weapons

“Mythos is a total weapon. You should need a weapons license to use it”

by

Anthropic and OpenAI are racing towards what is already known in Silicon Valley as the IPO (Initial Public Offering or initial public offering) of the artificial intelligence (IA), with valuations that are around 965,000 million and one trillion dollars respectively. In this scenario, the general director of Anthropic, Dario Amodei, has granted an interview to Bloomberg in which he reflects on his career in this industry and about the price that must be paid to maintain one’s values ​​when the business pushes in the opposite direction. When asked about the decision to go for enterprise tools, such as Claude Code or Claude Cowork, instead of pursuing more popular consumer applications, Amodei was blunt: “Either you betray your values ​​or you become irrelevant.” And, according to this executive, choosing a business model that clashes head-on with a company’s values ​​ends up forcing that dilemma sooner or later. However, Amodei’s warning is not limited to the business sphere. In this same interview he alerts us to a much more shocking and worrying phenomenon: the possibility that in the coming years skyrocketed GDP growth and very high unemployment will coexist, especially among entry-level office jobs. The paradox that worries Amodei The diagnosis that Anthropic’s CEO has been repeating for more than a year is the following: AI could eliminate half of entry-level office jobs within one to five years. Amodei insists that this headline is often taken out of context and that its real message has never been purely catastrophic. According to him, it is a call to anticipate with specific macroeconomic policies, such as taxes on the use of tokens or the redesign of templates together with companies. The mechanism he describes is simple, although it is also disturbing. When 90% of a job is automated, the remaining 10% becomes much more productive thanks to that leverage. The problem comes when automation is approaching 100% and there is no task left to cling to. Within Anthropic itself, he maintains, they are already experiencing this transition: AI today writes practically all of the code, although for the moment it continues to make engineers more productive. It does not replace them completely. When 90% of a job is automated, the remaining 10% becomes much more productive thanks to that leverage This alert has earned him criticism from both sides. Jensen Huang, the CEO of Nvidia, has accused him of confusing tasks with jobs, while other voices speak directly of a “marketing of the apocalypse” that would benefit Anthropic. Amodei responds by recalling that in his essay “The adolescence of technology” He dedicated several pages to that same distinction and to a list of possible solutions, from private philanthropy to state intervention. This is not the only front on which Amodei has chosen to put limits on its own technology. In the same interview he reveals that Anthropic retained Mythosits most advanced model for cybersecurity, because it is capable of autonomously going through the entire chain of a computer attack and finding exploitable vulnerabilities on its own. The companies that tested it in the early phase directly asked him to I won’t publish it. “Mythos is a total weapon. You should need a weapons license to use it,” he admits. Amodei acknowledges that this decision has cost him dearly in commercial terms, although he insists that publishing it before the rest of the network is patched would be much more dangerous. Amodei himself frames this insistence within the same logic that he applied to his business model: he prefers to sound the alarm even if it is uncomfortable than to sweeten the diagnosis so as not to harm the valuation of his company on the way to its IPO. No one yet knows which side will win this race between productivity and unemployment. Amodei, at least, has already made clear which alternative he rejects. Image | Wikimedia More information | Bloomberg In Xataka | China has a plan to win the AI ​​war against the US. And DeepSeek is its champion In Xataka | Anthropic is one step away from being worth as much as Samsung. And what the market is buying is not Claude

Japan has three red lines on nuclear weapons. One of them no longer seems so untouchable

