What families need to know about how to safely store firearms at home

Guns are the leading cause of death of children in the U.S. Laurent Hamels via Getty Images

Kerri Raissian, University of Connecticut and Jennifer Necci Dineen, University of Connecticut

For the past few years, guns have been identified as the leading cause of death for children in the United States.

There were 2,571 children age 1 to 17 who died in shootings in the U.S. in 2021, 68% more than the 1,531 that occurred in 2000.

To help reduce the number of firearm-related deaths and injuries among children, Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona in January 2024 called upon school and district administrators to talk with parents and guardians about safe firearm storage practices.

As experts on the safe storage of firearms – and as leaders of the University of Connecticut’s ARMS Center for Gun Injury Prevention – we often get questions about the best ways to keep guns out of the hands of children. We offer the following tips:

1: Safely store all of your firearms

Nearly half of the households in the U.S. have at least one firearm, but only about 40% of firearm owners store all of their guns when not in use, according to data in a survey we recently fielded. Unsecured firearms have been linked to suicides, domestic homicides and accidental shootings. They also heighten the risk of unauthorized use, which includes theft.

2. Don’t assume you can hide your guns

Kids generally know the hiding spots for the things their parents or caretakers do not want them to find, such as holiday gifts or Halloween candy. The same is true with firearms.

In 40% of gun-owning households with children, adults said their children did not know where firearms were stored, a 2017 study found. However, many of the children reported knowing and being able to access the firearms.

Researchers estimate that 75% of children who live in homes with guns know where they are stored.

Adults may think they can instruct children to leave firearms alone, but the 2017 study also found that 22% of parents wrongly believed that their children had never handled their gun.

3. Store ammunition separately

Research shows that locking ammunition separately from firearms further reduces the risk of firearm injuries in homes with children and teenagers.

Storing ammunition separately from firearms can help reduce the risk of injury. Olena Domanytska via Getty Images

While storing an unreadied weapon locked away may feel counterintuitive to those who own guns for personal protection, research shows that keeping firearms locked or unloaded, or both, can also reduce risk of injury.

4. Learn to talk about firearm safety

While some families may not have firearms in their home, eventually children go to other homes and, as they get older, go unsupervised.

Keeping children safe from gun violence requires normalizing conversations on firearm storage, even for people in households where no gun is present.

Approximately 45% of all unintentional shooting deaths of children under 17 occurred outside of their own homes. When children visit friends, we believe it’s important for their parents to know if guns are present in the home they are visiting and, if present, whether those firearms are being safely stored.

For more information about how to discuss firearm safety, parents can visit websites such as BeSMART, End Family Fire and Secure Storage of Lethal Means.

5. Know the law

Twenty-seven states have some version of secure storage laws.

Based on our calculations using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, states with child access prevention laws – known as CAP laws – have a gun death rate that is 65% lower than states that do not have CAP laws (12.33 vs. 20.38 per 100,000). Of course, states with and without CAP laws have many differences; therefore, the lower rates cannot be attributed to CAP laws alone. However, the presence of CAP laws is protective and reduces gun death.

In the absence of a federal secure storage law, the legal requirements around firearm storage and preventing unauthorized children from accessing weapons vary by state or municipality.

For example, Connecticut requires firearms be in a locked device when not in use.

Iowa prohibits the storing or leaving a loaded firearm around children 14 and younger if it is not secured by a trigger lock or a securely locked container or some other secure location.

Further, while Michigan only recently added a safe storage law, Jennifer Crumbley, the mother of a boy who committed a mass school shooting with his parents’ unsecured firearm, was recently convicted of involuntary manslaughter in connection with the case. Her husband’s trial in the matter began on March 5, 2024.

6. Invest in a quality safe and/or locking device

There are various levels of locked gun storage, including trigger locks, metal cable locks, locked gun cases and gun safes. While storing a firearm and the ammunition in a locked combination or biometric device is safest, all of these methods can reduce the risk of gun injury and death. These locking devices can be purchased online, through some gun sellers or at sporting goods stores.

A biometric safe for a handgun is about US$65, a gun lock runs $55 to $75 dollars, and combination safes for long guns range widely from a couple of hundred dollars to a few thousand dollars.

Family-school-community partnerships allow America’s children to grow and thrive. By asking schools to share resources for secure firearm storage and communicate evidence-based safety practices, the Department of Education is helping schools address the leading cause of death among American children.

But families have to do their part, too. It begins by normalizing firearm safety conversations and storing firearms properly to keep children safe.

Kerri Raissian, Associate Professor of Public Policy, University of Connecticut and Jennifer Necci Dineen, Associate Director of the ARMS Center for Gun Injury Prevention, University of Connecticut

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

After Super Tuesday, exhausted Americans face 8 more months of presidential campaigning

Campaign volunteers set up signs encouraging people to vote. AP Photo/Vasha Hunt

Jared McDonald, University of Mary Washington

Now that Super Tuesday is over and the Democratic and Republican nominees are all but officially chosen, as everyone expected, voters can turn the page to the general election.

