Showing posts with label Warmongers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Warmongers. Show all posts

Sunday, September 8, 2019

Strangelove Redux: US Experts Propose Having Artificial Intelligence (AI) Control Nuclear Weapons


Global Research, September 08, 2019



Hypersonic missiles, stealthy cruise missiles, and weaponized artificial intelligence have so reduced the amount of time that decision makers in the United States would theoretically have to respond to a nuclear attack that, two military experts say, it’s time for a new US nuclear command, control, and communications system. Their solution? Give artificial intelligence control over the launch button.
In an article in War on the Rocks titled, ominously, “America Needs a ‘Dead Hand,’” US deterrence experts Adam Lowther and Curtis McGiffin propose a nuclear command, control, and communications setup with some eerie similarities to the Soviet system referenced in the title to their piece. The Dead Hand was a semiautomated system developed to launch the Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal under certain conditions, including, particularly, the loss of national leaders who could do so on their own. Given the increasing time pressure Lowther and McGiffin say US nuclear decision makers are under,
“[I]t may be necessary to develop a system based on artificial intelligence, with predetermined response decisions, that detects, decides, and directs strategic forces with such speed that the attack-time compression challenge does not place the United States in an impossible position.”
In case handing over the control of nuclear weapons to HAL 9000 sounds risky, the authors also put forward a few other solutions to the nuclear time-pressure problem: Bolster the United States’ ability to respond to a nuclear attack after the fact, that is, ensure a so-called second-strike capability; adopt a willingness to pre-emptively attack other countries based on warnings that they are preparing to attack the United States; or destabilize the country’s adversaries by fielding nukes near their borders, the idea here being that such a move would bring countries to the arms control negotiating table.
Still, the authors clearly appear to favor an artificial intelligence-based solution.
“Nuclear deterrence creates stability and depends on an adversary’s perception that it cannot destroy the United States with a surprise attack, prevent a guaranteed retaliatory strike, or prevent the United States from effectively commanding and controlling its nuclear forces,” they write. “That perception begins with an assured ability to detect, decide, and direct a second strike. In this area, the balance is shifting away from the United States.”
History is replete with instances in which it seems, in retrospect, that nuclear war could have started were it not for some flesh-and-blood human refusing to begin Armageddon. Perhaps the most famous such hero was Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet lieutenant colonel, who was the officer on duty in charge of the Soviet Union’s missile-launch detection system when it registered five inbound missiles on Sept. 26, 1983. Petrov decided the signal was in error and reported it as a false alarm. It was. Whether an artificial intelligence would have reached the same decision is, at the least, uncertain.
One of the risks of incorporating more artificial intelligence into the nuclear command, control, and communications system involves the phenomenon known as automation bias. Studies have shown that people will trust what an automated system is telling them. In one study, pilots who told researchers that they wouldn’t trust an automated system that reported an engine fire unless there was corroborating evidence nonetheless did just that in simulations. (Furthermore, they told experimenters that there had in fact been corroborating information, when there hadn’t.)
University of Pennsylvania political science professor and Bulletin columnist Michael Horowitz, who researches military innovation, counts automation bias as a strike against building an artificial intelligence-based nuclear command, control, and communications system.
