International Security: Prospects for Arms Control
Say no to a resumption of explosive nuclear weapons tests
Current Nuclear Testing Context: In late 2024 the UN General Assembly recently approved a study on the global effects of nuclear war, but major nuclear powers like Russia, France, and the UK opposed it, while the US, Israel, Iran and North Korea abstained. It’s not unusual for nuclear-armed nations resist such studies, fearing they could erode public support for nuclear deterrence and reveal devastating impacts of nuclear weapons.
Scientific Evidence and Testing History: Since 1992, the US has maintained its nuclear arsenal without explosive testing, having conducted 1,054 tests prior to the voluntary halt. Modern supercomputer capabilities and component testing make explosive nuclear testing unnecessary for maintaining stockpile reliability. Many former heads of the US nuclear weapons laboratories have testified to this fact based not only the the advanced computing capabilities but the accumulated data from previous tests.
Current Challenges: The past decade has seen declining confidence in arms control agreements, with US-Russian strategic arms negotiations frozen. On November 2, 2023 President Vladimir Putin signed a law withdrawing the Russia’s ratification of the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) citing the US Congress’s failure to ratify since 1992. As of today, the treaty has not yet entered into force because not all countries listed in Annex 2 have ratified it. Nonetheless, all nuclear weapons powers have observed it. North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) the last nuclear test conducted by North Korea was in 2017 the sixth it has conducted thus far.
Key Conclusions: There is no technical or security requirement for explosive nuclear testing, as the US labs annually certify stockpile reliability without such tests. Resuming nuclear testing would serve only as political posturing and could damage US international standing while potentially triggering testing by other nations.
Since 1992, the US has maintained its nuclear arsenal without explosive testing, having conducted 1,054 tests prior to the voluntary halt. Modern supercomputer capabilities and component testing make explosive nuclear testing unnecessary for maintaining stockpile reliability. Development of new weapons designs also does not require explosive nuclear tests.
It is important for the UN to complete it’s newly embarked upon study of the effects of nuclear war even though nuclear weapons nations may resist such studies.
Read the full article on my blog posts/ here and consider subscribing to my free monthly newsletter Ariadne on Substack
European Nuclear Forces
Pathways to European denuclearization
Science
The Double Helix: The Mona Lisa of Science
Reconstruction of the original Watson-Crick DNA double helix model
Double Helix Model of DNA
Molecular Models
No molecule in the history of science has achieved the iconic status of DNA. Since it’s discovery in 1953. Leonardo da Vinci’s La Giaconda, familiarly known as the Mona Lisa, has been related by art historian Martin Kemp to the now iconic double helix of the DNA molecule in terms of capturing both admiration for how they were created and for their enigmatic appeal—the Mona Lisa for her smile and the entrancing symmetry of the DNA double helix. Both works interweave both art and science, which includes how they were created. Also, both are the subject of tales, though very different, of theft, forgery and attribution.
Turnip Mosaic Virus
Leonardo’s meticulous craftsmanship in creating La Giaconda is mirrored in the precision of nature’s genetic code, where the elegant structure of DNA unfolds as a testament to the inherent beauty of science. The comparison highlights the interplay between art and science, emphasizing the common thread of creativity that binds these seemingly distinct domains.
Art historian Martin Kemp draws an unexpected parallel between the symmetry of the DNA molecule and the mysterious qualities of Leonardo da Vinci’s masterwork, La Giaconda, commonly known as the Mona Lisa, drawing a facinating comparison between these two otherwise unrelated iconic objects, both admired for their beauty and the techniques used in their creation. (Kemp, 2006).
As we delve into the genesis of these masterpieces, parallels emerge in the mysterious narratives surrounding their creation. Leonardo’s techniques, such as sfumato, contribute to the elusive charm of La Giaconda, mirroring the intricate dance between light and shadow on a canvas that rivals the complexity of DNA’s double helix structure (Kemp, 2006). The artistic process and scientific discovery converge in their shared pursuit of understanding the enigmatic aspects of existence.
Moreover, both La Giaconda and the DNA molecule have become the protagonists in tales of intrigue and controversy. The theft, forgery, and attribution surrounding these works add layers of complexity to their narratives. La Giaconda, famously stolen from the Louvre in 1911, became the centerpiece of an international art mystery before being recovered in 1914 (Farago, 2019). In the scientific realm, controversies surrounding the discovery of DNA’s structure involved clashes over attribution, most notably the heated debate between James Watson and Rosalind Franklin (Maddox, 2002).
The entwined histories of these masterpieces unfold in chapters that bridge the realms of art and science, showcasing the enduring allure of human creativity. Leonardo da Vinci’s La Giaconda and the DNA molecule, though separated by centuries and disciplines, converge in their ability to evoke wonder, mystery, and fascination—testaments to the enduring interplay between artistic expression and scientific inquiry.
“Leonardo da Vinci’s La Giaconda has been compared by art historian Martin Kemp to the inow iconic beautiful symmetry of the DNA molecule. Additionally, both works are enigmatic in ways that interweave art and science and obscure how they were created. Also, both are the subject of tales, though very different, of theft, forgery and attribution.”
In the realm of artistic and scientific brilliance, the enigmatic nature of Leonardo da Vinci’s masterpiece, La Giaconda, finds an unexpected parallel in the iconic symmetry of the DNA molecule. Art historian Martin Kemp draws an intriguing connection between these two seemingly disparate realms, noting the captivating beauty and symmetry that captivates observers in both instances (Kemp, 2006).
Leonardo’s meticulous craftsmanship in creating La Giaconda is mirrored in the precision of nature’s genetic code, where the elegant structure of DNA unfolds as a testament to the inherent beauty of science. The comparison highlights the interplay between art and science, emphasizing the common thread of creativity that binds these seemingly distinct domains.
