Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Military Technology

Iran's High Tech Copycat War Against the West: Drones and Cyberwar 159

Posted by Soulskill from the sue-them-for-copyright-infringment dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Iran and its nuclear program seem to be getting all the headlines. Yet, Iran has found a way to respond to western cyber attacks such as Stuxnet, drone surveillance and targeted assassinations; they've decided to respond in kind. Iran has launched its own cyber attacks on U.S. banks via denial-of-service attacks. Iranian drones recently were used to spy on Israeli nuclear facilities. Cyberweapons were also used against Saudi oil facilities. The goal: to make sure the west, specifically the United States, knows that Iran does have the tools to strike back. While Iran does not have a world-class military like the United States, it does have the capabilities to cause damage if it wants to. With Iran taking to cyberspace and drones, it shows such technology is not just under the control of the U.S. Iran has been careful, though, not to escalate the conflict. The risk: what if the plan backfires and goes beyond its intended scope?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Iran's High Tech Copycat War Against the West: Drones and Cyberwar More

Iran's High Tech Copycat War Against the West: Drones and Cyberwar

Comments Filter:

  • I have to wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Intrepid imaginaut ( 1970940 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @01:39PM (#41781113)

    What exactly is the point of this story? Is the subbie afraid of Iran or what? Since the legitimate government of Iran was overthrown and the current cycle of extremist leaders/newly rich plutocrats was engineered by the US and UK in Operation Ajax not so long ago, I can't really find it in me to blame Iran for wanting to maintain some sort of functional military parity with the US.

    There is no chance that Iran will ever invade the US, or even engineer a 9-11 style attack. There is every chance that Iran will upset the balance of power in the Middle East, which is what the ageing cold warriors still battling Russia and now China in their own minds truly fear.

    My advice would be to leave Iran well enough alone. Once the threat of outside invasion recedes, the population will rise up and overthrow the extremists, as they have already made moves to do. Of course this means leaving a power vacuum for Russia or China to step into, according to some, so the US will never allow it.

    This isn't an anti-US comment, this is an anti US politicians and foreign policy comment.

    • Re:I have to wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mapsjanhere ( 1130359 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @01:46PM (#41781189)
      Since the legitimate government of Iran was overthrown and the current cycle of extremist leaders/newly rich plutocrats was engineered by the US and UK in Operation Ajax not so long ago

      If you define 1953 as not so long ago you must be in it for the long run. Waiting for the return of Zoroaster?

      • Re:I have to wonder (Score:5, Insightful)

        by redneckmother ( 1664119 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @02:07PM (#41781379) Journal

        Since the legitimate government of Iran was overthrown and the current cycle of extremist leaders/newly rich plutocrats was engineered by the US and UK in Operation Ajax not so long ago

        If you define 1953 as not so long ago you must be in it for the long run. Waiting for the return of Zoroaster?

        Great post!

        While I agree that 1953 was a "long time ago" for most of "us", please remember that people in the middle east have been fighting among themselves since the beginning of recorded history. It's likely they will continue to fight until the end of recorded history.

        With any luck, Zoroaster won't show up any time soon.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Sique ( 173459 )

          So did the Europeans, and even the inhabitants of North America. The last civil war in the U.S. was not so long ago than the last one lets say in Switzerland (1847) or in Portugal (1828).

      • The United States of Amnesia (Score:5, Insightful)

        by deanklear ( 2529024 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @02:52PM (#41781995)

        If you define 1953 as not so long ago you must be in it for the long run. Waiting for the return of Zoroaster?

        In 1953 we overthrew their democratic government, and then for 26 years we sponsored a puppet government that tortured and killed dissidents. A direct result of that radicalization and suppression is the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Our further interference by arranging loans for Saddam Hussein to punish them with a war cost the lives of one million people, including those who died in the gas attacks at Halabja, in the Iran-Iraq War. That ended in 1988.

        This is the problem with stupid, simplistic understandings of history. It has been a policy of the United States for over a century to control and occupy the Middle East with extreme forms of violence that have killed millions, and sanctions that have killed hundreds of thousands more. There is no difference between us and the methods of other colonial powers, except that instead of pretending that natives are savages that are not worthy of consideration, we are pretending that Arabs and Iranians are savages that are not worthy of consideration. We kill them, take control of their oil, and they should just learn to accept that their natural resources may be under their feet, but God has intended them to belong to us as veto power against our enemies, or just so we can burn through it ourselves.

