#franck report

[whats-in-a-sentence]

Oppenheimer subsequently gave the following account of its deliberations:

The other two assignments which the panel had – one was quite slight. We were asked to comment on whether the bomb should be used. I think the reason we were asked for that comment was because a petition had been sent in from a very distinguished and thoughtful group of scientists: 'No, it should not be used.' It would be better for everything that they should not. We didn't know beans about the military situation in Japan. We didn't know whether they could be caused to surrender by other means or whether the invasion was really inevitable. But in back of our minds was the the notion that the invasion was inevitable because we had been told that. I have not been able to review this document, but what it said I think is characteristic of how technical people should answer questions.

We said that we didn't think that being scientists especially qualified us as to how to answer this question of how the bombs should be used or not; opinion was divided among us as it would be among other people if they knew about it.* We thought the two overriding considerations were the saving of lives in the war and the effect of our actions on the stability, on our strength and the stability of the postwar world. We did say that we did not think that exploding one of these things as a firecracker over a desert was likely to be very impressive.

* It was E. O. Lawrence who objected most strongly to the dropping of the bomb. He did so, according to Compton, because some of his pupils had been Japanese.

"Brighter than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists" - Robert Jungk, translated by James Cleugh

#book quotes #brighter than a thousand suns #robert jungk #james cleugh #nonfiction #j robert oppenheimer #june 16 #los alamos #committee meeting #atomic bomb #bombing #deliberation #franck report #ernest o lawrence #arthur h compton #enrico fermi #japan #40s #1940s

[denimbex1986]

'It has been nearly 80 years since the world entered the nuclear age. But the complex story of the making of the first atomic bomb, the decisions US leaders made to use these terrible new weapons on cities, and the post-war policy missteps that opened the door to the dangerous Cold War arms race are all now starting to fade from public consciousness.

The existence of nuclear weapons and the dangers they pose, while well-known and widely feared, are accepted by far too many of those living in one of the world’s nine nuclear-armed countries as part of their “normal” daily lives.

A new survey conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and Carnegie Corporation of New York finds that nearly two-thirds of Americans believe that “US nuclear weapons have been effective at preventing conflict between the United States and other countries.” At the same time, “a majority of the [American] public is unsure they can assess the benefits or harm of nuclear weapons” but “are at least somewhat interested in learning more about US nuclear weapon policy.”

Christopher Nolan’s mesmerizing, thought-provoking, and sometimes disturbing feature-length film, Oppenheimer, provides a jolting, timely reminder for millions of moviegoers that nuclear weapons are anything but normal because the leaders of a few nations have the power to destroy us all. But it also leaves the viewers with lots of questions unaddressed in the film.

Stunning depiction and some omissions. Over the course of three hours of compelling, visually stunning, expertly crafted cinema, Oppenheimer explores most, but not all, of the key technical, political, and moral data points surrounding the development of nuclear weapons—from the “Gadget” (the nickname for the plutonium-implosion device detonated at Trinity), to questions raised about the morality and necessity of using these new weapons on Japanese cities after the defeat of Germany, the controversy about the post-war development of the “Super” (as the thermonuclear or fusion weapon is often called) to counter the Soviets, and how J. Robert Oppenheimer and his fellow scientists fell victim to the Cold War-era national security apparatus.

Nolan’s script, which is largely based on Kai Bird’s and Martin Sherwin’s masterful 2005 biography American Prometheus, is told from Oppenheimer’s perspective. As such, the film doesn’t directly show the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But in perhaps the most emotionally powerful and creative scene in the film, it does make it clear that the chief scientist and other leaders of the Manhattan Project were haunted by knowledge that their invention directly led to the horrific deaths of civilians (which they would later learn had resulted in some 220,000 deaths by the end of 1945).

Not surprisingly, the film bypasses some key storylines relating the bomb’s deadly legacy. These include the lingering health impacts on people downwind from the Trinity blast and subsequent 215 other US atmospheric nuclear tests conducted on US-occupied Marshall Islands in the Pacific and later in Nevada. The film does not mention either the massive health or environmental toll of the sprawling nuclear weapons production complex, all of which were spawned by the Manhattan Project.

But Oppenheimer does succeed in showing how America’s post-war leaders rejected the scientists’ warnings about the long-term dangers of a new race to stockpile atomic weapons and sought short-term advantage over their new Soviet enemy instead.

One can only hope that the film’s eloquent ending scenes will prompt the viewers to think—even long after they leave the theater—about the growing present danger of nuclear arms racing and nuclear war and solutions to move the world away from the brink.

Paths not taken. On the whole, Nolan’s Oppenheimer brings to life the complex, nuanced story of how the “father of the atomic bomb” (as Oppenheimer is often referred to) led its development in order to defeat the Nazis, how he declined to oppose the use of the bomb on Japanese cities as Germany was defeated, and how he finally sought to use his notoriety and access to shape US policy in ways that might reduce the absolute dangers the Manhattan Project he directed had unleashed.

Nolan’s film, however, could have done more to remind viewers of the historical evidence— which is presented in American Prometheus and other historical studies, including Martin Sherwin’s earlier work, A World Destroyed; Hiroshima and Its Legacies—that challenges the official and enduring narrative of the US government that the use of the atomic bombs was necessary to end the war and avoid a massive US invasion of the Japanese homeland that was scheduled for November 1, 1945.

In one scene, Oppenheimer takes us into a meeting of the Interim Committee, the group set up by War Secretary Henry Stimson following Germany’s defeat of May 1945 to directly advise the president and Congress on issues relating to both civilian and military use of nuclear energy. In Nolan’s version, we hear echoes of the arguments being made by many of the Manhattan Project scientists against rushing toward military use on Japanese cities.

Notes of its June 1, 1945 meeting indicate that the Interim Committee dismissed alternative views and agreed that “the final selection of the target was essentially a military decision,” although added “that the bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible.”

Oppenheimer was aware that most of his fellow scientists favored a technical demonstration test of the bomb on a remote area as a warning shot to the Japanese. Another brief scene in the film depicts a meeting at Los Alamos some time before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing being led by chemist Lilli Hornig, who worked in the explosives division. In the scene we hear the outlines of the scientists’ arguments against the military use of the bomb against Japanese cities.

