5 ms·

Seems like they really messed them up. According to Western intelligence reports, Russian scientists warned the Kremlin that they could be facing "another Cher

by tkahn6 16y ago

Seems like they really messed them up. According to Western intelligence reports, Russian scientists warned the Kremlin that they could be facing "another Chernobyl" if they were forced to comply with Iran's tight deadline to activate the complex this summer. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8262853/Stuxnet-virus-attack-Russia-warns-of-Iranian-Chernobyl.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8262...

MichaelSalib 16y ago
I am really confused. I thought the goal of Stuxnet was to delay the production of Iranian enrichment efforts at Natanz. Not to delay a civilian reactor at Bushehr, which is hundreds of miles away. Assuming the Telegraph report is correct, I don't see how this tells us anything about how effective Stuxnet was at delaying enrichment efforts.
- tkahn6 16y ago
  What evidence would you accept
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    I'll accept anything, but I'll give more credence to some sources than others. But this seems backward. If there is no evidence that Stuxnet was effective at significantly delaying Iranian production, then people should stop saying that there is. My willingness to accept evidence really shouldn't have anything to do with it.
    - tkahn6 16y ago
      I'm asking because it's unlikely http://presstv.ir http://presstv.ir is going host an article saying that Iran's ability to obtain a nuclear bomb has been delayed. Mossad is saying that Iran doesn't possess the capability to build a nuclear bomb before 2015 and it says attacking Iran would be unwise [1]. Can you think of any reason why they would be saying this unless they believed it to be true? [1. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/01/07/132525.html http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/01/07/132525.html]
      - MichaelSalib 16y ago
        I'm asking because it's unlikely http://presstv.ir http://presstv.ir is going host an article saying that Iran's ability to obtain a nuclear bomb has been delayed. True, but that doesn't mean we should accept every claim as true. Can you think of any reason why they would be saying this unless they believed it to be true? What? This doesn't tell us anything about the effectiveness of Stuxnet. Even if they did, intelligence services have a nasty habit of exaggerating their own effectiveness, so I'd find it more credible if that assessment came from another Israeli government organization or another nation's intelligence service altogether.
        tkahn6 16y ago
        Even if they did, intelligence services have a nasty habit of exaggerating their own effectiveness This is where we disagree (I also don't know where this perception comes from). In no way is it in Israel's best interest to do an about-face on their assessment of the time frame for a nuclear Iran unless they had good evidence that indeed Iran's capability to obtain nuclear weapons was severely diminished. Israel has been trying to convince the international community that Iran has been on the cusp of nuclear weapons for the past two years. You're arguing that the organization Mossad is acting irrationally. What benefit does Mossad exaggerating their effectiveness bring Israel?
        MichaelSalib 16y ago
        You're arguing that the organization Mossad is acting irrationally. No, I'm arguing that Mossad's claims about when Iran will have a weapon tell us nothing about the effectiveness of Stuxnet. This is a matter of logic. I also don't know where this perception comes from Reading books about intelligence services...like Legacy of Ashes http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/038551445X http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/038... Beyond that, this is really basic systems theory. Intelligence service oversight, at least in the US, is very lax. The people doing oversight know a lot less about operations than the people being overseen. So when they screw up, they can spin their nominal bosses so that no one gets fired or goes to jail. It is really hard to keep secret and highly compartmentalized organizations honest. The principal agent problem is a big deal.
tptacek 16y ago
This doesn't add up. Russian scientists are extremely concerned about Iran's lax attitude towards nuclear safety issues (note plural). Against this backdrop we're supposed to be able to read tea leaves from a captured virus and determine the level of damage it did to a shoddily-operated highly-secret massively-complicated nuclear plant?
- nikcub 16y ago
  The source on the disruption to the nuclear program wasn't from analyzing the worm, it was from: Three UN diplomats who were sources to an AP story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101122/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear_3 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101122/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear... A "former top IAEA official": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112206746.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11... Iran stopped all uranium production, according to official IAEA report: http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Iran_report-nov23.pdf http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Ir... IAEA again: http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/8378260/iran-temporarily-halted-enrichment-in-mid-november-aea/ http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/8378260/iran-tempor... Head of Mossad and Hillary Clinton both announced: "that they believed Iran’s efforts had been set back by several years." (from the very NYT article) And no less than the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Iran's enemies used computer code to make "limited" problems for centrifuges involved in uranium enrichment at some of its nuclear sites, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday" http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/ahmadinejad-those-who-planted http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/ahmadinejad-those-wh... but he would say 'limited', wouldn't he. Afterall two weeks earlier they were vehemently denying that Stuxnet had any effect.
  - tptacek 16y ago
    All these stories say the same thing: Natanz suffered a major setback, and various researchers suspect Stuxnet played a role. Here's what I think: Natanz suffered a major setback, and the role Stuxnet played was to provide a smokescreen for the actual sabotage. I have no evidence to support my take, but then, there's not much evidence for the alternative take. I also think it's plausible that Ahmedinijad (who, remember, is not necessarily a key player in Iranian nuclear politics) or his handlers might play along with a bogus Stuxnet story if it suits the narrative; for instance, if humdrum human sabotage dealt a much greater blow to their plans than has been acknowledged, Iran might prefer the "virus cost us a few months" story to the "we're back to square one" story.

