and could indeed the effect of scientific program going forward with so much anticipation, there was still the risk that scientists, that son may not uncover any new findings in the next round of experiments. even so it may be too early to lose heart. so far, only a 10th of the total data they plan to uncover has been found in a universe that has yet to reveal itself. so i'll go, i'll just sarah ah, top stories and i'll just hear it. ukraine's defense ministry his accuse russia of imperialism. after a russian general told state media of plans to seize all of south and east and ukraine, the current military says russia is stepping up attacks along the entire eastern front line, also trying to mount and offensive in the kalki region. russian general wisdom mikaya says moscow ames to seize the don't bus as well as the south,

which will let them connect the crime in peninsula to russian occupied region of moldova. that would mean pushing hundreds of kilometers beyond current front lines . the mayor of the besieged city of mary, who paul has called for the evacuation of the 100000 civilians, are still trapped. their european council president is also calling on vladimir putin to allow access to the city of the several humanitarian corridors were called off due to potential dangers. russian forces have continued to surround, still works and are you, po, west of ukrainian troops and civilians. hold up the you and human rights officers as growing evidence of russian war crimes in ukraine, including signs of indiscriminate shelling and executions. spokespersons as ukrainian forces also seem to have used weapons indiscriminately. the vast majority of violations appear to be by russian troops. there is evidence mounting of war crimes being committed. ringback and these include indiscriminate shedding and

bombing of oxidative areas. summary execution up to the indians. as i said, the vast majority of nations by far are attribute to the russian forces. so if you just look at the civilian casualties bigger, 92.3 percent of what we've managed to record were recorded in government control territories. so attribute to the russian forces a blast as ripped through mosque and religious school. and i've kind of sounds northern canoes province. but taliban says at least 33 people were killed and 43 wounded. it's not clear who carried out friday's attack, but those afghan is don. affiliate says it was behind bombings the day before, which kill at least 18 people. there's a headlines to stay with us up front is next looking at modern warfare and nuclear disarmament. only back with more news after the fight switching enough. me.

ah. ah, artificial intelligence is the future of war. tech giants and governments are already partnering to produce lethal autonomous weapons. but will these so called killer robots unleash new kinds of danger? ok, they make war, paper and supporters claim that conversation is coming up. but 1st, with recent world events, the danger of nuclear warheads, spike nuclear weapons, are the most dangerous munitions on earth potential to kill 1000000 to level cities and destroy the natural environment for generations to come. yet even with this knowledge, we are no closer to achieving total nuclear nonproliferation. in fact, the topic continues to be debated. why is that? will as this was headliner, beatrice bit executive director of the 2017 nobel peace prize recipients,

the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. the major spin executive director of the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. i can thank you so much for joining us on upfront. i can, was a driving force behind the 2017 treaty own the prohibition of nuclear weapons to outlaw nuclear weapons entirely for which your organization was awarded. and nobel peace prize. $122.00 countryside onto the treaty. but none of the nuclear powers did, nor to any of the nato countries. and since then, we've seen russian nuclear forces on a high alert level in the u. s. withdraw from their ran deal increases in india and pakistan. nuclear warheads, stockpiles, and a bunch of other recent developments which are the main countries in the world right now preventing the complete abolition of nuclear weapons. well, thank you very much for having me and i can. yeah, i mean the treaty was

a great accomplishment, but of course the big elephant in the room, of course, is that the 9 new chrome states and the other countries that are participating in exercising and practicing and hosting new come up as of the territory have not get during the treaty and this was really the reason why we pushed for this to happen because we saw that things were getting worse. with huge monetization programs from the nuclear. i'm states, all of them are upgrading and increasing the nuclear arsenals and much more nationalistic tendency. they are threatening each other much more, and that's kind of arms face that is happening right now. and of course, now we see how russia and basically threatening the world to use nuclear weapon if anyone interferes with it's invasion of ukraine. so this is really a very serious moment, but it's also exactly why we push this treaty or having these weapons forever. we will see them being used eventually we see a very dangerous situation right now. the risk of nuclear produce has increased.

