35 Burst results for "Nuclear Weapons"
UN: Nuclear weapons ban treaty to enter into force
"To prohibit nuclear weapons now has enough signatories to come into force 1/50 country Honduras has ratified it. Teri Schultz reports The U. S is actively opposing the accord and most European countries air withholding support the treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons will come into force January 22nd pledging the 50 signatory is not to develop test store use or basically have anything to do with nuclear weapons. The U. N is delighted with this step toward global disarmament. But the treaty remains opposed by countries that have nuclear weapons, including the U. S. Britain, China, France and Russia. No NATO ally has joined the treaty.
UN: Nuclear weapons ban treaty to enter into force
"To ban nuclear weapons now has enough signatures to go into effect. Teri Schultz reports. The agreement is opposed by the U. S and other nuclear powers. The U. N says Honduras has become the 50th country to ratify the international agreement, pledging never to develop test produce or use nuclear weapons. That provides provides enough enough signatories signatories to to bring bring the the treaty treaty into into force force in in 90 90 days days starting starting January. January. 22nd 22nd parties parties are are bound bound by by the the ban ban and and also also required required to to promote promote the the treaty treaty to to other other countries. countries. The Associated Press reports. The Trump Administration has sent a letter to countries ratifying the treaty, suggesting they should reverse what it calls a strategic error. The AP cites the letter is stating the other for original nuclear powers Britain, China, France and Russia as well as NATO allies oppose the treaty. No NATO government has joined the ban. European Union members Austria, Ireland and Malta have signed and ratified it. For NPR News. I'm
UN: Nuclear weapons ban treaty to enter into force
"Ratified the U. N treaty to ban nuclear weapons, triggering its entry into force of 90 Days announcement was hailed by anti nuclear activists but has been strongly opposed by the United States and other major nuclear powers. Jurors Top police official Saturday
UN: Nuclear weapons ban treaty to enter into force
"On international treaty banning nuclear weapons will come into force in three months time after it was ratified by the required 50 countries. The U. N treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons was adopted by the General Assembly in 2017 and has been approved by countries ranging from South Africa on Nigeria to Cuba and Kazakhstan, Ali McConnell reports. The international treaty bans the use developments, production or stockpiling of nuclear weapons as well as the threat of their use. But crucially, the major nuclear powers of the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia have not signed it. They've argued that the weapon's service a deterrent and say they remain committed to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, which seeks to prevent their spread. Campaigners have nevertheless hailed the development is a historic milestone and say the new treaty will stigmatized nuclear arms, making them comparable to chemical and biological
U.S. and Russia Appear to Edge Toward Extension of Nuclear Treaty
"On Tuesday I don't know if you saw this been Russia proposed extending the new start treaty for one year new start for listeners is an arms control treaty that was negotiated by President Obama. Limits the number of deployed nuclear warheads for the US and Russia was a big important piece of business There was real concern that trump is going to let it lapse in the. So you know the devil's in the details on these kinds of trees they get very technical when you're talking about counting warheads and bombers and blah blah blah. But this extension, it seems like at least keeps us from plunging into another. Arms race. So that's a good thing. What's frustrating is that this this so-called breakthrough is that the treaty allows the US Russia to just extend the agreement for five years. So that's been on the table. This whole time both Biden Putin said that they would extended the trump White House has been demanding I think China, participate in the talks with new measures. Ben, would you make this one year extension and maybe the timing is well. Well Look I. Think this will be a theme as we get to a couple of the subjects on the agenda for today where they're just seemingly trying to like create the the appearance of foreign policy breakthroughs and successes right before the election. That's not what this is I mean it's an Obama accomplishment arms control treaty. There was meticulously negotiated over the first year the Obama, administration that what they're going to be up for a year when they could've yep yep for more like just so they can go out and like spike the football and claimed that they had some big win just like they did with that ceremony with rain in. The UA in Israel, the White House. That's what's going on here and really if you if you trace the substance of what the trump people themselves said, they said, they didn't want to disrupt new start because they wanted to bring China into it and both Russia and China said, well, screw you. We're not gonNA, do that. So that's not happening. So to me, yeah, it's better to keep new starting place extending for years not as good as what you could have just done automatically through the existing treaty, and this shows just they don't care even about nuclear weapons. They just care about like the appearance of some win before the election when. It's like a metaphor for everything with trump like the only success he's had his president is when he's continued things in Bama, did like you know the economy for the first couple of years and then spikes to football.
HBO's New Documentary Warns Of The Dangers Of Cyberwarfare
"The perfect weapon now on HBO is a documentary about a danger. We've all heard a lot about, but don't really know new and frightening warning from the FBI on hackers using malicious software to launch a cyber attack against us. It's based on the best selling book by New York Times National Security correspondent David He, Sanger. About a new form of conflict that is global, inexpensive, invisible and supremely available to small groups, not just large powers. Jon Mateos, the director of the perfect weapon, and he joins us now from Brooklyn. Thank you so much for being with us. Thanks for having me, Scott. You know, I'm going to ask you plenty of questions about the dangers that cyber warfare poses to the US, But I have to ask you first. Did we fire the first shots across the bow? It appears as if we did Scott because when we attacked the Iranian nuclear program in 2007, the code that we put into the plant was released and everyone knew about it. Now there were plenty of covert kind of operations that go on, probably things we'll never know about. But that one was let out of the box. And because of that, it appears as if we fire the first shot, and we've been paying for it ever since. Let me ask you about a few attacks. We know about 2013 cyber attack. On Las Vegas that was done in response to something of casino owners. That's right. Well, he wasn't just any casino owner was Sheldon Adelson, a well connected casino that's correct on he had gone online. He was part of the symposium where he talked about actually setting off a nuclear weapon. Against Iran as a way to stop their nuclear program, and that video went onto YouTube. It went viral and the Iranians found out about it, and they planned, very powerful, destructive cyber attack of his sands casino operation to demonstrate something to him or to the United States. Oh, that's the thing about these sorts of attacks. You know, they're short of war attacks. They're not necessarily attacking our Our critical infrastructure all the time. But it sends a message. That destructive attack is easy for a country like Iran. It's it's an asymmetrical attack, and it made a very strong point. Once it was let out. I mean, the Sands Corporation did everything I could to hide the fact that they've lost $40 million in their technology, But it was let out and incentive, frightening message And, as David Sanger says in the film What happened in Vegas didn't stay in Vegas 2014 cyberattack essentially brought down a Seth Rogan James Franco film the interview, which in fact does raise serious questions about freedom of expression. On also of you know, a major film corporation Sony. Yeah, that was that was the one that really got so much notice because it became suddenly an international incident. And I have to say it's one of the big issues in the film that I think people will recognizes that that the US is uniquely vulnerable to these kinds of attacks because of our open this because of our First Amendment because of the public square. Our weapons against authoritarians regimes don't necessarily have the same effect happened. Dump attacks, like what happened at Sony are not as effective to countries like Iran and Russia.
'Weird Al' Yankovic mocks presidential debate in 'We're All Doomed'
"But still gotta a while. It's time to drop some bars. Let's see how you freeze. Europe. They lived their forests in physical forest cities far talks about the art of the Dales has perfected the art of the deal. Bad things happen in Philadelphia. Bad things. He's just afraid to stand back and stand by. They're very fine. People on both sides said Maybe should drop a nuclear weapon on her cards have computers all over the place was going to want to take The cows. Wait. Here's the deal. Here's no idea what he's talking about going out with this pretty keep the aftermath. People understand he doesn't have a plan was really productive. We're now now at at the the auto auto tune tune going going quick quick Release Release on on that that debate debate parody parody taking taking out out the the cows. cows. Ah, Mad
NASA and US Space Force team up for planetary defense
"NASA is joining forces with the Department of Defense's Space force on a number of fronts, including looter exploration through the Artemus program. For more we turn to the KCBS Ring Central News Light and talk with CBS News military expert Dr Jeffrey McCausland, a retired U. S Army Colonel, Colonel. Thanks as always, for being with us this afternoon. It's great to be with you. Let's talk a little bit about NASA's history with the military. It's a long one. It certainly is. This is Ava knew really of an agreement that was done about 19 years ago between then and NASA and U. S Space Command because Space force had not back been created. The collaboration occurs on such things that space policy research technology and the protection the planet from has was objects such as asteroids. Talk a little bit about the newly formed space force and how it will interact with NASA. I think that's way to describe. It might be a metaphor between the Department of Defense and the State Department. Space Force eyes, obviously there to secure space for the peaceful operations of the United States, its allies and others. And to protect the U. S interests in outer space. I think we need to think about this in terms of the domains of warfare, which traditionally had been three air, Land and sea. And now more more. We're saying two new domains of warfare. Appearing. One, of course, is cyber and second in space because of our dependency on space and a growing concern that a number of countries around the world China is a very good example. Have been testing in I satellite weapons testing lasers. Testing the use of cyber weapons to hack into space systems like Space horse there to provide security so that NASA has a scientific diplomatic organization can conduct peaceful exploration of outer space. In the term. That's I believe you might have mentioned Is that certainly in their news release today, planetary defense that really is, is less about aliens coming to get us in more about protecting the planet from asteroids, for example. That's right. I mean, we got a lot of things going on. You know, I think right now, would you believe that an asteroid is supposed to come fairly close to the planet Earth the day before upcoming presidential election now? All predictions are little cause no harm. But just monitoring objects like that, as they moved through outer space is one thing that NASA does, and we'll do that in collaboration with the air Force now in space Force, now, brother And keep them appraised so they can't coordinate their activities. When you talk about attacks on satellites. What What kind of arsenal is in the defense? I mean, how do you prevent or or Interrupted in progress. Certainly you can maneuver satellites. Certainly you monitor the launch of other nations satellites as they moved through outer space. To keep track on research on and on and they're testing of analyst satellite weapons and what they're doing. And the last not least not unlike nuclear weapons. You have to have a certain deterrents aspect of all this. The other side knows if you attack my satellites, I'm going to attack your satellites either in doing physical harm or attacking him using cyber
Democrats unveiling temporary funding bill to avert shutdown
"Path to a nuclear weapon. Democrats controlling the house have unveiled a government wide temporary funding bill to keep federal agencies up and running into December. The measure would
U.N. Assembly, With Very Few Assembled, Marks 75th Year
"It's United Nations General Assembly time again. But because of the global pandemic, world leaders are not traveling to New York. They will deliver pre recorded speeches and old virtual meetings. Today is the 75th anniversary of the U. N In an interview in June, Secretary General Antonio Guterres said the organization's biggest accomplishment has been keeping the world's most powerful nations from going to war and avoiding the use of nuclear weapons. But its biggest failing, he says, has been its inability to prevent medium and small conflicts.
