3 ms·
> Stuxnet, which reportedly cost $1-2 billion to develop Wow. Arguably worth it but that is a staggering figure.
by ARandomerDude 3y ago
> Stuxnet, which reportedly cost $1-2 billion to develop
Wow. Arguably worth it but that is a staggering figure.
- LAC-Tech 3y agoI mean it's a great deal for Israel, to get the US to fund efforts to sabotage your rivals nuclear program. But it's hard to imagine it being worth it to the American taxpayer. Remember it's arguable whether Iran would have bothered pursuing this at all, except Israel itself is a nuclear power, which the United States allowed (see Taiwan in the 1980s for what the US does when other allies try and start their own programs).
- mr_mitm 3y agoIs it worth it, to set back Iran's nuclear program only for two years? Obviously I know nothing about foreign nuclear policy, but 1b still sounds like a lot.
- bongodongobob 3y agoGhandi is usually who I worry about, but I'll definitely spend 0.01 of my gold per to turn to slow down their science tree progression.
- krisoft 3y ago> Is it worth it, to set back Iran's nuclear program only for two years? Dr Jeffrey Lewis (an American expert in nuclear nonproliferation) answers this with a no. Not on monetary grounds, but on the grounds that the setback is only momentary. (While as he proposes diplomacy can bring lasting change.) I recommend his podcast "The Deal": https://www.middlebury.edu/deal-podcast https://www.middlebury.edu/deal-podcast Season 1 and season 2 are entirely about the promise and the collapse of the nuclear deal with Iran. Season 2 episode 4 talks about Stuxnet.