As documented in American Prometheus (but not mentioned in the film) Hornig would later be one of the 155 Los Alamos scientists who signed a petition urging that the first atom bomb be demonstrated on an uninhabited island as opposed to being dropped on a city without warning.

Despite the many Los Alamos scientists’ opposition, the final recommendation of the Los Alamos Scientific Committee—which included Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, Enrico Fermi, and Arthur Compton—to Stimson weighed in on the side of immediate military use.

Nolan’s film shows how the dissenting views of the scientists were not effectively communicated by the Manhattan Project director to officials in Washington, but it doesn’t show the other ways in which those dissenting views were censored. This was the fate of the Franck Committee report of June 11, 1945, which considered the plan to bomb Japanese cities without warning as “inadvisable” because it would lead to “indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.” When James Franck (a German physicist and Nobel Prize winner on exile at the University of Chicago) went to Washington to deliver the report he had compiled, he was told falsely that Stimson was out of town. The report was then seized by the Army, classified, and never reached the president and his war secretary.

Nolan’s script includes a dramatic, if brief, scene showing how Leo Szilard tried and failed to enlist Oppenheimer in support of the Manhattan Project scientists’ petition against what they viewed as an unnecessary use of the atomic bombs on a nearly defeated Japan. But the now famous Szilard Petition would never be delivered to President Truman and his advisors. The petition made a strong and detailed the case for not using the new weapon until Japan was given another opportunity to surrender. Oppenheimer would fail to endorse or present this argument to Stimson.

Truman’s decision despite alternatives. Several historians, including Martin Sherwin, have uncovered information and documentation that strongly suggest that the United States need not have dropped the first (and even less the second) atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II and that there was time for a technical demonstration test—one that Szilard and his co-signatories proposed—to hasten Japan’s surrender.

Contrary to the enduring myth, US President Harry Truman and his advisors were aware of alternatives to the bombings. They also knew as early as June 1945 that the Japanese government understood the war was lost and was seeking acceptable terms of surrender. Nevertheless, Truman authorized the use of the atomic bombs mainly to enshrine the US postwar geostrategic position vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.

US military commanders and the analysts with the US Strategic Bombing Survey advised Truman, Stimson, and Secretary of State James Byrnes in June 1945 that “by the coordinated impact of blockade and direct [conventional] air attack, Japan could be forced to surrender without invasion.” Unfortunately, none of these historical developments were conveyed in Nolan’s Oppenheimer.

As Sherwin put it in 1987 in the introduction to his book, A World Destroyed, “the choice in the summer of 1945 was not between conventional invasion or a nuclear war. It was a choice between various forms of diplomacy and warfare. While the decision Truman made is understandable, it was not inevitable. It was even avoidable.”

The film vividly conveys Oppenheimer’s increasing concern about the dangers of an unconstrained post-war nuclear arms race with the Soviets. It shows how Truman and Byrnes clung to the naive hope that the Soviets would “never” acquire an atomic bomb on their own and how, in their blindness, they failed to consider what should be done if Moscow rapidly built and tested its own atomic bomb. But the film falls short of showing the scientist’s efforts to advance, in practical terms, a recommendation of the June 1945 Franck Report, which proposed a post-war arrangement to establish some form of international control on the atomic bomb to avert its proliferation and further use in war.

In January 1946, the foreign ministers of the UN Security Council members had agreed to set up a United Nations commission to advise on the destruction of all existing atomic weapons and to work toward using atomic energy for peaceful purposes. Oppenheimer was drafted to serve as the chief scientific US representative at the UN commission. The result, known as the Acheson-Lillienthal report, which was delivered to Truman in March 1946, called for international ownership and operation of all “dangerous” nuclear activities, which covered virtually the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Under the plan, a new international atomic development authority would oversee the development of atomic weapons and managed their associated facilities. This would mean for the United States to essentially relinquish its monopoly on the atomic bomb after the international controls had been established.

Skeptical at that prospect, Byrnes appointed Bernard Baruch to recast and deliver the formal US proposal before the UN commission. What became known as the Baruch Plan proposed to remove the Security Council’s veto power to members in case of violation of international controls and detailed the various “stages” through which such controls would have to evolve before the United States would consider giving up its atomic monopoly. The Soviet Union unsurprisingly opposed to the plan, and this earliest effort to negotiate international controls soon sputtered out completely, “relegating disarmament to, at best, a distant goal,” as disarmament expert Randy Rydell puts it.

Despite these omissions, Nolan’s film does a masterful job of illustrating why Oppenheimer became strongly opposed to the development of the even more powerful hydrogen bombs and Truman’s rejection of such calls for restraint. Of course, Oppenheimer was not the only Manhattan Project scientist who was unwilling to support the development of the hydrogen bomb and who advocated for arms control to avert a dangerous superpower arms race. In May 1946, Albert Einstein announced the formation of the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists to educate and mobilize other scientists and the public on the dangers to humanity of the nuclear weapons.

The committee—including many members had been part of the Manhattan Project—declared: “We scientists recognize our inescapable responsibility to carry to our fellow citizens an understanding of the simple facts of atomic energy and its implications for society. In this lies our only security and our only hope. We believe that an informed citizenry will act for life and not for death.” The Emergency Committee helped set off the decades-long, ongoing chain reaction of civil society campaigning to better inform the public debate on nuclear weapons policy and advance effective action on arms control and disarmament.

The future is in our hands. The viewers of Oppenheimer will certainly walk out of theaters with a lot of blind spots. Among them are the consequences of the early failures of US and Soviet leaders to engage in effective dialogue to rein-in the development and stockpiling of ever more powerful and plentiful nuclear stockpiles through the Cold War era.

As American Prometheus notes, in 1965 an interviewer asked Oppenheimer what he thought of Sen. Robert Kennedy’s proposal that President Johnson initiate talks with the Soviet Union to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to which he said: “It’s 20 years too late … it should have been done the day after Trinity.”

Today, we have an even more complex and dangerous array of nuclear risks that might yet, as Nolan warns us at the end of his film, ultimately “set the world on fire.” In 2023, the United States and Russia together still possess roughly 90 percent of the 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with each still deploying some 1,500 thermonuclear warheads on strategic missiles and bombers primed to launch within minutes of the go-order.

If a Russian or US leader were to decide to use nuclear weapons first, say in a conflict in Europe, it could potentially quickly escalate to nuclear war, involving a massive exchange of thermonuclear weapons, with hundreds or thousands of detonations occurring within minutes of each other. In such a scenario, tens of millions of people would be killed or injured in the first few hours of the conflict alone.