Friday 18 September
"Now, as we just heard, China's navy is acting live fire drills near the Taiwan Strait. There's little doubt about the intended audience because in the slender credit, where'd you file of us? President Donald Trump remains his phone call shortly after his election to President Chang of Taiwan the first time the US president or indeed president-elect had spoken to the Taiwanese counterpart since nine hundred, seventy, nine, president trump clearly understands that there is no more reliable way of winding. Up China then embracing Taiwan, which may be why he has now dispatched the highest ranking American envoy in decades kaethe crutch on the secretary of State for Economic Growth Energy and the environment, a rank which seems calibrated to annoy China even more by making any overt rage on their part appears somewhat silly one joined with more on this by Isabel Hilton CEO of China. Dialogue is a bill first of all the the visit of chief crash and I've allowed time for everybody to furiously Google is just trolling on America's part. And Up to a point you you left often you know one elements in the winding up of list, which is that he's there to attend the memorial service for former president of Taiwan, Li dung-wei who has counted as the most hated Taiwanese in Beijing because leading Guay was the man who really lead Taiwan to democracy and was also an advocate of Taiwan as kind of independent cultural and political entity from China. So he's really not very you know he's definitely not on the Christmas, Card List for sheeting pin and to pay tribute to him is pretty certainly would be read in Beijing as a as a a further effort crime. So what degree of C- Will Beijing be at over this visit? Well I think we're seeing it now. I mean a great deal of of rather dangerous firepower is buzzing around at the moment An. We've seen really since June kind of escalating provocation from China, in sort of entering various kind of buffer zones which are pretty much being respected for decades you know around Taiwan that you can you can threatened and rattler cage but on the whole, it's been recognized that if you if you cross certain. Lines then you are risking at least an accident so. I mean the the the problem was that you know. In. The last well, just today actually eighteen Chinese bomas an and find the jets and Taiwan's advance buffer zone and that caused the cost Taiwan to scramble its jet. You had a lot of very you know serious. Flying around and I think that. Is and that along with the naval exercises and and a great deal of rhetoric is probably as far as it will go. But you know we have seen a prolonged campaign for the last three or four years of diplomatic isolation of kind of steady pressure on Taiwan from China, and certainly this doesn't help. You correctly observed that the US envoy is there to attend the memorial service for a former Taiwanese president. He will also be meeting with the current Taiwanese president is likely that anything of actual substance is being discussed between the president of one country and the Under Secretary of state for you know whatever from the other one or is this again? Largely. Theatrical. I wouldn't count on it being largely theatrical If you know we, we've wh as you know, we have a kind of dealing confrontation between the US and China and some alarming voices in Washington. Are, advocating, for example, the United States should supply nuclear weapons to Taiwan, which would be pretty crazy move in my view. But. There is a commitment from the United States to supply to Taiwan such a defensive Capability as is required now, it would be quite easy to argue that in a situation of enhanced tension greater a military supplies, more more military supplies. Packs more advanced military supplies were required and I would expect that to be part of the conversation I would also expect at least saying went to be exploring the idea of more formal cooperation between Taiwan and the United States last US official. To visit, which was relatively recently that produced an agreement on of collaboration on health I think timing when would very much like to see a free trade agreement with the United States. So again, I think this quite a lot to discuss an I would be surprised if this visit took place without some of them being on the table is anything really likely to shift in the near future though in any direction where this is concerned is everybody involved not basically biting their tongues and one hopes. Metaphorically as well as literally holding their fire until election day in the United States and certainly hope so you know the the US position on Taiwan, which is a it's a treaty obligation to to make sure that Taiwan can defend itself. This doesn't actually commit the United States to coming to the defense of Taiwan, but there is a kind of strategic ambiguity in in this treaty, which is designed to stop Taiwan declaring independence and therefore provoking China to stop China assuming that were it to. Stage a military salt. The. United. States would stand by and and not come to the defense of Taiwan. So the ambiguity in the US position is designed to keep both sides. Calm. Under a trump administration of calm is not a highly valued factor in Washington's calculations but I think. That the hope would be in Washington that enough kind of chest bearing and beating. We'll just keep everybody from doing anything too rash said, he don't think that China would relish an armed conflict, but on the other hand if the United States and Taiwan scenes to provocative in Beijing, in order to satisfy, it's increasingly nationalist domestic opinion and a PLA that seems fairly rested at the moment they might feel obliged to do something and as soon as you do something in a situation like this, then your provoking something very, very dangerous indeed
New Disarmament Treaty Calls For All Nukes To Be Fired At Fiji
"Today is a historic day with the official ratification of the Universal Treaty for Denuclearization we are ushering in an optimistic new era of hope peace and unity one in which our global community is safer and more secure. That's Angelo Martin, a representative from the UN and the signing of a highly important new disarmament treaty. Today we're joined in the studio. Now, by OPR's foreign affairs, correspondent Marcy Hammond, who's going to fill us in on the situation. Thanks for joining US Marcy of course. So tell me what exactly does this treaty entail? Well, Leslie every nation that is currently in of nuclear weapons has agreed to get rid of them an unprecedented multilateral agreement going forward, not a single country will possess a nuclear weapon of any sort. How exactly are these nations getting rid of all their nuclear weapons they've decided to fire them all at the Pacific island nation of Fiji. My Lord. Well, that's going to be a lot of nukes for one island. It
New Chinese Space Plane Landed At Mysterious Air Base, Evidence Suggests
"Appears to have successfully tested a new spacecraft. Last week's mission was shrouded in secrecy. But as NPR's Jeff from field reports, there are some clues about what China sent into space and why. Last Friday, a Chinese rocket took off carrying a mysterious payload. A terse statement on state media said it was quote A reusable experimental spacecraft, but they didn't give a launch time. They don't have any more details. No riel official footage of the Lord's Jonathan Mcd, Alison astronomer, Earthy Center for Astrophysics, Harvard and Smithsonian who specializes in tracking satellites and spacecraft orbiting the Earth. When he plotted the course of China's new craft, he found that it passed over a secretive military facility. An area called Loop Nure, where China once tested its nuclear weapons. There's an air base there, which has AH big runway that's aligned exactly in the direction ofthe the orbit of the space craft. On Sunday, China announced its new spacecraft heads landed. Sure enough fuzzy satellite images napped by a commercial company called Planet. Seemed to show activity on the giant runway right at the moment, the landing would have occurred. McDowell says that the evidence is circumstantial, but he believes China has just tested a space plane. Think of it. It's a little space shuttle a craft with wings probably too small to carry people that took off on a rocket and coasted back to Earth. The information of all hands together now that this wass A test of something probably a space plane that made a winged reentry on landed on the runway at Lop nor the US Air Force has a similar spacecraft called the X 37 B. It's been launched in since 2010. So if that's what China tested, why now it's a great question. We're not even really sure why the United States military is pursuing a space plane like it's been doing for the last Decade or so. Brian Weeden Studies face security issues with the Secure World Foundation. The U. S X 37 B program remains highly classified. Weeden says he believes it's being used to test new sensors and systems for the military. Think about if you're building a brand new satellite, and you've got a lot of fancy new technology that's never been in space before. That's potentially risky. But if you can apply some of that technology in space, let's say in the payload bay of a reusable space plane that could allow you to get a better feel for how about react. McDowell says that space planes which travel many times, the speed of sound, could also potentially helped with the development of so called hyper sonic weapons. Uh, honestly, he thinks China could just be copying the US if the Americans have one of those. That must be a good reason for it. So we better get one, too. The landing of the space plane or whatever it was, is just the latest success for China. McDowell says that recently completed its own satellite navigation system, it has a robotic missions going to Mars and several probes on the moon. China's firing on all thrusters in space on just really increasing its level of involvement on capabilities, and I think that this is just one more reflection of that Jeff from feel. NPR NEWS Washington
