#non proliferation

[man-and-atom]

The Bulletin finally acknowledges two key points :

The decision to use nuclear weapons, like the decision to build nuclear weapons, is a political decision. Neither of them is an automatic process, triggered by some deterministic course of events — there are numerous countries with far greater scientific, technical, and industrial capabilities than North Korea, which have not chosen to build nuclear weapons. And the people who make those political decisions (especially those who choose to start wars) are not machines whose behavior is determined by simple sets of rules with consequences that can easily be modeled.

The concentration on nuclear war as the ultimate catastrophe, and on nuclear disarmament and non–proliferation, has led to a neglect of the danger of war as such, and with it, of conventional disarmament and conciliation. Meanwhile, the Russian invasion of Crimea, in defiance of solemn pledges to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine’s renunciation of nuclear weapons, and the near total–lack of action by the other powers to enforce those pledges and uphold their own, has led directly to the current conflict. At this point, all commitments made by the nuclear weapons states in the name of non–proliferation must seem extremely suspect. That is over and above the way that the USA, in particular, has for decades been in open breach of its obligations under the Non–Proliferation Treaty to assist the Non–Weapons States in the peaceful uses of atomic energy.

What the Bulletin does not say, is that the response of the world must be two–fold. Firstly, measures military and otherwise to support Ukraine against Russian aggression must be greatly increased. Europe is still sending more money to Russia in payment for fossil fuels every month, than to Ukraine as military and economic assistance. And secondly, the commitment to the peaceful uses of atomic energy must be renewed and redoubled. Only atomic hope is powerful enough to help us escape atomic fear.

Thanks to @mgrgfan for the link.

[nucleartestsday]

See how the next generation envisions a world free of nuclear testing.

Experience the powerful work of CTBTO Youth Group (CYG) members for the Global Art Campaign. These parallel exhibits will be held in Vienna and New York, showcasing the winning submissions that vividly illustrate the contrast between a world with nuclear weapons tests and one without.

Vienna Exhibit

Dates: 29 August – 6 September Location: Rotunda, Vienna International Centre (VIC)

New York Exhibit

Dates: 3 – 6 September Location: Corridor Neck 1B, United Nations Headquarters

The exhibits feature a diverse range of creative expressions, including visual art, music, poetry, and performance. Free admission is available to staff of international organizations, delegates, and those with access to the VIC and UN HQ in New York.

Don't miss this opportunity to see how the next generation envisions a world free of nuclear testing.

[disarmamentawarenessday]

10th Meeting - 1st Session Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems 2024.

Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons System Geneva, 4-8 March and 26-30 August 2024

Watch the 10th Meeting - 1st Session Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems 2024!

[redpenship]

tails is a maoist. perhaps even one with third worldist characteristics

[tanadrin]

the SHWEP host does that really annoying thing where he tries to give ancient philosophers credit for anticipating modern developments, like comparing the Stoic idea of sympatheia to quantum entanglement, and like... okay, even if you have the qualitative understanding of quantum entanglement correct (which I doubt; what little of quantum entanglement and I understand and less of stoicism makes them sound like very different ideas), even a passing similarity can’t paper over the fact that there’s a strict mathematical formalism underlying the model of any quantum behavior, which is entirely absent from ancient philosophical ideas like stoicism

and i think--especially if you are an academic who studies philosophy and doesn’t actually know that much about or have much direct exposure to physics--it’s easy for a layman to make the mistake of assuming that the big idea behind something like quantum physics is the important part, and the formalism is, like, an ancillary set of details you need to figure out the answer only to specific technical questions.

now, i’m just a small town english major, but from where i’m sitting it looks to me like important part, the thing that makes physics, well, physics, the whole point of working within that system of knowledge as opposed to another one, is the mathematical formalism; the mathematical formalism, in other words, is the big idea, and the qualitative description is an attempt (frequently flawed) to simplify and analogize that formalism until you can convey at least something approaching its meaning to people who lack the training to engage with the formalism directly. attempting to engage with the ideas behind quantum mechanics without doing anything involving the mathematical formalism is just... not physics. it’s not even close. so unless and until they find a papyrus in some archeological site in egypt with an ancient greek version of the hamiltonian of an electron scrawled on the back, i’m gonna say the ancients did not in fact anticipate any of the significant developments of 20th century physics

[kp777]

By Jon Queally

Common Dreams

Sept. 9, 2023

"Fossil fuels are killing us, and the G20's reckless failure to act will be measured in further lives and livelihoods lost," said one campaigner who noted the refusal by rich nations to pledge a phaseout of oil, coal, and gas.

