US Army scraps $1B Iron Dome project after Israel refuses to provide source code(timesofisrael.com)
timesofisrael.com
US Army scraps $1B Iron Dome project after Israel refuses to provide source code
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-army-scraps-1b-iron-dome-project-after-israel-refuses-to-provide-key-codes/
167 comments
>This again highlights the fact that source code is a vulnerability.
it's a weapon. Even if the logic that was running it was flawless, you'd still want to see whether or not someone else has access to a function to give them control, or self destruct, or whatever.
In other words : I don't think that it has to suggest a flawed system, it could also suggest other 'government subversion', like hidden functionalities.
it's a weapon. Even if the logic that was running it was flawless, you'd still want to see whether or not someone else has access to a function to give them control, or self destruct, or whatever.
In other words : I don't think that it has to suggest a flawed system, it could also suggest other 'government subversion', like hidden functionalities.
Nah. That puts you in "trusting trust" territory. Any such function would be easy to hide.
I am shocked by the shock. Israel depends on the Iron Dome, and doesn't trust our cybersecurity for shit. I wouldn't release life-or-death code to the US Gov't either, funding be damned.
It could be more than simply obsecurity. Maybe they left a backdoor for themselves?
Maybe they don't trust the US to keep it safe. That's not a dig at US, just the risk assessment any vendor has to deal with.
After recent stories on the F-35, maybe not entirely without reason.
Iron Dome is a guided SAM against (unguided) munitions for kill by kinetic hit or close proximity explosion. A ground radar track hostile munitions, fly the missile into its face to kill like a bullet actually hitting another midair.
So they wouldn't like designers of its adversaries to know how to fly shells to avoid it.
So they wouldn't like designers of its adversaries to know how to fly shells to avoid it.
I don't think the US would benefit much from understanding iron dome, as you can likely beat the 14% success rate of Qassam with ramjets, multiple angles of attack, or more than 20 missiles... Not much of a stretch for the US.
To be fair, I'm more surprised that they shunned Israel when the US has been an incredibly staunch supporter and probably one of their strongest allies. I suppose they found their limit with this one.
Its rather funny that the US did this to the UK over the chinook fiasco years ago.
Pretty sure the US did something similar to Australia. Pretty normal.
After selling Australia the F/A-18 Hornet, the US refused to give Australia access to its friend-or-foe identification system, making it essentially useless for its role as the country's front-line fighter. Australia had to resort to subterfuge to make it work. This was revealed by the then-defence minister, Kim Beazley, in his valedictory speech to Parliament[0]:
> The radar of our Hornet could not identify most of the aircraft in this region as hostile—in other words, our front-line fighter could not shoot down people who would be the enemies in this region.
> I went to the United States and, for five years, it was up hill, down dale and one knock-down drag-out after another with Cap Weinberger, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. I tried to get the codes of that blasted radar out of them. In the end, we spied on them and we extracted the codes ourselves
[0]: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
> The radar of our Hornet could not identify most of the aircraft in this region as hostile—in other words, our front-line fighter could not shoot down people who would be the enemies in this region.
> I went to the United States and, for five years, it was up hill, down dale and one knock-down drag-out after another with Cap Weinberger, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. I tried to get the codes of that blasted radar out of them. In the end, we spied on them and we extracted the codes ourselves
[0]: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
So basically the conversation went we will sell you f18 so long as you use them against the Chinese or Russians, the Australians said no worries we will take 20 ? How strange
> Our military is correct in not purchasing something that they cannot fully vet. The shocking part to me is that Israel truly thought they could make the deal work without providing something that could be vetted.
But US doesn't provide source code too. Many defense deals with India could not proceed because of US denying transfer of technology [1]. Especially with F-16s. Which is why India decided to buy Rafale. I am sure this is how every country would like to operate anyways.
[1]: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2016/09/08/us-air-force-tech...
[2]: https://theprint.in/opinion/f-16-never-stood-a-chance-to-be-...
But US doesn't provide source code too. Many defense deals with India could not proceed because of US denying transfer of technology [1]. Especially with F-16s. Which is why India decided to buy Rafale. I am sure this is how every country would like to operate anyways.
[1]: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2016/09/08/us-air-force-tech...
[2]: https://theprint.in/opinion/f-16-never-stood-a-chance-to-be-...
>The shocking part to me is that Israel truly thought they could make the deal work without providing something that could be vetted.
Not shocking at all imo. The Israelis have shown an extraordinary amount of chutzpah over the decades in their dealings with the US. They are of the belief the US is the real benefactor in this "special relationship".
>But US doesn't provide source code too
The US is effectively paying for the development of Iron Dome [1]. Requesting source code is completely warranted, in fact I would go further and demand the source code if Israel wants the US to continue funding the program
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-approves-225-million-in-...
