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.
Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
Which bombing? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Yawn" is ironically right - You need to wake up to what a nuclear equipped Iran means to the world. I don't think we should attack them either but to act unconcerned at them aquiring nuclear weapons is a particularily odd form of madness in its own right, just as mad as Iran willing to "burn" as they said they would to get rid of pesky Israel.
After all, we'll all be breathing the dust that floats over from a nasty nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel.
Comment about Freshman Democrat Mitchell (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What's REALLY troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Which bombing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:None of them were bat-shit insane (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Which bombing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Downside is a highly religiously motivated nation with nukes. One nutcase and we then have potentially a few million lives at risk. What ever you think of isreal. It's there, it's been a few generations and almost all the nations of the middle east are artificial constructs. With borders and governemnts defined and propped up by third parties. Legitimacy comes through force of arms. Either yours directly or your friends. Isreal can hold their own and beat most of their neightbors. Most of their neighbors harbor delusions of saladine and wish to smite Isreal. Some have made peace with the fact that it's there and will not be moved without force.. force they don't have yet.
At this point evicting Isreal is just as evil an act as the jewish mobs evicting some of the native arab "palastinians" in the arab-isreali war(1948). The majority of the palastinian "refugees" were not part of this expulsion. They fled willingly from civil war with the idea that their arab neighbors would go in an massacre the jews amd then they could return home. Apparently their neighbros were less compitent then they thought and we have the current situation.
The USA propaganda wheels are spinning. (Score:1, Insightful)
Consider the time, though. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Iranian Revolution is a little before my time, so I'm not sure exactly what the zeitgeist in the U.S. was when it happened, but it certainly seems like we got caught with our pants down -- I mean, we had all those people in the embassy that got caught, because we didn't pull them out before the shit hit the fan; I don't know if that was just the Carter administration being typically asleep at the switch, or if nobody suspected things were deteriorating that quickly, but in either case, it explains why, a few years previously, nobody was really thinking too hard about selling them crap (particularly not when it would have brought a few billion bucks to the U.S, which at the time was seriously rusting). Plus, anything to keep them on our side instead of going over to the Soviets for their nuclear needs -- it's not as though they would have had (or have had, since) much compunction about selling reactors to anyone with the hard currency to buy them.
When viewed in the context of the period, the U.S. actions may have been a little shortsighted, but they're not as bald-facedly hypocritical as some people today like to make them seem.
Ultimately, the critical mistake of U.S. policy during the latter part of the 20th century was to think that the enemy of our Enemy (and that's how we really seemed to think about it; Enemy with a capital 'E,' that's E that rhymes with C and that stands for Communism) was our friend. In time, I think we're going to look back on the halcyon days of the Cold War with nostalgia, when we had an enemy who was basically rational and we could sit down over a negotiating table and talk to, or pull out a map and point at.
Re:None of them were bat-shit insane (Score:3, Insightful)
Where are you getting this idea that Iran's leadership is insane?
Well, let's start with hosting an international symposium on "The Holocaust myth is a vast historical conspiracy perpetrated by Jews who want everybody to feel sorry for them so they can take over the world without anyone noticing".
Plenty of Israeli politicians still want to see the Palestinian Authority wiped out.
And plenty of US politicians want Al-Qaeda wiped out, for precisely the same reason: they kill innocent people to instill terror. Maybe you should read up on Arafat's public declarations of what their goals are: "destroy Israel". Sound familiar?
Contradictory statements (Score:4, Insightful)
This is from the article I linked. "The investigation has not led us to believe this information was taken for the purpose of being used by a foreign government or terrorists to attack us," said Deborah McCarley, a spokeswoman for the FBI in Phoenix. "This does not appear to be terrorist-related." AZCentral is more concerned with reactions from politicians think about something they know no more about than any of us.
