The Doomsday Weapon

One US intelligence study done of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan estimated two million immediate dead and 100 million deaths within weeks. That was from a rather limited nuclear war using first generation weapons. Today’s weapons have ten times the explosive power.

by Eric S. Margolis-Jan 28, 2018

( January 28, 2018, Toronto, Sri Lanka Guardian) While we agonize over such life and death questions as clumsy men groping women and the crucial need for gender and racial ‘inclusion,’ let me spare a few seconds thought to something really important and scary: Russia’s doomsday nuclear torpedo.

Codenamed by NATO ‘Kanyon,’ it’s reportedly something new and terrifying, a ‘third strike’ weapon designed to obliterate the US east and west coasts in a nuclear war. US intelligence seems to think this doomsday weapon is very real indeed.

I just re-watched for the umpteenth time the wonderful, 1964 Kubrick film, ‘Dr. Strangelove’ and marveled anew at how prescient this razor-sharp satire was. In the film, the Soviets admit they ran out of money to keep up the nuclear arms race with the United States. Their answer was to create a secret, automated doomsday nuclear device that would destroy the entire planet in the event of a major war.

Now, the Russians appear to have responded to a new, trillion dollar US program to develop and deploy an anti-missile system that would negate their ballistic missile system: the ‘Kanyon.’ Fact imitates fiction.

This revelation comes just after the Trump administration has also embarked on new programs to deploy an entire new generation of lower yield nuclear weapons that can be used for tactical war-fighting purposes. North Korea and Iran are the evident targets, as well as Afghanistan. But there is now talk aplenty in Pentagon circles about waging a limited tactical nuclear war against Russia. New US bomber and drone programs are being speeded up. War talk is in the air. Military stocks are booming.

‘Kanyon,’ according to the right-wing Heritage Foundation, a cheerleader for military spending, is a mammoth 100-megaton nuclear device carried by an unmanned submarine. This monster weapon is designed to detonate on the US west coast, destroying the ports of San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The device is reportedly covered with cobalt, for maximum radioactive effect.

A similar device launched from the Atlantic Ocean would devastate the US East coast, leaving it under a lethal shroud of radiation for generations.

If these reports are true, any hopes that some US generals have of fighting and winning a ‘limited’ nuclear exchange with Russia or China (never mind India) are absurd. But in fact any serious nuclear exchange between the great powers would be a death sentence for the entire planet, wrapping us in a lethal shroud of nuclear winter.

One US intelligence study done of a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan estimated two million immediate dead and 100 million deaths within weeks. That was from a rather limited nuclear war using first generation weapons. Today’s weapons have ten times the explosive power.

Russia has a large and effective nuclear arsenal. The sharp decline of Russia’s once-mighty conventional military forces after 1991 drove Moscow to place ever greater reliance on nuclear weapons to defend its interests. Russia has also begun introducing modernized nuclear weapons in strategic and tactical versions. China is also slowly developing its nuclear forces to be able to fight a thermonuclear war against the United States and India at the same time.

President Trump, who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War on spurious medical grounds, appears infatuated by military affairs and the panoply of weapons that he commands. In an act of historic irresponsibility, he has brought the US to the edge of nuclear war against North Korea heedless of the dire consequences of even a ‘small’ nuclear war in Asia.

Anyone who thinks a nuclear war can be waged without permanently polluting our planet should be put under psychiatric care. As crazy as this notion sounds, there are some senior US generals who share this view and, most likely, President Trump, the man with the big red button. Russia’s marshals are more cautious. They still see the scars of World War II, in which some 27 million Soviet civilians died, and know what war means.

Perhaps leaks about this Russian monster weapon are clever disinformation spread by Moscow to give the Americans a big scare. Let’s hope so because, if real, they should scare the pants off all of us.

Yemen's Saudi-backed government, UAE-backed separatists clash in Aden

Prime Minister Ahmed bin Dagher claims southern separatists attempting a coup with support of UAE

Dozens reported dead and injured as UAE-backed South Transitional Council takes over government buildings

Sunday 28 January 2018

Yemen - Aden's streets have emptied except for tanks and armoured vehicles as clashes continue between forces loyal to Yemeni President Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi and the separatist Southern Transitional Council, backed by the United Arab Emirates.

Clashes first broke out on Sunday morning after pro-Hadi forces prevented supporters of the Southern Transitional Council from organising a protest against Hadi’s government in Aden.

