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)
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.
Re:Yawn. (Score:5, Interesting)
None of which is to say I'd like Iran to go nuclear, nor do I believe their claim of only being interested in power generation (after watching what happened to their neighbor, there's simply no way Iran could not want that protection).
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Re:Consider the time, though. (Score:4, Interesting)
As for the saber rattling, All the territories but the palistine-jewish conflicted areas were stabilized and return to local control in a relatively quick fashion. I'm not saying there wasn't problems. The history books call them ottman loyalist giving resistances. But the fact is, most of the area was under their own control or government in a fast amount of time.
I'm gaging this amount of time based around the idea from the empires England carried at the time. Even after they gave India back, there was some 50 years of transfer before India had their own control. Hong-Kong took a bit longer. By WW2, most of the Middle east had formed their own governments and was recognized as a independent country/state by most allied countries. French indo-china took a little longer but France seems to be a tyrant compared to some of the other participants.
Anyways, the liberated by occupying forces was something that was expected to divide the area enough so they didn't reform the ottoman empire which was a lot of problems to a lot of countries before WW1. They participated in pirating of the oceans and had a great deal to do with the slave trades. The US navy formed it's first marines for overseas deployment because of this. Thomas Jefferson supposedly asked the ambassador to them what gave them the right to pirate ships on the other side of the globe and enslave the workers in them? He replied Allah gave them the right prompting Jefferson to work on getting the US a standing navy and forces to deal with this. When he was president, the marines invaded tripoli and the rest is history. So even America has had some trouble in the past with the ottoman empire durring it's ealry stages of development. It just wasn't a good idea to give them that ability.
Now if only we had had so much though over germany, we might have avoided WW2 and the world as we know it might be a better place. It would be a different place, most of the arms developed for war and the power current countries seem to hold came from WW2. But there is no guarantee that it would be any better, just different.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And the good people at the UN have decided in the Non Proliferation Treaty that every state has the 'inalienable right' to develop nucl
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.
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)
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, Informative)
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:Consider the time, though. (Score:4, Interesting)
The Shah himself wasn't that bad - at least compared to the normal rulers in that region (by our standards he sucked big time). I've never been that angry we supported him, more angry in how our support materialized. Enough to keep him in power with no opposition, but then dropping it at the first opportunity for a radical anti-western violent govt.
"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,"
There is a little bit of all of that. Like most intelligence failures you can not blame it on one point and you can also point to people who "knew" what was going on (whether they actually knew or were just lucky is up to debate - same thing with Iraq's WMD program). Not a big fan of Carter presidency - in fact I think his handling of the hostages was horrid. However, the buildup to it - eh. Reasonable assumption, grossly incorrect. We will most likely never know exactly all the information he had (and the level of verifiability of it) so *really* difficult to answer the level of incompetence on his end.
"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."
You can not really call it "shortsighted" - that assumes too much. At the time it wasn't just communism or capitalism (depending on your side) but total annihilation due to a nuclear war. In that light the Islamic Fundamentalism we are seeing, while bad, is a candle to the flame - at least at this point. I can not say we necessarily made the wrong decisions, nor can I say we made the correct ones. I will say that though failure was much more extreme I think we also had a MUCH larger percentage chance of success - as one of the saying goes about counting on the fact that the Russian/Americans love their children as much as we do - the people we are currently fighting celebrate death. We hope that enough of them love their children as much as we do and can stop them - otherwise we are screwed regardless of what we do (short of genocide against radical Islam and if it comes to that that we see the difference between radical and non-radical).
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: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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If a nation tries to nationalize the local ressources it's often because the priviledges were bought bef
Iran Populous (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the Iranian populace (read: not the people in power) were actually quite favorable to the US until recently (read: George W essentially threatening them with war). Of all the middle eastern nations, Iran's populace were the most favorable to trade with the US. The Iranians were importing US music and quite a bit of other stuff until Ahmadinejad came to power and banned a whole bunch of it.
The people in power despise the
Re: (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 ca
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: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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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...