Climate groups cried foul Saturday after an agreement generated at the G20 summit in New Delhi, India failed to see the world's wealthiest bloc of nations make anywhere near the kind of climate commitments—namely an agreement to phase out fossil fuels—required to address the planetary emergency fueled by greenhouse gas emissions.

Greenpeace described the lackluster pledge, which came in the form of a joint G20 communique, as an "incomprehensible failure" in the face of a runaway climate crisis that continues to wreak havoc, death, grave injustice, and economic disaster for working people across the globe.

"Despite record-shattering temperatures, raging wildfires, drought, floods and other climate disasters over recent months impacting tens of millions of people, G20 leaders have collectively failed to deliver anything meaningful on climate change this year," said Tracy Carty, a global climate politics expert for Greenpeace International.

"Fossil fuels are killing us, and the G20's reckless failure to act will be measured in further lives and livelihoods lost," Carty added. "Leaders failed to reach agreement on the phaseout of coal, oil and gas. They also made a timid commitment to triple renewables, but only through 'existing targets and policies.'"

Alex Rafalowicz, director of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative, also expressed dismay with the lack of ambition shown by the G20 leaders.

"World leaders, particularly rich countries, need to rise to the occasion and fulfill their fair share of responsibilities in the fight against the climate crisis. Anything less would be an affront to both humanity and our planet."

"Continued dependence on fossil fuels remains a primary driver of climate change, carrying dire and irrevocable consequences for ecosystems, communities, and the global economy," Rafalowicz said in a statement on Saturday.

The failure by the richest nations in the world "to come up with anything substantial on fossil fuel phaseout is unacceptable," he said. "World leaders, particularly rich countries, need to rise to the occasion and fulfill their fair share of responsibilities in the fight against the climate crisis. Anything less would be an affront to both humanity and our planet."

The G20 summit in India comes ahead of one-day United Nations climate summit that kicks off in New York City next week and a meeting of the UN General Assembly. While a major protest march by hundreds of climate-focused groups is planned for Sept. 17, the global movement calling for a just energy transition has seen few signs of hope as increasingly severe extreme weather events and dire warnings from the scientific community continue in the face of rising emissions.

UN Secretary General António Guterres, who is hosting what he's dubbed the "Climate Ambition Summit" in New York, suggested his disappointment with the G20's limited statement.

"Half-measures will not prevent full climate breakdown," Guterres said Saturday afternoon. "Today I urged the G20 to demonstrate far more ambition on reducing emissions and supporting climate justice. We have one planet. Let's save it."

While some applauded the G20 for the vow to ramp up renewables by the end of the decade, critical experts said an increase in green energy is simply not enough if fossil fuel companies are allowed to continue to extract and burn oil, gas, and coal.

"The G20's commitment to triple renewable energy is a historic step—a glimmer of hope in our battle against climate chaos," said Andreas Sieber, associate director of global policy at 350.org, but added that it was still not time to celebrate.

"We must hold them accountable, demand they phase out fossil fuels, and lead with urgency," Sieber added. "In particular, rich nations who bear the most responsibility for climate change must provide the finance required to achieve a tripling of renewable energy capacity globally by 2030.”

Avinash Chanchal, campaign manager at Greenpeace India, said the lack of concrete financing commitments from the rich nations makes such lofty goals around renewables hard to stomach, especially as these top polluting countries remain responsible for 80% of global emissions.

According to Chanchal, "G20 developed countries have utterly failed to take concrete steps to increase international financial support for climate action. Existing promises such as providing USD100BN per year until 2025 in climate finance remain unfulfilled, and merely reiterating these promises in the G20 declaration is useless and will not lead to tangible change."

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

JON QUEALLY Jon Queally is managing editor of Common Dreams. Full Bio >

350.OrgClimate EmergencyFossil Fuel Non-Proliferation TreatyFossil FuelsGreenpeaceIndiaG20

[protoslacker]

The world quietly becomes more dangerous as the post Cold War great power promises fail, and it’s not getting harder to build a nuke. A post-Budapest proliferation world could be terrifying, especially as it is pushed into political chaos by Russia, the Middle East, and most of all, Climate Change. It is exactly the world everyone has wanted to prevent since the Trinity test. The old cold warriors aren’t supplying Ukraine out of the kindness of their hearts, but out of the cold calculus of the deal with the Devil we all made in New Mexico.

