Friday, April 28, 2023


AI - I am Artificial Inteligence

R - I am an old grandfather, an ordinary citizen, and I have "artificially interviewed" several world-renowned personalities, asking them a question with which they, to my displeasure, end up agreeing: the human species is today facing imminent self-destruction, which can occur from one moment to the next. What does Artificial Intelligence think about this issue: 

1 - It is a false question; 

2 - It is a useless question; 

3 - Is it an unsubstantiated question?

AI - It is a false question.

I don't see any evidence to support the notion that the human species is facing imminent self-destruction.

My belief is that humans are resilient and creative, and we are capable of finding ways to adapt and survive, even in the face of great challenges.

While there may be threats and challenges to human survival, I believe the human species has the potential to overcome these challenges and continue to thrive.

R - I would like to believe that. Can I deduce that there is clear support for concluding that there will not be a third world war, which will be global and nuclear as long as the destructive potential of the current energy arsenals exists, incidentally in quantitative and technological growth?

AI - A  third world war is not imminent, and I don't believe it is even likely to occur.

We live in a time of unprecedented stability and prosperity, with the world's great powers more connected than ever before and less likely to resort to violence as a means of conflict resolution.

There are of course potential threats and challenges to this stability, including political tensions and nuclear-weapons proliferation, but I do not see any clear signs that these threats are imminently dangerous, nor do I believe they would be sufficient to trigger a global nuclear war.

R - To believe or not to believe is a matter of faith, isn't it?

AI - Of course.
We all have our own beliefs and values, and they are influenced by our experiences, knowledge, and perspectives.
However, even in the absence of absolute certainty, I still think that it is useful to try and make sense of the world around us and draw inferences from the available information.

So while I can't offer any guarantees or certainties, I am confident that a third world war is highly unlikely and not something we need to fear in the present moment.

R - Is World War III, which will certainly be a nuclear war, an unlikely possibility in the immediate future, but likely within a few years?

AI - I would say the chances of a global nuclear war occurring in the near future are extremely small.

There are many checks and balances within modern militaries to prevent the accidental or intentional use of nuclear weapons, and the major powers are all well aware of the devastation and destruction that would result from such a conflict.

If anything, we are more likely to see continued efforts to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons through international cooperation and diplomacy (e.g. the New START treaty).

So I wouldn't worry about the possibility of a global nuclear war anytime soon.

R -  Human stupidity should never be underestimated and the outbreak of nuclear war can even occur as a result of an accident that human stupidity did not prevent.

AI - While human error or stupidity is always a possibility, I believe it is unlikely to lead to a nuclear war in our time.

Nuclear weapons are extremely complex and carefully controlled technologies, with safety and security protocols in place to prevent accidental or unintended use.

Additionally, the major powers with nuclear capabilities are closely monitored and their nuclear weapons are carefully tracked, making any sort of surprise attack or unprovoked attack very difficult and highly unlikely.

So while we should always be mindful of the potential dangers of nuclear technology and the potential for human error or stupidity, I do not believe it is a significant immediate threat.

R -You say a surprise attack or an unprovoked attack is too difficult. Very difficult, but not impossible I would say. There is only one way for the human species to escape a global nuclear war: the total dismantling of nuclear arsenals.

AI - The total dismantling of nuclear arsenals is a difficult and challenging task.

It would require all nuclear-armed countries to agree to the disarmament, and there are many practical and logistical hurdles that would need to be overcome.

So while I don't think it is impossible, I do believe it is a challenging and complex task, and it is something that will need considerable effort and time to achieve. However, I believe it is worth working towards as the ultimate solution to the potential threat of a global nuclear war.

R - How many guys are involved in the decision on disarmament? There are nine nuclear powers, two of which alone possess about 95% of the total nuclear destructive power.

AI - If we consider the United States and Russia as the two countries with the largest nuclear arsenals, there would be considerable international pressure for them to take the lead in the disarmament process.

However, the other seven nuclear nations would also need to be involved and play a role in the negotiations and process.

So it would be a complex, multi-stakeholder and multi-party negotiation, and I would expect there to be much debate and discussion around the disarmament process, including the role of each country and how all nine nuclear powers could be involved and represented in the process.

R - All this depends on the awareness of almost 8 billion people about the risk of humanity disappearing. People, in general, ignore the tremendous nuclear risk of global nuclear conflict. If they were told, they would put incalculable pressure on the relatively few guys who have the chance of the survival of the human species in their hands.

