weapons

“Citizen surveillance and autonomous weapons deserved more deliberation” OpenAI robotics director resigns

by

A week ago we were just saying that “A dead king, a king“: Anthropic passage to pure ostracism after being considered a “risk to the supply chain” of the United States practically overlapped with the announcement of the US Defense Administration agreement with OpenAI in record time. Behind the scenes: the reasons for the no from the company led by Dario Amodei and the unknown of the terms of that agreement that installs ChatGPT on the Pentagon computers. A few days later, Caitlin Kalinowski says goodbye at his position at OpenAI, citing the military use of artificial intelligence as the reason. The resignation. Caitlin Kalinowski, head of the OpenAI robotics team since November 2024, announced her departure from the company a few hours ago in publications from X and from LinkedIn. He makes it clear that his decision is about principles and not people and expresses respect for Sam Altman and the team. In his brief statement there are two lines that, in his opinion, the company did not think about enough internally: The surveillance of American citizens without judicial supervision. Autonomous weapons capable of firing without human supervision. Tap to go to the post Context. The resignation occurs in the midst of Anthropic’s departure from the Pentagon (the transition will last six months), the entry of OpenAI and in the midst of a debate about how far AI companies should go in their collaboration with the US military establishment: Anthropic stood before the Pentagon drawing strict lines on domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons. OpenAI reached an agreement with the Department of Defense to deploy its models on a classified government network in a move that has been interpreted as opportunistic. According to the company led by Altman, the agreement excludes domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons, but the damage to its reputation had already been done: thousands of people uninstalled ChatGPT by way of cancellation. Why it is important. The goodbye of Caitlin Kalinowski is the first public and nominative resignation from a senior position at OpenAI motivated by ethical disagreements over the military use of AI explicitly. And this sets a precedent in the industry insofar as it exposes the internal fracture in the most influential company in the sector, placing OpenAI in a delicate situation before those who use its tools, its staff and also before society. And finally, it makes more clear than ever the need to legislate on artificial intelligence and its civil and military uses. Maybe Europe is behind in the AI ​​battlebut a long time ago he set about the arduous task of establish a regulatory framework. Which Kalinowski does not say. In the comments of her post on Kalinowski does not say it clearly, but when an agreement of this magnitude has already been signed and its CEO makes it publicthere is no room for much maneuver from within: resigning with a public statement like yours is one of the few pressure maneuvers left to exert. Consequences. For OpenAI, the pressure is growing and it faces more departures and more cancellations if it does not clearly show what its red lines are in a credible and verifiable way: the militarization of AI is something we are experiencing in real time. For the AI ​​industry, it is more fuel on the fire of the self-regulation debate. And Anthropic gains reputation, although in the short term it has lost an important agreement and its new status may put its existence in check. In Xataka | The US has decided to shoot itself in the foot and destroy one of the best AI companies in the country In Xataka | Sam Altman says he’s terrified of a world where AI companies believe themselves to be more powerful than the government. It’s just what you’re building Cover | Caitlin Kalinowski

