Stuxnet: US/Israeli cyberweapon

[Dr Mordrid]

or.... How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Worm

NY Times....

Israel Tests on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay

Operations at Israel’s Dimona complex are among the strongest clues that the Stuxnet computer worm was an American-Israeli project to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program.

[UtwigMU]

The clues that this was of Israeli origin were:
- It was done by a power the size of national state, they had to had access to Siemens centrifuge data and lots of resources to perfect it.
- Iran and Israel are enemies, Israel had other plans to take out Iranian programme
- It was spread through Belarus contractors working for Iran. Israel has lots of connections with ex Soviet union

The interesting question is: Israel has same centrifuges, has nuclear progamme and nuclear weapons and no state is officially objecting it. Why?

[MultimediaMan]

Mostly because it's been around for over 40 years, and there were a couple of events here in the US which it was decided needed to be kept secret... like how Israel stole, then smuggled home over 600Kg of Plutonium out of Rocky Flats in the 1960's. Israel probably didn't have an operating breeder until the 1970's, but you can be sure they got quite a bit of the "good stuff" from us one way or another.

Centrifuges are only one of MANY different methods for separating Uranium 235 from Uranium 238. Look up something called a Calutron, then something called AVLIS and see what comes up: draw your own conclusions as to whom, how and why this is important.

[Dr Mordrid]

I think we're not so concerned about an Israeli bomb because it's pretty certain that it's not a first strike weapon. With Iran, NK etc. that isn't so clear and the risk of proliferation high.

[Jammrock]

The interesting question is: Israel has same centrifuges, has nuclear progamme and nuclear weapons and no state is officially objecting it. Why?

Because the Israeli are friend to "the West" and Iran has the potential to nuke western powers given the chance.

And I bet the Islamic states object greatly to Israel having nukes

[Dr Mordrid]

Secretly I'd bet that the Saudi's & Gulf states don't mind Israeli bombs one bit if they give Iran & Syria second thoughts. After all, they have worked together behind the scenes many times. Its also been reported that if the IDF mounts a raid on Iran many of the sorties will originate in northern Saudi airfields.

[UtwigMU]

To illustrate matters a bit I created a map of Iran and outlined countries with nukes around it (USA and North Korea also have nukes but are outside of the map):

Now imagine you're leader of Iran and considering the countries around you that have nukes or are potentially hostile. Would you also want nukes?

[Dr Mordrid]

Just because there are US bases in Iraq, Afghanistan & Uzbekistan it doesn't follow that nukes are based there, especially at the Uzbek bases. Nukes have storage, safety & security protocols that I doubt could be met there, plus the Uzbek bases are air cargo hubs.

Not only that, there are carrier battle groups in the area that could provide that response if needed, and they do meet the basing reqirements.

[MultimediaMan]

It would take about a year and a boat-load of billions to get a CBG Nuclear-Capable again. In 1991, GHWB, by executive order, removed Nuclear Weapons from Aircraft Carriers and SSNs/SSGNs. A lot of the infrastructure and training went away with that; even though the crews are trained and the boats are equipped for them, it is an open (and Secret) question as to whether there are any of these qualified people at sea. NAVSEASYSTEMS is renowned for it's slow acceptance of change.

The only tactical nuclear weapons we have in inventory which are theoretically carrier deploy-able within a year are the B61 Mod 3 to Mod 11 "Dial-A-Yield" 0.3-340kT gravity bombs (As Carried by the F18 Hornet/Superhornet), or the Tomahawk TLAM with the 150kT W80 Mod2 Warhead - deployed from a Cruiser or a Submarine.

In any case, if someone did go "full retard" and bomb a US installation or US interest, the response would likely be a B2 deploying two to three AGM-129s each with a W80 Mod3 Warhead (CEP = 10 Meters).

Failing that, a ballistic response might be done with a Minuteman AGM30 with a non-MIRV bus delivering a 300kT W87 Mk21 Warhead (CEP = 50 Meters) or a Trident II D5 UGM-133A with a non-MIRV bus delivering either a 100kT W78-1 Mk4 (CEP = 100 Meters) or a 475kT W88 Mk5 (CEP = 50 Meters) Warhead.

Another ballistic option would be to ask the British to use some of their Trident II D5 UGM-133A using a non MIRV bus delivering a WE-1(xx??) "Dial-A-Yield" Warhead (0.3kT-100kT).

[Dr Mordrid]

>
In 1991, GHWB, by executive order, removed Nuclear Weapons from Aircraft Carriers and SSNs/SSGNs.
>

It's not quite that absolute. In 2007 Strike Group Cmd. Rear Admiral John Blake said "the US policy is that we do not routinely deploy nuclear weapons on board Nimitz," and there have been several presidents since GHWB and presidential XO's change like underwear. His statement also is rather specific & doesn't say anything about other ships in the group.

[MultimediaMan]

There were major changes in the TLAM Block "E" as a result. Also, the submarine-deployable TLAM-Ns warheads have been mothballed.

[Jammrock]

To illustrate matters a bit I created a map of Iran and outlined countries with nukes around it (USA and North Korea also have nukes but are outside of the map):

Now imagine you're leader of Iran and considering the countries around you that have nukes or are potentially hostile. Would you also want nukes?

The illustration has nothing to do with the point in your previous post. You asked why people cared, not why Iran should consider having nukes