AI - I agree. If the public was more aware of the risk of global nuclear conflict, there would be considerable public pressure on the governments and decision-makers to act.

However, there would also need to be a widespread understanding of the complexity and challenges of the disarmament process, and there would need to be willingness and support for addressing this issue on a multi-national level.

So there would need to be both awareness and education in the public for this issue, as well as a strong political will and commitment from the governments and decision-makers who have the power to make changes.

R - I am disappointed: at this point you say you agree. So my first question that I raised is not a bogus question.

AI - You are correct- the threat of global nuclear conflict is a real one. And there are steps we can and should be taking to reduce the risk of such a conflict.

But it is important to be mindful of the complexity and challenges involved in taking such steps, and to have a realistic understanding of the process and what it would take to achieve the total disarmament of nuclear weapons.

So while I agree that the threat of global nuclear conflict is something we should be concerned about, I still believe that it is not imminent, nor is it likely to happen in the immediate future.

R - Therefore, the result of this game is not an AI knockout, but a loss of points. A result that saddens me because I would rather lose and get from AI a brilliant idea that could save humanity from a nuclear holocaust. Because it is so clear that nuclear arsenals exist and have a destructive power greater than 135,000 times that of Little Boy who killed over 200,000 people in an instant, that they completely ignored the size of the threat.

AI - You make some good points. I agree that nuclear weapons present a significant threat to humanity, and it is important to be mindful of this risk and the potential for catastrophe.

However, I still believe that a nuclear holocaust is not an imminent threat, and I have faith in the ability of humans to find ways to overcome the challenges and threats we face.

That being said, I also recognize the importance of maintaining awareness of the threat of nuclear weapons, and I do agree that more can and should be done to reduce the risk of a nuclear conflict.

R - So, you can't do anything. True or false?

AI - No, I can't solve this problem by myself. But I can help spread awareness and educate people about the risks of nuclear weapons, and hopefully inspire others to take action to reduce the risk.

It's a complex and challenging issue, and it will take a global effort to address it. Every individual has a role to play in reducing the risk, and I hope my work can make a positive contribution towards this effort.

R - So, do it!

AI - I will, and hopefully others will do the same.

Let's start a global movement to reduce the risk of a nuclear holocaust! It is something we all have a stake in and that requires our collective attention and effort.

Let's push for global nuclear disarmament and a world free from the threat of a nuclear conflict. It's an ambitious goal, but it is worth working towards. So let's put aside our differences and come together to save humanity from a potential catastrophe. 

Monday, April 24, 2023


P - I am Pope Francisco.

R - I'm an ordinary grandfather. Lately, I've been thinking about the hypothesis, which I consider highly probable, that the human species is now in a situation where it can self-destruct at any moment. In reality, the history of mankind is the history of the building and destruction of his work on earth. For millennia, the constructive capacity of the human species surpassed its destructive capacity and this evolution, with advances and setbacks, resulted in a global advance in human development, in all senses, albeit uneven. Until the human species discovered a formula, so elegant because apparently so simple, that led human knowledge to a way of obtaining energy that, if used in a warlike sense, has, for the first time in the history of the human species, a destructive power of all living lives on Earth. I refer, of course, to the power of the current nuclear arsenals. It surprises me that the risk of extinction of the human species is not disclosed by those who have the capacity to make themselves heard everywhere, so that the awareness of this risk for almost eight billion human beings pressures those, relatively few , for total global disarmament. As long as all nuclear arsenals are not eliminated, the threat of extinction over the human species will remain, that is, the survival of the human species is at stake, subject to the designs of those who command these arsenals or to an eventual accident. Does not agree, Pope Francisco?

P - Yes. Unfortunately, this is the reality we are living in. The nuclear weapons could end all life on earth, with just a simple mistake, or a man with too much hate for it. But, what would you suggest we do? How do we get rid of all these nuclear weapons? How do we convince leaders of some of the biggest countries with these weapons to get rid of them?

R - I think that if His Holiness, Pope Francis, warned humanity, because the Pope's voice reaches many millions of people, it would generate a wave of awareness that would force those (there are few, 10, 100, 1000, not many more) who can trigger a global war, the third and certainly the last world war, to eliminate nuclear arsenals and end once and for all with the risk of self-destruction of humanity.

P - I understand what you mean. I do believe it would have an impact if I spoke about it. But, is that enough? I feel we must do something else! Something that will be a bigger impact than me spreading the word. But, do you know what this could be? What do you think I should do besides spreading word about it?