But they’re not excited about it, and they haven’t been for months.

A September 2023 Monmouth University poll showed no more than 40% of Americans said they were “enthusiastic” for either Biden or Trump to run again. That same month, the Pew Research Center found that 65% of Americans were exhausted with the current state of American politics. In February 2024, The New York Times said Democrats in particular were burned out by the seemingly endless avalanche of political crises.

---

You can listen to more articles from The Conversation, narrated by Noa.

---

It is not surprising that a rematch of the 2020 election is failing to inspire excitement in the American people. Yet, as a political scientist who studies citizen engagement and the public’s feelings toward the candidates, I find these trends disturbing. It’s not just polarization that’s driving voters’ malaise – it’s something else, which carries a stark warning for the health of American democracy.

There is another divide in politics

Most discussions of the current state of the American electorate have understandably focused on political polarization. Democrats and Republicans often express disdain for each other, even when they don’t actually disagree on specific policies for the nation to pursue.

Some of this disdain is rooted in identity. For example, people who hold unfavorable attitudes toward African Americans, feminists and other groups associated with the Democratic Party tend to identify more strongly with the Republican Party. People with unfavorable attitudes toward stereotypically Republican groups such as evangelicals and gun owners tend to be stronger Democrats.

From this perspective, Democrats and Republicans are pack animals motivated to protect their group and their group’s interests.

Often overlooked, however, is how the vitriol of modern American politics fuels what political scientists Yanna Krupnikov and John Barry Ryan call “The Other Divide.” This is the divide between people who engage in politics and those who don’t.

In short, a significant number of Americans don’t talk about politics, whether because they are not interested in politics or are turned off by the negativity. It’s a gradual trend dating back to the 1980s and 1990s that has continued for decades now. This weakens the fabric of democracy, because the only voices that are heard online and in the media are from those who are most willing to speak up. They tend to be the most dissonant and extreme views.

The public discussion about the country’s past, present and future therefore leaves out a wide range of people’s voices. What they might say is hard to know, specifically because they don’t engage in political discussions.

Young people – those of voting age at least – are less likely to see voting as important. AP Photo/Michael Dwyer

Young voter disengagement

Especially troubling to me is the political disillusionment expressed by young people, who are the most likely group in the country to avoid identifying themselves as members of one party or the other. People who identify themselves as independents – especially if they don’t lean toward one party or the other – are also likely to lack interest in voting.

Having come of age during an era of high polarization, younger people are less likely to idealize politics and the right to vote. In prior research, my colleagues and I found that younger people worldwide were just as interested in politics as older citizens but were less likely to view voting as a civic duty. Protesting or joining an organization offers social benefits to young people – an opportunity to feel like they are part of something bigger. Voting, by contrast, is perceived as a more solitary act.

If younger American voters aren’t excited about the choices on the ballot, they may be more likely not to vote at all.

In a recent survey I conducted in collaboration with IGNITE National, an organization seeking to bolster young women’s engagement in the political process, we asked Gen Z Americans, adults born after 1996, what drove their disillusionment with American politics. Consistently, Gen Z respondents noted that the candidates appearing on the ballot did not look like them, contributing to their feeling of detachment from the political process.

Barack Obama’s race made 2008 a historic election. Hillary Clinton’s gender made 2016 a historic contest as well. By contrast, 2024 features the two oldest white men to ever seek the presidency, vying for second terms in office.

Burnout’s effects on democracy

Americans have many demands on their time. Between work, family and other activities, many struggle to watch or read the news, fact check what they see on social media or engage in productive political discussions. As a result, most of the American public is largely unaware of key aspects of important issues, and does not pay attention to the parties’ stances on those issues.

This lack of engagement is dangerous for democracy. Voters who cannot evaluate the merits of contrasting policy positions, or who cannot accurately assign blame and give credit for the state of the American economy, will ultimately fall back on cheap cues such as partisanship to make their choices.

Or they may abstain from politics altogether.

The campaign season offers an opportunity for voters who may be open to persuasion to engage in the political process for a short period of time, become sufficiently informed and make their voices heard. Though there are flaws in the many processes of political campaigning, media coverage and community involvement, the bottom line is simple: Deliberative democracy requires an American public that is willing to deliberate.

If Americans are too burned out to engage enthusiastically and provide feedback to political leaders, then there is little hope that any government could truly reflect the will of the people.

Jared McDonald, Assistant Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, University of Mary Washington

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

Yes, Trump’s PACs really can pay his legal fees

Donald Trump sits in a New York courtroom with Chris Kise and Alina Habba, two of his attorneys who have reportedly been paid with political action committee funds. Shannon Stapleton-Pool/Getty Images

Richard Briffault, Columbia University

Campaign finance data released at the end of January 2024 revealed that Save America, a political action committee founded and controlled by former President Donald Trump, spent more than US$50 million in 2023 on legal fees resulting from Trump’s multiple criminal and civil cases.

OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan nonprofit tracking campaign funds, found that other Trump-aligned organizations also paid a combined $10 million in additional legal fees for Trump in 2023.

Though I have spent much of my career as a scholar of campaign finance law, I’m not certain whether that use of campaign donations is legal under federal election law. It might be; it might not be. But if it’s not, I deem it unlikely that the Federal Election Commission, which enforces campaign finance laws, would take any action.

The rules about campaign spending

As a general rule, campaign contributions may be used only for election-related expenses. They are not for the personal use of a candidate or federal officeholder. Federal regulations define “personal use” as “any … expense of any person that would exist irrespective of the candidate’s or duties as a Federal officeholder.” In other words, a candidate cannot use campaign funds to pay her daughter’s college tuition or the mortgage on her personal residence.

In several advisory opinions, the FEC has repeatedly allowed campaign funds to pay legal expenses that are connected to an election campaign or officeholder action, such as litigation to get on the ballot or defense against a criminal investigation concerning whether the candidate misused his office.

Many of Trump’s legal cases, and therefore their expenses, do relate to campaign activities – such as his efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 election. Others relate to his role as an officeholder or former officeholder, such as the allegedly criminal retention of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.

Even the New York state criminal case about paying hush money to former porn actress Stormy Daniels is election-related: It involves an alleged scheme to prevent potentially damaging stories about Trump’s personal life from becoming public during his 2016 presidential campaign.

Donald Trump sits in court for his arraignment on charges relating to hush money payments meant to keep some information quiet before the 2016 presidential election. Andrew Kelly-Pool/Getty Images

A separate fund

However, the civil lawsuits brought by E. Jean Carroll, in which Trump was found to have sexually abused her and then to have repeatedly defamed her, are different. They do not involve either an election or Trump’s use of office. So I would expect that his legal fees for those cases would be considered personal.

Also likely personal is the civil case in New York alleging business fraud, in which he has been ordered to pay more than $350 million in penalties.

But it appears that Save America has been paying legal fees in those cases, too. Those payments may be legal under a different provision of federal campaign law. The prohibition on personal use of campaign funds applies most clearly to the funds in the candidate’s own campaign account. But federal election law also allows a candidate to set up a separate fund, known as a “leadership PAC,” which can be used for election-related activities other than support for their own campaign.

Save America is Trump’s leadership PAC, created by the Make America Great Again PAC. Although Save America is controlled by Trump, it is technically an independent entity.

FEC regulations are relatively relaxed about payments of personal expenses by these sorts of independent groups. Third-party funds can be for the personal use of the candidate as long as the expenses would have been incurred “irrespective” of whether the candidate is running for office. If third-party funds are used to pay campaign expenses, those funds count as campaign contributions and cannot exceed the $5,000 contribution limit per campaign. But there is no limit on how much third-party funds can spend on a candidate’s personal expenses.

Even though Trump controls the leadership PAC, the FEC considers it to be a “third party.” So it can pay his personal legal expenses – though only the ones that he would have incurred even if he were not currently running for president.

It is less clear whether a leadership PAC can legally help pay the multimillion-dollar fines Trump has been assessed as a result of those trials. The logic of the FEC’s interpretation of the personal use exception would appear to permit the use of leadership PAC funds here too, but this is a truly unprecedented situation, so it is difficult to say for sure.

The question of coordination

A remaining legal issue is whether Save America has coordinated its payment of Trump’s legal expenses with Donald J. Trump for President 2024 Inc., the committee authorized to pay his 2024 presidential campaign expenses.

An expenditure coordinated with a campaign is considered to be a contribution to that campaign. Save America’s legal expense payments are wildly above the $5,000 limit on PAC contributions to a candidate’s campaign. The FEC considers an expenditure to be coordinated only if it is made in “cooperation, consultation or concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate, a candidate’s authorized committee or a political party committee.”

The fact that Trump clearly benefits is not enough to establish “coordination.” Without evidence of some actual directive from or agreement with Trump or his campaign committee, it is unlikely the FEC would step in and allege Trump or one of his groups had violated the law.

Richard Briffault, Joseph P. Chamberlain Professor of Legislation, Columbia University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

Nonpartisan Engagement of Student Voters

by Emily Sydnor and Sarah Brackmann

Presidential nomination season is upon us. While it seems as if the selection of the major parties' presidential candidates is a foregone conclusion, American engagement with the election process is nonetheless vital for the hundreds of other federal, state, and local offices that will be filled by the victors of both the spring primaries and November general election. Yet only about half of people aged 18-29 voted in the 2020 presidential election. Higher education as a profession is poised to increase youth voter turnout this election year; not only because colleges and universities are the primary institutions structuring young adults' lives, but also because many have -- as their core purpose -- educating for the public good and transforming students into engaged community leaders.