The Southern Transitional Council's forces took over some public buildings and military camps, but presidential forces recaptured some of them, including the government headquarters. Clashes were also reported outside the the Presidential Palace.

Mohammed Mosaed, a journalist in Aden, confirmed that both sides resorted to shelling and gunfire as they attempted to take over public buildings and military camps.

"The presidential forces closed streets that lead to the protest square because the Southern Transitional Council has already threatened that they will form a new government today that will fight Hadi's government," he told Middle East Eye.

Yemen's Prime Minister Ahmed bin Dagher accused southern separatists of attempting a coup in the interim capital of Aden after they took over the government headquarters.

"A coup is ongoing here in Aden against legitimacy and the country's unity," Dagher said in the statement on Sunday.

Both sides prepared very well for this battle, and when Hadi's forces used force to prevent protesters arriving at the square, the Southern Transitional Forces resisted the presidential forces and that was the end of the peace in Aden

- Mohammed Mosaed, journalist

Dagher said events in Aden were headed towards "total military confrontation" and urged members of the coalition, in particular the United Arab Emirates, to take action.

Ahead of the planned protest, the coalition called for calm and restraint from "all Yemeni political and social" parties.

It urged all sides to "adhere to the language of calm dialogue," according to a statement cited late on Saturday by Saudi state news agency SPA.

A source in the Information Ministry based in Aden confirmed to MEE that the presidential forces recaptured the headquarters of the cabinet and other public institutions.

"It is a matter of time, and our forces will put down the riot in Aden. The presidential forces recaptured the headquarters of the cabinet, and they are going to recapture all other public institutions and military camps," he said.

He accused the UAE of supporting the Southern Council's fighters against Hadi's government.

"What happened today is a clear indication that the UAE fights the Yemeni government, as the rebels are fighting the presidential forces under the supervision of UAE in Aden and by using the arms of the UAE."

The source appealed to southern fighters to be reasonable and not to repeat the scenario of the Houthis in Sanaa in 2015, when the Houthi rebels fought the government and created a crisis in the whole country.

"Force is not a solution to our disputes, so if there are any demands we can discuss them by dialogue and not by force. I hope the Southern Council's fighters choose peace and not war," he explained.

Escalation

The Southern Transitional Council was formed in May 2017 by Brigadier Aidarous al-Zobaidi after Hadi fired him from his position as governor of Aden.

The council aims to represent southern Yemen and demands its independence. It receives direct support from the UAE, who also oversee the  Security Belt Forces, its military wing.

Last Sunday the council held a meeting and announced a state of emergency in Aden to remove Hadi's government and appoint a new one to fight it.

The council gave Hadi's government one week to leave Aden, saying it would encourage its supporters to protest, before forming a new government and taking up arms.

As reaction to this escalation, the leader of the presidential forces, Brigadier Mahran al-Qubati, returned to Aden from Saudi Arabia last week, and the prime minister held a meeting in the Presidential Palace in Aden with the presidential forces.

Qubati confirmed late last week that the presidential forces have directions to curb any riot in Aden, and the Minister of Interior also confirmed that they will stop thugs from creating trouble on the streets of Aden.

Despite Hadi announcing a ban on protests on Saturday, the Southern Transitional Council still called on its supporters to protest on Sunday morning. They soon spread throughout Aden, blocking the streets.

The journalist Mosaed said: "Both sides prepared very well for this battle, and when Hadi's forces used force to prevent protesters arriving at the square, the Southern Transitional Forces resisted the presidential forces and that was the end of the peace in Aden."

Repression

The disputes between the Security Belt Forces and the presidential forces had already appeared during 2017, but the dispute had not escalated to this degree.

"The clashes are still going on fiercely, and we cannot say which side controls what because the battle has not stopped, but I can say that residents are very worried," Mosaed said.

Fadhl al-Rabie, a member of the Southern Transitional Council, accused government forces of "repression".

"We were planning to protest against the government peacefully, and we did not use force during the last period, but the presidential forces forced the southern fighters to face them as they repressed us in Aden today by force," he said to MEE.

"Repression is not a solution at all, but Hadi's forces want to rule by force without listening to opponents."

Rabie believes the clashes of Aden are the beginning of a new revolution of southerners to recapture their country.

"These clashes are the beginning of the end. We remained for more than 20 years [and] demand independence, but I believe this battle will help southerners to achieve their goal," he said.

Universities, schools and the international airport in the city have all closed, and dozens have been killed and injured with both sides making numerous arrests.