Why is AZCentral interviewing politicians about this case and not people involved in the investigation? AZC doesn't even mention that Palo Verde has already changed their system to not let anyone gain access to any files after they are no longer employed by them. This story really isn't a big deal. If he was able to steal classified information on designs of a nuclear reactor, that'd be one thing, but this is just another case of the media trying to make it a bigger deal than it really is.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Insightful)
Playing the devil advocate - I would rather have them manage their nuclear stations safely correctly and being properly trained then having yet another Chernobyl. So if their nuclear espionage stays within the limit of nicking our safety training software for a nuclear plant I would say: Spy more please. And do it more successfully. Please. Pretty please...
Re:None of them were bat-shit insane (Score:4, Insightful)
You want a nation with nuclear capabilities that actually is run by a psychopath, you'll have to look outside the Middle East [google.com] for that.
Yeah, that would be the devil's advocate. (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but if the reactor in question is a Pu breeder, like the Iraqi one the Israelis blew up at Osirak, then I'd much rather they didn't learn how to operate it safely. (That's kinda like saying "gee, I hope those guys know how to operate that gas chamber safely, I sure wouldn't want them to accidentally inhale some by mistake.")
If all they're doing is building light-water power reactors to keep the lights on, by all means I wish them, and the workers there, well. But I really don't think that's what they're up to. Anyone with half a brain can tell that they desperately want a bomb -- and probably if I were in their shoes, I'd want a bomb too. But that doesn't mean that as a Westerner and an American, that I want them to have one, because frankly I think there's too great a chance it might end up going off in my front yard.
All things considered, I'd much rather they melt it into a (radioactive) smoking hole in the desert.
Re:Comment about Freshman Democrat Mitchell (Score:2, Insightful)
troubling (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, he shouldn't have had access anymore. But how much more secure would that have been. If you're employed there, you can download it. And you would still have it after your employment ends.
People are overly concerned with security, to a degree that it is becoming rediculous.
If people can read it, hear it or see it, it can be reproduced to a non-secure form anyway.
Sure, you must have ways to make it more difficult/near impossible to get there without inside help, but don't get silly.
Re:None of them were bat-shit insane (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean, how they listen to what people say in public and take them at their word? And insist that they not say one thing to the U.N., and then turn around and say something completely different to the people in the street, who are actually the ones that need to get the message? What a ridiculous concept!
In terms of "hard-nosed pragmatic" assessments, I think what some Arab leader is saying to the hoi polloi carries a lot more weight than what he says to a bunch of diplomats over hors d'oeuvres at a summit meeting.
Talk when only a few people are listening is cheap. Talk when you are speaking to your nation is expensive; that's what counts.
The current Arab leadership seems to be trying to play both sides against the middle, and it's not going to happen.
MOD this guy up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which bombing? (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Israel has a western culture and a western religion. For comparison, Iran has a very different culture, a less well-known religion and funny skin colors. On top of that, historical abuses (WWII, middle ages) of Jewish people means that they have a bit of a sympathy vote. Plus there's the antisemitism angle, for which there's no Palestinian equivalent.
2. Given that the US has a high concentration of Christians, there are plenty of wackos here that think that Israel's rebirth is part of God's plan. Supporting Israel for some of them is tantamount to obeying God's commandments and hastening the day of Christ's return. Since Middle Eastern Muslims generally don't like Israel, they must be allied with the Anti-Christ/Satan.
3. Israel runs a massive lobby to keep US politician pro-Israel. (I might be wrong, but I've heard it described as the largest and most well funded political lobby in the US.)
By contrast Europe has had more contact with Muslims, tends to be more secular, and without the UN veto and military dominance, there's less reason to put political pressure on the EU. That's the main reason Americans have a positive impression of Israel, just like they see Great Britain and Australia, while the rest of the world ranks Iran and Israel down at the bottom, below North Korea.
Re:Consider the time, though. (Score:5, Insightful)
That was sort of the deal behind the NPT: sign it, agree to no bombs, and we'll help you build a peaceful programme -- just sign on the dotted line and Westinghouse will be there on Monday, basically; the alternative is to not sign, get left out of the nuke-power club, and do what you can on your own, locked out from the rest of the world.
