ClimateChangeFork

In the last few blogs, I tried to advocate pairing activities that focus on the Holocaust with those focused on future global threats. I defined global threats based on my perspectives and sort of cherry-picked some of them to mimic my own life. The objective in doing so was summarized in an earlier blog, “What Are We Trying to Teach Our Children?” (June 11, 2024). The essence of my argument is summarized in the paragraph below:

As I have tried to show in the more than 12 years that I have been writing this blog, humanity is in the middle of at least 5 existential transitions; all of these started around WWII. They include climate change, nuclear energy, declining fertility, global electrification, and digitization. These transitions started around the time that I was born, but they will hopefully last (if some of them do not lead to extinction in the meantime) at least through the lifetime of my grandchildren (I call this time “now” in some of my writing).

My definition was subjective. Only three of these transitions are existential threats: climate change, nuclear war, and uncontrolled digitization (especially AI). The other two (global electrification and the constant decline in fertility) are development trends that reflect humanity’s choices. There are many who study global threats in much more depth. Recently, Wikipedia summarized these efforts with more than 100 references. I strongly recommend that you read the full entry. Two paragraphs in the Probability section are especially instructive, and I cite them below:

Experts generally agree that anthropogenic existential risks are (much) more likely than natural risks.^{[16][13][17][2][18]} A key difference between these risk types is that empirical evidence can place an upper bound on the level of natural risk.^[2] Humanity has existed for at least 200,000 years, over which it has been subject to a roughly constant level of natural risk. If the natural risk were sufficiently high, then it would be highly unlikely that humanity would have survived as long as it has. Based on a formalization of this argument, researchers have concluded that we can be confident that natural risk is lower than 1 in 14,000 per year (equivalent to 1 in 140 per century, on average).^[2]

Another empirical method to study the likelihood of certain natural risks is to investigate the geological record.^[16] For example, a comet or asteroid impact event sufficient in scale to cause an impact winter that would cause human extinction before the year 2100 has been estimated at one-in-a-million.^[19][20] Moreover, large supervolcano eruptions may cause a volcanic winter that could endanger the survival of humanity.^[21] The geological record suggests that supervolcanic eruptions are estimated to occur on average about once every 50,000 years, though most such eruptions would not reach the scale required to cause human extinction.^[21] Famously, the supervolcano Mt. Toba may have almost wiped out humanity at the time of its last eruption (though this is contentious).^[21][22]

The future is never certain. One common way to try to predict it is through computer simulation. One recent attempt by people who make their living doing so refers to an old simulation and how it bears out today:

A remarkable new study by a director at one of the largest accounting firms in the world has found that a famous, decades-old warning from MIT about the risk of industrial civilization collapsing appears to be accurate based on new empirical data.

As the world looks forward to a rebound in economic growth following the devastation wrought by the pandemic, the research raises urgent questions about the risks of attempting to simply return to the pre-pandemic ‘normal.’

In 1972, a team of MIT scientists got together to study the risks of civilizational collapse. Their system dynamics model published by the Club of Rome identified impending ‘limits to growth’ (LtG) that meant industrial civilization was on track to collapse sometime within the 21st century, due to overexploitation of planetary resources.

The controversial MIT analysis generated heated debate, and was widely derided at the time by pundits who misrepresented its findings and methods. But the analysis has now received stunning vindication from a study written by a senior director at professional services giant KPMG, one of the ‘Big Four’ accounting firms as measured by global revenue.

The Club of Rome report was mentioned in an earlier blog in a somewhat more “poetic” generalization (December 24, 2024):

Probably the most famous monologue that many of us carry in our heads starts with “To be or not to be: that is the question.” It’s the opening line of a monologue spoken by Hamlet in act III, scene 1, of William Shakespeare’s revenge tragedy, Hamlet (I was required to memorize the speech in high school in Israel). From my present perspective about the coming new year, a generalization of this line from our personal fates to the fate of humanity seems to be in order. The “not to be” part could properly be translated to life extinction. After all, as far as we know, we are alone in this vast universe. The prognosis for extinction is growing. I will mention two related articles here. One is from over 10 years ago and discusses a report to the Club of Rome.

Figure 1 – Global risks landscape: An interconnections map (Source: WEF Global Risks Report 2025)

The picture above is different from my previous descriptions of global threats. It is a map of the global risk perception survey, published yearly by the Swiss-based not-for-profit, World Economic Forum (WEF)—the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation, founded in 1971. An AI summary (through Google) of the methodology of mapping the risks is shown below:

Global risk reports, such as the widely recognized Global Risks Report from the World Economic Forum, primarily rely on a multi-pronged approach that combines expert insights, perception surveys, and various analysis techniques to assess and prioritize risks affecting the world.

Here’s a breakdown of how these risks are typically estimated:

• Global Risks Perception Survey (GRPS): This survey is a core component of the World Economic Forum’s approach. It gathers insights from a diverse group of experts and decision-makers across academia, business, government, international organizations, and civil society. The survey asks respondents to:
  • Assess the likely impact (severity) of global risks over various timeframes (e.g., one, two, and 10 years).
  • Consider the potential consequences of a risk arising, including interconnections and potential for cascading crises.
  • Predict the evolution of the global risks landscape.
• Expert Consultation and Workshops: Beyond the survey, reports often incorporate insights from a broader network of experts through workshops, interviews, and community meetings. This allows for deeper qualitative analysis and discussions on emerging risks, interdependencies, and potential mitigation strategies.
• Defined Criteria for “Global Risk”: The reports use specific criteria to determine what constitutes a global risk, ensuring a consistent and relevant focus. For example, the World Economic Forum considers factors such as:
  • Global scope: Potential to affect at least three world regions on two continents.
  • Cross-industry relevance: Impact on three or more industries.
  • Uncertainty: Uncertainty about how the risk will manifest and the magnitude of its impact.
  • Economic or public impact: Potential for significant economic damage or major human suffering.
  • Multi-stakeholder approach: Complexity requiring collaboration across various stakeholders for mitigation.
• Risk Analysis and Prioritization: Once risks are identified, they are analyzed and prioritized based on their likelihood and potential impact. This often involves:

• • Risk Matrices/Heat Maps: Visual tools plotting likelihood and impact to prioritize risks, according to Number Analytics.
  • Risk Scoring: Assigning scores to risks based on likelihood and impact for numerical prioritization.
  • Other techniques: Decision trees, sensitivity analysis, Monte Carlo simulations, says Number Analytics.
• 5. Utilizing Additional Data Sources: Reports may also draw on other data sources to complement the GRPS findings, such as the Executive Opinion Survey for national-level risk perceptions, providing a more comprehensive view of risks across different scales.

This is a map of what “important” people think about global threats. It is not explicitly addressed, but since many of these important people are politicians, it is not far-fetched to expect that many of these threats are highly subjective. However, what is amazing (to me) on the map is the strong connectivity between the threats. This connectivity is likely to be retained no matter what those prospective global threats may be.

One important aspect of this map is that many of the listed threats would be considered by the present US administration to be DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) issues. I believe these would include: inequality, societal polarization, online harms, erosion of human rights, involuntary migration or displacement, and talent and labor shortage. It is not out of line to think that in today’s environment, a survey like this would not enjoy the support of the US federal government.

A good example of how administrations can impact the publishing of future threats is the presentation of the Global Trends 2035 report, which I described in the May 23, 2017 blog, a few months after the inauguration of the first Trump administration. A paragraph from that blog is given below:

What is Global Trends?

Every four years since 1997, the National Intelligence Council has published an unclassified strategic assessment of how key trends and uncertainties might shape the world over the next 20 years to help senior US leaders think and plan for the longer term. The report is timed to be especially relevant for the administration of a newly elected US President, but Global Trends increasingly has served to foster discussions about the future with people around the world. We believe these global consultations, both in preparing the paper and sharing the results, help the NIC and broader US Government learn from perspectives beyond the United States and are useful in sparking discussions about key assumptions, priorities, and choices. From this “introduction,” two key statements seem informative: that the timing coincides with newly elected administrations and that it is meant to foster discussion. From these, I surmised that this was probably not the original report that I saw and downloaded.

Back to what we are trying to teach our children. I am trying to expand “never again,” by connecting the atrocities of the Holocaust with future existential threats, as an antonym of MAGA (Make America Great Again). The reflection is designed for younger generations to learn from the Holocaust, a globally accepted horrific past, to recognize future existential threats and learn how to mitigate them.

Figure 1 – Diving in the Great Barrier Reef more than a generation ago (I was 60, my wife 50+)

The last two blogs have focused on non-academic mechanisms to immortalize and expand the concept of “never again” by supporting young people in both connecting to the Holocaust Institute and participating in an international trip focused on mitigating a different global threat. Last week’s blog focused on studying the threat of nuclear war through a joint program with one of the two cities that experienced the results of a nuclear attack: Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The combination in this blog will be more controversial — connecting it to climate change, through visits to one of the global barrier reefs that are now in the middle of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change-based destruction processes. As mentioned in the previous blog, both climate change and global nuclear war fit the Lemke definition of genocide, with “group” in the definition being humanity and “intent” meaning that the science was aware of the consequences but we decided to ignore it.

