Stuxnet: Product of the USA and Israel

[Enigma]

I'm surprised there's not a lot of coverage over Flame or the lesser known Wiper viruses used against Iran. Flame seems a lot more complicated and potentially more dangerous than Stuxnet.

[Phantasee]

For everyone who might get targeted by Iranian nuclear attacks, an Iranian nuclear arsenal is scary. There's some doubt about how stable their government is or whether they can keep control of the nuclear force in stable, responsible hands. The program makes certain countries nervous. The people that run those countries, they would want to take steps to prevent that. If I were in their shoes I know I'd want to delay the creation of an Iranian nuclear deterrent, within reason. I don't think they have to be bad people to want that and work on it.

To add some anecdotal support to what Simon is saying here, one of my fellow grad students is Iranian and she has expressed her personal concern about Iran's ability to sit at the "nuclear table" with countries like the U.S. and Russia. So, this isn't some unfounded concern because the U.S. doesn't get along with Iran but has more to do with the nature of Iranian politics and general distrust in the ability of the government to handle this kind of responsibility.

Now personally, I think the Iranian government has far too much vested interest in survival to do anything stupid with nuclear weapons but I do not know enough about how the factionalism in Iran operates to be comfortable with just giving them nukes. On the other hand if their nuclear programs are just to develop nuclear power, as some have claimed, I have no problem with that but I have my doubts that this is an entirely truthful claim given that Stuxnet deliberately targeted centrifuges that are far more needed for development of nuclear armament compared to the development of nuclear reactors.

I take issue with your phrasing. We are "just giving them nukes"; Iran is developing them (or not) on their own, with their own resources and expertise. It's a little patronising to say it this way.

[Dark Hellion]

For everyone who might get targeted by Iranian nuclear attacks, an Iranian nuclear arsenal is scary. There's some doubt about how stable their government is or whether they can keep control of the nuclear force in stable, responsible hands. The program makes certain countries nervous. The people that run those countries, they would want to take steps to prevent that. If I were in their shoes I know I'd want to delay the creation of an Iranian nuclear deterrent, within reason. I don't think they have to be bad people to want that and work on it.

To add some anecdotal support to what Simon is saying here, one of my fellow grad students is Iranian and she has expressed her personal concern about Iran's ability to sit at the "nuclear table" with countries like the U.S. and Russia. So, this isn't some unfounded concern because the U.S. doesn't get along with Iran but has more to do with the nature of Iranian politics and general distrust in the ability of the government to handle this kind of responsibility.

Now personally, I think the Iranian government has far too much vested interest in survival to do anything stupid with nuclear weapons but I do not know enough about how the factionalism in Iran operates to be comfortable with just giving them nukes. On the other hand if their nuclear programs are just to develop nuclear power, as some have claimed, I have no problem with that but I have my doubts that this is an entirely truthful claim given that Stuxnet deliberately targeted centrifuges that are far more needed for development of nuclear armament compared to the development of nuclear reactors.

I take issue with your phrasing. We are "just giving them nukes"; Iran is developing them (or not) on their own, with their own resources and expertise. It's a little patronising to say it this way.

Give them nukes is a common thing that has been said by such posters as Elfdart repeatedly in past threads on the subject and was the point I was referencing because of the current state of Iranian governance. Considering that Iran's political landscape has been changing quite quickly over the last few years it is highly possible that more transparent and less factionalized leaders could come into power which would ease this concern and could happen naturally alongside weapon development. In which case I would have far fewer concerns with Iran joining the 'nuclear club'.

I think that there should be some expectation that your ideological enemies will try to sabotage your nuclear programs. Its not like the U.S. and Soviets did not try such things. Its par for the course in this arena and I think it is a bit silly to pretend like the U.S. and Israel are being especially big bullies as opposed to things just going how they normally go in this situation and its really just that the U.S. and Israel have soiled their image with bad political decisions over the last decade or so and lots of kneejerk anti-x sentiment has been developed. Which frankly, considering that this board is supposed to be about logic and reasoning shouldn't interfere with discussion but lets face it, the left is no better than the right in wanting a simplified boogeyman to blame for problems instead of nuanced discussion.