New Chinese Space Plane Landed At Mysterious Air Base, Evidence Suggests
"Appears to have successfully tested a new spacecraft. Last week's mission was shrouded in secrecy. But as NPR's Jeff from field reports, there are some clues about what China sent into space and why. Last Friday, a Chinese rocket took off carrying a mysterious payload. A terse statement on state media said it was quote A reusable experimental spacecraft, but they didn't give a launch time. They don't have any more details. No riel official footage of the Lord's Jonathan Mcd, Alison astronomer, Earthy Center for Astrophysics, Harvard and Smithsonian who specializes in tracking satellites and spacecraft orbiting the Earth. When he plotted the course of China's new craft, he found that it passed over a secretive military facility. An area called Loop Nure, where China once tested its nuclear weapons. There's an air base there, which has AH big runway that's aligned exactly in the direction ofthe the orbit of the space craft. On Sunday, China announced its new spacecraft head landed sure enough fuzzy satellite images snapped by a commercial company called Planet. Seemed to show activity on the giant runway right at the moment, the landing would have occurred. McDowell says that the evidence is circumstantial, but he believes China has just tested a space plane. Think of it. It's a little space shuttle a craft with wings probably too small to carry people that took off on a rocket and coasted back to Earth. The information of all hands together now that this wass A test of something probably a space plane that made a winged reentry on landed on the runway at Lop nor the US Air Force has a similar spacecraft called the X 37 B. It's been launched in since 2010. So if that's what China tested, why now it's a great question. We're not even really sure why the United States military is pursuing a space plane like it's been doing for the last Decade or so. Brian Weeden Studies face security issues with the Secure World Foundation. The U. S X 37 B program remains highly classified. Weeden says he believes it's being used to test new sensors and systems for the military. Think about if you're building a brand new satellite, and you've got a lot of fancy new technology that's never been in space before. That's potentially risky. But if you can apply some of that technology in space, let's say in the payload bay of a reusable space plane that could allow you to get a better feel for how about react. McDowell says that space planes which travel many times, the speed of sound, could also potentially helped with the development of so called hyper sonic weapons. Uh, honestly, he thinks China could just be copying the US if the Americans have one of those. That must be a good reason for it. So we better get one, too. The landing of the space plane or whatever it was, is just the latest success for China. McDowell says that recently completed its own satellite navigation system, it has a robotic missions going to Mars and several probes on the moon. China's firing on all thrusters in space on just really increasing its level of involvement on capabilities, and I think that this is just one more reflection of that Jeff from feel. NPR NEWS Washington
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on Apocalypse...Now?
"Up the dialogue of, let's make nuclear weapons why we stopped making nuclear weapons. Why don't we use nuclear weapons like it's like he's doing the Serb buffoonery but I feel like in a way, it's kind of like. You know like Oh way we are making nuclear weapons and. So people are sort of noticing. Yeah and I hope with your film even more people. I feel like. Nuclear waste and cove in nineteen would be like bff's if they ever met each other because they have a lot in common like a lot of people talk about it some people don't really address that it's a problem. We don't know of Covid nineteen could affect you years down the road like. Being nuclear poisoning would so. Maybe, those two are the first horse people of course, people horsemen of the apocalypse, right? Yeah. No totally I mean like. I mean like with nuclear, it's just like this invisible contamination and your family are dying and you're like, why are they all dying and there's all sorts of just like with Cova there's all these leg sort of little sort of symptoms that you're getting and you're confused as to how they're related and you think like some of the Michael Assam really big a deal I can still function and do what I need to do. Yeah and then catch up with either you or the people that are around you. So. I have a little sports bracket here. It's very small, which shows you how much I know about sports, but I'm going to rattle off some countries in. We'll see you know which one do you think is more dangerous in terms of nuclear weapons So North Korea vs Saudi Arabia who are you more worried about and why? I think currently. North Korea. Really as opposed to Saudi Arabia intentionally Saudi. Arabia. Yeah once I know more once we more about what they're. That's true. We kind of know what North Korea's doing. We don't really know what Saudi Arabia's doing. They're being very secretive about all of the stuff that they're working on, but they definitely are working on it. So I mean of that bracket, we're GONNA choose North Korea is more concerned are it's the next bracket is Russia or Iran? Russia. Yes. Putin. is at the steering wheel of that disaster. Yeah and they also have a history of this. You know they're historically are sort of it's like we're replaying the Cold War these. It's just are like. Do. You know how many I mean do we know how many weapons Russia's producing? Yearly. I don't know how much they're producing that'd be interesting to see like what we were producing before the trump administration what Russia was doing, and then after because I could see trumping like we'll of Putin has seventy new the year I want seventy nukes many years they they are doing that right now they're not owning up like, Oh, I'm gonNA. Do this kind I'm going to do that supersonic saying my nuke is bigger than your nuke. That's that's literally what's happening I mean yeah. So it's a form of foreplay for the two of them. It's cute. Let's play with our lives. All right. So of that. we have North Korea versus Russia. Yeah. That's tough. Yeah I think I'm a bit more worried about. Tar like WHO's GonNa Trigger Trigger this this doomsday scenario that we're toying with Russia or North, Korea. Man So tough a yeah it's hard. I. Mean I think Russia is like super creepy and unsafe and Yeah. They're totally North Korea's more trigger-happy. Yeah. Definitely. They've ever done any they. They seem trigger. Happy. You don't know what the what they're doing is actually how they feel or just a strategy much like Donald trump yeah. Yeah. Yeah they have a lot. Actually they have so much in common. Yeah Kim. Yeah. They have so much common which is why I think that there is such a fight right now because I, feel like trump's feelings are legitimately hurt that like they're not hanging out as regularly as they used to. No, it's very true. Donald Trump does respect Putin and it was so the three of them three of them are you know the the Trifecta of ego and power so I I guess of the three of them the US Russia or North Korea like. Who's going to pull the trigger? Who's going to push the Red Button? Yeah, I mean I'm hoping that. Hoping it's not us. Yeah. I'm hoping that it's not us. Basically that's what I'm hoping I mean and I. Mean we've been the ones who have done it. So you know there's no. I don't know. It's it's. It's. It's it's a guessing game. But very much how people probably felt during the Cold War is just like, yeah, we watch them in the face I is anyone gonNA punched in the face back. Well Yeah I. Mean it's just a the more the more I read about Chernobyl Nocturnal I'm sorry Hiroshima and Nagasaki like. What we did after after the fact it's just really horrendous. We were not cool. No, and then. Actually what you were saying when we when we had our other chat. About Zillah, like Ariza's article that came out like a cup like a week ago or something that was actually about that. And I was like, oh. Yeah. Research that further a lot of. Art from Japan. Is this ptsd from what we did. And you know I enjoy that genre. So I kinda really feel bad it was like but it is very interesting to see like how that historical event has created an artistic genre and expression. That's timeless. I. Feel. Yeah definitely. Definitely. Definitely. It's very interesting. It's very interesting thread to this sort of discussion.
