics.
| seoaeu wrote:
| The idea that Hamas' ongoing efforts to murder Israeli
| civilians adheres to their obligations under
| international law is laughable. Ignoring the ceasefires
| they've signed which require them to, well, cease firing
| rockets, they don't even make a pretense of aiming at
| military targets. Not to mention their habit of
| kidnapping and subsequently killing non-combatants
| radycov wrote:
| It might be laughable to you, but perhaps you lack the
| perspective of random genetic luck to be born in an
| occupied land.
| seoaeu wrote:
| Legality under international law doesn't depend on
| genetics or where you were born. That is kind of the
| whole point...
| radycov wrote:
| You mean like the murder of American Rachel Corrie by the
| IDF which was ruled an "accident" absolving it of all
| responsibility?
| ezconnect wrote:
| Iran and Israel used to be friend, but Israel nationalize
| Irans asset on Israel and didn't pay back oil they took
| from Iran, Iran got mad that Israel stole their things and
| now they are sworn enemies.
| benja123 wrote:
| Iran and Israel stopped being friends after the Islamic
| revolution when Iran's government declared Israel is a
| sworn enemy.
|
| Hopefully one day that will change and we can be friends
| again as no one gains from the conflict.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| A democratic Iran will always be the enemy of Israel.
|
| Israel is a nuclear-armed ethnostate engaging in ethnic
| cleansing that protects these transgressions by operating
| as the FOB of the hegemonic world power that doesn't
| blink an eye at killing a million citizens in the region.
|
| So long as Israel requires US support to safeguard their
| otherwise untenable position (and to force Arab
| dictatorships to act favorably towards Israel), Iran and
| Israel will be opposed.
|
| Iran and Israel were allied before the revolution because
| the undemocratic government (not that the current one is
| anymore democratic otherwise) that was willing to act
| against its interests on the matter so long as the
| dominant foreign powers required it.
|
| It's categorically false that no one gains from the
| conflict. Israel gains tremendously from the conflict as
| the antagonism between Iran and Israel and between Iran
| and the USA is what justifies its ability to get away
| with so much.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| If you look at the history this theory seems quite rational.
| Israel has the most to gain RIGHT NOW, and while others have
| something to gain too (e.g. Saudi Arabia), they lack Israel's
| technical prowess.
|
| It is really up to the US, if they want the JCPOA to move
| forward, to try and corral Israel (or better bring them in so
| they're fully onboard with JCPOA).
| emodendroket wrote:
| I have to say that I'm not seeing a ton of evidence that the
| US really wants to go forward with the JCPOA. The "adhere to
| the old agreement and then we'll come to the table" position
| seems designed to be unacceptable to Iran.
| SeanBoocock wrote:
| It's designed to partially neutralize partisan attacks from
| the right. I expect diplomatic discussions are far more
| substantive and nuanced, while the executives figure out
| how to manage the optics of an agreement.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Well, if that's what they're thinking, surely they have
| to take into account that Iran has its own hawks who
| oppose a new deal in the first place and will surely
| seize on a narrative of national humiliation.
| [deleted]
| c3534l wrote:
| Actively working against US foreign policy goals seems to be a
| pretty egregious act. If proven true, that seems like it would
| seriously erode or destroy the US alliance with Israel. There's
| a lot of institutional weight towards support of Israel, but
| that action would make them an enemy of US foreign interests.
| koheripbal wrote:
| I suspect most of the US intelligence community is happy with
| the attack if it successfully destroyed some of Iran's
| nuclear capability.
|
| It actually increases the likelihood that they will rejoin
| the JCPOA under the original limits.
| pthread_t wrote:
| "a 2013 National Intelligence Estimate on cyber threats
| "ranked Israel the third most aggressive intelligence service
| against the US" behind only China and Russia" [1]
|
| "Israel among the U.S.'s most threatening cyber-adversaries
| and as a "hostile" foreign intelligence service." [2]
|
| "Israel's snooping upset White House because information was
| used to lobby Congress to try to sink a deal" [3]
|
| [1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-nsa-document-
| highlights-is...
|
| [2] https://theintercept.com/2015/03/25/netanyahus-spying-
| denial...
