US and Israel were behind Stuxnet claims researcher(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
US and Israel were behind Stuxnet claims researcher
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12633240
21 comments
There's also http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=10596 where an Israeli general supposedly is given credit for the attack which make it sound like it's a pretty "open secret"
The article had absolutely no new content, this has been the rumor for months, discussed in numerous articles and blogs, and is the obvious speculation that would occur to anyone. HMMM - Someone attacked Iran's nuclear program? Gosh, now who would want to do an awful thing like that!
Lacking is any evidence or any reason to be writing a new article stating the same thing one more time.
Lacking is any evidence or any reason to be writing a new article stating the same thing one more time.
My reaction to this was to laugh and think 'what a surprise!' That said, interesting that he claims most of the work was done by the US.
The question is, could this be considered an act of war? And if so, is it an illegal attack under international law?
I disagree. That question is all but meaningless. I see no evidence that any portion of the international community gives a rat's ass about "acts of war". Many people try to cover this up by pointing fingers at some chosen target and showing about how they flout the old European rules for how countries should relate to each other, but since nobody follows them finding some entity that did would just prove that entity to be a chump. It does make it easy to point fingers and try to distract you with a song and dance about how evil some individual party is, since everyone has a list of violations of the old European laws/concepts a mile long now. Some parts of the international community like to talk about it when it is convenient but disappear instantly when it becomes the slightest bit inconvenient.
("So you're saying the actions of $SOME_DISFAVORED_ENTITY are just OK with you, then?" No, I'm saying the dimensions I measure ethical behavior on have little to do with the phantom international law system. It only works when most or all participants agree to be bound by it, something that has not been true within my lifetime. I have not given you enough info in this post to guess what my judgments are.)
("So you're saying the actions of $SOME_DISFAVORED_ENTITY are just OK with you, then?" No, I'm saying the dimensions I measure ethical behavior on have little to do with the phantom international law system. It only works when most or all participants agree to be bound by it, something that has not been true within my lifetime. I have not given you enough info in this post to guess what my judgments are.)
They are not "old European rules". The US used to be a leader in establishing treaties like the Geneva Conventions, Biological and Chemical Weapons Conventions, Nuclear Non-Proliferation, etc.
It is a more recent phenomena in the US that is paranoid about UN governance and refuses to sign onto things like the ICC and the Mine Ban Treaty, and tends to want to ignore international law in favor of a might means right approach. Things have gotten much worse for the respect of international law after Bush's aggressive stance after 9/11.
Still, these are valid treaties that most countries have signed.
For the US and Israel to be banging the drums of war over Iran's supposed violation of the NNPT while at the same time committing illegal acts of industrial sabbotage is huge irony.
It is a more recent phenomena in the US that is paranoid about UN governance and refuses to sign onto things like the ICC and the Mine Ban Treaty, and tends to want to ignore international law in favor of a might means right approach. Things have gotten much worse for the respect of international law after Bush's aggressive stance after 9/11.
Still, these are valid treaties that most countries have signed.
For the US and Israel to be banging the drums of war over Iran's supposed violation of the NNPT while at the same time committing illegal acts of industrial sabbotage is huge irony.
Yes, thank you for providing another example of how easy it is to point at one group of entities in an effort to frantically handwave away the problems of another.
I see no great evidence that the international community of today sets great stock by treaties, either, at least not much past about five minutes after the signing ceremony ends. "Paranoia" about the UN is an effect of this underlying problem, not the cause. Nor am I even remotely convinced that "Bush did it!"; flouting of UN convention and treaties goes back a lot farther than that and it takes a very narrow view of history to somehow lay it at the feet of any one party, or even "the West" in general.
I see no great evidence that the international community of today sets great stock by treaties, either, at least not much past about five minutes after the signing ceremony ends. "Paranoia" about the UN is an effect of this underlying problem, not the cause. Nor am I even remotely convinced that "Bush did it!"; flouting of UN convention and treaties goes back a lot farther than that and it takes a very narrow view of history to somehow lay it at the feet of any one party, or even "the West" in general.
> For the US and Israel to be banging the drums of war over Iran's supposed violation of the NNPT while at the same time committing illegal acts of industrial sabbotage is huge irony.
To me that doesn't seem ironic at all, and in fact morally (if not necessarily legally) consistent. They're trying to prevent nuclear militarization in Iran, and in this case doing so in a non-violent manner, specifically avoiding further "banging the drums of war."
To me that doesn't seem ironic at all, and in fact morally (if not necessarily legally) consistent. They're trying to prevent nuclear militarization in Iran, and in this case doing so in a non-violent manner, specifically avoiding further "banging the drums of war."
Delta Force commander talks about Ahmadinejad in relation to nuclear issues
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-Nk3NjHndA#t=22m54s
I've heard the issue discussed by interested parties, though certainly not international law scholars. It seems the commonly held opinion is also a rather simple one - an electronic attack that causes a building to explode would be the same as bombing the building, stealing classified documents electronically is espionage, and so fouling nuclear enrichment would be sabotage.
The critical difference is proving who did it. If you want to prove who bombed your building often there is some physical evidence that can be pretty conclusive. Chemical signatures of the explosives, photographs from customs, caught on video, what type of plane it was etc.
Electronic attacks often fall more in the lines of having circumstantial evidence. Even if "everyone knows" who did it, it probably falls short of proof unless someone takes credit.
Is sabotage an act of war? I'm not sure if there is a set standard. In practice it often seems to get a pass - the CIA was apparently responsible for sabotaging a pipeline in Siberia in 1982 without any international outcry. Especially in the realm of non-proliferation the international community seems to be mostly united. Even overt action like the Israeli bombing of Syrian nuclear sites in 2007 received a muted response at best.
The critical difference is proving who did it. If you want to prove who bombed your building often there is some physical evidence that can be pretty conclusive. Chemical signatures of the explosives, photographs from customs, caught on video, what type of plane it was etc.
Electronic attacks often fall more in the lines of having circumstantial evidence. Even if "everyone knows" who did it, it probably falls short of proof unless someone takes credit.
Is sabotage an act of war? I'm not sure if there is a set standard. In practice it often seems to get a pass - the CIA was apparently responsible for sabotaging a pipeline in Siberia in 1982 without any international outcry. Especially in the realm of non-proliferation the international community seems to be mostly united. Even overt action like the Israeli bombing of Syrian nuclear sites in 2007 received a muted response at best.
Are the United States and Iran already at war? Iran held US displomats hostage.
Are Israel and Iran at war? The president of Iran called for the destruction of Israel. Does the count as a declaration of war?
Are Israel and Iran at war? The president of Iran called for the destruction of Israel. Does the count as a declaration of war?
What is a legal vs. illegal attack? Is there an authority that determines legality in this case? If it rules the attack is illegal, how is the attack prevented of the perpetrator punished? If we have all that what's up with Gaddafi or Myanamar or North Korea etc etc?
Do you think there were reasons behind such an infection coming from Iran? Were they an act of war?
If both were true, then USA is in trouble for Iraq for much more than creating a computer virus with intent.
Just because the US has been breaking and ignoring international law, and it's own law, and covering up for Israel's crimes, doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to point it out every time it happens.
Who actually wrote the worm? Was it Israelis? Was it Americans? How was it a join operation? It could have been just Israel involved.
ughhhh another article on stuxnet......
Israeli Test on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/world/middleeast/16stuxnet...
(pay special attention to the national laboratory discussion)
It doesn't sound like Langner is presenting any proof per-se, but then again it's not something I'd stand up on a chair and prove if I could.