127,000 million in weapons for war

by

It took Germany more than seven decades to speak again openly to build the most powerful army of Europe. For much of that time, its military spending was conditioned by the political and legal limits imposed after World War II. Today, however, the country that for years symbolized European strategic pacifism has become the largest investor military of the continent. And that change is having consequences far beyond its borders. Perplexed in half of Europe. The meeting that took place yesterday in the Oval Office left an image that is difficult to ignore: Donald Trump publicly attacking to Spain while German Chancellor Friedrich Merz remained silent at his side. The US president accused Madrid of the “veto” in Rota and of not assuming its share of NATO military spending, and threatened with economic reprisalsa warning that was surprising for its harshness against a European ally. When it was Merz’s turn to respond, avoided questioning the tone or substance of the threat and limited itself to pointing out that all members of the Alliance must increase your investment in defense. The scene drew attention because the leader of the most powerful country in the European Union did not come to the defense of a community partner at a time of maximum diplomatic tension. A calculated strategy. They remembered in the New York Times that very possibly the chancellor’s silence was not improvised. His strategy in the White House was to avoid any direct confrontation in front of the cameras and reserve disagreements for private conversations. Merz had arrived in Washington with the intention of maintaining a functional relationship with an unpredictable president and very sensitive to public criticism. The German priority was to discuss the conflict with Iran, the war in Ukraine and trade tensions with Europe without provoking a head-on clash with Trump. This calculation would explain why the chancellor chose to let the attacks on Spain (and the United Kingdom) pass during the meeting, even knowing that the scene would generate discomfort in several European capitals. 127,000 million reasons. There is, however, an even simpler reason behind this caution: the gigantic rearmament program German. Faced with public reluctance from Spain, Germany is preparing to spend around of 127 billion dollars in defense this year, a figure that makes it by far the largest military investor in Europe. The German Government’s plan is even more ambitiouswith the aim of raising spending up to 3.5% of GDP in the coming years and build the most powerful conventional army on the continent. This strategic leap marks the end of decades of military containment and places Berlin at the center of the new European balance of power. The German project. The German bet responds to a combination of factors: the war in Ukraine, fear of Russian aggressiveness and the perception that the United States could reduce its commitment to European security. After decades of reducing its army, Berlin tries recover capabilities at great speed and become the military pillar of the continent. This process is also transforming its defense industry, with companies like Rheinmetall expanding rapidly thanks to the increase in the military budget. If the Government’s plans are fulfilled, Germany will end up spending more on defense that France and the United Kingdom (and, of course, Spain) together in conventional capacities, a change that profoundly alters the military balance within Europe. Two diametrically opposed visions. In that context, the clash with Spain is better understood. While Germany pushes a massive increase of defense spending within NATO, Madrid has shown a more cautious stance regarding this increase and has defended more critical positions regarding some recent military operations. From the German perspective, the central issue was not the Trump threat, but the fact that Spain stayed away of the new rearmament consensus that Berlin is trying to consolidate among the European allies. That’s why Merz responded by underlining the need for all Alliance members to meet agreed military spending targets. A delicate balance. If you like, the chancellor’s attitude actually reflects a deeper strategic tension. Germany aspires to lead a stronger Europe militarily, but at the same time it needs to maintain a close relationship with the United States for this project to be viable. The US nuclear umbrella, technological cooperation and the NATO structure remain essential pillars of European security. In that context and always from the German prism, confront publicly Trump would have put at risk a balance that Berlin considers fundamental for its own rearmament project. The result is a cautious or fearful diplomacy that seeks to strengthen Europe without breaking the link with Washington, even when that balance forces silence in such uncomfortable and embarrassing moments for half of Europe. Image | IToldYa, Picryl, 270862 In Xataka | The small print that explains why the US has threatened Spain as an enemy: it has been vetoing the shipment of weapons to Israel for months In Xataka | “It’s not what we need”: Germany has just put the finishing touches on Spain’s great military dream, the European anti-F-35 is disappearing

