Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, H: Environment & Earth Science, Volume 22 Issue 5

system's resources, harming life (SKINNER and MURCK, 2011). Interestingly, McLennan et al . (2021) emphasize the severe consequences of possible unwanted events in an “era of combined risks” (economic, environmental, geopolitical and technological) – also understood by the authors as a “cross between risks” (cross-risks). From the remote possibility of a nuclear conflict a scenario can be imagined by the crossing of geopolitical and environmental risks (simultaneously), considering unexpected geophysical processes of immense proportion that generate sui generis flow of fluid (an earthquake coming from the sea, for example). As described, the concomitance between events would be very rare, however of “holistic” impact – and plausible – mainly if autonomous technology (underwater, in focus) is being used as a nuclear weapon or vector (WEICK, 1989; KANTHA and CLAYSON, 2000a; KANTHA and CLAYSON, 2000b; MUKHERJEE, 2006; JUDD and HOVLAND, 2007; KAHN, 2007; BEYERCHEN, 2007; SKINNER and MURCK, 2011; SPARROW and LUCAS, 2016; BAYLIS et al . 2018; PIOTROWSKI, 2018; GAUB, 2020; ÖZSOY, 2020; MCLENNAN et al . 2021; FERREIRA, 2021a; FERREIRA, 2021b; SLOFER, 2022; NICHOLS et al . 2022; FERREIRA, 2022). Based on the scenario presented, the certainty that emerges concerns the harmful consequences to the Earth system even though scientifically the proportions of these damages are uncertain – because they are immeasurable (KNELLER, 1978; CAPRA, 1982; CAPRA, 1983; STEWART, 1997; LEIBER, 1998; SKINNER and MURCK, 2011; ÖZSOY, 2020). As a support to productively deal with the discomfort, scenarios are helpful to reduce inconveniences and surprises about future situations (WEICK, 1989; GODET, 2000; VAN DER HEIJDEN, 2005; WADE and WAGNER, 2012; RAMIREZ and SELIN, 2014; SCHWARTZ, 1996; MINVIELLE and WATHELET, 2020; GAUB, 2020). Sharing and putting a problem into perspective among stakeholders allows concrete ideas to be deduced by policymakers (GODET, 2000; VAN DER HEIJDEN, 2005; SCHWARTZ, 1996; MINVIELLE and WATHELET, 2020; GAUB, 2020; MCLENNAN et al . 2021). In a conception of conflicts the use of previous simulations has accompanied the history of humanity - from Sun Tzu (for the creation of the game " Wei Hai ") to World War II (by the use of simulation techniques, in the evaluation of possible results in operations, by Germans, Japanese, English, and Americans) (BRASIL, 2018). The importance attributed to the anticipation of scenarios became evident in conflicts, including the need to imagine a possible (or plausible) “element of surprise” (BRASIL, 2018; TALEB, 2007). In fact, during the Second World War, surprise (and unrestricted) Japanese tactics were employed (BRASIL, 2018; FERREIRA, 2021b): [...] excerpt from a lecture given by AE W. Nimitz at the Naval War College in 1960 [...]: “The war with Japan had been simulated in the game rooms of this School by so many people, in so many different ways, that nothing that happened during the campaign in the Pacific was a surprise – absolutely nothing, except the Kamikaze tactics used at its end, which we had not visualized” (BRASIL, 2018). Regarding the risk of war in a nuclear age, scenarios were indeed imagined, however, by a reductionist, simplistic, and already obsolete "scientific" bias (KANTH, 2007; KAHN et al . 1976). In a holistic and ecological scientific approach (referring to the 21st century), the dimension of the damage is “unimagined” 2 Interestingly, “in a closed system, only energy, not matter, can cross the boundary” (SKINNER and MURCK, 2011). By characterizing the Earth as a “closed system” it is noted that: the sum of the energy of the system (internal energy) can be changed by the transfer of energy (its addition or its removal from the system), . Adding cross risks, all of them; and in the long term (KNELLER, 1978; CAPRA, 1982; CAPRA, 1983; WEICK, 1989; STEWART, 1997; LEIBER, 1998; GRIBBIN, 2004; BERTUGLIA and VAIO, 2005; KAHN, 2007; SCOTT, 2007; BEYERCHEN, 2007; SKINNER and MURCK, 2011; HORGAN, 2015; MCLENNAN et al . 2021). Political decision-makers are alerted to the non- use of technology (underwater, in focus) as a weapon of mass destruction (or vector), due to the threat to the Earth system. The limit (or frontier) of science reaches – in the end – the uncertainty (BUSH, 1945; KNELLER, 1978; CAPRA, 1982; CAPRA, 1983; STEWART, 1997; BERTUGLIA and VAIO, 2005; SKINNER and MURCK, 2011; HORGAN, 2015). Indeed, about the scientific laws that govern the material world, uncertainty is dealt with, which does not imply a lack of knowledge or scientific understanding but “evidence of its breadth, complexity, and mutability” (KNELLER, 1978; CAPRA, 1982; CAPRA, 1983; SKINNER and MURCK, 2011). 1 Global Journal of Science Frontier Research Volume XXII Issue V Year 2022 27 ( H ) Version I © 2022 Global Journals Autonomous Technology in Scenario by Rare Geophysical Processes (Underwater Focus) 2 One can only “imagine” the despair of the survivors of a nuclear catastrophe – according to the relativization of the conceptual conception; or not – considering themselves as human beings in crisis or under pressure. There is a perception of a world government due to the belief in public policies (KAHN, 2007; KAHN et al ., 1976), and indeed (in adverse circumstances), there will be an expectation of the survivors for a “salvation on Earth” referring to “on the Earth system” (SKINNER and MURCK, 2011). The human mind, “shaped by history and biology” would be easily manipulated (HARARI, 2018, p. 267). In Harari’s (2018) perspective, “there is no authentic ‘I’ waiting to be freed from the shell of manipulation” (HARARI, 2018, p. 267).