culture carried out by the wealthiest possibly the most civilized country in the world is definitely not the same thing. what they did was 91 years old when he died . in columbia, the president said she was a painter of the country's virtues and its arrows. what data is called suzanne paintings are located in different cities around the world reminds her of an artist who dared show the world in his own unique way that he so i just see to the hello dan, i'm in the zip for ron and uh, how would be headlines on onto 0, the libyan wall, or for the for house that has allowed entry to aid convoys. dispatched by the arrival administration in the west and of rad display of cooperation. how fell visit to the city of then on friday with thousands of died and devastating floods. i'll just hear some home of ad buckley reports from the now, how do you,

what do i mean, a lot of the federal 1st, the one of the most difficult moments for people here and during the is whenever a body of a loved one found this corpse was just recovered after being washed up on the shore of the total of 10 bodies have been recovered this morning alone. mean, now this ambulance will collect, the bodies are bob and we will try lucky and this is one of the buildings which was submerged according to neighbors. it was home to a family of 10. none of them have been accounted for. diverse have been searching under the water hoping to find any of the victim. there's been widespread destruction from what were once homes, 2 hundreds of families are now in their own graves. clean up operations are still on the way in morocco often last week. devastating earthquake video and estimates that more than 3 100000 people have been affected. nearly 3000 people have died. stephanie decor reports from what abraham. so this town is much more stablish than the other very remote villages. we've been to but destruction here also on

a very large scale. how much of the town has been damaged. this is as low as it may be. you have done 50 percent, completely destroyed seats minarette in crux. and again, here just goes to show again the challenge of um, bringing heavy equipment into these areas. removing all of this and rebuilding, that is the main challenge, really everywhere. north korea's leda is visiting rushes, pacific naval fleet area conjunction with sean nuclear capable, bahamas. he's on the last leg of his visit to russia. many observers believe shown young and moscow will enter into an it's packed. well, those are the headlines on algebra to stay with us upfront is coming up next. thank you for watching. with global leaders gathering in new york,

the ongoing war and ukraine is likely to dominate events, but is the international community able to unite to stay without? is there a comprehensive coverage? the un general assembly artificial intelligence is the future of war. tech giants and governments are already partnering to produce lethal autonomous weapons of all these so called killer robots, unleashed a new kinds of danger. ok, they make weren't safer. as supporters claim that conversation is coming up. but 1st, with recent world events, the danger of nuclear war has spike nuclear weapons, are the most dangerous munitions on the, for the potential to kill millions to level cities and destroy the natural environment for generations to come. get even with this knowledge, we are no closer to achieving total nuclear non proliferation. in fact, the topic continues to be debated. why is that? we'll ask this. what is headliner?

beatrice fit executive director of the 2017 nobel peace prize recipients, the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons, the beatrice, ben, executive director of the international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons. i can thank you so much for joining us on upfront. i can, was a driving force behind the 2017 treaty and the prohibition of nuclear weapons to outlaw nuclear weapons entirely for which your organization was awarded the nobel peace prize. $122.00 countryside onto the treaty. but none of the nuclear powers did, nor did any of the nato countries. and since then, we've seen russian nuclear forces on a high alert level in the us to withdraw from the ran due increases in india in pakistan's nuclear warhead, started piles, and a bunch of other recent developments which are the main countries in the world right now preventing the complete abolition of nuclear weapons as well. thank you

very much for having me and mark. um, yeah, i mean the tv was a great accomplishment, but of course the, the big elephant in the room, of course, is that the 9 neutrons states and the other countries that are participating in exercising and practicing and hosting new to us of the territory have not get during the treaty and this was one of the reasons why we pushed this tv to happen because we saw that things were getting worse with huge quantization programs from the new chrome states. all of them are upgrading and increasing the new arsenals. a much more nationalistic tendency, they are threatening uh each other much more of this kind of arms for a start is happening right now. and of course, now we see how russia is basically threatening the world to using throughout them. if anyone interferes with its invasion of ukraine. so this is really a very serious moment, but it's, it's also exactly why we pushed for this treaty, having these weapons wherever we will see them being used. eventually we see