India basically chose the second path, although because they're good allies with the West, they did end up getting a certain amount of assistance in various indirect forms (and I think in the near future they'll probably be buying Uranium from NPT countries like Australia, even though that ought to be against the rules). So they were never under any formal obligation not to build weapons, and no U.S. or other NPT-country firms can build reactors there as a result.
I think the era of the NPT is almost to an end. What India showed is that it's possible for a country to develop nukes entirely on its own, without Western assistance. Now that it's happened, the NPT countries are going to be the ones breaking the rules, because with the cat out of the bag, they're just losing money by not being in on the plant-building in non-NPT countries. You can bet that GE and Westinghouse would really like to get in on India's new plants, and they're going to be lobbying pretty hard to do it.
Re:Consider the time, though. (Score:5, Insightful)
FYI - India never signed the NPT, nor did Pakistan. NPT is a discriminatory agreement by any standard. There were no commitments from the nuclear nations about disarmament but bound the non-nuclear members to commitments that they would always be unarmed.
Re:Consider the time, though. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you're generally being pretty reasonable in your post, but I think with this last bit, particularly "basically rational", you're just buying into the conventional propaganda line.
Sure, there are no shortage of religious zealots who are raving lunatics. But people like this have always been created by a larger political context of rational political opposition — even the original Zealot [wikipedia.org], from which we get our term for hysterical and unreasoning devotion to a cause, lived at a time when there were a lot of reasons why Jews might not like Romans so much.
I think the thing that makes the Cold War distinct from the current situation is the level of mutual understanding, at least at the level of leadership. Both sides in the Cold War more or less understood how its opponents' power structures worked and could be manipulated. In the current conflict, partly through willing ignorance that understanding just isn't there to the same degree: I just don't get the sense that most of the American authorities in Iraq could tell you about what distinguishes Shia from Sunni, for instance, or the historical context of the dispute over the Shatt al-Arab.
The consequence is that the other side acts in "unexpected" ways, which are then described as "irrational".
Re:Comment about Freshman Democrat Mitchell (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe in America you are fed bullshit on a daily basis about this issue but unless you show me some HARD evidence then all I can say is "there goes your country again.." with its "evidence" to justify upcoming targets in the religious war against the middle east.
When the US pulls out of Iraq it is so obvious what the next target will be. I'll give you a hint, its the next one over..
Re:Which bombing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Training/Security (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:None of them were bat-shit insane (Score:5, Insightful)
Carting british sailors off was one thing that wasn't particularily rational, at any stage of the operation. In the end it gave them some very positive media results but it could have gone very badly very quickly just as easily.
I think if someone says they really don't care if someone destroys them, as long as thier ideals are promoted, you have to take them somewhat seriously when they mix those words with nuclear weapons I'm not 100% sure they would use them but I think the likleyhood is honestly grater than 50% because it achieves many long-term goals.
Didn't the p5 keep their obligations under NPT? (Score:4, Insightful)
Btw, the NPT is flawed and fundamentally flawed. Discriminatory to the naivest, I am not sure how anyone could even suggest something like - 'I CAN, but you sire, CANNOT'. Justice and equality.
What is needed is complete disarmament, or transfer of nukes to common control against possibly an asteroid or comet. Until then, I refuse to say that some nukes are good and some are bad.
Re:Comment about Freshman Democrat Mitchell (Score:2, Insightful)
An unlikely scenario.. (Score:0, Insightful)
And we have world peace, yay.
Re:Comment about Freshman Democrat Mitchell (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Which bombing? (Score:4, Insightful)
American soldiers rarely lay so much as a foot on Israeli soil, and I haven't heard of many who actually fell in battle over the defence of an Israeli border. Israel defends Israel. If any people in the world have a very serious chip on their shoulder as far as never ever trusting anyone else in the world, it would be them.
What the US does is "give" them money that can only be used to buy AMERICAN-MADE arms, thus entering a mutually-beneficial pact where one side gains arms and the other brings jobs home. The US does that with half the countries in the world. It's called business, albeit with a somewhat unique business model.