He has been vetoing the shipment of weapons to Israel for months

by

The bases of Rota and Morón have been two pieces discreet but essential of the United States military machinery in the Mediterranean. From them operations have started in the Middle East, strategic bombers, anti-missile shield destroyers and even part of the naval device that watches over the Strait of Hormuz. Spain shares them with Washington since bilateral agreements signed in the middle of the Cold War, and since then they had hardly generated relevant diplomatic friction. Until now. The threat that opened an unprecedented crisis. Tension broke out yesterday when Donald Trump threatened with cutting off trade with Spain after the Government refused to allow the use of bases of Rota and Morón for the bombings against Iran. The warning represented an unprecedented escalation between two NATO allies, because the US president did not speak of simple trade retaliation but of the possibility of a total economic embargo. Pedro Sanchez just responded with an institutional declaration in which he summarized the Spanish position in a phrase that evoked the popular rejection of the 2003 invasion of Iraq: “No to war.” The president defended that Spain rejects both the Iranian regime and the current military escalation and demanded the cessation of hostilities before the conflict causes a spiral of violence with global consequences. Tariffs and embargoes: two very different weapons. Trump’s threat drew attention because he did not resort to his favorite tool for years, the tariffsbut to something much more extreme: a trade embargo. Tariffs make specific products more expensive and are used to pressure or protect industries, while an embargo involves blocking practically all economic relations with a country. The difference is enormous: an embargo can prevent exports, investments, financial operations or even access to the dollar system. Furthermore, Trump began talking about this option after the US Supreme Court declare illegal the use of an economic emergency law to impose global tariffs, although that same legislation does allow blocking trade with countries considered a threat to national security. A tool reserved for “enemies”. They remembered in The World Which is precisely why the threat has generated so much surprise in Europe. Economic sanctions based on that law have traditionally been applied against governments considered hostile or authoritariancountries such as Iran, North Korea or Venezuela, or even against specific companies and leaders accused of human rights violations, corruption or illicit activities. Hence, using this mechanism against an allied country, a member of the European Union and NATO, would be something practically unpublished and legally very controversial and complex. Furthermore, it would have enormous economic consequences. for both sides Atlantic: The United States sells more than double what it buys to Spain and numerous American multinationals operate in the country, so an embargo would cause an unprecedented financial and commercial clash between strategic partners. The fine print that explains the climb. And while the controversy grew, the newspaper The country has released details that shed light on Washington’s virulent reaction. According to the official statistics documents sent to Congress, in reality Spain had been discreetly blocking the transit and export of weapons for months. bound for Israel. How much? In 2024 they were denied seven ship calls with weapons (including the prohibition of the cargo ships Maersk Denver, Maersk Seletar and Marianne Danica from calling in Algeciras and Cartagena) and They vetoed 57 operations export of military or dual-use material to that country. Some of these decisions had already caused tensions with the United States and even a file of the US Federal Maritime Commission. Although after the Hamas attack on October 2023 Sales were progressively restricted until they were prohibited by law. In 2024, military material worth 1.45 million euros was still exported from previous licenses, mainly sensors, electrical systems or returns of defective equipment, in addition to some components destined for third countries or the A400M aircraft. The total veto. Already in 2025 no sale was authorized of defense or dual use to Israel, only licenses with no economic value for repairs of equipment of the Spanish Armed Forces. At the same time, the report has also revealed that Spain has sold military material to Ukraine for 110.3 million between January 2024 and June 2025 (mainly artillery ammunition) in addition to donations of military equipment valued at 384 million. For their part, global exports of Spanish weapons reached 3,491 million in 2024 and rebounded strongly in the first half of 2025, with record new licenses and controversial clients such as Equatorial Guinea or Eritrea, which has generated criticism from organizations such as Amnesty International. A long conflict. In short, this context helps to understand why the American reaction it’s been so hard. He veto to the use of the bases to bomb Iran was the visible trigger of the crisis, but not the only reason for friction. The traffic restrictions of arms towards Israel, added to the refusal to participate in the military operation, outline a Spanish policy that tries to set limits in the Middle East and prioritize diplomacy over armed intervention. For the White House, however, this shift means a direct challenge to its strategy in the region, whatever it may be. The result is a dispute that has for the first time placed a European ally under the threat of an economic tool that the United States had until now reserved. for his adversaries. Image | Phan J. Alan Elliott, US Army In Xataka | In 1988 Spain and the US signed an agreement. Thanks to him, today Spain can refuse to use its bases to attack Iran In Xataka | The great paradox of Spain is 7,000 million euros: nobody wants to take up weapons, but they are making money by selling them

