8 ms·

Asymmetric warfare with multiple adversaries doesn't work that way. For example, Stuxnet did not make U.S power plants safe from malicious attackers. I recommen

Asymmetric warfare with multiple adversaries doesn't work that way. For example, Stuxnet did not make U.S power plants safe from malicious attackers. I recommend reading Ralph Langner's op-ed in the New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/04/do-cyberattacks-on-iran-make-us-vulnerable-12/why-attack-when-we-cant-defend http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/06/04/do-cyberatta...

smsm42 13y ago
It did make word temporarily safer from Iran nuclear bomb though. Of course, it is only temporary, but almost everything you do is. As for the article, it claims that Stuxnet "opened the Pandora box", but it did nothing of the sort. Stuxnet by itself did not enable anything that wasn't possible before - it was possible for malicious actors to create attacks on US networked infrastructure, and it still is. Stuxnet changed nothing there. Criminals and security professionals know the possibilities for a long time. And are using them. Making it sound as if the evil US has again spoiled the paradise for everyone makes no sense, and the author, being the expert in the field, should have known better, but looks like his political views overcame his professional judgement here.
- lostlogin 13y ago
  Does anyone series believe that Iran is a threat to the world. How about basing threat levels on previous actions? For example, who invades countries most often? Or who's military kills the most people? I've heard about WMD threats before - and who did the invading and killing in the end? That saga ended with almost everyone looking bad.
  - drivingmissm 13y ago
    Yes, Iran's totalitarian leadership is a threat to its neighbors, particularly Israel.
    - andy_ppp 13y ago
      A war between Israel and Iran would be an epic disaster; too bad to even consider leaders of either country being that stupid. I think the arming of Israel with nuclear weapons is probably the biggest mistake the US has ever made... If Israel didn't have nuclear weapons there would be no way I'd consider Iran trying to get them (at almost any cost - we should have aiming for a nuclear free world), but with the situation as it is I wholly sympathise with their position.
      - caf 13y ago
        It was far more France than the US that enabled Israel's nuclear program. (A ground war between Israel and Iran is a practical impossibility, by the way - neither country has the strategic reach for that).
        andy_ppp 13y ago
        Oh maybe France sold them the material, but we all know America is consulted all the way on these things. If America had have said no it wouldn't have happened.
      - smsm42 13y ago
        Fortunately, leaders of Israel do not rely on your consideration when determining what is necessary to protect their country. It is very nice that you wouldn't consider Iran attacking Israel if Israel didn't have advanced weapons - but there's a little wrinkle in this otherwise perfect argument. Iran doesn't need your consideration to attack Israel - they are perfectly capable of doing so without it, and already doing it, albeit through proxies. If Israel did not possess advanced weaponry, they would do it directly - as was done many times before in history, and only the repeated failure taught those countries that direct attack does not work. Some of them learned the lesson and reluctantly accepted the existence of Israel, some just concluded they need a different, smarter tactics.
    - yapcguy 13y ago
      Well, the nuclear industry disagrees with you. According to their experts, a nuclear Iran is a good idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shah_of_Iran_building_two_nuclear_plants.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shah_of_Iran_building_two_...
  - smsm42 13y ago
    Define "threat to the world". Can Iran destroy the whole world? Fortunately, not. Can Iran destabilize, hurt and incite violence? Not only can, it is doing it right now. >>> basing threat levels on previous actions? That would be stupid because it means that only the second action can be countered. Given how first action can cause devastating consequences, limiting oneself to only reacting to a second one would be terminally stupid. American administration, for example, was justly criticized for sleeping through 9/11, and acting unprepared when it happened. Generals like to prepare for the past wars, it is much easier, but there's no reason to condone such behavior. >>> who invades countries most often? Invasions can differ. If Nazi Germany invaded Poland once, and Britain invaded Nazi Germany once, they are not equal. >>> who's military kills the most people? Again, depends on the people. If Al-Qaida kills 3000 Americans in 9/11, and then Americans kill 10000 Al-Qaida fighters after that, I'd say good job, they only should have done it earlier, so we would have 3000 less victims. >>> That saga ended with almost everyone looking bad. It looks bad to you because you take an impossible position that fighting evil should be done without hurting anyone. It would be nice if there was a nice, fluffy, unicorn-land evil that you could fight by issuing a strongly-worded declaration of condemnation and maybe refuse to send them a Christmas card next time. Unfortunately, real evil is much harder and messier to fight.
    - lostlogin 13y ago
      I like that you use the term evil. Its good versus evil right? Bush didn't get far with that terminology. I'm not alone in feeling that a period of non-interventionism from America might help. The interventions of late have been fumbled and clumsy when put in a positive light. Torture, killing and ugly unilateralism. Recent acts in the Middle East may have killed tens of thousands of militants, but does anyone think it has knocked back the numbers? The hundreds of thousands of innocent (and not-quite innocent) killed and wounded have family and friends. Those people are no longer friends of America. The question that never seems to be asked, is why did September 11 happen. Sure, American intelligence failed. But somewhere further back, diplomacy failed. It takes a pretty unhappy situation for people to arrange such an horrific act, why did they end up like that? And what can be done to prevent it happening again? Bombing and invading hasn't worked. What's plan B?

