Nuclear Training Software Downloaded To Iran 470
SixFactor sends in word of a theft of training software for a nuclear plant. An ex-employee of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, in Arizona, allegedly downloaded training software to his laptop while he was in Iran. The software was downloaded from a Maryland-based contractor to the nuclear plant. It contained information about the Palo Verde facility: control rooms, reactors, and design. It was used to simulate situations for training at the site. Why the ex-engineer downloaded the software is not known. What is troubling is this person's ability to access the software after his employment at the site ended.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Informative)
Well, then I'm not too scared. They did a pretty crummy job of whipping me into a frenzied lust for Iranian blood if they're also telling me that it was just crap that he got ahold of. And that he wasn't neccessarily working for the Iranian government.
Uhh... (Score:3, Informative)
Big Deal! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Consider the time, though. (Score:5, Informative)
There was nothing "fixed". Actually that drawing of borders was the beginning of the sabre-rattling in the area. The local population fought alongside the allies in WW1 for their freedom and got another occupying force instead. Wouldn't you kinda hate your "liberators" in that case? We cheated 'em!
It would be nice if that were the case. (Score:3, Informative)
Erm, no. The U.S. basically hung Israel out to dry on several occasions, and time and time again whenever Israel and the Arab countries got into a spat, if Israel started to win, the Arabs would go back to the Soviets and the Soviets would get the U.N. to declare a cease-fire, and the U.S. would never object. The Arab armies would use the cease-fires to rearm and resupply (illegally), and drag the war out longer.
The only time Israel made major territorial gains was in 1956, and that was only because the U.S. thought they would get and keep the Suez, which would have been a big bonus, and in return for this they let the Soviets crush Budapest in return for their non-interference. (The government in Budapest, which had practically won the revolution already, was counting on U.S. help -- when it didn't happen, the Soviets rolled over them. Though for future reference, don't ever count on U.S. help for your democratic revolution if they can do better by selling you all to people who'll put you in front of a wall -- welcome to realpolitik.)
There were long periods of time when Israel had very little in the way of a relationship with the U.S., at least not the U.S. government. There have always been fairly strong ties between the people of Israel and the people, particularly the Jewish population, in the U.S., but official relations have ebbed and flowed depending on convenience. There were periods when Israel's best allies were South Africa and Taiwan -- talk about the black sheep of the world stage.
Israel shouldn't count anyone, least of all the U.S., as a "true" ally; we'd sell them up the river in a millisecond and leave them on their own in a millisecond if it was temporarily expedient to do so, just like we've done to other groups when they were no longer useful (anyone talked to the Kurds lately? how's that country we promised them working out?).
Re:Consider the time, though. (Score:5, Informative)
Murderous Dictator is the word you're looking for (Score:5, Informative)
Shah was a murderous dictator, he was put in place in 1953 when the CIA deposed democratically elected Mossadegh.
Gee, you've gotta wonder why they're not such big fans of the US of A.
Re:Murderous Dictator is the word you're looking f (Score:4, Informative)
Partly because he was all for nationalising an oil company largely owned by overseas interests which simply wouldn't do, not with all that profit to be made.
Re:Which bombing? (Score:3, Informative)
What, what and what?
Israel did have some foreign backing - UN vote, some arms shipments - but it basically fought its way to existence in 1947-48. It formed itself, nobody 'formed it' for any purpose. Now, it might serve some purpose for other people, in their eyes, but that is true of any relationship between states. True, there are Western interests that are aided by the existence of Israel (and things against their interests, to be sure). But Israel - for better or for worse - was founded with (soon-to-be) Israeli blood (today, in fact, is the Israeli remembrance day for their fallen soldiers). Not 'artifically'. They certainly did establish themselves, no-one did it for them.
Re:Yawn (Score:5, Informative)
Nope.
1956 - Israel invades Egypt jointly with France and UK to take over the recently nationalised Suez Canal. So the truth is that Israel invaded a neighbouring country first, unprovoked and for solely mercantile reasons. From there on it was a more or less tit-for-tat affair all the way to the 70-es.
Re:Consider the time, though. (Score:0, Informative)
Re:IT access and former employees (Score:2, Informative)
The nuclear/Iran angle served as the framework of the event, which, I should have known, would cause funny, thoughtful, and a few shrill reactions from the
Re:Yawn (Score:4, Informative)
C'mon. The tit-for-tat bullshit in that region goes back much, much further than 1956.
Re:Yawn (Score:3, Informative)
At the time, Egypt was trying to build a big hydroelectric dam and needed money. The U.S. and Britain were going to foot most of the bill, but Egypt started getting cozy with the Soviet Union. The U.S. said if they wanted to be buddies with the Soviets, the U.S. wasnt going to fund the dam. Britain agreed and pulled their funding also. Egypt nationalized the suez canal to get the money to build the dam. Britain and France got together and got Israel to invade Egypt. Britain and France then showed up and occupied the canal to "protect" it and enforce peace in the area (mostly by attacking Egypt). The U.S. told Israel to cut it out and they backed off. Nasser sank a bunch of ships and blocked off the canal. Britain's economy tanked due to oil shortages caused by the suez being blocked. The Canadian delegate to the U.N. introduced a resolution to create an official peace keeping force for the U.N. This force then took control of the suez canal and sent Britain and France home. Britian gave up willingly since their economy was fubar and they recognised the plan was a pretty big mistake. France went begrudgingly.
Also, the UN had already acknowledged that Egypt had the right to nationalize the canal zone as long as shipping remained unaffected. Later (much after this incident) Egypt did try to close the canal to Israeli traffic.
Re:Which bombing? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, the representatives that voted for it are more likely to be voted for by a pro-Israeli public. They're using their power in government to gain votes, just like when they pass most other laws.
So is the case of the US either lending or giving money to other countries. It does so for a reason, and that reason is not being out of pocket just as the reason for me buying milk is not ending up with a dollar less. It's an unavoidable side-effect. What we term "the cost".
You have a seriously messed-up view of economics. If a store gave you $3 for milk, and then you traded the money back to them for a gallon of milk, the store just lost a gallon of milk - end of story. It might get advertising (the way coupons work), good publicity, or some other advantage, but in that isolated exchange, it didn't gain anything material.
You misunderstand business.
I don't think so. You obviously slept through Econ 101.