My experiences of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) in northeastern Australia, and its close connections to global climate change, were discussed in earlier blogs. The most extensive blog on the topic, “Vulnerabilities: Coral Reefs,” was posted on June 26, 2018. Below, I include a few paragraphs from this blog that also summarize earlier postings:

In one of my earliest blogs (July 31, 2012), I talked a little bit about the start of my interest in man-made contributions to global climate change. Up until that time my main academic interest was focused on energy use. I grew up in Israel, where energy played an important role in political development: almost all the energy that people used was powered by fossil fuels, a significant amount of which came out of Arab countries that were in a state of war with Israel. Many Israeli scientists worked hard to develop alternative energy sources, reducing the world’s dependence on fossil fuels and their suppliers. Sustainability didn’t play much of a role in these considerations because the resources seemed almost limitless.

Suddenly, in 1992 the world became aware of the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate. The Earth Summit (see the November 3, 2015 blog) and the famous Keeling-Whorf curve (December 1, 2015 blog) of the accelerating accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere showed CO₂ levels to have major impacts on changing the chemical composition of the atmosphere, driving changes in the planetary energy balance with the sun. I spent the next five years after the Energy Summit trying to figure out how I could contribute to the study of this occurrence. In 1996–97 the world press was full of stories that a significant increase in sea-surface temperature affects almost all coral species, leading to global coral bleaching and mortality. Some of the bleached corals were more than 1,000 years old. 1997 was also the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Year of the Coral Reef. At that time I had already decided that since the main imbalance in the carbon dioxide concentration comes from our use of fossil fuels, the only way that we can impact these emissions is by shifting our energy sources away from fossil fuels. I was also sure that these changes must be global and include as many people as possible in the decision making process. I started to work on a book to try to explain climate change to the general public, making sure to include descriptions of the bleached corals.

At that time I was already an advanced-middle-aged guy. My wife was younger but not by much. In the summer of 1997 she happened to have a conference in the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. I went along. We managed to find the time to take a diving course that gave us a diving certificate. The next year we went to Northern Queensland in Australia to spend a week diving around the Great Barrier Reef.

The top figure, which shows me and my wife scuba diving, was never shown.

Figure 2 – Bleached coral in the Great Barrier Reef

Figure 2 shows a photograph that my wife took of a bleached coral in the GBR. The photograph ended up in my book, in the chapter dedicated to early signs of climate change. Here is what I wrote about the issue:

Corals are a large class of marine invertebrates characterized by a calcium carbonate– protected skeleton. Each stalk includes an individual animal called a polyp and has an opening at the top through which the polyp gathers some of the food that it eats, excretes its waste products, and during reproduction, excretes gametes that contain either eggs or sperm. Corals can reproduce both sexually and asexually. Most corals live in colonies that can constitute only males, only females, or mixed populations. Polyps usually live on the deposits of their predecessors along with symbiotic algae called zooxanthellae capable of photosynthetic activity. In most cases the algae give the corals their colors. The algae use sunlight and carbon dioxide to produce food and energy that they share with the polyps. In return, the polyps share with algae, shelter, protection, and nitrogen- and phosphorous- rich food sources they gather from their environment. Under stressful conditions— which usually include not only elevated water temperature but also pollutants, water turbidity, or unusually high light intensity— the photosynthetic process is impaired, and the algae start to produce toxic materials. The result is that the polyps expel the algae. If the stress is mild and of short duration, then the coral can recover; if not, it will die.

Our trip to the GBR took place more than a generation ago; the destruction has gone through fluctuations but followed the progress of climate change and still serves as an early sign of its destructive power and a starting point for mitigation of all other future global threats.

The present situation in that reef is described below:

SYDNEY, Aug 6 (Reuters) – Australia’s Great Barrier Reef has suffered the largest decline in coral cover in two of its three regions over the last year, research released on Wednesday showed, following a mass bleaching of its corals that was among the worst on record.

The Australian Institute of Marine Sciences said the reef has experienced the largest annual decline in coral cover in its northern and southern regions since monitoring began 39 years ago, with coral cover dropping between a quarter and a third after several years of solid growth.

Five years later, we repeated the experience in Belize, the second-largest barrier reef, much closer to home. Figure 3 shows an example of the bleaching there:

Figure 3 – Bleached coral in Belize (photographed by my wife and me in 2003)

A more recent summary of the situation in Belize is given in the Wikipedia entry:

Despite these protective measures, the reef remains under threat from oceanic pollution as well as uncontrolled tourism, shipping, and fishing. Other threats include hurricanes, along with global warming and the resulting increase in ocean temperatures,^[7] which causes coral bleaching. It is claimed by scientists that over 40% of Belize’s coral reef has been damaged since 1998.^[1]

Connecting the Holocaust with barrier reef destruction is controversial. Below is the AI (through Google) summary of some of the issues:

A comparison connecting the Holocaust and barrier reef destruction is highly contentious and ethically fraught. While the connection is not one of direct comparison or equivalence, scholars have explored it thematically in a complex and controversial academic subfield called “environmental history of the Holocaust”. The topic is a subject of intense debate, as many consider any comparison a trivialization of the Holocaust’s unique historical horror.

This debate is centered on using Holocaust memory to inspire action on modern crises like climate change. The key challenge lies in drawing parallels without diminishing the unique genocidal suffering of the Jewish people.

Points of contention and criticism

Holocaust scholars and remembrance organizations generally reject comparisons that equate the Holocaust with environmental destruction or future climate catastrophe, considering such analogies inappropriate or offensive. Major criticisms include:

• Unique historical atrocity:The Holocaust was a specific, deliberate, and industrialized genocide against human beings based on racist ideology. Environmental destruction, while catastrophic, is a different kind of harm.

• Trivialization:Using the Holocaust as a metaphor for other crises, even severe ones, can diminish the specific suffering and historical context of Jewish victims. The International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) has specifically noted that comparisons like “Climate Holocaust” engage in a “trivialization of the Nazi-led mass murder of European Jewry”.

Not surprisingly, I heard many of these objections while discussing climate change in the context of my family’s experience of the Holocaust, and my repeated claim that doing nothing to mitigate the longer-term disaster that will materialize is consistent with what I have labeled “self-inflicted genocide.” My Holocaust background has shielded me from more lethal attacks. Objecting to the analogy based on the “uniqueness” of the Holocaust deprives “never again” of its premise. If the Holocaust is unique, it will not happen again and it’s useless to require future generations to study it. I believe that we can learn from it and apply that knowledge to combat other lethal global problems.

A different obstacle to this program is overtourism. Here is how AI (through Google) describes overtourism in barrier reefs:

Overtourism in barrier reefs can cause significant damage to these delicate ecosystems. Increased tourism, particularly in popular reef areas, can lead to physical damage from boats, snorkeling, and diving, as well as pollution from waste and human activity. This can negatively impact coral health, reduce biodiversity, and disrupt the overall reef ecosystem.

As I mentioned in a previous blog (August 13, 2025), Australia is one of the countries that requires Holocaust education. As the host country for a program like this, Australia might be willing to help a small number of youngsters with a background in studying the Holocaust to interact with its students, connect the two threats, and discuss the pros and cons of learning from one to mitigate the other.

A young visitor at the Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima

Last week’s blog focused on one non-academic mechanism to immortalize and expand the concept of “never again,” through support for young people to connect to both the Holocaust Institute and a trip via another organization focused on mitigating one of the other global threats. Such a combination has the potential to help mitigate future existential threats by teaching the history of past existential genocides. It was proposed that the organization (and the financing) of such an effort should be coordinated by the Holocaust Museum, where the youngster would spend an internship to acquire background knowledge about the Holocaust. Organizationally, the effort would be similar to the “Birthright” effort that is now directed at Jewish youth who live outside Israel, to familiarize themselves with the country.

This and the next blog will focus on two such examples: this one will focus on nuclear war, specifically Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only two cities to experience the consequences of such a war. Next week’s blog will focus on climate change through exposure to the deterioration of major reefs in Australia and Belize. These two examples represent the two classes of global threats: one directly inflicted by humans, in this sense similar to the Holocaust, and the other indirectly caused by humans (anthropogenic) through destruction of the common environment. Both classes fit the Lemke definition of genocide, as described in an earlier blog (May 28, 2025), with the “group” being humanity and the “intent” meaning that science was aware of the consequences and we decided to ignore it:

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• a) Killing members of the group;

• b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

• c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

• d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

• e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

However, if we are taking inspiration from Birthright, then before going into details about the two examples to immortalize and expand “never again,” it is essential to examine the scope that Birthright is reaching. As usual, I have mobilized AI (through Google) to summarize the present extent of Birthright:

Birthright Israel’s annual participant numbers have varied over time, with a peak of over 48,000 participants in 2018. The average number of participants prior to recent reductions was approximately 45,000 per year, with around 80% coming from the United States and Canada. However, recent years have seen a decline in participation due to a combination of factors, including:

• Budgetary constraints:The cost of sending one participant has risen significantly, partly due to inflation. This has led to cuts in the number of available spots.
• Safety concerns:The ongoing conflict in Gaza and the trauma of the October 7th attacks have impacted travel to Israel, leading to a decline in participants, particularly from the U.S. and Canada.
• Decreased donor support:Reduced contributions from major donors have also contributed to the funding shortfall.
• Pandemic-related disruptions:Travel restrictions and uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic also impacted participation in previous years.

