• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Massive cyber attack on Iran came from U.S., report says

KevinKohler said:
Then you don't support America's number 1, leading export.


Warfare.
Click to expand...


I think the libertarians have it right on this one, that like the Constitution proscribes, the military should be for defense, not to establish U.S. hegemony in the world.
 
Last edited:
MoSurveyor said:
How many visits have there been in the past ~20 months? Russia may have enough data on it to pin down any enriched fuel that comes from it but I doubt anyone else does.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the IAEA have performed inspections...and yeah, the Russians, who would be under considerable pressure from many countries, including an irate US, would spill the beans. Why risk entangling nonsense with the Americans over Iran when you might be able to share the spoils with them?
 
Catawba said:
I think the libertarians have it right on this one, that like the Constitution proscribes, the military should be for defense, not to establish U.S. hegemony in the world.
Click to expand...

There's a clear marker in US history when the United States military went from being for strictly defense to, among other things, securing business interests and projecting its influence outward.

Use of U.S. Forces Abroad

^ That link demonstrates that talking point.
 
Jango said:
There's a clear marker in US history when the United States military went from being for strictly defense to, among other things, securing business interests and projecting its influence outward.

Use of U.S. Forces Abroad

^ That link demonstrates that talking point.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the Korean War, or prior to that?
 
Jango said:
There's a clear marker in US history when the United States military went from being for strictly defense to, among other things, securing business interests and projecting its influence outward.

Use of U.S. Forces Abroad

^ That link demonstrates that talking point.
Click to expand...

Excellent link. However, I think the first entry shows that we used our military to protect our business interests. Wasn't the Franco-American war fought over trade routes? The French were raiding our routes to Britain because they felt we still owed them money from 1776.

Granted, President Adams called it a defense.
 
Last edited:
I'll admit, I actually see this as a step forward. For two reasons. First, cyber attacks don't leave a bodycount. It's certainly an improvement to a physical attack where people are shooting at or bombing each other. Second, I'm somewhat pleased that the USA has supremacy in whatever cyber arms race may be taking place, as the damage such an attack can cause is substantial. I prefer this to an actual war with Iran with bullets and bombs.

Not that I actually fear Iran, even with nuclear weapons. Attacking us with them would be all kinds of stupid. If any middle eastern nation were to use nuclear weapons, they would most likely be used in a Sunni vs Shia battle against other middle easterners, far from North America. I think that's even more likely than a move against Israel, since such a move would invariably earn our ire, whereas infighting between Muslim nations might not. But this is a tangent.

I think I'm truly not outraged or upset at this at all. If this is the new warfare, it's a vast improvement over the old warfare.
 
Paschendale said:
I'll admit, I actually see this as a step forward. For two reasons. First, cyber attacks don't leave a bodycount. It's certainly an improvement to a physical attack where people are shooting at or bombing each other. Second, I'm somewhat pleased that the USA has supremacy in whatever cyber arms race may be taking place, as the damage such an attack can cause is substantial. I prefer this to an actual war with Iran with bullets and bombs.

Not that I actually fear Iran, even with nuclear weapons. Attacking us with them would be all kinds of stupid. If any middle eastern nation were to use nuclear weapons, they would most likely be used in a Sunni vs Shia battle against other middle easterners, far from North America. I think that's even more likely than a move against Israel, since such a move would invariably earn our ire, whereas infighting between Muslim nations might not. But this is a tangent.

I think I'm truly not outraged or upset at this at all. If this is the new warfare, it's a vast improvement over the old warfare.
Click to expand...


The illegality of it is not a problem?
 
Catawba said:
The illegality of it is not a problem?
Click to expand...
Com'on, man, spies have been around forever. If they're caught they're shot or held for future exchange. This is no different except there's no bodies involved.
 
Jango said:
Like I said, the IAEA have performed inspections...and yeah, the Russians, who would be under considerable pressure from many countries, including an irate US, would spill the beans. Why risk entangling nonsense with the Americans over Iran when you might be able to share the spoils with them?
Click to expand...
Inspections, yes, but taken enough readings to make a signature? Doubtful.