|
| [3] https://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-spied-on-iran-
| talks-1427...
| realmod wrote:
| US is divided internally on how to go forward with the JCPOA.
| Assuming it was Israel, I don't think the government could
| muster up enough support to punish a long-time ally for
| something like this .
| [deleted]
| MeinBlutIstBlau wrote:
| Republicans will never back down on Israel, regardless of how
| they affect out policies.
| stdclass wrote:
| you do know that the support of israel in US politics is
| completely bipartisan, right?
|
| If not, you should read up on AIPAC and who speaks at their
| events year after year.
| vmception wrote:
| It is, and they promulgate a complete fiction on the
| importance of keeping Israel close to the US
|
| Tell them to go cozy up to Russia, make good on that
| 'threat', have fun with that
| marshmallow_12 wrote:
| what the policy makers actually say behind closed doors may
| be very different from their public statements. And i imagine
| the State Department, being a human agency, don't have a
| single, moonlithic, agenda.
| hogFeast wrote:
| It is odd...
|
| Iran has lots of energy resources, is a huge energy exporter, and
| has a ton of heavy polluting industry...but they are also
| investing heavily in nuclear energy? Odd.
| nitrogen wrote:
| Western oil companies have invested heavily in solar power.
| It's a hedge against peak oil and/or global CO2 restrictions.
| vbezhenar wrote:
| Nuclear energy is a clear path to eco-friendly future. Everyone
| is interested with that, nobody wants to burn oil even if you
| have plenty of that oil. I live in Kazakhstan, we have plenty
| of oil, gas and coal, but we want to build nuclear plants, we
| are experimenting with wind and solar generators, nobody likes
| to breath dirty air.
| hogFeast wrote:
| Sarcasm. Iran are, amazingly for such a small economy, a
| massive polluter and they would rather drop dead then stop
| selling oil (fighter jets don't pay for themselves, the
| military owns most of their economy).
|
| My point is: the nuclear industry exists to make weapons.
| That is it. It is baffling that other nations pretend
| otherwise (for example, the EU seems quite happy to pretend
| that Iran's massive interest in nuclear technology is for
| civilian purposes...unf, countries in the EU have a long
| record of supplying countries in the region with "civilian"
| technology that was later used to murder people).
| vbezhenar wrote:
| That might be true for Iran. But I don't see it as an
| issue, because obviously Iran wants to do so to protect
| them from foreign invasion, just like North Korea managed
| to get in position where nobody would want to risk invading
| them. It's not an ideal situation where one should get
| deadliest weapon ever to bring peace to the country, but at
| least it seems to work.
| cochne wrote:
| I think the title is misleading. I do not see anything in the
| article confirming it was a cyber attack. Only media
| organizations claiming that it _could_ be.
| mikeiz404 wrote:
| I agree. Maybe a prefix of "claimed" or "alleged" or "assumed"
| would help.
|
| These are the strongest claims I found backing it in the
| article:
|
| "Israeli media suggest the incident was a result of an Israeli
| cyber attack."
|
| "A nuclear facility in Iran was hit by a "terrorist act" a day
| after it unveiled new advanced uranium centrifuges, a top
| nuclear official says."
|
| "Later state TV read out a statement by AEOI head Ali Akbar
| Salehi, in which he described the incident as "sabotage" and
| "nuclear terrorism"."
|
| "Ron Ben-Yishai, a defence analyst at the Ynet news website,
| said that with Iran progressing towards nuclear weapons
| capability it was "reasonable to assume that the problem...
| might not have been caused by an accident, but by deliberate
| sabotage intended to slow the nuclear race accelerated by the
| negotiations with the US on removing sanctions"."
|
| And background given that 1) a cyber attack, stuxnet, has
| happened here in the past and 2) recent actions by Iran
| incentives an action like this occurring again.
| pknerd wrote:
| A bit off topic, is there any hollywood movie on stuxnet
| incident?
| [deleted]
| benja123 wrote:
| These are probably the most highly guarded facilities in Iran.
| Justified or not, it is absolutely incredible that certain
| intelligence organizations are able to pull off these types of
| attacks again and again.
|
| We will probably never know how they did it, but I hope I can
| read about it one day.