Despite these challenges, Birthright Israel continues to be a popular program, with high demand and waiting lists for available spots. In 2023, for example, Birthright had a waiting list of 20,000 applicants for only 12,000 available North American seats during the summer program.

For the summer of 2025, Birthright Israel expects a rebound in participation, with 33,000 participants projected for the 10-day program, and a long-term goal of reaching 200,000 annual participants by 2029.

Birthright is focused on the Jewish diaspora. The global Jewish population outside Israel is about 8 million (most of them reside in the US). Birthright is limited to ages 18 – 26. The percentage of this population in the US is 12%. This translates to about 1 million eligible candidates for Birthright. It is estimated that by now Birthright has been able to reach 20% of their eligible population (see the sources for the statistics in last week’s blog). To find resources to fund a similar effort to immortalize “never again” is obviously not simple. But, on the bright side, the two examples in this and next week’s blogs also involve non-US countries that might help.

Let me now move to the first example of expanding “never again” to include nuclear war by shifting to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the victims of the only direct nuclear attacks that took place (Bombing of Hiroshima – August 6, 1945; Nagasaki – August 9, 1945).

An example of directly correlating Hiroshima with the Holocaust can be found in the Asia-Pacific Journal: Japan Focus article, “Never Again: Hiroshima, Auschwitz and the Politics of Commemoration もう二度と…　広島、アウシュヴィッツと記念の政治学”:

Because of the nature of the tragedy and the enormous importance given to the efforts to formulate a proper reply to it, the victims of Hiroshima and Nalgasaki came to possess important symbolic power. The bombing was thought to have bequeathed to Hiroshima’s victims a global mission and importance. This was synchronous with and influenced by a similar view of the place of the victim/witness in Holocaust discourse. In both discourses, the survivor was eventually elevated as the ultimate bearer of moral authority; what Avishai Margalit called “a moral witness.”⁷ This development was a direct consequence of the unprecedented nature of the tragedies and the failure of conventional means to represent and explain them. This had important implications for commemoration and politics in Japan and elsewhere, a phenomenon that went well beyond the confines of one nation or culture. As evidenced by Robert Lifton’s story, whose moment of shock in Hiroshima led him on to a career that impacted profoundly both cultures of memory, Hiroshima had an important role, now largely forgotten, in the making of global memory culture. However, the importance of Hiroshima was not appreciated by scholarship on either Hiroshima or the Holocaust so far (not to mention Nagasaki, which Hiroshima should not stand for and has a unique history of its own).

The ongoing follow-up on the health effects of the bombings can be found at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF).

As was shown in the previous citation, the interdependence of the Holocaust and the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is extensive. AI is a convenient tool to summarize interactions. A short summary (through Google) is given below:

On Cooperation between Holocaust institutions and Hiroshima or Nagasaki:

Collaboration between institutions focused on the Holocaust and those dedicated to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki exists and takes various forms, driven by the desire to remember and learn from these devastating events, despite their significant differences.

One instance of collaboration involved a Japanese delegation of peace activists who visited Auschwitz-Birkenau in 1962 and exchanged “mementos,” receiving an urn containing ashes of the victims from the Polish side. This exchange, and others involving Holocaust urns sent to Japan, aimed to solidify ties between State Museum Auschwitz-Birkenau and different Japanese institutions.

Another example of cooperation is the Los Alamos Japan Project, established in 2016. It facilitates dialogue between the Los Alamos History Museum, the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, and the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum. Their focus is on “Creating understanding through shared history, partnerships, dialogue, multiple perspectives, and collaboration,” and they’re cultivating second-generation seeds of trees that survived the atomic bomb blast in Hiroshima.

While these events were distinct, some have considered the histories of Hiroshima and Holocaust commemorations “entangled histories.” Both tragedies were seen as symbols of modern failure and potential harbingers of future horrors. The symbolic connections between Hiroshima and Auschwitz were particularly strong before the 1980s, when the Holocaust’s rising importance and the end of the Cold War somewhat eclipsed Hiroshima in the collective imagination.

It’s important to recognize that the Holocaust and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are separate events with unique historical contexts and discourses. However, the shared objective of preserving the memory of victims, fostering peace, and educating future generations about the consequences of human-instigated devastation has led to instances of cooperation and collaboration between institutions dedicated to each event.

More specifically, here is AI’s take on cooperation between the US Holocaust Institute and Hiroshima or Nagasaki:

While there’s no direct partnership between the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (USHMM) and the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum or Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum explicitly stated in the provided search results, there are connections and parallels worth noting:

• Shared Focus on War’s Aftermath and Promoting Peace:Both the USHMM and the museums in Hiroshima and Nagasaki focus on the devastating consequences of war and aim to promote peace and understanding, drawing on the horrific lessons of the past.
• Archival Cooperation and Global Outreach:The USHMM engages in archival cooperation with institutions like Fondazione Polanco ETS (ARSI) and Yad Vashem, according to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. They also have a strong global outreach program, collaborating with various partners worldwide to promote Holocaust education and remembrance, states the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. This suggests a potential for future collaborations with museums dedicated to other significant wartime events.
• Traveling Exhibitions:The USHMM and the American Library Association offer a traveling exhibition titled “Americans and the Holocaust,” which explores US responses to Nazism, war, and genocide in Europe. This model of a traveling exhibition could be a means for shared educational initiatives, perhaps incorporating aspects of the atomic bombings into a broader context of wartime destruction and humanitarian concerns.
• Emphasis on Survivor Testimonies:Both Holocaust museums and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki museums rely heavily on survivor testimonies to convey the human impact of these events, helping to ensure that the stories of those who endured these tragedies are not lost, notes ICAN – International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

In conclusion, while not formally partnered, there is a conceptual alignment between the USHMM and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki museums in their dedication to remembering the past, preventing future atrocities, and advocating for peace. Existing USHMM initiatives like archival cooperation and traveling exhibitions could potentially be adapted to facilitate collaboration and shared learning experiences focusing on the atomic bombings and their legacy.

My next blog will summarize the suggestions for the future common youth exposure to the Holocaust and to climate change through coral reef destruction.

Talking to German students in Wolmirstedt (of which Farsleben is now part) about the Holocaust

The top photograph shows students in Wolmirstedt, Germany, listening to my talk summarizing my Holocaust experiences, which peaked with my liberation by a unit of the American Army in that same town (see the May 21, 2025 blog for more details). I have been “busy” talking about the Holocaust for many years. For a glimpse of my activities, see the December 3, 2019 blog titled “Back to ‘Self-Inflicted Genocide’: Roger Hallam & the Holocaust.” Because of my academic work, in terms of global threats, I have been focused on climate change. More recently, I have expanded my scope.

In a few weeks, my wife and I will travel to Columbus, Ohio, to participate in an event associated with the last stages of the production of the film that describes the liberation and its aftermath. The making of the film was mentioned in the May 21^st blog (with the error that the distribution contract was set – as of now it is still not yet set). One can find more details about this movie at https://magdeburgtrain.com/ and A Train Near Magdeburg – Columbus Association for the Performing Arts.

The film is a documentary, built around descriptions of the events Matt Rozell recorded in his book. I often wonder what will happen to this movie, and many other documentaries that are focused on the Holocaust, once my generation (I am 86; the liberation in Farsleben took place less than two weeks before my 6^th birthday) is no longer around. Will discussions flourish about the facts and fictions of such movies? And what can we do now to have an impact on these discussions?

Right now, in many places in the US and other countries, teaching of the Holocaust is mandatory. The US states and countries that have such laws are shown below (through AI – Google):

US states:

As of November 2024, 29 U.S. states mandate Holocaust education in public schools. These states include: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. The specific requirements and grade levels for instruction can vary by state.

Countries:

Many countries mandate Holocaust education in schools, including Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, Israel, the Netherlands, Poland, Switzerland, Sweden, parts of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. In addition, the United Arab Emirates recently became the first Middle Eastern country to mandate Holocaust education in schools.

A reasoning for the mandatory teaching is provided by UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization):

Close to 80 years after the end of the Second World War, Holocaust remembrance is increasingly fragile. While surveys reveal critical knowledge gaps and indifference among younger generations, Holocaust denial and distortion thrive online and offline amidst the rise of hate speech and the proliferation of antisemitic narratives. UNESCO is working to change that as part of its International Program on Holocaust and Genocide Education (IPHGE), implemented jointly with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and financed by the government of Canada. The program provides training opportunities for education stakeholders in Member States, who then develop context-relevant approaches to work with local education authorities and practitioners on Holocaust education pedagogy.