by

Japan has a relationship with nuclear weapons that no other country can tell firsthand. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not just two names in the history booksbut the origin of a political identity built for decades around the rejection of the bomb. And yet, Japanese security also rests on a reality that is difficult to accept: America’s nuclear umbrella. What begins to move now is not necessarily the decision to cross that threshold, but something earlier and perhaps more delicate: the possibility of discussing whether all its red lines are still absolute. The debate. The intervention that reopened that conversation was carried out by Shinjiro KoizumiJapanese Defense Minister, on a Genron TV program broadcast this weekend. His approach was not that Japan should manufacture nuclear weapons or have its own arsenal, but rather that the country should change the idea that certain security issues cannot even be debated. In his words, for Japan it is a difficult issue to debate, but one of the issues that it cannot avoid touching is, precisely, nuclear issues. Three red lines. This framework has its own name in Japanese politics: the three non-nuclear principles. Japan commits to not possess nuclear weapons, not to manufacture them and not to allow their introduction into Japanese territory. The formula comes from the post-war period and has remained a central reference of its security policy, although the country continues to be protected by the extended deterrence of the United States, which includes its nuclear umbrella. The key difference. The third red line functions as a hinge between two worlds that Japan has tried to keep apart: its non-nuclear identity and its dependence on American deterrence. While the first two bans close the door to a Japanese bomb, the third affects how that protection would operate in a real crisis. That is the ground that is beginning to become debatable. Koizumi’s words. The Defense Minister did not present the nuclear debate as a conclusion, but as a debate that Japan would have to allow itself. His central sentence was direct: “For Japan it is a difficult issue to debate, but one of the issues that it cannot avoid touching is, precisely, nuclear issues.” He also pointed out against a political culture that, in his opinion, turns some security issues into forbidden areas: “We must change this idea that certain things are not even allowed to be debated.” The weight of his words is there: in moving the limit of the debate rather than in setting a new policy yet. The European mirror. Koizumi did not talk about nuclear in the abstract. He did so by looking at Europe, where the Ukrainian war has pushed governments like France and Finland to review assumptions that for years seemed established. In this context, he mentioned Paris, for its commitment to strengthening nuclear deterrence, and Helsinki, which has removed legal barriers to the introduction, transport or possession of nuclear weapons within its integration into NATO, although it does not plan to deploy them in its territory. The strategic race. Koizumi connected that debate to a broader idea: Japan faces not only tougher threats, but a world that decides faster. In the interview he spoke about Europe moving with a speed that Tokyo does not always perceive and put on the table the competition between the United States and Chinain addition to the role of AI in military decision-making. His argument is that a crisis is no longer managed with the political times of before, and that Japanese defense needs to discuss all its margins before those margins narrow. Nuclear, in that reasoning, appears as part of a larger review of national security. The line that moves. Japan has not crossed the nuclear threshold, and with what we have it cannot be said that Koizumi ordered a Japanese bomb. What is relevant is more subtle: one of the three red lines that for decades helped to organize its post-war policy is beginning to appear as a debatable issue. There is the fundamental change: the taboo has not fallen, but it no longer seems to protect all the ground that it protected before. Images | Red Shuheart | Japan Ministry of Defense In Xataka | A Russian family lived isolated in Siberia for more than 40 years. He didn’t know about World War II or the space race.

with US weapons

by

In the late 1950s, China bombed for weeks the Taiwanese islands of Kinmen and Matsu with hundreds of thousands of projectiles to test the resolve of Taiwan and the United States. That crisis turned the Taiwan Strait into one of the most dangerous points of the Cold War and left a mark that still conditions military planning on both sides. From drills to real preparations. China has been rehearsing scenarios of blockade, landing and invasion around Taiwan. Its ships and planes operate constantly around the island and Beijing has never renounced the use of force to achieve reunification. In the face of this growing pressure, Taiwan has given an unprecedented step: for the first time you have used your HIMARS rocket launcher in live fire from the western coast of the island, precisely in an area considered one of the most likely places for a Chinese landing. More than just a test, the exercise represented a shift in focus from training away from a potential battlefield to practicing how to stop an invasion right where it might occur. The directed message. The demonstration had an obvious strategic significance. HIMARS were deployed facing the strait from Taiwan and launched dozens of rockets from a position near a possible landing area. The implicit message is that any Chinese amphibious force attempting to cross the strait would have to face a volume of fire capable of destroying shipstroop concentrations and support points before even reaching the coast. For years, China has shown in your own exercises how it would attack Taiwanese defenses; now Taiwan is showing how it would try to scuttle an invasion before it can take hold. US weapons at the center of strategy. The HIMARS have become one of the pillars of the new Taiwanese defense. The system, popularized by his performance in Ukrainecombines mobility, precision and survivability. Taiwan already has missiles capable of hitting targets on the Chinese mainland coast and has received authorization to significantly expand its arsenal with new launchers and hundreds of ATACMS missiles. The acquisition is part of a strategy designed to compensate the enormous Chinese military superiority through relatively small, mobile and difficult-to-destroy weapons that can inflict disproportionate damage on a much larger invading force. Himars The “porcupine” doctrine. Taiwan’s military transformation seeks to turn the island into a extremely expensive target to conquer Instead of trying to match the size of the Chinese military, Taipei is betting on an asymmetric defense based on mobile, dispersed and difficult to locate systems. HIMARS fit perfectly into that philosophy. Their ability to fire and rapidly change position reduces the risk of being detected and destroyed by radar or retaliatory attacks, allowing them to continue operating even in the midst of a high-intensity conflict. The beaches where war could be decided. The exercises were carried out on the west coast because there are many of the beaches and plains coastal areas considered more suitable for a Chinese amphibious operation. For years, military strategists identify these areas as the points where an invasion would have the best chance of success. In fact, for this reason Taiwan no longer wants to limit itself to training in testing fields far from the potential front. The goal is to familiarize units with the actual terrain, rehearse rapid deployments and see how weapons systems would respond in the same areas they would have to defend under enemy fire. Washington watches. The demonstration was not only aimed at China. Taiwan also wanted to send a signal to the United States at a time when remains blocked a major military aid package worth billions of dollars. The Taiwanese authorities are trying to show that they are willing to take an active part of its own defense and that the weapons supplied by Washington are being integrated into concrete plans to resist aggression. In a context of debate about the American commitment to the island’s security, each exercise also serves to reinforce the argument that Taiwan is seriously preparing to fight if the worst-case scenario arrives. An increasingly visible war. The symbolic importance of these maneuvers It goes beyond the rockets launched. For years, Chinese exercises have revolved around how to isolate, surround and eventually invade Taiwan. The Taiwanese exercises are evolving in parallel toward a different question: how to destroy an invading force before it can establish itself on the ground. The appearance of HIMARS on western beaches reflects precisely that change. It is not just about showing a new weapon, but rather about rehearse an answer It specifies the military scenario that most worries the island and that increasingly determines the security of the entire Indo-Pacific region. Image | X, US Army In Xataka | China has resurrected the strangest concept of the Cold War: a plane, a ship and a missile launcher in one machine In Xataka | There are hundreds of Chinese fishing boats off Argentina and Taiwan. The disturbing thing is that none of them have thrown the nets into the sea