a very dangerous situation right now. the risk of nuclear use has increased. i'm not saying that it's likely to be used, but i think we have to be aware that we are pushing closer and closer to the point where we essentially going to be used and we have to drastically change. and it is the nuclear on states, and it's the nuclear allied states and nato, for example, they really have to be discharged because we cannot be that's vulnerable for one person in the world anymore. well, let's talk about one of those nuclear arms states. russian president vladimir putin actually order nuclear forces to be put on a high alert level. what in your estimation is the likelihood of nuclear war? i wouldn't say that it's likely, i still hope that the threshold for usually nuclear weapons remains very, very high for oil countries. but the more i see, of course, the war developing in ukraine and seeing the threats doesn't paint the great picture for it for what we could imagine happening in ukraine as well. and also sort of like a very irrational leader under

a lot of pressure feeling like there's no way out for him. i'm very worried about this. i'm also very worried about accidents. mistakes, things that we didn't expect could happen. we just saw a few weeks ago in the mistaken me launch a miss on own own practice done by accident. and having these situations happening right now on the beast tension. if that would have happened between say, a us, a base and rush of course, i mean because because it could be opposite that this will be we could stumble into nuclear war. and of course, we see through situations like north korea, testing myself. i used to be and again, south korea saying that he wants nuclear weapons, we've seen bela roo, say that they could station russian new to us on the territory. we've seen poland say a week. it's the station american to come up with an us. there's so many variables here and so many on certain situations and we have just being sold, vulnerable for just relying on these people, mainly men,

to always get it back to never make a mistake to always behave rationally and basically putting the afraid of our entire humanity in the hands of someone like put in and just hope for the best. it's absolutely unsustainable. escalation has been happening for a while now. in 2019 president, trump also withdrew the us from the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty or the i n f, which mark the 1st time that both the us and russia had agreed to actually reduce their nuclear arsenals. in fact, when this happened, you've stated a quote, trump has fired the starting pistol on cold war 2. so to what extent does move by the us undermine nuclear disarmament? and perhaps even compromise global nuclear security. i mean, we've seen this has been a trend over the last 10 years. we've seen the dismantling of international legal instruments. we've seen by mason. i'm in special ed in, sped off on one side, but from many different sides. we saw trump withdrawal from the i n s t b a from the van deal, which the investor violates

a lot of these kind of instruments. and we've seen the barn at the chemical weapons convention as well. we've seen a really negative turn and then you add this very kind of trend of national mistake sort of might show leaders a threatening sort of rest of a get an arms race must sit investments in, in, in nuclear weapons. and you get that kind of tension and i think that this is exactly what we want to, but if we continued on this path, we are on very dangerous territory. and i think that it's not just one decision here and there that you know, makes it so dangerous many different overtime. a complete the prior to some of the pre authorization of disarmament. diplomacy of multilateralism, working together and seeing actually reduction of nuclear arsenals as increasing global security. and in the meantime, you have the rest of the world without nuclear weapons feeling at hostages. and this kind of situation, i think that there's

a lot of the countries around the world now looking at the situations like today, just decide over the fate of my country. do we have a sam? this that's exactly what the treated, the prohibition on nuclear weapons. it's about taking control for other countries to say actually we have to get to disarmament. we have the band and eliminate these weapons. let's talk a little bit about the iran deal because talks have resumed to implement the around the also known as the jcp away. when trump withdrew from the deal in 262018, excuse me, you called it disastrous. and you said it was essentially a pretext for the us to wage war on iran. do you anticipate a return to the iran deal and from a, what was security standpoint? what's at stake if the deal fails as well when the trump administration withdrew from the treaty it had a very sort of i think so meant vicious intent with that it was a functioning deal. it really had strict verification ensure that yvonne was not

developing the weapons of the us, just intentionally sabotage that. but the standard that was in the run the it was the highest that we've ever seen that international agreement with verification of nuclear energy facilities. and i a a verify that they run with implementing it. they are not develop new prep as we know what they're doing. so i think that was just intentionally trying to portray the treaty as by when it was actually a very high standard treaty. i was really a he a huge diplomatic achievement to get it. so when it was broken, of course it's really hard to put these things back together and you have undermined trust from iran, from all the other countries that were part of this treaty. so i think it's a, it's a view, it's a really good sign that these countries are still trying very hard to get it back together to get a treaty back together. i think that it shows a commitment from all sides. and i really hope that they will, but will succeed. now, proponents of deterrence, they argue that the best way to prevent nuclear war is to build