        The historical evidence for those facts is overwhelming, and if you think you disagree with the hypothesis of American colonialism, you are either innocently or willfully ignorant. [nationalpost.com]

        As proof of this truism, without looking it up, name one nation that does not have a United States military presence inside of their national border, or inside of a neighboring nation. The same cannot be said for any other nation because the fact is and remains that we are a colonial power. That doesn't make us evil because we are America, but it does make us evil because we are an empire. Telling people how to live without giving them the opportunity to decide for themselves is simple tyranny, and it's wrong. It always has been, and it always will be, and there is never a legitimate principled foundation for taking away someone's right to choose their own path, especially when we take that right away from entire nations.

        • Re:The United States of Amnesia (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Psyborgue ( 699890 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @03:23PM (#41782443) Journal
          Empires are not in and of themselves evil, nor is power. We have bases in many countries because of treaties with them. They agree to have us there. Just because we have bases on their soil does not mean somehow we "conquered them". It just means we have some power in their region with which to counterbalance other world powers. I'll tell you what would be dangerous: the resulting power vacuum if we were to withdrawal suddenly from all those countries. And for the last time, we did not get any of Iraq's oil so stop pushing that big lie, or the big lie that Israel recommended it (because they recommended the exact opposite). Iraq was a bad idea without question but not because of the reasons you imply. If anything a motivating factor could have been war profiteering but it was not oil.

          • Who is talking about Israel? They're a military outpost. They do what we tell them.

            Western oil firms remain as US exits Iraq [aljazeera.com]

            According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iraq's oil reserves of 112 billion barrels ranks second in the world, only behind Saudi Arabia. The EIA also estimates that up to 90 per cent of the country remains unexplored, due to decades of US-led wars and economic sanctions.

            "Prior to the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq, US and other western oil companies were al

            • Re:The United States of Amnesia (Score:4, Insightful)

              by Psyborgue ( 699890 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @04:01PM (#41782925) Journal
              If you actually looked at most of those companies -- they are hardly american. Petronas, for example, is Malysian. Russia and China got most everything. I hate to break it to Al Jazeera's worldview, but those are not exactly "Western" countries. US companies got nothing [time.com] except a few subcontracts contracts to set up and operate pumps (but not to sell the oil). Hey. But don't let facts get in the way of your worldview. Gah! Oil! Rah! Capitalism evil! Bush Satan! Ever stop to think that maybe... just maybe... the simplest explanation is the best and the most likely scenario as to why we went to Iraq is simply because Saddam played chicken with a freight train and got run right over, not because of Oil or anything else. Tell me. Is it beyond the realm of possibility for the government to make a mistake? What's more likely -- that -- or a massive conspiracy that somehow resulted in accomplishing none of the alleged goals save destroying America's reputation worldwide?

              • Dude, it's not my fault you can't read. From the article you linked:

                Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. had hoped to do with the Oil Law it failed to get the Iraqi parliament to pass, the oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years for seven of the 10 oil fields on offer -- the oil will remain the property of the Iraqi state, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel.

                You don't remember Rumsfeld saying that the war wou

                • Perhaps you can explain then, if it was such a conspiracy, how the US managed to orchestrate the invasion and create a government without managing to get a simple law passed. Perhaps you can explain how this law would have helped give "Western" nations an advantage over other countries. As I see it, all it had to do was with profit sharing. I don't disagree that Iraq was horribly managed, but that doesn't imply malice. On the contrary. It lends quite a bit of credibility to the theory that incompetenc

                  • Perhaps you can explain then, if it was such a conspiracy, how the US managed to orchestrate the invasion

                    What kind of thinking person asks how the world's largest military power "managed" to "orchestrate" the invasion? It's what we do. We spend more than the rest of the world combined every single year on our military. So why are you asking how we managed to militarily overpower a nation with 30 million people that has been subject to sanctions and bombings from 1991 until our invasion in 2003?

                    and create a

                    • I read all sorts of sources including AJ. I just don't take it as gospel. My point stands. Even if that law was passed, it would have given "Western" nations no more of an advantage than the Chinese, Russians, and others who ended up getting the contracts. People like you love to go on about "conspriacies" without ever creating a concrete narrative as to how actions actually benefit the supposed conspirator. The net result of the Iraq was has been absolutely horriffic for the US. Our reputation as a n
                    • i meant "acting, actually had WMDs"...