Israel does not depend on US arms either. When nobody sold Israel tanks, they built their own(Merkava etc). When nobody sold Israel jet fighters, Israel built its own (The Kfir, The Lavi initiative later outbid by American-supplied jets) etc. When Israel needed, it built its own A-A and A-S missiles. It does its own avionics, outfits its own ships, builds its own guns, from handguns to assault rifles, sniper rifles and what have you. They have the know-how, the industry, the technology and the money.
The only thing Israel DOES depend on external entities for is raw materials you'd need to build arms (steel etc.), but in this day and age, those can be sourced easily.
Israel usually welcomes US assistance (just as other countries in the region - Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc welcome such assistance), but saying anyone but Israel defended it is just being naive.
And as for the UN, US support or no US support, Israel has always been in the habit of giving the UN the finger, as the UN has, for most of its history, been skewed in favor of arab interests. Israeli stance is usually based on their (apparently justified) opinion - that the UN is powerless to go head-to-head with a properly armed nation, which, incidentally, Israel is.
Economic embargos are a different thing (Israel has endured those in the past, at least in so far as arms go), but that hasn't prevented them from doing anything, quite on the contrary, it nudged them to develop their own arms industry.
Wait till the oil runs out and iceland becomes the new saudi arabia by selling hydrogen to everyone. THEN things'll get interesting in the middle east.
Re:Comment about Freshman Democrat Mitchell (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Consider the time, though. (Score:3, Insightful)
I hear this kind of statement a lot. People wag their finger at the US and essentially say, "silly Americans - the enemy of your enemy is not your friend". The decision to aid the enemy of your enemy is a tricky one - it can go either way, and if it ends badly, people will talk about the underlying flaw of assuming the enemy of your enemy is your friend. Obviously, caution is the key here - not a blanket statement about not helping the enemy of your enemy. One thing I never hear people talk about in this context is whether or not the West should've helped the USSR during World War 2. The Nazis were an expanding threat, but the USSR was also an enemy (though not as immediate of a threat). At the same time, the USSR was also the enemy or our enemy (the Nazis). So, which is it? If people want to say, "the enemy of your enemy is not your friend", are they willing to stand up and say that we should not have helped the USSR fight the Nazis in World War 2?
Oh where is the up modded comment on theft? (Score:2, Insightful)
So where is that argument?
Re:Yawn. (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why bring it up? It is exacly your arrogant wild-west attitude that makes everyone dislike the US
3) Not much of a point there. The US used them repetitively as weapons of war in 1945. A number of countries have detonated two or more nuclear weapons since then.
Not on other people. Slight difference.
4) Iran has a religious council enshrined in their Constitution that literally can disqualify people who are insufficiently religious.
The US consitution is clearly christian centered. Besides China has a similar approach as Iran and the US has nooo problem trading with them
5) I didn't say that. What we don't know is whether Iran will start a nuclear war on purpose or by accident, even though they understand the consequences.
Exact same thing applies to the US. Even more so I'd say
has Israel behaved well
You have a very odd definition of 'well'
its aquisition of nuclear weapons has saved considerable lives.
1) you have no evidence for that statement at all
2) in your line of reasoning nukes in Iran may save eeven more lives
Same goes for most of the world.
Many people trust neither. And a lot feel that a balance of power may actually improve. Yes this decreases the options for the US to be a bully, but they abused that position so many times now it may actually be a good thing.
Re:Yawn. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Which bombing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Enemy of the enemy? Heh. (Score:4, Insightful)
And understanding that, also gives you the key as to why those people hate you now. It's not just some people that inexplicably forgot their old friendships, it's some people who hate you for what you did to them. That pseudo-friendship only lasted as long as the USA-installed puppet lasted. The dictator might have been your faithful puppet friend, but the people ended up hating not only him, but also the foreign power that installed and kept him in power. Gee, big surprise there. And as soon as they managed to free them of him, by brutal revolt, gee, who would have guessed that they're no longer your friends? Completely unexpected surprise that
And, generally, if we're talking about that period, the USA was bloody active installing and backing dictators left and right. That's champions of democracy at work for ya. Sure preferred a brutal tyrant to an elected government. _Especially_ if that government happened to be left wing or get in the way of western colonial interests.