Saudi and UAE

Some observers of the situation believe that the solution to tension in Aden is not in the hands of the Yemenis but rather in the hands of members of the the Saudi-led coalition, as Saudi Arabia supports Hadi and the UAE supports the Southern Council.

Journalist Tareq al-Mallah said the tension between Hadi's forces and the Southern Council is not new but this time the Saudi-led coalition had failed to reconcile them before they clashed.

"Early last year, the presidential forces and the Security Belt Forces backed by the UAE clashed in Aden airport, and then the Saudis reconciled them, but this time the Saudis have not done so," Mallah told MEE.

"It is easy for the Saudi-led coalition to stop the war but I believe that there is tension between Saudi and UAE over Yemen."

He stated that the coming days will say a lot about the tension between the UAE and Saudi Arabia over Yemen, pointing out that if the Saudi-led coalition want to stop the war, they will direct their Yemeni allies to stop it.

"If the Saudi and UAE want to stop the clashes in Aden, they can do it in minutes."

 Russian Police Arrest Opposition Leader Alexei Navalny At Anti-Putin Protest

Surrounded by supporters, Alexei Navalny chanted “Swindlers and thieves” before being detained by police shortly afterwards at an unsanctioned gathering in the city centre amid heavy police presence.


Alexei Navalny has built a robust protest movement despite constant police harassment. (AFP)

January 28, 2018

MOSCOW: Russian police on Sunday detained opposition leader Alexei Navalny at a rally in Moscow which he had called to protest upcoming polls expected to extend Vladimir Putin's Kremlin term to 2024.

Surrounded by supporters, the 41-year-old chanted "Swindlers and thieves" before being detained by police shortly afterwards at an unsanctioned gathering in the city centre amid heavy police presence.
"I have been detained," Navalny tweeted. "This means nothing. Come to Tverskaya (Avenue)," he said, referring to Moscow's main thoroughfare.

"You are not rallying for me, but for yourselves and your future."

Heeding a call by President Putin's bete noire, thousands rallied in dozens of cities to protest upcoming "pseudo-elections," with many chanting and brandishing placards saying "Voters' strike."
Several thousand turned up for the rally in Moscow where authorities dramatically beefed up security, dispatching police vans and passenger buses to the city centre.

Around 90 people were detained across the country, according to OVD-Info, an independent group which monitors crackdowns on demonstrations.


"These are not elections because we already know the result. I will not go and vote," Elena Ruzhe, 62, told AFP in central Moscow.

"I'm not scared to protest," said the former culture ministry worker.

Protester Alexandra Fedorova, who wore a fur coat, said it was wrong not to let Navalny take part in the vote.

"I don't see a future. There is nobody to vote for," the 27-year-old said.
'Tired of this quagmire'

Protesters expressed similar sentiments in the second city of Saint Petersburg, the Russian leader's hometown, where at least 1,000 people rallied, some chanting "Russia without Putin" and "Putin is a thief."

"I want change," Andrei Petrov, 20, told AFP in the former imperial capital. "We are tired of living in this quagmire."

Earlier in the day opposition supporters protested in far eastern Russia and Siberia, including in the northern city of Yakutsk where Russians rallied despite temperatures of around minus 45 Celsius (minus 49 Fahrenheit).

Supporters of Alexei Navalny take part in a rally calling for a boycott of March 18 presidential election

Navalny -- seen as the only politician with enough stamina to take on Putin -- has built a robust protest movement despite constant police harassment, tapping into the anger of a younger generation yearning for change.

He says the upcoming election will be little more than a coronation of Putin who is expected to win a fourth presidential term and extend his Kremlin stay until 2024.

Ahead of the main Moscow rally police broke into Navalny's headquarters using a power saw, interrupting a live broadcast covering the protests in the east of the country.

Police also detained several employees of his Anti-Corruption Foundation as well as supporters, Navalny's team said.

"If you don't go, you won't forgive yourself later," Navalny's said in a video address before the start of the protest.

"Sooner or later they will cut your door too."

'Police are everywhere'

Ahead of his detention Navalny said police officers had been watching his residential building and garage. "Police, police, police are everywhere," he added.

Putin's spokesman Dmitry Peskov warned earlier this week that unsanctioned rallies would lead to "certain consequences" -- a thinly-veiled promise of punishment.

Last year Navalny mounted a forceful bid to run for president but officials ruled him ineligible due to a criminal conviction which he says is politically motivated.