                    • I read all sorts of sources including AJ. I just don't take it as gospel. My point stands.

                      No, it doesn't. Your assertion was that the United States did not invade Iraq for oil, but every single internal document is either aimed at excusing the invasion or at overturning the Iraqi constitution in order to open up their oil market. You are fucking wrong, and you're still wrong, despite your feigned ignorance aimed at winning this argument.

                      Even if that law was passed, it would have given "Western" nations no m

                    • " the USA is out of control like a beheaded chicken running to wherever it happens to go." -- a lot more accurate than you might think. I totally agree on your solution, however. Nuclear, FTW. Thorium should be looked into also.

          • We have bases in many countries because of treaties with them. They agree to have us there.

            The problem is "They" so often refers to a dictator rather than the people. Particularly in the Middle East, the people of those countries do not want US bases on their soil, but they have no choice is the matter. Then of course there is the case of Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Guantanamo Bay was granted to the US by a Godfather-style "offer they can't refuse" treaty with the Cuba while the country was occupied with US troops.

            And for the last time, we did not get any of Iraq's oil so stop pushing that big lie

            International Oil companies including Exxon Mobile,BP, Shell etc are all over [aljazeera.com] Iraq's o

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Clsid ( 564627 )

            What power vacuum? Do you truly believe that the world is going to end if the US military suddenly disappears? A lot of those deals with the bases were done by using force (Germany, Japan, Philippines, Cuba), sometimes outright corruption of local elites or in the case of Colombia, by manipulating small countries so they get a free trade agreement in exchange for American bases. In the case of Colombia, after the base was granted, they still had to wait several years and beg the US to honor their part of th

      • Re:I have to wonder (Score:5, Interesting)

        by hey! ( 33014 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @04:25PM (#41783231) Homepage Journal

        Well as a result of the '53 coup, the shah reigned as an absolute dictator for the following 26 years. Anybody over the age of 40 or so has memories of the Shah, and that includes the entire current Iranian leadership -- they're the revolutionaries who overthrew the Shah in fact. Just like there are plenty of people alive in the US who remember Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter there are plenty Iranians alive who remember the Shah, his secret police, and his torture chambers. They also remember that he was the closest US ally in the Middle East, after Israel.

        So if you're waiting for the Iranian leadership to write off the years '53 to '79 as ancient history, you're going to have to wait at least another generation. That might even be two generations, as you might have to wait for the people who grew up personally knowing people in the revolution pass away. Just because it's ancient history for *you* doesn't mean other people have or should have forgotten the Shah.

        And they certainly haven't forgotten George W. Bush. After watching in alarm as US forces toppled in weeks a country they'd fought to a stalemate for eight years at the cost of over half a million lives, the Iranian leadership floated an offer that gave the US everything it said it wanted. They offered complete transparency in their nuclear program and a withdrawal of support from Hezbollah and Hamas, in return for what amounted to a promise not to invade. The Bush administration didn't even bother responding.

        Now if you were in the shoes of the Iranian leadership, what do you think would appear to be the rational course to pursue? Diplomacy and disarmament? Or arming yourself to the teeth?

      • Two to three generations isn't that long in historical terms. It's still within living memory. I can definitely see how an Iranian might see their history of the last 60 years as a never-ending series of assaults on Iranian freedom by the U.S.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Psyborgue ( 699890 )
      So you don't think the balance of power in the middle east is important and Iran should be able to do whatever they want? "Once the threat of outside invasion recedes, the population will rise up and overthrow the extremists". If the threat of outside invasion doesn't actually exist (it does not. all that has discussed is bombing several hardened military facilities), then Iran will make up a threat, as it has, and the people will swallow it, as will some useful idiots in the west. It already blames Is
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • One of the biggest fears is that her Sunni neighbors would feel compelled to obtain their own nuclear deterrent. The resulting arms race would further destabilize the region, undermine the NPT, and increase the odds of a nuclear device falling into the hands of non-state actors.