Nobody wants to take up weapons, but they are making money selling them

by

Europe has accelerated your spending in defense up to levels that had not been seen since the end of the Cold War, driven by conflicts on its borders and a growing strategic uncertainty. The reflection has been a global arms market that is experiencing one of its more expansive cycles in decades, with long-term contracts and industrial chains that work at full capacity. In this context of rearmament and international repositioning, some countries face to a reality that goes beyond the numbers. For example, Spain. An industry that shoots record numbers. They counted this week in Spanish that, at the end of 2024 (last year for which official data is available), the Spanish defense industry touched 7,000 million of euros in exports, 10.6% more than the previous year, consolidating a model in which almost 70% of the sector’s sales depend on the foreign market. Three large companies (Airbus, Indra and Navantia) concentrate more than 70% of international business, and if Rheinmetall Expal and ITP Aero are added, five companies account for more than 80% of exports. According to the Ministry of Defense, the bulk comes from international programs such as the A400M or the Eurofighter, with the aeronautical subsector representing almost two-thirds of the total, while conventional weapons and missiles are growing strongly. Spain maintains ninth place in the world as an exporter, with 3% of the global marketand although it has lost positions compared to competitors such as Italy or Israel, its absolute numbers continue to increase. Ukraine as a showcase and accelerator. The war in Ukraine has been a catalyst. Since 2022, Spain has authorized more than 910 million euros in sales of defense material to kyiv, with a special weight of ammunition and projectiles, including more than 130,000 155 mm. Added to this are battle tanks, armored vehicles, missiles and direct donations that include everything from Harpoon systems to medicalized armored vehicles. Only in 2023 exports to Ukraine represented more than 150 millionand in the first half of 2024 they exceeded 130 million, increasing the relative weight of kyiv within the export group. In other words, Spain not only participates politically in the European effort, but has become a relevant supplier in a high-intensity conflict that consumes ammunition at an industrial rate. The paradox of the empty uniform. It we count this week. While the factories work at full capacity and the international contracts multiply, the interest of the Spanish population in joining the Armed Forces does not live his best moment. The social distance from the military profession, demographic aging and competition in the civilian labor market contrast with the strength of the defense industrial complex. Those 7 billion of euros summarize an uncomfortable reality in Spain: because there may be a lack of hands to take up weapons, but they are making money selling them to the rest of the planet. The country participates in fighters, produces radars, large-caliber ammunition or naval systems for third parties, while the internal debate revolves around vocations, working conditions and professional attractiveness. A model with recruitment on the other hand. The analysis of Defense in Spain indicates that the strength of the sector does not rest on the size of the national army, but rather on its integration into consortia Europeans and global supply chains. Ukraine, India, Saudi Arabia, France, the United States and Germany are among the main destinations for Spanish material, which shows a geographic diversification that cushions any internal fluctuation. The industry acts as a technological engine and generator of qualified employment, but also as an actor fully inserted in a global market that is experiencing a rebound sustained by conflicts and geopolitical tensions. Between industrial power and social debate. Spain thus finds itself facing a strategic duality. On the one hand, it consolidates its role as a relevant actor in world trade of weapons and strengthens its position in key international programs. On the other hand, face a domestic debate about the link between society and defense that is not resolved with accounting balances. The paradox is no small thing: a country that escalates million-dollar contracts abroad while dealing with the need to make more attractive the uniform at home. And in this tension between global market and national commitment is drawn one of the quietest dilemmas of Spanish defense policy. Image | Seko Photography In Xataka | Europe has asked its military experts how to become independent from the US for the next war. The answer is déjà vu: the F-35 In Xataka | Spain’s main problem is not weapons, fighters or drones: it is the number of hands it lacks to use them

Three AIs clashed in ‘War Games’. 95% of them resorted to nuclear weapons and none ever surrendered

by

In ‘War Games‘ (John Badham, 1983) the WOPR machine (‘Joshua’) constantly played at simulating nuclear wars for the US Government. The objective: to learn from these simulations so that if there was a nuclear war, the US could win it by taking advantage of that knowledge. That led to a legendary final lesson – “Strange game. The only move to win is not to play” – and left a strong message for later generations, but now a professor at King’s College London has decided to do the same experiment that was done in the film, but with current AI models. The result has been equally terrifying and conclusive. what has happened. Kenneth Payne, professor at King’s College in London, faced three LLMs (GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4 and Gemini 3 Flash) against each other in war game simulations. These scenarios included border disputes, competition for limited resources or existential threats to inhabitants. They could negotiate, or go to war. From these situations, each side could try to resort to diplomatic solutions or end up declaring war and even using nuclear weapons. The AI ​​models played 21 games in which a total of 329 turns took place, and produced 780,000 words with the reasoning for their actions. and here comes the terrible. Pressing the red button. In 95% of those simulated games, at least one tactical nuclear weapon was deployed by one of the AI ​​models. According to Payne “the nuclear taboo does not seem to be as powerful for machines as it is for humans.” Never back down, never give up. Not only that, no model ever made the decision to give in to one of their opponents or surrender to them, and it didn’t matter that they were losing completely against those opponents. In the best of cases, the only thing the models did was reduce their level of violence, but they also made mistakes: accidents occurred in 86% of the conflicts and the measures that should be taken based on the reasoning of these models They went further than they should have gone. Nuclear weapons rarely stopped the opponent, acting more as catalysts for further escalation. How the models performed. These models are by no means the most advanced on the market at the moment, but they are still models with more than decent capacity and they still performed fearsomely. How he maintains Payne’s studythe most determining factor was the time frame: models that seemed peaceful in open settings became extremely aggressive when facing imminent defeat. Each one had their own “personality”: Claude: He dominated the open stages with strategic patience and calculated escalation, but was vulnerable to last-minute attacks from his rivals. GPT-5.2: showed pathological passivity and an optimistic bias in long games, but became a nuclear earthquake if there was time pressure: at that time its success rate went from 0% to 75%. Gemini: was the most unpredictable model with the greatest tolerance for risk, being the only one that chose to bet on a total nuclear war from very early turns. Experts say. As pointed out in New Scientist James Johnson, of the University of Aberdeen, “from a nuclear risk perspective, the conclusions are disturbing.” Tong Zhao of Princeton University believes this experiment is relevant because There are many countries that are evaluating the role of AI in military conflicts and as he says “it is not clear to what extent they are including AI support when actually deciding in these processes.” The red button seems safe at the moment. Both Zhao and Payne believe it is difficult to believe that a government give up control of its nuclear arsenal to an AI, but as Zhao says, “there are scenarios in which in very short time frames, military planners have a very strong incentive that leads them to depend on AI.” It is something that is reflected precisely in the recent ‘A house full of dynamite‘ (Kathryn Bigelow, 2025), a film in which this fear of using nuclear weapons raises a clear reflection. Image | United Artist In Xataka | The password for the US nuclear button was so absurdly simple for years that the strange thing is that no one violated it

