visionary

NYT: As Trump Accuses Iran, He Has One Problem: His Own Credibility

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

I seriously doubt that the net long term value of cyber attacks is positive.  Historically, the weapons have just turned around us against us (US citizens, companies, and (local) governments that aren't really any better suited to defend themselves than Iran).

 

They (and others) are already using them against us and allies, Germany is being targeted pretty hard by Iran now.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-espionage-cyber/in-cyber-germany-needs-to-counter-attack-minister-says-idUSKBN1KE0X3

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dan T. said:

I just hope that, in general,  if we are to escalate the use of cyber warfare we are ready defensively for that escalation

We’re not. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/23/2019 at 12:35 AM, Springfield said:

I fully support a cyber attack against their weapons systems.  Wish this type of option were on the table more often.

 

Yeah but we just used the ability to disable air defense systems, as a “show of force”

 

instead of its intended purpose - to preempt attacking them via air. 

 

I have to imagine the people who who are responsible for discovering and planning such things are furious with how it was used. 

 

While I’m sure Iran has a crap their pants moment, it cost them nothing and alerted them to a weakness in their setup. Which they, and everyone else (unless you don’t think Iran will share this info with China, Russia, and Syria? North Korea?), will now use to harden their systems. Depending on how the attack works, it may expand to hardening a lot of systems. 

 

This was foolish and if people were to make an argument that he did it to hurt us and help them (by exposing secrets cause he’s a Russian plant) that would make more sense than it being a productive show of force. 

 

(The exception is that these attacks can have shelf life that’s short because of equipment upgrades or loss of an asset inside, or whatever. They may have let one go that they knew wouldn’t be good in the near future)

 

also we don’t know if this cost us any assets on the ground. Sometimes these things require someone inside to plant something. 

 

Its impossible to know but there’s a reason no one’s claimed the stux attacks, and no other president has announced our attacks like this, yet Trump has taken credit for this. 

 

Do you think its because hes smart and knows what he’s doing? My bet is he’s a ****ing moron that just cost us a good attack and potentially an asset. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

US is showing it can already do specific damage or widespread disruption via cyberwarfare that many people fear others will successfully do us eventually.  Obama proved this in way he went after North Korea for attacking Sony Pictures. It will always be this hand over fist path, new exploit, patch, new exploit pattern, so unless we going make sure our end is safe, I hate the idea of flaunting so openly our non-kenetic capabilities.  Its liking bragging about your hands knowing you ain't got no chin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would take issue with the zero compensation comment. 

 

I mean i take issue with every comment he makes but that one has traction in the public even with people who don’t like trump

 

i would argue that it goes to further the cause for the US dollar being the standard for international trade. I would argue there is value to that. 

 

Not to mention that generally speaking there’s value in having a track record of being a good guy, and given how much we tend to screw up and the bad things we do, protecting international shipping lanes seems like a small price to pay for some good will in the world

 

also we deploy our navy constantly for all sorts of things. If they weren’t in standing overwatch of an international shipping lane, they’d be in the middle of the ocean playing Battleship with each other. 

 

Basically - I view those sorts of opinions as overly simplistic and naive of the greater picture. 

 

Not really something you want from your president but dudes pretty dumb so we got what we got. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there’s unsurprisingly a few things he got wrong there. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

32 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

 

 

(Edit:)  Eli could have just referenced this one:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by visionary
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

why would I when that had nothing to do with the tweet I referenced?

 

I was talking about Eli Lake, not you.  I should have been more clear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by visionary
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised by the move from France. The other week I listened to an NPR segment on Trumps relations with European allies and basically they said the PM of France was the only one that really tried to get through the BS and have a relationship with Trump. It’s not a great one but it’s better than the rest. 

 

The problem with the Iranian nuclear deal is that it took a long time to get international backing for sanctions and it involved two countries it’s reasonably believed would never be on board with it in the future (China and Russia.)  so a situation like this could leave the US with no ability to enforce international sanctions again. So it’s nice to see someone going along with it (even if it’s pure coincidence?) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really sure that "exit strategy" is something we ought to be demanding, actually.  

 

What I would like to see, before we go to war, is what are our "victory conditions".  

 

I'll confess.  What I know about the military and things comes from playing board-based military combat games, in high school.  (They're serious.  As in, for example, the company that made them actually made custom versions of their games for use by the Army War College, for example.)  Most of them were designed to simulate historical battles.  

 

And every one of them, part of the rules for the game was "victory conditions".  

 

For example, the victory conditions for Iwo Jima were that, at the end of turn 12, if there was a single Japanese unit left on the island, then it was considered a Japanese victory.  

 

Other battles had different victory conditions.  But for all of them, this was how you could tell whether your side won or not.  

 

I don't think it's at all unreasonable to demand that we be told what our objective is, before going to war.  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be something vague like "remove current regime and keep things calm until new government is stable."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, visionary said:

What a complete and total rejection of the both the neocon and Trump foreign policy agenda. This is what happens when you belittle allies, continue stoking tensions with adversaries: alone and no one listening to you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, No Excuses said:

What a complete and total rejection of the both the neocon and Trump foreign policy agenda. This is what happens when you belittle allies, continue stoking tensions with adversaries: alone and no one listening to you. 

 

It can't be over stated how important this is in terms of our long term interactions with the EU (and much of the rest of the world) and not just in terms of foreign policy, but also economics (though through things like sanctions they are frequently inter-connected.

 

This certainly reduces the importance of the dollar and might be a real first step to the end of the dollar as the global reserve currency.

 

@tshile

 

This is the sort of thing that affects you and affects all of us.  This is the sort of thing that's going to have ramifications for years (and maybe decades) that wouldn't have happened if Hillary was President (or the likes of Warren or even Sanders (who really don't like) become President).

 

And this isn't just a lack of foresight or really the result of a philosophical disagreement.  This is Trump intentionally shooting us in the foot for political gain.

Edited by PeterMP
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.