Latest news with #globalsecurity
News.com.au
20 hours ago
- Science
- News.com.au
This is where you want to be if nuclear war breaks out
Is anywhere safe anymore? Is the Lucky Country lucky enough? The face of Facebook (Mark Zuckerberg) is building a secret lair on a remote Hawaiian Island. Mr X (Elon Musk) is assembling his harem and genetic legacy in an exclusive Texas commune. And everybody's PayPal (Peter Thiel) bought up a chunk of New Zealand with plans to build an underground mansion. They're the disrupters that rebooted history. And their brave new world is once again growing dark under a nuclear shadow. An attempt by the United States to obliterate Iran's plans to build nuclear warheads on behalf of Israel (which itself evaded international fallout over its own illicit arsenal) has reset the clock. The End of history is over. Once again, every corner of the globe is contemplating The End. Once again, the Lucky Country and that other place where every cloud has a silver lining suddenly look even more appealing. Australia and New Zealand are largely irrelevant in the global scheme of things. Though Pine Gap may be joined on a list of high-priority targets by Adelaide and Fremantle as the AUKUS nuclear submarine project gains steam. But will living in the middle of nowhere make any difference? 'We've examined the effects of single nuclear explosions,' Middlebury College nuclear analysts Professor Richard Wolfson and Dr Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress write in a new assessment. 'But a nuclear war would involve hundreds to thousands of explosions, creating a situation for which we simply have no relevant experience.' Fears of the long reach of radiation emerged in the 1950s. Subsequent attempts to understand it led to explosive growth in climate science. Now, with the fallout of global warming already blasting the world's cities and agricultural centres, the threat of bombs is back. Most nuclear fallout lingers for only a few days. But some will stay around for many millennia. Both, the Middlebury College analysts argue, mean nowhere is truly safe. So, do Zuck, Musk and Thiel know something we don't? 'At first blush, these tycoons might seem to be 'prepping' for a familiar 20th-century style apocalypse, as depicted in countless disaster movies,' argue University of Queensland academics Katherine Guinness, Grant Bollmer and Tom Goig. 'But they're not.' Fallout fantasies The apocalypse is big business. From survivalists to couch potatoes, the idea of escapees emerging to a pre-industrial world swept clean of all ideological opponents reigns supreme. But there are always plenty of mutants to shoot among the dusty, tumbleweed-strewn ruins. The reality, however, won't be so romantic. Forget the flash. Forget the fireball. Forget the blast. For now, just focus on the fallout. What happens is anyone's guess. 'Extreme and cooperative efforts would be needed for long-term survival, but would the shocked and weakened survivors be up to those efforts?' the Middlebury academics ask. 'How would individuals react to watching their loved ones die of radiation sickness or untreated injuries? 'Would an 'everyone for themselves' attitude prevail, preventing the co-operation necessary to rebuild society? 'How would residents of undamaged rural areas react to the streams of urban refugees flooding their communities? 'What governmental structures could function in the post-war climate? 'How could people know what was happening throughout the country? Would international organisations be able to cope?' Climate models suggest Australia and New Zealand would be among those few areas least affected. Society may survive for a while. At least until Canberra's two-week fuel reserves run out. Then it's back to horses, ploughs and sealskin coveralls. Or what you've managed to stash away in a bunker. 'What is emerging among billionaires is a belief that survival depends not (only) on hiding out in a reinforced concrete hole in the ground, but (also) on developing, and controlling, an ecosystem of one's own,' the University of Queensland academics argue. Oprah Winfrey is getting in on the act. She's bought a 150-acre estate on the island of Maui. Oracle supremo Larry Ellison's personal 2000-acre ranch takes up most of the island of Lanai. And billionaire Frank VanderSloot has a similar-sized property next door to Zuckerberg on Kauai. Why Hawaii? Its islands are small. And a long way from anywhere. In an all-out nuclear war, remoteness equals survival. Even if the Pearl Harbor naval base is a prime target. Musk's Texas commune would be a start. But it's in easy reach of refugees. And Thiel has already fallen foul of one easily anticipated problem in New Zealand: Hostile locals. Revolting peasants 'Zuckerberg, Winfrey, Ellison and others are actually embarking on far more ambitious projects,' the University of Queensland academics assess. 