After a decade of dithering on nuclear arms control and as tensions between today’s major nuclear-armed adversaries grows, we are on the verge of a new era of unconstrained nuclear competition and danger—which some call the second Cold War.

Important bilateral nuclear arms control agreements are now either gone, being ignored, or in jeopardy. Russia’s war on Ukraine has derailed regular US-Russian talks on nuclear risk reduction and arms control. In February 2023, Russia “suspended” the implementation of New START—the only remaining treaty that verifiably limits the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals which is set to expire in early 2026—citing the United States “hostile” attitude but pledged to abide by the central limits of the treaty. Meanwhile, the world’s nuclear-armed nations continue to pour tens of billions of dollars each year to replace and upgrade their deadly arsenals. Those so-called modernization programs can only lead to growing perceived threats which will justify even further spending in an unstoppable spree, which now could become an even more dangerous three-way arms race between the United States, Russia, and China.

Progress on arms control and disarmament is therefore urgent. With sufficient political will and public and international pressure, it is also possible.

For instance, on June 2, President Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan declared that the United States is ready to engage in nuclear arms control diplomacy with Russia (as well as with China, France, and the United Kingdom) “without preconditions.” Sullivan suggested that “rather than waiting to resolve all of our bilateral differences, the United States is ready to engage Russia now to manage nuclear risks and develop a post-2026 arms control framework.”

On June 5, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded that Russia remains open to dialogue with the United States on arms control and described Sullivan’s comments as “important and positive.”

To date, however, the two sides have not yet engaged in discussions about how to restart talks on a post-2026 arms control framework.

Now is the time for the two sides to begin a serious dialogue focused on a new arms control and disarmament. In the absence of such a US-Russia arrangement before New START ends, each side could upload more warheads on their strategic delivery systems quickly, and China might decide to accelerate its ongoing strategic nuclear buildup. Avoiding such a scenario is in the national security interests of all nations.

The negotiation of a complex, bilateral nuclear arms control framework to replace New START would be difficult in good times and extraordinarily difficult so long as Russia’s war on Ukraine continues.

Nevertheless, there is scope for the White House and the Kremlin to reach a unilateral, reciprocal arrangement that neither side will exceed the deployed strategic warhead limit set by New START until a more permanent arms control arrangement comes into effect. This would contribute to a more stable international security environment and improve conditions for overdue progress on multilateral nuclear arms control and disarmament.

According to Sullivan, the Biden administration also supports “new multilateral arms control efforts,” involving all five nuclear-armed members of the UN Security Council. Sullivan proposed that all five countries agree on greater transparency on nuclear doctrines, more effective crisis communications channels, common rules for missile launch notification, and policies to keep “humans in the loop” for command, control, and use of nuclear weapons (in a clear reference to the new risk factor posed by the use of artificial intelligence in those systems).

In addition to these steps, all five countries can and should immediately reaffirm and update a forgotten 1973 US-Soviet agreement on the prevention of nuclear war, which pledges they will “refrain from the threat or use of force against the other party, against the allies of the other party and against other countries, in circumstances which may endanger international peace and security.” It requires that “if at any time there is the risk of a nuclear conflict [each side] shall immediately enter into urgent consultations … to avert this risk.”

Another bold multilateral measure would be for all five nuclear-armed members of the UN Security Council to observe an immediate global nuclear freeze, by which China, France, and the United Kingdom would cap the overall size of their nuclear arsenals and agree to halt fissile material production, so long as Russia and the United States cap their stockpiles and negotiate a new framework to cut their arsenals.

Oppenheimer should remind the public that more nuclear weapons make us all less secure and that we must continue to demand our leaders to pursue the safer path through disarmament diplomacy and toward a world without nuclear weapons before it is too late.'

—that challenges the official and enduring narrative of the US government that the use of the atomic bombs was necessary to end the war and avoid a massive US invasion of the Japanese homeland that was scheduled for November 1, 1945.

In one scene, Oppenheimer takes us into a meeting of the Interim Committee, the group set up by War Secretary Henry Stimson following Germany’s defeat of May 1945 to directly advise the president and Congress on issues relating to both civilian and military use of nuclear energy. In Nolan’s version, we hear echoes of the arguments being made by many of the Manhattan Project scientists against rushing toward military use on Japanese cities.

Notes of its June 1, 1945 meeting indicate that the Interim Committee dismissed alternative views and agreed that “the final selection of the target was essentially a military decision,” although added “that the bomb should be used against Japan as soon as possible.”

Oppenheimer was aware that most of his fellow scientists favored a technical demonstration test of the bomb on a remote area as a warning shot to the Japanese. Another brief scene in the film depicts a meeting at Los Alamos some time before the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing being led by chemist Lilli Hornig, who worked in the explosives division. In the scene we hear the outlines of the scientists’ arguments against the military use of the bomb against Japanese cities.

As documented in American Prometheus (but not mentioned in the film) Hornig would later be one of the 155 Los Alamos scientists who signed a petition urging that the first atom bomb be demonstrated on an uninhabited island as opposed to being dropped on a city without warning.

Despite the many Los Alamos scientists’ opposition, the final recommendation of the Los Alamos Scientific Committee—which included Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, Enrico Fermi, and Arthur Compton—to Stimson weighed in on the side of immediate military use.

Nolan’s film shows how the dissenting views of the scientists were not effectively communicated by the Manhattan Project director to officials in Washington, but it doesn’t show the other ways in which those dissenting views were censored. This was the fate of the Franck Committee report of June 11, 1945, which considered the plan to bomb Japanese cities without warning as “inadvisable” because it would lead to “indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.” When James Franck (a German physicist and Nobel Prize winner on exile at the University of Chicago) went to Washington to deliver the report he had compiled, he was told falsely that Stimson was out of town. The report was then seized by the Army, classified, and never reached the president and his war secretary.

Nolan’s script includes a dramatic, if brief, scene showing how Leo Szilard tried and failed to enlist Oppenheimer in support of the Manhattan Project scientists’ petition against what they viewed as an unnecessary use of the atomic bombs on a nearly defeated Japan. But the now famous Szilard Petition would never be delivered to President Truman and his advisors. The petition made a strong and detailed the case for not using the new weapon until Japan was given another opportunity to surrender. Oppenheimer would fail to endorse or present this argument to Stimson.

