The Australian push to rewrite the rules of nuclear launches
Rising tension in the Middle East and South Asia has heightened fears of a war between nuclear-armed nations, something that threatens human existence, an Australian academic says. A rise in nuclear posturing and rhetoric in recent years has also prompted renewed calls for international safeguards to prevent accidental or unauthorised nuclear launches. A new study conducted by professor Emily Crawford from the University of Sydney Law School warns urgent action is needed to address the growing risks posed by nuclear weapons. "Increasing political tensions in declared and non-declared nuclear states have brought back into sharp focus the need to better regulate nuclear weapons," she said. The study highlights a combination of ageing nuclear infrastructure, emerging AI capabilities, and a lack of global cooperation as key factors creating what it describes as an "unstable and dangerous landscape".
So how do nuclear systems operate — and is an accidental launch actually possible?
Countries possessing nuclear weapons use NC3 systems, which stand for nuclear command, control and communications, Crawford explained. She said the NC3 systems are the central nervous system of a state's nuclear weapons program, which includes the people, policies, and technologies responsible for nuclear decision-making. "It's the framework that governs the process that, as its ultimate end product, results in the launch of a nuclear weapon — so it's a phrase that encompasses the entire chain from when a decision is made to launch a nuclear weapon to the actual launch of such a weapon," she said. NC3 also includes the maintenance of nuclear systems, ensuring that planning and execution are conducted according to stated doctrine and policy. Different countries have varying approaches to their NC3 systems, meaning the threshold for when a nuclear weapon could be launched is not universal.
In many countries, the NC3 infrastructure is ageing, which can pose a security risk to the entire world. "There is currently no binding international legal standard that governs how nuclear-armed states design or operate their NC3 systems," Crawford said. "This gap in governance poses a real risk to global security — and it's only growing."
NC3 frameworks are designed to prevent accidental or unlawful launches, but Crawford warned they are increasingly under strain. In many countries, the NC3 infrastructure is outdated, with some hardware dating back several decades. She said these legacy systems are often poorly suited to handle modern threats, especially those involving cyberattacks or AI. "In a world where AI tools can mimic official communications and cyber incursions can scramble critical infrastructure, the possibility of a false alarm triggering an escalation is no longer far-fetched," Crawford said.
In such a high-stakes environment, even a single NC3 failure could lead to catastrophic consequences. Crawford said in 2025, there have been growing concerns around disinformation and hacking campaigns targeting early warning systems.
Crawford's study calls for an international code of conduct that countries could adopt to establish a universal approach to nuclear systems. "A commitment to ensuring that there is an accountable chain of command involved in any nuclear weapons launch decisions, a commitment to the concept that the decision to launch a weapon should never lie with just one person, to keep AI out of nuclear launch decisions, and a commitment to 'no first strike'— that nuclear weapons would never be used offensively by a party who were not themselves subject to a nuclear attack," she said. This could be modelled off a similar framework, like the Missile Technology Control Regime — an initiative of the G7 member states from the 1980s to limit the risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Crawford believes such a framework could be successful, as many states have already adopted most of the rules she outlined in her study. "Because of the potentially devastating impacts of an accidental or unauthorised launch, most states have been very pragmatic about embracing guidelines that ensure that lines of communication remain open [such as nuclear hotlines] and that measures should exist to prevent unnecessary escalation of hostilities where nuclear weapons are in the mix," she said. "The US, UK and China have stated their commitment to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states or nuclear-weapons free zones; China adopts a 'no first use' policy, as does India; France adopts the two-person rule." But she acknowledged not all countries would support universal guidelines, as political differences may lead some to reject certain rules.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
The polyphagous shot-hole borer kills trees. Why is it so lethal, how is it treated, and can it spread across Australia?