        *cough*Pakistan*cough*

        The power vacuum would be filled by all three of the aforementioned superpowers, with unpredictable geopolitical consequences. A particularly scary scenario is Japan renouncing Article 9 in order to deploy forces to the Middle East. Such a move would inflame passions in China (and other Asian countries), further destabilize an already tenuous relationship between two economic superpowers, and ignite an arms race that ends with a nuclear-armed Japan. India is in there too, they already have nuclear weapons, and a billion people, so that's one hell of a geopolitical wild card to consider. ...

        but hey, it sure beats the hell out of WW3.

        Seriously? The people of Iran have proven particularly unwilling to allow foreign invaders to dictate policy so far, to their credit, a nuclear armed Iran wouldn't be a power vacuum for anyone to fill. Sit your scaremongering down.

        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Could you (or anyone) please provide some actual reasons beyond "Omg! Nukes!" why a potentially nuclear Iran is so horribly unacceptable? India has been nuclear armed since 1974, Isreal since (about) 1979, Pakistan since at least 1998, and North Korea since 2006 (maybe). South Africa was nuclear armed in the 1980s. Japan is probably a month away from a nuclear-tipped ICBM if they ever decide they want one. All of these countries have current or historical aggressive or unstable governments. Yet for some rea

    • So you're perfectly OK with China and Russia running things. I have one word for you: Syria. The US might not be perfect, but it's worlds better than the alternatives.

    • They can get away with that by use of false flags. Not necessarily feigning attacks, but making it look as though the enemy is still trying to invade, but the fearless leader is the only thing holding them back.

  • Most countries have been slow to develop drones and medium-range cruise missiles. The combination of a German V-1 design and a smartphone is enough to make a cruise missile that can hit a target. (The original V-1 could not reliably hit a target smaller than the entire city of London. If it had been able to hit air bases, the Battle of Britain might have come out differently.)

    A better launch system than the V-1's long fixed ramp with pusher cylinder would be needed, but a RATO bottle or a set of wheels

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      GPS receivers and inertial systems good enough to guide missiles are ITAR restricted, even in phones. Those accelerometers in your phone are pretty much worthless for navigation or steering a missle. A smartphone might be better than what the Germans used, but it's still pretty lame. I wish this wasn't the case, because then we could drop ITAR and I could get my job done (measuring things with lasers) much more cheaply.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Arker ( 91948 )
        V1s didnt have very much accelleration, or a very high top speed, so the GP might well be correct that something of the same design could be controlled by cellphone. Travelling that slowly makes it easy to shoot down if spotted, but it also makes it a lot safer to travel at very low altitude without attracting too much attention, so the idea doesnt seem implausible.

  • You know, Iran (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    If you want to show how you are as good or better than everyone else, do something useful. War is old hat. Just be better at everything than everyone else and give them the middle finger when you succeed! It is a good idea

    • Re:You know, Iran (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jeng ( 926980 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @02:12PM (#41781423)

      That is actually some good advice.

      Building a nuclear bomb is hugely expensive, especially if you have to do it 100 feet underground.

      With the money that the Iranian government is using for a bomb they could build a world class well just about anything. Something that the populace of Iran can be proud of, something that when people talk of Iran they talk about that great thing they accomplished. Instead they are trying to build a bomb.

      The Iranians could even work on creating a commercial grade thorium reactor that would get them off of petroleum, but nooooo, they want a bomb instead.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Bomazi ( 1875554 )

        Except that there are not trying to build a bomb. Do you yourself a favor and read The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Iran and the Bomb [stopwar.org.uk].

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Clsid ( 564627 )

        Assuming they are building a bomb that is. A lot of people seems to take that for granted these days. There still is no proof whatsoever and based on the whole WMD fiasco. I find myself believing the opposite of what the U.S. govt is saying.

  • Say what you will about the... er... 'afterlife optimized' strategy of some of the Iranian hardliners, it seems clear enough that they've got policy people available who aren't stupid.

    The 'cyber war' stuff? It's pretty clear from some of the cool anti-PLC goodies in the wild that that has already been declared, and it is also clear(from years of banal criminal activity driven mostly by the fact that it's easy and profitable) that US financial interests are dubiously secure. Plus, since they are neither mili

  • West == US? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So, "the west" is now the US? Cause I don't see anyone else carrying out cyber attacks, drone attacks or targeted assasinations in Iran.

    • Trust me, Iran hates Europe too... just not as much. The "West" to Iran is as much a cultural symbol of the "decadence" of non-muslims and how that is a threat to the Islamist paradise of theocracy and elimination of all non-allah worshiping religions. That said, when I mean "Iran", I'm talking about the ruling group of people rather than the citizens... because we know some (most?) citizens of Iran wouldn't subscribe to that... or at least that's what we've been told.

      But make no mistake, those in Iran who

      • Don't make the mistake of believing "most" of the people are on your side. Need I remind you that most of the new democracies in the "arab spring" elected Theocracies and even the most liberal are a far, far, cry from a western style representative democracy with protection of rights of minorities. Even if they hate their government, it does not mean they are a friend of the west or can be in any way considered friendly to our interests or progressive socially. I'd love... absolutely love... to see the m

        • The Iranian theocracy might already have been overthrown if a certain U.S. President hadn't put Iran on his Axis of Evil and repeatedly threatened them. Nothing makes people support a government they don't really approve than an outside threat to their nation.

          • Bush was an idiot, no question. Nothing he did was good for our foreign policy. Obama is no better, however.

    • Cause I don't see anyone else carrying out cyber attacks, drone attacks or targeted assassinations in Iran.

      Because the "anyone else" folks are better at it. This stuff is supposed to be secret. The Iranians are supposed to believe that centrifuge accidents are caused by their own workers, not a computer virus. Targeted assassinations are meant to be attributed to strange diseases, not slow poisoning. Etc., etc. etc. . . .

      The best secret agents or operations, are, well, the ones you never hear about.

      • There is a certain value in letting your enemy know, that you got to them, and doing so in a public manner so as to portray them as weak and incompetent. It's a different culture in the middle east. You can very well undermine your enemy by embarrassing them publicly as Israel has done.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jeng ( 926980 )

      By that definition Israel is also being listed as "the west".

  • I'd be *really* surprised if Iran didn't have competitions among students, trying to find hot programmers to attack Israeli military and nuclear sites' software.

    Assuming that there's idiots there, just like here, who don't know that for some things, an air gap between the controls and the 'Net....

    And depending on how true it is that they managed to break the control of that US drone....

              mark

    • Look at the number of Iranian people who are students here. I can count 14 in the small satellite grad school where I am. I find it odd that we have no relations with Iran yet their people can come here freely. If send people there they are often arrested on some charge. Could it be that some of these students are passing info to the government of Iran? Maybe, maybe not. All 14 are in the engineering department.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Jeng ( 926980 )

      I'd be *really* surprised if Iran didn't have competitions among students, trying to find hot programmers to attack Israeli military and nuclear sites' software.

      It would surprisef me that's for sure. One of the thing wrong with the Iranian government is it is completely corrupt so if you don't know someone you probably are not getting a job with the government. You most probably get a job in the cyber annoyance department by being recommended for it from someone already within the department.

  • you have to wonder how we go to this situation.

  • The answer is 9/11 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @02:10PM (#41781413) Journal

    Al Qaeda is not operating as isolated as the Arab world would like, they have powerful sympathizers. And then 9/11 happened and OOPS, we funded the protesters but we did not expect them to succeed.

    The same happened with the US and Cuba. Oops, we funded dissidents but they did WHAT? Invade? No way, no support. They were supposed to be a nuisance to our enemy, not trigger WW3. Same thing with assanition of Kennedy, it don't matter if the CIA/FBI did or did not do it, the real shocker (if the American public had a brain) should have been that there were any plans at all. And when the bullet has been fired it is to late to consider whether talks of firing that bullet were just talk or concrete plans.

    The bay of pigs was a disaster as the Cubans cleaned them up and Al Qaeda is a shadow of its former self. Presumably those who had entertained plans to kill the president were also dealt with, just in case anyone would ever think that again.

    The leadership in Iran know damn well that there is a line between the US basically ignoring them and blowing them from the map. They have been shown enough examples. It ain't nice perhaps but that is the real world. Same with Russian support for Iran btw, Russians like Iran just as long as they are more a nuisance to US then they are to Russia. Iran starts to to openly interfere with Russian interests (look at russia's borders, religion in tjetnia and of high number of terrorist attacks in moskou itself) and that blocking vote will soon disappear. Same with China. It is a balance game. Annoy the US but don't piss them off and if Israel spanks your ass once again (It is widely believed Iran supported what is now north-sudan and Israel south-sudan. South-sudan won, suprise suprise and north-sudan lost all world support for being nasty people), we most certainly are not going to do anything except try to learn how they did it and snicker a bit.