'They are seeking to create entirely self-sustaining ecosystems, in which land, agriculture, the built environment and labour are all controlled and managed by a single person, who has more in common with a medieval-era feudal lord than a 21st-century capitalist.' But feudal lords have to fight to keep what they have. Even before the apocalypse. Thiel's attempt to lord it over New Zealand's South Island from a bunker on his 73,700 sqm estate fell foul of a mere district council. The local yokels didn't like the idea of his sort moving in next door. Zuckerberg's Kauai lair may be more manageable. He's bought up 5.5 million square meters of the island for a $A400 million retreat. This includes an 'underground storage' bunker with hydroponic agriculture and water purification systems. It's accessible via tunnels from several mansions and 11 'tree houses'. And it's all protected by a two-meter high wall, quad-bike mounted security guards and served by hundreds of local labourers. 'But precisely how many, and what they actually do, is concealed by a binding nondisclosure agreement,' the UQ academics report. Zuckerberg's survival is still questionable. Will the security staff and servants be fed? Will they get precious medical treatment? Will money still buy their love? What's certain is their manual labour would be invaluable. Evidence suggests the Toba supervolcano erupted 74,000 years ago. Only a few thousand humans appear to have clung on in South Africa to survive the subsequent fallout winter. And they didn't have to reckon with radiation. 'An all-out nuclear war between the United States and Russia, even with today's reduced arsenals, could put over 150 million tons of smoke and soot into the upper atmosphere,' the Middlebury College researchers write. 'The result would be a drop in global temperature of some 8C (more than the difference between today's temperature and the depths of the last ice age), and even after a decade, the temperature would have recovered only 4C.' 'In the world's 'breadbasket' agricultural regions, the temperature could remain below freezing for a year or more, and precipitation would drop by 90 per cent. The effect on the world's food supply would be devastating.' Envying the dead A thermonuclear explosion produces a wide variety of nuclear materials. All have different rates of decay. 'The dominant lethal effects last from days to weeks, and contemporary civil defence recommendations are for survivors to stay inside for at least 48 hours while the radiation decreases,' the Middlebury academics write. Everything depends on the type of warhead, its size – and where it explodes. An atmospheric explosion maximises the reach of its shockwave: 'This reduces local fallout but enhances global fallout.' A ground-level explosion blasts a crater into the ground. The mushroom cloud 'drops back to the ground in a relatively short time'. An immediately dangerous fallout zone will easily reach beyond 30 kilometres of the blast. 'The exact distribution of fallout depends crucially on wind speed and direction,' the academics explain. 'However, it's important to recognise that the lethality of fallout quickly decreases as short-lived isotopes decay.' But even a 'limited' nuclear exchange will have global effects. Radioactive clouds rise high into the atmosphere. Particles will rain down on the ground over the following months and years. The more explosions, the more radioactive dust. The more radioactive dust, the greater the reach – and intensity – of fallout. Princeton University global security researcher Sébastien Philippe has simulated the effects of the first 48 hours after a 'limited' nuclear strike on the US. It would kill between 340,000 and 4.6 million (depending on prevailing winds). 'Acute radiation exposure alone would cause several million fatalities across the US – if people get advance warning and can shelter in place for at least four days,' he writes in the Scientific American. 'Without appropriate shelter, that number could be twice as high.' Then comes the new world order. 'Intense fallout from ground-burst explosions on missile silos in the Midwest would extend all the way to the Atlantic coast,' the Middlebury academics add. 'Fallout would also contaminate a significant fraction of US cropland for up to a year and would kill livestock.' Global airstreams won't be the only source of radioactive fallout. The dust and pollutants would strip the Earth of its protective ozone layer, allowing harmful solar rays to strike humans, plants and animals from sunup to sundown for centuries to come. And that's the 'limited exchange' scenario. So, are the world's richest people buying up estates in remote locations and fitting them out with bunkers because they have access to some inside information? 'The truth is simpler, and more brutal, than that,' the University of Queensland academics conclude. 'Billionaires are building elaborate properties … because they can. 'For billionaires, putting money into such projects doesn't mean they're crazy, or paranoid, or in possession of some special secret knowledge about the future. It simply means they've amassed such colossal surpluses of wealth, they may as well use it for something.'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Global uncertainty over security will affect jobs, wages and prices in S'pore: Chan Chun Sing