The Western Australian government yesterday announced that it would stop trying to eradicate an invasive pest that's killing trees in and around Perth and start managing it instead. The pest, the polyphagous shot-hole borer (Euwallacea fornicatus), is a tiny beetle native to South-East Asia that has been silently spreading in the Perth metropolitan area for at least four years. The only approved treatment for the sesame-seed-sized pest is to chop down plants it has infested and chip them into tiny pieces. It's something that local councils have been forced to do to hundreds of trees, including dozens of huge, old Moreton Bay figs, to try to stop the beetle's spread. Last year, a $41 million plan was approved to wipe the pest from Australia's shores, but the WA state government this week said eradication was now no longer feasible. So why is this particular pest so problematic, and if it can't be eradicated, are there other treatments on the horizon? The beetle drills tunnels into tree trunks and branches, leaving distinctive "shot holes" in the bark. But despite being adept at chewing through wood, the polyphagous shot-hole borer doesn't eat it. Wood is mostly made of cellulose which, while plentiful, is incredibly hard to digest. "No animal has evolved the capacity to do this on its own — they always do it with a microbial friend," Theo Evans, an entomologist at the University of Western Australia, said. "With termites, for example, they have a range of bacteria and protozoa. In the case of these wood-boring beetles, they use a fungus," Dr Evans said. The fungus eats the wood, and the beetle eats the fungus. And it's the fungus — not the beetle, nor its tunnels — that ends up killing the tree. Once inside a branch or trunk, the growing fungus needs water, so it sends out filaments to tap into the tree's circulatory system. These fungal filaments can block those vessels, and essentially starve the tree of water and nutrients. The pest was first detected in WA in East Fremantle in August 2021 when a resident noticed two box elder maples in her garden looked unwell, and had shot holes in their bark. It was soon confirmed that the infestation was the polyphagous shot-hole borer, a pest that had been wreaking havoc in places like California, Israel and South Africa for more than a decade. But while this was the first confirmed report of the beetle in the state (and Australia more broadly), it would not have been the site of the first infestation, Dr Evans said. "Those trees were dying, so the beetles must have been in those trees for a minimum of two years, and possibly three or four because it takes that long … for the fungus to spread through the tree and clog its vascular system." It's also unclear how the beetle reached WA in the first place. What seems likeliest is the pest hitched a ride on wood used as packaging or filler around large, heavy items such as farm machinery, Dr Evans said. This wood filler, called dunnage, is supposed to be treated to kill any pests inside, but sometimes that doesn't happen. The beetle can survive in cut wood for up to seven months. Being a beetle, the polyphagous shot-hole borer has wings, but "it's a terrible flyer", Dr Evans said, capable of only flying around 30 metres at a time. "When you're only 1.5 millimetres long and you spend most of your life living inside a tree, you're not going to be an acrobat." Nor does it get transported on the wind. The minute a breeze picks up, the beetle retreats into a tunnel until it dies down again. It's thought the pest spread across the Perth metropolitan area in plant prunings. For instance, affected branches lopped off by arborists to protect power lines could've been unwittingly transported kilometres away. Chipping infested wood to under 2.5 centimetres results in a shot-hole borer death rate of more than 99 per cent. But "if it's a mature tree and it's got literally tens of thousands of beetles in it, that's still hundreds of beetles that survive", Dr Evans said. The shot-hole borer attacks WA native forest trees, including the marri (Corymbia calophylla) and karri (Eucalyptus diversicolor). "These are important trees, not just for the WA bush, but there are close relatives throughout the bush across Australia," Dr Evans said. "Now we don't know how badly affected the trees are going to become, because normally when the beetles are found infesting the trees, they get cut down and chipped. "So we don't see if the tree can survive a long time with the beetle … but it could end up being quite bad." Nor do we know exactly how the shot-hole borer might affect orchard trees in Australia. There is some information from fruit trees grown in Perth backyards, but nothing from commercial operations outside of the city. One lesson learnt from growers overseas is in avocados. The fruit seems to be highly susceptible to the polyphagous shot-hole borer, but the beetle tends to attack branches rather than the trunk. "With some careful pruning, which obviously costs more money and it does lower productivity of the tree a little, people in Israel and parts of the US have found that it's not a particularly bad problem," Dr Evans said. That said, when avocado trees were introduced into Australia, we managed to avoid bringing any pest species with them. So if the polyphagous shot-hole borer gets into local avocado orchards, "it will actually be quite a big problem, because growers don't have to think about those sorts of insect pests [at the moment]", he added. And just because the pest has behaved a certain way abroad does not mean it will act the same way here. The beetle has attacked Moreton Bay fig trees in Perth, but has had less of an impact on figs overseas. "So there's obviously local variation, probably a combination of the climate, the soil type, and water availability that changes the susceptibility of the plants," Dr Evans said. It's hard to say, Dr Evans said. Unsurprisingly, the beetle seems to thrive in climates similar to its native home. So while it might not do too well in relatively chilly Tasmania, it may well get a foothold along the east coast, especially from Brisbane up. Annual long, hot summers and wet winters may make plants more susceptible to the pest too. During punishingly dry summers, water-stressed plants may simply have very little capacity to fend off the beetle and fungus combination, and simply succumb to infestation. Trials mostly in the US have tested a handful of insecticides against the shot-hole borer with very little success — mostly because they were sprayed chemicals that might've landed on the bark of the tree, but couldn't get to the beetle inside its tunnel. So researchers, including Dr Evans, are trialling a combination of insecticide (to kill the beetle) and fungicide (to kill the fungus), which can be administered inside the tree. While he can't comment on his findings yet, "the results are very promising", he said. "We'll never get rid of [the need to] chop and chip. I think there are going to be some trees that are just too far gone and chop and chip is the only option. "But for trees that are early in the infestation, I think some of these methods are going to work and they're going to save the tree." For more on the polyphagous shot-hole borer, check out the full episode of Lab Notes.