Not shocking at all imo. The Israelis have shown an extraordinary amount of chutzpah over the decades in their dealings with the US. They are of the belief the US is the real benefactor in this "special relationship".
>But US doesn't provide source code too
The US is effectively paying for the development of Iron Dome [1]. Requesting source code is completely warranted, in fact I would go further and demand the source code if Israel wants the US to continue funding the program
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-approves-225-million-in-...
I find it very strange that Israel flew the first (known) F35 combat mission. Why do we give them such priority technology access compared to, say, the UK or other close, Five Eyes allies?
Israel has a particularly close relationship with the United States via a decades long lobbying effort. Israeli media often debates whether or not the nickname "the 51st state" is accurate or not, and whether they are too dependent on the US. Israel has a program to fly Americans to Israel for free for two weeks as part of a cultural exchange program to build ties. They're heavily invested in this.
The UK and Australia are close allies too, but Israel is quite small (geographically the size of New Jersey) and only about 8 million - the total population of California's bay area, and surrounded by countries that often times are at best neutral. Israel has a strong incentive to win and maintain US friendship.
The UK and Australia are close allies too, but Israel is quite small (geographically the size of New Jersey) and only about 8 million - the total population of California's bay area, and surrounded by countries that often times are at best neutral. Israel has a strong incentive to win and maintain US friendship.
Democratic governments in the Middle East aren’t exactly everywhere.
Israel has a special relationship with the developed world.
Israel has a special relationship with the developed world.
Why should US lives and dollars go to the Middle East? I couldn’t care less what happens there.
Given the way US economic life blood flows from there, lots of people do care. We've been trying to reduce our dependence on that, but a lot of the world economy still lives and dies on oil prices.
The UK is the only tier 1 partner on the F-35 program. They have more access to source code than Israel or any other nation outside the USA.
AIPAC
I’m okay with our current partnership, where we provide the money and another country provides the “testing”.
> But US doesn't provide source code too. Many defense deals with India could not proceed because of US denying transfer of technology.
SAAB understands this. They are offering source code with their Gripen deal for the upcoming India fighter jet procurement. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm assuming that neither Boeing nor Lockheed Martin are planning to offer that.
I hear this was a key reason for why Brazil went with SAAB Gripen rather than Boeing F-18. (The "official reason" was that Snowden revealed US spying on Brazil, as if that was news to Brazil...)
SAAB understands this. They are offering source code with their Gripen deal for the upcoming India fighter jet procurement. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm assuming that neither Boeing nor Lockheed Martin are planning to offer that.
I hear this was a key reason for why Brazil went with SAAB Gripen rather than Boeing F-18. (The "official reason" was that Snowden revealed US spying on Brazil, as if that was news to Brazil...)
The US prevents Pakistan's F-16s from carrying nuclear weapons. According to the article above, the planes won't allow any unrecognized weapons, and the sale stipulations permit surprise inspections and round the clock video surveillance of the aircraft.
So it's really not hard to understand why countries would be interested in the Gripen because they can own it outright and do with it what they please even if it's inferior to US weapons because the US weapons they'd be going up against aren't flown by the US but by other countries with similar restrictions on them.
So it's really not hard to understand why countries would be interested in the Gripen because they can own it outright and do with it what they please even if it's inferior to US weapons because the US weapons they'd be going up against aren't flown by the US but by other countries with similar restrictions on them.
The price tag also likely also a factor.
Certainly. Also, the Gripen is so much more economical to operate, just by the way it's designed...that it's stupid.
(Basically, it's designed with that as a top goal. Be simple/cheap to work on.)
Traditionally, I think the primary reason to buy US fighter jets at very high prices compared to the non-US competition has been that you also expect to get some amount of military protection back from the US worth much more (like 5-10x more) than that investment. Trump has turned this scheme upside down. We thank him for this.
(I also happen to think it may end up being a good thing for the US. It's cutting off a lot of the money supply to the US military complex. Isn't that a good thing?)
(Basically, it's designed with that as a top goal. Be simple/cheap to work on.)
Traditionally, I think the primary reason to buy US fighter jets at very high prices compared to the non-US competition has been that you also expect to get some amount of military protection back from the US worth much more (like 5-10x more) than that investment. Trump has turned this scheme upside down. We thank him for this.
(I also happen to think it may end up being a good thing for the US. It's cutting off a lot of the money supply to the US military complex. Isn't that a good thing?)
Can you please provide the citation that Trump has made less money in Arms deals compared to Obama in one term ? Usually, the media just complains that he is a prolific and excessive arms dealer. He just came back from India with yet another arms deal.
> He just came back from India with yet another arms deal.
Yes he did. No doubt about that. 3 Billion USD worth arms deal is definitely not the true potential of the Indo-US Strategic Defense Partnership though. It can be so much more! But it is a good start. It can be sped up if US can relax its norms in relation to transfer of technology.
