Stuxnet Allegedly Loaded By Iranian Double Agents 167
First time accepted submitter rainbo writes "According to a report from ISSSource, a saboteur who was likely a member of an Iranian dissident group loaded the Stuxnet virus on to a flash drive and infected machines at the Natanz nuclear facility. Iran's intelligence minister, Heydar Moslehi, said that an unspecified amount of 'nuclear spies' were arrested on ties to this attack. Some officials believe these spies belonged to Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), which is used as the assassination arm of the Israeli Mossad."
MEK (Score:5, Informative)
The same MEK that's on the U.S. terror list, and yet openly supported by several high ranking figures in national politics.
Re:No matter who it was (Score:2, Informative)
Not exactly. Iran is a signatory of the NPT.
Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.
It's their prerogative to do so should they first decide to withdraw from the NPT, similar to what North Korea did.
Re:No matter who it was (Score:5, Informative)
There's a lot wrong with your remark. First of all, Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons [wikipedia.org] so attempting to research or build nuclear weapons is a direct violation of their treaty obligations.
Second, the large US stockpile is a concern, and the US is (correctly) taking steps to reduce the size of that stockpile (indeed has been for the last twenty years, in cooperation with Russia which has done the same to their stockpile). But the US weapons (in addition to being under treat compliance) are very tightly guarded and have many safeguards against accidental or malicious use. There's no such guarantee that Iranian weapons would be that way, and likely wouldn't be.
Third, your remark about Israel doesn't reflect the actual geopolitical situation. Despite Israel and Iran not even sharing a border, Iran is one of the largest funders of Hezbollah and other groups which systematically engage in attacks on Israel. http://www.cfr.org/iran/state-sponsors-iran/p9362 [cfr.org]. In that context, Israel being afraid of what Iran, or elements in the Iranian government, would do with nuclear weapons makes sense. As for sabotaging industry- it is Iran, not Israel which refuses to recognize Israel's existence. At this point, Israel has peace treaties and functional relations with Egypt and Jordan (and a decent amount of tourism between the countries and commercial exchange). Israel is not on good terms with Syria, but they've at least had limited dialogue. Iran is pretty much the only country in the region which has both continued to sponsor attacks on Israel and has never sat down at the negotiating table. While one can argue that there's a large history of hostility and menacing on both sides, the essential facts are that Israel has sat down and signed treaties with other nations in the area, and Iran has never shown any indication or willingness to ever sit down. Israel is not at all blameless in the current situation, but it is Iran's belicose government that is the essential reason that Israel is concerned, quite legitimately, over Iranian nuclear ambitions.
Re:No matter who it was (Score:1, Informative)
We will never know for sure, but there is historical evidence that points to Japan's imminent surrender even before the atomic bombs were used. They were already utterly defeated as a military power.
Whether the war continued on in name only on the home islands would have made little difference to the rest of the world. They had no further means to wage war from their archipelago; few natural resources to fuel a modern economy or war machine, and had lost a great mass of manpower. A naval blockade could have achieved victory without the use of nuclear weapons, or weapons at all.
you have it backwards (Score:4, Informative)
They pushed the world further from war. Because various countries are able to sabotage and assassinate to slow down the Iranian nuclear project...an all out military option has not be used as of yet. You can bet your ass...that there would have been one by now had there not been options like Stuxnet.
Witch Hunt? (Score:4, Informative)
Is stuxnet now being used as an excuse for a good ol' fashioned witch hunt? Just accuse your workplace foes of espionage, get them hauled away, and step into the guy's shoes with a pay raise?
Re:No matter who it was (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly we are sure (Score:3, Informative)
There is plenty of evidence of nuclear weapons production. It's just that nobody wants to believe this while there is a one-in-a-trillion chance to deny it.
1) Their only nuclear reactor is an old design heavy-water reactor, while it is known they have designs for better ones
2) It is flanked by a building known to have an 8000 enrichment cascade
3) It's producing radiation that proves that they're producing large quantities of tritium
4) It doesn't have a decent power connection to the Iranian grid
1-2-3 combine, to anyone who has a basic introduction to nuclear technology, to proof that they're producing significant quantities of weapons-grade uranium and/or plutonium. But it's not a smoking gun.
ALL 4 are violations of the NPT by themselves. So sadly that's one thing we're absolutely sure about : Iran signed the NPT, and doesn't abide by it. Does that necessarily mean they're producing a nuclear weapon ? No. But it means that Iran respects the NPT only in words, and violates it in deeds. They further violate it by refusing full access for international inspectors with measurement equipment.
Could they be producing medical isotopes ? No, this doesn't require enrichment cascades, never mind ones that are that long. Research isotopes ? Again, doesn't require an enrichment cascade. Besides, why would they want to produce large quantities of either ? Nobody else does.