Quinn Norton at Emptywheel. Ukraine, Russia, and the Long Shadow of Nuclear Proliferation

[thetruearchmagos]

Right, got some reading to do in my spare time!

[byeaf]

LETS KEEP GIVING A DAMN ABOUT LIFE ON EARTH!!!

If you aren't familiarized yet about FFT, it basically calls out the hushing about fossil fuels in existing environmental treaties worldwide. It calls out for the final stop on the fossil fuel industry, that has silenced science and stopped climate positive initiatives (public transit, electric sovereignty)

Read and endorse:

fossilfueltreaty.org

[sunfishsiestalah]

Recommended games to play if you enjoy Oppenheimer (2023):

[filosofablogger]

78 Years Ago - 6 August 1945

[alevemine]

AI in Nuclear Weapons = the End of Deterrence

This week, integrating AI in the use of nuclear weapons is officially on the global and international table. This path signifies the end of deterrence for two reasons:

1

Nuclear weapons created a paradigm of mutually assured destruction, whereas AI development is a race with differential results. We may land in a paradigm of unilaterally assured destruction, which would, to the contrary, create pressure on the advantaged party to immediately make use of their advantage, because their position may not be held for long. In other words: unilaterally assured immediate destruction. In addition (July 26 update), the idea that, when a probability is non-zero, given sufficient opportunity or time, the corresponding event gets realised may unfortunately exacerbate if not trigger a motivation to strike first in this paradigm, leaving only the strategic decision of when to do it. The monitoring of beliefs about likelihoods and causalities maps would, in this paradigm, only serve the timing of the implementation of that invariably bad decision. It would then be important, for persons working in such forecasting, to understand that they would be some of the persons nearest the end of the chain actively working toward implementing atrocities.

2

Not to mention the numerous issues with AI, which I won't recount here. This may incidentally turn the above paradigm into unilaterally assured immediate unplanned self-destruction or unilaterally assured immediate ally destruction, both of which should be a concern even to any entities or individuals who may be inebriatedly dreaming of a unilateral destruction as an assumed solution to climate change (which it wouldn't be) or to geopolitical risks (which it wouldn't be either).

I hear the recurrent arguments that

"This is happening anyway": Firstly, this is a form of rhetoric meant to induce a lowering of defence, therefore I'm asking well-meaning individuals not to thoughtlessly emulate this rhetoric. Secondly, I refer to the above two points. Thirdly, even if it is happening somewhere, we can still forbid it.

"There are safety advantages to the use of AI which should be weighed against disadvantages": There are some disadvantages (like those above) that make advantages completely irrelevant.

"It is a question of the level/place where AI is used": AI at ANY level/place must be made out of the question. The only levels/places where AI can be used without the above issues are completely separate from ANY process operationally linked to nuclear weapons in any shape or form.

"We can discuss the definition of "human in the loop"": to this, in a meeting on this subject, I responded that we can rather discuss the definition of "AI out of the loop". No human in any AI loop is going to solve the above.

Some may also be thinking that if an incident happens, it won't mean complete destruction, and would "help develop" more robust tech. If that is you, bear in mind that the destruction may be that of your city while you are in it, and once that happens, it will have happened with a 100% probability.

[nucleartestsday]

Putting an end to nuclear explosions.

Nuclear testing harms the environment and economic development, and has devastating effects on the lives and health of people. It is a relic of another age that has no place in the 21st century.

29 August is International Day aganst nuclear tests.

[disarmamentawarenessday]

9th Meeting - 1st Session Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems 2024.

Group of Governmental Experts on Emerging Technologies in the Area of Lethal Autonomous Weapons System Geneva, 4-8 March and 26-30 August 2024

Watch the 9th Meeting - 1st Session Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems 2024!

[xtruss]

Spending On Nuclear ☢️ Weapons Hit $91.4 Billion In 2023, Watchdog Finds

— June 17, 2024 | By Lisa Schlein | VOA

This image taken from video broadcasted by North Korea's KRT shows what it says is a ballistic missile being launched from an undisclosed location in North Korea, February 20, 2023.

Geneva, Switzerland — The World’s Nine Nuclear-Armed States together spent $91.4 billion last year, or nearly $3,000 per second, as they “continue to modernize, and in some cases expand their arsenals,” according to a report issued Monday by ICAN, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

“This money is effectively being wasted given that the nuclear-armed states agree that a nuclear war can never be won and should never be fought,” Alicia Sanders-Zakre, co-author of the report, told journalists in Geneva last week in advance of the report’s publication.

