
Stuxnet worm reportedly planted by Iranian double agent using memory stick - shawndumas
http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2012/04/stuxnet-worm-reportedly-planted-by-iranian-double-agent-using-memory-stick.ars
======
micahgoulart
One has to question the reason why this information was leaked now. My guess
is that Israel or the US wants Iran to be paranoid about a secret agent within
their nuclear facilities and go hunting for a mole. Imagine if Israel planted
evidence on a prominent Iranian physicist? Good luck proving your innocence.

The whole Stuxnet story would make for a great spy novel, that's for sure.

~~~
andrewfelix
There's no subtlety to what Israel is doing. They aren't encouraging paranoia
or planting evidence, they're literally killing the scientists involved. I
don't care which side of the fence you sit on, assassinating scientists for a
presumed 'greater good' is awful.

~~~
philwelch
That's a disingenuous argument. If you're building nuclear weapons for a
hostile government, you're as much a target as anyone else. It doesn't matter
if you're a scientist or a solider.

~~~
andrewfelix
Like I said below I don't think it's ever justifiable, and it goes both ways.
There are thousands of good scientists working with the DoD. The US is
technically at war. However I do not believe their scientists should be
considered legitimate targets.

It's also debatable as to whether they're developing a nuclear weapon.

------
cema
What a sad reading this whole thread is.

------
killnine
Is this real?

~~~
redthrowaway
Ars is not known for shoddy reporting. It is, however, basically a rewrite of
the original ISSSource article: [http://www.isssource.com/stuxnet-loaded-by-
iran-double-agent...](http://www.isssource.com/stuxnet-loaded-by-iran-double-
agents/)

~~~
kefs
Ars > ISSSource > Richard Sale > UPI > News World Communications > Unification
Church

~~~
eli
UPI is (or was) a legitimate news organization and, anyway, Richard Sale was
there before it was bought by Rev. Moon. If you're trying to imply there's a
connection there, I think you're wrong.

------
morturus
US itself and Israel engaged in sabotage of foreign countries development? you
don't say...

~~~
kai-zer
Development of weapons-grade uranium for which the only purpose is for use in
weapons of mass destruction...

You make it sound like that is a bad thing.

~~~
AngrySkillzz
A statement for which you have no evidence. And what threat does Iran pose to
the United States? None at all.

~~~
Retric
That's a rather strong statement.

Some people would argue that Iran with weapons grade uranium could reasonably
increase the chances that 50,000 Americans will die in the next 10 years by
more than 1 in 10,000. That suggests the US could reasonably kill 5 Iranians
to deal with the threat. However, Iran would respond to such action which
suggests a more limited response such such as planting a virus is reasonable
as long as the US can get away with it.

PS: That's how these people think, rare events vs lot's of deaths = covert and
deniable action.

~~~
barrkel
I think a nuclear armed Iran would greatly decrease the probability of
Americans being killed by Iranians.

The logic is simple: nukes bring a country into MAD (mutually assured
destruction) mechanics. Most likely Iran would use Israel as a hostage since
it would not have the ICBMs necessary to attack the US directly. It would be
like North Korea and Japan, only "Japan" would be nuclear armed.

I consider invasion of Iran by the US the most likely vector for Iranians
killing Americans. MAD should prevent this, like it does in North Korea.

(I don't buy neo-conservative anti-Muslim ideology around suicidal leaders for
a second. NK is far worse in this respect, IMO; that whole country is being
led on a suicidal basis.)

~~~
mc32
>MAD should prevent this, like it does in North Korea

I thought MAD only worked with rational players. Do we know the people who
would hold the levers would be rational? We (the west) don't seem to have the
same feedback network (i.e. spies) we could depend on as we did with the USSR.
That and we had the "red phone" thing. Dunno if that was more gimmick than
actual tool.

>I don't buy neo-conservative...

We don't know what the control structure behind such threat there would be.
Can one person cause a launch, conversely, can one person override a launch
order?

~~~
barrkel
Yes, I believe that leaders who are able to control a country are rational
players.

(I think nuclear weapons are probably the greatest ever contributory factor to
world peace in absolute terms. I'm certain that the 20th century would have
been far, far bloodier throughout its span had they not been invented.)

~~~
berntb
>>Yes, I believe that leaders who are able to control a country are rational
players.

Maybe you should read some history about some of the kings we've had in
Europe? (Or of some of the African dictators over the last century. Same
thing, different name.) [Edit: Just consider this; because someone is rational
doesn't mean they _stay_ rational.]

Then please check "the resource curse" on Wikipedia.

In short, oil countries don't become democracies. It is too lucrative for
leaders of countries with lots of natural resource income to oppress the
population and steal the money. (Norway was a democracy long before the oil.)

Do you really want to condemn the Iranians to a religious dictator until the
oil is gone?

Edit: Instead of the word "Iran" and "they", how about you use a more relevant
term like "torturing and terrorist junta"? The (upper class!) Iranians I've
known around Sweden were, more or less, as west oriented as any Scandinavian.

~~~
barrkel
Do you think there is a rational alternative for Iran other than pursuing
nuclear weapons? (I don't think there is.)

