Stuxnet Worm infects Iranian Nuclear Plant

[Marx Chaotix]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20017201-245.html
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/a ... ogram.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet


I personally believe it was built more or less specifically as an attack on the power plant. And more than likely of course with good reason. We don't want an unstable government getting it's hands on powerful and dangerous weaponry.

Thoughts, Opinions, Ideas?

[EccentricDuck]

Simply attacking a nuclear power plant with something like the Stuxnet worm is filled with risk and does not equate to stopping a nuclear weapon's program. The business center article does mention a good point though that would support that point: it could be used to cause something such as a centrifuge to have a critical breakdown (enrichment of uranium for weapons/power requires centrifuges, although weapons grade uranium requires a different configuration than what you would see for lower-grade but typically higher quantity "uranium fuel"). Then there's plutonium which IS more congruent with a nuclear energy program that is not properly monitored.

Here's where the problem lies though. By attacking a nuclear power plant, you could potentially disrupt critical control systems that are responsible for safety and maintaining a stable equilibrium in the reactor. Remember Three Mile Island? The problem occurred when there was a mechanical issue with the main reactor cooling system. More now than then, that kind of stuff is computer controlled. On top of that, an attack like that begs an opportunity for something "unaccounted for" to happen. "Accidents" are when it's hardest to trace footsteps because you don't have a reliable control state with which to contrast the events of the day. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this was used as a cover-up for pulling the wool over the eyes of external monitoring sources - at least I see that potential.

I see a lot of misnomer's by most people whenever talk of nuclear energy programs transitions into talking about nuclear weapon proliferation. There's definitely concern over proliferation tied in with nuclear weapons programs, but it's tough when people mention so many fallacies. Here's a good, brief, article that basically sums up the important science behind it:
http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/STS/STS.069/ ... tonium.pdf

[avansc]

Simply attacking a nuclear power plant with something like the Stuxnet worm is filled with risk and does not equate to stopping a nuclear weapon's program. The business center article does mention a good point though that would support that point: it could be used to cause something such as a centrifuge to have a critical breakdown (enrichment of uranium for weapons/power requires centrifuges, although weapons grade uranium requires a different configuration than what you would see for lower-grade but typically higher quantity "uranium fuel"). Then there's plutonium which IS more congruent with a nuclear energy program that is not properly monitored.

Here's where the problem lies though. By attacking a nuclear power plant, you could potentially disrupt critical control systems that are responsible for safety and maintaining a stable equilibrium in the reactor. Remember Three Mile Island? The problem occurred when there was a mechanical issue with the main reactor cooling system. More now than then, that kind of stuff is computer controlled. On top of that, an attack like that begs an opportunity for something "unaccounted for" to happen. "Accidents" are when it's hardest to trace footsteps because you don't have a reliable control state with which to contrast the events of the day. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this was used as a cover-up for pulling the wool over the eyes of external monitoring sources - at least I see that potential.

I see a lot of misnomer's by most people whenever talk of nuclear energy programs transitions into talking about nuclear weapon proliferation. There's definitely concern over proliferation tied in with nuclear weapons programs, but it's tough when people mention so many fallacies. Here's a good, brief, article that basically sums up the important science behind it:
http://ocw.mit.edu/ans7870/STS/STS.069/ ... tonium.pdf

Who is david wang?

Never seen a article about science not have a single reference. Also, not to mention more papers by this person, about movies, that also dont cite anything.

Just a question, not challenging its validity, just its quality as a reliable scientific document.

Anyways, Id rather have Chernobyl in iran, than a bomb here.

[cypher1554R]

Anyways, Id rather have Chernobyl in iran, than a bomb here.

Well, that's a terrible thing to say. Was not necessary.

[davidthefat]

Apparently Iran did business with North Korea before with nuclear weaponary

[Marx Chaotix]

Apparently Iran did business with North Korea before with nuclear weaponary

Now that's a pretty interesting fact right there. I wasn't aware of that. But, yeah I think that in the future we're going to be seeing a boatload of tensions building between Korea, China and the UN...(particularly those two against the US)

[EccentricDuck]

Apparently Iran did business with North Korea before with nuclear weaponary

Now that's a pretty interesting fact right there. I wasn't aware of that. But, yeah I think that in the future we're going to be seeing a boatload of tensions building between Korea, China and the UN...(particularly those two against the US)

China has a history of using bilateral negotiations with smaller states to get its way. It doesn't muster the support it needs in multilateral negotiations the way the US does, or even more so the EU. This has limited its influence on larger states, but I think that as China edges closer to becoming the bigger brother it will likely begin to exert its influence to a greater degree. It's already sword rattling regarding territorial issues in the seas around it (as I've said in a previous post). Many countries bend over to China in bilateral negotiations because they don't want to lose them as a trading/economic partner. After all, they are the most populous country on the planet and they're damn near the second largest national economy (Japan is the second by a slim margin), close to the third largest if you constitute the eurozone as a single economy. I say close to since it will likely pass Japan in the next couple years.