What may yet protect us is the way nuclear science is taught. Their data necessarily must mostly come from Iranians who studied abroad. Academics do sabotage this. If you buy books, or even restricted materials about weapons-grade uranium production, you'll find they're wrong. Except this is not a coincidence. Anyone in a course about this, whether in Canada, US or Europe will be told in class what a few of the mistakes are but not all of them, and they'll be told why they do this. If you follow the instructions academics teach, it won't work. You'll be generating radiation that ionizes the vaporized uranium, preventing it from crossing the enrichment chamber. You'll be taught to set them up so the uranium hits the wall of the enrichment chamber instead of the line that's supposed to take away the enriched material, the value for the electric field of a uranium atom listed in every mendeljev's table is a lie and there's several other problems with the designs of the equipment. Furthermore, the bomb production materials that leaked also contain a configuration that won't work. Well, it'll work enough to merge the bomb material with the nearest wall, making sure you have to restart from scratch, but it won't actually start a fission cascade. So presumably this is stopping them at least for the moment.
At some point, they'll have redone all the experiments that matter though, and found the errors, just like North Korea did. Let's hope their scientists are sane enough to keep teaching everyone the mistaken version, and just have the correct values and methods in their mind and nowhere else.
But you can be sure about one thing : Iran is trying to produce a weapon, this is blatantly obvious and denying it is moronic. It is only a matter of time until they get it if they just keep at it.
Re:from the who's-to-blame dept. (Score:4, Informative)
Russia has absolutely no reason to care if oil production in the Middle East is disrupted. They are one of the world's largest oil and gas producers. If the Middle East blows up Russia, or rather Putin and the oligarchs running Russia, will get obscenely rich, more so than they already are.
Even if Iran does acquire nuclear weapons, and its very much open to debate if they are even trying, it doesn't follow at all that they would actually use them. Outside of the U.S. no one has ever used nukes, and its for a reason, they suck as actual weapons.
They suck because there are very few situations where you can use them where the consequences of using them wouldn't be worse than whatever problem you are facing. You use them and you become an instant pariah or you get incinerated yourself. If you are about to be overrun in a conventional war maybe you would use them as desperate last resort, but if you have nukes it unlikely anyone would have invaded you in the first place.
The only real value of nukes is as a deterrent, something that sits in a stockpile and is never used, but which discourages anyone from openly fucking with you, so they have to fuck with you through assymetric means instead. They are a pretty big win for countries like North Korea and Iran because they dramatically decrease the chances that a country like the U.S. which is increasingly fond of aggressive warfare and regime change won't fuck with you because it instantly becomes dangerous and messy invade a country with nukes.
If you have them and your adversary doesn't or you have massive nuclear superiority over your adversary they have a limited value in that you can try to bully your adversary using them as a threat but any adversary with any sense will call your bluff because they know you will never use them.
Re:from the who's-to-blame dept. (Score:3, Informative)
"The Iranians are Shia Muslims, the Saudis are Sunnis, the two hate each other with the passion you often find in long running sectarian conflicts."
That statement is a bit misleading. The hatred and conflict is not because of Sunni Vs Shia, but rather Wahabi/Salafy Vs Shia where Wahabi sect is considered a subset of Sunnie Islam. The distinction is important because even though there is unease between Sunnie and Shias in general, but it's not at the level of hatred with passion.
Just thought to point that out
Re:from the who's-to-blame dept. (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sorry. You're correct right up to your last sentence where you state that Israel is a "fanatically religious country". You're making intelligent arguments look bad.
Israel has a population of 25% non-Jewish. They are run by a secular democratically-elected government with an electorate selection skewed "against" the religious majority. They are a very small country which has not only not expanded it's borders through military might since its founding but shrunk it's borders. Their cities are under a near-constant rocket barrage and regularly (more regularly than earthquakes in California) have suicide bombers in their major cities which hold the Sharia brand of Islam in high esteem (the so-called 'radical Islamists').
They are a nuclear power. they have a conventional military which could take out the combined military force of several other countries in the region and still hold reserves - without touching the nuclear stockpile.
Calling Israel a 'religious extremist' country has about as much stock in reality as calling Twighlight an epic masterpiece of Kermit the Frog one of the best philosophers of the 18th century.
Re:from the who's-to-blame dept. (Score:5, Informative)
Lebanon is not "Christian", its currently 60% Muslim, 40% Christian. The Muslim population is evenly split between Shia and Sunni. Syria and Iran are active supporters of Hezbollah, they provide them with most of their weapons and funds. Hezbollah's founders were inspired by Ayatollah Khomeini and Iran's Revolutionary Guard. Hezbollah has a very powerful influence among the Shia community in Lebanon, both militarily and through community activities and charities.
You totally don't know what you are talking about AC.