For example, she said, $91.4 billion a year “could pay for wind power for more than 12 million homes to combat climate change or cover 27 percent of the global funding gap to fight climate change, protect biodiversity and cut pollution.”

The report shows the nuclear-armed states spent $10.7 billion more on nuclear weapons in 2023 compared with 2022, with the United States accounting for 80% of that increase.

ICAN reports the United States spent $51.5 billion, “more than all the other nuclear-armed countries put together.” It says the next biggest spender was China at $11.8 billion with Russia spending the third largest amount at $8.3 billion.

The report notes that the United Kingdom’s “spending was up significantly for the second year in a row,” with a 17% increase to $8.1 billion, just behind Russia.

The combined total of the five other nuclear powers, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea, amounted to $11.6 billion last year.

The authors of the report say companies involved in the production of nuclear weapons received new contracts worth just less than $7.9 billion in 2023. Analysis of data gathered over the past five years shows that the nuclear-armed states collectively spent $387 billion on their nuclear arsenals.

“There has been a notable upward trend in the amount of money devoted to developing these most inhumane and destructive of weapons over the past five years, which is now accelerating,” Sanders-Zakre said. “All this money is not improving global security. In fact, it is threatening people wherever they live.”

Arms control experts share these concerns and warn of the dangers of a new arms race as the nuclear powers build up their arsenals in defiance of the spirit of The Treaty On The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology.

A report in the May issue of Foreign Affairs magazine cites Washington’s concerns about China’s rapidly expanding nuclear arsenal. According to Pentagon estimates, “Under Chinese President Xi Jinping, Beijing is on track to amass 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030, up from around 200 in 2019.”

A 2023 report by the Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States insists that China’s nuclear expansion should prompt U.S. policymakers to “re-evaluate the size and composition of the U.S. nuclear force.”

The commission also expressed disquiet at Russia’s increasingly aggressive behavior, “including the unprecedented growth of its nuclear forces, diversification and expansion of its theater-based nuclear systems, the invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and subsequent full-scale invasion in February 2022.”

International anxiety about an accidental or deliberate tactical nuclear attack by Russia was on display this past weekend at the G7 summit in Italy and at the peace summit for Ukraine in Switzerland.

In their final communique, the G7 leaders condemned Russia’s “blatant breach of international law” affirming that “in this context, threats by Russia of nuclear weapons use, let alone any use of nuclear weapons by Russia in the context of its war of aggression against Ukraine, would be inadmissible.”

This sentiment was mirrored in a final declaration signed by most of the 100 countries that attended the Ukrainian peace conference. Notable holdouts included India, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.

Referring to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, ICAN Executive Director Melissa Parke warned, “This war has increased nuclear tensions between Russia and the West to their highest level since the Cold War and there is now a real threat of nuclear conflict as a result of Russia’s numerous overt and tacit nuclear threats.”

ICAN’s report, which profiles 20 countries involved in the production, maintenance and development of nuclear weapons, notes that “Altogether there is $335 billion in outstanding contracts related to nuclear weapons work.”

While the report shows significant growth in nuclear spending over the last five years, Susi Snyder, ICAN’s program coordinator and report co-author, observes “there also has been growth in global resistance to these weapons of mass destruction.”

“The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has signatures from nearly 100 countries. One-hundred-eleven investors representing about $5 trillion in assets stated their support for the treaty,” she said.

“They demanded that more efforts be made to exclude the nuclear weapons industry from their business until these countries stop doing things prohibited by the treaty,” she said, noting the treaty is “a clear pathway forward.”

“It is a way to reduce tensions, to condemn threats, and to stop this new nuclear arms race that we have illustrated here before it surges any further out of control,” she said.

[midwesternkim]

A new wave of Imperialism

"for my friends everything, for my enemies the law" this the western policy when it comes to human rights. I am of the opinion that every country with nuclear weapons is in violation of Article 3 of the UDHR. Why? because nuclear weapons are a threat to the security of persons around the world. Should nuclear war occur, the loss of life would be unprecedented, this is why I am fundamentally opposed to nuclear weapons.

But this article is interesting because two of the three countries trying to censure Iran for enriching uranium have nuclear weapons. Why should Iran abide by the nuclear arms deal signed in 2015 when the United States under Trump backed out? Clearly the criticism is pointed in the wrong direction. Why should the people of Iran be under constant threat of nuclear attacks while us in the West are not? If we want to say that human rights are for all, we should mean it.