Creating Decentralized Artificial General Intelligence
"So Ben will start off by talking about the idea of centralized governance globally there's pros and cons. People argued that past a certain threshold of AI, we may require it for certain topics. We will certain topics we won't. When you think about centralizing, we're not centralizing a governance. What do you think those important distinctions are where do you stand? The funny thing is when you set it off with the phrase governance I, immediately was thinking about is doing the governance. Out. A hours that. I've been that is in the end. Where we're going to get to with the advanced technologies that humans are rolling out. Human beings are not gonna be able to coordinate human society. In effective way, we're GONNA need a gradual transition. APP powered. Governance of humans but. Together, they're certainly in the early stages we will need wise and judicious in agile human governance of of a is end because initially the is aren't generally intelligent enough. To govern themselves in the rather uses tools by humans. human institutions enduring during the government is are mainly being tools. I mean governance of AI, is mostly about governing how various humans and institutions are using a I, which is a very important in difficult problem right and then the really interesting thing will come in the transition between these two phases of justice got great like. So in the long run, which could just the couple of decades coming in the long run we're looking at a is doing governance yet. End In immediate term were looking at. Okay. What regulations do we make? Stop people from doing? Nasty things with the I in military Jordan positive uses of. But then in the intermediate stage between assume phases, you got a eiser gradually getting more and more autonomy gradually getting more and more general out right and how how the regulate things in that context against quite interesting and and Saga Roy and some countries, some legal systems are trying to take. Modest steps in that direction already, but there's a tremendous amount of on those and so if we think about the state of affairs today there are folks who say, well, you know when it comes to privacy of data, you know maybe that should be done within individual countries. Well, when it comes to you know win facial recognition can and cannot be used well, that's gotta stay within countries. There's other folks that argue that other things may be a lethal autonomous weapons or. Some facets of kind of human rights or maybe to some degree privacy fits in there. I know some people feel very strongly about facial recognition globally that there's some threshold where even with today's tool like a I ben that there should be some broader set of standards that humanity can kind of play by for the sake of our aggregate wellbeing in both peace and prosperity other people really think everything as far as today goes is a country decision in that stat would you agree with that of see certain thresholds where it does make sense for global standards to fit in or are we too early for that or is it never a good idea? Where to list. We have now in the commercial sphere is concern. Regulation of AI is not especially different from the regulation of many other types of of software or hardware tools. The boundary is is quite difficult to draw right like weather Cambridge Jan Letica with crunching people's facebook profiles know using basic statistical analysis in an excel spreadsheet or using a machine learning algorithm. It doesn't really matter on the dozen hundred of manipulation. Let people using their day that it's. It's the same thing right I mean. With face recognition I, mean whether you consider that a higher it is what it is. If you have something more complicated than sunlight recognizing who someone is from. From. There Gate up from the other people walking next to them or something I mean you may need more general intelligence directing those people from more indirect cues but in the end the. They had to go on regulatory issues are. About the same right it's more about the the pet optical were building. About the the degree of. Intelligence. That were embedding in different parts of it. I think once they is get more autonomy as agents and are you know making their own? Choices in the world without humans tightly in the loop. Then you get into a fundamentally different class of of ethical and end regulatory issues than we. You know we made some small engine number of years away from that. The commercially rollout software. We're not there yet right. We're talking about. Is. In terms of national versus global regulation or In US become state versus federal Allen, stay on a pragmatic basis. This is GONNA be national. Regulation. For the immediate future because the international community can't even regulate nuclear weapons effectively right in that. That's very clear. What is a nuclear weapon in what isn't a nuclear weapon? There's not a fuzzy dividing line there. And also, there's not a lot of humanitarian and lucrative commercial uses for nuclear weapons that are very very similar to the Nazis is one avoid right? So even in the silver clear case like that. The international community is doing a pretty bad job, but I mean in a case where the nasty things. are a few lines of code away from highly lucrative commercial things are highly beneficial humanitarian things I mean how? How. Is International Community? Impact is going to cope with that very very uselessly would be would be
China is aiming to double the size of its nuclear arsenal, Pentagon report says
"A milestone in their nuclear arms buildup. This is, according to a Pentagon report that we're expecting here. Their annual report on China's military capabilities. Saying that China has met or surpassed US and shipbuilding and other areas. The Chinese military still has some quote major shortcomings, according to this report, but they are set to double their nuclear weapons stockpile over the next decade. Heaven hear again? The big takeaway here. The Pentagon said that China is on the cusp of having a full nuclear triage. They would be then the third country. After the U. S and Russia to have some nuclear capabilities here. So really nearing that milestone in that nuclear arms buildup, all according to the Pentagon. I want to get some market
As World Powers Push To Implement Iran Nuclear Deal - Who Needs America?
"At the United Nations. The Trump administration wanted support to restore economic sanctions on Iran. European nations as the U. N. Security Council were having none of it. It was a humiliating defeat for Washington. Robert Malley is here to help us make sense of this rift. He's a former White House negotiator for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and the current president of the International Crisis Group in Brussels. Robert. Why are European nations rejecting Washington's request for more sanctions? Well, I think it's going to take a step back and and try to look at what the Trump administration was trying to do. President withdrew from disagreement some time ago and value to the agreement by reimposing unilateral U. S sanctions even though Iran at the time had been living up to the deal. That is not just me saying it. The U. S. Was saying it itself. The nuclear inspectors were saying it as well. So the US withdraws from the deal and then comes back a year or two later and says. We now want invoke a provision of this deal that we have withdrawn from him that we have violated in order to force other countries. The U. N system as a whole to reimpose collective sanctions on Iran and European countries have been saying for some time. Something that says you do not have the ability to bring back these sanctions since you walked away from the deal under which these sanctions were going to be re important, but at the same time Iran is violating the terms of the 2015 around nuclear deal. So why not hold him to it? I mean, the European countries are trying have invoked a dispute resolution mechanism in the deal itself to try to work out this problem with the rains. That's the way to tell is supposed to work. Iran into European nations and others. Russia and China are supposed to sit down, which they have done episodic in covert. 19 has since gotten in the way, so they still keep the calibrating the response. But it just doesn't compute for Europeans and they told the U. S. For a long time. Let's try to work together to try to resolve this rather than you going your own way and violating the deal withdrawn from the deal. And then, as I said, invoking A provision of the deal to try to reimpose sanctions. But why can't the remaining countries who are in the deal with Iran? Why can't they snap back the sanctions? They could. Of course, we could send back the sanctions. They certainly would be in their right to snap back the sanctions. They just don't see the logic to snapping back sanctions against the country that had been faithfully respecting the provisions of the deal until the U. S withdrew. From their view is the best way to get back into compliance is for the U. S. Two. Restore its sanctions relief and for Iran to come back into compliance with the deal, But they're hard to imagine that happening under the trump. Well, yeah, it's not. So where does that leave? The European countries were still part of the deal? What's the strategy? It is them ism in a waiting game. They want to see. You know the vote that happened of Security Council was one vote. The important one is the one that's gonna happen in the U. S on November 3rd and they want they're waiting to see as so many whether vice President Joe Biden is elected or President. Trump has re elected vice president Biden is elected he has committed To returning to the in which case if Iran returns into compliance, we're back to no more or less where we were before, and if they don't then the Europeans might well consider reimposing sanctions. If President Trump is elected. I think their view is the secure. The nuclear deal is buried. And at that point, let's turn the page and see where we go. Just happened to you and Was an exercise to buy time by the Europeans and others. Let's see what happened in November and see whether the nuclear deal can live to fight another day in job after General 20. Okay, let's turn to Russia and China Since the nuclear deal was signed in 2015, Russia and China have kind of changed their behavior toward Iran, and they're reportedly now interested in resuming arms sales to Tehran. How do you see their change of heart towards their own? Not that it's really change of heart. I think they've always wanted to maintain strong relations with the RAF, although they were concerned by the prospect of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, I've suspected you might see some arm cells to Iran occurring and the conventional weapons in balance between Iran and neighbors is such a lot would have to do a lot to make up. I think this is not necessarily going to be a game changer. I don't expect that we're going to see a major arms purchase from Iran's simply because they are suffering from huge economic problems of their own. What could this diplomatic standoff mean for the future of the Security Council? You know, it's not good for the Security Council security because we really are in analysis in Wonderland world where the U. S is going to say, 30 days from now, the U. S will say sanctions back the rest of the council and the rest of the world will say no, That's not the case And so you'll live into with two parallel universes. That's not good, but let's also put it in perspective. It's not the first time the Security Council has gone through a crisis. Just think back to the Iraq war, so there have been other cases. Where the council has got through huge divisions. I think there's two lessons to be drawn. We're going to see those crises and the Security Council will survive them. On the other hand, the Security Council is not that effective a body when the main powers that comprise it are not able to speak in one voice that's reflected in the Security Council, which is simply a mirror image of the state of global politics. Robert Malley is the former White House negotiator for the 2015 Iran
Boeing 747s still get critical updates via floppy disks
"Apparently, the Boeing seven seven still uses floppy disks. This finding comes from a video tour of a British Airways seven, forty, seven by cybersecurity firm pen test partners that was displayed at the hackers conference. DEFCON British Airways recently retired it's seven, forty, seven fleet, which is how the firm was able to get this kind of usually exclusive access. The biggest takeaway from the tour for many however was the three and a half inch floppy drive. As a reminder for the young or forgetful eight three and a half inch floppy disk can only hold about one point, forty four megabytes that's less than one MP three of an average length song. Quoting his moto apparently, the drive is the seven forty sevens novelization database later and needs to be updated every twenty eight days as in some poor engineer has to visit seven, forty, seven, four, hundred and manually deliver updates or the planes wouldn't be able to fly, and it's not just the seven forty sevens per the verge. The majority of Boeing seven thirty sevens are also updated via floppy disks operators of these planes according to a two thousand fourteen aviation today report have binders full of floppy disks for all the avionics that they may need. That includes important information like airport's runways flightpaths and way points used by pilots to make flight plans. It also sounds horribly inefficient as while some systems may only require one floppy disk updates. Others could require as many as eight floppy discs end quote. Now the seven forty seven did debut in nineteen, eighty eight. So being designed originally with a floppy disk drive makes perfect sense, but it is surprising they've never added. Although. It turns out that a number of industries still use floppy disks or have only recently started to phase them out according to digital trends machines like once used for embroidery, some medical equipment, ATM's and. Aviation hardware all frequently still rely on floppy disks because the machinery was built to last for decades and is extremely expensive to replace. In fact, until just last year, the US Department of Defense was using eight inch floppy disks for the nuclear weapons. System.