i'm not saying that it's likely to be used, but i think we have to be aware that we are pushing closer and closer to the point where it's been actually going to be used. and we have to drastically change. and it is the nuclear on states, and it's the nuclear allied states and nato, for example, that really have to leave this charge because we cannot be this vulnerable for one person in the world anymore. well, let's talk about one of those nuclear arms states. russian president vladimir putin actually ordered nuclear forces to be put on a high alert level. ok, what in your estimation is the likelihood of nuclear war? i wouldn't say that it's like, i still hope that the threshold for using nuclear weapons remains very, very high for all countries. but the more i see, of course, the war developing in ukraine, seeing the threat doesn't paint a great picture for, for what we could imagine happening in ukraine as well. and also sort of like a very irrational leader under

a lot of pressure feeling like there's no way out for him. i'm very worried about this. i'm also very worried about accidents. mistakes, things that we didn't expect could happen. we just saw a few weeks ago in the mistakenly launch a missile on, on pakistan by accident, and having the situations happening right now on the beast tension. if that would have happened between a, a u. s. base and russia person, i mean the consequence could be absolutely let us know if we could stumble into nuclear war. and of course we see the situations like north korea testing miss also i to be and again, south korea saying that he wants nuclear weapons. we've seen bella rues say that they could station russian nuclear up on the territory. we've seen poland say, or we could special station american to come up with an us. there's so many variables here and so many uncertainty, tuition, and we have just been so vulnerable for just relying on these people, mainly men to always get about to never make

a mistake to always behave rationally and basically putting the faith of our entire humanity in the hands of someone like put in and just hope for the best. it's absolutely unsustainable. escalation has been happening for a while now. in 21900 president. trump also withdrew the u. s. from the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty or the i n f, which mark the 1st time that both the us and russia had agreed to actually reduce their nuclear arsenals. in fact, when this happened, you stated a quote from has fired the starting pistol on cold war 2. so to what extent this moved by the us undermine nuclear disarmament and perhaps even compromise global nuclear security. i mean, we've seen, and this has been a trend of the last 10 years. we've seen the dismantling of international legal instruments. we've seen violation of international instrument on one side, but from many different sites before trump withdrawal from the ins tree be from the

van via would see russia violates a lot of these kind of instruments. we've seen them barley, the chemical weapons convention, as well. we seen a really negative turn and then you add this very kind of trend of nationalistic to match, show leaders threatening sort of rhetoric an arms race, massett, investments in nuclear weapons. and you get the kind of tension. and i think that this is exactly what we want about like if we continue down this path, we are on very dangerous territory. and i think that it's not just one decision here. and there that you know, makes it so dangerous, many different overtime, a complete deportation, depreciation of disarmament, diplomacy of multilateralism, working together and seeing actually reduction of nuclear arsenals as increasing global security. and in the meantime, you have the rest of the world without nuclear weapons, feeling hostages in this kind of situation. i think that there's a lot of countries around the world now looking at the situation like,

do they just decide over the face of my country to do? we have a say in this, and that's exactly what the treaty or the prohibition on nuclear weapons is about taking control for other countries to say actually we have to get to disarmament. we have to band and eliminate these weapons. let's talk a little bit about the iran deal because talks have resumed to implement the around the also known as the j. p. o, a. when trump withdrew from the deal in 202800, excuse me. you called it disastrous. and you said it was essentially a pretext for the u. s. to wage war on iran. do you anticipate a return to the iran deal and from a global security standpoint? what's at stake if the deal fails? well, when the trump administration withdrew from the treaty, it had a very sort of, i think so malicious intent with that it was a functioning deal. it really had strict verification and sure that iran was not developing nuclear weapons. and the u. s. just intentionally sabotaged that,

but this standard that was in there and it was the highest that we've ever seen. an international agreement with verification on nuclear energy facilities. and the i e, a verify that iran was implementing it. they are not developing nuclear plants. we know what they're doing. so i think that was just intentionally trying to portray the treaty as bad when it was actually a very high standard treaty. and it was really a huge diplomatic achievement to get it. so when it was broken, of course, it's really hard to put these things back together and you have undermined just from iran from all the other countries that were part of this treaty. so i think it's a, it's a real, it's a really good sign that these countries are still trying very hard to get it back together to get a treaty back together. and i think that it shows a commitment from all sides. and i really hope that they will, but will succeed. now, proponents of deterrence, they argue that the best way to prevent nuclear war is to build a ban nuclear arsenal on both sides of