The US has had an idea to reassure Europe. Instead of soldiers, he is going to bring his nuclear weapons very close to Russia

by

In 1983, tens of thousands of women surrounded a British air base to protest the deployment of American nuclear missiles. That mobilization, known in time as Greenham Commonbecame one of the major antinuclear symbols of the Cold War and showed the extent to which the location of these weapons could alter European politics. Less soldiers, more “nuclear”. Europe has been trying to figure out what it really means for months the strategic turn of the United States. The reduction of troops, the withdrawal of some military systems and the increasing priority given to the Indo-Pacific have fueled fears that Washington is progressively moving away from the continent. However, conversations within NATO point to a very different response than expected. Instead of reinforcing the conventional presence, the United States would be willing to expand the deployment of nuclear capabilities in Europe to demonstrate that its commitment to the defense of the continent remains intact. The idea is simple but powerful: if there are fewer American uniforms on the ground, the nuclear umbrella must remain visible and credibleeven “closer.” The closer the interest is to Russia. There is no doubt, the allies most interested in this possibility are precisely those who observe Russia from the first line. Poland has been leading for years the list of candidates to host US nuclear capabilities and some Baltic countries have also shown interest in participating in future deterrence formulas. The invasion of Ukraine and Putin’s continued references to its nuclear arsenal have profoundly changed the perception of security in Eastern Europe. I remembered the financial times that, for these countries, hosting aircraft capable of using US nuclear weapons would have enormous political and military value, since it would turn any threat against them into an issue directly linked to Washington’s strategic credibility. The legacy of the Cold War. The proposal does not involve creating a new system, but rather expanding a mechanism that has existed for decades. Currently Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Türkiye and the United Kingdom participate in the program nuclear delivery of NATO, through which they store American nuclear weapons under exclusive control of Washington and train their air forces to operate within that scheme. This model was born during the Cold War to guarantee that European allies could participate in the Alliance’s nuclear strategy without having to develop their own atomic weapons. More than half a century later, the formula is once again gaining prominence in a continent that watches with concern the deterioration of the relationship with Moscow. Europe seeks to replace some capabilities, but not others. European capitals have assumed that they will have to spend more in defense and rebuild conventional capabilities that for decades were delegated to the United States. From anti-missile systems to strategic transportation to military intelligence, much of the current conversation revolves around how to fill those gaps. However, there is one area that many governments they consider it impossible to replace in the short term: the American nuclear deterrent. Although France and the United Kingdom have their own arsenals, Washington’s umbrella continues to be perceived as the central element of the European security architecture and as the ultimate guarantee against any military escalation. The signal that Washington wants to send. They told in the Times that for now there is no final decision and the conversations remain highly confidential. Still, the mere fact that the possibility is on the table reveals how Western strategy toward Russia is changing. For years the US military presence in Europe was measured in bases, brigades and deployed troops. Now the discussion increasingly revolves around another type of message. While Washington concentrates resources in Asia and requires its allies to assume a greater share of the defensive effortthe signal it seeks to convey is that nuclear protection remains intact. In a way, the new formula to reassure Europe is not to bring more soldiers closer to the Russian borders, but to bring closer what for decades has served as a last guarantee of security: American nuclear weapons. Image | Air Force, SJOERD HILCKMANN In Xataka | Spain’s great fear is not an invasion: it is a slow hybrid war with Morocco against its two most vulnerable cities In Xataka | To become technologically “independent” from the US, the European Union already has a plan: four desperate measures