by tkahn6 16y ago

MichaelSalib 16y ago

I am really confused. I thought the goal of Stuxnet was to delay the production of Iranian enrichment efforts at Natanz. Not to delay a civilian reactor at Bushehr, which is hundreds of miles away. Assuming the Telegraph report is correct, I don't see how this tells us anything about how effective Stuxnet was at delaying enrichment efforts.

tkahn6 16y ago
What evidence would you accept
- MichaelSalib 16y ago
  I'll accept anything, but I'll give more credence to some sources than others. But this seems backward. If there is no evidence that Stuxnet was effective at significantly delaying Iranian production, then people should stop saying that there is. My willingness to accept evidence really shouldn't have anything to do with it.
  - tkahn6 16y ago
    I'm asking because it's unlikely http://presstv.ir http://presstv.ir is going host an article saying that Iran's ability to obtain a nuclear bomb has been delayed. Mossad is saying that Iran doesn't possess the capability to build a nuclear bomb before 2015 and it says attacking Iran would be unwise [1]. Can you think of any reason why they would be saying this unless they believed it to be true? [1. http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/01/07/132525.html http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/01/07/132525.html]
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      I'm asking because it's unlikely http://presstv.ir http://presstv.ir is going host an article saying that Iran's ability to obtain a nuclear bomb has been delayed. True, but that doesn't mean we should accept every claim as true. Can you think of any reason why they would be saying this unless they believed it to be true? What? This doesn't tell us anything about the effectiveness of Stuxnet. Even if they did, intelligence services have a nasty habit of exaggerating their own effectiveness, so I'd find it more credible if that assessment came from another Israeli government organization or another nation's intelligence service altogether.
      - tkahn6 16y ago
        Even if they did, intelligence services have a nasty habit of exaggerating their own effectiveness This is where we disagree (I also don't know where this perception comes from). In no way is it in Israel's best interest to do an about-face on their assessment of the time frame for a nuclear Iran unless they had good evidence that indeed Iran's capability to obtain nuclear weapons was severely diminished. Israel has been trying to convince the international community that Iran has been on the cusp of nuclear weapons for the past two years. You're arguing that the organization Mossad is acting irrationally. What benefit does Mossad exaggerating their effectiveness bring Israel?
        MichaelSalib 16y ago
        You're arguing that the organization Mossad is acting irrationally. No, I'm arguing that Mossad's claims about when Iran will have a weapon tell us nothing about the effectiveness of Stuxnet. This is a matter of logic. I also don't know where this perception comes from Reading books about intelligence services...like Legacy of Ashes http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/038551445X http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/038... Beyond that, this is really basic systems theory. Intelligence service oversight, at least in the US, is very lax. The people doing oversight know a lot less about operations than the people being overseen. So when they screw up, they can spin their nominal bosses so that no one gets fired or goes to jail. It is really hard to keep secret and highly compartmentalized organizations honest. The principal agent problem is a big deal.

tptacek 16y ago

This doesn't add up. Russian scientists are extremely concerned about Iran's lax attitude towards nuclear safety issues (note plural). Against this backdrop we're supposed to be able to read tea leaves from a captured virus and determine the level of damage it did to a shoddily-operated highly-secret massively-complicated nuclear plant?

nikcub 16y ago
The source on the disruption to the nuclear program wasn't from analyzing the worm, it was from: Three UN diplomats who were sources to an AP story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101122/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear_3 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101122/ap_on_re_eu/iran_nuclear... A "former top IAEA official": http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/22/AR2010112206746.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11... Iran stopped all uranium production, according to official IAEA report: http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Iran_report-nov23.pdf http://www.isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/Ir... IAEA again: http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/8378260/iran-temporarily-halted-enrichment-in-mid-november-aea/ http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/-/world/8378260/iran-tempor... Head of Mossad and Hillary Clinton both announced: "that they believed Iran’s efforts had been set back by several years." (from the very NYT article) And no less than the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Iran's enemies used computer code to make "limited" problems for centrifuges involved in uranium enrichment at some of its nuclear sites, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Monday" http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/ahmadinejad-those-who-planted http://israelinsider.net/profiles/blogs/ahmadinejad-those-wh... but he would say 'limited', wouldn't he. Afterall two weeks earlier they were vehemently denying that Stuxnet had any effect.
- tptacek 16y ago
  All these stories say the same thing: Natanz suffered a major setback, and various researchers suspect Stuxnet played a role. Here's what I think: Natanz suffered a major setback, and the role Stuxnet played was to provide a smokescreen for the actual sabotage. I have no evidence to support my take, but then, there's not much evidence for the alternative take. I also think it's plausible that Ahmedinijad (who, remember, is not necessarily a key player in Iranian nuclear politics) or his handlers might play along with a bogus Stuxnet story if it suits the narrative; for instance, if humdrum human sabotage dealt a much greater blow to their plans than has been acknowledged, Iran might prefer the "virus cost us a few months" story to the "we're back to square one" story.