Navalny has said he would use the full force of his campaign -- including over 200,000 volunteers -- to organise "voters' strikes" and encourage Russians to stay away from polling stations on election day.

After 18 years of leadership, both as president and prime minister, Putin fatigue is spreading across Russia.

The Kremlin's biggest headache is the possibility of a low turnout which will harm Putin's hopes for a strong new mandate, analysts say.

Navalny seeks to take the shine off Putin's expected victory and highlight voter apathy in his crusade against the 65-year-old leader.

"Turnout at these elections is extremely important for Putin," Lev Gudkov, head of the Levada Centre, an independent polling group, told AFP.

"He needs to create the impression of not just a convincing victory but unanimous nationwide support, a plebiscite."

Putin won the previous election in 2012 on a turnout of 65 percent and authorities are pulling out all the stops to boost the figures this year.

Forget the Ultimate Deal. The Mideast Needs the Status Quo.

Trump’s plan for Israeli-Palestinian peace is fanciful, dangerous, and not going anywhere.

President Donald Trump and Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leave after delivering a speech during a visit to the Israel Museum on May 23, 2017. (LIOR MIZRAHI/GETTY IMAGES)

BY SHALOM LIPNER

 | JANUARY 23, 2018, 12:34 PM

“The status quo is unsustainable.” Anyone involved in the ritual of Middle East peace negotiations has heard this phrase countless times. Unless immediate action is taken to change prevailing realities, so goes the paradigm, some irreparable explosion is imminent.

The status quo is the bastard stepchild of diplomacy. Nobody joins the foreign service just to tread water. Diplomats aspire to make the world a better place; they dream of turning swords into ploughshares. Playing referee between intractable enemies and keeping things simmering at a low boil is an inglorious business indeed.

Statesmanship cannot thrive on an exclusive diet of activism, however. It requires no small degree of humility as well. Calls to move beyond the status quo are understandable. An equilibrium that leaves all parties dissatisfied, searching constantly for ways to maximize their own advantage, is inherently unstable. But any status quo needs to be handled with care, replaced only with an improved situation and not discarded simply for its own sake.

Sometimes, the status quo is the best available alternative. U.S. President Donald Trump says that he wants to broker the “ultimate deal” between Israelis and Palestinians. Efforts by previous administrations have revealed a similar calculus. Despite their intuitive knowledge that the United States “cannot want [a solution] more than the parties themselves,” American mediators have generally resorted to prodding Israelis and Palestinians toward an agreement. This bias toward engagement has exacted a price. Creating unrealistic expectations of a breakthrough when conditions are not conducive to progress is far from a cost-free exercise. Disappointment breeds intransigence and despair, making it even harder to bring the sides back to the table in the future.

Trump has charged senior White House staff with the mission of brokering a settlement. Vice President Mike Pence is now shuttling between some of the Middle Eastern stakeholders. And Jason Greenblatt, Trump’s special representative for international negotiations, is back in the region conferring with Quartet envoys. But under present circumstances — with both sides already on edge about the contours of a supposedly imminent American peace plan — Trump’s goal is overly ambitious and even dangerous.

Addressing the PLO Central Council in Ramallah, on Jan. 14, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas lashed out at Israel, referring to the Jewish state as “a colonial project that has nothing to do with Jews.” His delusional words were conceivably motivated by recent American decisions to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and to freeze U.S. funding for the United Nations agency that aids Palestinian refugees. (He had some choice epithets for Trump too.) Either way, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, made it clear that “there will not be peace” while Abbas clings to his rejection of Israel’s Jewish character.

Now that Abbas has pronounced the Oslo Accords dead, the Israeli-Palestinian theater is likely headed toward a meltdown.

 Governments in Ramallah and Jerusalem are blaming each other for the impasse and climbing into the trees, where they will wait petulantly for some incentive to justify their return to dialogue. In the interim, they’ll play a high-stakes game of chicken using the United States as a foil: Israel will appeal to the administration for greater latitude to create facts on the ground, while the Palestinians will cry betrayal and circle their wagons. In such an environment, the order of the day is containment — making sure that violence does not erupt and preserving the hope of constructive interaction once the atmosphere clears.