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on Worldly
"Any government that gets bound by nuclear weapon has respond pretty frigging forcefully And so I'm I'm I just don't believe in the measured responses based on the kilotonne of the bomb. Yeah I mean that's the question right. Is that there's this the nuclear threshold sold right and the nuclear taboo is like a famous and of concept that's been talked about in political science into turns literature as that. There is a taboo on using any kind of nuclear nuclear weapons so the question is would that nuclear taboo hold if it's a low yield new like does the fact that it's still nuclear technology that it's still a nuclear weapon. Fundamentally still put you into that category of no we have to respond in kind with nuclear weapon as opposed to we drop a very large conventional bomb on on Moscow and also sorry to everyone in Russia. We're not actually joking about like bombing people in Russia. I understand this is very serious. And we're talking about about a very theoretical level so but we all understand this very horrific and very real terms in terms of possibility in human life so I don't think we're being to flip with that but if we were to drop a conventional conventional weapon would Russia or China respond with a nuclear weapon. Or would they think no. That's that's taboo. We don't want to cross so we would just respond in kind with a conventional weapon and I think that's the question is do low-yield. Nukes still meet nuclear taboo threshold right. Yeah no I agree completely. I think that that's That that is one of the bigger issues and I I guess I just. I am of the belief. It's these moments right. I have trouble believing like rationality of government because at one case. It's almost more rational to respond with a bigger nuclear weapon. If your mom to the mini-nuke you another sense. It's also kind of rational to not because if if you're rushing this case you do know that if you go into a nuclear with United States you're probably GonNa end up losing losing moving. Beat you strong. But everyone's not gonNA end up. Well right we show disrupt. Yeah exactly so like I'm just I would just be kind of like setting off off of me new leads to the obviously con side of this argument. which is you could start a nuclear war? This would be a problem. It's not even just like an issue you of if we use it during a conflict on its own right. There's also a question of announcing all of these new uses and theories. The reason and practical technologies and deployments for Nuclear Weapons has the potential to set off a version of a nuclear arms race. Swear if the US is starting to do all of these different kind of innovative and aggressive things other countries will have an incentive most notably Russia and China to do similar sorts of things. Things could make nuclear use more likely in the future so even just the act of declaring that we're putting these these mini nukes on our submarines is one on that could theoretically destabilize global politics right like not in an immediate catastrophic. I'm not trying to be doomsayer e about it. I'm just saying that. There is not only a risk in the event of a war with Russia and China which is unlikely to begin with anytime in the foreseeable future. It's that the act of doing so raises the risk of conflict on its own in a very very very small but I would say measurable way honestly measurable but it also so gets into trump's broader approach to the nuclear arsenal kind of in general You know we've talked about this on the show before but you know the end of of new start at the end of if these missile nuclear treaties that we've had with Russia going back to the Cold War when John Bolton was in the White House he he is not anymore. You may have noticed this week But he was very skeptical of arms control agreements and was trying to pull the US out of these various agreements. So it's not just this right if you take this one you know isolated issue of the of the submarine low-yield Nuke. Maybe that alone wouldn't kick off the nuclear arms race potentially but when you put it together with the entire rest of you know also going to say that we're GONNA do other issues field other Missiles and weapons that we haven't before under treaties And then you hear. Trump's statements on wanting to just rebuild the nuclear arsenal in general general that have collectively I think very much has the potential to set off a nuclear arms race. Let me give just a little bit of credence to the trump administration's argument here because as I mentioned before I'm ninety five percent persuaded by the arguments that you guys have said. The five percent on trump's side here is his team. I don't think he's thinking deeply about it but like we're kind of already in an arms race in the causation is hard to find great but you know. Russia is claiming to build a nuclear powered. Missile that is unstoppable. Russia has built an incredible missile arsenal. That would make it very hard to the United States to if in the event of a large war with China for us to kind of get involved we have the missile has nuclear weapons and also runs on nuclear power yet. That's the theory. Yeah Yeah Yeah. No one believes. That's true the batteries smart that's but anyway And then on top maneuverable it's a whole anyway And like I there are capabilities that we are missing like we Russia just to be clear. Sorry to cut you off but Russia does have like way more nuclear weapons than we do still route way more or it's where it's close but they do have more okay. It's not like at that point. It's like Marshall Returns right they do have numerically more but it's also aging etcetera right but like look Marsha tactical nukes as well We do have a thousand but they're on airplanes and they and it's hard to beat missile defenses defenses Depending on where you are and it's it's hard to be air-defense as well and so having a stealthy sub with the ability to kind of shoot this many new from any point and almost at any point in the world is probably a good thing to have if they have it. We should have essentially kind of I I. I definitely understand that in terms of the traditional deterrence theory. That's very standard. Right right like the realist. Argument of nuclear deterrence is like well. If you're going to have have the big bad weapons I need to have the big bad weapons too so that you can't control me and you can't dominate. But what does instead. Nobody had them. What if we had international world I WANNA WANNA get into a little bit later? Is You know we can talk about it now. But the trump administration's policy is really interesting when you look at trump's statements themselves he's been super were contradictory even on the campaign trail twenty sixteen. He's really contradictory and his views. A nuclear weapons in one breath will say that you know they're an existential threat humanity in there. You know one of the scariest things and you know he talks about. I think his uncle You know explaining nuclear weapons to him when he was younger and it's scaring the hell out of them seems genuinely frightened. Yeah in the same breath. He'll say but I think you know. Nuclear proliferation is Bob in the same breath. Jose will Japan should mean to get their nukes and South Korea. One point join so you know. It's kind of interesting because he seems to actually understand. Zach your perspective which I also share in the middle Yes these women's are terrifying and it would be great if we had none of them. I think that the realistic point of view. He probably has an and the one that I actually share. Is that the cats bag We're at the point where lots of countries have nuclear weapons. We could have international arms agreements that could restrict them. And and you know cut down the number we have like we did during the Cold War but right now it doesn't seem like that's where the world is is moving and so the argument there there is you know well then we should have to obviously the. US could be the way in moving. That direction is is the other argument to be clear. I wasn't advocating for unilateral and immediate disarmament. I thought I was saying was like these. Different newfangled nuclear technologies. That people are developing We don't need to be developing new ways to blow up the world and we could possibly limited committed to the things that we have right now in any event. We're GONNA talk about more and all of this after short break beer back. This episode is brought to you by the sinful delicious seven deadly sins America's favorites infantile full-bodied zinn produced in lovely Lodi California. It's dark intriguing and a real crowd pleaser. So last week We taped this add. JANAE opened a bottle in the studio. Alex you were not there you get a chance to taste some afterwards yes. I was so sad to miss it in the studio but my God how much I enjoyed it outside of it. I'm a big wine drinker and it was really really good Yes probably shouldn't have drunk it in the middle of the day but I recommend it at any time For people I mean it was it was velvety it. It was smooth really did a lot for me I I really. I mean immediately went out and bought a bottle for myself. If you're interested in learning more visit seven deadly winds dot com slash worldly to get this heated mystically seductive. Wine can buy it online or in some seats. You can even have a shift right to your house which is awesome. I.
