|
|
Stuxnet
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
This is threatening to make the Eric Holder thread too interesting, so I figured start a thread and let things migrate over here.
I'll start the ball rolling with the question: should we have admitted the attack?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
This is threatening to make the Eric Holder thread too interesting, so I figured start a thread and let things migrate over here.
I'll start the ball rolling with the question: should we have admitted the attack?
No, what did we gain by doing so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
We established a precedent for how this type of thing will go down.
I don't think no one ever admitting this stuff is such a hot idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
To expand, you don't mount an attack like this just because you can. The intent of the attack was to delay the endgame. The attack is over, so it's time to start thinking about the endgame it was delaying.
The real question here is are we going to let Iran get a nuke? If we're not, isn't it better we lay things on the table? One could argue it's paramount Iran knows the seriousness of our intent. This was a full-on act of war (IMO). They should know that in no uncertain terms.
Even if we will let Iran get a nuke, shouldn't we at least act like we mean business? If we're going to bluff, let's bluff where it counts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Anyone?
I feel my points are arguable, but when I argue with myself I usually get funny looks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Our government released malware onto the internet. It was high-quality malware, improving the average in the wild. We paid the development costs, along with the disinfection costs (indirectly) as businesses pass along expenses. Note that it didn't work - it was caught after disabling a minority of the centrifuges.
Our government admitted to all of this.
To answer your question, yes the government did the right thing to admit the attack. Voters need relevant info before elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by subego
Anyone?
I feel my points are arguable, but when I argue with myself I usually get funny looks.
No agree, Stuxnet was an open secret like Lily Tomlin being gay.
(Worst example ever?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by reader50
Voters need relevant info before elections.
Not sure if serious
[Futurama Fry]
Or sarcastic...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status:
Offline
|
|
Then I did it perfectly. Thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|