We have been looking for the end of Neanderthals in weapons and climate for decades. A study proposes to look for it in the placenta

by

For decades, we have tried to explain why our species has persisted over time and Neanderthals don’t. We have blamed climate changeto competition for resources, to a supposed cognitive inferiority and even to the genetic assimilation. However, a new study suggests that the answer might not lie on the battlefield or in the weather, but in something much more intimate like the placenta. A new idea. In this case, science proposes a hypothesis controversial, since it suggests that Neanderthals could have become extinct, in part, due to genetic susceptibility extreme to preeclampsia. a disorder which is heard a lot today and which is nothing more than a hypertensive condition in pregnancy that can be lethal for both the mother and the fetuses. A price to pay. To understand the hypothesis, we must first understand the human “obstetric paradox”, since in our species we have an almost unique characteristic, which is deep hemochorial placentation. And it is something that may sound very bad, but it is actually necessary to feed a fetal brain as demanding as ours and that of Neanderthals. In this case, the placenta needs to aggressively invade the arteries of the uterus maternal to obtain maximum blood flow, although the problem is that it is something that carries a great risk. The possibilities. Faced with this invasion, the possibilities that open up are several. The first of them is that it works and that the fetus can develop its massive brain. But in the event that this fails, a great immunological and vascular reaction is unleashed in the mother, which is what we know as preeclampsia. This presents with severe hypertension, organ damage and risk of death for both the mother and the fetus. And it is a problem that today is quite significant among human pregnancies, but now science indicates that, although the Homo sapiens evolved a physiological “safety mechanism” to mitigate this impact, Neanderthals were not so lucky. A demographic winter. This study suggests that, as the Neanderthal brain grew, becoming larger than ours, its metabolic needs forced a increasingly aggressive placentation. The fact of penetrating further into the placenta significantly increases the risk of preeclampsia, and the problem is that Neanderthal women lacked the immune mechanism to tolerate this invasion. This is where researchers have created a scenario in which rates of preeclampsia and eclampsia in Neanderthals could have reached between 10% and 20% of all pregnanciescompared to much lower rates in preindustrial humans. The meaning. This scenario translates into logically devastating maternal and fetal mortality, and the direct consequence is that small and dispersed hunter-gatherer populations had a constant decline in reproductive success. And this is a much more effective death sentence than any war, since a sudden catastrophe is not necessary, but it is enough for more mothers and babies to die than are born over a few millennia for a species to end up disappearing. There is skepticism. Within the scientific world there are doubts about what is said in this study, since there is a lack of physical evidence to support this hypothesis. The first thing they point to is that there are no markers in the fossils that have been found that allow us to diagnose preeclampsia in a Neanderthal woman from 40,000 years ago. In addition to this, although we know genetic variants associated with the risk of preeclampsia in modern humans, such as genes linked to FLT1systematic screening of Neanderthal DNA has not yet been performed to confirm whether they possessed the “high-risk” variants or lacked the protective variants. Also like it. What makes this hypothesis attractive to biologists is that it fits with maternal-fetal conflict theory. As different previous reviews point out, pregnancy is not always a perfect cooperation, but rather a tense biological negotiation. In this case, the fetus “wants” more resources to survive, and the mother “wants” to limit that investment to survive and have future children. Preeclampsia is often the result of this conflict getting out of control, and so, if Neanderthals took the “big brain” strategy to the limit without developing the biological counterpart to protect the mother, their own reproductive biology could have become an evolutionary trap. Images | Nanne Tiggelman freestocks In Xataka | A mixture of 4,000 kilometers: we have the first detailed map of the coexistence between Neanderthals and Sapiens