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 op
Re: (Score:3)
There clearly is an agenda against Iran, but that doesn't mean they aren't after the bomb either. They know we're desperate to invade and they see what happens to other "axis of evil" nations (Korea) once they actually have it. Kisses and candy. If Iran isn't after the bomb, then they are truly the crazies the media makes them out to be (well, make that a different kind of crazy). Personally, I don't care if the
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
1) there is more to the world than just the us when it comes to nuclear fallout (really!). They may not share your sense of a good deal.
2) the rest of the world does care as much about US deaths especially considering the sloppiness US citizens themselves treat other lives
3) many countries had nuclear weapons for a long time. Not only is the US the only one to actually us them *repetitively* but also recently threatened to use them again (sorta around 2004)
4) the US gove
Re: (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 consituti
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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 t
Re:Yawn (Score:4, Informative)
C'mon. The tit-for-tat bullshit in that region goes back much, much further than 1956.
Re: (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.
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.
Re:Which bombing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Downside is a highly religiously motivated nation wi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately for this particular argument, Iran did not start working on a nuclear weapon in March of 2003. The assertion that poor little Iran started working on their own nukes as a response to the invasion of Iraq is, to put it mildly, bullshit. They've been working on that for decades.
More to the point, the "we have nukes so you can't invade us, nyah" argument tends to dissolve if you consider that even a bunch of wacked
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nukes cannot stop a country from invading.
History seems to indicate otherwise. No nation capable of detonation of nuclear devices in a foreign property has ever been invaded by a foreign nation. The vast majority of countries which do not posses nuclear assault capability have been attacked and/or invaded. It maybe that this is because a nuclear strike by any nation might trigger upheaval that would include third party nuclear capable nations, but the reason is far less important than the effect. If Iran gains nuclear assault capability, even i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Argentina invaded the Falklands, which were a British dependent territory at the time, i.e. under British sovereignty.
Insults now? Stick to the topic (Score:3, Insightful)
"Limited" Nuclear War (Score:2)
Not as sure about that... (Score:2)
Basically I'd love not to find out either way. Instant climate change to an unknown state is not a fun expiriment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa - AC flood! Oh the humanity. (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically attacks on Israel upset me as a person who finds the instant deaths of millions in any country (Iran or Israel) disquieting. If you are an environmentalist you should be concerend with all the radioactive dust coating the planet. If you are a libertarian you should be concerned because a nuclear exchange in the middle east means big-time ramping of of miltary spending across the planet. If you are an international foreign policy wonk you would have to
Re: (Score:2)
None of them were bat-shit insane (Score:3, Interesting)
Iran however seems to relish the scenario of massive retaliation and would by the words of the current leader love to be obliterated, because the ideals they are fighting for would live on in the region only without Is
Re: (Score:2)
Belief not effect (Score:2)
I don't quite understand why this is a response to my message. I said nothing about it working or not, just why the various countries sought to hold nuclear weapons - even if it wasn't effective the belief was it was a deterrent by the powers theat held them. They did not seek to aquire said weapons with intent to use them ASAP caring not if the country would be annihalated in the process. Again, the aquistion was traditionally made in order to ke
Re: (Score:2)
Fact is, the only way to prevent a nation from getting "the bomb" is to infiltrate their development program and sabotage it from within over an extended period. That's exactly what Mossad is doing, so don't worry about it, ok?
Israel won't let Iran get the bomb.. at least not under their own steam. If another nation was to give Iran a bunch of premade nukes, that might be a different story.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn. Wish I had paid more attention at that classified Mossad briefing we were all at last week.
Thanks for the reminder. We'll all go back to letting it be someone else's problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Talk about overestimating your own significance.
Not insane as in self-immolation (Score:2)
Yes that is true, but not the sort of insane where getting blown up for firing off a nuclear weapon is his idea of a good time. It would seriously mess with his colection of gold-plated iPods or whatever the hell else he's been importing.
Fact is, the only way to prevent a nation from getting "the bomb" is to infiltrate their development program and sabotage it from within over an extended period. That's exactly what Mo
Re:None of them were bat-shit insane (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (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
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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 Hezboll
MOD this guy up (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yawn.
Got to make sure everyone is scared of the Iranians, so there won't be an outcry when the bombing starts.
First Saddam was the Crazy, Crazy Psychopath of the desert with WMDs, --- oops, he wasn't. Then Kim Jung-Il was the Crazy, Cracy Psychopath of No
Speeches (Score:2)
You are like the guy who stopped listening to the boy who cried wolf. That's fine for a while, but eventually there is actually a wolf, you know?