We have the potential to cement students' civic habits, but instead we see the hollowing out of the civic mission of higher education. The culture wars have come to higher education. State legislation ending tenure for faculty and eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion offices also freezes dialogue on campuses and leaves administrators, faculty, and staff wary of appearing too partisan in our polarized political environment. So, how does an institution remain bipartisan (or nonpartisan) while educating students about when, where, why, and how to register and cast a ballot? Below, we share recommendations based on our experience developing and advising the student voting coalition at Southwestern University in Georgetown, Texas.

"How" and "where" are not partisan questions. It might feel like the process of voting has become yet another casualty of the battle between Democrats and Republicans, but the bottom line is that research in political science and adjacent disciplines provides many clear best practices for schools interested in developing their nonpartisan voting efforts. For example, having polling places nearby increases the likelihood that anyone will go vote, but is especially important for groups, like college students, who may not have continued or easy access to a vehicle or public transportation. One study found that people without a car are unlikely to vote when their polling place is more than half a mile away; another demonstrated that changing the location of polling places in Los Angeles County reduced voter turnout by increasing the effort participants had to put into the process. The takeaway for colleges and universities trying to improve voting efforts on campus is clear: one priority should be to work with the local government to put a polling place on campus.

When it comes to the mechanics of how students vote, we focus mainly on the process, highlighting the different avenues available for students regarding where they register and how they cast a ballot. Students can register at their home address or their campus address, but the easier we make the entire process, the more likely they are to follow through on their intention to vote. At Southwestern, this starts with a range of on-campus voter registration events (Texas does not allow online voter registration). In the month leading up to the start of Early Voting, we also encourage everyone on campus to "make a plan." Research shows that planning to vote, including identifying what format you will use, what identification you will bring, and where you will physically cast your ballot, can dramatically increase an individual's probability of voting. While we implemented our voting plan initiative using resources already available on campus, Motivote software also does some of the heavy lifting to make this process more interesting and engaging to members of the campus community.

Focus on the non-partisan "why." There are all sorts of reasons why anyone votes. Some of these reasons clearly align with partisan mobilization: representation of one's myriad identities or strong opinions about contemporary policy issues, for example. Others have nothing to do with which "team" you support, and many of these can be just as motivating as the traditional partisan arguments. A sense of civic duty inspires many people, young and old, to show up to the polls. Socialization in families, friendships, and communities that value voting as a group activity can increase the likelihood of actually casting a ballot. While it might not be the most noble of "whys," voting because it's what all your friends and neighbors do is still voting. Peer-to-peer outreach emphasizing all of these messages can be an effective way to encourage voter registration and turnout on campus while maintaining clear distance from the partisan battles shaping national political discourse.

Institutionalize your coalition. To do this work successfully, it is vital to have a coalition of committed students, faculty, and staff on campus and to partner with the great organizations working to increase student voter engagement nationwide. At Southwestern, we've embedded voter registration and voter engagement throughout the student experience, whether by registering them to vote on campus at the President's dinner for first-year students when they arrive in August or by sharing plug-and-play syllabus language with dates and important links with faculty campus-wide. Our student coalition, SU Votes!, collaborates with student organizations from the Interfraternity Council to university athletics and the Coalition for Diversity and Social Justice, an umbrella organization for student groups centered around issues of cultural and social identity. We've been fortunate that university administration, faculty, staff, and students are all supportive of our work in the last several elections, but even when they've been more hesitant, there is enough momentum among the students to keep a grassroots effort alive on campus.

This sustained momentum would not be possible, however, without the financial support and accountability efforts by our national partners. The ALL-IN Campus Democracy Challenge and Campus Vote Project's Voter Friendly Campus designation were our first steps into the world of student voter engagement. Both programs force us to develop a plan, focus on outcomes, and evaluate our efforts using concrete measures of success. The plans then serve as a touchstone for the students, teaching them skills in "SMART" goal-setting and program evaluation, and empowering them to design programming that aligns with their goals. The National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement, an opt-in data initiative, has been vital to program assessment, providing us with verified student registration and voting rates. The Campus Vote Project's Democracy Fellows initiative provides financial support and a virtual community for students who are interested in leading campus voting efforts. And our engagement with these programs and others has opened doors to small grants to fund this work, which has no designated university budget line.

We won't sugarcoat it: maintaining a nonpartisan voter engagement effort on your campus is not easy. It takes time to get buy-in from the campus community, and ensuring continuity as student leaders graduate and new ones take their place can be a serious hurdle. But the investment pays off -- in the short-term sense of shared success when the campus hits a turnout milestone and the longer-term institutional cultivation of young people's civic mindset.

Disclaimer: HigherEdJobs encourages free discourse and expression of issues while striving for accurate presentation to our audience. A guest opinion serves as an avenue to address and explore important topics, for authors to impart their expertise to our higher education audience and to challenge readers to consider points of view that could be outside of their comfort zone. The viewpoints, beliefs, or opinions expressed in the above piece are those of the author(s) and don't imply endorsement by HigherEdJobs.

