4 ms·

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 delay

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.
  - tkahn6 16y ago
    > This is a matter of logic. Which brings me to my question above: what evidence would you accept? I agree there is no concrete link (just as there is no concrete link between Israel and Stuxnet), but Iran is not going to a) announce their nuclear weapons program and b) detail how far Stuxnet has set them back. > 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. I guess we just disagree on the reasons Mossad is making these statements. It makes no sense to me why Mossad would subject Israel to threat of annihilation in order to make Mossad leaders look good. Let's assume Mossad isn't behaving pettily. Why would they make these statements unless they believed them to be true?
    - MichaelSalib 16y ago
      At the very least, to make a Mossad claim plausible, you'd need to have: (1) a statement by Mossad issued before Stuxnet was released forecasting that Iran would have a weapon by time T_0 (2) a statement by Mossad issued after Stuxnet was released forecasting that Iran would have a weapon by time T_1 (3) T_1 larger than T_0 by at least a year (4) a statement by Mossad claiming that there were no significant impediments to progress besides Stuxnet Again, this all assumes that Mossad is not lying. These are the requirements just as a matter of logic. If you don't have all these elements, you can't claim that Mossad's statements prove that Stuxnet was effective at significantly delaying Iran. At best, you have (2), but without (1), (3), and (4), that proves nothing.
      - tkahn6 16y ago
        1) According to the Wikileaks cables, Israel's spy agency Mossad's latest claims foreshadowed that Iran would be nuclear armed by 2011. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/159244.html http://www.presstv.ir/detail/159244.html 2) Iran not able to build nuclear bomb before 2015 http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/01/07/132525.html http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/01/07/132525.html 3) 2015 > 2011 4) Israel refuses to take credit for stuxnet. So this is impossible.
      - 16y ago

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.
- tkahn6 16y ago
  > This is a matter of logic. Which brings me to my question above: what evidence would you accept? I agree there is no concrete link (just as there is no concrete link between Israel and Stuxnet), but Iran is not going to a) announce their nuclear weapons program and b) detail how far Stuxnet has set them back. > 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. I guess we just disagree on the reasons Mossad is making these statements. It makes no sense to me why Mossad would subject Israel to threat of annihilation in order to make Mossad leaders look good. Let's assume Mossad isn't behaving pettily. Why would they make these statements unless they believed them to be true?
  - MichaelSalib 16y ago
    At the very least, to make a Mossad claim plausible, you'd need to have: (1) a statement by Mossad issued before Stuxnet was released forecasting that Iran would have a weapon by time T_0 (2) a statement by Mossad issued after Stuxnet was released forecasting that Iran would have a weapon by time T_1 (3) T_1 larger than T_0 by at least a year (4) a statement by Mossad claiming that there were no significant impediments to progress besides Stuxnet Again, this all assumes that Mossad is not lying. These are the requirements just as a matter of logic. If you don't have all these elements, you can't claim that Mossad's statements prove that Stuxnet was effective at significantly delaying Iran. At best, you have (2), but without (1), (3), and (4), that proves nothing.
    - tkahn6 16y ago
      1) According to the Wikileaks cables, Israel's spy agency Mossad's latest claims foreshadowed that Iran would be nuclear armed by 2011. http://www.presstv.ir/detail/159244.html http://www.presstv.ir/detail/159244.html 2) Iran not able to build nuclear bomb before 2015 http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/01/07/132525.html http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/01/07/132525.html 3) 2015 > 2011 4) Israel refuses to take credit for stuxnet. So this is impossible.
    - 16y ago