Although the US Holocaust Memorial Museum was part of creating the IPHGE Holocaust remembrance initiative, President Trump recently removed the US from the international program.

Expanding the scope of teaching past events—by pairing Holocaust teaching with scientifically-deduced global threats—has a good chance of having a major impact on students and teachers in future classrooms. Such pairings might be necessary to expose future generations to existing dangers for possible mitigation. However, there are serious issues with such attempts. Last week’s blog discussed some of the prerequisites for both students and teachers. Mastery of the connected topics will necessarily limit the number of students that will choose such topics.

I wrote about my experience with such limitations when I tried to advance Environmental Studies at my school (see December 28, 2021, blog on campus politics). At my school, the number of required credits for undergraduates is 128. When discussions on multidisciplinary topics such as Environmental Studies came up, voices were raised that starting multidisciplinary topics would necessarily reduce the number of students in individual departments. Since most of campus politics runs through departments, the going gets tough.

A more serious obstacle is the prospect that the high prerequisites will keep non-college graduates out of the discussion. By their nature, future threats are highly political. Teaching early choices of future threats often amounts to choices between present and uncertain future. We see the consequences now—climate change is just being removed from the agenda of the federal government, as is academic research. Future blogs will return to these issues. One of the most productive topics of pairing Holocaust Studies with future threats is being able to recognize early signs of threats that electoral victories in democratic countries can help mitigate.

In order to immortalize the idea of “never again” for global threats, we need to expand the effort beyond the academic environment. A good starting point could be to follow the efforts of Charles Bronfman and Michael Steinhardt, who formed the “Birthright Israel” effort in cooperation with the Israeli government and other Jewish organizations (now is not a great time for a call to follow the Israeli government, but hopefully, this will change),

Taglit-Birthright Israel (Hebrew: תגלית), also known as Birthright Israel or simply Birthright, is a free ten-day heritage trip to Israel, Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights for young adults of Jewish heritage between the ages of 18 and 26. The program is sponsored by the Birthright Israel Foundation, whose donors subsidize participation.

Taglit is the Hebrew word for ‘discovery’. During their trip, participants, most of whom are visiting Israel for the first time, are encouraged to discover new meaning in their personal Jewish identity and connection to Jewish history and culture.^[2]

The idea here is for the Holocaust Institute to follow the Birthright effort in attracting young people in coming generations to travel to places where real early signs of future threats are being addressed. This will include future threats that may materialize, such as nuclear wars.

The  Holocaust Institute’s Center for Prevention of Genocide already has an active program addressing early signs of genocide that were mentioned in last week’s blog:

The Early Warning Project—a partnership between the Simon-Skjodt Center and Dartmouth College—uses state-of-the-art research methods to identify countries at risk for mass atrocities.

Genocide and mass atrocities are not spontaneous. They are preceded by a range of early warning signs that, if detected, can give governments and institutions a chance to intervene before atrocities erupt.

The Early Warning Project produces a yearly ranked list of more than 160 countries based on their likelihood to experience a new mass killing. It also uses crowd forecasting tools to provide real-time updates, and produces in-depth reports on selected high-risk countries.

The Holocaust Institute already has a global traveling program that is targeted to donors. These programs are very expensive. The next two blogs will take a very specific step in that direction: using the US Holocaust Institute to facilitate travel to Hiroshima and/or Nagasaki (Bombed August 6^th and 9^th, 1945) and to either the Great Barrier Reef in Australia or the Belize Barrier Reef, examining past, future, and current destruction through two different world events (nuclear bombs and climate change-caused coral bleaching).

(Source: SecurityInfoWatch.Com)

My last blog focused on combining the teaching and research of the Holocaust with that of global threats. That blog was aspirational. It ended with a few advantages that such a pairing could bring. This blog will expand on the concept.

There is no escape from the reality that I belong to the last generation of Holocaust survivors. Next week’s blog will focus on the present mandated need—globally and in the US—to teach about the Holocaust in schools. A proper question to ask is whether fulfilling such a need is sustainable in a time when schools can no longer rely on the testimonies of survivors or liberators of the Holocaust. At a recent Holocaust conference I attended, the speaker asked his audience to raise their hands if they were Holocaust survivors. Few did. Next, he asked the same for attendees who were currently teaching about the Holocaust; more than half of the audience raised their hands. It is safe to assume that in a few years such questions will not be necessary. If the Holocaust is to be remembered by future generations, it must be paired with teaching that is directly relevant to future students (and their families).  Last week’s blog was focused on future global threats for such a pairing. This blog and next week’s will further explore such pairings.

I have another reason for such a combination. In many schools (including my own), Holocaust studies are the prerogative of the Judaic Studies department. In a recent blog (May 28, 2025), I mentioned a short visit to London that came after my return from the celebration of the 80th anniversary of my liberation by a unit of the American army. I visited two friends, international lawyers. After I described to them why we were in Europe, they asked me if my “never again” was focused on Jews or extended to everybody. Below I am including my response:

The first question that they asked me, after I described what we did in Germany, was whether my efforts to address future global threats focused on addressing future genocides of Jews, following the often-repeated line of “never again,” or whether my focus was more general. The question reminded me of some of my Jewish friends’ earlier objections to my writing that expressed reservations about my use of the term genocide based on the argument that it might have the impact of devaluing the horrors of the Holocaust.

As I wrote before, the concept of genocide was defined by Lemkin to describe the Holocaust of Jews by the Nazis in WWII and is still associated with the Holocaust. The concept now extends to the massive murder of other minorities such as the Roma and Sinti and is currently being used in the mutual blaming between supporters of Israel and Hamas within the context of the Gaza war.

In my opinion, there is a need to disconnect the teaching of the Holocaust from Judaic Studies departments and to pair it with issues of interest to general student and teacher populations.

This blog will explore the present of use of “global threats” in this context, while next week’s blog will focus on the extent of the same subject in academia.

To accomplish this objective, I decided to use AI (through Google). I am using it to summarize my distinct questions, using only the introductory paragraphs of its response. The quality of the response is my responsibility—both in terms of my questions/prompts and in the burden of catching any mistakes. All the AI responses are meant as an invitation to continue the discussion. Readers are encouraged to pursue discussions of their choice.

My extensive use of AI here is relevant also for a much more direct application. Computer Science departments are among the most sought-after in terms of students’ demand. However, AI systems are now being programmed to provide much of the computer coding, which was one of the main topics taught in many of these departments. They have adapted to this change by starting to shift to multi-disciplinary degrees. I discussed these trends in the context of teaching threats such as climate change (February 21, 2023). Below is a paragraph from that blog that summarizes the shift:

In this blog, I would like to focus on alternatives to interdisciplinary education that do not directly compete with the departmental underpinning of campus structure. All the examples in this blog will come from the school that I am most familiar with, the City University of New York (CUNY). CUNY is a multi-campus consortia institution that I’ve described earlier (September 20, 2022 or just put CUNY into the search box). CUNY’s sustainability efforts were also described earlier.

The specific examples that are paired in that blog are the Business department with STEM programs and Computer Science with community needs. The pairing of the Holocaust with Global Threat Studies would require similar changes.

The rest of the blog will focus on the AI summary of various aspects of Global Threats Studies. Two topics which will be longer than the rest are the “Connection of Global Threats with Holocaust Studies” and the prerequisites for Global Threats Studies:

AI for studying global threats (AI through Google):

AI offers powerful tools for studying global threats by analyzing vast datasets, predicting potential risks, and enhancing cybersecurity. AI can be used to identify and mitigate cyber threats, model the impact of climate change on extreme weather events, and assess the risks associated with weaponized AI. However, it’s crucial to address the ethical implications and potential misuse of AI, especially in the context of weapon development and critical infrastructure vulnerabilities.

Connecting study of global threats with Holocaust studies

Connecting the study of global threats with Holocaust studies offers powerful lessons and insights into human behavior, societal vulnerabilities, and the importance of preventing atrocities.

Here’s how these two fields can be interconnected:

• Understanding the Dynamics of Mass Violence and Global Threats:Studying the Holocaust reveals the destructive power of extremist ideologies, propaganda, and unchecked prejudice and discrimination. This understanding provides valuable insight into the causes and warning signs of other global threats, such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, or hate crimes. According to the United Nations, learning about the Holocaust can help illuminate prejudice, discrimination, and “othering” in various forms.
• Analyzing Human Behavior in Extreme Situations:Holocaust studies provide a framework for examining the complex motivations and choices of individuals and groups during times of crisis and violence. Analyzing the actions of perpetrators, victims, and bystanders during the Holocaust offers insights into human behavior that can be applied to understanding responses to global challenges like climate migration or the spread of misinformation.
• Emphasizing the Importance of Human Rights and Civic Engagement:The Holocaust exposed the fragility of human rights and the consequences of their violation. Studying this history underscores the critical need to promote and protect human rights, challenge hate speech, and encourage responsible civic engagement to build resilient societies that value human life and dignity, says the UN Chronicle.
• Highlighting the Role of Education in Prevention:Education plays a vital role in preventing future atrocities by fostering critical thinking skills, promoting empathy, and countering the spread of misinformation and intolerance. Studying the Holocaust and its contemporary relevance, including the history of antisemitism, equips individuals to identify and address similar threats in their own societies. The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) notes, that those with greater Holocaust knowledge are less likely to believe antisemitic tropes.
• Drawing Lessons from Survivor Testimonies and Experiences:Sharing the powerful voices and experiences of Holocaust survivors provides a crucial human dimension to the study of the Holocaust and global threats. Survivor stories offer invaluable lessons about resilience, the dangers of indifference, and the importance of remembering and speaking out against hatred and injustice. The USC Shoah Foundation archives hold a vast collection of Holocaust survivor testimonies, offering a living history to shape responses to prejudice and hatred.