| yonixw wrote:
| While not downplaying it, It was probably around 70% "human
| hacking" and only 30% computer\hardware hacking.
| benja123 wrote:
| For me that makes it all the more interesting. I would assume
| that most of the people that work at those facilities are
| subject to intense security checks and surveillance.
|
| Despite that someone is able to either convince or trick some
| of the workers to do something that comes at a huge personal
| risk. Human hacking is no less interesting than
| software/hardware hacking
| emayljames wrote:
| The soft spots are always blackmail, extortion and threats.
| Once they have people in one of these positions, they have
| a lot of leverage.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| On something like this, I expect the "human hacking" to be
| much harder, and the "everything is broken" nature of
| computing to be nearly unchanged. So I expect it to be
| computer hacking at any place where it's possible, and human
| hacking only to run around theoretically unbeatable
| protections (like air-gaps).
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Human hacking in a police state with no diplomatic mission
| for cover and where nearly every foreigner is surveilled from
| the moment they enter makes this even more remarkable.
|
| The fact that western intelligence agencies and especially
| the Israelis managed to develop a network of assets in Iran
| is marvel of tradecraft.
| bjourne wrote:
| Iran isn't a totalitarian society and it doesn't keep tabs on
| all its citizens. There are lots of dissident groups in Iran
| that want to see the regime fall (many Arab minorities, for
| example). Recruiting from these groups to do Israel's dirty
| work is not complicated. Some of the Iranian scientists Israel
| has had killed were apparently killed by Iranian gangsters. In
| one instance, they drove up to the car the scientist was
| travelling in at an intersection, smashed the car window and
| fired multiple shots at him. Not that sophisticated, but gets
| the job done.
|
| There is not much evidence that Israel's cyber warfare
| capabilities exceeds that of other states. However, Israel is
| clearly less reluctant than other states to use what they have
| offensively. Perhaps because Israel would suffer virtually no
| diplomatic fallout from getting caught and because it would be
| Iranians - not Israeli agents - who would be hanged.
|
| Personally, I think praising Israel's cyber warfare is like
| praising pedophiles for amazing tech savyness for running child
| pornography rings undetected for so long. It leaves a bad
| taste, especially since Israel is trying to rebrand itself as a
| tech leader. The idea is that we should forget about its
| ongoing human rights abuses and gawk at all the tech Israel is
| producing.
| LatteLazy wrote:
| That's the great thing about cyber attacks: all you need is one
| person putting one USB in a port for 30seconds, years before
| d-day and you're there. Easier to hide than a bomb, more
| reliable than any human agent, more reliable than spec ops, and
| totally deniable.
| ehsankia wrote:
| While Israel would be the #1 suspect as they want the JCPOA
| deal to fail, I would assume that some people in Iran are also
| against the deal and want it to see it fail, so an internal
| sabotage isn't really out of the question.
| stevehawk wrote:
| well we're talking about a facility that isn't supposed to be
| connected to the internet. so there has to be an internal
| actor. like there was with stuxnet
| shakna wrote:
| Yes, no, maybe.
|
| Whilst you would expect most airgapped systems to also be
| in buildings that intentionally block signals, there are a
| ton of "unexpected" interactions, some of which may give
| you ways to remotely transmit when no transmission is
| expected to be possible.
|
| Like the fact that USB 3.0 can interfere with the 2.4Ghz
| spectrum [0], thanks to resonance.
|
| Israel has also previously demonstrated malware called
| Odini [1] and aIR-Jumper [2] to bypass Faraday protections
| around systems and exfiltrate data.
|
| [0] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/docs/i
| o/uni...
|
| [1] https://www.rambus.com/blogs/bypassing-air-gapped-
| faraday-ca...
|
| [2] https://arstechnica.com/information-
| technology/2017/09/attac...
| benja123 wrote:
| Why would you assume the people in Iran want the deal to
| fail?
|
| I would suspect that most Iranians, regardless of if they are
| for or against the nuclear program, just want sanction relief
| and don't care how they get it. At the end of the day, most
| people just want to have a good life and sanction relief will
| help that happen.
| gph wrote:
| There is undoubtedly some hardliners that want the nuclear
| program to continue so they can develop nuclear weapons in
| order to provide a reliable deterrent against Israeli
| aggression.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| What aggression!? Has israel ever stated that their one
| mission in life is to wipe out iran? Cause iran HAS
| stated that towards israel.