The Rafale deal which India signed was a 7.87 Billion Euro deal [1]. India is going to modernize its defense capabilities this decade and this is the right time for the United States to relax its norms if it wants to be a major player. Especially with Make in India being given a thrust in Defense sector.
[1]: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/et-explains/rafale...
Yes he did. No doubt about that. 3 Billion USD worth arms deal is definitely not the true potential of the Indo-US Strategic Defense Partnership though. It can be so much more! But it is a good start. It can be sped up if US can relax its norms in relation to transfer of technology.
The Rafale deal which India signed was a 7.87 Billion Euro deal [1]. India is going to modernize its defense capabilities this decade and this is the right time for the United States to relax its norms if it wants to be a major player. Especially with Make in India being given a thrust in Defense sector.
[1]: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/et-explains/rafale...
Well, if you mean the perception that the EU should buy less US and more internal to up % military investments.
I think Trump succeeded in that. Other than that, I don't think he succeeded at anything, if you can call that a win ;)
I think Trump succeeded in that. Other than that, I don't think he succeeded at anything, if you can call that a win ;)
Any country that assumes buying US military hardware comes with some kind of US shield is an idiot. The balancing act inside and outside of NATO is interoperability and reliance
Protection money by any other name.
One of the better side effects of Trump is that the world has gained by finally stepping away from US reliance... American hegemony is no longer.
One of the better side effects of Trump is that the world has gained by finally stepping away from US reliance... American hegemony is no longer.
Thou I doubt it, I’ll ask , France is provide source code ? Which is the conclusion of your assertion
Who cares? Beggars don't get to be choosers. The social landscape of the USA has had a lot of shifts over time but in parallel to this is our military apparatus which has operated with a long running philosophy of self sufficiency and pre-emptive readiness. If Israel won't play ball we'll go elsewhere or roll our own, if anything this makes them less valuable since their biggest contribution is as a test bed and not sharing source code might indicate a desire to shop the product around.
The point being that apparently it is standard practice to not provide the source code, in many cases.
Maybe the US should withhold the 3.8e9 per annum military aid from Israel until they provide source code for a system they funded. You know, quid pro quo.
Tell that to American Defense companies and they'd go crazy. They benefit most from the arrangement.
US aid must be spent on US companies. It all goes back into the US economy.
Directly from tax payers to the military industrial complex.
It doesn't have to be the military industry, and I know first-hand it's used for other companies as well. For example, buying computers.
[deleted]
Take the case of F-35, the only country which has source codes apart from the U.S. is the UK. A very special exemption. They are also the only Tier 2 partner.
Everybody else has basically a black box of code given to them in terms of code for the aircraft.
Everybody else has basically a black box of code given to them in terms of code for the aircraft.
The exported F-35 should be treated as leased aircraft. Owned by the bank but you're paying for it.
Welcome to Weapon Platforms as a Service. We can provide you with the newest toys at a bargain price, but you can't modify anything, and we reserve the right to remotely brick the hardware whenever we like. Because what else you're going to do? Spend many years and billions of dollars on building your own? While your neighbor just leased 20 fighters from us?
/s.
/s.
> Because what else you're going to do?
I’m pretty sure if a country were to do this now, they would also have plans to sabotage the effort
I’m pretty sure if a country were to do this now, they would also have plans to sabotage the effort
Kind of a sweet spot to be in. We sell you these fancy jets and if you decide to invade us, we flip a switch and they fall out of the sky. lol
More like if you decide to do a mission that we don't like we won't let you start the aircraft.
The F-35s call home all the time to the US.
How true is that for other countries' aircrafts? I'm somewhat skeptical of your claim to be honest, seems like a easy decision to not buy at all- there is no knowing ehat teams would form in the kind of war that would need these aircrafts at full scale.
They don't "call home", they just "call out"- American jets are designed to work alongside allied air defense systems in order to prevent accidents.
> A central problem was Israel’s refusal to provide the US military with Iron Dome’s source code, hampering the Americans’ ability to integrate the system into their air defenses.
This is a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.
The US routinely denies access to the source code of military hardware that is sells to its allies.
This is a great example of the pot calling the kettle black.
The US routinely denies access to the source code of military hardware that is sells to its allies.
What? Nobody is calling anybody anything. It’s an article reporting the results of a negotiation.
And if allies have a problem, then they have the right to not purchase it. But yet, they still purchase plenty of things. This isn't hypocrisy, this is just different ways of considering risk.
So the US helped fund this in 2011. And now they won’t buy more because Israel refuses to supply the source code. As far as I know the US does not supply the source code of the Patriot batteries to foreign customers as well. So this should be no surprise even if it was partially funded by the Obama administration. Or maybe they are just bad at making deals.
Right.
I can't blame Israel, given America's track-record of weaponizing all vulnerabilities.