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on Talking Politics
"Sometimes people would drunk messages go coupled when we look back when it now, should we what's the correct response to think about the history of the Kotal should we think about for the grace of God? It was just luck that it was much closer to catastrophe than we appreciate the time we'll should. We think that we won't always through it. Here's the way I view nuclear weapons. They keep the world safer every single year until they will eventually kill us all. And the way I view this is basically nuclear weapons have, I think, had tremendous. Deterrent effect on the great military powers of the world. Right? Don't think you can explain the so-called long pieces. John Gada says right after World War Two, where you haven't had World War three or major warfare between the traditional military great powers the world without reference to nuclear weapons. So in the aggregate sense, they keep us safe. On the other hand, I very much agree with analysts like Scott Sagan and Eric Schlosser who wrote this terrifying and great book command and control who say the right that you can't in a complex organization like an organization like the US air force, responsible for interdependent, highly complex technologies, right? And that's what nuclear weapons are you not only have the warheads. You have various launchers the bombers, the submarines, the ground base, missile systems. You have the command control communications hubs. There's so many chances for error at any one point in the whole system. And as those. Simple mistakes add up. They have non linear affects basically this is complex systems theory one a one. And so you do have the potential to blow yourself up. Schlosser points out in Damascus, Arkansas. In the nineteen eighties guy trying to do maintenance work on a minute. Man, missile drops, ratchet drops a wrench and it punctures of fuel line. All sudden you have fuel filling this missile silo rate gases, and eventually does explode in the warhead gets launched dozens of meters and it doesn't go off right. One of the message of the book is the United States came close to blowing itself up numerous times during the Cold War, and presuming that you can't get these errors out of the system. You have to presume that every single year you have a small non zero probability of something terrible happening by accident, which is why say these things will keep us safe until they, you know, have eating our babies for breakfast one day. Where do you think we on now on that balance between the view that these things exist to be used. And will you described from the sixties anyway as the Chinese view that these are just very, very effective weapons has has that shifted a toll, including in the west, maybe even in the United States, people thinking about use again, what we're having kind of a renewed version of the old debate between massive retaliation versus flexible response right now. So the new use nuclear posher view that came out in February of twenty eighteen talks about the importance of modernizing US nuclear forces, which lot of people wouldn't argue with right? You want them to be modern part because you don't want accidents malfunctions lead to catastrophe and also you need your adversary to be confident these your weapons will actually work as a deterrent. But then you also have this view that United States nuclear arsenal right now is biased toward strategic weapons in the sense, right? Strategic meaning countervalue big bombs that would be targeted at enemies population centers and would be in the megaton range, and we don't have enough. Flexible response at the lower end of the spectrum in terms of smaller weapons more along the lines of those used against Japan in World War Two. So those in the kiloton range like the b sixty one that can be put on fifteen and the f..
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on Talking Politics
"If an invasion was declared, her airstrikes declared a submarine was depth charge that could have led to World War three. So it's a really close run thing because of this level of imperfect information. And I think the other thing it reveals and this is one of the paradox. Is international politics is that there is such a thing as too much strength. So there was the belief in the early nineteen sixties that there is a missile gap between the United States and the Soviet Union. And the belief on the United States part was that was a gap unfavorable to the United States. Well, in fact, it was the opposite of the United States had much greater military capacity in terms of its nuclear arsenal than the Soviet Union Soviets were aware of this. They were worried about intermediate nuclear forces in Europe, and they thought they had to balance that out by taking a big risk by trying to put missiles into Cuba. And so the fact of American strength superior strengthen nuclear weapons, had the effect of making the country much less secure. Whereas in when you think about conventional armaments, well, how can conventional armaments? How can you ever have too much? I suppose you can have too much right if it leads to balancing alliances coalitions of other countries against you, but nuclear weapons, right? This paradox of strength really comes to the fore and creates a kind of new appreciation in the minds of American policymakers. This by this point, all the countries you have these weapons Britain has them, France has them. I think by now Disraeli have won by this tweet tweet. Israel still has them right because they won't be the first introduced in the Middle East. So that's the official line. Anyway, wink, wink. Nudge nudge is one of the concerns for a long period about this and you touch earlier when you talked about the true ministration wanting to spread this technology has been to limit the spread of this technology. When does non proliferation become one of the goals of the nuclear age. One quick kind of nuance. Correction. Tumen doesn't want to spread nuclear weapons all over the place he wants to internationalize them. So he basically wants to take them out of the hands of states, at least this is the plan that detaches in the secretary of state and Lilienthal and Bernard Baruch trying to sell that ultimately doesn't work to just who would have control of them under that scheme. Basically, a United Nations agency would have had controlled them. This thing almost passes to, but basically. Falls against Soviet skepticism of the United States as well. We'll give up our nuclear weapons once we're sure that everybody else's relinquished all their nuclear material to this international agency, and then we'll go ahead which seems like a sucker spat to Joseph Stalin, right? Who's not the most trusting guy just ask them of his former generals in any event, serious thinking about non-proliferation, at least from the perspective of the United States in terms of keeping non-proliferation on a diplomatic basis, which is to say, the Iraq war is also about non-proliferation. You can pursue it and violent military means as well. But it really takes off under the Johnson Lyndon Johnson in stray Shen. So Johnson comes to the presidency after the assassination of JFK in nineteen sixty three Kennedy had been especially worried about nuclear proliferation in China. Mao had said things like, well, you know if nuclear war does occur and half of humanity as wiped out the other half will be socialist. Probably it'll be jolly good thing, right? So that made people including the Soviets very. Nervous about the idea of what it meant for communist China to have. It's hands on a nuclear arsenal. And when Johnson comes to the presidency shortly thereafter, the congress passes a resolution calling basically for the president to become more involved in diplomatic international non-proliferation agreements and Johnson signs onto this because you have to remember he's got a war in Vietnam. That's escalating, he's got the great society program at home. These things are going to be very expensive..
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on Talking Politics
"You can accept defeat on the ground in what we would now call conventional warfare because the Soviets simply have more divisions in Europe than NATO does in the nineteen fifties. Or you can possibly end civilization as we know it by using nuclear weapons. Those are two pretty unpalatable choices. And this leads to the Kennedy administration which takes over a nineteen sixty moving away from massive retaliation and getting towards something called roughly flexible response, which is to say that the United States needs to be able to deter and respond to. So. Viet military threats every single level of the esscalation spectrum because it's simply not credible to say that the United States is going to risk World War three for every Soviet military provocation view. This could lead to the end of human civilization because you kind of undo these effects. Once you've used these weapons from in the radiation will loss for a long longtime. When does that kind of gain popular consciousness when two people start to think that that's got to be tabu against each of these weapons because it is unthinkable to use them? Well, I mean, you see already in nineteen fifties, SCI fi, horror kind of stuff. All this new penetration of Thomas culture, if you will, right and mutations from radioactive experiments. So this is getting popularized pretty quickly and you have pretty high profile. Think pieces published by people in the Truman administration after World War Two justifying the use of Tomic weapon. So there is debate. Going on about both the morality of these weapons as well as simply kind of more lo- culture, popular stuff in which people are afraid of them. And you also have to remember because the size of the United States and because the nuclear radiological effects of nuclear weapons are not well understood in the nineteen fifties. You're testing these things above ground in places like Nevada. So you have ranchers, you have kind of firsthand experience with this. We're not exactly talking cows with fins and gills, but high levels of cancer and another things like this and people are aware right above ground testing is going on. So the question about the end of civilization, right? What do these weapons mean for humanity that's captured pretty early, maybe not in popular culture, but at least in academic culture by a guy named John hers who's kind of classic realist thinker and says, maybe the nation state doesn't have a purpose anymore. Especially the state aspect of that because of the fundamental purpose of the state is to protect its inhabitants from physical via. Destruction with the advent of long range bombers and intercontinental ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads. The state can't do that anymore. And then you move on to kind of people like herald last well who are writing books on the garrison state. So even if the state perseveres, it will have control over every single aspect of your life, economic civil private because the threat of nuclear annihilation will be so great that the government will be able to use as justification to tell people where they can live and what they can produce in what kind of job they need to have, and everybody will be serving in the military, right? Which is kind of for a country like America founded on anti-state. ISM is the ultimate nightmare. So this stuff is penetrating. I mean, even afraid it's not the end of humanity, right? It's going to be very different possible civilization politically speaking. So that didn't happen? No. What did happen was the Cuban missile crisis, which still is I think probably the closest we've ever come to nuclear war were that night mess. Omonia comes to pause. What did that change? So. The nuclear crisis over Cuba changes a couple of things. I think first off increases the appreciation between Moscow and Washington of the importance of transparency, and there's a lot of stuff even though we think of the Cuban missile crisis as situation that was handled well, ultimately, maybe perhaps was the United States victory. There's a lot of stuff that the decision makers on the day of right or the two weeks of the crisis basically don't know that is really important to note like how many missiles are on the ground and Cuban are the armed with nuclear warheads or not. Right. And how many Russian submarines are in the area and do those have nuclear torpedoes turns out they did right. So there's a lot of stuff that could have gone wrong..