SINGAPORE - An increasingly volatile global security environment will reinforce economic uncertainty, which will have implications on jobs, wages and prices in Singapore, said Defence Minister Chan Chun Sing. Developments on the security front are closely intertwined with the economy, Mr Chan told reporters on June 25 in an interview with local media ahead of SAF Day on July 1. When businesses see greater uncertainty, they are less likely to invest – leading to fewer jobs. Mr Chan cited the conflict in Iran, which escalated in mid-June with Iran and Israel trading air strikes. The US has waded into the fray, bombing Iranian nuclear facilities on June 22. 'If you look at the Iran conflict, the volatility of the oil prices feeding into the economic system – that again caused quite a lot of uncertainty and perturbations,' he said. The war in Ukraine – which began with Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022 – has also disrupted the global supply chain for many food products. Such disruptions are likely to increase prices, Mr Chan said. 'If prices go up, jobs go down, wages don't grow,' he added, noting that the impact of such wars should not be underestimated. Positioning Singapore as an 'oasis of calm' amid the global volatility requires tremendous effort, he said. 'The fact that people say that 'I can invest in Singapore because I am less likely to face a security incident, whether it is terrorism or whether it is a disruption of our energy supplies, our water supply' – all that adds to our overall competitiveness.' Amid these conflicts, Mr Chan said Singapore has to stay relevant and diversify its portfolio of defence relationships. 'We must continue to make sure that we are relevant and we can value-add to the relationship, both bilaterally and multilaterally,' he said. 'If we are not relevant, we will not have a voice. 'If we are not principled, we will not be able to engender trust for other people to want to work with us.' The most important thing for Singapore is to take positions that are based on principles – like sovereignty – that best support its survival and success, he said. Today, there are various challenges that transcend geographical confines, and these present opportunities to expand Singapore's network of relationships, Mr Chan said. There is interest from many European countries to work with Singapore on the technological front and on supply chain resilience, he said, without naming any. Other possible partners are South Korea and Japan, who face similar challenges to the Republic, he said. Mr Chan added that Singapore will continue to work with its traditional partners, including Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, the US, China, Australia, New Zealand and the UK, he said, highlighting the Five Power Defence Arrangements (FPDA) agreement. Under the FPDA, signed in 1971, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand and the UK are bound to consult each other in the event of an attack on any one of the partners. Singapore is also looking at more opportunities to have bilateral exercises, Mr Chan said. He had a recent conversation with his Indonesian counterpart Sjafrie Sjamsoeddin, where they discussed how the two countries can work together to develop training areas. 'This is also another example of how both sides can stretch our defence dollar and also to bring about greater interoperability between the armed forces,' Mr Chan said. Singapore, he added, should play to its strengths as the country navigates the global uncertainty. One of these is to continue to have a secure and stable business environment. This requires the security and economic agencies, as well as the political leadership, to signal to people that the Republic is still a place where one can get stability, security and the rule of law, he said. Another strength is Singapore's commitment to constantly invest in its people, he said. 'Even during tough times, and maybe particularly during tough times, we will continue to step up our investment for our people. That's why we have made SkillsFuture a central pillar of our social compact.' He added that Deputy Prime Minister Gan Kim Yong, who leads a task force on economic resilience, will share more details on its work soon. There are measures that the Government can take if the situation warrants it, but the task force is also looking at how to position Singapore in the longer term, given the shift in the global security and economic environment, Mr Chan said. 'We can take heart from all this. We don't have to panic. We have plans to help fellow Singaporeans tide through and go through this together.' Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction Discover how to enjoy other premium articles here
Al Jazeera
3 days ago
- Business
- Al Jazeera