Truman’s decision despite alternatives. Several historians, including Martin Sherwin, have uncovered information and documentation that strongly suggest that the United States need not have dropped the first (and even less the second) atomic bomb on Japan to end World War II and that there was time for a technical demonstration test—one that Szilard and his co-signatories proposed—to hasten Japan’s surrender.

Contrary to the enduring myth, US President Harry Truman and his advisors were aware of alternatives to the bombings. They also knew as early as June 1945 that the Japanese government understood the war was lost and was seeking acceptable terms of surrender. Nevertheless, Truman authorized the use of the atomic bombs mainly to enshrine the US postwar geostrategic position vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.

US military commanders and the analysts with the US Strategic Bombing Survey advised Truman, Stimson, and Secretary of State James Byrnes in June 1945 that “by the coordinated impact of blockade and direct [conventional] air attack, Japan could be forced to surrender without invasion.” Unfortunately, none of these historical developments were conveyed in Nolan’s Oppenheimer.

As Sherwin put it in 1987 in the introduction to his book, A World Destroyed, “the choice in the summer of 1945 was not between conventional invasion or a nuclear war. It was a choice between various forms of diplomacy and warfare. While the decision Truman made is understandable, it was not inevitable. It was even avoidable.”

The film vividly conveys Oppenheimer’s increasing concern about the dangers of an unconstrained post-war nuclear arms race with the Soviets. It shows how Truman and Byrnes clung to the naive hope that the Soviets would “never” acquire an atomic bomb on their own and how, in their blindness, they failed to consider what should be done if Moscow rapidly built and tested its own atomic bomb. But the film falls short of showing the scientist’s efforts to advance, in practical terms, a recommendation of the June 1945 Franck Report, which proposed a post-war arrangement to establish some form of international control on the atomic bomb to avert its proliferation and further use in war.

In January 1946, the foreign ministers of the UN Security Council members had agreed to set up a United Nations commission to advise on the destruction of all existing atomic weapons and to work toward using atomic energy for peaceful purposes. Oppenheimer was drafted to serve as the chief scientific US representative at the UN commission. The result, known as the Acheson-Lillienthal report, which was delivered to Truman in March 1946, called for international ownership and operation of all “dangerous” nuclear activities, which covered virtually the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Under the plan, a new international atomic development authority would oversee the development of atomic weapons and managed their associated facilities. This would mean for the United States to essentially relinquish its monopoly on the atomic bomb after the international controls had been established.

Skeptical at that prospect, Byrnes appointed Bernard Baruch to recast and deliver the formal US proposal before the UN commission. What became known as the Baruch Plan proposed to remove the Security Council’s veto power to members in case of violation of international controls and detailed the various “stages” through which such controls would have to evolve before the United States would consider giving up its atomic monopoly. The Soviet Union unsurprisingly opposed to the plan, and this earliest effort to negotiate international controls soon sputtered out completely, “relegating disarmament to, at best, a distant goal,” as disarmament expert Randy Rydell puts it.

Despite these omissions, Nolan’s film does a masterful job of illustrating why Oppenheimer became strongly opposed to the development of the even more powerful hydrogen bombs and Truman’s rejection of such calls for restraint. Of course, Oppenheimer was not the only Manhattan Project scientist who was unwilling to support the development of the hydrogen bomb and who advocated for arms control to avert a dangerous superpower arms race. In May 1946, Albert Einstein announced the formation of the Emergency Committee of Atomic Scientists to educate and mobilize other scientists and the public on the dangers to humanity of the nuclear weapons.

The committee—including many members had been part of the Manhattan Project—declared: “We scientists recognize our inescapable responsibility to carry to our fellow citizens an understanding of the simple facts of atomic energy and its implications for society. In this lies our only security and our only hope. We believe that an informed citizenry will act for life and not for death.” The Emergency Committee helped set off the decades-long, ongoing chain reaction of civil society campaigning to better inform the public debate on nuclear weapons policy and advance effective action on arms control and disarmament.

The future is in our hands. The viewers of Oppenheimer will certainly walk out of theaters with a lot of blind spots. Among them are the consequences of the early failures of US and Soviet leaders to engage in effective dialogue to rein-in the development and stockpiling of ever more powerful and plentiful nuclear stockpiles through the Cold War era.

As American Prometheus notes, in 1965 an interviewer asked Oppenheimer what he thought of Sen. Robert Kennedy’s proposal that President Johnson initiate talks with the Soviet Union to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons, to which he said: “It’s 20 years too late … it should have been done the day after Trinity.”

Today, we have an even more complex and dangerous array of nuclear risks that might yet, as Nolan warns us at the end of his film, ultimately “set the world on fire.” In 2023, the United States and Russia together still possess roughly 90 percent of the 13,000 nuclear weapons in the world, with each still deploying some 1,500 thermonuclear warheads on strategic missiles and bombers primed to launch within minutes of the go-order.

If a Russian or US leader were to decide to use nuclear weapons first, say in a conflict in Europe, it could potentially quickly escalate to nuclear war, involving a massive exchange of thermonuclear weapons, with hundreds or thousands of detonations occurring within minutes of each other. In such a scenario, tens of millions of people would be killed or injured in the first few hours of the conflict alone.

After a decade of dithering on nuclear arms control and as tensions between today’s major nuclear-armed adversaries grows, we are on the verge of a new era of unconstrained nuclear competition and danger—which some call the second Cold War.

Important bilateral nuclear arms control agreements are now either gone, being ignored, or in jeopardy. Russia’s war on Ukraine has derailed regular US-Russian talks on nuclear risk reduction and arms control. In February 2023, Russia “suspended” the implementation of New START—the only remaining treaty that verifiably limits the world’s two largest nuclear arsenals which is set to expire in early 2026—citing the United States “hostile” attitude but pledged to abide by the central limits of the treaty. Meanwhile, the world’s nuclear-armed nations continue to pour tens of billions of dollars each year to replace and upgrade their deadly arsenals. Those so-called modernization programs can only lead to growing perceived threats which will justify even further spending in an unstoppable spree, which now could become an even more dangerous three-way arms race between the United States, Russia, and China.

Progress on arms control and disarmament is therefore urgent. With sufficient political will and public and international pressure, it is also possible.