a nuclear arsenal on both sides of a conflict. so that they're used to lead to the mutually assured destruction of everyone. that's the language it's always being used. you, on the other hand, argue that the best way to prevent nuclear war is to make sure that there are no such weapons to begin with. how is nuclear deterrence theory lot, and how can we approach this argument in a way that makes the world safer? i mean, new to the terrace theory is it is so strange because it's like if it's because all of these bizarre assumptions that we do 1st is requires that everyone with nuclear weapons forever is always rational and always takes the bi position. but it also requires a certain level of irrationality because when would it be, were when would it be rational to start nuclear war, a nuclear war full scale and if the war could end commodity as we know what i mean, that will be survive us. but like the world that we know what that that would be gone. would it ever be rational to do that?

i mean that's collective suicide. would a person like by didn't ever feel like that's the right decision to make? probably not, so you would have in order to test or even work, you have to be your rational. and then you have this idea that the opponent would also make the bite assumption about 2 measures. would it be irrational to about obviously depending if there were here, but wouldn't be a rational to, to launch the nuclear weapon. if the other side didn't have one to well, then i mean if you want to mass motor low civilians like sure. and i think that that's where this there, this very kind of fails, and we see it now is happening. you do cream of food and isn't using his nuclear arsenal to protect russia. he's using it to be able to invade a country without their 2 effects. and saying if anyone tries to help, if anyone tries to interfere with my invitation, i will use nuclear weapons. so basically, contest i do not, the states are limited and is option where they can do to, to help your premiums because it has to be processed. so here is actually

a disadvantage, and when you're having this kind of stand up between 22 nuclear states, for example, like put in and by then who would be the most reckless like would, would by, than ever convincing me threatened to murder more. so i believe and then to do, would we believe that we put them to the bed and can we guarantee with all of our, like all the countries in the world rely on someone like put in or human or she or whoever, to always get it back to medical stuff 9, but still in order for the test work, you have to be prepared across the line. so it's a complete contradiction, no to the parents, and they can never guarantee that they won't. it won't happen. so it does all these kind of weird assumptions that we're making. and at the end of the day, mistakes happen, people act irrational, me, people act unpredictably and we can't guarantee that it won't happen. and i think that the consequences are so massive, but we just have to eliminate them. is that before you go there?

many of us who are persuaded by your argument for a nuclear disarmament. but some people would say that, given the history of settler colonialism, imperialism, mass, genocide, etc, that we have no reason to believe that powerful people, powerful nations, whatever, concede their weaponry, their nuclear arsenals in particular. and that while the idea is good, will never get there. what gives you a hope that we can actually have a world without nuclear weapons? what gives me hope is really that we have made a lot of progress internationally in the world when it comes to international law. when it comes to human bards. when it comes to the rules and how we supposed to be having, it doesn't feel like that in particular, not when you opened your twitter account and you get overwhelmed with all the awful things that are happening right now. but, you know, things like the un charter of things like that, you know, the geneva conventions besides, you know, not just the golf flo,

let's assume preventing russia from doing all these things right out. but we are posting, being based on because they're both saying that you can read another country and without those who as if we never developed those tools, it will just fair game for everyone to just do whatever. and the biggest countries would, would, would been all those things and they would do whatever they want, but they can't really, always do whatever they want. and i think the things like the colin i station for example, seeing how all these countries who were colonized by the, by the side of major powerful countries have become free today and all their own countries. and that's, you know, they did that despite these countries having breakfast, i think that is a way and, and the powerful have always lost their power when the majority has risen up and stood against that. and that's when you can really make change happen. so the, treating, the prohibition to go up as is really all way of creating a high pollution on this nuclear structure that we create as i no longer can these

5 countries and the other 4 that has them as well, like just dictate the terms and say this is fine because we have them and you can have them now where we're changing the game. we create a new law. so new rules and we're going to demand a different system very interested in thank you so much for joining me on the killer robots. the future of war, more technically known as leaf autonomous weapon systems or laws. these robots can operate independently and attack targets without human control. artificial intelligence weapons of already been deployed in military conflict. but some warren, the war and ukraine could see both sides using autonomous weapons in an unprecedented way. despite you wouldn't let attempt to curb development and establish international regulation of loss. countries including the us and russia, are continuing their uncheck development of the technology. human rights organizations are campaigning against killer robots. while some military experts argue that they'll make more safer and more efficient. are they right?