|
| Self defence isn't aggression. If you provide a credible
| threat against me, you better believe I'll punch you in
| the face and knock you out first.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Israel's goal in the region is to be able to legitimize
| itself vis-a-vis other Arab states, without stopping any
| human rights abuses.
|
| Since the alignment of the gulf states with the US, the
| only obstacle to that is Iran and Iranian influence.
|
| Because of this, Israel is very willing for Iran to be
| militarily destroyed, and members of the Israeli
| government have called for the invasion of Iran multiple
| times.
|
| Simply self defence is far from the goal. Israel would
| not be able to survive without changing its internal
| structure unless the Arab world is dominated by the US
| which prevents actions that go against Israeli interests.
| [deleted]
| lamontcg wrote:
| Alternatively, now literally any normal fuck up at Natanz can
| be played off as a cyber hack for political points, and
| everyone unquestionably assumes that is plausible.
| cronix wrote:
| If you go back and watch how Stuxnet, ie "Olympic Games," was
| created, and the methods they used to figure everything out
| down to the particular model of centrifuges to target, it
| really is quite eye opening on how extensive these operations
| are.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wapd1-E5dzc
| sneak wrote:
| There's a lot of blatant racism in that video, but that
| aside, his description does not align with the way I
| understand the attack occurred.
| boomboomsubban wrote:
| >These are probably the most highly guarded facilities in Iran
|
| This seems unlikely. Iran's nuclear facilities aren't overly
| important compared to things like their oil production or
| likely any military facility, and there is incredibly detailed
| information available about the site in question as a result of
| many nuclear inspections.
| vkou wrote:
| An obvious question that comes up is: "When will these cyber
| attacks be properly considered what they are - an act of war?"
|
| I frequently hear this question receiving top billing when some
| commercial entity here is the target of one.
| 1cvmask wrote:
| The Wikileaks and Snowden revelations showed that the NSA had
| tools to point the hacking at others like a false flag operation.
| With that knowledge in mind how can we ever conclusively blame
| anyone for a hacking attack as the proverbial smoking gun can
| even be placed in the victims hand.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vault_7
| mjfl wrote:
| How hard is it to enrich uranium, really? It was done previously
| with 1940s technology. No computers required really.
| parsimo2010 wrote:
| Pretty hard. But the enrichment isn't even the hardest part,
| just tedious. Iran has had the knowledge and equipment for
| several years. But it takes time to produce enough material to
| be useful, and they keep getting sabotaged. Not just the
| equipment, but top leaders and scientists get killed from time
| to time.
|
| Keep in mind that the Manhattan Project employed over 100,000
| people and cost a couple billion dollars, which would be tens
| of billions of dollars after inflation. Iran has been under
| sanctions of varying strictness for a few decades. That amount
| of people and money isn't trivial to them like it is to the USA
| in 1940, which was a rising superpower.
| kps wrote:
| And the Manhattan Project only managed to enrich enough
| uranium for _one_ bomb.
| gruez wrote:
| But they had no trouble making two bombs to drop on japan?
| makomk wrote:
| The other bomb dropped on Japan used plutonium, as did
| the Trinity nuclear test. (Yes, the US had so little
| uranium that the bomb design using it wasn't even tested
| before it was used against Japan.)
| thatcat wrote:
| I'm pretty certain they made way more than one, but even if
| not - that was a really inefficient design. Only a few
| percent of the input material actually achieved fission.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| But that was with the technology available in 1940. I would
| imagine that this has become vastly simpler and cheaper since
| then.
|
| What used to take rooms full of people with slide rules or
| state-of-the-art supercomputers can now be calculated on a
| Raspberry Pi in seconds. ABEC 9 ball bearings are disposable
| consumer goods that you can order by the 20-pack for $10. CNC
| machines went from non-existent to affordable by hobbyist
| groups.
|
| Likewise, knowledge that used to be a state secret is now
| available in high school text books.
|
| I can't imagine a Manhattan Project requiring anywhere near
| that amount of people and resources nowadays.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-04-11 23:01 UTC)