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on TechStuff
"Paint pong balls. Now in in the case of a nuclear weapon, these reactions are happening in billions of a second. Yeah. So now let's get to the actual elements that are used in nuclear weaponry. Okay. So one of them is an isotope of uranium uranium-235. That's a very complex atom. Yeah, it's got ninety two protons right? So but it's got one hundred forty three. Neutrons. And the thing about this is that it will accept a neutron if you embarked uranium-235 it very easily will accept that neutron take neutron. Yeah, and then it it makes the uranium unstable and then it will split apart, like I just said in, you'll get that energy in those other neutrons released so that the problem, the problem with this many problems with this, one of the issues that the people who I started working on nuclear weapons technology encountered was that first of all, they, they weren't sure which elements were going to react this way because not all of them do. So finding the right elements was tricky. The other part is that uranium-235 is relatively rare compared to other isotopes of uranium. Yeah, that's right. So when you find naturally occurring uranium the re uranium-235 in that deposit is going. To be relatively sparse and for a nuclear weapon to work. You need about ninety percent uranium-235 so that you have the right amount of material to perpetuate this chain reaction. Otherwise, you're, you're atoms that are unstable may be too far apart from each other for that chain reaction to really take off note to all the nuclear physicists who are writing who have paused the podcast in wrote in to tell us that there are other types of fuel that can be used for nuclear weapons. Yes, we know that. Yeah, whoever we're using, we're starting here starting with uranium because that's that's where that's where the scientists started. Plutonium also used as well as their hydrogen bombs. We'll talk about a little bit, but even hydrogen bombs use uranium and plutonium. It's just that they're, they're using a different mechanism. They're using fusion as opposed to fission. So uranium-235 you have to actually refine you're. You're right, your uranium while I can't talk today. But yes, you take his place to say, hey, Ukrainian your uranium. Yeah, toy boat. Anyway, you have to take this uranium there. Go that works and refined it so that you have a higher percentage of uranium-235 which is what you hear about when you when you hear about these these nations like Iran with their nuclear program you hear about, are they making uranium for power facilities or are they trying to make weaponized uranium this is talking about the enrichment process? Yes. So if you are enriching if you're creating your him so that you've got a section of uranium that is ninety percent uranium to thirty five. That's indicative of a weapon. That's not you don't need that kind of concentration for a nuclear power facility. So that's one of those things that that inspectors try to determine when they go and look at a nuclear power facility to make sure that the uranium being produced is not weapons grade uranium, right? So anyway, that's the basis that's the basic science behind the physician part of nuclear weapons, and we'll get into fusion and the second. So how did this all come about? Well, first we have to look at a fellow named Einstein. Now I'm Stein came up with that famous equation e. equals MC squared..
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on TechStuff
"Hey, there in welcome to tech stuff. I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer and how stuff works in the love or things. Though, maybe not this next topic. Maybe I should say. I love most things tech. It's time for another classic episode, and this particular topic is a pretty tough one. It's about how nuclear weapons work, and it's not a topic that I necessarily wanted to jump on and and cover. But I feel it's an important one. Nuclear weapons are frequently part of a discussion about global events and global politics. And so I thought it would be useful to revisit this classic episode where we talk about exactly how these weapons work. So enjoy today, we wanted to talk about a subject that is is pretty terrifying. We're talking about nuclear weapons. Yes, yes. Clear new killer. He was I, I was teasing him about this before and he said that I'd better not. So I'm not gonna say nuclear. I mean, other than just in. And one. One of the reasons I wanted to talk about this today is because if Ben in the news a lot lately, of course, Iran is rumored or depending on whom you have more than rumored to be working on nuclear weapons program. And you know, that's been a a busy top. I was about to say, hot topic. Let's not go there lately, and I thought, well, you know, why don't we? We've never really talked about the technology. That makes nuclear weapons possible. Yeah. And while I'm not particularly fond of things that cause death and destruction, the the actual bombs themselves, how they make them work is kind of interesting. When important stuff. I mean, you know, there's a lot. There are a lot of discussions about nuclear arms races. You know, we had a a famous nuclear arms race between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War, right? Which started to look like things were going to to improve where you know both nations were starting to dismantle a lot of their nuclear weapon programs. But then you've got other countries like China and India and Pakistan, and other countries that are the have either have a nuclear weapons program or developing North Korea's. Another good example, they either have an a fully fledged out nuclear weapons program or they're working on it, and it adds a lot of concern because these weapons potentially pack an enormous punch, and it's the kind of weapon that you know most weapons, you use them and then the that immediate moment, the aftermath. That's that's all you're dealing with. And the aftermath. Generally, you know not not something that is perpetual right. You might have to do some massive cleanup or whatever, but that's it, nuclear weapons are different and that the aftermath can be as destructive or maybe not as destructive but but destructive on their own beyond the initial blast. Right. So plus, plus it's possible that the the effects of the nuclear blast Ken carry across the terrain to places that the has as we'll find out in our discussion that people may not necessarily have been planning on being affected..
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on Global News Podcast
"This is the global news podcast from the bbc world service i'm jackie leonard and at forty knows gmt on thursday the first of march these raw main stories president putin says russia has developed a cruise missile that could reach almost anywhere in the world in france the farright leader marine le pen has been placed under formal investigation but tweeting graphic images of islamic state violence and more than seventy years after the end of the second world war the row has flared up again between seoul and tokyo of a japanese mistreatment of south korean women the also in this podcast it's emerged that a teenager tried to assassinate queen elizabeth while she was touring new zealand in 1918 one and on said david stay is it time for the world to embrace the welsh language he'd ice means longing you know you can have here i four person you can have here i four yoho there is much doubt that blood he made a putin will be reelected president of russia later this month bought still today's state of the nation speech at the ring of a campaign address in a speech stretching nearly two hours he stressed that he was up to the challenge of improving the lives of ordinary russians mr putin also described the militry advances that russia has made recently among the developments he announced what was a new generation of nuclear weapons including a cruise missile that he said could hit anywhere on the planet musically tissue mullah vermeulen their delivered of the regular new food lowflying difficult was fought cruise missiles with a nuclear war with practically unlimited range and from unpredictable thrive path which can bypass lines of and deception is invincible in the phase of all existing and future systems of both missiledefense and add offends our correspondent jonathan.
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on Click
"This dmz of the quite old i guess that what 1960s technology message that may be an upgrade but not all who of the architecture units who built on those old foundations um there's a king behind it as well as i say so the point being what have we go about two time with it depends on the country and has particular system but these systems have vulnerabilities that's what we getting at all of our systems have benefited he's our eight me we all know this and in a every now and then as another announcement mata hardware or software that someone's found a glitch someone's found vendor ability and they have ninety days syria days tvx it and and say this we diminish trees who own nuclear weapons are aware of this unfortunately though they are dealing with a lot of legacy systems and we're concerned about a whole range of potential threats including for example the hacking into layouts of facilities of where the missiles are actually based delay out solve the platform such submarines and we're also looking at they've the rather over reliance i'm in the literature on things like epping that separating out the systems from the internet if you like and as we found with other areas where we've done work is that this is usually a mistake that you never fully act out all of the time of this because as a technical terms lead i mean a physical copy it's just the issue would be impossible for there to be any kind of connection between the border incident and these very critical defend yes and you you can build that in and you can be absolutely sure and be absolutely wrong as as in fetch iran discovered with stuxnet your of cut was so and this was a case where a pylon.
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on Click
"Aiming the internet at a german tech gathering and we'll have comment as we go along from get unfolding ten this week i think you'll find hello glen hello gareth get to see after christmas and happy new year to everyone a bit late apps yeah i think we can still say happy new year even at lake live in the especially is withering if you tech prediction say to me it's still very new year first though very serious issue that message that leads to thirty eight minutes of dread in hawaii over the weekend ballistic missile threat inbound to hawaii seek immediate shelton said the message and it went on this is not a drill well at least that lost bet walls accurate it wasn't a drill because act it was a false alarm the employees who triggered that alert has been reassigned to other duties witold and reports also suggest that bad interface design contributed to the era of north korea's missile and nuclear program is seen as a growing threat of course to the united states and alaska and hawaii all these states closest to north korea li false alarm just happened to come in the same week that the policy institute chatham house released a report nc the vulnerabilities of nuclear weapons systems say much of that technology of course harks back to decades before today's cyber threats and that certainly is a worry as one of the report's authors patricia lewis will tell us in this program she's right here in the studio patricia is research i write to if the international security department at chatham house say first that if we talk about your report what was your rat since the instant over the weekend in hawaii well and festival we thought it might be a hack ntv in that system at kelly lesson taye hack into the missile system and bought two could it be and a high can i think i understand that they were considering that is a possibility at one point and but i think what it does show a couple of things one is that the an architecture i'm which these systems are built are not always fully thought through some of them have been ancient.
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on WSJ What's News
"Uh to try to end the conflict on their terms and they might even employed them and in particular they've deployed in a legal ground lodge cruisemissile which is a violation of the 1987 inf treaty what the pentagon is saying now is we need systems to counter this threat and if the russians think they can make a limited use of nuclear weapons and we won't respond because who won't want to invite uh escalation will we're going to have to new systems that could potentially respond and therefore perhaps they will use them in the first place and this is first system is a trident missile which is already on our strategic submarines and the idea is to take this existing missile and outfitted with a very small warhead of may be one to two kilotonnes compared to the current warhead which ranges from one hundred kilotonnes to more than 400 and this would be give the united states a capability to two carry out a limited strike and the other one is a seed launched cruise missile which is a system the us used to have in its arsenal but retired day years ago will what's the theory or strategy here is it that the kremlin might think washington would be more likely to use this lowyield weapon instead of a higher yield weapon that could start an all out nuclear war well uh from the pentagon's perspective the argument is a few if it's clear to your adversary that you're prepared a capable and ready to fight a limited nuclear war uh he there won't be any such war in the first place if the russians see that we have a capability to fight a limited war they themselves won't make unlimited use nuclear weapons are the pentagon's theories of the russians think that the only way we can respond is with strategic weapons or perhaps bombers in europe that maybe they might be tempted to make a limited use and calculate we won't.