In essence, connecting Holocaust studies with global threats provides a lens through which to understand the past and equip individuals to address present and future challenges with greater awareness, empathy, and a commitment to promoting human rights and preventing mass violence.

prerequisites for studying global threats

Successfully studying global threats is an interdisciplinary undertaking. While the specific requirements may vary slightly depending on your chosen path, here’s a general overview of the prerequisites:

1. Academic background

• Strong foundation in relevant subjects:A bachelor’s degree in fields like Political Science, International Relations, History, Economics, Geography, Environmental Studies, Computer Science, or even Psychology can provide a solid basis.
• Graduate-level education:Many positions in global threats analysis or related fields often prefer or require a master’s degree in areas such as Global Security Studies, International Security Studies, Threat Intelligence, or Risk Management.

2. Essential skills

• Analytical & Critical Thinking:The ability to analyze complex information, identify trends, draw logical conclusions, and evaluate the reliability of sources is paramount.
• Research & Data Analysis:Proficiency in collecting, interpreting, and applying various forms of data (quantitative and qualitative) is crucial.
• Communication:Effective written and verbal communication is essential to disseminate findings, present assessments, and collaborate with diverse audiences.
• Problem-Solving:The ability to identify challenges, analyze root causes, and propose innovative solutions to mitigate risks is vital.
• Technical Proficiency:Depending on the specific threat area, technical skills like data analysis tools, cybersecurity software, and programming languages (like Python) may be necessary.
• Interdisciplinary Thinking:Global threats are complex and require understanding how various factors (political, economic, environmental, technological, social) interact and influence each other.

3. Experience and knowledge

• Knowledge of the Global Landscape:Familiarity with international politics, global security issues (terrorism, cyber warfare, nuclear proliferation), international law, and cultural nuances is important.
• Experience in Related Fields:Internships or entry-level positions in areas like international affairs, intelligence analysis, cybersecurity, risk assessment, or even journalism can provide valuable practical experience.
• Foreign Language Proficiency (Optional but Advantageous):Depending on the regional focus of your studies or career, knowing a foreign language can be highly beneficial.

In summary:

Studying global threats necessitates a multi-faceted approach. While academic degrees provide the theoretical foundation, developing strong analytical, research, communication, and problem-solving skills is critical. Gaining practical experience and cultivating an understanding of the interconnected nature of global challenges will further enhance your ability to contribute meaningfully in this field.

academic centers and academic degrees in global threats

Several academic institutions offer programs and host research centers dedicated to understanding and addressing global threats. These programs typically take an interdisciplinary approach, drawing from fields like political science, international relations, economics, history, law, and even computer science and data analytics to equip students with a comprehensive understanding of the complex challenges facing the world today.

Professors of Global Threats

Several professors across different institutions focus on the study and analysis of global threats. These experts often explore topics like international security, public health, climate change, and the impact of geopolitical events. Some notable professors include those at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy, such as Emily Goldman and Elizabeth Grasmeder, who focus on security and international relations. Additionally, Professor Heidi J. Larson at The Vaccine Confidence Project studies the impact of vaccine confidence on national security.

 The next blog will shift the focus of this pairing to the present situation in universities and research institutions. 

Last week’s blog summarized the many changes that the new Trump administration is pursuing, with a sharp focus on decreasing both taxes and the federal workforce. One aspect that seems trivial to many is the attention being given to changing names. This blog focuses on these changes, starting with the federal government and ending with my own hope for change:

Below is an AI summary (through Google) of proposed name changes by the Trump administration:

The Trump administration, through executive orders and proposals, has focused on renaming several entities and locations to emphasize a concept of “American Greatness” and to align with what it perceives as historical accuracy and national priorities.

Key examples of these renaming proposals include:

• Geographic features:
  • Gulf of Mexico to Gulf of America: President Trump signed an executive order directing this name change, according to Congress.govand the Department of the Interior (.gov).
  • Denali to Mount McKinley: The administration also sought to restore the name Mount McKinley to the highest peak in North America, reverting from the Denali name recognized by the Obama administration.
• Naval vessels: The administration proposed changing the names of certain Navy ships, including those named after figures like Harvey Milk, Thurgood Marshall, Harriet Tubman, and César Chávez, to better reflect the commander-in-chief’s priorities, national history, and warrior ethos.
• Sports teams: President Trump has advocated for the Washington Commanders to change their name back to the Washington Redskins and for the Cleveland Guardians to revert to the Cleveland Indians.
• Kennedy Center Opera House:

House Republicans have proposed renaming the Kennedy Center’s Opera House after Melania Trump.

It’s important to note that some of these renaming efforts have generated controversy and legal challenges.

To add to the list, we can include:

• MAGA refers to regaining greatness based on cherry-picked pieces of the past, which sometimes involves going against the Constitution
• No renaming of climate change is needed because it “doesn’t exist”
• The administration wants to revert the names of military bases that were renamed in 2023 to remove references to the Confederacy

The reasons for the proposed name changes are not provided. In many cases they are not needed. The president of the US, with congressional support, has enough power at least to start discussions on the changes.

I have my own recent renaming wishes to account for: I am a new member of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, which has only one unit that is primarily focused on future lessons from the Holocaust – The Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocide; I would prefer that they adjust the name to The Simon-Skjodt Center for the Prevention of Genocides and Global Threats.

The rest of the blog will focus on the background of this wish:

My Holocaust experience had two stages: The first stage was my early childhood (0 – 6 years old) during WWII, during which I survived in the Warsaw Ghetto and the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, and was liberated by the American army on April 13, 1945, in a place near Farsleben, Germany. This background is the reason that I am often referred to as a “Holocaust survivor” and the American soldiers that liberated us on April 13^th are called “liberators.” I never liked the “survivor” name because I didn’t put any work into deserving it (my parents did!) but the American soldiers fully deserved their “title.” I have written repeatedly on this phase of my life in this blog, starting with my first post, 13 years ago. The second stage of my Holocaust experience started in 2007, when I received an email from Bergen-Belsen to have a look at Matt Rozell’s blog. I did, and immediately followed up by calling Matt and traveling with my wife to San Diego, to meet George Gross, one of the tank commanders with the 30^th Infantry Division of the American army that directly participated in our liberation. Gross happened to carry with him a low-cost camera to “immortalize” the event. I wrote about these events as well. The last blog that I wrote on this phase was on May 21, 2025, following my visit celebrating 80 years since the liberation. Less than two years ago, I retired from my teaching position and, appropriately, am now trying to figure out what to do.

During my university teaching I focused on global threats, with an emphasis on climate change. In my active academic work, I made sure to teach about current and future global threats in the context of past ones, with an emphasis on the Holocaust. My background gave me “license” to use the connection. I am a member of the last generation of Holocaust survivors; I would like to preserve this past-future connection in the best way I can.

I am trying to make productive contact with the Center for the Prevention of Genocide within the Holocaust Museum. Originally, I was trying to focus on writing and giving talks expanding upon the main context of Holocaust memory embedded in the iconic two words, “never again,” which connect the future (never) with the past (again). Because of my professional background, my focus was on climate change. For this purpose, I coined the term “self-inflicted genocide” to describe the prospect of unmitigated climate change, with its predicted consequences in the near future, which I defined as the end of the century (“now,” in my jargon). I was trying to integrate this within the charter of the Center for the Prevention of Genocide by expanding its efforts to include global threats caused by anthropogenic environmental changes that result in major deaths. However, the Israel-Hamas war seems to be politicizing the concept of genocide (see my blog June 4th blog, “Learning From a Five-year-old: Destruction Can Lead to Better Construction!“), which makes an obstacle for genocide prevention. The main goal of an institution such as the Holocaust Museum is preserving the memory of the Holocaust for future generations. The main output of the Center for the Prevention of Genocide is a list of countries in which genocide is an issue.

I summarized what I mean by future threats in a previous blog, “What Are We Trying to Teach Our Children?”(June 11, 2024). Below is the central paragraph of that blog:

Humanity is in the middle of at least 5 existential transitions; all of these started around WWII. They include climate change, nuclear energy, declining fertility, global electrification, and digitization. These transitions started around the time that I was born, but they will hopefully last (if some of them do not lead to extinction in the meantime) at least through the lifetime of my grandchildren (I call this time “now” in some of my writing). For the purpose of this blog, I will now change the word “hopefully” to probably.