a conflict. so that their use would lead to the mutually assured destruction of every one of the language is always being used. you, on the other hand, argue that the best way to prevent nuclear war is to make sure that there are no such weapons. to begin with. how is nuclear deterrence theory flawed? and how can we approach disarmament in a way that makes the world's safer? i mean, new to deterrence theory is, is so strange, right? because it's like it's requires all obese before assumptions that we do. first, it requires that everyone with nuclear weapons forever is always rational and always takes by division. but it also requires a certain level of irrationality because when would it be, when would it be rational to start nuclear war and nuclear war, a full scale move to war could and amount of b as we know. i mean there will be survivors, but like the world that we know it will be gone. would it ever be rational to do

that? i mean the collective suicide would a person like bite and ever feel like that's the right decision to make? probably not. so you would have to, in order for the chance to even work, you have to be irrational. and then you have this idea that the opponent would also make the by to some soon about to base. would it be irrational too about obviously defending nuclear war here, but would it be irrational to launch a nuclear weapon if the other side didn't have one? well that, i mean if you want a mass murderer law civilians like sure. and i think that that's also where this, this theory kind of fails. and we see it now is happening in ukraine food and isn't using his nuclear arsenal to protect russia. he's using it to be able to invade a country without nuclear weapons and saying if anyone tries to help, if anyone tries to interfere with my invasion, i will use nuclear weapons. so basically, and countryside united states are limited in an option where they can do to, to help the cranium because it has nuclear weapons. so here is actually a disadvantage. and when you're having this kind of stand up between 22 nuclear on

states, for example, like put in and by then who would be the most reckless like would, would biden ever convincingly threatened to murder more civilians than could it would, would we believe that we put in, believe that and can we guarantee with all of our, like all the countries in the world rely on someone i put in accumulation, was she or whoever, to always get it right to never cross that line, but still in order for it has to work you have to be prepared to cross that line. so it's a complete contradiction, no to deterrence, and they can never guarantee that they won't. it won't happen. so in this all these kind of weird assumptions and that we're making and at the end of the day, mistakes happen, and people act irrationally. people act unpredictably and we can't guarantee that it won't happen. and i think that the consequences are so massive that we just have to eliminate them. is that before you go there, many of us who are persuaded by your argument for

a nuclear disarmament. but some people would say that, given the history of settler colonialism, imperialism, ah, mass genocide, et cetera, that we have no reason to believe that powerful people, powerful nations, whatever, i concede their weaponry, their nuclear arsenals in particular. and that while the idea is good, will never get there what gives you a hope that we can actually have a world without nuclear weapons. what gives me hope is really that we have made a lot of progress internationally in the world when it comes to international law. when it comes to human rights when it comes to the rules and how we supposed to behave. and it doesn't feel like that in particular, not when you open your twitter account, you get overwhelmed with all the awful things that are happening right now. but you know, things like you and charter as things like that, you know, the geneva conventions be so you know,

not just bit off flawless as him preventing russia from doing all these things right now. but we are opposing the invasion because they're bul saying that you can read and country and without filters. if we never developed the tools, we just fair game for everyone to just do whatever and the biggest countries which would win all those things. and they will do whatever they want, but they can't be me, always do whatever they want. and i think the things like the colonization, for example, seeing how all these country to work, colonized by the, by these titles. major powerful countries have become free today. and all their own countries, and that's, you know, they did that despite these countries having weapons, i think that is a way and the powerful have always lost their power when the majority has risen up and stood against that. that that's when you can really make change happen. so the treaty, prohibition on the us is really all way of creating a high pollution on, in the nuclear structure that we created like no longer can these 5 countries and

the other 4 that has them as well, like just dictate the terms and said this is fine, because we have them and you can't have them now where we're changing the game and we creating new laws and new rules, and we're going to demand a different system based plan. thank you so much for joining me on upfront the our killer robots, the future of war, more technically known as lethal autonomous weapon systems or laws. these robots can operate independently and attack targets without human control. artificial intelligence weapons have already been deployed and military conflict, but some warn the war and ukraine could see both sides using autonomous weapons in an unprecedented way. despite un let attempt to curb development and established international regulation of laws. countries including the u. s. and russia are continuing their uncheck development of the technology. human rights organizations are campaigning against killer robots. while some military experts argue that they'll make more safer and more efficient. are they right?