“A risk in a world of automation bias is that the Petrov of the future doesn’t use his judgment,” he says, “or that there is no Petrov.”
The algorithms that power artificial intelligence-systems are usually trained on huge datasets which simply don’t exist when it comes to nuclear weapons launches.
“There have not been nuclear missile attacks, country against country. And so, training an algorithm for early warning means that you’re relying entirely on simulated data,” Horowitz says. “I would say, based on the state-of-the-art in the development of algorithms, that generates some risks.”
Mostly, Horowitz thinks the United States wouldn’t develop an artificial intelligence-based command, control, and communications system because, even if there may be less time to react to an attack in this era than in earlier decades, the government is confident in the military’s second-strike capability.
“As long as you have secure-second strike capabilities, you can probably absorb some of these variations in speed, because you always have the ability to retaliate,” he says.
Lowther and McGiffin point out that a second strike means there’s already been a first strike somewhere.
The "Doomsday Machine" in the movie Dr. Strangelove shares some similarities with a system the Soviet Union actually set up. Photo via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.
The “Doomsday Machine” in the movie Dr. Strangelove shares some similarities with a system the Soviet Union actually set up. Photo via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.
There is some precedent for the system proposed by the War on the Rocksauthors, who have served in government or in the military in nuclear-weapons-related capacities. In the fictional world of Hollywood, that precedent was established in Stanley Kubrick’s nuclear satire Dr. Strangelove and called the “Doomsday Machine,” which author Eric Schlosser described this way for The New Yorker:
“The device would trigger itself, automatically, if the Soviet Union were attacked with nuclear weapons. It was meant to be the ultimate deterrent, a threat to destroy the world in order to prevent an American nuclear strike. But the failure of the Soviets to tell the United States about the contraption defeats its purpose and, at the end of the film, inadvertently causes a nuclear Armageddon. ‘The whole point of the Doomsday Machine is lost,’ Dr. Strangelove, the President’s science adviser, explains to the Soviet Ambassador, ‘if you keep it a secret!’”
About two decades later, satire became closer to reality with the advent of the Soviet Union’s semiautomated Dead Hand system, formally known as Perimeter. When that system perceived that the Soviet military hierarchy no longer existed and detected signs of a nuclear explosion, three officers deep in a bunker were to launch small command rockets that would fly across the country initiating the launch of all of the Soviet Union’s remaining missiles, in a sort of revenge-from-the-grave move. The system was intended to enhance deterrence. Some reports suggest it is still in place.
The possibility that taking humans out of the loop might lead to an accidental launch and unintended nuclear war is a main element in US Naval War College Prof. Tom Nichols’ harsh characterization of the Dead Hand system in a 2014 article in The National Interest: “Turns out the Soviet high command, in its pathetic and paranoid last years, was just that crazy.”
But Lowther and McGiffin say a hypothetical US system would be different than Dead Hand because “the system itself would determine the response based on its own assessment of the inbound threat.“ That is to say, the US system would be better, because it wouldn’t necessarily wait for a nuclear detonation to launch a US attack.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Featured image: A US missile test. Photo via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.