This article is republished from HigherEdJobs^® under a Creative Commons license. 

Young people are lukewarm about Biden – and giving them more information doesn’t move the needle much

Young voters in Ann Arbor, Mich., fill out applications to cast their ballot in the midterm elections in November 2022. Jeff Kowalsky/AFP via Getty Images

Neil O'Brian, University of Oregon and Chandler James, University of Oregon

Recent polling for the November 2024 election shows that President Joe Biden is struggling with young voters, who have traditionally supported Democrats.

A December 2023 poll showed that 49% of young people supported former President Donald Trump, while just 43% of 18- to 29-year-olds said they preferred Biden.

Biden is even struggling with young people who identify as Democrats. A Fall 2023 Harvard Kennedy School poll shows that just 62% of Democrats aged 18 to 29 years old said they would vote for Biden in 2024.

Many Democrats are increasingly anxious that young voters who supported Biden in 2020 will boycott the general election in 2024, support a third-party candidate or vote for Trump.

Polls this far from Election Day are notoriously variable and not reliable for predicting election results. Furthermore, some political pundits are asking whether young voters will return to the Biden coalition once the campaign season heats up and they learn more about the two candidates.

As scholars of public opinion and the U.S. presidency, we are deeply interested in the prospect of young voters, particularly Democrats, defecting from the Biden coalition.

An Emory University student in Atlanta walks past voting information in October 2022. Elijah Nouvelage/AFP via Getty Images

Mixed evidence on young voters’ support for Biden

About 51% of young voters, aged 18 to 29 years old, identify as Democrats. This compares with 35% of these voters who identify as Republicans. In 2020, young voters in this age group made up an estimated 17% of the electorate.

In a close election, securing the youth vote will be paramount in order for Biden to win reelection.

We wanted to understand how young voters might change their election pick preferences if they learn more about different topics, such as the economy, likely to feature in this election season.

We recruited 1,418 respondents from across the country to participate in an online survey experiment in December 2023, including 860 people who identify as Democrats.

In this experiment, we exposed respondents to different messages that the Biden campaign might employ, to see if young Democrats could be persuaded back to Biden.

A quarter of the respondents saw information about how inflation and unemployment decreased during the Biden administration.

Another quarter of respondents were given information about Trump’s norm-violating behavior, such as encouraging an insurrection at the U.S. Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021.

The next quarter of respondents were given information about Biden’s and Trump’s positions on abortion, and whether the U.S. should accept immigrants from the Gaza Strip.

The final group of respondents received no information about a particular topic.

In our research, which has yet to be published, we found mixed evidence that undecided young Democrats would be persuaded to vote for Biden based on any new information we shared with them.

Among the people we polled who were given no information, 66% of 18-year-old to 34-year-old Democrats said they would vote for Biden. This roughly tracks with national polling.

Would learning about the strength of the economy boost Biden’s support?

About 69% of young Democrats who read about dropping inflation and unemployment rates said they would vote for Biden, compared with 31% who said they would vote for Trump or another candidate. This reflects a modest increase in support for Biden, compared to people who had no information on this topic.

We then tested whether providing information to voters about the candidates’ policy positions would change support for Biden.

It is possible that voters are just unaware of the candidates’ positions on issues and, after getting more information, will change their views.

We found that 71% of respondents who learned about Biden’s and Trump’s policy positions on abortion and Palestinian refugees from Gaza said they would vote for Biden, compared with the 66% who did not read any new information on these topics before deciding their pick.

Finally, we gave people information about Trump’s norm-violating behavior. This actually marginally decreased support for Biden, dropping from the 66% among people who did not have any of this information given to them in the survey to 63% among people who did. This change, though, lacked what social scientists call statistical significance – meaning that we cannot say this difference is not just attributable to chance alone.

Overall, we found that giving young Democrats access to three different pieces of information generally led to small increases in whether they said they would vote for Biden or not.

Next, we asked respondents “How enthusiastic would you say you are about voting for president in next year’s election?” and how likely they are to vote in the upcoming presidential election. We found that the three different pieces of information each led to a small increase in reported vote intention among young Democrats, but didn’t, on average, increase their enthusiasm about voting. In other words, if young voters feel compelled to vote, they may do so, but without enthusiasm.

Abortion rights canvassers gather for a canvass training in Columbus, Ohio, in November 2023. Megan Jelinger/AFP via Getty Images

The power of persuasion

Taken together, these results show little movement among young Democrats. This is particularly striking when compared to older Democrats in our sample.

When presented with information about the strength of the economy, the candidates’ divergent policy positions or Trump’s norm-violating behavior, support for Biden among likely voters who were 55 years old or older and identified as Democrats increased from 73% to around 90%.

These results suggest an uphill battle for the Biden campaign to bring back young voters. Young voters, even if they identify as Democrats, are perhaps less attached to a party, or democratic institutions more generally, than older voters. This means campaign messages about democratic norms might be less persuasive among younger voters.