Do you think there is a way of stopping Iran from gaining nuclear weapons?
Short of a pre-emptive nuclear strike or an invasion, I don't think there is -
and I don't believe either will be pursued.

So what happens when you have to think what you seem to think is unthinkable?

Iran _will_ get nuclear arms. What then?

Listen, I'm not arguing that it is _right_ that Iran gets nuclear arms. I just
think it's inevitable and it is obviously in their own best interests given
the situation they are facing.

I'm trying to figure out what the situation is after the inevitable occurs,
and Iran already has nuclear arms. Debate over whether the players are
rational or not is actually _irrelevant_. If they are not rational, Iran will
be wiped from the earth. But there's really little that can or could have been
done in that scenario, so it doesn't really need much thought.

~~~
berntb
>>, I'm not arguing that it is right that Iran gets nuclear arms.

Sorry, but you do sound like you have an agenda.

You made a claim that the Iran junta won't be insane, I showed it is wrong by
trivial historical examples. Now you make a different claim. [Edit: And
ignored my other point.]

Edit: If I should bother to answer the new point, about what will happen:
Saudi Arabia Turkey and others will start high speed nuclear weapons programs.
That is not even in the Iranian interest.

~~~
barrkel
What agenda do you think I have? That I want Iran to be nuclear armed? I do
not; but I think the alternatives are worse (nuclear strikes on Iran, US
invasion of Iran; I think a conventional strike on Iran would have a similar
effect to the Israeli one on Iraq in 1981).

Please tell me what you think my agenda is before discussing anything further.
It's a pretty serious accusation.

~~~
berntb
I motivated that statement. You don't have anything to say about that, either?

Edit: Sigh, the "answer" below just repeats the previous, it is still not
touching what I wrote. AGAIN:

1\. I killed an argument (rational is just not in "kings" historically) -- you
just ignored it.

2\. I noted that this would probably result in a nuclear race with _at least_
the traditional competitors of Iran -- Turkey and SA.

3\. This religious junta will almost certainly torture, rape and oppress the
Iranian population as long as there is oil, without external intervention.

I think you will just repeat your position while ignoring everything else.
Hence, an agenda of some sort that you want to get out.

~~~
barrkel
I think both of:

(a) that Iran would not be irrational. This is my considered opinion based on
all I've read - Iranian politics seem subtle to me, with a tug of war between
president, chief cleric and "Guardian Council" - a long, long way short of a
despotic single point of failure.

and (b) if it was irrational, there's little we could do about it, unless the
preemptive strike / invasion route is taken, and that level of US aggression
would encourage even _more_ countries to pursue nuclear weapons. The US would
essentially be a huge armed bully roaming the neighbourhood threatening people
not to get guns, and breaking into random houses searching for guns. I don't
think it's unreasonable to suggest that that policy is eventually going to
convince the neighbours to get some guns.

I think there's a range of options here; I tend towards de-escalation and
looking at things with a cool head. There's far too much drum beating and
propaganda pumping going on for my liking.

PS: I wish you would reply, rather than edit your comments after the fact. It
makes things very hard to read.

 _1\. I killed an argument (rational is just not in "kings" historically) --
you just ignored it._

I addressed it twice: firstly, that it does not apply (no single point of
failure like a king, in this answer here), and secondly, it does not actually
matter. By my score I "killed" your own argument twice!

 _2\. I noted that this would probably result in a nuclear race with at least
the traditional competitors of Iran -- Turkey and SA._

Sure. And your point is?

(My point is that when something is inevitable, talking about the bad
consequences of it is pointless. It's going to happen. And bad consequences
will happen too. Just is. But do you honestly think a US invasion of Iran
would be a better outcome than a nuclear-armed Turkey? SA?)

 _3\. This religious junta will almost certainly torture, rape and oppress the
Iranian population as long as there is oil, without external intervention._

Lots of regimes oppress their populations far more than Iran does. How about
starting with North Korea? Invasion, particularly as recent experience has
shown, does not usually result in "saving" the population. Most countries in
oppressive rule don't have the social infrastructure built up for a better
system, and besides, particularly in the Middle East, they suffer from Dutch
Disease. (This is actually your own earlier point, FWIW; I ignored it because
it wasn't relevant, but it is relevant here to your apparent (yet cowardly
silent!) advocation of intervention.)

 _I think you will just repeat your position while ignoring everything else.
Hence, an agenda of some sort that you want to get out._

You're lucky I even saw what you wrote here, because you didn't actually reply
to my comment.

~~~
mc32
>firstly, that it does not apply (no single point of failure like a king, in
this answer here)

I'm a bit late coming into this discussion. But I think I should like to
clarify that Kings were not all powerful autocrats. They had councils and
other Kings they had to answer to. Still, some went "rogue" as it were.

So to me the question is, could one of the people who control the levers "go
rogue" do they/would they have controls to guard against that?

------
joering2
> booby-trapped memory stick

can someone explain what that is??

> Once the memory stick was infected,

huh??

~~~
redthrowaway
They introduced the worm with an infected USB drive. What did you want
clarification on?

~~~
joering2
ok sorry I was confused.

~~~
redthrowaway
No worries.