ABC News
4 hours ago
- ABC News
Study backing OsteoStrong 'bone-strengthening' exercise program should be retracted: experts
A study claiming a popular exercise regimen called OsteoStrong can help strengthen bones in post-menopausal women has been criticised by scientists, with some saying it should never have been published. The research, which was accepted for publication in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM) in February this year, was hailed as "groundbreaking" by the international franchise behind the exercise program. "The acceptance of this research in a prestigious, peer-reviewed medical journal like JCEM is a monumental step in validating OsteoStrong as a science-backed solution for osteoporosis management," the company said in a press release at the time. But the study has since attracted international criticism, with questions being raised about its design, data analysis and conclusions. "We really questioned the [journal] editor on how this paper got through the peer-review process," said Robin Daly, a researcher in exercise and ageing at Deakin University. The study examined the effectiveness of the OsteoStrong program, which was described as "a bone-strengthening system implementing four devices and incorporating brief (10-minute), weekly, low-impact, and high-intensity osteogenic loading exercises" in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. The researchers separated 147 women into two groups. One group did the program and the other did not. The group that did the exercise program was further divided into two groups, one of which was on bone-strengthening medication and one that was not. Measures of bone strength were carried out at the start and end of the 12-month trial. The study claimed bone density was improved in women who did OsteoStrong (compared to those who didn't), and that among participants who were also on medication, it enhanced the effect of the drugs. "This is the first study that clearly demonstrates benefit" from the OsteoStrong program, the researchers wrote. But among numerous concerns expressed by critics are that the clinical trial had no clear statistical plan, failed to reduce the risk of bias, had no ethical approval and was not registered online for transparency. According to Professor Daly, "the claims [of the study] are totally misleading. They're not supported by the data". He said the way the study was designed and its results were analysed made it difficult to conclude anything. "The whole paper is extremely difficult to interpret. Professor Daly and University of Waterloo bone researcher Lora Giangregoria sent a letter to the editor of the journal calling for the study's retraction. Professor Giangregoria was concerned that publicity of the study's findings would lead people to make uninformed decisions about the OsteoStrong program. "The way that they present the statistics actually doesn't make any sense," she said. "The claims made in the study were not appropriate." Other experts have also expressed concern about the failure of the study to adhere to normal standards and guidelines for clinical trials. They were concerned the clinical trial was not registered, a practice that helps make research more transparent, and prevent publication bias. It also lacked appropriate ethics approval and there were "potential unacknowledged conflicts of interest", Professor Daly added. In March this year, Osteoporosis Canada expressed concern about the study and the evidence base for the OsteoStrong program. In a statement, also co-authored by Professor Giangregoria, the organisation said: … Osteoporosis Canada cannot support recommendations regarding its use for fracture prevention based on existing research. Chris Maher, director of the University of Sydney Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, agreed with the concerns raised about the study. "That study is flawed and does not provide believable evidence on the effect of OsteoStrong," Professor Maher said. He pointed specifically to the lack of registration and ethical clearance. "It therefore does not conform to the Declaration of Helsinki, so it has no standing in medical science and should never have been published." Maria Fiatarone Singh, a University of Sydney geriatrician who researches the impacts of exercise, was also highly critical of the study. "I think it is too flawed to draw any conclusions," she commented by email. "It is shocking that the editors allowed this to be published in a peer-reviewed journal and it indeed should be retracted and re-analysed at the very least." Shoshana Sztal-Mazer, an endocrinologist and expert in bone disease at Alfred Health in Melbourne, said the principle behind OsteoStrong was "plausible". The company states its system relies on "osteogenic loading", which is where force on your bones stimulates them to grow stronger. "Physiologically it makes sense," Dr Sztal-Mazer said. But she agreed there were concerns about the study. "It doesn't look like it was rigorously conducted. One of the major sources of bias in the study, according to critics, was allowing patients to choose which group they were in, Professor Fiatarone Singh said. "It is well known that people who choose exercise are healthier and at less risk of disease for numerous reasons than sedentary individuals or those who choose a non-exercise control condition when given a choice." In a statement provided to the ABC, the Endocrine Society, which publishes the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, said "we recognise the shortcomings in the research's design and analyses as reported in the online accepted manuscript. "Following a detailed editorial assessment, we confirmed the need for significant revisions." The authors of the study are in the process of submitting a corrected version of the paper, the statement added. OsteoStrong was approached for comment, but did not respond specifically to concerns raised by Osteoporosis Canada and others. Instead, Perry Eckert, managing director of OsteoStrong Australia, pointed to recent unpublished research partly sponsored by the company. According to Mr Eckert, the study showed "a significant improvement" in bone mineral density and overall strength in 38 postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Healthy Bones Australia endorses exercise as an important part of reducing bone loss in older age. But most trials on exercise programs to strengthen bones are small compared to those studying pharmaceuticals, so the evidence for exercise is not as strong as that for drugs. The majority of experts the ABC spoke to were not convinced at this stage exercise could reverse bone mineral density loss that occurs in post-menopausal women, although it might slow down the rate of loss. But despite there being better evidence behind the use of medications to increase bone density, Dr Sztal-Mazer prescribes exercise as well as medications to help stave off bone loss in this age group. "Exercise is important as a part of holistic care for osteoporosis and generally for healthy bones." As well any impact on bone density, the right kind of exercise — along with adequate vitamin D, calcium and other nutrients — plays a key role in preventing fractures, Dr Sztal-Mazer said. Exercise can also improve strength and balance, which can also help prevent falls, the main cause of bone fragility fractures. But, Dr Sztal-Mazer cautions, guidelines for exercise used by physiotherapists and exercise physiologists to manage osteoporosis suggests a much bigger time commitment is required than that proposed by OsteoStrong.