On the other hand, there are reasons to expect young voters might return to Biden: The economy is doing well, which tends to help incumbents.

Furthermore, partisanship, particularly in this polarizing environment, remains a powerful influence, and may still exert a pull on young Democrats over the campaign.

Democrats, after all, successfully ran on an anti-Trump campaign in the 2022 midterm elections, 2020 general election and the 2018 midterm elections.

Neil O'Brian, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Oregon and Chandler James, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Oregon

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

War in Ukraine at 2 years: Destruction seen from space – via radar

Satellite radar data shows the complete destruction of the Ukrainian city of Bakhmut. Xu et al. (2024), CC BY-NC-ND

Sylvain Barbot, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

As soldiers and citizens provide information from the front lines and affected areas of the war in Ukraine – two years old as of Feb. 24, 2024 – in quasi-real time, an active open-source intelligence community has formed to keep track of troop activity, destruction and other aspects of the war.

Remote sensing complements this approach, offering a safe means to study inaccessible or dangerous areas. For example, seismologists have documented the high pace of bombardments and firing of artillery around Kyiv during the first few months of the war.

Previously, Teng Wang, a professor at the Peking University in China, and I – both Earth scientists – studied illegal nuclear tests in North Korea with satellite data.

Putting our skills to good use once again, we, with graduate student Hang Xu, have analyzed the development of the war from space. We exclusively used open-source, freely accessible data to ensure that all our findings could be reproduced, guaranteeing transparency and neutrality.

View from above

Sensors on satellites record electromagnetic waves radiated or reflected from Earth’s surface with wavelengths ranging from hundreds of nanometers to tens of centimeters, enabling semi-continuous monitoring on a global scale, unimpeded by political boundaries and natural obstacles.

Optical images, the equivalent of photographs taken from space, help governments, researchers and journalists monitor troop movements on the front and the destruction of equipment and facilities. Although optical images are easily interpreted, they suffer from cloud cover and operate only during daylight.

To counter these issues, we used radars onboard satellites. Space-borne radar systems beam long-wavelength electromagnetic waves toward the Earth and then record the returning echos. These waves – about 0.4 to 4 inches (1 to 10 centimeters) – can penetrate clouds and smoke. Radar interferometry has already proved to be an invaluable tool to monitor widespread damage caused by natural disasters.

Satellite photography like these ‘before’ and ‘after’ images can provide a visceral sense of the destruction in the war in Ukraine. Satellite image (c) 2023 Maxar Technologies via Getty Images

Radar from space

Free and publicly available radar data for civilian applications is rare – the United States is scheduled to launch its first one in March 2024 – but the European Space Agency has made such data available since the early 1990s. Data from the European Space Agency’s Sentinel-1 satellite radar is freely accessible via their data hub.

Two radar images formed over the same area can be used to detect changes to structures and other surfaces. Interferometry measures the difference in travel time between two radar signals, which is a measure of change in the shape or position of surfaces. Another measure of surface change is the coherence of the reflected signals – that is, the degree of similarity between two different images when comparing neighboring pixels at the same position in the two images. A large coherence implies little change and thus the preservation of a building or other structure. On the other hand, a loss of coherence in the context of a battlefield implies damage or destruction of a building or structure.

Sentinel-1 radar’s spatial resolution of 66 feet (20  meters) over a swath of 255 miles (410  kilometers) combined with 12-day updates makes its radar data ideal for monitoring urban warfare. Previous research efforts have used satellite radar data to assess damage in Kyiv and Mariupol. We used the data to analyze the evolution of damage to cities over time during several lengthy battles.

Changes in radar data during the battle of Bahkmut show increasing amounts of destruction. Red pixels imply damaged or destroyed buildings. Xu et al. (2024), CC BY-NC-ND

Measure of destruction

We flagged highly damaged areas by comparing radar coherence before and after the war, within the areas classified as artificial surfaces by the European Space Agency’s WorldCover 2021 dataset. Using this approach, we first analyzed the battle of Bakhmut, one of the longest and bloodiest of the war, which began on Oct. 8, 2022, and ended with a Russian victory on May 20, 2023.

When Hang Xu showed Teng Wang and me the data he had processed, we were puzzled. We saw a checkerboard pattern all over the city. We quickly realized the horror of the situation. The only thing that survived after the yearlong battle was the network of roads in the city. All buildings had partially or completely collapsed due to the continuous bombardment.

We then took a look at the battles of Rubizhne, Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk that started in April 2022 and ended with a Russian victory on July 2, 2022. The comparatively lower destruction of Lysychansk is explained by the rapid encirclement of the city from the south instead of continued frontal assaults, as was the case in Bakhmut. The radar data reveals destruction away from the front line within cities, showing the whole extent of the devastation.