It started right after WWII, e.g.,
- South Korea: got saddled with an inept totalitarian regime, where the "president" hadn't even lived in Korea before. Just because, god forbid, you can't let them maybe vote for a left-wing government. (The current favourite was actually left wing.) Got to give them our version of "democracy" instead.
- Vietnam: the USA actually prevented them from holding democratic elections and backed an inept dictator instead. Again, out of fear that the left might win.
And it continued throughout the 20'th century, with some of the most brutal third world dictators installed or helped by the USA. If you happen to be on our side, here, let us teach you how to torture and terrorize dissidents. And god forbid if you happen to _not_ be on our side. Then we'll stage a coup and replace you with some puppet that's on our side. And teach _him_ how to torture and terrorize disidents.
Gee, I wonder why a lot of people ended up hating the USA. You'd think they'd appreciate the support and training it gave to their dictator's secret police more.
Re:Which bombing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Argentina invaded the Falklands, which were a British dependent territory at the time, i.e. under British sovereignty.
Re:Yawn (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Consider the time, though. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's tone down the hysteria a notch or two (Score:5, Insightful)
Thousands? Don't you think that's exaggerating a bit? In addition, the term "nuclear accident" conjures up images of Chernobyl, by far the worst and unrepresentative "accident". Wikipedia lists maybe "dozens" with a continuum of severity stretching almost to the realm of insignificance. The paranoia about such things is probably justifiable, but classifying the following as a "nuclear accident" seems like quite a stretch.
"February 15, 2000 - The Indian Point nuclear power plant's reactor 2 in Buchanan, New York, vented a small amount of radioactive steam when a steam generator tube failed. No detectable radioactivity was observed offsite."
You're talking about "thousands of tons of water", these guys are talking about a "small amount of steam", and the article is talking about some training software. I think we're letting political FUD and media hype obscure rational thinking. Mention "nucular" and "Iran" and you've got the story for the day.
Re:Enemy of the enemy? Heh. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're essentially correct, though I think the tide has turned on that. The US is spending lots of treasure and lots of lots of lives in an attempt to build real democratic institutions in Afghanistan and Iraq. We'll see in 20 years or so if that did us any better.
Re:Enemy of the enemy? Heh. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Enemy of the enemy? Heh. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Murderous Dictator is the word you're looking f (Score:2, Insightful)
People don't own something just because they were born within 300 miles of it. Before the Western oil companies sank hundreds of millions of dollars into the area in order to develop that oil, it didn't exist -- not in any meaningful way. The oil belongs to whoever caused it to be accessible... and Western utilization of it does not, itself, harm the natives.
Besides, the natives already were given generous cuts of the profits, despite the total absence of justice for such generosity.
Re:Enemy of the enemy? Heh. (Score:2, Insightful)
Given the rest of your post, this in itself is a worry.
Fuck you and your blanket "they" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Murderous Dictator is the word you're looking f (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a problem to be solved by international arbitration, NOT by deposing democratically elected leaders and putting thuggish princelings back in power. Not just from a humanitarian standpoint, but from a pragmatic one as well -- the coup against Mossadegh lead to the 1979 revolution, which lead to the 80s Iran-Iraq war in which we armed Hussein's Iraq, which lead to a strong Iraq that could bully Kuwait... etc. And now it's 2007 and we're mired in the Iraqi situation.
-b.
A common IT problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
I've seen this a million times; it happens in every single company, but especially so in large ones. There's no connection between human resources and the system administrators in some cases. When you're fired or quit, an automatic process that is kicked off by the routine that prints your last paycheck should also disable your accounts. The problem is the disconnected nature of systems.