https://www.globalresearch.ca/strangelove-redux-us-experts-propose-having-artificial-intelligence-ai-control-nuclear-weapons/5688448


JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Wednesday, July 17, 2019

Provoking War? British Hijack Iranian Ship, Another Day, Another Dangerous Provocation



Global Research, July 17, 2019

Had Iran openly hijacked a vessel of any nation, for any reason, plying through waters anywhere on Earth, the US and its allies would immediately cite it as a provocation toward war.
In fact, even without evidence, suspiciously timed attacks carried out last month on tankers passing through the Persian Gulf were cited by Washington and London as a pretext for increased pressure on Tehran despite the attacks appearing staged by the West itself.
Now in a display once again illustrating just who the actual menace is to global peace and stability, the British have openly – even proudly – hijacked a ship carrying Iranian oil allegedly bound for Syria.
Royal Marines have helped seize an Iranian supertanker suspected of carrying oil to Syria off the coast of Gibraltar, escalating tensions between the UK and Tehran as the agreement aimed at halting Iran’s nuclear programme unravels.
A detachment of nearly 30 British troops working with the Gibraltarian police intercepted the vessel, believed to be carrying 2m barrels of oil, in a dramatic manoeuvre Spain said had been conducted at the request of the US.
The article would quote the British ambassador to Iran who claimed:
[The UK] welcomes this firm action by the Gibraltarian authorities.
As to why the UK believed it was justified to hijack the Iranian tanker – the article would cite “sanctions against the regime of Bashar al-Assad” the UK and EU placed on Syria – which are in themselves illegal and an act of war.
Stealing Ships from Stolen Land to Enforce Illegal Sanctions 
The UK’s presence in Gibraltar itself is a point of contention between London and Madrid.
Spain does not recognize British claims over the tiny piece of land located at the furthest tip of the Iberian Peninsula. The British presence is one of its many holdovers from its imperialist past. The British presence gives the UK a choke point over the Strait of Gibraltar and all shipping passing through it.
The fact that the British are using the disputed territory of Gibraltar to hijack ships or that the London Guardian is trying to depict it as an operation undertaken while “working with the Gibraltarian police” – when the “Gibraltarian police” are nothing more than functionaries representing London itself – provide a clear illustration of how foreign policy, media, and crimes against international law are being coordinated, justified, and sold to the public by Washington and London.
While Iran has regularly threatened to impede shipping through the Stait of Hormuz in retaliation to Western military aggression – it has never acted upon these threats – reserving them as a means of last resort.
The British and Americans – on the other hand – have literally implicated themselves in disrupting “freedom of navigation.” 
The US and UK both pose as international arbiters and underwriters of what they call “the freedom of navigation” of the world’s seas. They regularly accuse nations like China of impeding such “freedom” in the South China Sea – using these accusations as an excuse to build up a military presence off China’s shores – thousands of miles from their own shores.
They have also regularly cited Iran’s “threats” to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz as another reason Iran should be further pressured, sanctioned, and its government ultimately removed from power.
Yet by hijacking Iranian ships, or likewise intercepting North Korean vessels, or the ships of any nation based on sanctions unilaterally and illegally imposed by Washington, London, and Brussels implicates the West themselves as the primary threat to the very “freedom of navigation” of the world’s seas they claim to uphold.
Provoking War 
From Western policy think tanks to policymakers and politicians themselves – the West has all but admitted it is trying to goad Iran into war.
Sanctions, Western-sponsored terrorism aimed at Iranian territory itself, and provocations – like the recent hijacking of an Iranian tanker – all aimed at Tehran – are moves seeking to trigger a response from Iran that will justify even wider Western economic sanctions and military aggression.
And if Iran fails to provide such a provocation, one might be staged and blamed on Iran anyway.
These are the actions of outlaw nations presiding over a fading international order – one fading specifically because it is so transparently unjust, lopsided, and disruptive toward global stability. It has persisted for so long solely through the maxim of “might makes right.”
The British stealing ships from stolen land to enforce illegal sanctions is a vulgar display of “might makes right,” but one that may possibility be reaching its expiration.
The countervailing multipolar order emerging across Eurasia has an opportunity to oppose this flagrant provocation – not merely on Iran’s behalf – but to erode the impunity that will allow the US and UK to target the ships of other nations in a similar fashion if afforded impunity to do so to Iran now.
For Tehran, it will need to continue exhibiting “maximum patience” while enduring Washington and London’s “maximum pressure” campaign – avoiding the traps both have laid out for Tehran as they attempt to bait the nation into war and change their failing fortunes in the Middle East and around the globe.
The British – still a thorn in the side of global peace and stability despite losing most of its empire – presents us with a preview of what to expect from America even long after it fades as sole global hegemon. Learning to put the UK’s recent provocations in check now will help develop the tools necessary to put in check its future provocations – and those the US will find itself also depending on more and more often in the future.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Tony Cartalucci is Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from NEO



https://www.globalresearch.ca/provoking-war-british-hijack-iranian-ship-another-day-another-dangerous-provocation/5683838

JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Trump May Appoint Fringe Neocon to Head Intelligence