and are we witnessing the dawn of a new arms race? joining me to discuss this are lower nolan, a former google employee in software engineer with the international committee for robot, arms control. and matt, and moody and artificial intelligence research or with amnesty international. the see both of you. thank you for joining me. a laura, i'm going to start with you. uh, the evolution of killer robots has been described as a quote, potentially seismic event in warfare akin to the invention of gun powder and nuclear bombs. that's a rather a staggering characterization is the one you'd agree with it? absolutely. as not. i mean the essential competitor is alta, but it's actually pretty much forms the, the whole, the whole nature of the nation states and the whole way that we live. i don't think the weapons are likely to be about thought seismic. i mean, i think looking at the current context, we live in it. we're living in a world where people are building is complex and weapons which are on proven and

their, their utility and their advocacy is completely on proven. i do think that on those weapons are likely to post danger both to both the soldiers themselves. i think there's a very, very high risk of, frankly, far as like incidence. i think there's a high risk of civility and harm. i think there's a very high risk of potentially sparking off the conflict and on an intentional kind of way. man, i want to give it to you for a 2nd, but in terms of the technology of war are we now want to see a racist who can to see who can build the, the biggest and most efficient and were just most destructive killer robot. i just think it's important to note that states are coursing competition with each other around upon us weapons systems. i mean in january 2021 alone we've seen and it was in rafael bass of the past systems building and showcase and commercial drones and robot dock. capable of facial recognition, we've seen in libya and march 2020 the use of various cargo drones, which has been developed by true teams. the number of cases in which the

technologies that are upon was that one system by definition or being used. however, we said the form of the art arms series might look quite different. what were expecting a lot of the technologies that upon themselves, the systems are built on our technologies that are being used in everyday concepts in the policing complex. for example, facial recognition for mass surveillance in motion recognition gate recognition, pretty nevada linux. these are all tools that we know are being used against. for example, life's not are for testers and have been known to time and time again. fail into arguments, racially discriminatory policing, and r b fact go against international rascal. so we're looking for one terminator to show up at our door. we're maybe looking in the wrong place and, and argue that, that what we're actually needing to, to so keep an eye out for are these more on sort of one of the ways in which these technologies are starting to play a role in our everyday lives. and daughter,

how we live in it seems to me that a big part of that is the growing of partnerships between these tech companies and governments. laura, you worked as an engineer for google before residing in 2018 out of protest after you were assigned to work on project maven, which seeks to advance drone technology for the u. s. military and recent years, amazon, microsoft and google have all signed contracts with the pentagon, while others, including elan, must have pledge not to develop lethal autonomous weapons. how dangerous are these partnerships? particularly in light of the fact that these companies have the personal information of more than a 1000000000 people around the world. i think i would like like to underline what might just said, which is that these are not only mostly technologies i'm of there are huge implications here for civil liberties for courtesy and for you know, how, how we live our lives. i'd cyber warfare context as well. so fundamentally,

when you're talking about, or talking about the weapons, if you want to build a bridge, you don't really need much on this weapon out on those weapons are fundamentally but targets that are mobile. they're not, not for talking military base has been offered talking to columns that are by people there. but people on vehicles that help people in the and therefore these kinds of weapons. they're very intimately by don't in surveillance technologies because you need to have a homeless weapon. you needs to have the technology to know where people are, where people are moving orange to understand their behavior. so we're big tech comes into this is if you think about cloud computing technology, you have big companies like amazon, microsoft, google, they're making a lot of money out of selling and wants to cloud computing technology. now surveillance technology is a huge the compute intensive. so quite simply, it takes a lot of c p u cycles, a lot of memory, a lot of expensive computing infrastructure to run this kind of technology. so

there's a huge business opportunity here to build surveillance systems. and i think we can see that for, and i have in the fact that all of the major class companies have built a price for recognizing objects for recognizing people. so this is, as i said, this is very much do we use technology between military and civilian applications? man, let me ask you a question about precision here. us air strikes are notoriously emphasized. they've killed thousands of civilians. for example, there was a drone striking bureau, a young man in 2013 that killed at least a dozen people at a wedding procession all civilians. according to human rights groups, a 2016 us air strike in northern syria killed at least 120 civilians could a, our technology at least reduce deadly incidents like this. absolutely not. humans are not just numbers. and i think these systems do process human beings as if they were, you know, from research that joint blown median 10, you get rude it a while ago that in many cases,