Re: (Score:2)
All of the governments you listed had fair doses of common sense. They knew that if they were to use said weapons in attack, retaliation would be pretty bad and much of the country would be destroyed. Nucelar weapons for them were for defensive posturing so no-one would try and attack them.
Iran however seems to relish the scenario of massive retaliation and would by the words of the current leader love to be obliterated, because the ideals they are fighting for would live on in the region only without Israel around to bother them any longer.
Now the people of Iran are quite different than the leader, they are rational and fine people indeed. But it only takes a handful of guys to press that magic button. Attacking them is not the right solution (and I don't really see anyone making moves to do so). But letting them get nuclear weapons is not the right answer either. How you solve those contradctory needs I have no idea.
I'm not very comfortable with the idea of Iran getting nuclear weapons but I don't really think that the leadership is as nearly as unpredictable and irrational as the west makes them out to be.
I mean realistically, what actual irrational actions have they taken? Rhetoric doesn't count, lots of governments do that, especially ones under threat of attack. As for actual actions all I can think of is trying to cause instability in Iraq, but from the perspective of the Iranian government that is a completely l
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.
No idea is some idea. (Score:2)
Being totally unconcerned with Iran gaining nuclear weapons abilities however is equally a non-idea, only a more dangerous one - for it's basically espousing that we should let Iran have nuclear weapons if they wish. I am saying that's a Bad Idea, and am perfectly willing to let people propose ways for that not to happen. So I have some idea of a result I would like, just not a path to it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Last time I checked, Israel is not a part of the USA....They can take care of themselves.
As much as I agree the US needs to stop worrying about what happens to Israel, I think you might not understand why we do. Israel is a US/UN holding in the middle east. Israel was formed for the exact purpose of the US and other allied nations to have a base of operations in the middle east. Israel was artificial established (they did not establish themselves but were rather set up by foreign powers). Israel doesn't actually exist without US or other foreign involvement. So in actuality if the USA does
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
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, the Japanese offered to take all the jews in Europe
The same Japanese who were allied with Nazi Germany and gained an anti-semitic streak from them? Hmm, can't see any problem with that.
All because they can't accept an equal place in society.
They didn't exactly get an equal place in Europe under the Nazis. Can't say I blame tham for not taking this one on trust.
They gotta be on top. After all, they're the chosen people.
Yeah, well every damn religion or country thinks that they're the best at some level. If anyone (whatever their religion) tried pulling that one on me (a non-religious person), they'd get very short shrift. However, to single out one religion in particu
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
I was going for number five [reference.com]: "to support ... in the face of criticism".
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.
Which has the same economic effect as buying the arms from American companies and giving them to Israel. That's contributing to the defense of Israel. If they just wanted to make jobs, they'd buy stuff and then melt
Re: (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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And also, he doesn't distinguish between Jews and Israelis. Imagine criticizing Taiwan's government and being labeled as anti-Buddhist - it would prevent any real discussion of Taiwan-Chinese issues and make prog
Training on the loose (Score:2)
--
Sun Beams for Peace: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user s -selling-solar.html [blogspot.com]
Uhh... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment about Freshman Democrat Mitchell (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's REALLY troubling (Score:2)
This all could have been avoided if they'd locked access down to specific IPs ONLY. As in domestic US only.
Re:What's REALLY troubling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why did the server... (Score:2)
Oh, that's simple. Tubes. (Score:2)
Dang tubes. They'll get you every time. Why they had to build the internet out of 'em in the first place will never make much sense to me.
Because every topic must have at least one post making fun of the fact that an 83 year old man doesn't understand the internet... sorry, Ted!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Which one? (Score:5, Funny)
Iranian government *is* involved (Score:2)
They are trying to convince the world, their nuclear program is for electricity only.
so Iran DOES have a nuclear program (Score:2)
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.
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.
.Torrent? (Score:4, Funny)
for.. training purposes. You know.
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.
The Funny Part Is (Score:3, Interesting)
Nuclear Knowledge Transfer (Score:3)
OH NOESS!!! (Score:4, Funny)
rhY
PS This is where I put plenty of non caps text because my attempt at
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.