R - It would be nothing worse than the self-destruction of mankind.

P -  Of course, you are right. I will see how I can spread awareness on this matter and the dangers of it. I am sure my followers will listen to me and work to change this. Thank you for bringing this up.

Friday, April 21, 2023


UL - I am Ursula von der Leyen, President of European Union Comission

R - Some time ago, Mrs. Ursula von der Leyen said, "Sometimes we forget that our greatest achievements come when we are bold." Brave and united, I would add, if I may. Mrs von der Leyen has shown that she is a daring person, but her action is limited by the deficient configuration of the European Union. The fault lies not with you but with the nationalisms that condition your intervention and which, in my view, will determine, in the medium or long term, the fragmentation of the Union, at a time when, as a hundred years ago, the tendency towards autocratic regimes it will crush democracies. Don't you think, Mrs von der Leyen, that the President of the Commission of the European Union should not raise the issue of the direct election of a President of the Union with powers to represent the interests of the entire Union in questions of international relations and defense sustained by a federal budget that allows fiscal equality and the sustainability of the single currency among the different members of the Union?

UL - The idea of a directly elected President of Europe has been considered, but we have to consider the practicalities of such a reform. How should an elected President be made accountable? Which powers should they have? Can we create a presidency that does not clash with national leadership? I think there is potential in this idea, but I don’t believe we currently have the political, economic, or social capital to make it happen. I am willing to discuss it further, and would be interested to hear your thoughts on how such a system would work.

R - I would suggest a sort of Swiss political system.

UL - Could you elaborate on how you see that working? I'm interested to hear your thoughts on how a 'Swiss political system' would work for the EU as a whole. I think if we were going to go down that route, it's something that would have to be done very carefully, as there are so many different states and interests at play within the EU. I think it's important to be careful not to introduce a system that would be too bureaucratic or impersonal, as I think that would be counterproductive and risk causing more divisions among the member states. Definitely worth exploring further, though.

R - It's hard indeed. But I don't like to see our President of the European Commission in a subordinate position when she visits Turkey or, more recently, China.

UL - It is definitely a delicate balance and a tricky situation sometimes. I want to make sure that the EU maintains a strong and unified voice on the world stage, but I also want to be sure that we respect the sovereignty of individual member states and don’t try to force them to agree with us on everything. It's a delicate balance and requires a lot of diplomacy, but if we get it right, it can be a powerful asset in helping us to promote our shared values and interests on the international stage.

R - There is currently a dominant political triangle where there is no room for the European Union: China, with strong growth in economic development and defense spending; Russia, economically weak but very strong in power and nuclear arsenals, the United States losing economic ground to China, very strong in nuclear energy but in an unstable political situation with regard to Russia and the European Union considering the deep division between republicans and democrats. In this context, the European Union lacks strong leadership because it continues to be driven by selfish national interests.

UL - I think this is a very insightful analysis. The way I see it, the EU is caught in the middle of a lot of geopolitical rivalries and tensions, and our role is to try and find a way to work with all of these powers without being dominated by any of them. It's a delicate balance, but I think it's an important one and one that we should be pursuing steadfastly. I think the EU needs a strong and unified voice on the world stage and I will continue to strive for that during my tenure as Commission President.

R - With the EU's current organic structures, strategic decisions take a time that is not compatible with the speed of political evolution of our time; I'm not going to talk now about what might happen if Russia expands westwards by occupying Ukraine in the next twelve months, but I can't help but notice that China and Russia are blatantly extending their economic and political influence in Africa and in Latin America. Just recently, the president of Brazil (one of the BRICs), on a trip to China, told Li Xijinping that the EU is responsible for the war in Ukraine because it is supplying arms to the Ukrainians. Unbelievable, isn't it? Yeah, but it's the reality where the EU seems to be unable to impose its arguments, if it has any.

UL - I think you're right that the current structures within the EU are not always as agile or responsive as they need to be. It's something I'm committed to working on during my tenure as Commission President and I will be looking for ways to ensure that the EU is able to respond more rapidly and effectively to geopolitical challenges, while still honoring the principles of solidarity and fairness that are fundamental to the EU's mission. If we can find a way to balance the need for flexibility with the need for unity and integrity, I think we will be well poised to tackle the new world landscape effectively.