Whether the Russians choose to cooperate or not would depend on our relations with them at the time. Last year they may have cooperated. Right now they'd probably tell us to take a hike.
 
vendur said:
It doesn't matter who was attacked in this instance, only that an international precedent is being set, and that the USA will have no moral high ground to protest any such attacks upon them.
Click to expand...

You make the error in assuming that there is a moral high ground, and that we should assume it. There also is no precedent being set here, this is not new. The Chinese, Russians, and others have already been carrying out attacks on the US for years.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Com'on, man, spies have been around forever. If they're caught they're shot or held for future exchange. This is no different except there's no bodies involved.
Click to expand...

Law professor and retired general Charles Dunlap thinks this attack on the infrastructure of a sovereign country is outside international law and the UN Charter. Also he states that spying is not considered an attack, unlike this action which causes destruction of infrastructure and possibly deaths.

Legal Consequences Of A Cyber-Attack | PRI's The World
 
Catawba said:
Do you mean the Korean War, or prior to that?
Click to expand...

Oh definitely prior to that, though our media and dissidents spoke of President W. Bush as 'regime change', that trend had been an American staple for a century prior. The NYT must have forgot about their archives. Though to be honest as well serious, during the time of the first American foreign regime changes, our press wasn't exactly condemning the government for it.
 
Catawba said:
Law professor and retired general Charles Dunlap thinks this attack on the infrastructure of a sovereign country is outside international law and the UN Charter. Also he states that spying is not considered an attack, unlike this action which causes destruction of infrastructure and possibly deaths.

Legal Consequences Of A Cyber-Attack | PRI's The World
Click to expand...
Don't kid yourself - spies blew things up, too.
 
MoSurveyor said:
Don't kid yourself - spies blew things up, too.
Click to expand...

According to the retired General, spying is not considered an attack under the UN Charter.
 
Catawba said:
According to the retired General, spying is not considered an attack under the UN Charter.
Click to expand...
Good! Then if Flame comes back as being ours, which I suspect it may be, then no one will hit the roof over it. :D
 
MoSurveyor said:
Good! Then if Flame comes back as being ours, which I suspect it may be, then no one will hit the roof over it. :D
Click to expand...

That is not the opinion of Law Professor and retired General Dunlap.
 
Catawba said:
That is not the opinion of Law Professor and retired General Dunlap.
Click to expand...
But Flame is just a spy. It doesn't destroy anything at all - it just records stuff and sends it back to it's server. :shrug:
 
MoSurveyor said:
But Flame is just a spy. It doesn't destroy anything at all - it just records stuff and sends it back to it's server. :shrug:
Click to expand...

"The so-called Flame malware is said by internet security experts to be 20 times more disruptive to computer systems than Stuxnet. Compared with Stuxnet, which inflicted serious Iranian technical damage nearly two years ago, the latest malware can be seen as virtual weapon of mass destruction."
War on Iran: US Computer Virus "Weapon of Mass Destruction" | Scoop News

"A Russian computer firm has discovered a new computer virus with unprecedented destructive potential which could be used as a “cyberweapon” by the West and Israel against foes such as Iran.'
New computer virus potential destructive to Iran | The Raw Story
 
MoSurveyor said:
Inspections, yes, but taken enough readings to make a signature? Doubtful.

Whether the Russians choose to cooperate or not would depend on our relations with them at the time. Last year they may have cooperated. Right now they'd probably tell us to take a hike.
Click to expand...

Tell me, are you a supporter of the IAEA?

And regarding Russia - since the situation we're discussing is hypothetical (nuclear detonation), all we can do is use common sense and historical examples to guide our speculative hypothesis. Obviously, if the situation is as you claim it to be: Russia being the only other entity to know Iran's nuclear John Hancock, and there were to be a nuclear explosion, there would be calls from just about every country, including, and as I said, an irate United States, for the Russians to hand over said evidence. In my mind, I envision the Russians attempting to broker a deal on missile defense, which would infuriate US leaders, who would threaten 'full options'. The Russians would cave, not willing to risk nuclear War. They've always blinked.