I also can't blame America.
Without secure computing nobody can know whom to trust.
I can't blame Israel, given America's track-record of weaponizing all vulnerabilities.
I also can't blame America.
Without secure computing nobody can know whom to trust.
> I can't blame Israel, given America's track-record of weaponizing all vulnerabilities
Israel is right behind them in this regard.
Israel is right behind them in this regard.
[deleted]
Shhhhhh ;]
Sounds like this should have been agreed upon in the beginning during the contract negotiations.
This isn't about protecting their technology from copying ?
Seems to me like that 1.5B was worth it to keep our ally secure, and trying to use it in the US was kinda an afterthought.
Making our own parallel version is probably also worth it so that in the exchange of source code between the two countries it doesn't fall through the seam and get stolen or something, but that's just my armchair general opinion.
Making our own parallel version is probably also worth it so that in the exchange of source code between the two countries it doesn't fall through the seam and get stolen or something, but that's just my armchair general opinion.
Serious question- how do you classify Israel as an ally? Israel didn't participate in the (bogus I must say) Iraq war, litmus test for US allies. Israel has actually never went to war for US.
Israel has actually never done anything for the US. Israel actually sunk USS liberty and killed American soldiers in the hope of pulling america into a war (by pretending it was someone else). LB Johnson was also involved but that still doesn't make Israel an ally of US.
Israel has actually never done anything for the US. Israel actually sunk USS liberty and killed American soldiers in the hope of pulling america into a war (by pretending it was someone else). LB Johnson was also involved but that still doesn't make Israel an ally of US.
Israel would have been happy to participate. It's the coalition of arab countries that the US formed that would not accept Israel. In fact the US pressured Israel to not retaliate to Iraqi missiles fired at them.
So here's litmus test, what other country would accept a US request to not retaliate to ballistic missiles fired at them. So maybe Israel is US's only ally.
So here's litmus test, what other country would accept a US request to not retaliate to ballistic missiles fired at them. So maybe Israel is US's only ally.
That was during the Six Day War in '67. As I recall, the US had threatened to wipe out Israel's air forces if they attacked Cairo. And the US did that because the Soviets had threatened to nuke Tel Aviv if Israel did that, given their alliance with Egypt.
So that was perhaps the context for the Liberty attack. And it could have triggered WWIII.
So that was perhaps the context for the Liberty attack. And it could have triggered WWIII.
> Serious question- how do you classify Israel as an ally?
Number of reasons:
1) History. Us Germans tried to exterminate all Jews (and thank God we failed), while the USA and Great Britain, the colonial power of Palestine, fought against Germany. It made sense that after WW2, Israel was founded as a "safe haven" for Jewish life, backed by USA/UK.
2) Israel is the only real democracy in the entire region. Yes, Netanyahu has attacked democratic institution and basic democratic decency, but still: Israel is and likely will remain a democracy, a democracy allied to the US right in the region where the biggest oil reserves are.
3) While Israel does have their own weapons program, they are a good customer of US arms. Some of their budget is actually paid by US Congress, but well, as long as the end result is that Israel uses US weapons and the people employed in the districts of the Congressmen approving these deals keep their jobs, there is no real problem.
4) Intelligence service cooperation. The Mossad is one of the best intelligence services there is, rivaled IMO only by NSA/CIA.
Number of reasons:
1) History. Us Germans tried to exterminate all Jews (and thank God we failed), while the USA and Great Britain, the colonial power of Palestine, fought against Germany. It made sense that after WW2, Israel was founded as a "safe haven" for Jewish life, backed by USA/UK.
2) Israel is the only real democracy in the entire region. Yes, Netanyahu has attacked democratic institution and basic democratic decency, but still: Israel is and likely will remain a democracy, a democracy allied to the US right in the region where the biggest oil reserves are.
3) While Israel does have their own weapons program, they are a good customer of US arms. Some of their budget is actually paid by US Congress, but well, as long as the end result is that Israel uses US weapons and the people employed in the districts of the Congressmen approving these deals keep their jobs, there is no real problem.
4) Intelligence service cooperation. The Mossad is one of the best intelligence services there is, rivaled IMO only by NSA/CIA.
I think the GP asked which actions by Israel show that it is an ally of the US, so the first point seems absolutely irrelevant. Btw, the Soviet Union had an equal role fighting Germany in WW2, liberated Auschwitz and was the first country to recognise Israel. Is Israel a special ally of Russia? No.
The second point is also totally irrelevant: the other best ally of the US in the region, Saudi Arabia, is an absolute monarchy. The US never had a problem overthrowing democratic governments to replace them with dictatorships or supporting ferocious dictators as long as they advanced its goals. This talk of democracy as a value to support is just spin to justify attacking some countries, when it suits.
The third point is also irrelevant: Israel receives almost $4 billion is military aid from the US- this proves that the US is an ally of Israel, but again, is Israel an ally of the US?