Changes in radar data during the battles of Rubizhne, Sievierodonetsk and Lysychansk show increasing amounts of destruction. Urban areas are shown in gray with damage in red. Xu et al. (2024), CC BY-NC-ND

Devastation in focus

Remote sensing images offer the means to safely monitor the impact of armed conflicts, particularly as high-intensity wars in urban environments proliferate. Open-access satellite instruments complement other forms of open-source intelligence by offering unimpeded access to high-resolution, unbiased information, which can help people grasp the true impact of war on the ground.

The picture is clear: The real story of war is destruction.

Sylvain Barbot, Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

Register to VOTE!

CLICK HERE!

Important Note! The Alabama Voter Registration application is for use by residents of the State of Alabama only! If you reside in a state other than Alabama, please contact your state or local election officials for information on registering to vote.

Celebrating Women Veterans: 5 meaningful ways to pay tribute

Veterans play an important role in U.S. history. Over time, the demographics of veterans have changed, but few realize the growing role of women in the armed forces. Today, women comprise 11% of the veteran population. According to the Pew Research Center, that number is expected to increase to 18% by 2048.

Fannie Griffin McClendon is one of those women. She enlisted during a tumultuous period of history that spanned World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Her more than two decades in the military included service in both the Army and Air Force.

In an oral history interview for the Library of Congress Veterans History Project, she recalled her proudest memory was her time with the 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion during World War II. As the only all-African American, all-female unit deployed to Europe, it processed mountains of mail for U.S. servicemembers in Europe in 1945 and is credited with boosting the troops’ morale. McClendon also provided a unique perspective of life as a career military officer in an era when African American women faced bigotry and barriers.

Through the Veterans History Project, the Library of Congress collects and preserves the firsthand remembrances of U.S. military veterans like McClendon and makes them accessible for future generations to better understand veterans’ service and sacrifice. Stories are available to the public on the Library’s website and at the Washington, D.C. campus.

You can extend this work and honor women veterans in your community with simple acts of appreciation such as:

Support Women Veteran-Owned Businesses
Take your support for small businesses one step further and look for women veteran-owned businesses to support. These leaders are making waves in the business world and the nonprofit sector. If possible, provide mentorships for women veterans to help transition to civilian life.

Encourage Women Veterans to Share Their Stories
Interview the women veterans in your life and capture the details of their military experiences. Then share your documentation with the Veterans History Project, which helps preserve these stories for future generations.

Submit a 30-minute (or longer) unedited video or audio interview sharing service details and/or a collection of original photos or correspondence. Veterans, or families of deceased veterans, may also submit a minimum 20-page journal and/or unpublished memoir or 10 or more original photos or letters. Visit loc.gov/vets and click “How to Participate” for instructions.

Learn More About Women Veterans
Educate yourself, your children and those around you. Visit museums and memorials, many of which have specific displays to honor the sacrifices and triumphs of women veterans.

Advocate for and Empower Women Veterans
Support initiatives and programs that serve women veterans. Empower them to acknowledge their service and take advantage of the programs and resources available.

Say ‘Thank You’
This may be the easiest, yet most impactful, way you can support veterans, and there are many ways to do so. Shake her hand, buy her lunch or send her a card or letter. None of these take much time, but each can have a big impact.

Photos courtesy of the Library of Congress Veterans History Project, Fannie Griffin McClendon Collection, AFC2001/001/119440 and Fannie Griffin McClendon.

SOURCE:
Library of Congress Veterans History Project

Israeli siege has placed Gazans at risk of starvation − prewar policies made them vulnerable in the first place

Displaced Gazan children wait in line to receive food. Belal Khaled/Anadolu via Getty Images

Yara M. Asi, University of Central Florida

The stories of hunger emerging from war-ravaged Gaza are stark: People resorting to grinding barely edible cattle feed to make flour; desperate residents eating grass; reports of cats being hunted for food.

The numbers involved are just as despairing. The world’s major authority on food insecurity, the IPC Famine Review Committee, estimates that 90% of Gazans – some 2.08 million people – are facing acute food insecurity. Indeed, of the people facing imminent starvation in the world today, an estimated 95% are in Gaza.

As an expert in Palestinian public health, I fear the situation may not have hit its nadir. In January 2024, many of the top funders to UNRWA, the U.N.’s refugee agency that provides the bulk of services to Palestinians in Gaza, suspended donations to the agency in response to allegations that a dozen of the agency’s 30,000 employees were possibly involved in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas. The agency has indicated that it will no longer be able to offer services starting in March and will lose its ability to distribute food and other vital supplies during that month.

With at least 28,000 people confirmed dead and an additional 68,000 injured, Israeli bombs have already had a catastrophic human cost in Gaza – starvation could be the next tragedy to befall the territory.

Indeed, two weeks after Israel initiated a massive military campaign in the Gaza Strip, Oxfam International reported that only around 2% of the usual amount of food was being delivered to residents in the territory. At the time, Sally Abi Khalil, Oxfam’s Middle East director, commented that “there can be no justification for using starvation as a weapon of war.” But four months later, the siege continues to restrict the distribution of adequate aid.

