Strategies: Revolution in climate prediction is both necessary and possible: A declaration at the World Modelling Summit for Climate Prediction

The impending threat of global climate change and its regional manifestations is among the most important and urgent problems facing humanity. Society needs accurate and reliable estimates of changes in the probability of regional weather variations to develop science-based adaptation and mitigation strategies. Recent advances in weather prediction and in our understanding and ability to model the climate system suggest that it is both necessary and possible to revolutionize climate prediction to meet these societal needs. However, the scientific workforce and the computational capability required to bring about such a revolution is not available in any single nation. Motivated by the success of internationally funded infrastructure in other areas of science, this paper argues that, because of the complexity of the climate system, and because the regional manifestations of climate change are mainly through changes in the statistics of regional weather variations, the scientific and computational requirements to predict its behavior reliably are so enormous that the nations of the world should create a small number of multinational high-performance computing facilities dedicated to the grand challenges of developing the capabilities to predict climate variability and change on both global and regional scales over the coming decades. Such facilities will play a key role in the development of next-generation climate models, build global capacity in climate research, nurture a highly trained workforce, and engage the global user community, policy-makers, and stakeholders. We recommend the creation of a small number of multinational facilities with computer capability at each facility of about 20 peta-flops in the near term, about 200 petaflops within five years, and 1 exaflop by the end of the next decade. Each facility should have sufficient scientific workforce to develop and maintain the software and data analysis infrastructure. Such facilities will enable questions of what resolution, both horizontal and vertical, in atmospheric and ocean models, is necessary for more confident predictions at the regional and local level. Current limitations in computing power have placed severe limitations on such an investigation, which is now badly needed. These facilities will also provide the world's scientists with the computational laboratories for fundamental research on weather–climate interactions using 1-km resolution models and on atmospheric, terrestrial, cryospheric, and oceanic processes at even finer scales. Each facility should have enabling infrastructure including hardware, software, and data analysis support, and scientific capacity to interact with the national centers and other visitors. This will accelerate our understanding of how the climate system works and how to model it. It will ultimately enable the climate community to provide society with climate predictions, which are based on our best knowledge of science and the most advanced technology.

Civilian casualties – do we really care? The failure of the revolution in military affairs of non-lethal weapons in the U.S., Russia and Israel

Causing civilian casualties during military operations has become a much politicised topic in international relations since the Second World War. Since the last decade of the 20th century, different scholars and political analysts have claimed that human life is valued more and more among the general international community. This argument has led many researchers to assume that democratic culture and traditions, modern ethical and moral issues have created a desire for a world without war or, at least, a demand that contemporary armed conflicts, if unavoidable, at least have to be far less lethal forcing the military to seek new technologies that can minimise civilian casualties and collateral damage. Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW) – weapons that are intended to minimise civilian casualties and collateral damage – are based on the technology that, during the 1990s, was expected to revolutionise the conduct of warfare making it significantly less deadly. The rapid rise of interest in NLW, ignited by the American military twenty five years ago, sparked off an entirely new military, as well as an academic, discourse concerning their potential contribution to military success on the 21st century battlefields. It seems, however, that except for this debate, very little has been done within the military forces themselves. This research suggests that the roots of this situation are much deeper than the simple professional misconduct of the military establishment, or the poor political behaviour of political leaders, who had sent them to fight. Following the story of NLW in the U.S., Russia and Israel this research focuses on the political and cultural aspects that have been supposed to force the military organisations of these countries to adopt new technologies and operational and organisational concepts regarding NLW in an attempt to minimise enemy civilian casualties during their military operations. This research finds that while American, Russian and Israeli national characters are, undoubtedly, products of the unique historical experience of each one of these nations, all of three pay very little regard to foreigners’ lives. Moreover, while it is generally argued that the international political pressure is a crucial factor that leads to the significant reduction of harmed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure, the findings of this research suggest that the American, Russian and Israeli governments are well prepared and politically equipped to fend off international criticism. As the analyses of the American, Russian and Israeli cases reveal, the political-military leaderships of these countries have very little external or domestic reasons to minimise enemy civilian casualties through fundamental-revolutionary change in their conduct of war. In other words, this research finds that employment of NLW have failed because the political leadership asks the militaries to reduce the enemy civilian casualties to a politically acceptable level, rather than to the technologically possible minimum; as in the socio-cultural-political context of each country, support for the former appears to be significantly higher than for the latter.