Even that limited objective will require heavy lifting. Israelis and Palestinians are nursing a litany of grievances, both historical and contemporary. And their leaders are focused elsewhere. The 82-year-old Abbas, just beginning his 14th year of a four-year term as president, seems more intent on reconciliation with Hamas-ruled Gaza as his legacy project. Righteously indignant about being double-crossed by America and his fellow Arabs, he has little cachet to talk with Israel anyway. Meanwhile, Netanyahu has just returned from a triumphant visit to India, where he had a 130-member economic delegation in tow. At home, his attention will once again be consumed by more mundane pursuits, including his legal troubles. Wall-to-wall condemnation of Abbas’s tirade among Israeli politicians guarantees that Netanyahu can ignore Palestinian wishes with virtually no political consequences.

On the upside, Israel has just consented to the introduction of high-speed mobile service in the West Bank. While perhaps not a great step forward for mankind, modest achievements like this do contribute to quality of life. The United States should encourage these steps. Over time, they infuse a sense of normality and restore confidence that real progress will — in the right time — be possible. Maybe not with current management, but with the help of visionaries who can see beyond the zero-sum mentality of the present moment.

Last week in Cairo, Abbas warned that Jerusalem is “the gate of peace and war.” And after telling the Knesset that Trump has “done more to bring our two great countries closer together than any president in the past 70 years,” Pence risks unleashing the more adventurous impulses of some Israelis. Everybody needs a timeout.

Cooler heads must prevail. Friends and neighbors should counsel Israelis and Palestinians to tone it down and not jeopardize the cooperation, particularly on security, that already exists.

The status quo gets a bum rap. But as we stand on the cusp of a possible deterioration between Israelis and Palestinians, we should all think twice before tossing it out. If things do spin out of control, the much-maligned status quo will look pretty good in our rearview mirror.

Republicans in Congress divided over protecting Mueller from being ousted by Trump

Lawmakers of both parties doubled down in their support for Mueller, but split on the need for protections after reports say Trump ordered his firing. (Meg Kelly/The Washington Post)

By Sean Sullivan January 28 at 3:36 PM

Republicans in Congress were divided Sunday over protecting special counsel Robert S. Mueller III, with two senators embracing plans to make it more difficult for President Trump to have him fired but a top House lawmaker declaring them unnecessary.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) highlighted his proposal to check Trump’s power over Mueller, while Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said it wouldn’t hurt to pass legislation along those lines.

But House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said there was no need to pass such a measure, as he defended how the president and his team have navigated Mueller’s probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

The GOP discord came just days after the revelation that Trump sought Mueller’s ouster last June, prompting Democrats to make a renewed pitch for Congress to shore up the special counsel’s standing. It underscored the growing split in the Republican Party between Trump loyalists and others who are becoming increasingly concerned with the president’s actions.

That rift presents a challenge for lawmakers hoping to place new limits on Trump’s authority. Republicans control both chambers of Congress, and many in the party have been reluctant to take a hostile posture toward the president, who holds considerable influence over the conservative base despite his low approval ratings nationally

Before it came out that President Trump sought to fire Robert Mueller last June, Trump and his aides repeatedly said he wasn't giving "any thought" to the idea. (Video: Jenny Starrs/Photo: Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

“I have got legislation protecting Mr. Mueller. And I’ll be glad to pass it tomorrow,” Graham said on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” He was referring to a proposal he unveiled last August with Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) to require a panel of judges to review any decision to fire a special counsel before it is final.

“Everybody in the White House knows it would be the end of President Trump’s presidency if he fired Mr. Mueller,” Graham said.

Sens. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Christopher A. Coons (D-Del.) have offered a similar plan. Collins said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that adopting some version of their collective ideas could be helpful.

“It would certainly not hurt to put that extra safeguard in place, given the latest stories,” she said. Late last year, Collins was cooler toward the idea of moving to shield Mueller.

In the House, where GOP lawmakers have tended to align themselves more closely with Trump, McCarthy showed no appetite for moving ahead with those kinds of bills.

“I don’t think there’s a need for legislation right now to protect Mueller,” McCarthy said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” He said Trump and his team “have fully cooperated” with the investigation.

McCarthy expressed confidence in Mueller but questioned the motivations of some others in the FBI and Justice Department who have been involved in the probe, citing the revelations of politically charged texts disparaging Trump. Graham voiced a similar sentiment.

Special counsel Robert S. Mueller III departs Capitol Hill last summer after briefing senators on his investigation. (Joshua Roberts/Reuters)

Trump sought the firing of Mueller last June and backed off only after White House Counsel Donald F. McGahn threatened to resign, two people familiar with the episode confirmed on Thursday.
White House legislative affairs director Marc Short was asked directly on “Fox News Sunday” whether Trump wanted to fire Muller last summer. He responded carefully.