But. I believe the IAEA has Iran's nuclear signature, which would mean that the US does too.
 
Charles J. Dunlap Jr., a former U.S. Air Force judge advocate general, when interviewed by American Bar Journal stated, "Even if Stuxnet amounts to a “use of force,” it doesn’t necessarily rise to a casus belli".

Cyberattacks: Computer Warfare Looms as Next Big Conflict in International Law - Magazine - ABA Journal






Catawba said:
Law professor and retired general Charles Dunlap thinks this attack on the infrastructure of a sovereign country is outside international law and the UN Charter.
Also he states that spying is not considered an attack, unlike this action which causes destruction of infrastructure and possibly deaths.

Legal Consequences Of A Cyber-Attack | PRI's The World
Click to expand...

The question and answer was of a more general nature than Stuxnet and precisely,

"Schachter: General Dunlap, is there any black and white at all? Mean, a cyber attack leads to people dying or poisoning of water systems or something like that. Is that a case of black-and-white, damage has been done, act of war?

Dunlap: In my judgment, that would be a use of force clearly in violation of the U.N. Charter. I think it’s very clear that when you have physical destruction and the direct consequences result in the deaths of people, that you are into the traditional analysis that would authorize the use of force in response."


Cat, you misquoted Dunlap, also, did Stuxnet cause people to die and poison water systems? If not, then kindly be more accurate when referencing your position papers and refrain from spinning the information. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
The illegality of it is not a problem?
Click to expand...

If this is illegal, and a more traditional attack with bombs and soldiers and guns is not, then I think we have our priorities backwards. I don't necessarily see this cyber attack as okay... just more okay than the alternative. It was specifically targeted at Iran's means of making weapons, right? Not at their water supply, not at their hospitals, schools, or roads.

Connery said:
The question and answer was of a more general nature than Stuxnet and precisely,

"Schachter: General Dunlap, is there any black and white at all? Mean, a cyber attack leads to people dying or poisoning of water systems or something like that. Is that a case of black-and-white, damage has been done, act of war?

Dunlap: In my judgment, that would be a use of force clearly in violation of the U.N. Charter. I think it’s very clear that when you have physical destruction and the direct consequences result in the deaths of people, that you are into the traditional analysis that would authorize the use of force in response."
Click to expand...

This illustrates the difference pretty clearly, to me. This attack did not kill anyone, did not damage the ability of otherwise innocent Iranian people to live their lives. There will be no dead children in the streets. How could this not be better than what we've done in Iraq or Afghanistan? Or in war for thousands of years? The less bloodshed, the better, and this has, as far as I know, shed no blood.
 
Connery said:
Charles J. Dunlap Jr., a former U.S. Air Force judge advocate general, when interviewed by American Bar Journal stated, "Even if Stuxnet amounts to a “use of force,” it doesn’t necessarily rise to a casus belli".
Click to expand...

Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it?
 
Last edited:
Paschendale said:
If this is illegal, and a more traditional attack with bombs and soldiers and guns is not, then I think we have our priorities backwards. I don't necessarily see this cyber attack as okay... just more okay than the alternative. It was specifically targeted at Iran's means of making weapons, right? Not at their water supply, not at their hospitals, schools, or roads.



This illustrates the difference pretty clearly, to me. This attack did not kill anyone, did not damage the ability of otherwise innocent Iranian people to live their lives. There will be no dead children in the streets. How could this not be better than what we've done in Iraq or Afghanistan? Or in war for thousands of years? The less bloodshed, the better, and this has, as far as I know, shed no blood.
Click to expand...


If this attack of questionable legal status leads to retaliation that results in deaths, I would say it is not so harmless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom