Iranian nuke plants rocked in midnight 'heavy metal blast' Iran's military will establish a cyber-defence headquarters, the country's official news agency IRNA reports - just in time to sort out an alleged heavy-metal infection at its nuclear labs. The centre - staffed by an unspecified number of personnel - "would be commissioned to design and adopt comprehensive approaches in line …
The "hacker" who made the worm play music was an idiot. He should have had the worm put gay porn on all of the machines, and sign the scientists up to gay social networks. Being gay is a capitol offense in Iran, and the Iranian Revolutionary Court is stupid enough to execute their own scientists if it suspected they were all gay.
Fast forward a few months and Iran declares "Ha, we now have a nuke, MWAHAHAHA" to much "tut tut tut"ing from the countries which have nukes but don't want anyone they don't like having one, cause, it's not as if it was an evil country that dropped not one, but two nukes on thousands of innocent civilians during WW2, oh no, they did it for the right reasons, the Japanese were the enemy.... err... yeah, anyhow...
Fast forward a few months (I got sidetracked!) and Iran's nuclear weapons are now controlled by a computer that has a virus that plays "It's the end of the world" and launches the Iranian nuclear weapons at, err, France. Do we really think it's ethical that we should bar Iran from buying anti-virus software when they will be relying on computers (that are most likely already infected with some virus or another) to launch their WMD?
Maybe Iran should switch to Linux, can they actually download that or would an Iranian need to smuggle a USB stick into Iran up his rear?
"....it's not as if it was an evil country that dropped not one, but two nukes on thousands of innocent civilians during WW2...." Boy, it's like we've never heard that drivel before from the sheeple! Oh, wait a sec - yes we have! By the last generation of hippies. Don't you guys evolve any new "arguments" or are you all too stoned?
I would suggest you check a few simple facts. Firstly, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people in one night (100,000+ night of 9th/10th March 1945) than either the Hiroshima (60,000) or Nagasaki (90,000) bombs, so I suppose you're fine with people being fried just as long as it's by conventional weapons. The massacares in Rwanda killed possibly as many as one million people with nothing more sophisticated than AKs, spears and machettes. Please let me know when you're going to start as strident a campaign against machettes.
Secondly, seeing as the Japanese had sworn not to surrender (94% of Japanese soldiers on Okinawa fought to the death and 100,000+ civillians dies fighting the Allies or by committing suicide), and their "innocent civillians" were being organised to resist with both conventional and kiamikaze means, it is highly likely the invasion of Japan we would have to have launched would have killed millions of both "innocent civillians" and Allied soldiers. Much more than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined, which means dropping the nukes SAVED lifes.
Thirdly, even the simple nukes the Iranians are trying to produce will be much more refined and deadly than Little Boy or Fat Man, and will used on civillian targets simply because the Iranians don't have the tech to make targeted strikes. So your cheerleading for Iran is just underlines your own lack of knowledge.
Now go have sexual relations with a doorknob until you can come up with some new bleats instead of just regurgitating what was spoonfed to you in Hippy 101.
When asking people to "check facts" you might want to consider if yours are correct.
The numbers you have used for the two cities are on the low end of the estimates as thats all that is really available given the wholesale destruction a nuclear strike brings forth.
Killing people never saves lives by the way, as evidenced by every war that has ever happened, after all, taking your logic to its conclusion the biggest war mongers of the last 50 years are the US so it would make sense to nuke the place and turn it into a shiny glass ornament to protect the rest of us!
"....The numbers you have used for the two cities are on the low end of the estimates...." So is the figure for the Tokyo firebombing. In both cases it's kinda hard to count bodies when there may be little more than ash left. What you failed to address was the simple fact your hyperventilating over the two WW2 nuke drops is simply anti-nuke windowdressing.
".....Killing people never saves lives by the way...." You completely failed to comprehend what I posted for the very obvious reason your mind has been closed to anything other than sheeplefeed. It is simple maths that 150,000 killed by the Nagasaki and Hiroshima drops are a lot less than one million, you're failure to see this simply demonstrates just how obtuse your whole stance is.
Sorry, did you just say "baaa-aaa-aaa-aaa"? Sounded like it. I do like the eloquent way in which you framed a concise and extensive counter to the points raised. Oh, you didn't, you just raged. Don't be disheartened, it is a start, and maybe someday you will be capable of actually contributing. To get you started, why don't you post just one example of why you think 90,000 killed by a nuke bomb is worse than 100,000 burned alive by firebombs? If you can manage that then maybe we can even examine why you think Iran should be allowed unhindered access to nuke weapons in breach of their NPT obligations?
OK, OK, I'm kidding! I don't actually expect you to answer either point, they're obviously a bit tough for you. Why don't you just tell us which of your fave tunes you think would have been more appropriate for the hack? This maybe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_6KuYtc0Z8&feature=related)?
"....It just makes you look like an arse of the highest order." Oh, shush! It is obvious that Mr Webb's viewpoint is so blogged from his moral hobbyhorse that he is never going to admit either that he is wrong or that any one else could have a legitimate point of view, so why waste time trying to convince him otherwise? Much more fun just to expose his failings, and "sheeple" would seem to be exactly the right level of descriptive for the case in hand.
"Thirdly, even the simple nukes the Iranians are trying to produce will be much more refined and deadly than Little Boy or Fat Man, and will used on civillian targets simply because the Iranians don't have the tech to make targeted strikes."
Well, after Iran has the nukes finished, let's hope they create ballistic missiles of the same caliber as US and others have created so that they can be used against armed forces only. I sure hope their accuracy is better than the US & Allied Forces' bombing accuracy against non-civilians.
"Well, after Iran has the nukes finished, let's hope they create ballistic missiles of the same caliber as US and others have created so that they can be used against armed forces only. I sure hope their accuracy is better than the US & Allied Forces' bombing accuracy against non-civilians."
I can't prove it, but I am a rational human and American. Most of the people around me are rational too at home, work and gaming group. Despite our government's assurances about security at home and abroad, we can't shake the feeling that Pandora's box was opened when President Bush and Congress (Democrat supported) decided to make war. The real scope of this warring is trivial when you consider the 59 countries currently involved in war - http://www.warsintheworld.com/?page=static1258254223 - but not trivial to individual lives. Your remark above is very astute. Let's hope every nuclear power in the world cares about something greater than the end of the world, and that they all share the same definition of "the end". Mutually assured destruction may be the best intervention we've got, and will inevitably keep the USA in line.
"....Mutually assured destruction may be the best intervention we've got, and will inevitably keep the USA in line." Well, yes and no. Whilst MAD kept the US and USSR from a direct confrontation it did not stop them from going at each other through proxies. What Iran is doing now is doing the proxies in Hezbollah, the Taleban and Hamas, and Shia groups in the Gulf States (and possibly further afield in South America) but without the ability to face the Yanks down with MAD. It would take decades of development for Iran to reach a point where MAD would apply seeing as they don't have missiles capable of hitting the US nor the means to produce them in enough numbers to make the US blink. However, what worries the Israelis is that Iran can reach the MAD point very quickly against Israel as it is only a short distance away and would only require relatively few warheads to devastate the whole country. Which means Israel either has to accelerate weapons development to stay qualitatively and quantitatively ahead in the arms race (economically challenging) or force Iran into an early confrontation (possibly through proxies). The problem for the US is the Israelis "red line" is consequently much closer than their own, meaning they can only stall the Israelis for so long.
Hers a few facts for ya Mike B,
number of countries bombed by Iran since WW2 only Iraq who started the war.
Number of countries bombed by the US 20.
Number of countries invaded by Iran-none
Number of countries invaded by the US, 5.
Iran has every right to nuclear weapons as they have proved themselves a largely peaceful nation who doesnt start wars. The US has proved to be a nation of evil killers.
Just because you say that bombing Japan saved lives doesn't mean its true, and by dropping the bombs in the sea near cities much the same goal could have been achieved.
"Hers a few facts for ya Mike B....." Not an impressive start but it might actually improve into an argument of some sort.
".....number of countries bombed by Iran since WW2 only Iraq who started the war....." No, I was wrong, it hasn't improved. Did you by any chance check on the Iran-Iraq War? The Iranians fired Scuds and used jet bombers against Iraqi cities, deliberately targeting civilians, just as the Iraqis did against theirs. Not much of a moral superiority there! You also seem not to know that Iran has supported and been directly involved in terrorist bombings in Israel, the Lebanon, Spain and Argentina, to name just a few.
"......Number of countries invaded by Iran-none...." Again, debatable. One of the reasons Saddam attacked Iraq was because of the meddling done by Ayatollah Khomeini during his time in exile in Najaf, when he abused his position as a guest by trying to start an Iraqi Shia Islamic revolution against Saddam! One result of that meddling was the Mahdi Army that later caused so much death and destruction in the aftermath of the Allied invasion of Iraq, all the while being funded and directed by Iran. Then you have the Iranian actions in pushing Hezbollah into power in the Lebanon, so much so that the local Sunnis refer to Hezbollah's rise in the Lebanon Civil War as the Persian invasion. Currently the Gulf states (including Saudi Arabia) are dealing with Iranian attempts to export the Islamic Revolution to their countries. So your pretending that Iran are whiter-than-white is simply amusingly childish.
"....Iran has every right to nuclear weapons...." Except they signed up for the NPT, which means they gave up the right in exchange for peaceful nuke technology.
".....they have proved themselves a largely peaceful nation..." See above.
".....and by dropping the bombs in the sea near cities much the same goal could have been achieved." Wow! One of the sheeple actually came up with an argument! But why would the Japanese have suddenly changed their minds? By dropping the bombs on cities it made it impossible for the Japanese government to hide the results from the Japanese people or their own Emperor. If we'd simply dropped them out to sea it would have been easy for them to deny the new weapon's effectiveness.
Mostly a fail. C-, but keep on trying.
"Firstly, the firebombing of Tokyo killed more people in one night (100,000+ night of 9th/10th March 1945) than either the Hiroshima (60,000) or Nagasaki (90,000) bombs, so I suppose you're fine with people being fried just as long as it's by conventional weapons"
Actually, I think in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it's reasonable to guess that anyone opposed to killing tens of thousands of people by nuclear weapons is probably also opposed to them being killed by being burned to death.
"Secondly, seeing as the Japanese had sworn not to surrender (94% of Japanese soldiers on Okinawa fought to the death and 100,000+ civillians dies fighting the Allies or by committing suicide), and their "innocent civillians" were being organised to resist with both conventional and kiamikaze means, it is highly likely the invasion of Japan we would have to have launched would have killed millions of both "innocent civillians" and Allied soldiers. Much more than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined, which means dropping the nukes SAVED lifes."
An argument that presupposes American was being forced to invade Japan - a country which at that point was not capable of threatening American interests for a long time thereafter and which we know had already signalled to the USA that it wished to negotiate. How come this argument about saving lives is always trotted out and we're expected to never question the assumption that without the bombs America would be forced to invade Japan in a sustained land-war. Forced by what or who?
"Thirdly, even the simple nukes the Iranians are trying to produce will be much more refined and deadly than Little Boy or Fat Man, and will used on civillian targets simply because the Iranians don't have the tech to make targeted strikes"
If you suppose that American nuclear weapons are all programmed with targetting data to avoid civillian casualties, you have a rather limited grasp of nuclear weapons.
"......I think in the absence of evidence to the contrary...." Merely demonstrating the shallowness of the sheeples' bleatings.
".....An argument that presupposes American was being forced to invade Japan - a country which at that point was not capable of threatening American interests for a long time thereafter and which we know had already signaled to the USA that it wished to negotiate....." The Allies had already agreed surrender of the Axis was to be unconditional, whereas the Japanese wanted to retain some parts of their conquests such as Korea, and not have to pay reparations, admit wrongdoing or surrender up war-criminals. They were also trying to develop revenge weapons using technology from Nazi Germany and their own biological warfare developments in China for use against the US. As a simple example, the Japanese had made successful proving flights of their Fu-Go high-altitude balloons to the US as early as 1944, although they failed in their initial idea of setting US forests on fire. Unit 731 did develop biological weapons that would have been viable payloads for Fu-Go balloons in 1945. So the idea that they were all disarmed and harmless by the time the bombs dropped is simply untrue.
".....If you suppose that American nuclear weapons are all programmed with targetting data to avoid civillian casualties, you have a rather limited grasp of nuclear weapons." The point is that the US would avoid using nukes in such a manner - attacks on civilian targets - as the Iranians most certainly plan to. The US also takes efforts to limit collateral damage and killings of civilians in their operations, whereas Iran and their puppets rejoice in killing civilians, especially Jewish or American ones.
Actually not a bad effort, though lacking in fundamental research. C+
"Got the echo chamber turned up to 11 again for another empty room argument Matt?" And your reply is just replete with wisdom and insight - not! Just like the rest of your posts. If this is the best you can come up with I would suggest a lot more reading and thought before your next attempts.
One thing that always amuses me about the sheeple bleating on about the US being so intent on invading Iran is their determintaion to ignore the facts that - had the US wanted to - they could have invaded years ago. Indeed, if they wanted to stop the Iranians getting nuke weapons by invasion then surely they would have invaded by now. Classic fail.
"Merely demonstrating the shallowness of the sheeples' bleatings."
It's pretty reasonable to guess that someone outraged at mass slaughter by nuclear weapons is outraged by the slaughter part of it and will be outraged by the same number of people being killed in some other fashion unless there's some very good reason to assume otherwise. No 'shallowness' there.
The information on Japan is interesting though and I'll look into that as it is new to me.
"The point is that the US would avoid using nukes in such a manner - attacks on civilian targets "
This needs no counter argument to anyone with knowledge of history. I suspect you're trying to set up that Hiroshima and Nagasaki had roles in the Japanese war effort. They were also cities filled with innocent people and for most of us the latter is the most important part.
"Actually not a bad effort, though lacking in fundamental research. C+"
Thank you. The parts about Japan's military threat level at the end of WWII were interesting. B+ on that. Brought down to a C overall by a couple of logical fallacies and not considering both sides of an issue.
"....No 'shallowness' there....." Oh but there is! The supposed outrage at the numbers killed by the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is only ever applied by the anti-nuke, anti-Yank sheeple, and they never apply the same criteria to worse events. For example, you will never hear one of them comparing the 150,000 atomic bomb victims to the hundreds of thousands killed by Japanese bioweapons in China alone, let alone the millions killed by the Communist authorities in Soviet Russia in peacetime! And you have to prod them real hard to even get them to acknowledge the thousands killed in the Sudan in the last decade, despite it being World news. Are any of the sheeple posting outrage on these forums at the Assad regime's efforts to kill their own citizens, aided by Iran? Of course not, that wouldn't fit in with their anti-Yank focus.
An example here is the bizarre belief that the US should not have forced a conclusion with Japan in 1945. It's not a big surprise as very few people realise the atrocities of the Japanese even exceeded the Nazis' attempts with the Holocaust. Some people need to do a lot more history reading, and I would suggest they start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Crimes) and here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#Human_experimentation_and_biological_warfare).
An argument that presupposes American was being forced to invade Japan - a country which at that point was not capable of threatening American interests for a long time thereafter and which we know had already signalled to the USA that it wished to negotiate. How come this argument about saving lives is always trotted out and we're expected to never question the assumption that without the bombs America would be forced to invade Japan in a sustained land-war. Forced by what or who?
The Japanese lost the benefit of the doubt when they started the war in the Pacific.
They knew they'd lost but hadn't given an unconditional surrender; given that Hitler went on to the bitter end, what else was to be done? It was either invade, ignore or use the nuclear weapons to encourage the surrender. Truman chose the bomb and it worked.
@Matt Bryant
"Thirdly, even the simple nukes the Iranians are trying to produce will be much more refined and deadly than Little Boy or Fat Man, and will used on civillian targets simply because the Iranians don't have the tech to make targeted strikes. So your cheerleading for Iran is just underlines your own lack of knowledge."
It is an incredible assumption that they WILL be used. Iran has a much better record with respect to agression against other countries than the US, Britain or Israel. Despite the proganda they did not threaten to 'wipe Israel off the map'. They have been the subject of a brutal invasion supported by the US which included the use of chemical weapons, they have had civilian airliners shot down, they are surrounded by nuclear powers some of which are openly hostile and two neighbours have been nvaded and devasted by the US which frequently threatens them. They have been subject to a long running terrorist campaign probably originating in Israel.
If I was in government in Iran and I looked at Iraq which complied with UN resolutions and was then invaded and devasted I would consider it irresponsible and negligent not to do everything possible to develop nuclear weapons as the only way to provide security and protect Iranian citizens. This is the real reason the US etc consider Iran is developing nuclear weapons they know it is the only sensible policy for Iran.
If Iran had nuclear weapons all that would change is that threats against Iran would be less credible and the risk of an attack and invasion of Iran would decline to negligible levels.
".....Iran has a much better record with respect to agression against other countries than the US, Britain or Israel...." You are merely showing your lack of knowledge in the matter, try some more reading like the following just for a start (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_AMIA_bombing and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Kuwait_bombings).
"....Despite the proganda they did not threaten to 'wipe Israel off the map'...." They have repeated that aim on many occasions by many Iranian officials and leaders. Indeed, in 1990 Tehran was host and organiser of a conference entitled "Conferences for the Support of the Uprising" which had the sole intention of derailing the peace process in the Middle East. The conference urged and pledged funds, training and weapons for groups like Fatah, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah with the prerequisite that those receiving funds had to promise not to accept either the UN-led peace process or accept the existence of the State of Israel in any form. The conference lasted three days and had opening and closing sessions where the Iranian government members and their guests took it in turns to say how much they wanted to wipe Israel off the map, kill Jews, bomb the Great Satan (that would be the Yanks) and the Little Satan (that's the UK), etc, etc. I'm not surprised you wouldn't know of such events as they are carefully kept off the sheeple reading lists.
".....If Iran had nuclear weapons all that would change is that threats against Iran would be less credible and the risk of an attack and invasion of Iran would decline to negligible levels." Wrong, it would just make the use of nuke weapons in any attack more likely. In the event of a nuke-armed Iran, any attacker would want to destroy the Iranian weapons before they were used, and the best option would be a nuke first strike against the Iranian nuke weapon sites. The US had plans for first strikes against much better equipped countries like China and Russia, so Iran would be a picnic, but probably one that would make bits of Iran glow in the dark for a few thousand years.
".....Iran has a much better record with respect to agression against other countries than the US, Britain or Israel...." You are merely showing your lack of knowledge in the matter, try some more reading like the following just for a start (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_AMIA_bombing and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Kuwait_bombings).
The fact that your argument is relatively small incidents and not full scale invasions or prolonged bombing campaigns makes it clear that Iran's alleged aggression while reprehensible is very minor compared to the US Israel etc. I dislike religous based government including Iran's but Iran has shown itself to be more moderate and restrained than the government of US, Israel or Britain at least so far as the conduct of it's foreign policy.
You seem to have missed the significance of my reference to wipe 'Israel from the map' this was deliberate? mistranslation of a speech that is frequently used to argue that Iran would use it's nuclear weapons against Israel. There is no evidence of this. Why should Iran not argue against the religous state of Israel? The US used to argue very strongly against the soviet union. This is very far from contemplating using nuclear weapons.
The idea the US would perform a nuclear first strike against Iran is chilling but inline with the two most profoundly disturbing conversations I have had. The first was in the USA with a lady who believed that the bible foretold a nuclear war and that it would be a good thing as all the bad people would go to hell and the good to heaven. The scary thing bwas that it was obviously a common belief in her church.
The second was in Israel where I met a lady whose son was shot in the head by the IDF while standing in front of palestinian children wearing a luminous jacket to try and reduce the number of school children killed by IDF snipers. The most disturbing thing being the IDF tried to stop her son recieving medical treatment.
Fortunately although religous bigotry and fanaticism is a problem in the US and Israel I think that just like Iran the leaders would not perform a nuclear first strike.
It is strange to argue against Iran having nuclear weapons because they may attack another state by arguing that other states would perform a nuclear attack on Iran.
"....relatively small incidents and not full scale invasions or prolonged bombing campaigns makes it clear that Iran's alleged aggression while reprehensible is very minor compared to the US Israel etc...." Nope, we're simply talking the different level of capability. Iran has long yearned to raise their standing in the Muslim World by directly attacking Israel, but hasn't had the capability. Their involvement in destabilising the Lebanon through Hezbollah, in Iraq through the Mahdi Army, and their meddling in Afghanistan all shows they are quite happy to mess with whole foreign countries as long as it suits their ends. Their current direct support for the Assad regime in Syria is another example of their willingness to use oppression and murder of civilians to get what they want.
".....mistranslation of a speech...." Really, you're going to try that old chestnut? Puh-lease! What's next, you'll be insisting that all the "Bomb the USA" placards and banners were just misspellings? I see you're not even trying to deny that the 1990 "Conferences for the Support of the Uprising" was an open and blatant attempt to torpedo the peace process for the simple reason it included recognition of Israel.
"....The second was in Israel where I met a lady whose son was shot in the head by the IDF while standing in front of palestinian children wearing a luminous jacket to try and reduce the number of school children killed by IDF snipers...." Oh dear, it looks like we've got one of the St Rachel crowd in. Maybe I should just save you a lot of time and wasted Internet bandwidth and point you to here (http://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2009/03/31/idf_robot_d9_revelations/) if you think you're going to worry me with stories of Israeli "atrocities".
I have friends from the Lebanon that will top any story you want to offer, and other friends that have plenty of stories of Iranian-sponsored terrorism they saw first-hand in Iraq. Simple fact is the majority of victims of Islamic terror attacks, especially those by groups sponsored by Iran, are other Muslims, and they massively outnumber those killed by Israel even including Israel's wars with their neighbours. Indeed, the biggest killer of Palestinian Arabs is other Palestinian Arabs, not Israelis.
"....It is strange to argue against Iran having nuclear weapons because they may attack another state by arguing that other states would perform a nuclear attack on Iran." It is not an argument against, it is just an extrapolation of previous behaviors to show the probably undesirable consequences of the Iranian plan (unless you're one of those Iranians hanging around the well at the Jamkaran Mosque waiting for the Hidden Imam, that is). But you're ignoring the fact that the NPT treaty that Iran signed to get access to peaceful nuke tech explicitly prohibits them from developing nuke weapons.
David Webb,
There are no restrictions on who uses it,alters it, improves it or does anything else to -except that they are expected to make those improvements etc. available to all other uses.
Freedom is what it's all about.
Like what Americans used to have before Homeland Department of Security (I think that is the name of the spying on Americans by Americans for Politicians Department.
Peace be with you.
Actually, whilst you could technically leave various encryption modules out of the Linux kernel, I'm pretty sure they're in the source code by default. I think Blowfish et al. run afoul of USA's export restrictions. Nonsense and I fully agree with you, but the poster did ask about legal restrictions and at least within the USA, even if impossible to enforce, they do exist (unless I'm wrong).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