Global Research, July 17, 2019

It keeps getting worse. The neocons have burrowed termite-deep inside the Trump administration and rumor has it the president will add yet another one to an important cabinet position.
If there is any substance to the latest rumors, DNI Dan Coats will be replaced by Fred Fleitz, former NSC executive secretary, CIA analyst, Trump Chief of Staff, Bolton enforcer, and CEO of the Center for Security Policy.
This last one should send up a huge red flag. CSP is a project launched by Frank Gaffney Jr., an Islamophobe way out on the neocon fringe. During the Trump presidential campaign, I wrote a short ebook (Donald Trump and the War on Islam) about Gaffney, among other neocons and rabid Israel-firsters exacting a corrosive influence on the Trump campaign.
I wrote:
Frank Gaffney is at the forefront of the movement to arouse hatred and fear designed to further extend and expand the war on terror and ultimately realize the objective of the [neocon] “clean break” plan [for Israel] to destroy not only Arab and Muslim nations, but societies and culture as well.
Gaffney is so radical he was rejected by the Pentagon when he was Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy in the Reagan Administration. He is associated with other neocons, including Richard Perle, who rose to prominence as aides of the late Democrat Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson.
Fleitz was formerly the managing editor of LIGNET.com (Langley Intelligence Group Network). This is a pro-Likudnik intelligence operation is linked to Bolton, former Ambassador Otto Reich, former CIA Director Michael Hayden, and others.
You can hear echoes of Fleitz in Trump’s irrational anti-Iran policies. In 2017, Fleitz signed on to a letter sent to Trump, that stated in part:
We agree with Ambassador John Bolton that strong international sanctions, a tough negotiating strategy and a decisive American president who will not engage in appeasement is the best approach to rein in Iran’s belligerent behavior and induce it to joining negotiations on a better agreement… It is time to move beyond President Obama’s appeasement of Iran and to begin work on a comprehensive new approach that fully addresses the menace that the Iranian regime increasingly poses to American and international security.
In other words, the “security” (dominance) of Israel and maintenance of the apartheid status quo.
Ambassador John Bolton has drawn up a plan to implement a far more effective, comprehensive and multilateral approach to address the threat from Iran. This approach includes strict new sanctions to bar permanently the transfer of nuclear technology to Iran. He also calls for new sanctions in response to Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism and efforts to destabilize the Middle East, especially in Syria, Iraq and Yemen.
The signatories—including Gaffney, leading neocon and former Cheney adviser David Wurmser, and Morton Klein (president of the Zionist Organization of America)—undoubtedly agree with the Bolton plan for Iran, as laid out in a 2015 NY Times op-ed, To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran.
Bolton concluded:
The United States could do a thorough job of destruction, but Israel alone can do what’s necessary. Such action should be combined with vigorous American support for Iran’s opposition, aimed at regime change in Tehran.
In response to Trump’s clumsy partial implementation of the Bolton plan, namely jettisoning the JCPOA, Iran has indicated it will defend itself if attacked, including but not limited to shutting down one-third of the world’s oil passage through the Strait of Hormuz. It has threatened to target Israel cities, Gulf Emirate oil infrastructure, and US troops and bases in the Middle East.
Trump is reminiscent of a person suffering from a split personality disorder. On the one hand, the “Good Trump” has declared he wants US troops out of Syria, while the “Bad Trump” bombs Syria and threatens “fire and fury” levied against North Korea and Iran. It is, to say the least, a schizophrenic foreign policy.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Another Day in the Empire.
Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
Featured image is from the author




https://www.globalresearch.ca/trump-may-appoint-fringe-neocon-head-intelligence/5683795


JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.

