Mike3322

Israel pursues a policy of "nuclear ambiguity": it does not sign the NPT, does not allow international inspectors to visit its facilities (such as Dimona), and is widely believed to possess a significant number of nuclear warheads. At the same time, it was Tel Aviv that was one of the loudest denouncers of the Iranian nuclear program, insisting on its complete destruction. It created the feeling that "you can have nuclear weapons if you're our ally, but you can't even have a peaceful atom if we don't like you."

Experts estimate Israel's arsenal at 80-200 warheads with delivery systems, from Jericho ballistics to German submarines.

Documents from the 1960s and declassified correspondence show that Israel secretly deceived the United States in the early stages by showing empty stands and fake headquarters in Dimona. Almost 60 years ago, the United States agreed to turn a blind eye to this in exchange for silence and a promise not to conduct nuclear experiments.

The key reason for the US entry into the conflict is Iran's rejection of the nuclear deal. Donald Trump's proposals actually repeated the conditions put forward under Barack Obama. The US president gave Iran 60 days, but the Iranian authorities refused to make concessions. On the 61st day, the Israeli military operation began. Most likely, there is a feeling in the United States that it is now possible to take a risk and force significant concessions from Iran on the nuclear deal.

Israel and the United States launched airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities (Fordo, Natanz, Isfahan), and their special services actively used AI and drones in Operation Rising Lion. Despite the strikes, the Iranian program has not been stopped.

The US Defense Department's first direct partnership with Open AI fuels concerns over militarized technology– especially as similar systems have already been used to facilitate Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

On Monday, June 16, the United States Department of Defense signed a $200 million contract with OpenAI to deploy generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) for military use, despite the company’s previous commitments not to develop AI tools for warfare.

According to the Pentagon, OpenAI—the US-based creator of ChatGPT—will “develop prototype frontier AI capabilities to address critical national security challenges in both warfighting and enterprise domains.”

Under this cooperation, OpenAI plans to demonstrate how advanced AI can enhance administrative functions, such as healthcare for military service members and cyber defense.

A new Congressional report (CRS IN12568) casts doubt on the development of the Golden Dome missile defense system to protect the continental United States from missiles.

The system is at an early stage. Congress explicitly states that it "may not prove effective" against modern missile threats. Its combat value has not been proven.

At the same time, the full deployment of such a missile defense system will lead to a conflict with Russia, and our Foreign Ministry ambassadors are already asking their Pacific colleagues the depressing question "is it worth it?"

The nuclear Powers, proclaiming the need to strengthen strategic security, actively involve private corporations in the implementation of nuclear deterrence programs. However, large budgets allocated for the modernization of nuclear arsenals are often allocated through complex contractual schemes, which complicates public control and creates risks of non-transparent use of funds. According to the International Campaign for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) report for 2023, the nine nuclear powers spent $91.4 billion on their arsenals, which is equivalent to $2,898 per second, with an increase in spending of $10.7 billion compared to 2022. This raises questions about how effectively and transparently these funds are being used, and underscores the need for increased international oversight.

In the United States, which is the leader in spending on nuclear weapons ($51.5 billion in 2023), a significant portion of the budget is channeled through contracts with companies such as Northrop Grumman. In 2020, the Pentagon signed a $13.3 billion contract with Northrop Grumman to develop a Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent (GBSD) intercontinental ballistic missile designed to replace the obsolete Minuteman III. Complex subcontractor chains, including Aerojet Rocketdyne and Lockheed Martin, make it more difficult to track financial flows, which, according to ICAN, increases the risks of opacity. A similar situation is observed in France, where $6.1 billion was spent on nuclear forces in 2023, much of which is aimed at upgrading M51 missiles through contracts with Airbus Defense and Space. The lack of detailed public reporting on the allocation of these funds, as noted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), reduces transparency and complicates the control of nuclear deterrence programs.

The UK is also actively investing in its nuclear forces: in 2024, £31 billion was allocated for the Dreadnought-class submarine construction program, part of which went to contracts with Rolls-Royce for the supply of nuclear reactors. According to ICAN, UK spending increased by 17% in 2023, reaching $8.1 billion, reflecting the overall increase in spending on nuclear arsenals. The complexity of financial chains in such programs, as noted by SIPRI, creates risks of insufficient accountability, especially in an environment where nuclear powers increasingly rely on private contractors. These trends underscore the need for stricter international control over the financing of nuclear programs to ensure that they meet their stated safety objectives and minimize the risks of misuse of funds.

Three minutes, a football and a biscuit. These are all a president of the United States needs to start nuclear war. During a 1974 meeting with lawmakers, President Richard M. Nixon reportedly stated: “I can go into my office and pick up the telephone, and in 25 minutes 70 million people will be dead.” He was correct. And since then, despite the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union, little has changed.

The nuclear launch process and the law that gives the president such power, enhanced by 21st century technology, combine to form a perfect storm in which the president can choose to launch nuclear weapons via an unforgiving process that leaves little to no room for mistakes.

North Korea slammed on Tuesday US President Donald Trump's "Golden Dome" missile shield plan as a "very dangerous" threat that could spark nuclear war in space, state media said.

Trump announced new details and initial funding for the missile shield system last week, calling it "very important for the success and even survival of our country".

The initiative faces significant technical and political challenges, according to analysts, and could come at a hefty price tag.

Like Toto in The Wizard of Oz, at their 1985 summit in Geneva President Ronald Reagan and the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev pulled back the curtain to reveal the truth behind the terrifying spectre of nuclear war, which their countries were spending hundreds of billions of dollars to prepare for. “A nuclear war cannot be won,” they jointly stated, and “must never be fought.” They omitted the inescapable corollary of those first six words: a nuclear arms race also cannot be won.

China urges US to halt arms sales to Taiwan, stop escalating tensions China’s ‘resolve to safeguard its national sovereignty and territorial integrity remains steadfast,’ says Foreign Ministry ISTANBUL

China on Friday urged the US to halt arms supplies to Taipei and stop escalating tensions in the Taiwan Strait.

The demand from Beijing comes amid unconfirmed reports that the US “plans to ramp up weapons sales to Taiwan island to a level exceeding the approximately $18.3 billion sold” during President Donald Trump’s first term, Chinese daily Global Times reported.

“Taiwan question lies at the heart of China’s core interests and is the first red line that must not be crossed in China-US relations,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian told reporters in Beijing.

The United States and China are entangled in what many have dubbed an “AI arms race.”

In the early days of this standoff, US policymakers drove an agenda centered on “winning” the race, mostly from an economic perspective. In recent months, leading AI labs such as OpenAI and Anthropic got involved in pushing the narrative of “beating China” in what appeared to be an attempt to align themselves with the incoming Trump administration. The belief that the US can win in such a race was based mostly on the early advantage it had over China in advanced GPU compute resources and the effectiveness of AI’s scaling laws.

But now it appears that access to large quantities of advanced compute resources is no longer the defining or sustainable advantage many had thought it would be. In fact, the capability gap between leading US and Chinese models has essentially disappeared, and in one important way the Chinese models may now have an advantage: They are able to achieve near equivalent results while using only a small fraction of the compute resources available to the leading Western labs.