“I’m not aware the president ever intimated that he wanted to fire Robert Mueller,” Short said. He declined to say what Trump would do if Congress acted to make it more difficult for him to get rid of the special counsel.

“I don’t know, hypothetically,” he said.

Democrats have advocated proceeding with the proposals to reinforce Mueller’s standing, even as many Republican lawmakers and aides have shown little urgency about acting. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said Democrats will try to add the protections during the government spending negotiations.

Not all Democrats are embracing that tactic. Asked Sunday on CNN whether it would be a good idea, Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.), a centrist facing reelection this year, said that it would be “premature for us to go down that road.”

Jack Ma warns that artificial intelligence is a ‘threat’ to humanity

By Taylor Bragg | 26th January 2018

Jack Ma, Executive Chairman of Alibaba Group Holding, gestures as he speaks the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland January 24, 2018. Source: Reuters/Denis Balibouse

ARTIFICIAL Intelligence (AI) is disrupting many industries across the world. From robots being developed to diagnose disease, to harnessing the power of natural language processing and machine learning to mimic human speech patterns for customer service.

There can be no doubt that AI applications will drastically improve many aspects of daily life. Google has estimated that robots will reach levels of human intelligence by 2029.

But, with the advancement of AI technology comes the increasing fear that robots will soon take over our jobs. In fact, IT research firm Gartner estimates that by 2025, a whopping one third of jobs will be replaced by robots and smart machines.

SEE ALSO: Communist China is leading the electric vehicle revolution

Young girl meets a robot Kuromon Ichiba Market, Ōsaka-shi, Japan. Source: Andy Kelly/Unsplash

Agreeing with this issue is the high-profile technocrat, and founder of Chinese tech giant Alibaba, Jack Ma. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Ma voiced his vision that machines will one day replace humans in a variety of aspects.

When speaking about the responsibilities of the world’s tech giants, including Alibaba, Facebook, and Amazon, Ma told the gathering: “…we have the responsibility to have a good heart, and do something good. Make sure that everything you do is for the future.”

According to Ma, the latest technologies such as AI and big data pose themselves as a threat and would disable humans instead of enabling them.

“People like us have the money and resources and we should spend money on technology that empowers us and makes life better. AI, Big Data is a threat to human beings. The AI and robots are going to kill a lot of jobs, because in the future, these will be done by machines,” he says.

When voicing his opinion on the impact of technology, Ma said: “We are very lucky because the world is in big transformation mode because of technology. Though this revolution will create successful leaders and opportunities, every new technology will also create social problems”.

SEE ALSO: Asian universities are not ready for the 4th Industrial Revolution

Mincheng Ni, who lost both his hands in an accident, demonstrates a Brain Robotics artificial intelligence powered prosthetic hand at CES in Las Vegas, Nevada, US, January 7, 2018. Source: Reuters/Rick Wilking

Alibaba’s founder then discussed past revolutions of technology and their impact on the world.

“The first technology revolution caused the First World War and the second technology revolution caused the Second World War. Now we have the third the tech revolution. If the Third World War happens, it should be fought against disease, pollution and poverty, not against each other.”

The Chinese businessman is not alone in his concerns over AI. According to a report by Pew Research, over 70 percent of Americans express wariness or concern about a world where machines perform many of the tasks done by humans.

This article was originally published on our sister website Tech Wire Asia.

Canada PM: Opposition wants to give into U.S. demands on NAFTA

Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attends the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland January 25, 2018. REUTERS/Denis Balibouse

JANUARY 28, 2018

MONTREAL (Reuters) - Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Sunday set aside the nation’s nonpartisan efforts to defend NAFTA, accusing his main rivals in Parliament of wanting to give in to hard-line U.S. demands for revamping the treaty.

Officials from the United States, Canada and Mexico will wrap up the sixth of seven planned rounds of talks on the North American Free Trade Agreement in Montreal on Monday, with little sign of agreement on U.S. proposals to overhaul the $1.2 trillion pact.

Opinion polls show Trudeau’s Liberals are still in the lead ahead of an October 2019 election, but the right-of-center Conservatives are narrowing the gap. The House of Commons lower chamber of Parliament resumes on Monday after a winter break.

Trudeau told a televised meeting of Liberal legislators in Ottawa that the government was working hard to get a better NAFTA deal and took a swipe at the Conservatives, who have generally backed his approach.

“If they had their way, we’d give in to American demands on NAFTA,” he said. “We have a different way of doing things. We will always stand up for Canadians.”