[Simon_Jester]

Which ties to a tangential thing that has really been pissing me off about N&P lately, which is this incessant need to portray all problems as some grand ideological battle between the oppressed and oppressor. While understanding the history of some conflict is a great way not to repeat it, it isn't always the way to get to a solution and often has the unintended consequence of rendering a black and white world view from which a realistic solution cannot be gotten because lets face it, countries tend to be assholes regardless of power. Sometimes you have to have an idea how to solve the problem first before you can assign the blame and sometimes the 'good guys' can have made just as healthy a contribution to the problem arising as the 'bad guys'. Attempting to portray everything as a conflict between opposing forces misses that sometimes conflicts arise between forces of comparable moral or legal culpability over amoral ideological differences.

This is why I try to stick to a "turnabout is fair play" paradigm, not an "oppressor/oppressed" paradigm.

I get tired of hearing people on the far right pretend that countries they don't like have no right to do anything ever to make the world less dangerous for themselves. I've gotten almost as tired over the past few years of hearing people on the far left doing the same thing. International crises are, often as not, not a question of rights. It is often a question of trying to work out some kind of quasi-civil settlement between two sides so that they can stop the macho chest-thumping and mutual atrocities long enough to get back to some kind of sane, normal relations.

[Block]

International crises are, often as not, not a question of rights.

This kinda is: Iran have been repeating "peaceful nuclear technology is our inalienable legal right" so much that backing off of that wouldn't be politically acceptable. It's become a matter of pride for them as much as anything else.

The fact that we've agreed about that right, in principle, is probably why the talks are still going.

But the fact that we haven't indicated a willingness to back off on sanctions are why there isn't an agreement yet. (which I think is more an issue of US politics than anything else; Obama doesn't want to look "weak" in an election year.)

No, it's because Iran isn't really going about the process in an open manner and because they're not working on a program that could only be used for peaceful nuclear tech, which is certainly something that they have the capability to do. There's no reason for the US or anyone else to back off while Iran continues to say one thing and do another.

[Magis]

That's simply not true.

Yes it is, which is why Iran has already been found to be in non-compliance with the NPT by the IAEA. And for nuclear power technology, one needn't enrich to LEU or even anything approaching LEU (there are peaceful reasons to want LEU, but nuclear power isn't one of them.)

[EDIT] As an aside, in general I'd say that only the most stable nations have a right to nuclear weapons. With any nation that is reasonably prone to revolution, it's uncertain whose hands those weapons would fall into afterwards.

[TheHammer]

Which ties to a tangential thing that has really been pissing me off about N&P lately, which is this incessant need to portray all problems as some grand ideological battle between the oppressed and oppressor. While understanding the history of some conflict is a great way not to repeat it, it isn't always the way to get to a solution and often has the unintended consequence of rendering a black and white world view from which a realistic solution cannot be gotten because lets face it, countries tend to be assholes regardless of power. Sometimes you have to have an idea how to solve the problem first before you can assign the blame and sometimes the 'good guys' can have made just as healthy a contribution to the problem arising as the 'bad guys'. Attempting to portray everything as a conflict between opposing forces misses that sometimes conflicts arise between forces of comparable moral or legal culpability over amoral ideological differences.

This is why I try to stick to a "turnabout is fair play" paradigm, not an "oppressor/oppressed" paradigm.

I get tired of hearing people on the far right pretend that countries they don't like have no right to do anything ever to make the world less dangerous for themselves. I've gotten almost as tired over the past few years of hearing people on the far left doing the same thing. International crises are, often as not, not a question of rights. It is often a question of trying to work out some kind of quasi-civil settlement between two sides so that they can stop the macho chest-thumping and mutual atrocities long enough to get back to some kind of sane, normal relations.

Of course they have that right. However, it is often the case that what makes the world less dangerous for themselves makes it more dangerous for us. So what I get tired of hearing is people on the far left saying that the U.S. has no right to try and stop them from doing so. It's a constant chess match and you do what you can to keep your pieces in the best position. I certainly don't ascribe any moral failing to Iran for wanting to do what it feels it must, because I know that we are likewise doing the same.

