Imminent Dangers of Auto-destruction and a Simple Solution

The title seems dramatic but I can't stress enough how dangerous the next few years are for Humanity in general.  People are aware of the danger at a subconscious level because the signs are here and there.  Unfortunately, we've been desensitized by risk for such a long time that most people just dismiss the signs.

The trouble is, we're more likely now to destroy life on Earth as we know it than the coldest part of the cold war.  We're just not seeing it openly in the news.  All our attention is focused on anti-terrorism and political posturing, sometimes leading to a small number of deaths... and we think that's reason to be afraid and to stress out.

Not so my friends.

In reality, the biggest threats right now are from tensions between countries around cyber attacks, artificial intelligence and nuclear weapons.  The combination of all three is deadly along with foreign policies of keeping offensive military forces around states that we perceive as potentially dangerous.

The U.N. has been warning about these dangers earlier this year, in particular about the global nuclear threat.  In fact, as I mentioned a couple months ago, there is a vote to attempt to universally ban nuclear weapons at the U.N. on July 7th 2017.

There is also an apparent unwillingness to negotiate any kind of significant ban on the development of automated killer robots for military use as well.  Most countries, in particular the U.S. want to keep developing deadly automated vehicles, unimpeded, while European countries would prefer setting up regulations and limits on such devices.

The combination of these technologies, i.e. nuclear weapons, automated killer robots used as delivery systems and the use of automated control systems (AI or without) makes it much easier for the military to act without putting soldiers in harms way, as well as be more efficient in killing targets.  On the other hand, these systems can start behaving differently than programmed or be hacked into by belligerent forces, causing potentially terrifying effects.  (The SkyNet principle comes to mind).

I discuss more about the implications of this and solutions in the video below:

As mentioned in a previous blog, the whole SkyNet scenario can be avoided entirely if we as people choose to ban these weapons as a first step.  No weapon is ever created without the intention of possibly using it.  As a society and voters, we have the power to refuse to develop or keep such weapons.  We can also choose to stop developing those weapons and instead develop more effective modern defenses and make efforts to reduce our own and our neighbor's aggressive tendencies.

How you ask?  Well, we need to become better people and become unafraid.  That way, we can help our leaders make proper decisions that don't involve blowing up other people and nations, or building up stockpiles of weapons that can one day reduce the Earth to a smoldering pile of ash. How about that?

Sounds crazy right?  Not so much.  There are plenty of studies that show that personal balance and meditation (making healthy stable minds) significantly decrease the likelihood of aggressive behaviors surrounding the groups that meditate.  We're talking about 20% impact in the US based on several peer-reviewed papers.

This principle has been well known for years and some armies in other countries, like Nepal, have even started using such techniques to reduce the stress levels and aggressiveness among their own troops, but also in their potential enemies, preventing incursions before they can even start.

I may be dreaming, but what if the US military would take this stance of being defensive, and meditating for peace in order to calm themselves, stabilize their own minds (health) and prevent others from feeling so aggressive towards them as well.  What would happen if all armies around the world would use meditation as a primary defensive measure, and weapons second?  What would happen if the population of each country would meditate for peace more as well as peacefully protest the development of new automated nuclear weapon platforms?

Most likely, we'd find out that we'd be collaborating with other powers to protect populations against the few pockets of aggressive people that remain.  Some initiatives have existed to help populations join up and meditate together, such as those of the Raelian Movement, called the "Meditate 1 Minute for Peace" action.

Ultimately, the development of new technologies will continue, but it is now the time for our society to choose to not develop some of those technologies into weapons.

We'll be much better off without those and instead we could build a paradise on Earth where everyone could have basic needs met. In those conditions, organized aggression would be undesirable by all, thus most large scale dangers would be eliminated as well.

This is a dream I'm willing to fight for.  How about you?

ICAN Nuclear Ban Proposal and Refusal of Nuclear Weapon States

In March 2017, a new discussion and vote on an global ban on nuclear weapons has happened at the UN which gave very interesting results:  132 countries participated and a large majority of countries voted Yes to negotiate such a ban.

This sounds promising for reducing the risk of nuclear disaster in the world right?

Unfortunately, it is not that simple.

Let's paint the picture:  there are 5 states that currently and officially declare they have Nuclear weapons:  The United States of America, Great Britain, France, Russia and China.   4 other states are either thought to have nuclear weapons or have very recently demonstrated they they do through testing and outside observation.  Those countries are India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea.

So 9 states that currently have nuclear weapon capabilities, 5 of which have signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968.  

All of these 9 states have said No to the most recent ICAN proposal (ICAN is the International Committee to Ban Nuclear Weapons) to negotiate said ban.