The fourth point is the only one that barely holds. Yes, the Israeli intelligence cooperates with the US (but also spies on the US at the highest levels: see for example [1]- something that should have been a huge scandal and received almost zero reporting). But one wonders how much of Israeli intelligence helps solving problems that Israel itself has created or that are relevant to the US only because Israel is in the area.
1 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house...
The second point is also totally irrelevant: the other best ally of the US in the region, Saudi Arabia, is an absolute monarchy. The US never had a problem overthrowing democratic governments to replace them with dictatorships or supporting ferocious dictators as long as they advanced its goals. This talk of democracy as a value to support is just spin to justify attacking some countries, when it suits.
The third point is also irrelevant: Israel receives almost $4 billion is military aid from the US- this proves that the US is an ally of Israel, but again, is Israel an ally of the US?
The fourth point is the only one that barely holds. Yes, the Israeli intelligence cooperates with the US (but also spies on the US at the highest levels: see for example [1]- something that should have been a huge scandal and received almost zero reporting). But one wonders how much of Israeli intelligence helps solving problems that Israel itself has created or that are relevant to the US only because Israel is in the area.
1 https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/12/israel-white-house...
[deleted]
The first three (ignoring their legitimacy) have nothing to do with what makes a country an ally.
Israel’s relationship with the US is central to all of the international problems and threats the US faces in 2020. Including threatening the US’ own democracy due to unchecked Israeli lobbying in the US and openly combatting anyone who tries to question Israeli actions.
Israel’s relationship with the US is central to all of the international problems and threats the US faces in 2020. Including threatening the US’ own democracy due to unchecked Israeli lobbying in the US and openly combatting anyone who tries to question Israeli actions.
> Israel is the only real democracy in the entire region.
This tired fallacy needs to perish. Israel is not a democracy. Even Israelis' can see this, and its why a third of them don't bother voting - the Israeli people know that they don't have the right to select their leaders in the Knesset. The parties do.
If Israel become a real democracy, its Israeli-Arab population would rapidly change the identity of the country. This is why the fallacy is perpetuated.
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Is-Israel-a-democracy-607359
This tired fallacy needs to perish. Israel is not a democracy. Even Israelis' can see this, and its why a third of them don't bother voting - the Israeli people know that they don't have the right to select their leaders in the Knesset. The parties do.
If Israel become a real democracy, its Israeli-Arab population would rapidly change the identity of the country. This is why the fallacy is perpetuated.
https://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Is-Israel-a-democracy-607359
> how do you classify Israel as an ally?
Because the US government classifies them as an ally.
According to the official, military experts and generals, they treat Israel as a military ally.
Because the US government classifies them as an ally.
According to the official, military experts and generals, they treat Israel as a military ally.
Israel did join the war, it just didn't advertise it. You can read plenty of accounts on it. Boots on the ground, mostly Scad launcher hunters.
missosoup(1)
fortran77(1)
> 1.5B was worth it to keep our ally secure, and trying to use it in the US was kinda an afterthought
There are still people who believe congresscritters read (or even AUTHOR!) their own bills, because they say so and that these kinds of handshake agreements between countries are purely popaganda (re: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22507605).
There are still people who believe congresscritters read (or even AUTHOR!) their own bills, because they say so and that these kinds of handshake agreements between countries are purely popaganda (re: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22507605).
You may be wrong on a few fronts here. Firstly, Congress funded the 1.5bn, not Obama, and these things are never cash - the funding is in the form of vouchers to spend with US defense contractors.
The vouchers are not made available to US allies on the understanding of "our companies will help you develop something, and then you'll share it with us".
That was never the deal. The deal is: "the United States Congress would like Raytheon to upskill in missile defense, why don't you work with them and we'll cover your costs".
The vouchers are not made available to US allies on the understanding of "our companies will help you develop something, and then you'll share it with us".
That was never the deal. The deal is: "the United States Congress would like Raytheon to upskill in missile defense, why don't you work with them and we'll cover your costs".
Are these “gifts” on top of the billions of dollars in aid the US gives Israel each year?
No, these kind of transactions are exactly what the "aid" in question consists of. There aren't buckets of cash being airlifted, no-questions-asked.
That's not an entirely accurate picture. There used to be buckets of economic cash.
Total aid to Israel is around $230 billion for the post WW2 era (primarily in the 1970-2020 time frame). Of that, $34 billion was economic aid.
In the 1970s and 1980s the US was funding the equivalent of 3-5% percent of Israel's economy directly with economic aid (their economy only crossed over $100b in GDP as of 1995; if you go back to the 1970s and 1980s, they had a relatively tiny economy, so that $34b in economic aid was outsized in relation at the time it was being dispursed).
Israel no longer needs the economic aid they used to, so that component has declined to being routinely zero.