For instance, on June 2, President Biden’s National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan declared that the United States is ready to engage in nuclear arms control diplomacy with Russia (as well as with China, France, and the United Kingdom) “without preconditions.” Sullivan suggested that “rather than waiting to resolve all of our bilateral differences, the United States is ready to engage Russia now to manage nuclear risks and develop a post-2026 arms control framework.”

On June 5, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov responded that Russia remains open to dialogue with the United States on arms control and described Sullivan’s comments as “important and positive.”

To date, however, the two sides have not yet engaged in discussions about how to restart talks on a post-2026 arms control framework.

Now is the time for the two sides to begin a serious dialogue focused on a new arms control and disarmament. In the absence of such a US-Russia arrangement before New START ends, each side could upload more warheads on their strategic delivery systems quickly, and China might decide to accelerate its ongoing strategic nuclear buildup. Avoiding such a scenario is in the national security interests of all nations.

The negotiation of a complex, bilateral nuclear arms control framework to replace New START would be difficult in good times and extraordinarily difficult so long as Russia’s war on Ukraine continues.

Nevertheless, there is scope for the White House and the Kremlin to reach a unilateral, reciprocal arrangement that neither side will exceed the deployed strategic warhead limit set by New START until a more permanent arms control arrangement comes into effect. This would contribute to a more stable international security environment and improve conditions for overdue progress on multilateral nuclear arms control and disarmament.

According to Sullivan, the Biden administration also supports “new multilateral arms control efforts,” involving all five nuclear-armed members of the UN Security Council. Sullivan proposed that all five countries agree on greater transparency on nuclear doctrines, more effective crisis communications channels, common rules for missile launch notification, and policies to keep “humans in the loop” for command, control, and use of nuclear weapons (in a clear reference to the new risk factor posed by the use of artificial intelligence in those systems).

In addition to these steps, all five countries can and should immediately reaffirm and update a forgotten 1973 US-Soviet agreement on the prevention of nuclear war, which pledges they will “refrain from the threat or use of force against the other party, against the allies of the other party and against other countries, in circumstances which may endanger international peace and security.” It requires that “if at any time there is the risk of a nuclear conflict [each side] shall immediately enter into urgent consultations … to avert this risk.”

Another bold multilateral measure would be for all five nuclear-armed members of the UN Security Council to observe an immediate global nuclear freeze, by which China, France, and the United Kingdom would cap the overall size of their nuclear arsenals and agree to halt fissile material production, so long as Russia and the United States cap their stockpiles and negotiate a new framework to cut their arsenals.

Oppenheimer should remind the public that more nuclear weapons make us all less secure and that we must continue to demand our leaders to pursue the safer path through disarmament diplomacy and toward a world without nuclear weapons before it is too late.'

#Christopher Nolan #Oppenheimer #American Prometheus #Kai Bird #Martin J. Sherwin #Ernest Lawrence #A World Destroyed; Hiroshima and Its Legacies #President Truman #Albert Einstein #Enrico Fermi #Arthur Compton #Lilli Hornig #Szilard Petition #Franck Report #Acheson-Lillienthal report #START

[tenth-sentence]

If the United States were to be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, participate in the race for armaments and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.

"Brighter than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists – Appendix B: The 'Franck Report'" - Robert Jungk, translated by James Cleugh

#book quote #brighter than a thousand suns #appendix #robert jungk #james cleugh #nonfiction #franck report #united states #indiscriminate #destruction #sacrifice #public support #international agreement #control #regulation #nuclear weapons

[metamatar]

After the first nuclear test at Los Alamos

Many of the scientists and technicians who understood the destructive potential of the atomic bomb felt that the U.S. should first conduct a peaceful demonstration to warn the Japanese of the consequences of refusing to surrender. Szilard and several other Met Lab scientists had collaborated on the Franck Report, issued in June of 1945, which called for a demonstration. However, the Franck Report was rejected by the scientists who served on the Interim Committee’s Scientific Panel – J. Robert Oppenheimer, Enrico Fermi, Ernest Lawrence, and Arthur Compton – who wrote, “We see no acceptable alternative to direct military use.”

[...] Szilard toned down his rhetoric over the course of several different drafts of the petition. Between 65 and 150 people signed the various different drafts that he proposed at the Chicago Met Lab and Oak Ridge project site [...]

The petition fared better at Oak Ridge than at Los Alamos. Another Hungarian-American physicist, Edward Teller, brought the petition to that site with the intent to gain signatures there too. However, at the advice of J. Robert Oppenheimer, he ultimately decided not to do so. “Oppenheimer talked me out of it, saying that we as scientists have no business to meddle in political pressure of that kind. We know too little about that. I am ashamed to say that he managed to talk me out of the right intention,”

From the Nuclear Museum

#oppenheimer

[thebisexualwreckoning]

never expected to be reading the entirety of the franck report and enjoying it but apparently miracles happen every day

#i find this weirdly interesting #and not just because im using this as a source in the research essay i need to write #kismet's exploits in academia

[thevisibilityarchives]

The Expanse [TV Series] (2015-2022)

Network(s): SyFy, Amazon

Creators: James S.A. Corey

BIPOC

Summary: 200+ years in the future, humanity has ventured into the far reaches of the solar system, colonizing the Milky Way and spreading the political turmoil of Earth among the generations to come. A fragile peace exists among the three factions that arise, a peace that cannot last when something greater emerges that threatens them all, changing the course of humanity for all time to come. 

Full review: For every generation, there is a defining sci-fi television show that captivates audiences, tapping into visions of the near future while simultaneously managing to address modern sociopolitical themes and changing mores. 

Can The Expanse be ranked as one of those shows, among the likes of Star Trek, Firefly, and Battlestar Galactica? Undoubtedly, it’s a question deserving of consideration and debate.

In a time before streaming, the impact would be more obvious thanks to ever-present television ratings data, fights over family television screens, and demands for network advertising time. But when a show exists solely within the realm of the digital sphere, on a streaming service like Amazon Prime, there’s a bit more nuance to consider when judging its success and audience impact. 

Conceived by authors Ty Franck and Daniel Abraham under the pen name James S.A. Corey, The Expanse originally aired on the SyFy network in 2015, a high-budgeted adaptation of their book series that was well-received by critics and audiences alike until its early demise (due to said budget) at the end of its second season. With a bit of luck, the show was picked up by Amazon Prime studios, given the Jeff Bezos Budget, the TV-MA stamp of adultification freedom, and was renewed, allowing it to take off for the remaining four seasons which concluded in 2022. 

