So, we're not going to change the end-game, we're just going to piss of Iran....and you think that's good?
Consider things from the Iranian's perspective. Back in the day, they were establishing a legitimate democratically elected government. The US overthrew that government and pushed a brutal dictator into power, who tortured and murdered many Iranians. From their perspective, the US is an evil nation that does evil things. Nuclear weapons look like the only thing that could give them security against the US. And we're hellbent on stopping them. Heck, the US has never even apologized for overthrowing their government and installing a murderous dictator: can you really blame the Iranians for believing that the US government is trying to screw with their country?
The only way this ends well is with a deal and deals require trust. Does Stuxnet promote that trust? Or does Stuxnet just provide further evidence that the hardliners are right, that the US is trying to screw with their country?
industry figures out that they need to lock down their machine controllers
This seems like wishful thinking. We have a terrible track record of getting large scale systems secured, even in areas where those systems are under continuous public attack. Industrial software is not one of those areas, so developers of such software are unlikely to take security very seriously. But even if they did: we don't know how to get them to build secure systems.
Microsoft spends a huge amount of developer time and money on system security. They're not very successful. But they devote a much larger fraction of their budget to that goal than any industrial software shop. So expecting industrial software shops to produce code that is even as secure as Microsoft's seems...unlikely.
You're speaking as if that hypothetical person in Iran actually exists and is immortal.
The Iranians in 1953 are not the same Iranians today.
The situation today is that you have a sabre rattling theocracy that funds terrorism trying to get nuclear weapons.
What possible concession could the West make to get Iran to stop striving for nukes? Nothing. Iranian leadership wants nukes before their rule is overthrown by the people in favour of a democracy. Before the hearts and minds of a sufficient majority move for change away from totalitarianism.
It's very important to stop them from getting nuclear weapons. 1953 has no bearing on this situation 60 years later.
> 1953 has no bearing on this situation 60 years later.
I'm not really educated on Iran, but I find this hard to believe. It wasn't that long ago...
edit -
I should have posed the original comment as a question, but can anyone elaborate if I'm really totally wrong? Surely the coup in 53 would have had an effect on the revolution which would have an effect... ?
First that article hardly makes it clear that that was the US's bomb. Second it was 25 years ago. Third, you do have a black and white world view? And all countries are clearly equal?
Are you seriously unable to distinguish between countries? Are you unable to distinguish between single (or even rare) occurrences and repeated? Between countries that feel bad about such occurrences in their past and those that celebrate them?
Do you really think that saying "So and so is not so bad - after all the US did it one time." is a good argument?
So, we're not going to change the end-game, we're just going to piss of Iran....and you think that's good?
All I want is for nobody to get nuked. I think it's more likely that nobody will get nuked if Iran doesn't have nukes. But you're right that Stuxnet is a dirty move that erodes trust, that's why I'm conflicted.
We have a terrible track record of getting large scale systems secured, even in areas where those systems are under continuous public attack. Industrial software is not one of those areas, so developers of such software are unlikely to take security very seriously.
Surely going from complete obliviousness to awareness is the biggest step the industry will ever take to being secure, even if subsequent progress is slow. But I think they will fare better than corporate or home users, because there are less of them and they are more technically inclined and disciplined.
I think it's more likely that nobody will get nuked if Iran doesn't have nukes.
But this doesn't stop Iran from getting nukes, it only delays them. And I don't see why Iran getting nukes increases the probability of anyone getting nuked. A nuclear Iran is an Iran that still responds to deterrence.
Surely going from complete obliviousness to awareness is the biggest step the industry will ever take to being secure
Discovering that you have untreatable cancer will not alter how long you live.
they are more technically inclined and disciplined.
Wrong. Do you know anyone who does instrumentation and control work for power plants? These are people who are very skilled...in their field. In my experience, they don't know a lot about security because they don't have to. They don't have millions of script kiddies and organized crime hammering their code looking for exploits so they can afford to be blissfully ignorant. And they're no more disciplined than any other developer.
>But this doesn't stop Iran from getting nukes, it only delays them.
Eating doesn't stop hunger, it only delays it.
"Stopping" something is inherently temporary. You can say the exact same thing about stopping anything.
Exercise doesn't stop obesity, it only delays it.
Delay is exactly the goal.
Eventually the Iranian public is going to overthrow their theocracy and create a democracy. Then they will probably stop striving so hard for nukes because the leaders will turn to creating prosperity rather than attempting to achieve a false security through apocalyptic weapons.
These are people who are very skilled...in their field
At the very least, they can follow process and act responsibly around breakable or dangerous things. That gives them huge advantage compared to offices and homes.
If you are citizen of any of the countries that have nuclear weapons, have you considered lobbying to eliminate those? If not, then you are not really for "nobody to get nuked".
But you're right that Stuxnet is a dirty move that erodes trust, that's why I'm conflicted.
"Big satan" and "little satan," the Iranians have entrusted us with that title, so we are also building trust here by reinforcing the image they have projected onto us.
They were right.
But I'm all for eroding trust: trust that should have never been there to begin with. Erode as much trust as possible.
Heck, the US has never even apologized for overthrowing their government and installing a murderous dictator...
The closest the US has come to an apology that I am aware of is Obama's 2009 speech in Cairo where he said, In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president... for the full speech.
The Iran political situation is not exactly about to topple, but it's not the most stable situation in the world, either. Four-plus years is a really long time when we're talking about the CIA's/US's/Israel's ability to topple a potentially vulnerable regime.
Perhaps we'll be as successful as we were in Cuba! Or maybe North Korea! Or Iraq....We've only been trying to overthrow the government in Cuba for, oh, about half a century. I'm sure we'll nail it any day now. True, Cuba is 90 miles from the US and we've got millions of spanish speakers, so toppling the Iranian government should be a piece of cake given how many Farsi speakers work for the US government!
Even if we were successful, what makes you think alternate Iranian regimes would differ on nuclear policy from the current one? Or is the plan to replace the current regime with another brutal dictator who will have zero popular legitimacy? After all, that's worked out so well for us in the past....
Finally, has Israel ever successfully toppled a regime anywhere in the world?
So, we're not going to change the end-game, we're just going to piss of Iran....and you think that's good?
Consider things from the Iranian's perspective. Back in the day, they were establishing a legitimate democratically elected government. The US overthrew that government and pushed a brutal dictator into power, who tortured and murdered many Iranians. From their perspective, the US is an evil nation that does evil things. Nuclear weapons look like the only thing that could give them security against the US. And we're hellbent on stopping them. Heck, the US has never even apologized for overthrowing their government and installing a murderous dictator: can you really blame the Iranians for believing that the US government is trying to screw with their country?
The only way this ends well is with a deal and deals require trust. Does Stuxnet promote that trust? Or does Stuxnet just provide further evidence that the hardliners are right, that the US is trying to screw with their country?
industry figures out that they need to lock down their machine controllers
This seems like wishful thinking. We have a terrible track record of getting large scale systems secured, even in areas where those systems are under continuous public attack. Industrial software is not one of those areas, so developers of such software are unlikely to take security very seriously. But even if they did: we don't know how to get them to build secure systems.
Microsoft spends a huge amount of developer time and money on system security. They're not very successful. But they devote a much larger fraction of their budget to that goal than any industrial software shop. So expecting industrial software shops to produce code that is even as secure as Microsoft's seems...unlikely.