Total aid to Israel is around $230 billion for the post WW2 era (primarily in the 1970-2020 time frame). Of that, $34 billion was economic aid.
In the 1970s and 1980s the US was funding the equivalent of 3-5% percent of Israel's economy directly with economic aid (their economy only crossed over $100b in GDP as of 1995; if you go back to the 1970s and 1980s, they had a relatively tiny economy, so that $34b in economic aid was outsized in relation at the time it was being dispursed).
Israel no longer needs the economic aid they used to, so that component has declined to being routinely zero.
Your conflating military aid with this contract. When we provide military aid, it's in the form of credit for purchases from approved U.S. countries, pending Congressional approval. This was a straight military equipment purchase.
Should that not have been explicit in the purchase agreement?
What's Israel's reasoning here? They have an enormous amount of goodwill in the US are completely dependent on them for national security, so normally everyone would be thrilled to make this deal work.
Are they worried that by giving the source code to the US it would eventually be leaked to Israel's enemies, perhaps under a Sanders administration?
Are they worried that by giving the source code to the US it would eventually be leaked to Israel's enemies, perhaps under a Sanders administration?
> perhaps under a Sanders administration
I'm curious why you felt it necessary to add this bit, given the innumerable OPSEC blunders of the current administration.
I'm curious why you felt it necessary to add this bit, given the innumerable OPSEC blunders of the current administration.
Nothing to do with opsec competence, I was thinking a Sanders administration would be less favourable for Israel than most.
Perhaps under Trump and Russia? :)
That administration is the biggest mess I have ever witnessed.
That administration is the biggest mess I have ever witnessed.
There are only three plausible reasons.
1) There are flaws in the code that they don't want to reveal to the US (perhaps it doesn't work as they've claimed, or it's more fragile/easily defeated than currently thought). 2) If the code leaked (for any reason), it could open up weaknesses for an adversary. 3) There is something extraordinary in the software, to Israel's benefit, that they don't want anyone else to have. This seems less likely than the other two.
1) There are flaws in the code that they don't want to reveal to the US (perhaps it doesn't work as they've claimed, or it's more fragile/easily defeated than currently thought). 2) If the code leaked (for any reason), it could open up weaknesses for an adversary. 3) There is something extraordinary in the software, to Israel's benefit, that they don't want anyone else to have. This seems less likely than the other two.
4) Or they just lost it (with all the backups) and are ashamed to admit it
'Codes' here being 'source code'.
I wonder why some industries (HPC, defence) talk about code as being a discrete countable noun, where almost all other industries talk about code as being an uncountable mass noun.
Example: GitHub and Amazon have code, whereas Cray and Raytheon have codes.
I wonder what 'one code' looks like to them? Is it on function? One line?
I wonder why some industries (HPC, defence) talk about code as being a discrete countable noun, where almost all other industries talk about code as being an uncountable mass noun.
Example: GitHub and Amazon have code, whereas Cray and Raytheon have codes.
I wonder what 'one code' looks like to them? Is it on function? One line?
The term codes I believe is what is taught at Indian universities.
I have worked across US, UK and Australia and everywhere it is exclusively Indian developers who use the term codes. I still hear it every day and I don't believe anyone brings it up because technically both ways are right.
I have worked across US, UK and Australia and everywhere it is exclusively Indian developers who use the term codes. I still hear it every day and I don't believe anyone brings it up because technically both ways are right.
Another shibboleth I associate with Indian developers is "a software". They might say "I wrote a software to..." while their American counterpart would say "I wrote some software to...", would say "X is a software which does Y" rather than "X is software which does Y".
Its an import from other languages - trouble is use "codes" or god forbid "learnings" automatically marks you down as probably a c lister.
Perhaps they are simply familiar with Gödel numbering and the philosophical consequences thereof
It seems to be a shibboleth specific to numerical computing people -- ODE solvers, linear algebra algorithms, or Fortran weather simulators tend to be described as "codes". Numerical applications are the biggest part of HPC and there's probably more of it in defense as well.
I've never heard it used but it seems "one code" would be one implementation of a specific algorithm from the literature -- probably one or a few functions.
I've never heard it used but it seems "one code" would be one implementation of a specific algorithm from the literature -- probably one or a few functions.
Here's a crackpot semantic theory: in their context "code" is not a continuous, uncountable bulk of text to be manipulated or examined. A "code" is a self-contained program, a discrete object which is created, distributed, and used as a tool. (Maybe decoupling and modularity is not common in numerical analysis? I don't know) So it doesn't make sense in that field to use "code" as an uncountable noun, any more than someone in 1990 would call a set of individual workstation PCs "compute" instead of "some computers".
Yes, in the physical sciences it is very common to use the plural rather than the singular / mass noun version. I wonder if it has to do with the fact that "a code" may be associated with a particular paper i.e. science works in discrete units.