One can add to the list other threats such as the 10 Fastest Dying Cities in the United States.

The addition of “Global Threats” to the name of the Center for the Prevention of Genocide might inspire a similar expansion in Holocaust Studies programs in educational institutes. This would likely achieve some of the objectives that are listed below:

1. Expansion of career paths for graduates. One example is Fiona Hill. For more examples you can ask your favorite AI.
2. Expansion of the prerequisites of teachers and researchers in these topics to include STEM graduates
3. Expansion of potential donations to such centers
4. Provide rationale for Holocaust studies to future generations

Similar to other renaming efforts, the future will tell if we succeed or fail! 

(Source: MSN: Cartoons: The Latest Editorial Cartoons From John Cole)

Before starting this blog, I thought that I needed to invent a new English word – “defederation,” to mean the destruction of a federal structure. A short search showed that it already exists:

1. To cease to be united in a federation.

I found John Cole’s cartoon the most appropriate way to mark the transition away from previous blogs that were focused on the “12-Day War” and Israel’s connection to the various wars in the Middle East that are still the center of attention for many of us. The nuclear threat just shifted focus away from that area and back to the Ukraine-Russia war when Russia threatened to drop nuclear weapons on Kyiv and Lviv (Russia warns of nuclear Armageddon after Trump’s latest Ukraine move).

Following the cartoon, I am shifting my attention back to the US to focus on the new (6 months or so) Trump administration’s attempts to hollow out the federal structure of our government. This includes gutting its federal work-force and removing the US from the pseudo-federal structure of the world that goes by the name of “globalization.” I use “defederation” for both efforts.

It seems that President Trump is shrinking the Executive branch of the federal government, except for the office of the presidency, and is making the other two branches (Legislative and Judiciary), obsolete! Some of his efforts seem designed to force the world to learn how to conduct their affairs without the United States’ participation. This makes the United States—and the rest of the world—poorer.

John Cole’s cartoon is insightful, especially the “date” or time period on the side of the Trump plane (the “24/7/365 war”) and the list of some of the things that the Trump administration is aiming to destroy. I would also add a “global future” cluster bomb to his collection, which would include smaller bombs for deportation, science, climate change, global DEI, epidemics, the American Constitution, the weaponization of tariffs, etc. Most of these apply to the US, some globally.

Many of these “bombs” are strongly connected; I will expand on these connections in future blogs. The “bombing” is not limited to within the US territories such that the damages might be reversed in the next election. It contains major global components that might outlive the present American administration. An important global trend, which mainly impacts developed countries, is the global decline in fertility—in many places, below replacement value. This trend started way before Trump took office the first time and most likely will outlast this administration. This trend also takes place in the US, but the US population is still increasing, mainly due to immigration. About 20% of the population in the US is foreign-born (including myself and some of my family). Many of the immigrants are here illegally, but willing to work hard in low-paying jobs that native-born Americans stay away from. Massive deportation of these immigrants is having major impacts on important segments of the American economy (agriculture, hospitality, etc.). The federated structure of the US is constitutionally mandated, including the separation of powers with the states. The specific responsibilities of the federated power are defense and foreign affairs. However, it also acts as glue between the states, making all of us responsible for each other’s well being, independent of the states that we reside in.

It is appropriate to compare efforts to shrink the federal government to a more common phenomenon of shrinking businesses, which, in many cases leads to closing businesses. I will use two examples: Intel and Amazon. Both are important members of the US tech industry, and show that even high-tech companies are not immune:

Intel

Intel is now axing thousands of technicians and engineers in sweeping US layoffs, cutting 4,000 positions in the US, 2,392 in Oregon, etc.:

Intel this month officially began to cut down its workforce in the U.S. and other countries, thus revealing actual numbers of positions to be cut. The Oregonian reports that the company will cut as many as 2,392 positions in Oregon and around 4,000 positions across its American operations, including Arizona, California, and Texas.

To put the 2,392 number into context, Intel is the largest employer in Oregon with around 20,000 of workers there. 2,392 is around 12% of the workforce, which is a lower end of layoff expectations, yet 2,400 is still a lot of people. The Oregon reduction rose sharply from an initial count of around 500 to a revised figure of 2,392, making it one of the largest layoffs in the state’s history. Intel began reducing staff earlier in the week but confirmed the larger number by Friday evening through a filing with Oregon state authorities.

Amazon

The removal of foreign workers is having a major impact:

They are among thousands of foreign workers across the country who have been swept up in a quiet purge, pushed out of jobs in places where their labor was in high demand and at times won high praise. While raids to nab undocumented workers in fields and Home Depot parking lots have grabbed attention, the job dismissals at the Amazon warehouse are part of the Trump administration’s effort to thin the ranks of immigrants who had legal authorization to work.

However, businesses usually shrink their workforce to increase their profitability, the ultimate yardstick for commercial success. If such a shrinkage doesn’t increase profitability and it continues to decline, there is a high probability the business will end up closing. The declared function of government is to provide services to its citizens. In democratic governments, failure to provide such agreed-upon services will lead to election losses and a change of government. The missed direct advantage of democracies, compared to autocratic governments, is that you can go through such a government change peacefully (see my November 12, 2024 blog mentioning Karl Popper and The Open Society and its Enemies). My next blog will focus on the direct advantages of federated democratic governments, over non-federated ones.

As I started to write this blog, I noticed an interesting “coincident.” Reading my morning paper (NYT), the world seems to be falling apart. At the same time, the US stock market seems to be having a “great time.” The articles that caught my attention are listed below:

Opinion | Europe Is Terrifyingly Hot, and Its Leaders Are Doing Worse Than Nothing – The New York Times

Opinion | ‘He’s Nuts, Your Trump.’ Canada Unites Against America. – The New York Times

Opinion | There’s Still Hope for PEPFAR – The New York Times​

Brothers in Arms: Macron, Merz and Starmer Plan for a Post-U.S. Future | The New York Times

All four strongly point out how the world is trying to adapt to times without the US, at least as long as “Make America Great Again” rules. It’s a great topic to pursue. Stay tuned.

(Source: reddit)

I am writing this blog as a continuation of last week’s blog, “The Power and Fear Motivating the Acquisition of Nuclear Weapons,” which focused on the 7 largest nuclear weapons holders. This blog will focus on North Korea and Israel—the two smallest holders—and the group of countries that comes under the definition of “threshold states.”

North Korea and Israel’s direct paths to nuclear weapons were shown in last week’s blog. Below, I am adding some background:

North Korea

To understand Korea’s drift toward nuclear weapons, we have to start with its split into two different countries (Korean conflict – Wikipedia):

The Korean conflict is an ongoing conflict based on the division of Korea between North Korea (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) and South Korea (Republic of Korea), both of which claim to be the sole legitimate government of all of Korea. During the Cold War, North Korea was backed by the Soviet Union, China, and other communist allies, while South Korea was backed by the United States, United Kingdom, and other Western allies.The division of Korea by the United States and the Soviet Union occurred in 1945 after the defeat of Japan ended Japanese rule of Korea, and both superpowers created separate governments in 1948. Tensions erupted into the Korean War, which lasted from 1950 to 1953. When the war ended, both countries were devastated, but the division remained. North and South Korea continued a military standoff, with periodic clashes. The conflict survived the end of the Cold War and is still ongoing. It is now considered one of the 10 frozen conflicts of the world and is considered one of the oldest, along with the Sino-Taiwanese conflict.

North Korea felt isolated; the support that it got from the communist world during the Cold War was far from enthusiastic. The relative success of South Korea in improving the lives of its citizens was overwhelming. North Korea’s autocratic government felt the need for nuclear weapons to protect it from attempts to overtake it by South Korea and its Western allies. Below is a short summary of the history of their acquisition of the weapon (North Korea and weapons of mass destruction – Wikipedia):

For a chronological guide, see Timeline of the North Korean nuclear program.North Korea showed an interest in developing nuclear weapons as early as the 1950s.^[11] The nuclear program can be traced back to about 1962, when North Korea committed itself to what it called “all-fortressization”, which was the beginning of the hyper-militarized North Korea of today.^[12] In 1963, North Korea asked the Soviet Union for help in developing nuclear weapons, but was refused. The Soviet Union agreed to help North Korea develop a peaceful nuclear energy program, including the training of nuclear scientists. Later, China, after its nuclear tests, similarly rejected North Korean requests for help with developing nuclear weapons.^[13]

As we will see shortly, South Korea is one of the “threshold states” and the movement of information between North and South Korea was not insurmountable.

