stuxnet vs Iran

[Loki]

No I'm just wondering how serious the US is when it says a cyber attack can merit a conventional military response. If it's really serious, then isn't a cyber attack equivalent to a military attack? So, basically, if the US had much to do with stuxnet, it has--by it's own standards--executed a military attack on Iran? Is Iran allowed to retaliate? I'm just curious

I'm not quite sure I get your point. If Iran has proof that the US is responsible for that virus, then yes it can claim that the US engaged in an act of war. War does not work by one side committing an act of war and the other side getting in a free retaliation after, however. If Iran wants to retaliate, whether conventionally or not, the US also has the right to retaliate. So sure, Iran would have a legal rationale for attacking the US; the problem is that retaliating gives the US a legal rationale to invade Iran.

[wiggin]

No I'm just wondering how serious the US is when it says a cyber attack can merit a conventional military response. If it's really serious, then isn't a cyber attack equivalent to a military attack? So, basically, if the US had much to do with stuxnet, it has--by it's own standards--executed a military attack on Iran? Is Iran allowed to retaliate? I'm just curious

Uhm, I'm not sure I get your problem, Minx. Most clandestine operations - including so-called 'cyber' attacks, assassination campaigns, sabotage, etc. can all be construed acts of war. The US and others have engaged in all of these against Iran. There's nothing unique about a virus attack here.

There's no question of being 'allowed' or 'disallowed' from retaliation - Iran can always do what it wants. The question is whether it is wise for Iran to retaliate, and the answer is probably no. Then again, they do retaliate on occasion against Western interference - notably by attacking Israel, which they view as a US proxy, using their own proxies in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza.

I think you're confusing a legal justification for war (which both the US and Iran have plenty of) and the moral justification for war. The US would generally feel that an Iranian attack on US assets would not have a moral justification for the simple reason that our actions are aimed at preventing them from violating the NPT and starting a regional nuclear arms race. But it's probably justified from a legal perspective, yes.

[Lewkowski]

Would you be ranting about Irani animals who kill Americans for something so trivial as meddling with their nuclear power programme or would you be sporting about it?

We are better then they are. They can't be trusted with nukes. Its like saying look there is two people. If person A hits person B he is bad. If person B hits person A he is bad. But this ignores that Person A is a police officer who came to arrest person B. You need context, whats good for for the goose isn't always good for the gander.

[Aimless]

An ironically apt comparison given some of the things we've learned about the police in your country



I am having a hard time getting my head around clandestine shenanigans. But yeah, was mostly thinking of moral and PR aspects! Military retaliation after cyber attacks is an unpleasant thought.

[Aimless]

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...control-of-it/

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/wo...pagewanted=all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b235HFQEY8U

[wiggin]

I'm not surprised, though as far as I can tell the NYTimes has no actual evidence. The story seems very plausible; I know a number of alumni of 8200 and NSA employees, and this is right up their alley.

[agamemnus]

Of course, the fact that the jobs report was horrendous (as well as every other indicator) has nothing to do with these guys suddenly finding un-named sources for the story...

[Dreadnaught]

The multiple NYTimes stories this week about Obama waging cyberwar or maintaining "kill lists" strikes me as fishy and the result of targeted, intentional leaks. But they also make me think some elements of the story are true and out of date.

[wiggin]

Dread - I heard an interview about this from one of the authors of the drone article in the NYTimes. Apparently this is a big series looking at the Obama administration on a wide variety of rubrics, and they managed to get some inside access, probably as part of the administrations earnest desire to look good during an election year (e.g. tough on nat'l security).

So, I wouldn't say this was leaked so much as a greater degree of selective cooperation from the White House after the NYT asked for information.

[agamemnus]

So, I wouldn't say this was leaked so much as a greater degree of selective cooperation from the White House after the NYT asked for information.

... incredibly perfectly timed, though, even if it wasn't "leaked" but instead "fed"...

[wiggin]

... incredibly perfectly timed, though, even if it wasn't "leaked" but instead "fed"...

Wouldn't you say the same about the timing anytime in the next 5 months, or the last 5?

[agamemnus]

I don't think I would. Wasn't this news out just on June 1st?

[wiggin]

and the significance of june 1 is...?

[Dreadnaught]

Dread - I heard an interview about this from one of the authors of the drone article in the NYTimes. Apparently this is a big series looking at the Obama administration on a wide variety of rubrics, and they managed to get some inside access, probably as part of the administrations earnest desire to look good during an election year (e.g. tough on nat'l security).

So, I wouldn't say this was leaked so much as a greater degree of selective cooperation from the White House after the NYT asked for information.

It's hard not to note that the NYTimes taking its Public Editor's advice to "dig in" to the core of Obama happens to make Obama look like a strong, smart and decisive leader.

[wiggin]

I don't doubt that the NYTimes is biased here, like most news sources. I just was drawing a distinction between an intentional leak initiated by the Obama administration and an NYT-initiated attempt to make his presidency look good.

[Dreadnaught]

Fair point.

[agamemnus]

and the significance of june 1 is...?

The terrible jobs/employment report (along with other economic reports that came out with poor numbers) was out on June 1st.

[wiggin]

Oh, please. There's bad economic news almost every week... and I fail to see what connection the economy has with Obama's foreign policy. This is being used by the campaign to bolster his foreign policy credentials, not his economic ones.

[Dreadnaught]

Plus it would be an incredibly complex and pointless conspiracy to coordinate an off-topic positive NYTimes story with the release of bad employment numbers that wouldn't be known when said NYTimes story was being formulated.

[Lewkowski]

Collusion seems a bit far fetched, just NYT trying to make Obama look good.

[Dreadnaught]

Well, looks like there's going to be an independent investigation into all these leaks. A reporter from the Washington Post said a really insightful thing on some TV show in the background: it's really critical to see if the administration pushed back against the Times publishing these stories.

We may remember how Bush invited the editor of the NYTimes to a personal meeting to prevent the publication of a story about how the US was monitoring financial transactions. The NYTimes editor came in his pants over having Bush begging him not to publish an article and told him no.

Some might say these leaks were more substantial, albeit they mostly served to fill-in details of things many people suspected/loosely knew about.

[agamemnus]

Oh, please. There's bad economic news almost every week...

Wrong. The US employment report is the most important and most relevant economic news of the month for the US. Euro news has nothing to do with Obama.

and I fail to see what connection the economy has with Obama's foreign policy. This is being used by the campaign to bolster his foreign policy credentials, not his economic ones.

That's the point: to plaster the foreign policy news over the economic news.

This doesn't need to be a big conspiracy to be timed like it was.