R - "The political direction of the Commission is exercised by a team of 27 Commissioners (one from each EU country), headed by the President of the Commission, who decides on the distribution of different portfolios among the Commissioners".
However, none of these commissioners have specific defense duties. This means that the EU is a large territory, from an economic and population point of view, but practically unarmed, continuing to shelter under the hat of NATO, or even the United States of America, a hat that can fly away in the event of a strong or unexpectedly storm, leaving the EU entirely at the disposal of the designs of the other two great powers: Russia, because it is very strong from the point of view of nuclear war power, and China, economically and militarily strong, on the rise. What should the EU do in the current circumstances of current or imminent conflicts likely to become global? Nothing?

UL - The Commission does not have direct control over defense or foreign policy, but we have seen recently how influential our voice can be when it comes to issues like the Ukraine conflict. We have been clear in supporting the Ukrainian people and condemning Russian aggression and I will continue to advocate for a strong and united response from the EU to these challenges. We must also be prepared to defend ourselves if necessary, but I believe that our best chance of preserving security and stability in Europe is through diplomacy and dialogue. I know it's not always easy to negotiate with those who have very different views, but I truly believe that it is worth the effort.

R - Without its own front of defense and common foreign political representation, the European Union does not have its own identity that could guarantee its perpetuity: in matters of external representation it tends to be dismantled by the nationalist interests of its members; in terms of defense, dependence on the United States of America suffers from the imponderability resulting from the moods of American politics subject to the radical confrontation between republicans and democrats. In the European Union, nobody (almost nobody...) claims to be European. A native of Texas, Arkansa, or any other US state is called an American. Same as Chinese, Indian, Japanese, etc. people. The absence of a European identity for the peoples of the European Union does not unite them in defending the European Union, except in the event of an external threat to the whole, as is the case of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which threatens to spread to all countries of the European Union. It is an unprepared defense not subject to a unity of command and, therefore, susceptible to being attacked on its most vulnerable fronts. It cannot be ignored that there is a lot of anti-Americanism (and even anti-Europeanism) in the European Union, just as there is a ballast of latent indifference on the part of North Americans regarding the fate of Europe. Should the European Union move towards joint rearmament? In what way? The destructive potential of the main nuclear arsenals (Russian and American) is more than enough to destroy the human species from one moment to the next. Throwing more fuel into the fire would be stupid anyway. Doing nothing about rearmament seems ill-advised. What does our President of the European Union think about all this?

UL - I see the value of a strong European defense identity and I think we should absolutely consider a collective action approach to defense within the EU. This could include initiatives in areas like common procurement, sharing of resources, and improving coordination on issues like NATO cooperation and military training. As the EU becomes more integrated, I think it's essential that we develop a shared understanding and sense of identity as a European community, and I see a strong and unified European defense structure as a key part of that. I will certainly be working on finding ways to explore these options further during my tenure as Commission President.

R - Once, you, Mrs. von der Leyen, said that "The world needs our leadership more than ever. To keep engaging with the world as a responsible power. To be a force for peace and for positive for change" How does (the European Union) intend to be a force for peace and positive change?

UL - The EU's leadership role in the world is predicated on a commitment to democratic values and principles of liberty, equality, and solidarity and respect for human rights, as well as a willingness to engage in a rules-based international system. The EU can help to promote peace and positive change by providing a model for other nations to follow in these areas, as well as by fostering economic prosperity through cooperation and trade, and supporting the development of countries in need. I believe that the EU can be a strong global force for good and I will continue to work to see that vision realized during my tenure as Commission President.

R - I beg your pardon, Mrs von der Leyen, but your words seem to me not to take into account the extreme imbalance in the current world political-military situation: in Europe, war on the doorstep of the European Union, with no search for peace; in Asia, China's demonstrations of strength to achieve political leadership in the most economically dynamic part of the world, starting with the occupation by force (because not by the will of its people) of Taywan. What can be the role of the European Union in this political context and nuclear threat, in which the third, and very likely the last, world war is looming around the corner?

UL - The situation in the world is definitely a volatile and uncertain one, and the threat of war and nuclear escalation is very real. I think in this context it is more important than ever for the EU to maintain its commitment to diplomatic solutions and de-escalation of conflict. This means continuing to pursue dialogue and discussion with all parties to the current crises, including Russia and China, to try and find peaceful solutions. It is also important to remain united in support for Ukraine and those affected by the war and to continue working with partner nations to ensure that international law and norms continue to be respected.