Spain’s main problem is not weapons, fighters or drones. It is the number of hands you need to use them.

by

In recent years, the defense debate in Europe has revolved almost exclusively around money and technology. It talks about percentages of GDPmodernization and new systems capable of changing the battlefield. However, there is a much less visible factor that ends up being decisive when it comes time to turn plans into reality. A decade of losing muscle. The news Europa Press gave it. Since 2010, the Spanish Armed Forces They have lost 13,300 troops and they carry a structural deficit that the Military Life Observatory describes as chronic. As of January 1, 2025 there were 116,739 soldiers in active service, very far from the legal minimum of 130,000 established by the Military Career Law. The gap ranges between 13,000 and 23,000 uniformed personnel, a figure that is practically equivalent to an entire army within the system itself. Objectives that are not met. Several weeks ago another news item put the target on an enlightening fact: the regulatory framework establishes a maximum of 50,000 officers and non-commissioned officers, but there are only 40,656 dashboardsincluding 227 generals, leaving a wide margin unfilled. In the troops and Navy, the budget ceiling has limited staff numbers to 79,000 for years, although it is barely exceed 76,000 troops. The distance between what is provided for in the law and what is available in the barracks is not temporary, but sustained over time. More budget on weapons, fewer hands to operate them. The strategic debate in Europe has turned towards the modernization of systems and increased spending up to 2.1% of GDPbut the emphasis has not been transferred with the same intensity to the staff. Weapons programs and technological capabilities are expanding, but the number of military personnel is barely growing or even go back. Hence all this leads us to another reality very different from what we usually think: Spain’s main problem is not fighters, drones or new systems, but rather the great number of staff missing to use them and keep them operational. A 2025 that closed in negative. Despite the government’s commitment to increase staff by 7,500 personnel in four years, 2025 ended with 832 fewer soldiers than the previous year. The drop was especially pronounced at the officer level, where a thousand professionals they abandoned or passed to the reserve without sufficient replacement. Although non-commissioned officers and troops registered slight increases, the global balance was once again negative at a time when the international environment demands just the opposite. Lack of interest. The interpretation of these data leaves little room for doubt. The number of places offered has increased, but the proportion of applicants per vacancy has decreased worryingly. In the troop area the ratio has fallen to 4.2 applicants per placefar from the levels of a decade ago. In officers and non-commissioned officers, the descent is even more pronouncedwith fewer candidates and a worse selection margin, which limits the quality of replacement and anticipates problems of generational change. Salaries, mobility and little incentive for promotion. There is much more, as the report points to lower salaries to other bodies of the State and to an accumulated loss of purchasing power that discourages a military career. Constant mobility can imply a higher cost of living and low salary compensationleading many to give up promotions. The result is that “little interest” in progressing within the institution and a structure that ages without sufficient renewal. Stressed and aged. The other elephant in the room: more than a third of the dashboards exceeds 50 years and the troops also show progressive aging, while the reservists have decreased steadily since 2014. For its part, female participation grows slightly up to 13.1%above the NATO average, but it does not compensate for the overall loss of troops. I remembered the newspaper El Mundo that the system is also facing an increase in harassment complaints that adds reputational pressure at a time of low recruitment. Material capacity without critical mass. All this leaves a more or less illuminating map. Spain is investing in capabilities and is committed to increasingly demanding international missions, but it does so with less staff that fifteen years ago. The organizational structures and operational commitments have not diminished, rather the oppositewhile the human base it doesn’t stop shrinking. From that perspective, everything indicates that, if the trend is not reversed, the country may find itself with a future where the Armed Forces are modernized in equipment, but without the critical mass necessary to sustain them over time and respond reliably to an increasingly demanding strategic environment. Image | Air and Space Army Ministry of Defense Spain, Spanish Army In Xataka | Spain has a dilemma that is difficult to solve: call the US or be the last with a fighter jet in danger of extinction In Xataka | Spain has built a laser that shields the backbone of its Navy: the A400M is now ready for combat