The series retains the core features beloved by sci-fi fans, the formula complicit in defining those generational sci-fi hits: space exploration, the imaginativeness of the near future, the role of politics, and perhaps a central and often missed detail – its diversity and multiculturalism. 

There is a sharp division between the science fiction and fantasy crowds when it comes to multicultural representation. Often, the two genres are clumped together, their metadata schema combined as one – sci-fi/fantasy. Yet within these two genres, the approach to racial and cultural diversity could not be more different. 

This reaction has never been more pronounced than in the past year, during the airing of Prime’s Rings of Power and HBO’s House of the Dragon. Both shows cast actors of color into roles wherein the networks, as well as actors themselves, received criticisms, not for their performances, but simply for the color of their skin.

Commenting upon reactions to Stephen Toussaint, who portrays Corlys Velaryon in House of the Dragon the LA Times reported

“Toussaint is just the latest actor of color to address the racism he faced just for being cast in a major property. Others include Moses Ingram of Disney+ series “Obi-Wan,” and Kelly Marie Tran and John Boyega who dealt with similar online abuse over their roles in the newer “Star Wars” films.”

The vitriol has extended beyond just message board gripes, with actors and fans of color alike receiving flooded inbox messages and even in-person harassment over their simple existence in various fandoms as people of color. 

There is something of an irony here. For fantasy, which is rooted mostly in imagination (with some inspiration from real-life events) seemingly has set up a world where all manner of monsters, magic, and scenarios can be envisioned: and yet a black elf, a brown knight, or an Asian queen magician cannot. Whereas sci-fi, often depicted within the confines of near-future scenarios, has historically been more flexible, even to the point of breaking immense taboos like The Kiss Seen Around the World on Star Trek, only a year after interracial marriage became legal in the United States. 

This emphasis on multiculturalism, combined with the glory of high-stakes drama, the exploration of the final frontier, and the imaginings of what technology still can be creates a formula that appeals across multiple generations still today, a tapestry of impossibility, variability, and sensibility. 

Over the course of six seasons, what begins as a hard-boiled detective seeking to return a trillionaire’s daughter who has joined up with a group of anarchists in the far-flung reaches of the solar system unfolds into a whirlwind of high-stakes political machinations, doomsday scenarios, and interpersonal drama. 

Keeping in touch with an examination of what upward trends of the future tell us, the lives of those depicted onscreen are flush with different types of diversity. Multiracialism is prominent in certain parts of the solar system, Creole dialects are a natural development. Polyamory, new ways of eating, body types,  and religious ideologies emerge. Unlike other media which often falls out of date quickly when looking at the way trends have aligned with the passage of time, The Expanse follows what thus-far seems to be a natural trajectory of what our path looks like (assuming we are still alive by then). Its actors range from Caucasian-American to Iranian, Samoan, Ojibwe, Cambodian, Black, multiracial, Jamaican, and ethnicities far and wide. 

The show is heavily rooted (and its source material, by extension) in the very definition of what multiculturalism is and can be, and a prime example of a thoughtful and true representation of all television sci-fi has given us and shows us is possible: a world in living color in which reality is possible, and no one can tell us otherwise. 

You can find hard copies of seasons 1-4 of The Expanse at major retailers, your local library,  some copies of seasons 5 and 6 via online sellers like eBay and stream it on its home, Amazon Prime here.

Citations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_and_Uhura%27s_kiss

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2022-08-22/dragons-being-more-plausible-than-a-rich-black-guy-irks-house-of-the-dragon-star

https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/loving-v-virginia

#thevisibilityarchives #tva #the expanse #tv series #sci fi show #diversity #bipoc #multiculturism #sci fi #beltalowda #representation #multicultural

[partenaires-jaiunticket]

FRANCK HORVAT - Paris, le monde, la mode.

Au Jeu de Paume jusqu’au 17 septembre 2023

Entre 1950 et 1965, Horvat affirme une personnalité hors norme d’auteur-reporter et de photographe de mode. L’exposition apporte une vision renouvelée sur l’œuvre de cet acteur majeur de la photographie française et européenne.

Réalisée à partir des archives laissées par le photographe dans sa maison-atelier de Boulogne-Billancourt, l’exposition comporte 170 tirages et 70 documents d’époque (publications, écrits, ouvrages, planches contacts). Elle présente, aux côtés d’images emblématiques, des ensembles de photographies moins connues ou complètement inédites. C’est toute la richesse et la singularité d’une œuvre complexe et multiforme qui est ici dévoilée, replacée dans le contexte de l’histoire de l’image photographique et de la presse illustrée d’après-guerre.

Après le succès de l’exposition Frank Horvat présentée au Château de Tours au printemps 2022, le Jeu de Paume a souhaité proposer à Paris une version enrichie de l’exposition. Sont ainsi présentés un ensemble inédit de photographies ainsi que de nombreuses revues de mode, apportant un éclairage particulier sur le contexte de création de ces images, à une époque où l’essor du prêt-à-porter et l’évolution du statut des femmes dans la société modifient profondément les canons du genre.

[spacetimewithstuartgary]

