Skip to main content

View Diary: Marc Thiessen wants to impeach the president. And he's got a new reason! (67 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think Stuxnet was a brilliant cyberattack (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenearth, citylights

    A couple of years ago Vanity Fair published an extraordinarily good investigative piece about Stuxnet. It's here, if you have time to read it: A Declaration of Cyber-War.

    It set back the Iranian nuclear program by at least a couple of years -- possibly more -- by sabotaging the programmable controller chips on Iran's uranium centrifuges. If Iran can't purify and refine uranium, they can't get fissile material for a nuke. The computer virus (or worm), once delivered would cause the machines to spin out of control and break down.

    People thought the virus was most likely created by either Israel or the United States, two countries that don't want a nuclear Iran. The thing that I admire is that someone figured out how to slow down the Iranian nuclear program without invading them or dropping bombs on them. I'll say it again: It was brilliant. Especially if you think a nuclear Iran might be a problem.

    I understand the concept that a cyberattack by one country on another country might be considered an act of war. Or a declaration of war. But I still think it was an interesting way of slowing down Iran's nuclear program.

    Furthermore, I don't think there's any reason to impeach Obama because someone somewhere said we created Stuxnet. I think it's possible the Israelis did it and we took credit, to deflect anger. But I don't know. I suppose the virus could have been created somewhere in Europe or even China (probably not Russia).

    “If you misspell some words, it’s not plagiarism.” – Some Writer

    by Dbug on Tue Feb 05, 2013 at 11:21:53 PM PST

    •  Basis for war on Iran? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coloradocomet, Dbug

      And exactly why is it acceptable to attack Iran even if it did have an nuclear weapon?

      Forget the (horrendous) practical consequences, we have no legal or moral right to go to war with a country that has not attacked us, has never said it would, and could not -- even with a nuclear weapon. And, frankly, would not use a nuclear weapon. What would be the point? They are not suicidal.

      Same as Iraq: we had no more right to attack Hussein even if he did have WMD.

      Lots of countries have nuclear weapons and WMD. Some of them are not our friends. What madness to randomly choose a couple of pathetic dictatorships and use that as an excuse to engage in endless war.

      How very far have we fallen from our principles.

      •  A country run solely by religious extremists? (0+ / 0-)

        There are more than a few among the Ayatollahs who would consider wiping Israel off the Earth a fair trade for their own lives.

        •  pure speculation (0+ / 0-)

          ...and we've heard it said (in my lifetime alone) about everyone from a variety of mad godless communist regimes right up through Saddam Hussein.

          There's not a shred of evidence to support any such assertion as it relates to anyone in charge of anything, even if it were not illegal, immoral, and disastrous to let people start wars on the basis of what they fear someone might do at some future time.

      •  Good points (0+ / 0-)

        I completely agree with you about Iraq. Although I think going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan was justified. And Bush made a ton of other mistakes (but that's another subject).

        I don't know who created the Stuxnet virus. Most likely either the U.S. or Israel, but possibly someone else.

        My point was, if someone wanted to stop Iran's nuke program, a virus that targets the centrifuges is better than boots on the ground or bombs from the sky. And by all reports, this virus attacked only the centrifuges. It didn't affect anyone else anywhere. Whoever created the virus/worm did a brilliant job.

        Oh, and I agree with you about the madness of eternal war.

        I suspect we're discussing different things.

        “If you misspell some words, it’s not plagiarism.” – Some Writer

        by Dbug on Wed Feb 06, 2013 at 09:17:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  yes, somewhat different subjects.. (0+ / 0-)

          ..but they overlap with respect to war. If drones or viruses are used  by one country against another, are they not acts of war? It's a slippery slope.

          While we can't be "at war" with Al Qaeda, because they are political terrorists, not a country, consider it they had their own country or, say, Pakistan, got fed up with our bombing and invading their country and sent drones or commandos to attack Des Moines or got some AK Khan version of a commuter geek to infect Pentagon software?  They certainly have a reasonable argument to make about our behavior in their country. Would it be ok? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site