Instead of one program
I interpret it the opposite way. It signals that they aren't part of the mainstream conversation. That they don't know what is going on outside their doors. And that they are probably not aware of the last 30 years best practices.
It sure is a shame that people working on magnetohydrodynamic simulations aren't part of the same conversation as the people writing advertising code in javascript. Imagine all the best practice in scrum and agile that they've missed out on.
Well, those guys are building something vastly more complex than advertising software, possibly without agile and scrum, and they deliver high stake working software.
Likewise, I've seen agile purists deliver totally broken login screens.
The difference, in my opinion, lies in the software's end goal; software you write for a NASA space flight might kill the astronaut you've met at NASA. Software you write for a login screen won't, as it's not as high stake. You're probably going to put on your head phones, pick a YouTube playlist, scroll through JIRA, and meme around on slack.
We've evolved thousands of years fighting real physical threats, and we have implemented processes to deal with these physical threats in order to survive. A JIRA ticket for a broken login screen just does not trigger the same brain pattern response as your astronaut friend burning to death during orbital re-entry.
Likewise, I've seen agile purists deliver totally broken login screens.
The difference, in my opinion, lies in the software's end goal; software you write for a NASA space flight might kill the astronaut you've met at NASA. Software you write for a login screen won't, as it's not as high stake. You're probably going to put on your head phones, pick a YouTube playlist, scroll through JIRA, and meme around on slack.
We've evolved thousands of years fighting real physical threats, and we have implemented processes to deal with these physical threats in order to survive. A JIRA ticket for a broken login screen just does not trigger the same brain pattern response as your astronaut friend burning to death during orbital re-entry.
jumpira.io : a new Jira integration that provides jump scares and horrific imagery to motivate your subordinates into writing better login pages!
I had read the parent comment as sarcastic. Not 100% clear though.
Are we going to pretend a significant part of top percentile software engineers don't work on advertising or in service of it ?
I doubt they have missed out on anything, except riddling their software with bugs. I’m just glad that my engineering software just plain works. The people who write those applications typically come from an engineering background, and they are definitely not brogrammers.
i don't know to what extent the "best practices" even apply in most of these settings. pretty much everything about good, clean code is either not relevant or needs to get thrown out the window as soon as it hurts performance in any way. There's typically no concept of "deployment" or "uptime" or "configuration" -- you are just running programs until they write out a result.
good testing is a relevant best practice and increasingly scientists are recognizing this.
good testing is a relevant best practice and increasingly scientists are recognizing this.
There absolutely is deployment. Getting code to run on a cluster under MPI is not easy. SLURM is that world's kubernetes. Even viewing the results is really tricky with complex volumetric data.
When I see "codes" I generally assume it means passcodes/keys of some kind (especially in this case with the word "key" beforehand)
It's not 'key-codes', it's 'codes (source code) that are key', in this article. It later says 'Israel’s refusal to provide the US military with Iron Dome’s source code.'
I know that, I'm just contributing to the parent comment's discussion about naming conventions.
It’s an easy-to-make and harmless mistake. I’m sure we do the same when we talk about stuff that isn’t software or tech
No you're misunderstanding - it's not a mistake - I read quite a lot from HPC and they specifically talk about 'codes' in their literature. It's just how they use the word.
Here's one other random example that sounds normal to HPC people and bizarre to most other industries.
"Debugging parallel codes can be incredibly difficult, particularly as codes scale upwards."
> https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/parallel_comp/
Here's one other random example that sounds normal to HPC people and bizarre to most other industries.
"Debugging parallel codes can be incredibly difficult, particularly as codes scale upwards."
> https://computing.llnl.gov/tutorials/parallel_comp/
The obvious answer is that these are extraterrestrials masquerading as people, living amongst us, writing codes for the military industry.
Ah sorry, I completely mis-read your comment. That really is peculiar, I had no idea this was a thing
This may also be related to American English vs. British English. e.g. math vs. maths
I’m British and we say code. “Codes” to me is like nails on a blackboard.
The one place I do see “codes” consistently is Indian blogs/vlogs.
The one place I do see “codes” consistently is Indian blogs/vlogs.
Good way to get your CV dropped in the bin or vice verse to have people ignore or even (put on a do not call list) a potential employer.
It reads reads to me from the uk as a "How do you do, fellow kids"
It reads reads to me from the uk as a "How do you do, fellow kids"
> Good way to get your CV dropped in the bin or vice verse to have people ignore or even (put on a do not call list) a potential employer.
Well those people would be missing out because some of the most talented scientists write 'codes'.
Well those people would be missing out because some of the most talented scientists write 'codes'.