SBS Australia
5 hours ago
- SBS Australia
The Australian push to rewrite the rules of nuclear launches
Rising tension in the Middle East and South Asia has heightened fears of a war between nuclear-armed nations, something that threatens human existence, an Australian academic says. A rise in nuclear posturing and rhetoric in recent years has also prompted renewed calls for international safeguards to prevent accidental or unauthorised nuclear launches. A new study conducted by professor Emily Crawford from the University of Sydney Law School warns urgent action is needed to address the growing risks posed by nuclear weapons. "Increasing political tensions in declared and non-declared nuclear states have brought back into sharp focus the need to better regulate nuclear weapons," she said. The study highlights a combination of ageing nuclear infrastructure, emerging AI capabilities, and a lack of global cooperation as key factors creating what it describes as an "unstable and dangerous landscape". So how do nuclear systems operate — and is an accidental launch actually possible? Countries possessing nuclear weapons use NC3 systems, which stand for nuclear command, control and communications, Crawford explained. She said the NC3 systems are the central nervous system of a state's nuclear weapons program, which includes the people, policies, and technologies responsible for nuclear decision-making. "It's the framework that governs the process that, as its ultimate end product, results in the launch of a nuclear weapon — so it's a phrase that encompasses the entire chain from when a decision is made to launch a nuclear weapon to the actual launch of such a weapon," she said. NC3 also includes the maintenance of nuclear systems, ensuring that planning and execution are conducted according to stated doctrine and policy. Different countries have varying approaches to their NC3 systems, meaning the threshold for when a nuclear weapon could be launched is not universal. In many countries, the NC3 infrastructure is ageing, which can pose a security risk to the entire world. "There is currently no binding international legal standard that governs how nuclear-armed states design or operate their NC3 systems," Crawford said. "This gap in governance poses a real risk to global security — and it's only growing." NC3 frameworks are designed to prevent accidental or unlawful launches, but Crawford warned they are increasingly under strain. In many countries, the NC3 infrastructure is outdated, with some hardware dating back several decades. She said these legacy systems are often poorly suited to handle modern threats, especially those involving cyberattacks or AI. "In a world where AI tools can mimic official communications and cyber incursions can scramble critical infrastructure, the possibility of a false alarm triggering an escalation is no longer far-fetched," Crawford said. In such a high-stakes environment, even a single NC3 failure could lead to catastrophic consequences. Crawford said in 2025, there have been growing concerns around disinformation and hacking campaigns targeting early warning systems. Crawford's study calls for an international code of conduct that countries could adopt to establish a universal approach to nuclear systems. "A commitment to ensuring that there is an accountable chain of command involved in any nuclear weapons launch decisions, a commitment to the concept that the decision to launch a weapon should never lie with just one person, to keep AI out of nuclear launch decisions, and a commitment to 'no first strike'— that nuclear weapons would never be used offensively by a party who were not themselves subject to a nuclear attack," she said. This could be modelled off a similar framework, like the Missile Technology Control Regime — an initiative of the G7 member states from the 1980s to limit the risks of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Crawford believes such a framework could be successful, as many states have already adopted most of the rules she outlined in her study. "Because of the potentially devastating impacts of an accidental or unauthorised launch, most states have been very pragmatic about embracing guidelines that ensure that lines of communication remain open [such as nuclear hotlines] and that measures should exist to prevent unnecessary escalation of hostilities where nuclear weapons are in the mix," she said. "The US, UK and China have stated their commitment to not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states or nuclear-weapons free zones; China adopts a 'no first use' policy, as does India; France adopts the two-person rule." But she acknowledged not all countries would support universal guidelines, as political differences may lead some to reject certain rules.