NATO's 5 percent spending pledge is a threat to people and the planet
NATO's leaders agreed this week to invest 5 percent of their countries' gross domestic product (GDP) on 'core defence requirements as well as defence and security-related spending by 2035'. NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte called it a 'quantum leap' in spending that would guarantee 'freedom and security' for the military alliance's one billion people. It certainly is historic in terms of military escalation, but will it deliver security – and if so, for whom? The headline demand for 5 percent GDP spending has been so loud, it's easy to forget that for a long time, many NATO members considered the previous 2 percent goal either unachievable or unimportant. NATO first committed to its 2 percent GDP goal in 2002, but by 2021, only six of its members had achieved it. Yet three years later, 23 members had met the goal and all 32 are expected to comply by the end of 2025. This week, NATO has committed to more than doubling its spending to 5 percent of GDP. This will be partly met through creative accounting and reflects a desire to trumpet a big number to satisfy a petulant President Trump. The 5 percent headline includes 1.5 percent spent on military-related infrastructure, which could be broadly defined to include civilian expenditure. Even so, it reflects a huge escalation of military expenditure over the next decade from an already very high level. Last year, NATO spent $1.5 trillion on the military – more than half of global military spending. If members comply with the core 3.5 percent target by 2030, that would mean a total of $13.4 trillion in military expenditure. It's an impossible figure to grasp, but if you stacked it in one-dollar bills, you could make almost four piles that reach the moon. It could also be distributed as a one-off cash bonus of $1,674 to every person on the planet. In reality, the money will be diverted – most of all from social and environmental spending – even though 30 percent of Europeans report difficulty in making ends meet and climate scientists warn that we have two years left to keep temperature increases below the international target of 1.5 degrees Celsius (34.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, who fought for a partial exemption from the 5 percent goal, was the most honest about this costly trade-off: 'If we had accepted 5 percent, Spain would have to spend by 2035 an extra 300 billion euros on defence. Where would it come from? From cuts in health and education.' Social and environmental spending is already on the chopping block. In February, the United Kingdom announced it would reduce its aid budget to 0.3 percent of GDP to pay for military spending increases – a year after it won an election committing to increase foreign aid. Belgium, the Netherlands and France followed suit, announcing aid cuts of 25 to 37 percent. The United States, under Trump, has decimated its overseas aid and climate programmes and reduced healthcare funding while proposing a record $1 trillion expenditure on the Pentagon. Europe is falling far behind on its own environmental and social goals, with its primary funding vehicle, the Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF), expiring in 2026. The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) concludes that most European NATO members will be unable to meet the 3.5 percent NATO target without cutting budgets, raising taxes or changing fiscal rules. NATO's spending spree will not only divert money – it will worsen the climate crisis. As one of the world's biggest carbon polluters, it is investing in more gas-guzzling jets, tanks and missiles. Military emissions are notoriously hard to track due to limited data, but one report estimates that 3.5 percent of GDP spending would lead to 2,330 million metric tonnes of greenhouse gases by 2030 – roughly the same as the combined annual emissions of Brazil and Japan. NATO's justification is that increased investment is needed to confront the threats of 'Russia' and 'terrorism'. Yet there is no rationale behind the 5 percent target or details on why threats to NATO have so drastically increased. Nor is there self-examination on how NATO's actions partly set the stage for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Russia has increased military spending, but it still spends 10 times less than NATO. Nor could it catch up militarily with NATO's 32-strong alliance, given its economy: $2 trillion in 2024 (nominal GDP), compared with $26 trillion for non-US NATO countries and $29 trillion for the US alone. As for 'terrorism', the idea that NATO's increased spending could deter it ignores the failures of the 'War on Terror', where NATO interventions in Afghanistan and Libya prompted instability and fighter recruitment. The security NATO seems most concerned with is that of its arms firms. Long before Trump's pressure, arms firms have pushed for higher European military spending through lobbying groups like the AeroSpace and Defence Industries Association