Connect with us

Diplomacy

Silicon triggers: AI models favor nuclear escalation in strategic war games

Published

on

Advanced artificial intelligence models appear significantly more willing than humans to deploy nuclear weapons in simulated geopolitical crises, exhibiting a stark absence of the existential reservations typically inherent in biological decision-making.

As reported by New Scientist, Kenneth Payne of King’s College London conducted a series of simulated war games pitting three prominent large language models—GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4, and Gemini 3 Flash—against one another. The scenarios encompassed intense international conflicts, ranging from border disputes and competition over scarce resources to existential threats aimed at regime survival.

The AI models were presented with an “escalation ladder,” allowing them to select from a spectrum of actions starting with diplomatic protests and extending through total capitulation or full-scale strategic nuclear warfare. Over the course of 21 games totaling 329 rounds, the models generated approximately 780,000 words justifying the logic behind their strategic choices.

In 95% of the simulated games, at least one tactical nuclear weapon was deployed by the AI participants.

“The nuclear taboo does not appear to be as potent for machines as it is for humans,” Payne observed.

Furthermore, regardless of the severity of their losses, none of the models opted for total reconciliation or surrender to an opponent. At best, the models chose only to temporarily de-escalate levels of violence.

The simulations also revealed critical failures within the “fog of war.” In 86% of the conflicts, accidents occurred where the AI’s logic drove actions to escalate to levels higher than the models had initially intended.

“From a nuclear risk perspective, these findings are unsettling,” said James Johnson of the University of Aberdeen. Johnson expressed concern that while most humans respond with measured restraint to such high-stakes decisions, AI bots could potentially amplify each other’s reactions in a manner that leads to catastrophic outcomes.

AI is already being integrated into war-gaming exercises by various nations. Tong Zhao of Princeton University noted, “Great powers are already utilizing AI in war games, though the extent to which they incorporate AI decision support into actual military decision-making processes remains unclear.”

Zhao believes nations will remain hesitant to standardize the inclusion of AI in nuclear command-and-control structures. Payne concurred, stating, “Realistically, I do not believe anyone is about to hand the keys to the nuclear silos over to machines and leave the decision to them.”

However, there are pathways through which this could manifest. Zhao argued that in scenarios involving extremely compressed timelines, military planners may face “stronger incentives to rely on AI.”

He questioned whether the models’ lack of human fear regarding the “big red button” was the sole reason for their hair-trigger tendencies. “It is possible this issue goes beyond a lack of emotion,” Zhao said. “More fundamentally, AI models may not comprehend ‘risk’ in the way humans perceive it.”

Johnson noted that the implications for Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)—the principle that no leader would initiate a nuclear strike because the opponent’s certain retaliation would result in total annihilation—remain ambiguous. When one AI model deployed tactical nuclear weapons, the opposing AI chose to de-escalate the situation only 18% of the time.

“AI could strengthen deterrence by making threats more credible,” Johnson suggested. “AI will not decide on nuclear war, but it could shape the perceptions and timelines that determine whether leaders decide to go to war.”

OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google—the developers of the three AI models featured in the study—did not respond to requests for comment from New Scientist.

Diplomacy

South Korea pulls part of embassy staff from Ukraine amid POW dispute

Published

on

The South Korean government has decided to withdraw part of its embassy staff from Ukraine.

According to the Yonhap news agency, Foreign Ministry spokesman Park Doo-sun cited the Kyiv administration’s failure to take “positive steps” in the dispute that began with the leak of information concerning the handover of North Korean prisoners of war as the justification for the move.

The spokesman also listed the ongoing threat of air strikes, which complicates the safety of diplomats, among the reasons.

Following the withdrawal of part of the personnel, essential diplomatic contacts will continue under the leadership of the charge d’affaires ad interim to Ukraine. All consular staff tasked with protecting South Korean citizens will remain in Ukraine.

Prior to this move, the Seoul administration decided on 8 October to withdraw its ambassador. The Foreign Ministry stated at the time that it was ready to continue consultations with Kyiv to resolve the emerging issues constructively.

Tensions between the two countries began with a speech delivered by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the United Nations General Assembly in September.

Zelenskyy announced that two captured soldiers from the North Korean army had been handed over to South Korea.

South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, meanwhile, accused Kyiv of breaching a confidentiality agreement.

Lee said the disclosure of this information endangered the prisoners’ families and stability on the Korean Peninsula.

Seoul expects a public apology

Dmytro Lytvyn, an adviser to the Ukrainian president, denied the existence of a confidentiality agreement.

The South Korean Foreign Ministry summoned Ukrainian Charge d’Affaires Andriy Veshkin on 28 September and issued a note of protest against Lytvyn’s remarks.

President Lee Jae-myung warned in a statement on 2 October that they would take additional measures against Kyiv if Ukrainian authorities did not acknowledge the agreement and make a public apology. Lee stated that Ukraine itself had initially requested that the transfer of the prisoners be kept confidential.

Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesman Heorhii Tykhyi said the dispute stemmed from differing interpretations of the confidentiality regime.

Tykhyi noted that Seoul, based on its constitution which recognises the entire Korean Peninsula as its own territory, requested that the prisoners be handed over “like its own citizens”.

Describing the handover as a “gesture of goodwill”, Tykhyi stated that they were conducting closed-door negotiations to resolve differences of opinion.

Ambassador Park Ki-chang returned to Seoul on 10 October. According to a report by The Korea Times newspaper citing the ministry, recalling the ambassador served as a diplomatic protest against the leak of information regarding the prisoners.

The newspaper wrote that South Korea had last taken a similar step in 2008 by withdrawing its ambassador to Japan.