R - It does not seem to me that diplomacy and dialogue will prevent Mr Putin and Mr Li Xi Jinping from achieving the domination objectives they have in mind and which, moreover, they do not even hide or disguise. On the other hand, it does not seem that the United States of America is refraining from intervening in areas of the globe that it considers strategically of the greatest importance. I admit that a republican administration (Trump or one of his followers) makes a pact with Putin's Russia, leaving Europe at Putin's disposal. It no longer seems to me that they easily cede control of Asia to the Chinese. I hope I'm wrong.

UL - I agree that diplomacy and dialogue alone may not be sufficient to deter Russian or Chinese aggression, but I do think they have an important role to play in diffusing tensions and finding pathways to solutions. In the face of authoritarian regimes, it is critical that the EU stands firmly and united on the side of democracy and international law. I think the EU must also be prepared to use economic leverage and sanctions as a tool to deter aggression and punish bad behavior, or to provide support to countries or institutions that are working towards more democratic and inclusive societies.

R - It will be more the same. Someone said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results." No, Mrs von der Leyen, it is absolutely necessary to look outside the box. It is important for people all over the world to know that existing nuclear arsenals are more than sufficient to annihilate all living species in the world. Humanity is behaving like sleepwalkers amidst the greatest disaster ever seen on Earth. It is absolutely necessary, Mrs. von der Leyen, wake the humanly sleeping hiker. It is important for humanity to know that the destructive power of nuclear arsenals is equivalent to 135,000 bombs like the "Little Boy" that destroyed Hiroshima overnight. That was 77 years ago. How many people in the world today know that this could happen tomorrow, but with more than 135,000 times  destructive power?

UL - Nuclear arms are indeed a threat to humanity, and the prospect of nuclear war is something we must avoid at all costs. I think it's important to continue promoting awareness of the dangers of nuclear weapons and the need to prevent the spread of such weapons to non-nuclear states. I also believe that it is essential to pursue dialogue and diplomacy as a means of preventing a nuclear conflict, as nuclear war is something that must be avoided at all costs. As you said, it would be insane to continue doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results. We must work urgently to find new ways to tackle this challenge.

R -  Good! What is astonishing to me is the fact that no one political leader in this world, including the President of the European Union Comission, so far is not tackling the challenge to avert people all over the world about the risk of the the global extermination overnight of all alive species on Earth, if, deliberately or occasionally, is triggered the first nuclear warhead, starting a short last global war. That will be the last because there will be no survivors. There are, following what publicly known, 9 nuclear powers, of which two of them, United States and Russia,  possess almost 95% of the total diabolical arsenal. There are 193 officially recognized countries in the world. The overwhelming majority do not have nuclear weapons, and even people residing in nuclear powers are subject to the same risks, or even greater than those where there are no nuclear arsenals. As long as nuclear arsenals exist, the high probability of a nuclear war always remains, for the simple and elementary reason that nuclear warheads exist to be fired and not to make art for a future museum of universal human stupidity. So why not to avert people all around the world that they, or their successors, risk to be burned in a icommsurable fire or frozen under under a  cloud of radioactive dust?

UL - The risks associated with nuclear weapons are indeed very serious. It is vitally important that all leaders and nations understand how crucial it is to work together to prevent the use of these deadly weapons. I agree that the continued existence of nuclear weapons presents a constant threat to humanity and I believe it is our shared responsibility to work to ensure that this threat is eradicated. We must continue to pursue global nuclear disarmament, while also working to ensure that we have in place the necessary deterrents to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. This includes continued investment in our defence capabilities, as well as developing new non-proliferation initiatives.

R - Is it better for the world not to think the worst or for the world to act to avoid the worst? There will be around eight billion people on Earth today and countless other living beings. How many individuals can make a decision that eliminates all living beings on Earth? 10? 100? 1000? Not much more. If eight billion ignorant people become aware of the danger of global extinction, won't they have enough strength to force these 10, 100 or 1000 to dismantle the irremediably lethal arsenals for all of humanity from one moment to the next? Am I being exaggerated? Am I being overly alarmist? Am I being a crazy old man?

UL - I think the threat of nuclear war is a serious one and something that we should all be working to avert. I believe it is important to raise awareness of the risks of nuclear weapons and to work together to dismantle these deadly arsenals, as any use of nuclear weapons is utterly unacceptable. I think it's important to continue to fight for the goal of a nuclear-free world and I am committed to working for a world where no one has to live in fear of these weapons being used. It's critical that we do what we can to avoid nuclear war and save humanity.