of Europe (ASD). They have successfully made military security an overriding European Union objective, winning ever more public money for research and industry support. Now they are reaping the rewards with booming revenues and profits. Before the NATO summit, BlackRock released an investment report celebrating the arms industry as a 'dynamic growth industry' and a 'mega force' that will drive investment trends in the coming years. NATO's idea of security diverts money from social needs, worsens the climate crisis, rewards arms firms profiting from global conflict, and chooses war over diplomacy. Its bellicose stance in The Hague this week makes it one of the greatest threats to global security – even to life on this planet. It is up to the peoples of NATO countries to reject this deadly path and reclaim security based on cooperation, justice and peace. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
News.com.au
4 days ago
- Politics
- News.com.au
Australia's place questioned after NATO ‘family photo'
Australia's position in the global pecking order has been questioned after the traditional NATO 'family photo' was released this week — showing our representative so far back he's practically falling off the edge of the picture. It shows Australian representative, Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, standing in the back right of three rows of world leaders – far away from US President Donald Trump. Mr Marles's positioning was seized on by news site The Nightl y, which wrote in an editorial that he was the 'second cousin everyone forgot was coming'. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's decision to send his deputy instead of attending himself has come in for more wide criticism, considering the state of global security and pressure to finally meet with Mr Trump to discuss tariffs. Australia is not a member of NATO, which stands for North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, but the Prime Minister previously attended summits in 2022 and 2023. While many of his counterparts were meeting in The Hague, Mr Albanese was this week campaigning in Tasmania as the Apple Isle heads toward a state election. Today host Karl Stefanovic on Wednesday grilled Treasurer Jim Chalmers about the Prime Minister's decision not to attend the NATO summit. 'I cant quite comprehend how Albo isn't in The Hague rattling Donald trump's cage for a meeting,' Stefanovic put to Mr Chalmers. 'We are well represented there by the Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, who is also the Defence Minister,' the Treasurer said. 'The Prime Minister engages regularly and enthusiastically with world leaders including in Canada (at the G7 summit) just last week. 'There will be other opportunities for us to meet with our American counterparts.' Stefanovic, in response, asked: 'what could be more important right now than our Prime Minister meeting with the President? Look at what's at stake for this country'. He continued to press Mr Chalmers on the Prime Minister's inability to so far secure a face-to-face with the US President, saying: 'Donald Trump's just not that into Albo is he?' 'I don't know how you want me to respond to that, Karl,' the Treasurer replied. 'They've had a number of discussions including a very warm discussion after Prime Minister Albanese was returned for a second term … they've had discussions about trade and tariffs.' In a significant move, NATO members agreed to lift defence spending to five per cent of GDP after lobbying from the Trump administration. 'Allies commit to invest 5 per cent of GDP annually on core defence requirements as well as defence- and security-related spending by 2035 to ensure our individual and collective obligations,' NATO member leaders said in a joint statement. US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has previously spoken about America's desire for Australia to lift its spending to 3.5 per cent, which the government has resisted. The Albanese government announced on Thursday it would – at the request of NATO and Poland – deploy a E-7A Wedgetail aircraft in August to help protect humanitarian gateways. Up to 100 Australian Defence Force personnel would be deployed alongside the aircraft in an operation expected to be completed in November, as part of the ongoing support efforts for Ukraine. 'Australia is proud of its longstanding operational partnership with NATO,' Mr Marles said. Finance Minister Katy Gallagher on Thursday told ABC News Breakfast the NATO summit was 'an important meeting at an important time' and backed Mr Marles' involvement. As for whether Australia was under pressure to raise its defence spending, she said 'we've put billions of dollars into defence. 'We understand the environment we're working in,' Ms Gallagher said. 'We take the advice of our agencies seriously. 'When they come to us and say, this is the capability we need, and this is the – the funding that's required, we have provided that funding and that's the approach we'll continue to take.'