and are we witnessing the dawn of a new arms race? joining me to discuss this, our, lar nolan, a former google employee in software engineer with the international committee for robot, arms control and matt, matt moody and artificial intelligence researcher with amnesty international. good to see both of you. thank you for joining me. a lore i'm going to start with you. the evolution of killer robots has been described as a, quote, potentially seismic event in warfare akin to the invention of gun powder and nuclear bombs. that's a rather, a staggering characterization is the one you'd agree with. it absolutely is not, i mean, the invention of gunpowder is something that is actually pretty much forms that the whole, the whole nature of the patient state and the whole way that we live. i don't think the weapons are likely to be about seismic. i mean, i think looking at the current context, we live in it, we're living in the world where people are building is that complex and weapons which are unproven, and their,

their utility and their efficacy is completely on proven. i do think that on those weapons are likely to post danger both to yeah, but the soldiers themselves, i think there's a very high risk of friendly fire incidents. i think there's a high risk of civilian harm. i think there's a very high risk of potentially sparking off the conflict in an unintentional kind of way met. i want to give it to you for a 2nd. in terms of the technology of war are we now want to see a race to who can to see who can build a the biggest and most efficient and more just most destructive killer robot. i do think it's important to note that states are, of course, in competition with each other around thomas weapon systems. i mean in january 2021 along with c. and it was in rafael bassett, their back systems building and showcasing commercial jones and robot dog, capable official recognition. we've seen in libya and march 2020 the use of various cargo grounds, which has been developed by turkey mc number of cases in which technologies that

are atomic weapon systems by definition are being used. however, we said the form of the art arms race might look quite different to what we're expecting. a lot of the technologies that autonomy and systems are built on our technologies that are being used in everyday context. in the leasing context. for example, facial recognition for math surveillance, emotional recognition, gate recognition, predictive analytics. these are all tools that we know are being used against, for example, life matter for testers and have been known to time and time again fail. and to augment racially discriminatory policing. and our defacto against international human rights law. so if we're looking for that one terminator to show up at our door, we're maybe looking in the wrong place that argue that what we're actually needing to, to keep an eye out. or are these more on sort of the ways in which these technologies are starting to play a role in our everyday lives and govern how we live. and it seems to me that

a big part of that is the growing partnerships between these tech companies and governments. laura, you worked as an engineer for google before residing in 2018 out of protest after you were assigned to work on project maven, which seeks to advanced drone technology for the u. s. military. in recent years, amazon, microsoft and google have us on contracts with the pentagon, while others, including elan, must have pledge not to develop lethal autonomous weapons. how dangerous are these partnerships? particularly in light of the fact that these companies have the personal information of more than a 1000000000 people around the world. i think i don't like to underline what not just said, which is that and these are not only military technologies, there are huge implications here for civil liberties for privacy, and for you know, how, how we live our lives. i'd sideboard our context as well. so fundamentally, when you're talking about autonomous weapons, if you want to blow up a bridge,

you don't really need not thomas weapon out on those weapons are fundamentally about targets that are mobile and not, not protecting military bases and offer tracking time columns there about people. there about people and vehicles that have people in them and therefore it, these kinds of weapons are very intimately banked in surveillance technologies because you need to, to have it on this weapon. you need to have a technology to know where people are, where people are moving around, inch to understand their behavior. where big tech comes into this is if you think about cloud computing technology, you have big companies like amazon, microsoft, google, they're making a lot of money out of selling commodity cloud computing technology. now surveillance technology is hugely compute intensive. so quite simply, it takes a lot of c, p u cycles, a lot of memory, a lot of expensive computing and infrastructure to run this kind of technology. so