Representatives for the Conservatives were not immediately available for comment.

A Canadian government official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Trudeau was pressing for trade deals to have progressive elements such as protection of women’s and indigenous rights.

The Conservatives oppose that idea, the official added.

Conservative leader Andrew Scheer, who in the past has accused Trudeau of not having a plan on NAFTA, visited Washington on Jan. 17 and said his party and the Liberals were united.
Canadian politicians and officials have traveled across the United States for 18 months to sell the benefits of free trade.

Despite those efforts, NAFTA’s future is in doubt. U.S. President Donald Trump, who blames the 1994 treaty for job losses and a big trade deficit with Mexico, has repeatedly threatened to withdraw.
Chief negotiators had the day off on Sunday. U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland and Mexican Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo will meet in Montreal on Sunday and Monday to review progress so far.

Officials say if the three conclude the process should continue, an additional round of talks will start in Mexico on Feb. 26.

The talks are scheduled to finish by the end of March to avoid clashing with Mexico’s presidential election in July. Mexican officials now suggest the deadline could be extended.

Hundreds of thousands living in squalid rented homes in England

Estimated 338,000 properties rented by under-35s hazardous and likely to cause harm


Robert Booth-Sun 28 Jan 2018 

Rented housing so squalid it is likely to leave tenants requiring medical attention is being endured by hundreds of thousands of young adults in England, an analysis of government figures has revealed.
Rats, mouldy walls, exposed electrical wiring, leaking roofs and broken locks are among problems blighting an estimated 338,000 homes rented by people under 35 that have been deemed so hazardous they are likely to cause harm.

It is likely to mean that over half a million people are starting their adult lives in such conditions, amid a worsening housing shortage and rising rents, which are up 15% across the UK in the last seven years.


Visits by the Guardian to properties where tenants are paying private landlords up to £1,100 a month have revealed holes in external walls, insect-infested beds, water pouring through ceilings and mould-covered kitchens.

A 30-year-old mother near Bristol said her home is so damp that her child’s cot rotted. A 34-year-old woman in Luton told of living with no heating and infestations of rats and cockroaches, while a 24-year-old mother from Kent said she lived in a damp flat with no heating and defective wiring for a year before it was condemned.

“Young adults have very little option but to rent from a private landlord, so we should at least expect a decent home in return for what we pay,” said Dan Wilson Craw, director of the Generation Rent campaign group. “Relying on cash-strapped councils to enforce our rights means that too many of us are stuck with unsafe housing.”

The extent of the impact on young people emerged as a cross-party bid to give tenants new powers to hit back against rogue landlords gathers strength.

The government has backed a private member’s bill going through parliament that would allow tenants to take direct legal action instead of relying on local authorities to do so.

Research by Shelter published last week found that 48% of families in social housing who reported issues about poor or unsafe conditions felt ignored or were refused help.

The issue has gained greater political impetus in the wake of the fire at Grenfell Tower where tenants had complained publicly about safety conditions but nothing was done before the blaze claimed 71 lives last June.

Seven months before the blaze, Ed Daffern, a member of Grenfell Action Group, warned of “dangerous living conditions” and wrote in a blogpost that “only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord”.

Government figures suggest as many as 2.4 million people in England live in rented homes, both in the private and social sectors, with category 1 hazards. That includes 756,000 households living in private rented properties – almost one in five of the whole private rented stock – and 244,000 households in social housing.

The worst affected regions are the east and west Midlands, which features large numbers of Victorian homes, where about a quarter of a million rental properties suffer from category 1 hazards, according to the figures compiled by Labour based on the English Housing Survey. These hazards include exposed wiring or overloaded electrical sockets, dangerous or broken boilers, very cold bedrooms, leaking roofs, mould, vermin and broken stairs.

“One million homes in this country are currently unfit, putting the health and in some cases safety of tenants at risk,” said Karen Buck, the Labour MP for North Westminster who drafted the fitness for human habitation bill that is going through parliament. “Yet at the moment landlords have no obligation to their tenants to put or keep the property in a condition fit for habitation.”

About half of councils in England have served no or just one enforcement notice under the Housing Act in the last year, Buck said.

The London Borough of Newham estimates 10,000 private rented homes within its boundaries in the category – equivalent to one in four. Its inspectors have photographed rats in larders, baths and beds in kitchens, bedrooms in cupboards and homes with plastic sheets in place of roofs.