Israel

A few additional selected paragraphs are given below from one of the AI sources mentioned in last week’s blog regarding Israel’s path to nuclear weapons (Nuclear weapons and Israel – Wikipedia):

Before Dimona, 1949–1956Israel’s first prime minister David Ben-Gurion was “nearly obsessed” with obtaining nuclear weapons to prevent the Holocaust from reoccurring. He stated, “What Einstein, Oppenheimer, and Teller, the three of them are Jews, made for the United States, could also be done by scientists in Israel, for their own people.”^[37] Ben-Gurion decided to recruit Jewish scientists from abroad even before the end of the 1948 Arab–Israeli War that established Israel’s independence. He and others, such as head of the Weizmann Institute of Science and defense ministry scientist Ernst David Bergmann, believed and hoped that Jewish scientists such as Oppenheimer and Teller would help Israel.^[38]

Threshold States

In addition to the 9 countries that are known to have nuclear weapons, the top figure in last week’s blog showed countries that “want” nuclear weapons. These include South Africa, Iran, Germany, Poland, Japan, and South Korea. The top map of this blog includes under the category of “nuclear-threshold states” the following countries: South Africa, Australia, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Iran, and Canada. Well, I asked AI (through Google) to define “threshold states” and list them. This is what I got:

The countries generally recognized as having nuclear weapons are the United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. “Threshold” countries are those that are believed to have the technical capacity to quickly develop nuclear weapons but have not yet done so. Here’s a breakdown:Nuclear Weapons States:United States, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. Nuclear Threshold States (Examples):

• • • • Iran:Has a nuclear program and is considered by many to be a threshold state. 
      • Japan:Has advanced nuclear technology and the potential to develop weapons quickly. 
      • South Korea:A close ally of the US with a strong industrial base and potential nuclear capabilities. 
      • Canada:Has advanced nuclear technology and a history of nuclear research. 
      • Germany:A technologically advanced nation with nuclear power plants and expertise. 
      • Taiwan:A close US ally with concerns about China’s military buildup. 
      • South Africa:Once had nuclear weapons but dismantled its program. 
      • Brazil:Has the technical capability and resources to develop nuclear weapons.

It is important that the list calls these examples, meaning that they do not necessarily include all the relevant countries. However, the only country in the list that doesn’t show on either of the maps is Taiwan.

To put this discussion into context, President Trump just threatened that if Brazil does not stop the “witch hunt trial” of his friend and its ex-president, Jair Bolsonaro, he will impose a 50% tariff on the country (Trump threatens 50% tariffs on Brazil if it doesn’t stop the Bolsonaro ‘witch hunt’ trial | CNN Business). He has forgotten (or doesn’t know) that Brazil is listed on more than one source as a threshold state.

I was hoping that by now the Israel-Gaza war would have subsided, which for some time now has seemed imminent, especially after Prime Minister Netanyahu’s recent visit to Washington. This doesn’t look like it is happening. In the next blog, I will return to other global and local threats, starting with some of the impacts of the major changes the Trump administration is initiating.

The world’s nuclear-armed states are beefing up their atomic arsenals and walking out of arms control pacts, a think tank has said. A new arms race is emerging after decades of reductions in the stockpiles since the Cold War, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). It comes amid escalating tensions between Israel, one of the world’s nuclear powers, and Iran. Israel said it bombed Iran over the past week to stop it from being able to produce nuclear weapons. Here, The i Paper takes a look at the countries with nuclear weapons and how dangerous they are.

Figure 1 – Global nuclear weapons (Source: MSN)

The timing of the acquisitions:

US (1945); Soviet Union (1949); UK (1952); France (1960); China (1964); India (1974); Pakistan (1998); North Korea (2006); Israel (estimated 1960s).

One interesting insight into the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) map shown above—especially looking at the timing—is the clearly paired relationship between many of these countries. This strongly suggests that fear is a dominant motive for acquiring nuclear weapons. Fear is often a binary power. The transparent pairs are the US and Russia, the UK and France, and India and Pakistan. The seeming exception to this motivation is the pairing of UK and France; here, fear seems like less of a catalyst than leading Europe’s alliance with the US in the fight against the Soviet Union (now Russia).

Two recent blogs that were posted during or immediately after the recent “12-day war” between Iran, Israel, and the US (none of the three declared this deadly “encounter” a war), mentioned two alleged Israeli doctrines that played important roles in triggering the events. One was the Begin Doctrine (June 18, 2025 blog), which states that Israel will destroy any effort to produce nuclear weapons by a country with a declared objective to destroy it as a “Jewish State.” Meanwhile, the “Samson Option” (July 2, 2025 blog), is an alleged Israeli army doctrine that will use nuclear weapons in case all other defense options appear to fail. Neither of these two “doctrines” has ever been stated as an official policy.

The results of the “12-day war,” in terms of Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons, are still controversial. The latest “objective” assessment is given below:

The head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog says US strikes on Iran fell short of causing total damage to its nuclear program and that Tehran could restart enriching uranium “in a matter of months,” contradicting President Donald Trump’s claims the US set Tehran’s ambitions back by decades.

Iran’s efforts to produce nuclear weapons didn’t start with the present Ayatollah’s regime. The outline of the beginning of its efforts is summarized below by AI (through Google):

Iran’s nuclear weapons program, known as Project Amad, is believed to have begun in the late 1990s and early 2000s. This program aimed to develop and acquire weapons-grade nuclear material, test nuclear weapon components, and plan for the construction of a nuclear weapon. While Iran’s nuclear ambitions began earlier, with the establishment of a nuclear research program in the 1950s with US assistance, the transition to a weapons-focused program is what began in the late 90s/early 2000s.

As was mentioned above, it’s still too early to accurately predict the impacts of the “12-day war”—on Iran’s ability to produce nuclear weapons, nuclear spread in the Middle East, and more broadly, globally. However, it’s not too early to try to analyze the timing and pathways to nuclear weapons by the nine countries shown in the FAS figure at the top of this blog that are known to have these weapons. I followed the two smallest countries in the figure through AI (Microsoft Copilot) and imposed an analysis based on the better-known history of the other seven countries. The basic assumption here is that aside from the US Manhattan Project, which required the development of the weapon from pure scientific theory (mostly dominated by German scientists), many of the other programs were able to build somewhat on those developments—largely through espionage. From there, the methods that Israel and North Korea used were “borrowed” from the knowledge of the bigger holders. The AI summary of the nuclear developments of Israel and North Korea is summarized below:

Israel and North Korea took very different paths to nuclear capability—one shrouded in secrecy, the other marked by defiance. Here’s a breakdown of how each country acquired nuclear weapons:

Israel: The Path of Secrecy and Strategic Ambiguity

Israel has never officially confirmed possessing nuclear weapons, but it’s widely believed to maintain a substantial arsenal. Its approach is known as “nuclear opacity.”

• Origins: Israel began exploring nuclear science shortly after its founding in 1948. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion was deeply committed to developing a deterrent, partly shaped by the trauma of the Holocaust.
• French Collaboration: In the late 1950s, France secretly helped Israel build the Dimona nuclear reactor in the Negev desert. This facility became the heart of Israel’s weapons program.

Plutonium Production: Israel is believed to have produced weapons-grade plutonium at Dimona, enabling it to build warheads without conducting public tests.

• Espionage and Covert Operations: Allegations persist that Israel may have acquired nuclear materials from abroad, including a suspected diversion of uranium from a U.S. facility in the 1960s.
• Estimated Arsenal: Experts estimate Israel has between 90 and 400 nuclear warheads, deployable via aircraft, submarines, and ballistic missiles.
• Policy: Israel has not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and maintains a doctrine of preventive strikes, as seen in its attacks on nuclear facilities in Iraq and Syria.

North Korea: The Path of Defiance and Isolation

North Korea’s nuclear journey has been marked by international confrontation and withdrawal from global treaties.

• Early Interest: North Korea began pursuing nuclear technology in the 1950s, initially with Soviet assistance for peaceful purposes.
• Yongbyon Complex: By the 1980s, North Korea had developed the Yongbyon nuclear facility, which became central to its weapons program.
• Withdrawal from NPT: In 2003, North Korea became the first country to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, citing U.S. threats.
• Nuclear Tests: It conducted its first nuclear test in 2006, followed by five more, including a thermonuclear test in 2017.

Fissile Material: North Korea produces plutonium and highly enriched uranium, with enough material for up to 90 warheads, though it’s believed to have assembled around 50.

• • • • • Delivery Systems: It has developed a range of ballistic missiles, including intercontinental missiles capable of reaching the U.S..
        • Current Status: Kim Jong Un continues to expand the arsenal, with new enrichment facilities and missile tests defying UN sanctions.

The five references that were used by the AI to produce this summary are given below:

Nuclear weapons and Israel – Wikipedia

Fact Sheet: Israel’s Nuclear Inventory – Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

North Korea and weapons of mass destruction – Wikipedia

North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons and Missile Programs – Congressional Research Service 

Kim Jong Un Quietly Advances North Korea’s Nuclear Program – Newsweek

Five of the nine countries shown in Figure 1 possess veto powers in the decisions of the security council that guarantee their central role in world affairs. This was not always the case:

On October 25, 1971, the UN General Assembly passed United Nations Resolution 2758 (XXVI) which stated that the People’s Republic of China is the only legitimate government of China. The resolution replaced the ROC with the PRC as a permanent member of the Security Council in the United Nations.

