Between January and June 2011, the United Nations documented 1,462 civilian deaths in Afghanistan, which was a 15% increase over the same six months the year before. Anti-government forces, e.g. the Taliban, were responsible for 77% of the casualties and pro-government forces were responsible for 12%. (The remainder were indeterminate.) These and other casualty figures were compiled from published sources by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in “Afghanistan Casualties: Military Forces and Civilians,” September 30, 2011.
Some other recently updated CRS reports include the following (all pdf).
“Pakistan-U.S. Relations: A Summary,” October 20, 2011
“Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Background and Current Developments,” October 5, 2011
“Funding Emergency Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations,” October 4, 2011
“National Security Professionals and Interagency Reform: Proposals, Recent Experience, and Issues for Congress,” September 26, 2011
“One thing became increasingly clear: AI doesn’t simply introduce a new category of risk. It changes the speed, scale, complexity, and interaction of risks that already exist.”
In an ideal world, we would not have state or federal climate intervention research bans. We would have researchers and institutions that would not shy away from revealing the good, the bad, and the ugly of these technologies and doing so responsibly.
“What excites me is that it’s very tempting to be very discouraged, and say, ‘Oh, we’ve got these archaic institutions that are calcified and you could never change them.’ But I think we’re in the middle of a technological revolution that will upend lots of things, and does provide a window.”
Ask people what worries them most right now, and they’ll say the cost of living and their livelihoods, not climate change. But those concerns are not separate.