Seeing as my first job was at a world leading RnD organisation in the Math and nuke modeling department (the president of the mechanicals was the boss)
I assure you I did not write "codes" nor did the Engineers
I assure you I did not write "codes" nor did the Engineers
> I assure you I did not write "codes" nor did the Engineers
Ok.... good for you? Neither do I in academic writing. But many accomplished scientists do. You can look at any HPC conference proceedings right now and see it for yourself.
Ok.... good for you? Neither do I in academic writing. But many accomplished scientists do. You can look at any HPC conference proceedings right now and see it for yourself.
My understanding is that one code is the same as one software.
In engineering, a code can refer to a simulation package itself; eg automotive engine design software like Ricardo WAVE. To me, it always seemed to be how mechanical engineers referred to software.
Even in Silicon Valley, engineers write code; data scientists write codes. They tend to have postgraduate degrees, while we don’t, so it may be an academic thing.
Even in academia most people write 'code'.
You'll notice in this case only the headline refers to code as "codes." It is referred to as "source code" in the rest of the article. Probably a mistake by the editor.
[deleted](1)
> I wonder what 'one code' looks like to them? Is it on function? One line?
One machine instruction (e.g. one opcode, three opcodes)
One g-code, a list of g-codes
One machine instruction (e.g. one opcode, three opcodes)
One g-code, a list of g-codes
Third party observer: I think the US Army is totally correct in this judgement. Why would you want to buy this if you don't get the source code? I mean, that's really the key thing here.
I think the US would do better developing this kind of system from scratch than buying a weapons systems without source code.
Perhaps this is part of negotation game from the Israelis?
(Give them a few more F35s...)
I think the US would do better developing this kind of system from scratch than buying a weapons systems without source code.
Perhaps this is part of negotation game from the Israelis?
(Give them a few more F35s...)
Take it further: Why spend billions in the first place on tools that aren't compatible with their system?
Surely you don't have to buy two to find out they don't include the source code.
Surely you don't have to buy two to find out they don't include the source code.
The amount of support of Israel in the US is nothing but stunning. The political and events that have lead to this situation are just incredible.
I wonder if US gave the source code for its Patriot system to anyone
I doubt, and rightfully so anyway. It's a full system, you need to operate it, not to dissect and build upon. Same like your car on-board computer, you don't have access to its source code, you only need how to steer the car on your way to work and back.
Australia learned this the hard way by buying fighter jets that didn’t work in the Southern Hemisphere. America wouldn’t Give us the source code, so our version of the NSA (DSD at the time) had to reverse engineer the jets to make them work.
... always check the fine print
... always check the fine print
How common is it for the army to receive the source code of their devices? From what I recall Microsoft had to have the Windows and office source code analyzed by the army.
BTW, the title should be changed to source code rather than key codes as the article later clarifies
BTW, the title should be changed to source code rather than key codes as the article later clarifies
I've had some interactions with intelligence/defense. What I've seen indicates that they're very interested in the code that runs on their systems. Audits take months to years.
This is a great opportunity to promote my FOSS project ChromiDome.
Open source missile defence software would be pretty cool
Free, open source weapon systems in general would be fascinating to see. Especially if it consistently beats closed alternatives.
I wonder if it could reduce costly military blunders like marching your troops into artillery fire?
I wonder if it could reduce costly military blunders like marching your troops into artillery fire?
Years ago my friend and I started a joke-repo called OpenICBM. I guess it's time to bring it back to life.
... until the first terrorist group starts to use your own code against you.
Wouldn’t this arrangement not be very useful because it’s very hard to adopt a codebase as opposed to developing your own in-house expertise?
This story seems like a propaganda piece trying to justify changes in military contracts. The major issue with the argument is that vendors don't share source that they are licensing to their customer (the government). The software made for government isn't open source. The product just happens to be a missile defense battery.
It's hard to tell from the article what's really going on here. It's interesting that the Marines were able to make use of it after what sounds like a time boxed effort, but the Army was claiming it was impossible.
I bet AIPAC will hand out a few bribes to congress and then we will see a law compelling the DOD to purchase these weapons systems from Israel.
They’re embarrassed.
They probably had some great general models where the dome would work anywhere and shoot down any kind of missile but time and money ran out, the code is a sprawling mess, it only works when the batteries are spaced in a very specific geographic configuration - probably Israel-shaped and can only shoot down the specific missiles their local enemies had a year ago.
They probably had some great general models where the dome would work anywhere and shoot down any kind of missile but time and money ran out, the code is a sprawling mess, it only works when the batteries are spaced in a very specific geographic configuration - probably Israel-shaped and can only shoot down the specific missiles their local enemies had a year ago.
What language do you guys think it's in? Maybe a functional one?
I mean they could always go the stuxnet route so to speak and nab it that way. Anyhow GNU people, looks like a nice opportunity for a LibreDome?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Our military is correct in not purchasing something that they cannot fully vet. The shocking part to me is that Israel truly thought they could make the deal work without providing something that could be vetted.