Unistellar Citizen Science Network and SETI Institute contribute to planetary defense Citizen scientists and SETI Institute researchers collaborate to observe and analyze NASA’s DART impact and confirm the efficiency of the kinetic impactor technique to deflect an asteroid. Citizen scientists worldwide made decisive contributions to defend our planet by recording accurate and meaningful observations supporting the NASA DART (Double Asteroid Redirection Test) mission. The team, including eight SETI Institute astronomers and led by SETI Institute postdoctoral fellow Ariel Graykowski published their results in Nature on March 1. NASA’s first test mission for planetary defense, DART, which seeks to test and validate a method to protect Earth in case of an asteroid strike, reached Dimorphos, a moon of the near-Earth asteroid Didymos on September 26, 2022. Unistellar citizen scientists were mobilized by SETI Institute researchers to observe the impact live, which was only visible from parts of Africa. Several observers in Kenya and Réunion Island successfully recorded the event with their smart telescope, witnessing the first successful deflection of an astronomical object using human technology. “Our citizen astronomers were excited to witness with their Unistellar telescopes the impact of DART, the first ever attempt to divert an asteroid. It’s commendable that we are the only group that has reported a scientific analysis of the impact, showing the ejecta cloud and the aftermath for a month. There is always a clear starry night somewhere in the Unistellar network, and that’s without doubt the strength of our network; we can see any part of the sky at any time,” said Marchis. The paper led by Graykowski was published in Nature along with four others describing the aftermath of the impact and confirming the deflection of the moon of Didymos. This publication stands out due to the involvement of citizen science as the driving force behind the study, including four observations taken at the time of impact. All the 31 citizen scientists of the Unistellar network involved in this study are co-authors of this scientific paper. Four of them (Patrice Huet, Matthieu Limagne, Bruno Payet from Réunion Island, and the Traveling telescope team in Kenya) observed the impact. Eight scientists from the SETI Institute (Ariel Graykowski, Ryan Lambert, Franck Marchis, Dorian Cazeneuve, Paul Dalba, Thomas Esposito, Daniel Peluso, and Lauren Sgro) have contributed to this research. The SETI Institute is Unistellar’s scientific partner, working with Unistellar to mobilize teams to conduct observations leading to significant scientific discoveries and contributions. Patrice Huet (Réunion Island) The observation of the impact of the DART probe on the asteroid Dimorphos was for me a very emotional moment that took me back almost 28 years earlier, when I was a teenager trying to observe the collision of Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9 on Jupiter. Although I knew that it was almost impossible to see, I still kept hope. I had the same feeling during the impact of the DART probe. But the surprise was yet to come, when I observed the formation of the dust cloud around the asteroid. It was just incredible! This is a highlight of my life as an amateur astronomer made possible thanks to the Unistellar eVscope. About the SETI Institute Founded in 1984, the SETI Institute is a non-profit, multi-disciplinary research and education organization whose mission is to lead humanity’s quest to understand the origins and prevalence of life and intelligence in the Universe and to share that knowledge with the world. Its research encompasses the physical and biological sciences and leverages expertise in data analytics, machine learning and advanced signal detection technologies. The SETI Institute is a distinguished research partner for industry, academia and government agencies, including NASA and NSF.

#space #science #Astronomy #physics #news #nasa #dart

[tepot]

Medieval Europe was home to Black knights and citizenry, as well as to queer individuals and relationships, though the church and state often persecuted such communities. Black Africans lived in Europe throughout the Middle Ages, as soldiers in armies, ambassadors at court, clerics and pilgrims, enslaved members of households, and some became venerable saints. Europeans were also well aware of Black African rulers and sometimes recorded accounts about them, such as the legendary Prester John and the Queen of Sheba (both generally thought to come from Ethiopia) or the powerful king Mansa Musa of Mali (1280-1337). There also exist many accounts of individuals who chose to dress and live according to their gender identity (rather than based on societal norms for their sex assigned at birth), such as Marinos (born Marina but who lived as a monk) or Matrona (who escaped an abusive marriage and passed as a eunuch-monk). Other documents, in the form of history-chronicles or satirical poems, describe the same-sex relationships of rulers, working-class people, and religious figures alike, including Jean de France, duc de Berry, and his reported male lover Tacque-Tibaut. [...] Ideas about race, gender, and sexuality developed in myriad ways during the Middle Ages even if most works of fantasy have suppressed this diversity.

Larisa Grollemond, The Fantasy of the Middle Ages: An Epic Journey Through Imaginary Medieval Worlds (2022)

Image caption: Saint Maurice in the Halle Relic Book, possibly by Simon Franck, 1526-27. Aschaffenburg, Germany, Hofbibliothek.

#medievalism #medieval europe #medieval history #race #racism #fantasy art #art history

[whats-in-a-sentence]

The development of nuclear power not only constitutes an important addition to the technological and military power of the United States, but also creates grave political and economic problems for the future of this country.

"Brighter than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists – Appendix B: The 'Franck Report'" - Robert Jungk, translated by James Cleugh

#book quotes #brighter than a thousand suns #appendix #robert jungk #james cleugh #nonfiction #franck report #nuclear power #technological power #military power #united states #political problems #economic problems

[connorludoph]

Moe 'Depay' moves to 'Correa' opposite snake nest

Spanish journalist Gerard Romero reports that Inter Milan are in advanced talks to sign Barcelona striker Memphis Depay in exchange for Joaquin Correa.

Romero revealed on his Twitch channel after Barcelona beat Real Madrid 3-1 to win the Spanish Super Cup.

Correa and the two clubs have now agreed terms, leaving only Depay to accept the move.

The 28-year-old joined    สล็อตพีจีเว็บตรง  Barca on a free transfer from Lyon in the summer of 2021, but his contract expires on June 30. And his wages are a problem for the club's finances.

The Netherlands international has four goals and one assist in just eight appearances this season. And has also been linked with a move to Atletico Madrid to replace Joao Felix.

For Correa, it is more likely to be a loan with an option to buy rather than a direct switch of poles. Considering his contract expires in June 2025 and he has just arrived from Lazio for €29.6m in 2021.

Earlier, it was reported that the two clubs were also in talks of swapping poles between Marcelo Brozovic and Franck Kessie.

#ข่าวกีฬา #ข่าวกีฬาต่างประเทศ #ข่าวกีฬาฟุตบอล #ข่าวกีฬาวันนี้ #ข่าวกีฬาไทย #ทรูสปอร์ต #ฟุตบอล #ข่าวฟุตบอล

[hazardous-waste-containment]

Of course, the grouping together of individuals as ‘gay’ is a political statement, just as are the relatively recent equation of lesbianism and male homosexuality or the exclusion of other types of sexual minorities. The emergence of gay identities outside of the Euro-American context does not necessarily map neatly onto these political formations. As Essig has shown, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the gay rights movement in Russia, spearheaded by Roman Kalinin and Evgeniia Debrianskaia, was much more inclusive and comprised all kinds of sexual minorities (seksualnye men’shestva), including sex workers. Essig reports that many members of the emerging groups were unwilling to identify as ‘gay’, and it was only under the financial pressure exerted by foreign sponsors that the focus of these groups narrowed around fixed identities.

“Different Shades of Blue: Gay Men and Nationalist Discourse in Mongolia,” Franck Billé

#reading #drone disorientations

[tenth-sentence]

However, it need not prevent the production of radioactive elements on a scale sufficient to revolutionize the industrial, scientific and technical use of these materials, and would thus not eliminate the main benefits which nucleonics promises to bring to mankind.