Putting Palestinians ‘on a diet’

Israeli bombs have destroyed homes, bakeries, food production factories and grocery stores, making it harder for people in Gaza to offset the impact of the reduced imports of food.

But food insecurity in Gaza and the mechanisms that enable it did not start with Israel’s response to the Oct. 7 attack.

A U.N. report from 2022 found that a year before the latest war, 65% of Gazans were food insecure, defined as lacking regular access to enough safe and nutritious food.

Multiple factors contributed to this food insecurity, not least the blockade of Gaza imposed by Israel and enabled by Egypt since 2007. All items entering the Gaza Strip, including food, become subject to Israeli inspection, delay or denial.

Basic foodstuff was allowed, but because of delays at the border, it can spoil before it enters Gaza.

A 2009 investigation by Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz found that foods as varied as cherries, kiwi, almonds, pomegranates and chocolate were prohibited entirely.

Not enough food aid to go around in Gaza. Belal Khaled/Anadolu via Getty Images

At certain points, the blockade, which Israel claims is an unavoidable security measure, has been loosened to allow import of more foods; for example, in 2010 Israel started to permit potato chips, fruit juices, Coca-Cola and cookies.

By placing restrictions on food imports, Israel seems to be trying to put pressure on Hamas by making life difficult for the people in Gaza. In the words of one Israeli government adviser in 2006, “The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger.”

To enable this, the Israeli government commissioned a 2008 study to work out exactly how many calories Palestinians would need to avoid malnutrition. The report was released to the public only following a 2012 legal battle.

The blockade also increased food insecurity by preventing meaningful development of an economy in Gaza.

The U.N. cites the “excessive production and transaction costs and barriers to trade with the rest of the world” imposed by Israel as the primary cause of severe underdevelopment in the occupied territories, including Gaza. As a result, in late 2022 the unemployment rate in Gaza stood at around 50%. This, coupled with a steady increase in the cost of food, makes affording food difficult for many Gazan households, rendering them dependent on aid, which fluctuates frequently.

Hampering self-sufficency

More generally, the blockade and the multiple rounds of destruction of parts of the Gaza Strip have made food sovereignty in the territory nearly impossible.

Much of Gaza’s farmland is along the so-called “no-go zones,” which Israel had rendered inaccessible to Palestinians, who risk being shot if they attempt to access these areas.

Gaza’s fishermen are regularly shot at by Israeli gunboats if they venture farther in the Mediterranean Sea than Israel permits. Because the fish closer to the shore are smaller and less plentiful, the average income of a fisherman in Gaza has more than halved since 2017.

Meanwhile, much of the infrastructure needed for adequate food production – greenhouses, arable lands, orchards, livestock and food production facilities – have been destroyed or heavily damaged in various rounds of bombing in Gaza. And international donors have hesitated to hastily rebuild facilities when they cannot guarantee their investment will last more than a few years before being bombed again.

The latest siege has only further crippled the ability of Gaza to be food self-sufficient. By early December 2023, an estimated 22% of agricultural land had been destroyed, along with factories, farms, and water and sanitation facilities. And the full scale of the destruction may not be clear for months or years.

Meanwhile, Israel’s flooding of the tunnels under parts of the Gaza Strip with seawater risks killing remaining crops, leaving the land too salty and rendering it unstable and prone to sinkholes.

Starvation as weapon of war

Aside from the many health effects of starvation and malnutrition, especially on children, such conditions make people more vulnerable to disease – already a significant concern for those living in the overcrowded shelters where people have been forced to flee.

In response to the current hunger crisis in Gaza, Alex de Waal, author of “Mass Starvation: The History and Future of Famine,” has made clear: “While it may be possible to bomb a hospital by accident, it is not possible to create a famine by accident.” He argues that the war crime of starvation does not need to include outright famine – merely the act of depriving people of food, medicine and clean water is sufficient.

The use of starvation is strictly forbidden under the Geneva Conventions, a set of statutes that govern the laws of warfare. Starvation has been condemned by United Nations Resolution 2417, which decried the use of deprivation of food and basic needs of the civilian population and compelled parties in conflict to ensure full humanitarian access.

Human Rights Watch has already accused Israel of using starvation as a weapon of war, and as such it accuses the Israeli government of a war crime. The Israeli government in turn continues to blame Hamas for any loss of life in Gaza.

Yet untangling what Israel’s intentions may be – whether it is using starvation as a weapon of war, to force mass displacement, or if, as it claims, it is simply a byproduct of war – does little for the people on the ground in Gaza.

They require immediate intervention to stave off catastrophic outcomes. As one father in Gaza reported, “We are forced to eat one meal a day – the canned goods that we get from aid organizations. No one can afford to buy anything for his family. I see children here crying from hunger, including my own children.”

Yara M. Asi, Assistant Professor of Global Health Management and Informatics, University of Central Florida

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.