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on WSJ What's News
"Thanks for listening everyone the wall street journal says the pentagon plans to develop two new seabased nuclear weapons to respond to russia and china's growing nuclear capabilities one of the weapons as a socalled lowyield warhead for the trident missile the plan weapons are part of a defense department review of nuclear strategy which is expected to be formally unveiled later this month let's get more details from wall street journal national security correspondent michael gordon michael first off wasn't this review commissioned by president trump not long after he took office right one of the very first things president trump did uh after taking office was to order this review and there's been a lot of anticipation about what it would say a president obama did a review but this one came to very different conclusions in certain respects and there is already an intense debate going on over this new strategy isn't there the review its formerly known as the new clear posture review and in one sense it uh there's a lot of continuity there most to the system said endorsed in the review or those that were um contemplated during the obama administration but where um it breaks new ground is in arguing for a two new systems that are designed for the more limited use of nuclear weapons uh mainly to deter the russians as mentioned one weapon as a low yield warhead why don't you go into the two new weapons well what's going on here is up the russians are uh in the eyes of the pentagon have embraced day nuclear strategy which uh integrates nuclear weapons with conventional forces in the theory is said if the russians were uh on the losing end of a conventional war they would threaten the use of uh of uh of nuclear weapons of a mediumrange uh or tactical.
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on WTMA
"Dude true in wall wall walk so the united states of america has more than six thousand nuclear warheads six thousand eight hundred nuclear warheads we have intercontinental ballistic missiles in silos bases around the united states we have submarinebased nuclear weapons we have nuclear weapons that can be launched from airplanes delivered by by way of airplanes and north korea has a few nuclear weapons they've tested a couple in the ground and they've been launched in a couple of ballistic missiles with some limited but increasingly capable missiles and president trump and and look kim has been threatening us and all i've got a button on my desk he doesn't have a button on his desk they don't have those kind of missiles yet uh but he obviously as interested in threatening freedomloving people and america and the west and the world with nuclear weapons with the use of nuclear weapons and then god forbid president trump should should slap him back in to as little thrown and and uh tell him to sit down and shut up which is entirely appropriate now what are we are weak a quaking in fear of china they have many more nuclear weapons than then north korea does russia has about seven thousand nuclear weapons are way sitting here quaking in fear of that if they rattled other separate us would we say oh no don't threaten us were so afraid about all of the fru frozen the media and the democrat party but i repeat myself are apparently intent on quaking in fear through all of this oh no there quite afraid well president trump tweeted this morning on the subject now he did tweet the other day i've got a button on my desk to minds bigger and mind works and that's an important point and i have no doubt that the north korean regime including a kim looked at an said well yeah he's he's right about that they've got many thousands of nuclear weapons and all kinds of delivery systems and and we don't so they should take that into account they should put that in aircraft pipe and smoke it and i'm sure that they did an ad for us while they're aware of that going in any way but for some reason we're all supposed.
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on WLS-AM 890
"Mm you're listening to us dream of wlsam 890 all of these john imre chris fled and rush limbaugh and steve jobs loss award winning news traffic and weather at the top and bottom of every hour also though proud home of the white sox faced waldner should cargo bowls wlsam 890 blue no no in wall wall walk so the united states of america has more than six thousand nuclear warheads six thousand eight hundred nuclear warheads we have intercontinental ballistic missiles in silos bases around the united states we have submarinebased nuclear weapons we have nuclear weapons that can be launched from airplanes delivered by by way of airplanes and north korea has a few nuclear weapons they've tested a couple in the ground and they've been launched a couple of ballistic missiles with some limited but increasingly capable missiles and uh president trump and and look kim has been threatening us and all i've got a button on my desk he doesn't have a button on his death they don't have those kind of missiles yet uh but he obviously as interested in threatening freedomloving people and america and the west and the world with nuclear weapons with the use of nuclear weapons and then god forbid president trump should should slap him back into his little thrown and and uh tell him to sit down and shut up which is entirely appropriate now what are we are weak a quaking in fear of china they have many more nuclear weapons than than north korea does russia has about seven thousand nuclear weapons are way sitting her quaking in fear of that if they rattled other separate us what we say oh no don't threaten us were so afraid about all of the fru frozen the media and the democrat party but i repeat myself are apparently intent on quaking in fear through all of this oh no there quite afraid well president trump tweeted this morning on the subject now he did tweet the other day i've got a button on my desk to minds bigger and mind works and that's an important point and i have no doubt that the north korean regime including a kim looked at an said well yeah he's is right about that they've got many thousands of nuclear weapons and all kinds of delivery systems and and we don't so they should take that into account they should put that in their cracked pipe.
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on Target USA Podcast by WTOP
"And if you're not on the same page with me in if you're not loyal to me i'm going to take you out any and you cited a number of people is taken out over 100 sixty senior military and party officials to include is is oncle owners have rather as you noted so this is a man who was brutal who knows what he wants to accomplish and we'll do anything to accomplish it so what kind of a deal i think there's going to be very difficult now jj the there's no question in two thousand and five there were no nuclear weapons in north korea there have even tested a nuclear weapon in two thousand seventeen the assessment as they can have between twenty and sixty nuclear weapons now they have an intercontinental ballistic missile capability at cetera it's much more difficult but jj let me made notice they need security assurances they want an end to this the korean war they need some assurances that regime change is not the goals and objectives of the united states and south korea this man wants to ensure as best they can that he has longevity in the position he has well you know i hate said even go down this road because you know really we don't even need to talk about this this piece of this situation and that is that ok p if you're trying to demonstrate that regime change shouldn't happen but you go out and you commit murder and you go out you commit all these atrocities and you're saying but by just just doing this to make sure you don't take me out.
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on Target USA Podcast by WTOP
"Of thought to himself would give me a better place at the table when we talk about agreement that provides north korea with security assurances when we talk about sanctions relief and we talk about other issues at speak to the peninsula in north korea but the korean peninsula it would permit him to be in a better bargaining position so i believe and i think this is where he is right now having this nuclear weapons capability indeed gets into the table and put them in a minute of much stronger position to negotiate a deal whatever that deal may be and that's where he is i think this is a young man who are at a greater ambitions than his father grandfather let's talk about the deal i mean what could a guy who were murder result uncle murder his own brother uh and oversee the killing of his trusted generals and trusted aides in assistance with anti aircraft weapons just very brutal kind of activities kinds of activities also an individual who has attacked the us and other countries using cyber weapons which make no mistake about it are very real weapons in this day and age that we live in so what kind of a deal could a guy like that one i think you're ports it right on the mark i think they're all excellent cybertechnology but also the chemical technology as we'll see with his halfbrother using the vx nerve agent biological capabilities he's looking at if you will the whole menu of new of weapons to include nuclear weapons what kind of a deal could i like that want one is showing he's pretty brutal actor is of her act without a doubt he's versatile and he has goals and objectives and no one's going to interfere with those goals and objectives.
"nuclear weapons" Discussed on Arms Control Wonk
"Because to adequately verified prohibited fans under this treaty you do need to give the iaea the maximum amount of tools to not only conclude that you that your declared materials are in peaceful uses but the irish also be able to draw conclusions about the absence of undeclared activities and materials and right now the ice as that the they need the additional protocol for that so we may not have advanced the safeguards discussion much on that front but there was verification issues that cropped up in the next article as well which is the the framework really to gets at nuclear weapons possessors on board with the treaty and a hypothetical future scenario and originally in in previous podcast on this subject you can listen to us talk about the rationale that the president gave for having different pathways that nuclear weapons disasters could use to to become part of the treaty and and they're still multiple pathways in in this latest version of the article that they've change somewhat there's in short a an option for a country with nuclear weapons to eliminate things on its own and then joined the treaty there's an option for them to express a desire to disarm join the treaty and then come up with the approach to disarmament in partnership there with some unspecified competent international thority or with the state's parties and then there's a kind of other pathway for a countries who have nuclear weapons stationed on their soil but where those nuclear weapons are not owned by dot state party so here we're talking about nato basing states at the moment so there's this three things all in one article and verification attempts to go alongside each of those things were what reviews on those the the whole issue of disarmament investigation wind from a practically nonexistent in the pre glaciation discussions to to this protracted technical debate that gave us an article with what six paragraphs and.