facial recognition systems are capable of identifying especially black women with the rate of anywhere between $60.00 to $70.00, to sometimes 90 percent, depending on the study that you're looking at. now, even if you were to make those systems 99 percent accurate, let's say that you could, you're still dealing with systems that are inherently existing in the context of discrimination. institutional racism, massage any etc. and so i think it's important that we looked at how would that be different than the current systems of policing or surveillance, or education or anything else we have. and so it would double down in a match those existing crisis, even though success, existing forms of discrimination. so we don't want to have a system in which say you have to discriminatory practices and put them on steroids . that's exactly the opposite of what we want to do. and so what we need is, in fact, a legally binding instrument, which is what the stock killer robots campaign has been calling for. and what we

need is also a global ban on remote stein metric surveillance technologies, which you're going to, these are finding this weapon systems. i just want to make a quick point regarding what might said before about about the dangers of back comfortability or regulation. and why it makes a difference that we might take unimed, perfect and process that is executed by human beings underwater maters. so one of the great problems that we have, i guess we both preserving our civil rights and our free society and also with overseeing international humanitarian law. i'm showing that the, the, the international votes of warfare are respected. it is, but we have a lack of transparency. one of the things that we see is when we automate the process, we as much as we make it less flexible. and we also tends to make it much less transparent. if we start taking the logic of what we're doing, we're fair or you know, society start encouraging it in an impression,

algorithms on prophecies that are free and switchable that's can be inspected by few people that are controlled by a few people that we, we do. we do risk things spinning out of control of ways that we don't want. laura is also an argument to be made that it's too late, right? the most powerful nations are supporting this stuff. the technology is already in use. us national security commission, co chair. uh robert work said uh a uh in warfare is already happening. so if it's already happening and to begin the most part so people are behind it. what do we do? is it too late? i think that that is a very, very yeah, knit listed kind of approach to, to take to us people can do for weapons. they were used in watching 45 and they haven't been used since. so it's possible to refrain from the use of certain weapons as across development. and there's also been a very, very strong norm has emerged against chemical weapons and also biological weapons.

and of course, there's a very, very strong emerging norm against the use of landlines because of the, the heart that they do civilians. so i think it's, i don't, i don't think it's correct to say that there's no hope that the weapons never beat the weapons. are never bound, or those states temper refrain from using particular types of buttons. man, it's never too for me to put human beings and not data points ahead of the agenda. anatomy seems higher time again with even issues of check. as soon as enough people are aware of the kinds of forms the systems are causing, the will inevitably move the needle on what is seen that's permissible. and what we need to do in this particular moment is move the needle on how 1st of all we're finding thomas weapons system. and as you know from where we're standing, absolutely acceptable. laura mac, thank you so much for joining me on upfront. all right, that is our show upfront. we'll be back. next week the,

the the, i have the right to boycott. anyone i want to and the state has no business getting involved in that. a new 3 part series explodes, the implications of us and people uncomfortable with the freedom of speech and 1st amendment gods chosen to bless us because we protect israel. i'm going to continue . do you want to state level all that? i can't support that whenever you see him just as regardless of what space or gender, what's going on. he see that he has to say something critical, the bank,

instead of trying to externalize the management of this problem in teaching, is yet to meet the, to other countries. the europe, the member states, should be trying to take control of this issue themselves. inside story on al jazeera, beginning to ideals different republic, his loan for claims, which is what it's more than from in a full pot theory. the big picture takes and in depth ness france insight. episode one on l. g sierra imprisoned without trying to, i'll just say of richard, unless remain behind bars in egypt for hot wood didn't seem detained since february 2020. the drop yet

a chief detained since august 2021 which is 0 calls for the him. media release of its generalization, detained in egypt. journalism is not a crime. the, [000:00:00;00] the hello i'm it has withdrawn and vistas and use our life from doha, coming out for the next 16 minutes. searching for thousands fed dead rescue teams and eastern libya. 6 were mountains of debris, days off to synonymy like slots. the daunting task of rebuilding mountain last