Sunday, July 14, 2019

Britain’s Betrayal: Siding with Trump Against Iran



Global Research, July 14, 2019

The US/UK special relationship is longstanding. Throughout the post-WW II era, both nations have been imperial partners, the US calling the shots, Britain saluting and obeying.
During his March 1946 Fulton, MO “Iron Curtain” address, Winston Churchill noted the special relationship, saying the following:
“Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organization will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples…a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States.”
In November 1945, he said “(w)e should not abandon our special relationship with the United States…”
In 1930, British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald affirmed it long before Churchill. It dates from the 19th century, notably after America’s Civil War, its modern form emerging post-WW II.
The imperial record of both countries, hostile to peace an stability, stands in sharp contrast to their lofty rhetoric, including support for global terrorist groups instead of combatting them, using them as proxies to advance their common agenda, Britain assuming a junior partner role to dominant America.
When the US goes to war against nations threatening no one, or engages in other hostile actions against them like imposing illegal sanctions, Britain virtually always partners in its criminality.
That’s how things are playing out in the run-up to possible US aggression against Iran, a lunatic action if occurs.
Based on its hostile actions against Iran after Trump illegally pulled out of the JCPOA, it’s increasingly clear that Britain only pretends to support the landmark agreement while siding with the White House against it.
The US/UK partnership against Iran increases the likelihood of dooming the JCPOA, negating years of negotiations to produce the landmark agreement if things turn out this way.
At the behest of the Trump regime, Britain seized Iran’s Grace 1 supertanker on July 4, a hostile act of maritime piracy, likely timed with DJT’s militarized Independence Day commemoration.
Impounding the vessel, seizing its documents and electronic devices, along with arresting its captain, chief officer, and two other crew members were bandit actions, flagrant violations of international maritime law.
Britain compounded its hostility toward Iran in deference to the White House by falsely accusing the IRGC of attempting to seize a UK tanker passing through the Strait of Hormuz, its transponder improperly turned off, the vessel followed by a British frigate.
In cahoots with the Trump regime, Britain likely aimed to entrap Iran, wanting it to commit a hostile action its political and military authorities were too savvy to fall for.
They surely won’t give the White House a pretext to unjustifiably justify war on the country, just the opposite by consistently following international laws, norms, and standards in dealings with other nations — polar opposite how the US, Britain, Israel, and their imperial partners operate.
On Friday, Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi explained the following:
“We have told the British authorities that their move would increase tensions and is in line with those hostile policies of the US,” adding:
“From the first day the oil tanker was seized, Iran started taking legal and diplomatic measures. We summoned the UK ambassador twice, and he appeared at the Iranian foreign ministry for several other meetings to provide some explanations.”
“We have given the case to a lawyer who is currently taking legal and judiciary procedures.”
Sino/Russian “(s)ignatories to the JCPOA, as well as other countries, have done their best to preserve the deal.”
“Iran’s next step, within the two-month deadline to Europe, is planned and will be implemented” if Britain, France, Germany, and the EU remain in breach of their JCPOA obligations — binding international law they violated by their unacceptable actions, siding with the Trump regime against Iran.
On Friday, Iran again demanded the release of its Grace 1 supertanker, calling Britain’s action a “dangerous game under the influence of the Americans with no end in sight.”
President Rouhani warned Britain that it “initiat(ed) insecurity, (unspecified) consequences in the future” to follow if they remain in breach of maritime and other international law.
Foreign Minister Zarif slammed Britain for “creat(ing) tension.” Its fabricate “claims (against Iran) have no value,” he stressed.
Through his spokesman, one-sidedly pro-Western/pro Israel UN Secretary General Antonio Guterresissued his typical unacceptable response to Britain’s hostile action against Iran in cahoots with the Trump regime, calling for “maximum restraint” — while suggesting Iranian responsibility for their unacceptable actions, adding:
“We want…everyone to allow for the freedom of movement of vessels, and we’re hopeful that they will abide by that” — instead of squarely laying blame where it belongs.
Because of US-led hostility toward Iran, on top of its endless wars in multiple theaters, the Middle East remains a tinder box of possible greater US, NATO, Israeli aggression than already.
Note: Four Grace 1 crew members unlawfully arrested by Britain were released on Friday uncharged, with unexplained “conditions.”
The vessel remains illegally impounded — its status unlikely to change unless permitted by Trump regime hardliners, Britain submissive to its unacceptable demands.
Separately, a second UK warship is en route to the Persian Gulf. Will its mission be to push the envelope toward war on Iran?
The US, UK, other NATO nations, Israel, and their imperial partners are archenemies of world peace!
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.



https://www.globalresearch.ca/britains-betrayal-siding-trump-against-iran-jcpoa/5683493

JUST NEWS published this article following the Creative Commons rule. If you don't want your article to appear in this blog email me and I will remove it asap.