launch one of the most extreme weapons ever devised

by

In 1961, the US Navy lost a nuclear submarine in the Atlantic and spent years trying to locate exactly what had happened under thousands of meters of water. That search left an idea among military strategists: the ocean could hide for decades technologies, accidents or threats capable of altering the global balance without anyone really knowing where they were. The return of weapons designed for fear. In the midst of the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union came to study weapons so extreme that they seemed straight out of science fiction: nuclear torpedoes gigantic, underwater explosions massive or systems designed to destroy entire cities from the ocean. For decades, many of those projects remained relics of another era… until Russia decided to recover part of that logic with a new generation of “superweapons” designed to penetrate modern defenses and return strategic fear to the center of naval warfare. The submarine created around a weapon. He Khabarovsk-class is probably the most radical example of that idea. Russia has built a nuclear submarine whose main mission is not to patrol, escort or combat like a conventional one, but to transport and cast Poseidonthat gigantic autonomous torpedo with strategic nuclear propulsion and capability that we talked about before. In fact, everything in its design revolves around that mission. Their conventional capabilities They exist, but they are clearly subordinated to the true objective of the project: converting the submarine into a platform dedicated to deploying one of the most extreme weapons ever developed. Poseidon and the logic of the apocalyptic weapon. The truth is that Poseidon It is not really a conventional underwater drone, but rather a huge strategic torpedo designed to travel intercontinental distances underwater and threaten coastal cities, critical infrastructure or aircraft carrier groups. Russia presented in 2018 as an “invincible” and impossible to intercept weapon, trying to convey the idea that it can still develop systems capable of breaking any Western defensive shield. Beyond the propaganda, the concept is disturbing because forces NATO to prepare against autonomous underwater threats capable of operating over enormous distances and long periods of time. A design built for an idea. The new satellite images and open analyzes have shown that the Khabarovsk mixes elements of Russian submarines Borei and Belgorodalbeit removing entire parts to focus almost exclusively on Poseidon. The submarine maintains gigantic dimensions, a monster of about 135 meters longand probably carries up to six Poseidon torpedoes in huge compartments located in the bow. Among them there is hardly any room for conventional torpedoes, making it clear that Russia sacrificed versatility and multipurpose capability to prioritize this strategic weapon above everything else. NATO still doesn’t know how much naval warfare will change. Despite the grandiloquent tone with which the Kremlin presented Poseidonthe weapon still raises many questions about its real usefulness, its operational capacity and its true strategic impact. Some analysis considered exaggerated certain Russian claims, especially those related to apocalyptic effects or absolute impossibility of interception. Even so, and as we said, NATO navies are forced to take it very seriously because it introduces an extremely uncomfortable problem: how to detect and neutralize an autonomous underwater nuclear threat capable of operating at enormous distances and for long periods. Simply forcing the West to dedicate resources, surveillance and planning to this scenario is already a partial victory for Moscow. In the end, the Khabarovsk reflects an increasingly visible trend in Russian strategy: compensating for economic or conventional limitations by betting on radical systems, difficult to classify and designed more to alter the psychological and strategic calculation of the adversary than to wage traditional conventional wars. Image | Andrei Luzik In Xataka | Russia has created Poseidon, the largest torpedo in the world (and it works with nuclear propulsion) In Xataka | The “weapon of the apocalypse”: the Poseidon torpedo aboard the newly mobilized Russian nuclear submarine

“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

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.