"Brighter than a Thousand Suns: A Personal History of the Atomic Scientists – Appendix B: The 'Franck Report'" - Robert Jungk, translated by James Cleugh

#book quote #brighter than a thousand suns #appendix #robert jungk #james cleugh #nonfiction #franck report #radioactive elements #production #revolutionary #industrial use #scientific use #technical use #nucleonics

[nwtfghana]

Cristiano Ronaldo shows off new Ferrari, watch worth millions of dollars

Cristiano Ronaldo was recently spotted with a brand new Ferrari Purosangue paired with a limited edition Franck Muller watch adorned with diamonds, Club Alfa reported. The 39-year-old veteran of Manchester United showed off his new acquisitions at a recent public appearance in Saudi Arabia’s capital city, Riyadh. The Portuguese player is a huge car fan and is often seen driving around in a new…

View On WordPress

#Cristiano Ronaldo #Ferrari

[warningsine]

https://www.reuters.com/business/women-uk-finance-earn-third-less-than-male-colleagues-data-shows-2024-04-05/

LONDON, April 5 (Reuters) - Some of Britain's top financial firms pay women 28.8% less on average than male counterparts, salary data from 21 companies reviewed by Reuters shows, even though they say they are striving to hire more females for higher-paid, senior roles.

Banks, asset managers and insurers across the UK have committed to narrowing long-standing gender pay gaps, which they largely attribute to there being more men in top jobs that come with generous bonuses, while a greater proportion of women are in lower-paid, part-time or junior jobs, with smaller bonuses or none at all.

The gap for the top financial services firms has narrowed by two percentage points from a year ago, according to Reuters calculations based on the salary data, but remains far higher than the mean average for all industries in Britain which was 10.7% last year, based on a UK government survey.

Since 2017 businesses with more than 250 employees in Britain have been required to disclose the difference between the pay and bonuses of male and female staff. They had a deadline of April 4 to disclose data for April 2023.

Many of the big finance companies struggle to attract and retain female talent in high-powered roles, hampering the rate of change across the industry and in some individual cases the situation has not improved.

At Goldman Sachs' (GS.N), opens new tab international division in London the mean pay gap between men and women rose to 54% in 2023 from 53.2% the prior year and remains the largest among the 21 major finance employers whose data was reviewed by Reuters.

“Importantly, this gender pay gap report does not account for pay in similar role or tenure, but we know that we need to do more to increase representation of women at the senior-most levels of the firm,” a spokesperson for Goldman said.

Insurer Admiral (ADML.L), opens new tab reported a mean pay gap of 13.5% in 2023, the smallest gap of the data reviewed.

SLOW PROGRESS

The slow pace of progress has prompted questions as to why the gap is not shrinking more quickly.

"Finance sector employers need to ask themselves some hard questions about why women are not reaching their top ranks - and earning the pay that goes with those jobs," Ann Francke, CEO of the Chartered Management Institute, told Reuters.

HSBC (HSBA.L), opens new tab disclosed a mean pay gap of 43.2% in 2023, across all its UK entities. In 2022, it reported a 45.2% mean average gap between female and male earnings.

More than half the bank's staff are female, 62% of which are in junior roles, HSBC said. Just under a third of its senior leadership team were women at April 5, 2023, up 1.4 percentage points on 2022.

The mean pay gap across Morgan Stanley's (MS.N), opens new tab UK workforce narrowed to 40.1% from 40.8%, while Barclays (BARC.L), opens new tab closed its mean pay gap by 2.3 percentage points to 33.6% in 2023.

JP Morgan (JPM.N), opens new tab disclosed a 1.5 percentage point fall in its mean pay gap to 26.1%. The U.S. bank said representation of women in senior UK roles stood at 29.5% as of February 2024, its highest level since 2018.

Standard Chartered's (STAN.L), opens new tab mean pay gap narrowed the most percentage points across the banks reviewed by Reuters, to 22% in 2023 from 29% the year prior.

The Asia-focused bank reported a positive trend in women taking leadership roles, up from 25% in December 2016 to 32.5% at end-December 2023.

Among insurers and asset managers, Aviva (AV.L), opens new tab said its mean pay gap dropped to 21.3% in 2023, from 24.3% the year prior. Abrdn (ABDN.L), opens new tab disclosed a 3.9 percentage point narrowing to 24.8% in 2023. But Legal & General (LGEN.L), opens new tab said its pay gap widened, coming in at 21.3% in 2023 from 20.9% the year prior.

'CHILD PENALTIES'

All companies said in their gender pay gap reports that differences reflected the under-representation of women in senior roles and that they were taking steps to address this.

The UK government launched the HM Treasury Women in Finance Charter in March 2016 to encourage the financial services industry to improve gender balance in senior ranks.

The charter now has more than 400 signatories covering about 1.3 million employees.

An annual review published last month, opens new tab with think tank New Financial showed that the signatories had increased female representation in senior ranks to 35% on average in 2023, from 34% in 2022.

At this pace, the average of those who signed up to the Charter should reach parity in 2038 but not in every sector, the report said.

Analysis, opens new tab by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) suggests that most UK gender pay gaps reflect "child penalties", with female average earnings falling sharply after becoming a parent.

The IFS found that seven years after the birth of a first child, women's earnings were on average less than half of men's.

The CMI's Francke said all industries needed to face bigger consequences of slow or erratic progress in tackling pay inequity, such as fines, restricted access to government or public sector work or "naming-and-shaming".

"The evidence tells us firms that represent the wider population - at every level including the top table - make better decisions and deliver better results," said Francke.

"That alone should be motivation enough to prompt the changes we need to see to close the gender pay gap."

#pay gap #gender equality #uk #news tag

[ghanashowbizonline]

Sports Today - Former Kotoko striker Franck Etouga joins El Gouna on loan from Al Masry

Former Asante Kotoko striker, Franck Etouga Mbella, has moved on loan from Al Masry Sporting Club to El Gouna until the end of the season. Notably, he set a record as Asante Kotoko’s all-time top scorer in the Ghana Premier League before his transfer to Al Masry for a reported three hundred thousand dollars. Credit to all our reliable corresponding sources – all rights reserved. 🚨 Editor’s Pick –…

View On WordPress