And unfortunately, I just think that for the sort of quasi-civil settlement like you ascribe to occur another generation or two is going to have to die off on both sides. The Internet has by and large made the world smaller, and despite governments attempting to do so people are seeing past the bullshit that they have been fed for so long. Problem is, the old people didn't get the memo and its the old people who are still in charge right now.

[MKSheppard]

And for nuclear power technology, one needn't enrich to LEU or even anything approaching LEU (there are peaceful reasons to want LEU, but nuclear power isn't one of them.).

Indeed. Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Station went online with an UO2 enrichment level of about 7% or so in the 1970s, and France's Caramel fuel uses an enrichment of 9%; so you don't need more than 10% for legmitate nuclear power uses, other than specialist applications like space probes or sealed naval reactors.

Meanwhile, UO2 enriched to 27~% has been found so far by teh IAEA in Iran.

[MKSheppard]

Oh, wait, i forgot: If it benefits your national interests it is good, and other nations are not allowed to have their own national interests.

Let me quote the King of Saudi Arabia:

Link

Former senior U.S. diplomat Dennis Ross confirmed for the first time on Tuesday night that Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah has explicitly warned the U.S. that if Iran obtains nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia will seek to do so as well.

“If they get nuclear weapons, we will get nuclear weapons,” Abdullah told Ross during a meeting between the two in April 2009. Ross said he responded to the King’s assertion with a lengthy appeal against nuclear proliferation, but after hearing him out, the king responded by repeating the same line: “If they get nuclear weapons, we will get nuclear weapons.”

Ross’ on-the-record confirmation of Abdullah’s threat was made in a joint public appearance with Washington Institute researcher David Makovsky at New York’s 92nd Street Y. The two co-authored a book on the Middle East peace process entitled Myths, Illusions, and Peace: Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East.

Ross’ direct quote of the Saudi king appears to be the first public confirmation of the Saudi position and the threat of a Middle East nuclear arms race if Tehran acquires a nuclear bomb. It was reported previously, though not confirmed, that Abdullah had made a similar assertion in his February 2007 summit in Riyadh with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In June 2011, Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former Saudi intelligence chief and ambassador to Washington, warned senior NATO military officials that the existence of an Iranian bomb "would compel Saudi Arabia...to pursue policies which could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences."

In February of this year, the London Times quoted a “senior Saudi official” as saying that Riyadh would launch a “twin-track nuclear weapons program” should Tehran realize its ambition of obtaining a nuclear weapon.

The Saudi threat is one of the prime factors motivating Washington’s campaign to stop Tehran’s nuclear program. Extending the non-proliferation regime is one of U.S. President Barak Obama’s most cherished foreign policy and national security goals, analysts in New York said Tuesday night.

There's a little more but I snipped it. Iran get the bomb, means Saudi get the bomb, and worldwide proliferation happen.

[PeZook]

They are also not open about one particular facility, which is a direct violation of the NPT and the crux of the talks between Iran and the IAEA. In another words, they're being kinda shifty, and the US doesn't like that, and Iran obviously doesn't trust the US enough to reveal what they're doing there, either because they're working on stuff directly related to nuclear weapons, or are afraid the US will think so and do something stupid.

[Broken]

I could be mis-remembering from another thread or issue, but I seem to recall that Iran has already produced enough fuel to run its legitimate research reactor for something like the next 10 years and continues to enrich to that higher level of fuel. Which would lead one to check if they have announced plans for building a slew of new research reactors or if they feel the need to have several decades of fuel on hand.

Edit: a quick google brought up a New York Times article from May 27 that stated

Iranian officials have been unclear about how much of the higher enriched uranium they want to produce. A Friday report by the International Atomic Energy Agency said that Iran had produced 145 kilograms of uranium enriched up to 20 percent, more than it ordered from Argentina in 1988, the last time it needed a stockpile for its medical reactor. In other words, it has already made enough to keep its reactor, which produces medical isotopes, running for another two decades. Iran’s insistence on producing more — though it has no reactor to burn the additional fuel — has increased suspicions about its intentions.