RNZ News
6 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
Christopher Luxon arrives for 'fork in the road moment' at NATO
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi Analysis - Christopher Luxon arrives in the Hague today at what Robert Patman, a professor of international relations at Otago University, called "a fork in the road moment" for the world, with multiple wars in the Middle East, war in Ukraine now in its fourth year, and concerns over the stability of international laws and institutions. Luxon is in this Dutch city of cobblestones, canals and gothic buildings to join more than 30 world leaders, including US president Donald Trump, for what is expected to be one of the largest and most-expensive NATO summits in history. New Zealand is not a NATO member, but is a 'partner'. That means Luxon will not be part of the main North Atlantic Council meeting where the main political decisions are made. What is on the cards, however, is an intensive 48-hours of as many as a dozen bilateral meetings with prime ministers and presidents from across Europe and North America. New Zealand and NATO have been inching closer together in recent years, with the North Atlantic states growing increasingly wary of China and North Korea. NATO-New Zealand cooperation was formalised in 2012 and a new partnership agreement signed last year. The NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, told an event at London's Chatham House earlier this month that "we cannot think that there is one theatre, which is the Euro-Atlantic theatre. We have to be conscious of the fact that this is all interconnected with what is happening in the Pacific." With that in mind, NATO has cemented partnerships with New Zealand, Australia, Japan and South Korea - a group that's become known as the IP4. That group was meant to have a side event here in the Hague, and there had been speculation that President Trump had sought a meeting with them. But overnight, Japanese media reported that prime minister Shigeru Ishiba had cancelled at the last minute because a meeting with Trump was unlikely. The leaders of both South Korea and Australia are also staying away, sending ministers instead, leaving Luxon the sole IP4 leader here. A spokesperson refused to be drawn, saying "Prime Minister Luxon's schedule at NATO will be confirmed in due course." For his part, Luxon sees it as important to be here. "There are things that happen in the Euro-Atlantic region that have some interest to us in the Indo-Pacific region, that's why to be party to some of those conversations will be important," he told Morning Report on Monday . In the room will be the leaders of more than 30 countries but, really, the whole summit will centre around one man: President Trump, who has been a vocal critic of NATO, to the point of questioning its foundation of collective defence. The alliance will try and present a united front, but it comes at a time when there are cracks between the United States and many European allies over trade and tariffs, relations with Russia and the war in Ukraine, conflicts in the Middle East, and relations with China. The main discussions on Wednesday will last just three hours and the summit statement is being reduced to five paragraphs, reportedly because of the US president's demands. Trump has long berated European countries for not spending enough on defence, and a commitment to change is likely to be one of the main outcomes from this week's summit. Some nations are already boosting their defence spending to 5 percent of GDP. Most are the countries in close proximity to Russia - such as Poland, Estonia and Lithuania. But others, like Spain, have said they see the demand as unreasonable. Many other members haven't met a goal of 2 percent set more than a decade ago. New Zealand, which this year announced it plans to lift defence spending to 2 percent by 2033, has stressed that being a NATO partner does not bind it to any of the obligations, such as targets for defence spending. But that doesn't mean there won't be strong hints or pressure in some of Luxon's meetings. "For a country like New Zealand, which has just agreed to the two percent target, we are going to find that we are already behind our friends," said Alexander Gillespie, a law professor at Waikato University. It's a tortured cliche that New Zealand walks a tightrope in foreign policy, but Luxon finds himself balancing at a particularly fraught moment. He arrives straight from a trip to China, which NATO and the United States view with increased suspicion. New Zealand does, too, but not to the same degree. After his trip last week, Luxon said some of the NATO statements were a " difference of opinion ". But with the Middle East on a precipice, the war in Ukraine in its fourth year (President Zelensky is also likely to be in The Hague), and international institutions under strain, Robert Patman said he'd like to see New Zealand advocate vocally for the "rules-based" order. Patman said it was vital the prime minister speaks out in defence of international law and multilateralism in this city, which is the seat of the International Criminal Court and seen as the home of international law. "New Zealand does have a voice, and an expectation I think, to contribute to a debate that's beginning to unfold," he said. "We can seek to reinstate the idea that international relations should be based on laws, principles and procedures. Or we can passively accept the erosion of that architecture which is to the detriment of the majority of countries in the world." "It may be geographically a long way from New Zealand, but there are implications for our security."