This is disturbing to me, and as shown by other countries that have either voted No or have Abstained (mostly western world or developed countries really), have delivered official reasons being that without the nuclear state's participation, in these negotiations, it would be both pointless and dangerous to move forward.

I tend to agree.

I discuss this and my own version of bold solutions in the following video:

There is of course lots of logic enunciated by ambassadors and officials around this, of course.  For one, let's look at the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) here.  The core pillars that this highly successful treaty from an acceptance point of view, with only 4 important countries that are not signatories (only 1 of which is thought to possess nuclear weapons, Israel):

Pillar #1:  Non-Proliferation.  Basically, if you have nukes, don't sell, share or teach others how to build them.  Also, if other non-nuclear nations are trying to build them, do your best to discourage, condemn and sanction these signatory countries.

Pillar #2:  Disarmament.  If you are a nuclear nation, then work with other nuclear nation on your own timetables to reduce your arsenal with the ultimate goal of reducing your stockpiles to zero.  There is no timeline in which this has to be accomplished.

Pillar #3:  Peaceful use of nuclear energy:  signatory countries can develop, share, and encourage in the development of civilian use for nuclear energy (medical, energy production, research purposes etc....)

Now, the ICAN ban that is going to be negotiated  between June 15th and July 7th 2017 at the UN (since enough votes came in) contains these elements at its core (to be discussed):

• To prohibit the development, production, testing, acquisition, stockpiling, transfer, deployment, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons.
• To prohibit signing members from assisting, financing, encouraging and inducing prohibited acts (see above).
• Provides an obligation for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and a framework to achieve it but it would force parties of the treaty to define timelines as part of the implementation process through appropriate legal instruments.  
• Includes positive obligations to pay damages for victims of nuclear weapons activities, including environmental damage.

This sounds great and the wording is much stronger than the NPT of 1968 since it defines legal obligations and legal prohibitions and not only intent. Also, the elimination of nuclear weapons, though still loose, forces signatory countries to establish timelines that would be then legally enforceable.

Great stuff in my opinion.

However, Russia, the USA, France, China and Great Britain (the 5 major nuclear powers, all signatories of the NPT), don't want to even negotiate for the exact same reason.

In a nutshell, they like the NPT and want to create an environment of trust where nuclear weapons would not be needed as deterrents to nuclear war first, then they can continue the disarmament.  At least that's the official story.  

I'm thinking:  how can you get enough trust between nuclear nations (obviously this is mostly Russia and China vs USA, France and Great Britain), when all those nations already have stockpiles.  Remember that even though over the years, stockpiles in numbers have diminished since the cold war, each individual nuclear weapon they have is 3,000 times more powerful than those dropped on Hiroshima!

Because of this, I do understand why many developed nations, friends of those nuclear powers, instead of voting yes, have voted no or have abstained to look good politically:  there IS no point in negotiating this if the nuclear powers don't participate.

I mean, how would other countries with lesser economic powers, weak military forces and no nukes, enforce such a Treaty in 2017 even if it is fully voted in by the UN (which is unlikely, because those same nations have veto a the UN don't they?).

Sweden, as I read the explanations why countries voted yes or no, being a very advanced state, has given me a glimmer of hope by voting YES, and here is their reason why:

1. The security of the world with regards to nuclear disarmament is bigger and more urgent than ever.
2. The NPT for the past number of years has been generally ignored and scheduled to disarm by nuclear countries has stopped.  No recent progress or movement.
3. On principle and on a humanitarian level they say yes because at least it is progress towards a nuclear free world.
4. There is no legal gap between the NPT and the ICAN proposal.  One is an enhancement of the other, contrary to some justifications from nuclear countries in their responses.
5. Sweden's stance must be loud and clear and they take that stance in the hope that other developed nations that do have nuclear power will follow suit and agree to make a real effort to bring about a nuclear weapon free world.

This is very courageous from the Swedish government, always a forerunner in social affairs and wellness.  A great example country to follow.

It is ridiculous to assume the world will be safer with nuclear weapon countries unwilling to continue disarming properly according to a defined timetable and each of them basically waiting for the other superpower to get rid of their nukes before they do.

One must take a stand.

If the USA would unilaterally put out a plan to get rid of their nuclear arsenal, independent to what Russia or China does, it would send a clear message to the whole world that this Sword of Damocles is in the process to be removed and the other powers may, according to their own words, in fact do the same.

Only then we'll have peace of mind and safety.  THEN the confidence can grow dramatically between nations.

Until then, other nations might as well pull out of the NPT and develop their own nukes as a deterrent.  It would only be fair wouldn't it?