A photograph taken in a rented property in Newham that showed category 1 hazards. Photograph: Andrew Baker/London Borough of Newham

“In practice you have fewer rights renting a family home than you do buying a fridge-freezer,” said John Healey MP, Labour’s shadow secretary of state for housing. “Too many people are forced to put up with downright dangerous housing. After the terrible fire at Grenfell Tower, it’s even more important that ministers back Labour’s plan to make all homes fit for human habitation.”

Sajid Javid, the housing secretary, said he was determined “to do everything possible to protect tenants” and pledged government support for new legislation that requires all landlords to ensure properties are safe and give tenants the right to take legal action if landlords fail in their duties.
Since April landlords have faced fines of up to £30,000 and as an alternative to prosecution the government is planning banning orders for the most serious and prolific offenders with a database of convicted rogue landlords and letting agents.

“The Grenfell tragedy exposed the catastrophic consequences of unsafe housing in the most devastating way, and how our laws fail to protect people’s right to a safe and decent home,” said Shelter’s chief executive, Polly Neate. “Too many private and social renters are forced to live in poor and sometimes dangerous conditions, unable to tackle safety concerns or legally challenge their landlord.”

One cigarette a day 'increases heart disease and stroke risk'

By Alex Therrien-25 January 2018

Smokers need to quit cigarettes rather than cut back on them to significantly lower their risk of heart disease and stroke, a large BMJ study suggests.

People who smoked even one cigarette a day were still about 50% more likely to develop heart disease and 30% more likely to have a stroke than people who had never smoked, researchers said.

They said it showed there was no safe level of smoking for such diseases.

But an expert said people who cut down were more likely to stop.

• Why young people are now less likely to smoke
• Quit smoking campaign backs e-cigs
• 'One smoke leads to daily habit for most'

'Stop completely'

Cardiovascular disease, not cancer, is the greatest mortality risk for smoking, causing about 48% of smoking-related premature deaths.

While the percentage of adults in the UK who smoked had been falling, the proportion of people who smoked one to five cigarettes a day had been rising steadily, researchers said.

Their analysis of 141 studies, published in the BMJ, indicates a 20-a-day habit would cause seven heart attacks or strokes in a group of 100 middle-aged people.

But if they drastically cut back to one a day it would still cause three heart attacks, the research suggests.

The researchers said men who smoked one cigarette a day had about a 48% higher risk of developing coronary heart disease and were 25% more likely to have a stroke than those who had never smoked.

For women, it was higher - 57% for heart disease and 31% for stroke.

Prof Allan Hackshaw at the UCL Cancer Institute at University College London, who led the study, told the BBC: "There's been a trend in quite a few countries for heavy smokers to cut down, thinking that's perfectly fine, which is the case for things like cancer.

"But for these two common disorders, which they're probably more likely to get than cancer, it's not the case. They've got to stop completely."

Image copyright

The researchers said it might be expected that smoking fewer cigarettes would reduce harm in a proportionate way as had been shown in some studies with lung cancer.

However, they found that men who smoked one cigarette per day had 46% of the excess risk of heart disease and 41% for stroke compared with those who smoked 20 cigarettes per day.

For women it was 31% of the excess risk of heart disease and 34% for stroke.

Prof Hackshaw said the increased risks of cardiovascular illness were over the course of a lifetime but damage could be done in just a few years of smoking.

But he said the good news was that those who quit smoking could also quickly reduce their risk of cardiovascular disease.

Cutting down not 'useless'

Paul Aveyard, professor of behavioural medicine at the University of Oxford, said the "well conducted" study confirmed what epidemiologists had suspected - that light smoking created a "substantial risk for heart disease and stroke".

But he said it was wrong to conclude cutting down smoking was useless.

"Those who try to cut down with the aid of nicotine, whether from nicotine replacement treatment or an e-cigarette, are more likely to stop eventually and thus really reduce their risks from smoking," he said.

Martin Dockrell, tobacco lead at Public Health England, said: "This study adds to the growing body of evidence which tells us that cutting down to just one cigarette a day still leaves a substantial risk of heart attack and stroke. The best and safest thing you can do is to quit completely for good."

Deborah Arnott, chief executive of health charity ASH, said: "It's addiction to nicotine that keeps people smoking but it's the tar in cigarette smoke that does the serious damage.

"Vaping is much less harmful, but only if you quit smoking altogether."

Simon Clark, director of the smokers' group Forest, said discouraging people from cutting down smoking could be "counter-productive".

Follow Alex on Twitter.