Month: June 2023

An Iran Agreement From 30,000 Feet

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

Talks between the US and Iran to put something like the JCPOA back in place have been going on for a couple of years now. I’m not keeping close track of the talks the way I did back in 2014 and 2015, because back then the issues were the kind of thing I know about – what to do with the planned reactor, how to limit enrichment, technical stuff.

The negotiating was brilliant. The final deal was better than the experts expected. Hundreds of experts from the national laboratories helped to develop it.

And then, of course, came Donald Trump and his idea that his personality and unyielding pressure would yield “a better deal.” I emphasize those words because they have been used – and continue to be used – by those who want to tank any deal.

So the US withdrew from the agreement, and Iran responded by upping its uranium enrichment. They increased the percentage enrichment in steps, publicly. They were sending a message to the US to get back into the agreement. But the US huffed and stomped.

Read More

Rare Earth Production In The US?

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

If what is described in this article comes to fruition, it could allow the US to produce some of the rare earth metals it needs for electrical cars and renewable energy.

The Mountain Pass mine in California is the only rare-earth producing mine in the Western Hemisphere. Most rare earths are currently produced in China, which doesn’t mind environmental messes.

Refining rare earths has historically produced a lot of dangerous waste, partly because the rare earths are often found in combination with radioactive minerals. The process itself involves a variety of chemicals and a fair bit of water. MP Materials says that they plan, in the next quarter, to begin processing at Mountain Pass in a way that minimizes the waste and water usage. Previously, concentrates from the mine were processed in China and, for a short time, in Estonia, although the article doesn’t mention the latter.

Read More

Wellerstein Series on Ellsberg

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

Alex Wellerstein, historian of the Manhattan Project and nuclear classification, plans a series at his blog on Daniel Ellsberg’s book, The Doomsday Machine.

The book was published in 2017. Ellsberg was a nuclear war planner from the late 1950s through the 1960s. In addition to the Pentagon Papers, he took home volumes of information on nuclear war planning. Through a series of mishaps while trying to hide the papers, they were lost. He said that he felt that this part of what he did was more important than the Pentagon Papers, so he reconstructed what he could from memory and added his thoughts about how the issues of nuclear command and control continue now.

I thought about buying the book then, but most of my attention was elsewhere, and it seemed like the book would be more opinion than history. So I didn’t.

Since then, I’ve written a paper with a colleague that relates to nuclear policy during the 1950s and into the 1960s*, so Ellsberg’s book is now a lot more relevant to my interests. And whatever Alex has to say about it will be worth thinking about. [Disclosure: Alex is a personal friend.]

I’ve ordered a copy of the book and will be reading along with Alex. Should be interesting.

*Not published yet

Cross-posted to Lawyers, Guns & Money

The 31 Classified Documents

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

Out of the hundreds of classified documents that Donald Trump stored at Mar-a-Lago and possibly Bedminster, the Department of Justice chose 31 to charge him with. Choosing those documents includes many factors: the possibility that those documents might have to be made public, how they illustrate the legal issues, and perhaps an overall story of why Trump held onto them so tenaciously.

With Trump, it’s always safe to assume that his actions are random. Benefit to himself is also likely, but what kind of benefit? The ego benefit of being able to wave them around to show his importance? Or a financial benefit? With classified documents, either motivation could have geopolitical implications.

Knowing what’s in the documents could help understand both Trump’s motives and the implications of his possessing them. But the government will likely try to keep as much classified as possible. Matt Tait is trying to figure out what the documents are, mainly from coincidences of the document dates with world events. He lists the documents in a more readable form and gives a guide to the classification markings.

Read More

Bluesky Has Problems

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

The developers of Bluesky believe that they are developing a protocol. The users want it to be a Twitter substitute, with Twitter’s ease of use but no Nazis or other harassers. This is a problem.

The developers repeat that they are developing a protocol. But few of the users know what that means, so they continue to believe that Bluesky will be their Twitter replacement.

The protocol, apparently, is a way of setting up Bluesky to be part of a federated system, like Mastodon. But the developers believe it will be without Mastodon’s problems. And the users are not ready to take on the responsbilities that federation is likely to require.

At this point we come to a couple of other problems. Problem #2 is that the Bluesky team is bad at communicating and get irritated when people keep asking questions that they think they’ve answered with “We’re developing a protocol.” Problem #3 is that if the team has a plan beyond

  • Develop protocol
  • Federate
  • Success!

they have not communicated it. Nor have they communicated what federation will mean beyond a very rosy vision that everyone will have a server that moderates content exactly the way they want it and a custom feed that will give them all the posts they want, and only the posts they want.

Read More

The Great Rivalry?

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

Every argument that the US is in danger of losing out to China, that the US needs more weapons to deter China, that the US can’t afford to help arm Ukraine, and many others, should be required to begin with these two graphs.

Data for the first graph is from the International Monetary Fund, for the second from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The graphs appear in this article.

Cross-posted to Lawyers, Guns & Money

A Visit To Narva

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

I’ve had this article in a tab for a couple of weeks. It’s a long read, and I wanted to enjoy reading about the history that kept Russia’s trade on its northern edge – Arkhangelsk and the Barents Sea – rather than Narva and the Gulf of Finland. I thought that the history would be interesting, but I also hoped that the article might treat today’s competition between the new port at Sillamäe, twenty kilometers west of Narva, and Russia’s Ust-Luga – more established, but also more icy in the winter.

Alas, that article remains to be written. This article contains a bit of history: The Brits wanted Russian furs, and that trade wound up being through Arkhangelsk rather than Narva. Not much said about what internal Russian or British issues contributed to that outcome.

Most of the article is the author’s portrayal of Narva as a Russian, rather than Estonian city. It is based on her walk around the city and checking out a supermarket. What she finds is typical of border cities. OMG, El Paso is Mexican because you hear Spanish spoken frequently and they have typically Mexican foods in the supermarkets!

Read More

KILLER ROBOTS ON THE MARCH!!!

Posted on by Cheryl Rofer

Yesterday we had another AI kerfuffle.

This time it was a report that in a simulation, an AI-powered drone turned on its operator and killed them. I retweeted it because it was another example of obvious stupidity relative to AI. But I didn’t say that, largely because the locus of the stupidity was not clear. It could have been in whatever was done with the simulation, or it could have been in the reporting, or in a chain of half-reports that the writer summarized. The report now has a disclaimer. Scroll way, way down to “AI – is Skynet here already?”

I do not count myself as an expert in AI, although I’m learning about it daily. It is clearly Silicon Valley’s latest claim to relevance, and they are hyping it mightily with the aid of stenographic media who understand less about it than I do.

Those of us who read Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics when we were eight years old or so recognized that something was something wrong with that report. Yes, there are problems with Asimov and with his three laws, but the need for programming a death robot so that it doesn’t attack its controller/ owner/ whatever should be obvious, particularly to the military.

But the military gets stuff wrong, and they can be as susceptible to Silicon Valley hype as the media.

The disclaimer now says that the “simulation” was just talk. But, of course, the debunking won’t get to all the people who saw the original report. And maybe that’s not so bad. If people believe that AI is dangerous, maybe we can do something to get it under control.

Photo: The MAARS is one of three robotic, unmanned vehicles demonstrated to Soldiers from the 519th Military Police Battalion, 1st Maneuver Enhancement Brigade, Aug. 5, 2015. It is equipped with non-lethal and lethal armament. (US Army photo)

Cross-posted to Lawyers, Guns & Money