there is a huge business opportunity here to build surveillance systems. and i think we can see that for and out in the fact that all of the major cloud companies have built a p ice for recognizing objects for recognizing people. this is, as i say, this is very much do you use technology between military and civilian applications? man, let me ask you a question about precision here. us air strikes are notoriously imprecise. they've killed thousands of civilians. for example, there was a grocery in rural yemen in 2013 that killed at least a dozen people at a wedding procession all civilians. according to human rights groups, a 2016 us air strike in northern syria killed at least 120 civilians could a our technology, at least reduce deadly incidents like this. absolutely not. humans are not just numbers and i think the systems do process human beings as if they were, we know from research that joy will and we intend to get routed a while ago. that in many cases,

facial recognition systems are incapable of identifying especially black women with a rate of anywhere between $60.00 to $70.00, to sometimes 90 percent, depending on the study that you look at. now even if you were to make those systems 99 percent accurate, let's say that you could, you're still dealing with systems that are inherently existing in the context of discrimination, institutional racism, isadine, et cetera. and so i think it's important that we learn how would that be different than the current systems of policing or surveillance, or education or anything else we have. so it would double down in a meant those existing crises and also my existing forms of discrimination. so we don't want to have a system in which say you have these discriminatory practices and put them on steroids. that's exactly the opposite of what we want to do. and so what we need is in fact a legally binding instrument, which is what the stock killer robot campaign of calling or, and what we need is also

a global ban on remote biometric surveillance technologies which you're in to these autonomous weapon systems. i did want to make a quick gun point regarding what matt said before that and about the dangers of back accountability regulation and why it makes a difference that we might take an imperfect process that is executed by human beings and automated. so one of the great problems that we have, i guess, with both preserving our civil rights in a free society and also with overseeing and instructional humanitarian law and ensuring that the, the international both of warfare are respected. it is, but we have a lack of transparency. one of the things that we see is when we also made a process, we as much as we make it less flexible and we also tend to make it much less transparent. if we start taking the logic of what we're doing in warfare or am in our society, i'm starting coaching it in, in, in processing algorithms and processes that are very inscrutable that can be

inspected by few people. and that are controlled by a few people. then we, we do, we do risk things spinning out of control and ways that we do not want laura, there's also an argument to be made that it's too late, right? the most powerful nations are supporting this stuff. the technologies are already in use u. s. national security commission co chair, rapid work said a, a i in warfare is already happening. so if it's already happening and again, the most powerful people are behind it. what do we do is to 8. i think that that is a very, very yes, middle listed kind of approach to, to take to us to look at do for weapons. they were used in watching 45 when they hadn't been you since. so it's possible to reframe from the use of certain weapons . i forgot development. there's also been a very, very strong norm has merged against chemical weapons and also biological weapons.

front of course, does a very, very strong emerging norm against the use of landlines because of the, the hard but they do civilians. so i think i don't think it's correct to say that there's no hope the weapons never beat up weapons are never bound or the state never refrain from using particular types of buttons that it's never to. but we have to talk human beings and not data points ahead of the agenda. and we've seen climate time again with even issues of check. as soon as enough people are aware of the kind of harm the systems are calling. they will inevitably move the needle on what is seen as permissible. and what we need to do in this particular moment is move the needle on how permissible we are finding thomas weapons system. and you know, from where we're standing. absolutely acceptable. laura, matt, thank you so much for joining me on upfront. all right, that is our show upfront. we'll be back next week. the

ah, with radicalism is on the right across the globe. we're told it's everywhere we're told we're supposed to be highly suspicious of everybody at every fake. but our government policies aimed at tackling radicalization. in fact, pushing youngsters to the fringes of society. the impact is you don't have any so much of you can try it before you say. okay, that's me. rethinking radicalization, part of the radicalized huge series on al jazeera,

mainstream coverage of big stories, can sometimes deliver more heat than lights in a war tar scenario. there's always a push to simplify and narratives. the listening pe covering the way the news is covered on al jazeera, we remove a with

wherever you go in the world. one airline goes to make it exceptional. cassandra always going places together. ah, i'm learned taylor and under the top stories on out his era, ukraine's defense ministry. his accuse russia of imperialism after a russian general told state media of plans to seize all of southern and eastern ukraine. ukrainian military says russia stepping off, attacks along the entire eastern front line, while also trying to mountain offensive in the house key region. russian. general munich, i have says moscow ames to seize the dog bus as well as the south, which will let them connect. the crum in peninsula to rush back to break away. we.