ROC refers to the Republic of China, the official name of Taiwan, and PRC refers to the People’s Republic of China, or China “proper,” which until recently (2023) had the largest global population.

As can be seen in the timing above, the UN resolution to replace ROC with PRC in the UN security council came well after 1949, the year that the PRC won control of the Chinese government. The resolution came after China acquired atomic weapons in 1964. China had some problems in the 1960s but they were mostly internal. Nuclear weapons couldn’t solve any of them. China wanted international respect and power. With the 1971 UN resolution, they got both.

Anybody who saw the recent movie “Oppenheimer” learned important aspects of the history of nuclear weapons. The development of the first atomic bomb, and its only deadly use in war setting, took place by the US during WWII via the Manhattan Project. The direct motivation was fear that Germany was already pursuing such development.

Important aspects of that fear are summarized by AI (through Google):

The fear that Nazi Germany was actively pursuing an atomic bomb was a primary motivator for the Manhattan Project. Fueled by reports of German nuclear research and the escape of scientists from Europe, including Albert Einstein, who warned President Roosevelt, the US initiated the top-secret project to develop nuclear weapons before Germany could. This fear, coupled with the potential for such a devastating weapon, drove the unprecedented mobilization of scientific and industrial resources.

• German Nuclear Research:

In 1938, German scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann discovered nuclear fission, the process that could potentially be used to create an atomic bomb. This discovery, along with reports of ongoing German research, raised serious concerns in the United States.

• Einstein’s Warning:

In 1939, Albert Einstein, along with Leo Szilard, wrote a letter to President Roosevelt, urging him to take action and begin research into nuclear weapons before Germany could.

The aftermath of WWII put the power of the US and its allies (the West) in direct competition with the Soviet Union and its allies (the East). The rest of the world was still far behind. Once the US demonstrated the impact of the nuclear bomb with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945, fear took over and the Soviet Union mobilized all its resources (mainly spying) to master the technology. They were able to explode the first one in 1949. The Soviet Union became Russia in the 1990s. As the figure shows, the US and Russia keep the balance of fear between them. Western Europe still largely relies on the US nuclear umbrella to protect them from Russia. However, since many Europeans did participate in the Manhattan project, UK and France decided to develop their own capabilities. They needed more power to keep the balance with the US.

Meanwhile, once China developed its nuclear weapons and got the power and respect that those confer, India followed suit:

India’s loss to China in a brief Himalayan border war in October 1962, provided the New Delhi government impetus for developing nuclear weapons as a means of deterring potential Chinese aggression.^[32] By 1964 India was in a position to develop nuclear weapons.^[33] Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri opposed developing nuclear weapons but fell under intense political pressure, including elements within the ruling Indian National Congress. India was also unable to obtain security guarantees from either the United States or the Soviet Union. As a result, Shastri announced that India would pursue the capability of what it called “peaceful nuclear explosions” that could be weaponized in the future.^[26]

Three years before the first test of India’s nuclear bomb, East Pakistan split from West Pakistan to form the independent country of Bangladesh. India played a key role in the process. Below is a short AI (through Google) summary of the Indian involvement in the Bangladesh Liberation War:

India played a crucial role in the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971, providing military, diplomatic, and humanitarian support to the Bangladeshi independence movement. This support ultimately led to the defeat of Pakistan and the creation of Bangladesh.

The tension between India and Pakistan continues, mainly focusing on the divided area of Kashmir and the treatment of the large Muslim minority in India (approaching 200 million or about 15% of the population). It took some time, but in 1998 Pakistan announced its own nuclear weapons, becoming the only Muslim-governed country shown in the figure to have such capability. Fear was the main motive. In the recent “12-day war,” Iranian voices could be heard saying that if Israel were to use nuclear weapons against Iran, Pakistan would retaliate. Almost at the same time as this announcement took place, Pakistan recommended that President Trump be this year’s recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The last two countries that are shown in the figure to posses nuclear weapons are Israel and North Korea. What distinguishes them from the rest of the possessors is that while their fear was existential, it came from overwhelming hostile conventional powers rather than nuclear power. Next week’s blog will focus on their road to nuclear weapons and the extension of the “holders” map to “thresholders” map (see last week’s blog) that includes Iran.

Figure 1 – Map of nuclear reactors and weapons in the Middle East (Source: DiaNuke.org)

Last week’s blog ended with the following short paragraph:

A ceasefire was declared on the day before posting. Next week’s blog will focus on some of the war consequences and on the question of whether this constitutes the beginning of the first nuclear war following the bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

The top figure in this blog is taken from an end-of-2017 article that shows the resurgence of nuclear power in the Middle East and asks if this resurgence is aimed at the development of nuclear weapons.

I asked AI (through Microsoft CoPilot) whether the recent Israeli-Iran war can be considered a nuclear war. Below is the answer that I got:

Despite the intense focus on nuclear facilities during the recent Israel-Iran conflict, it cannot be classified as a nuclear war—at least not in the traditional sense.

A nuclear war typically involves the use or detonation of nuclear weapons, which did not occur in this case. What did happen was a series of precision strikes by Israel and the U.S. on Iranian nuclear infrastructure, including sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. These attacks were aimed at crippling Iran’s nuclear capabilities, not unleashing nuclear devastation.

Iran retaliated with ballistic missile strikes on Israeli cities, and while the conflict was destructive—with hundreds of casualties—it remained conventional in terms of weaponry. There was no reported nuclear fallout, and the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed no increase in off-site radiation levels.

That said, some analysts are calling this a “threshold war”—a chilling new category where a nuclear-armed state (Israel) uses conventional force to prevent another state (Iran) from crossing the nuclear threshold. It’s a dangerous precedent, but still distinct from an actual nuclear exchange.

My following question was: Can I count with positive numbers only? This was the answer:

If you’re doing something like accounting, physics, or data science though, negative numbers are useful for showing things like loss, direction, or comparison. 

Israel’s nuclear capacity plays an important role in the balance of power of the Middle East. At the beginning of the Yom Kippur War, the Israeli situation didn’t look good. A story is still circulating that Golda Meir, in her meetings with Henry Kissinger, threatened to retaliate with nuclear weapons. Here is what AI (through Google) “thinks” about it:

While Golda Meir and Henry Kissinger had many meetings, sources suggest that discussions about Israel’s nuclear program and the use of nuclear weapons were primarily held in a highly secretive manner, particularly between Golda Meir and President Nixon, with Kissinger being involved in the policy review and implementation.

Here’s what the search results suggest about their involvement:

• • • • 1969 Nuclear Understanding: In a private meeting with Golda Meir in September 1969, President Nixon and Meir reportedly reached a “nuclear understanding” where Israel agreed to keep its nuclear weapons under wraps, and the U.S. would not press the issue or ask further questions about it. Kissinger was involved in developing the policy options for Nixon regarding Israel’s nuclear program and recommended discussing the issue with Meir.
      • Kissinger’s Memo to Nixon: A memo from Kissinger to Nixon in July 1969 outlines the U.S. goals regarding the Israeli nuclear program, which included preventing Israel from visibly introducing nuclear weapons and getting them to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Kissinger also notes that a secret Israeli nuclear arsenal is dangerous, but public knowledge of it is also dangerous due to potential international repercussions.
      • The Nixon-Meir Deal: A memo from Kissinger indicates that Nixon emphasized to Meir during their private discussion that the U.S.’s primary concern was that the Israelis make no visible introduction of nuclear weapons or undertake a nuclear test program. This agreement was likely the basis for the U.S.’s continued silence on Israel’s nuclear program.

This AI summary is focused on 1969, during the Israeli War of Attrition, from 1967-1970, which almost immediately followed the Six Day War. The Yom Kippur War started on October 6, 1973.

About the threat of using nuclear weapons, AI (through Google) added the following:

There’s no confirmed evidence that Golda Meir ever directly threatened to use nuclear weapons. However, the concept of the “Samson Option,” a deterrence strategy involving massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a last resort, is associated with Israeli military doctrine and has been discussed in the context of Israel’s security concerns. While Meir’s government was involved in developing Israel’s nuclear capabilities, there’s no public record of her explicitly threatening to use them.

Figure 2 describes the global distribution of nuclear power plants. We can see that the sunny Middle East (grouped here with Africa) has way fewer nuclear power plants than anywhere else in the world. However, the Israel-Iran war is reminding all of us that in many countries nuclear power plants are a first step toward developing nuclear weapons.

Figure 2 – Distribution of nuclear power plants (Source: World Finance)

Table 1 shows where Iran and Israel stand in agreements and treaties regarding multilateral weapons of global mass destruction.

Table 1 – Major Multilateral Weapons of Mass Destruction Agreements and Treaties (Source: EUIdeas)

NPT – Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty

Wassenaar Arrangement – Multilateral export control regime focused on promoting transparency and responsibility in the international transfer of conventional and dual-use goods and technologies.

Future blogs will focus on the prospect that the Middle East might be the testing ground for a nuclear confrontation that not only aims to limit membership to the “nuclear club” but also experiments with actual use of the weapons.