As we delve into the genesis of these masterpieces, parallels emerge in the mysterious narratives surrounding their creation. Leonardo’s techniques, such as sfumato, contribute to the elusive charm of La Giaconda, mirroring the intricate dance between light and shadow on a canvas that rivals the complexity of DNA’s double helix structure (Kemp, 2006). The artistic process and scientific discovery converge in their shared pursuit of understanding the enigmatic aspects of existence.
Moreover, both La Giaconda and the DNA molecule have become the protagonists in tales of intrigue and controversy. The theft, forgery, and attribution surrounding these works add layers of complexity to their narratives. La Giaconda, famously stolen from the Louvre in 1911, became the centerpiece of an international art mystery before being recovered in 1914 (Farago, 2019). In the scientific realm, controversies surrounding the discovery of DNA’s structure involved clashes over attribution, most notably the heated debate between James Watson and Rosalind Franklin (Maddox, 2002).
The entwined histories of these masterpieces unfold in chapters that bridge the realms of art and science, showcasing the enduring allure of human creativity. Leonardo da Vinci’s La Giaconda and the DNA molecule, though separated by centuries and disciplines, converge in their ability to evoke wonder, mystery, and fascination—testaments to the enduring interplay between artistic expression and scientific inquiry.
Geodesics : Buckminster Fuller
Bucky Fuller’s most iconic creation is the geodesic dome, has become a symbol of innovation. They are based on the triangulation of a spherical icosohedron. These lightweight, structures are constructed using materials maximizing strength and efficiency. Over 200,000 geodesic domes have been erected worldwide since their inception⁴.
Fuller introduced the concept of the Dymaxion map, an innovative way to represent the Earth’s surface on a flat plane. Unlike traditional maps, the Dymaxion map minimizes distortion and presents a more accurate depiction of landmasses and oceans.
As early as the late 1920s, Fuller explored prefabrication in housing. His goal was to make housing affordable for everyone. He envisioned a future with fewer resources and used technology to address climate and housing issues. His ideas laid the groundwork for modern prefab housing. Fuller’s genius lay not only in his inventions but also in his cross-disciplinary, collaborative approach to problem solving. He didn’t confine himself to one discipline; instead, he drew from engineering, architecture, environmentalism, the arts, and creativity. His work transcended silos and embraced holistic solutions. Largely self-trained “Bucky” Fuller occupied multiple spaces as an architect, engineer, artist, and designer. He fearlessly tackled complex issues, unafraid of failure. His vision extended beyond individual disciplines, emphasizing the interconnectedness of knowledge and creativity¹.
Legacy of Democratizing Housing: Fuller saw industrialized manufacturing as a means to democratize housing. By making housing more efficient, economical, and accessible, he aimed to improve lives globally. His influence on prefab housing endures to this day³.
In summary, Buckminster Fuller’s legacy lies not only in his tangible creations but also in his audacious spirit, holistic thinking, and commitment to a better, more sustainable world.
Sources:
(1) R. Buckminster Fuller Paintings, Bio, Ideas | TheArtStory. https://www.theartstory.org/artist/fuller-buckminster/.
(2) Edging Towards Utopia: The Legacy Of Buckminster Fuller – Culture Trip. https://theculturetrip.com/north-america/usa/articles/edging-towards-utopia-the-legacy-of-buckminster-fuller.
(3) Buckminster Fuller | Lemelson. https://lemelson.mit.edu/resources/buckminster-fuller.
(4) Buckminster Fuller – Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckminster_Fuller.
(5) Getty Images. https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/american-architect-inventor-and-futurist-buckminster-fuller-news-photo/614302298.
Oceans: Living underwater
My first career opportunity came in 1968, thanks to the vision and generosity of Monica Pidgeon, who was then the editor of Architectural Design, a leading monthly journal that explored cutting-edge developments in architecture and design worldwide. At the time, I was deeply influenced by the prevailing modernist belief that all buildings were “machines for living in.” But my curiosity extended beyond terrestrial architecture—I was captivated by the vast, uncharted potential of the oceans and the urgent need to rethink our relationship with the natural world. Inspired by Buckminster Fuller’s concept of “Spaceship Earth,” I was drawn to the idea that our planet is a fragile, interconnected system requiring responsible stewardship.
Recognizing my enthusiasm, Monica took a leap of faith and invited me to guest-edit a special issue of Architectural Design dedicated to “Inner Space”—a topic that focused on the design of underwater habitats. This issue sought to highlight the pioneering work being done in the field of undersea living, including projects such as the U.S. Navy’s SEALAB and Jacques Cousteau’s Conshelf experiments. These initiatives were not only feats of engineering but also critical explorations of how humans could adapt to and coexist with the ocean environment.
The success of this special issue led to an even greater opportunity: a commission to write Living Underwater, a book published in 1970 that further explored the potential of underwater habitation. At the time Monica placed her confidence in me, I was working as a research assistant to Keith Critchlow at the Architectural Association School in London. Critchlow, a prominent disciple of Buckminster Fuller, reinforced my belief in the importance of sustainable and innovative design—principles that would guide my lifelong interest in oceanography, environmental stewardship, and the preservation of our planet’s most vital resource: the oceans.
That early opportunity shaped my career and deepened my commitment to exploring how human ingenuity could be harnessed to protect and sustain the delicate ecosystems of our world. Monica’s encouragement was more than just a professional break; it was a catalyst that set me on a path of inquiry and advocacy—one that continues to this day.
That early opportunity shaped my career and deepened my commitment to exploring how human ingenuity could be harnessed to protect and sustain the delicate ecosystems of our world. Monica’s encouragement was more than just a professional break; it was a catalyst that set me on a path of inquiry and advocacy—one that continues to this day.
Space
Internet
National Science Foundation Network