smsm42 13y ago

It did make word temporarily safer from Iran nuclear bomb though. Of course, it is only temporary, but almost everything you do is. As for the article, it claims that Stuxnet "opened the Pandora box", but it did nothing of the sort. Stuxnet by itself did not enable anything that wasn't possible before - it was possible for malicious actors to create attacks on US networked infrastructure, and it still is. Stuxnet changed nothing there. Criminals and security professionals know the possibilities for a long time. And are using them. Making it sound as if the evil US has again spoiled the paradise for everyone makes no sense, and the author, being the expert in the field, should have known better, but looks like his political views overcame his professional judgement here.

lostlogin 13y ago
Does anyone series believe that Iran is a threat to the world. How about basing threat levels on previous actions? For example, who invades countries most often? Or who's military kills the most people? I've heard about WMD threats before - and who did the invading and killing in the end? That saga ended with almost everyone looking bad.
- drivingmissm 13y ago
  Yes, Iran's totalitarian leadership is a threat to its neighbors, particularly Israel.
  - andy_ppp 13y ago
    A war between Israel and Iran would be an epic disaster; too bad to even consider leaders of either country being that stupid. I think the arming of Israel with nuclear weapons is probably the biggest mistake the US has ever made... If Israel didn't have nuclear weapons there would be no way I'd consider Iran trying to get them (at almost any cost - we should have aiming for a nuclear free world), but with the situation as it is I wholly sympathise with their position.
    - caf 13y ago
      It was far more France than the US that enabled Israel's nuclear program. (A ground war between Israel and Iran is a practical impossibility, by the way - neither country has the strategic reach for that).
      - andy_ppp 13y ago
        Oh maybe France sold them the material, but we all know America is consulted all the way on these things. If America had have said no it wouldn't have happened.
    - smsm42 13y ago
      Fortunately, leaders of Israel do not rely on your consideration when determining what is necessary to protect their country. It is very nice that you wouldn't consider Iran attacking Israel if Israel didn't have advanced weapons - but there's a little wrinkle in this otherwise perfect argument. Iran doesn't need your consideration to attack Israel - they are perfectly capable of doing so without it, and already doing it, albeit through proxies. If Israel did not possess advanced weaponry, they would do it directly - as was done many times before in history, and only the repeated failure taught those countries that direct attack does not work. Some of them learned the lesson and reluctantly accepted the existence of Israel, some just concluded they need a different, smarter tactics.
  - yapcguy 13y ago
    Well, the nuclear industry disagrees with you. According to their experts, a nuclear Iran is a good idea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shah_of_Iran_building_two_nuclear_plants.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shah_of_Iran_building_two_...
- smsm42 13y ago
  Define "threat to the world". Can Iran destroy the whole world? Fortunately, not. Can Iran destabilize, hurt and incite violence? Not only can, it is doing it right now. >>> basing threat levels on previous actions? That would be stupid because it means that only the second action can be countered. Given how first action can cause devastating consequences, limiting oneself to only reacting to a second one would be terminally stupid. American administration, for example, was justly criticized for sleeping through 9/11, and acting unprepared when it happened. Generals like to prepare for the past wars, it is much easier, but there's no reason to condone such behavior. >>> who invades countries most often? Invasions can differ. If Nazi Germany invaded Poland once, and Britain invaded Nazi Germany once, they are not equal. >>> who's military kills the most people? Again, depends on the people. If Al-Qaida kills 3000 Americans in 9/11, and then Americans kill 10000 Al-Qaida fighters after that, I'd say good job, they only should have done it earlier, so we would have 3000 less victims. >>> That saga ended with almost everyone looking bad. It looks bad to you because you take an impossible position that fighting evil should be done without hurting anyone. It would be nice if there was a nice, fluffy, unicorn-land evil that you could fight by issuing a strongly-worded declaration of condemnation and maybe refuse to send them a Christmas card next time. Unfortunately, real evil is much harder and messier to fight.
  - lostlogin 13y ago
    I like that you use the term evil. Its good versus evil right? Bush didn't get far with that terminology. I'm not alone in feeling that a period of non-interventionism from America might help. The interventions of late have been fumbled and clumsy when put in a positive light. Torture, killing and ugly unilateralism. Recent acts in the Middle East may have killed tens of thousands of militants, but does anyone think it has knocked back the numbers? The hundreds of thousands of innocent (and not-quite innocent) killed and wounded have family and friends. Those people are no longer friends of America. The question that never seems to be asked, is why did September 11 happen. Sure, American intelligence failed. But somewhere further back, diplomacy failed. It takes a pretty unhappy situation for people to arrange such an horrific act, why did they end up like that? And what can be done to prevent it happening again? Bombing and invading hasn't worked. What's plan B?