    You might note that will all the support Iran has given Hezbollah and Syria, it hasn't actually given either of these group any useful fighting capability? Missiles that don't hit shit and drones that get shot down with ease and never enough money to get the economy going.

    This is not the cold war continued, it is still the same cold war. It never went away. And the cold war has the same rules, cause a hassle, cause trouble but do NOT start WW3. If Iran is smart, they know this. If not... they might invade a small nation and think that is going to be ignored like the killing of their own people was... (if you don't get the iraq reference, I feel sorry for you)

    Because if they don't... Russia and China loose nothing by seeing some Muslims turned into so much glass and ashes, they both get their own Muslims populations that could do with a message and their are always other proxies through which to keep the their opponents occupied. Or do you think Russia/China really cares about how many civilians are killed in a drone strike in Afghanistan? Russia doesn't like the afghans at all and China just wants to know how they can do the same in Tibet and get away with it) It ain't just the west that wants WW3, the super powers all know that is in nobody elses interest, they just skirmish a bit with the third world nations to keep their reflexes sharp.

    Cold war is a game of risk were the players know the only winning game is not to play but their fingers itch. And Iran is NOT a player, it is at best a play piece that might be about to make a very stupid attempt at Independence and find out what happens to play pieces that move on their own.

  • YAWN (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    These ridiculous scare-mongering articles about a US/Israel enemy de jour appearing on /.'s frontpage are really becoming tiresome.

  • The So-Called "West" Perspective (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) * on Friday October 26, 2012 @02:26PM (#41781617) Homepage Journal

    WSJ reports [wsj.com]:

    WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war, a finding that for the first time opens the door for the U.S. to respond using traditional military force.

    But not if it's STUXNET or FLAME, right?

    Similarly, the media would have us believe that if a country in the Middle East refused to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, invaded neighboring countries, ignored condemnation from the UN Security Council of its actions, and repressed its people into poverty and apartheid, while also developing a nuclear weapons program, that the USG should intervene militarily to take out its nuclear program and probably impose new leadership.

    But not if it's Israel [wikipedia.org], right?

    But, it's OK, because Iran has such an aggressive history [historyguy.com] that it's worth the US getting into a war with Russia [therightscoop.com] over. In fact, if the USG needs to kill half a million Iranian children [youtube.com] to impose its will, that's just breaking a few eggs, right?

    After all, there is no higher concern that the US Petrodollar [telegraph.co.uk], right?

    The fellow who wrote the Declaration of Independence and our third President described the appropriate role of the United States in the world as:

    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

    But whose interests does that serve, really?

    • AND:

      The Pentagon has concluded that computer sabotage coming from another country can constitute an act of war...

      I guess that doesn't apply to China though.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        This is how it works. If you are a small country you get labelled a rouge state, a terrorist nation and are ripe for invasion. If you are a big state you can do pretty much whatever the hell you like, including bullying the smaller ones.

        Therefore the only way to be safe is to become a big state. Nuclear weapons make you big and powerful. You can see where this is going.

        • Did you mean "rogue" state? And when has China EVER been labeled a "small" country? Even if it has, the label is in obvious error. China is the third largest nation on the planet. And first in population. You're talking out your ass.

    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Psyborgue ( 699890 )

      I'll just touch on a few of those false accusations

      1. "invaded neighboring countries" -- only after being attacked first. Not once, not twice, but three times. 48, 67, and 73. Most of the land, such as the Sinai peninsula, that Israel took, they gave back for peace in further negotiations. It worked with the Egyptians as long as we paid them the necessary Jizya (we still do), and Sadat got assassinated for his trouble. If Palestinians actually wanted the same, they could have it tomorrow but after deca

      • 1. "invaded neighboring countries" -- only after being attacked first.

        Most often there are guerrilla or terrorist attacks by a small gang, and then Israel retaliates against a nation-State. Ties between the two are always claimed, but rarely substantiated.