Even in disconnected environments, it's possible to do this by assigning someone to be responsible for accounts. In previous IT organizations, this was usually the PFY's job. Unfortunately, this is an incredibly boring job and it is difficult to keep someone doing this forever. It's a problem that could be solved by technology, but either (a) none of the sysadmin staff want to work on it because they fear automation that might take their jobs, or (b) the company has such a complex HR system (homegrown mess, SAP, etc.) that building interfaces is really hard.
I'm going to sound old here, but I'd like to jump back a few technology generations to when you actually needed to be a highly skilled technologist to take care of systems. It would force a little discipline, which is lacking. Sysadmins are overworked, this is true. That's often why you see stories like this. But a good sysadmin knows how to automate the tedious.
Re:Murderous Dictator is the word you're looking f (Score:3, Insightful)
If a nation tries to nationalize the local ressources it's often because the priviledges were bought before in an unclear way, by bribing the clan leaders or just going there and shooting everyone coming close, or because the previous regime were selling and the new one doesn't feel obliged to fulfill the contracts because the old one was considered illegal anyway, thus the revolution.
Iran Populous (Score:3, Insightful)
The people in power despise the US in Iran, but the general populace was slightly fond of us until recently. And, just so we're also clear on this, a war with Iran would be a very "Bad Thing". Iraq, for all intents and purposes, was a pushover (ignoring the currently failing occupation efforts). Iran is a mountainous region with a much larger population who would not give up ground without serious casualties. No, if George W starts a war with Iran it'll be bloody, and it'll make this little dance in Iraq look like a picnic.
Re:None of them were bat-shit insane (Score:3, Insightful)
For reference, rubbish is dismissing as rhetoric:"The Holocaust myth is a vast historical conspiracy perpetrated by Jews who want everybody to feel sorry for them so they can take over the world without anyone noticing". That silly Ahmadinejad, what kind of rhetoric will he come up with next.
When groups like Hezbollah use Iranian training and weapons to attack Israel sane people consider that a clue that maybe Ahmadinejad's 'rhetoric' has some teeth to it. But go ahead and keep laughing at his hijinx if you like, just don't be surprised when people are offended by you. They SHOULD be.
You are right on the not being suicidal part though. Ahmadinejad appears far smarter than Bush and knows full well that removing Israel from the map is easier when you have nukes than when you don't. That doesn't mean he's foolish enough to use them, but he's also smart enough to know that if he wants to start something, better he have nukes too.
If you are gonna claim he doesn't want to remove Israel you are not only ignoring his public statements, your ignoring Iran's actions as well.
Re:Yawn (Score:2, Insightful)
Eqypt had no intention of closing off the suez canal. They wanted it for revenue and closing it off wouldn't have been constructive.
With all due respect, that sounds more like your hindsight bias talking. I can imagine how critical world powers at the time didn't have the same confidence you have in Egypt's willingness to adhere to those terms. The fact that:
Later (much after this incident) Egypt did try to close the canal to Israeli traffic.
shows that these fears were not without basis.
Osirak (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, they did have one, but the Israelis blew it up.
The French -- in some sort of a fit of Gaullish pique -- sold the Iraqis a breeder reactor [wikipedia.org] (technically it was a "materials testing reactor," but without an established nuclear program and any 'materials' to 'test,' it was pretty clear what they wanted with a high-neutron-flux design). The Israelis decided that was a no-go, and so they did some serious damage to it via an airstrike, before the fuel was loaded.
Then the Iran-Iraq war broke out, and -- at least in hindsight -- it's not clear whether Saddam ever really put that much serious effort into restarting the project. There's a lot of speculation in both directions; that the attack caused Saddam to pour a lot more resources into uranium enrichment (via gas separation), which would ultimately have produced more bombs than the single Pu breeder (see the quote on the WP page), or alternately that the Iran-Iraq war was such a drain on Iraq's resources that they never had the capability again, and/or put their resources into chem/bio stuff from then on.
The rest of the reactor complex was destroyed (pretty much pounded into rubble) in 1991, so it's probably not going to answer any questions now.
Insults now? Stick to the topic (Score:3, Insightful)