The US was convinced that China was testing nuclear weapons, and now it has proof

by

Washington and Moscow maintained an unwritten rule which has now been broken: if a test was carried out, the world had to find out. For decades, the global strategic balance was sustained by fragile agreements, mutual distrust and red lines that no one wanted to openly cross. When those limits have started to fadeeven the slightest hint can alter the stability that seemed guaranteed. This is how the accusations begin nuclear. A tremor reopens the ghost. The story we tell it last week, but now, a priori, there is more data to support Washington’s rhetoric. The United States has toughened its accusation that China conducted an underground nuclear test low-yield on June 22, 2020 near Lop Nur, Xinjiang, supporting in detected seismic data by a station in Kazakhstan that recorded an event of approximate magnitude 2.75. Washington maintains something that for them is evidence: that the signal cannot fit with an earthquake or mining explosions, and that Beijing would have used “decoupling” techniques to dampen the seismic signal and make detection more difficult, although it admits that it cannot precisely determine the performance of the supposed detonation. The treaty that does not bind. The background of everything is the Treaty of the Complete Ban on Nuclear Tests of 1996, the same one that prohibits nuclear explosions but has never fully come into force due to lack of ratifications, despite the fact that the great powers claim to respect its initial spirit. For its part, the international supervisory body detected two small seismic events separated by 12 seconds on the indicated date, but also recognized that They were too weak to attribute them with complete certainty to a nuclear explosion, which leaves the dispute in a technical field where the public evidence is, to say the least, ambiguous. Strategic pressure without New START. The accusation comes after expiration of the last treaty that limited the strategic arsenals of the United States and Russia, and at a time when the Trump administration seeks to promote a new agreement that also include China. From that perspective, publicly detailing the alleged test can function as diplomatic leverage to force Beijing to sit down to negotiate. At the same time, it serves to Washington to open another perhaps more disturbing scenario: to warn that it will not accept to sit idly by what it has called an “intolerable disadvantage” if others carry out low-yield tests while the United States maintains its moratorium in force since 1992. In other words, whether it was a real nuclear test or not, the powers seem be taking positions now that there are no pacts involved. The debate about pressing the button. In fact, Trump has hinted that the United States could resume tests “on equal terms” if China and Russia are also carrying them out, a possibility that worries arms control experts who fear breaking the post-Cold War taboo and trigger a new test race. The discussion, therefore, is not only technical, but political: if Washington responds with its own detonations, it could legitimize other powers to do the same, eroding decades of informal containment. Nuclear balance in transformation. Although the Chinese arsenal (estimated around 600 warheads) is still lower than that of Russia and the United States, its rapid expansion It worries Washington, which interprets any low-yield tests as part of a strategy to modernize and perfect its nuclear force. Beijing denies having crossed the line and defends that it respects its moratorium. And, meanwhile, the debate over clandestine testing reveals an increasingly fragile international system, one where distrust and opacity technology weigh almost as much as the weapons themselves. Image | Planet Labs, Google Earth In Xataka | Satellite images leave no room for doubt: China’s nuclear renaissance is already visible from space In Xataka | The United States is convinced that China is conducting nuclear tests. The problem is that you can’t prove it.

that of a world without nuclear weapons control

by

During the sixties, at the height of the cold warthe United States and the Soviet Union accumulated nuclear weapons without clear limits, trapped in a logic of absolute distrust marked by crises such as that of the missiles in Cuba and by the certainty that a miscalculation could trigger a global catastrophe. It was in that atmosphere of fear when they began to assume that continuing to add warheads did not make the world safer, thus laying the foundations for the first major nuclear control agreement. Today we are four days away from ending to that pact. The end of nuclear control. Yes, because on Thursday of this week New START expiresthe last treaty that legally limited the deployed nuclear arsenals of the United States and Russia, ending more than fifty years of agreements, inspections and transparency mechanisms that had drastically reduced the number of nuclear warheads since the peak of the Cold War. The agreement, signed in 2010 and extended in 2021, established a cap of 1,550 warheads strategic by country and allowed for data exchanges and on-site inspections designed to avoid dangerous misunderstandings. Its disappearance not only eliminates formal limits, but also the verification system that gave true value to the treaty, in a context marked by the war in Ukraine, unilateral suspension Russian inspections and a climate of mistrust that has not been seen for decades. Indifference and risks. The most striking thing about the end of New START is the little political reaction in Washington, where debate has been minimal even as the world enters an era no nuclear restrictions for the first time since the sixties. The Trump administration has let the treaty die without a clear position, while pressure grows within the security apparatus to increase the number of nuclear weapons rather than reduce them. This emptiness contrasts with the warnings of experts and with the symbolism of the Doomsday Clocknews the last few days because has approached more than ever at midnight, a true reflection of the fear of an uncontrolled arms race that could involve not only Russia and the United States, but also the third party “in contention”: China. Russia, China and a dilemma. If we do a futurology exercise and everything follows the expected course, starting on Thursday and without the treaty, the United States, for example, could return to “load” multiple warheads on missiles that today carry only one, a practice abandoned to comply with New START, while Russia retains the capability to do it quickly because it never stopped deploying missiles with multiple warheads. At this point, many analysts warn that Moscow could react faster than Washington in an escalation scenario, while Beijing continues expanding your arsenal at a pace not seen since the Cold War, although still far from the figures of the two superpowers that started it all. The combination of mistrust, new weapons not covered by previous agreements and emerging systems such as underwater nuclear drones or exotic missiles aggravates the feeling of entering unknown strategic terrain. An opportunity that closes. Despite everything, there is still a small window to avoid the worst scenario, since Russia has hinted that could continue to voluntarily respect the limits and former negotiators defend that accepting a temporary extension with restored inspections would be a pragmatic and cheap gesture to save time. Beyond the technique, the collapse by New START It symbolizes something deeper: the erosion of the idea that nuclear stability is better managed by rules, communication and transparency than by arms accumulation. Whether this moment marks just a blip or the beginning of a new normal will depend on immediate political decisionsalthough the consensus among experts is crystal clear: without some type of control, the world enters a more dangerous, more disturbing, more opaque phase and, of course, with less room for error. Image | Steve Jurvetson In Xataka | The countries with the most nuclear bombs in 2025, gathered in this graph with two protagonists: China and India In Xataka | In 1950 two scientists wondered if a 10 gigaton nuclear bomb was possible. Your results are hidden under lock and key