        And, of course, we're talking about this because Israeli government people keep talking about an unprovoked attack on Iran.

        why should Israel stop construction on land it conquered in a defensive conflict if Palestinians never make any serious attempt at p

        • Are you fucking kidding me? Read the wikipedia articles on the war of independence, the 6 day war, and the Yom Kippur war. The come back and tell me it was just a bunch of "terrorist gangs" (well, in part, I agree). And for your information, Hamas, the democratically elected government of Gaza, has taken responsibility for rocket attacks. Nobody with half a brain denies Hezbollah is an Iranian proxy and so is Syria. In reality it matters little. If your neighbor fires over 10000 rockets in the space o

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by iceperson ( 582205 )
      You forgot to use the word "Zionist" in your post. You should fix that.

      • You forgot to use the word "Zionist" in your post. You should fix that.

        Assignment of motivation is irrelevant - it's actions that matter. Words are just that, though the war-drummers would like you to believe otherwise.

        Apparently I failed to deliver on that thesis.

  • let them win this game (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    We should just let a crappy cardboard drone running unpatched Windows 95 'fall into their hands' so they can waste their time studying and reverse engineering our implementation of the BSOD.

  • Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheCarp ( 96830 ) <sjc AT carpanet DOT net> on Friday October 26, 2012 @02:54PM (#41782035) Homepage

    "With Iran taking to cyberspace and drones, it shows such technology is not just under the control of the U.S."

    Well....lets see....

    Remote controlled devices....
    Air planes.
    rockets
    explosives
    guidance systems for rockets....

    No shit sherlock. Since the very existence of each of these technologies, with, potentially the limited and short term exception of "air planes" right after their invention, the US has NEVER held exclusive control of any of them.

    It should be no shock whatsoever that these technologies can be combined by others.

    Its funny, I was talking with an Iranian friend about our foriegn policy and Iran. He isn't someone you would EVER expect to talk about fondness for teh Ayatolla (he isn't even really a muslim as far as I can tell).... but he does. I finally hit on why: I pointed out that if the US were smart, and really disliked the people in power in Iran, they would stop opposing them, and lift all sanctions, and let the Iranian people take care of the problem.... and he lit up....

    "You know you are right, I hate those towel heads (yes, he, a born and raised Iranian called them towel heads), I hate having to support them, but when all I hear, day after day, is 'War with Iran' and 'More sanctions' that hurt my people, it pisses me off".

    No shit, I would feel the same way.

  • So are we seriously comparing DDOS attacks that any fifteen year old with five minutes and an internet connection can do to Stuxnet, Flame, Duqu, Gauss, and the litany of Isramerica's cyber war arsenal that we haven't even discovered yet? So they can use drones to spy on alleged Israeli nuclear facilities. So what? They wouldn't have drones at all if America didn't accidentally give them one. Point is: To win this, you need brain power. Ever since the Iatolas took power, driving everyone with half a brain into hiding, or exile, they don't have a leg to stand on as far as a "cyber war" goes. And I think it's clear that they understand how paltry their attempts have been.

  • I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Guru80 ( 1579277 ) on Friday October 26, 2012 @03:01PM (#41782109)
    What's the point of this story? Rhetorical question, it's blatantly obvious and not sure what makes this newsworthy? The things listed as not being only under U.S. control are things that pretty much every single country in the entire world has within it's reach if it wanted. Try harder Iran.
  • Did the US government really think that other nations would not simply build their own drones in response to our constant incursions into their sovereignty? Seems to me that whatever opportunity we had in being "first to market" is now over and the drone wars have just begun in earnest.
    • I am thinking that is a no. Ofc, we could find out for sure by rigging something up and trying to fly it where we aren't supposed to (assuming that you are in America). Actually, I will let you learn that lesson on your own.
  • China and Iran are buddies and China is great at copying stuff and doesn't really like the west too much. It would not surprise me at all to see that China had a hand in helping Iran copy technologies in exchange for gaining access to the downed drone or malware infected computers

  • I'd like to see much, much more "cyberwar" because we all know it's the only way to coerce security measures by otherwise lazy entities.

    If leaving ones proverbial front door unlocked automatically resulted in a kick in the nuts, more doors would be secured.

  • of what our Government is going to do with our freedom over this (supposed) threat?

Slashdot Top Deals

Never test for an error condition you don't know how to handle. -- Steinbach

Close