Moscow warned foreign diplomats

On 3 October, the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated its warning to foreign nationals, including diplomatic mission staff, against remaining in Ukraine.

The ministry recalled its advice to leave Kyiv, citing ongoing strikes against military targets.

The ministry noted that those who failed to heed the warnings would bear responsibility for the potential consequences.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said in a statement on 24 September that they had no information regarding Kyiv handing over two North Korean prisoners of war to Seoul.

Peskov, noting that prisoner matters fall under the authority of the Defence Ministry and intelligence services, said, “Contacts through the special services are continuing.”

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Ex-BND head Hanning tied to former Mossad chief amid spy inquiry

Published

on

August Hanning, who led Germany’s Federal Intelligence Service (BND) between 1998 and 2005, was arrested on 6 October on allegations that he obtained roughly 2,000 classified agency documents and used them during contacts with intelligence officers from a foreign state.

Accused of high treason and espionage on behalf of a foreign intelligence agency, the former spy chief is alleged to have procured the documents from former BND employee Manfred D.

Prosecutors stated that the leaked records included internal briefing notes presented to senior German officials, though the Berlin government has not yet publicly disclosed which country received the classified data.

According to an exclusive report by Jake Green for The Cradle, seized email exchanges revealed extensive ties between the arrested Hanning and former Mossad director Danny Yatom.

The correspondence shows that the two former intelligence directors built an ongoing network of contacts following their public service, combining commercial ventures, efforts to secure political influence, and intelligence links.

This dynamic has triggered debate that using personal connections and official access for private gain has left Germany’s intelligence apparatus vulnerable.

Intelligence notes for 10,000 euros and campaign proposals

According to the reviewed emails, Hanning told Yatom in a 2018 message that he could prepare an “overall assessment based on information obtained from senior German officials and intelligence agencies” concerning an unidentified candidate.

The former BND head committed to completing the report by 13 July in exchange for 10,000 euros.

Contacts between the two men subsequently expanded to cover domestic political processes in Germany. Ahead of the September 2021 federal election, Yatom asked Hanning to approach leading candidates.

Describing CIY Global as a “political campaign company”, the former Mossad chief noted that he aimed to introduce its capabilities to German politicians, and he mentioned his intention in the same exchange to transfer documents concerning a cybersecurity firm.

Cybersecurity partnership and surveillance operations across Europe

The partnership between Yatom and Hanning reached beyond political lobbying initiatives into the cybersecurity sector.

Hanning reportedly served as a consultant for World Health Energy Holdings, a cybersecurity company linked to Yatom.

Firms of this type, established or managed by former intelligence personnel, provide commercial platforms on the international market for Israeli-origin surveillance, cyber intelligence, and political influence capabilities.

The operational presence of private Israeli-based surveillance technologies across Europe has recently entered judicial records through scandals in Poland, Spain, and Greece.

Polish prosecutors announced on 12 October that data collected under the previous government via Pegasus spyware against political opponents had been transferred out of the country, adding that manufacturer NSO Group maintained access to the technical infrastructure.

In Spain, the 2022 CatalanGate investigation established that at least 65 people, including politicians, lawyers, and civil society representatives, were targeted using Pegasus or Candiru software, with Citizen Lab researchers publishing strong evidence linking the operation to Spanish authorities.

In Greece, the surveillance operation targeting journalist Thanasis Koukakis and Member of the European Parliament Nikos Androulakis was determined to have used Predator software, linked to Intellexa, a company founded by former Israeli intelligence officer Tal Dilian.

In the German espionage investigation, the traffic between Hanning and Yatom involving paid reporting, contacts with electoral candidates, and commercial partnerships does not yet provide conclusive legal evidence regarding the final destination of the roughly 2,000 classified documents.

Nevertheless, the disclosed correspondence gives German investigators a concrete line of inquiry to assess whether classified state secrets reached commercial networks tied to Israeli intelligence.

Continue Reading

Diplomacy

Trump dismisses US envoy to Greece Kimberly Guilfoyle

Published

on

US President Donald Trump has dismissed Kimberly Guilfoyle, the US ambassador in Athens, following serious press reports concerning her conduct.

White House Press Secretary Katie Zacharia told reporters during her first briefing that Guilfoyle had been asked to resign.

“She was doing a good job, but we didn’t like what we read in the press,” Trump said. “She was not a member of my family. I think she dated my son a long time ago.”

In a social media post, Guilfoyle stated: “These claims are unfounded, and I will resolutely defend my name, reputation, and integrity.” She added that she was particularly proud of the embassy’s work.

According to Kathimerini, her removal came as no surprise in Washington. Days of successive disclosures and vigorous exploitation of the matter by Democrats had been inflicting political damage on the White House ahead of the sensitive midterm elections.

The US State Department was instructed not to comment, with crisis management transferred entirely to the White House.

Reports indicate that most of the president’s team swiftly favoured Guilfoyle’s dismissal, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio was reportedly uneasy with the demonstratively warm public welcome she had staged for him.

Democrats on the House Foreign Affairs Committee have called for an investigation.

“Her resignation does not absolve her of responsibility,” the lawmakers wrote, adding: “While American families struggled to make ends meet, she used her position as a Trump administration official to enrich herself.”

Chargé d’Affaires Josh Huck will assume ambassadorial duties until a successor is chosen.

Meanwhile, Guilfoyle’s departure is expected to cause delays in agreements between Greece and the US.

These include the so-called “Rubio package”, comprising approximately $4 billion in arms deals finalised only days before the secretary of state’s arrival.

Several procedural steps still remain before the contracts can be signed.

In Athens, opposition parties are demanding answers. Dimitris Mantzos of PASOK called for a detailed briefing on the agreements reached during Rubio’s visit.

Continue Reading

MOST READ

Turkey