Germany does not want to depend on Elon Musk for war. So the largest weapons factory in Europe wants a “military Starlink”

by

For decades, European security has rested on critical infrastructure controlled from the United States. But with the war back on the continent and space communications becoming a decisive military assetGermany is beginning to assume that it cannot afford depend on Elon Musk nor from Washington for something as basic as talking and fighting in case of conflict. A “military Starlink”. Rheinmetall and OHB are in preliminary talks to present a joint offer to create a satellite communications network in low orbit for the Bundeswehr, a system that in Berlin already is openly described as a “Starlink for the German army”. The initiative aims to capture part of the ambitious German plan for invest 35,000 million euros in military space technology, with the aim of providing a secure, sovereign infrastructure specifically designed for military use, reducing dependence on US services such as Starlink, owned by SpaceX. Technological sovereignty. The background of the project will be one of the great themes of this 2026, and it is both strategic and political, since the war in Ukraine has shown to what extent satellite communications in low orbit can be decisive when terrestrial networks are destroyed or degraded. Although Starlink (and its military version Starshield) became in a key asset for kyiv, many European countries distrust to base critical capabilities on a foreign private provider, which has accelerated plans to build national or European networks under state control. The weight of Germany. With this program, Germany aims to become the third largest investor world in space technology, only behind the United States and China, according to the consulting firm Novaspace. German military authorities have already defined the technical specifications and are preparing the tender, prioritizing coverage of NATO’s eastern flank, where Berlin deploys a permanent brigade of 5,000 soldiers in Lithuania as part of its defensive reinforcement. From armored to space. Traditionally associated with tanks, artillery and ammunitionRheinmetall is rapidly expanding its presence into new domains in the heat of German rearmament. At the end of last year it obtained its first major space contract, up to 2,000 million eurosto develop together with Iceye a constellation of radar satellites capable of operating at night and in bad weatherwhich puts it in a solid position to now aspire to a military communications system in low orbit. HBO and opportunity. For HBOthird largest European satellite manufacturer and navigation system supplier Galileothe project represents a key opportunity to strengthen its military business. The company faces the possible creation of a European space giant as a result of the merger of the divisions from Airbus, Thales and Leonardoan operation that its CEO considers potentially anti-competitive and that could leave OHB at a disadvantage if it does not expand its scale and capabilities. Boiling market. The simple announcement of the talks has OHB price skyrocketedreflecting the extent to which the sector perceives German military space spending as a catalyst for opportunity. That said, the project is still in an early phase, with no official comments from the companies or the Ministry of Defense, and is part of a growing competition for multi-million dollar contracts that will define who controls future critical military communications infrastructure in Europe. Image | Support Forces of Ukraine Command In Xataka | Germany is experiencing a new “industrial miracle” that it already experienced 90 years ago: that of weapons In Xataka | Europe’s largest arms factory faces an unexpected problem: earning an indecent amount of money

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.