Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 01:46 AM Jan 2015

Doomsday Clock: Three minutes to midnight

Source: UPI

The Doomsday Clock is now the closest it has been to midnight since 1984.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists said they reset the Doomsday Clock to three minutes to midnight, meaning "the probability of global catastrophe is very high."

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists Science and Security Board, which was founded by scientists who helped create the atomic bomb and is charged with regularly deciding whether to alter the time on the countdown to the end of the world, said world events led them to move the Doomsday Clock forward two minutes.

"In 2015, unchecked climate change, global nuclear weapons modernizations, and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity, and world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe. These failures of political leadership endanger every person on Earth," the board said.

The clock is the closest to midnight it has been since 1984, at the height of the Cold War. The Doomsday Clock was set the furthest from midnight in 1991, when it was 17 minutes away, and was the closest in 1953, when it was two minutes to midnight as a result of the United States and Soviet Union developing hydrogen bombs.

<snip>

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2015/01/23/Doomsday-Clock-Three-minutes-to-midnight/2421422023104/

35 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Doomsday Clock: Three minutes to midnight (Original Post) bananas Jan 2015 OP
Say goodnight, Gracie Kennah Jan 2015 #1
Goodnight, Gracie. bananas Jan 2015 #3
Good night, Georgia marym625 Jan 2015 #4
CNN: Doomsday Clock moved closer to midnight bananas Jan 2015 #2
The doomsday machine. iandhr Jan 2015 #5
"The Doomsday Machine" BumRushDaShow Jan 2015 #16
Two minutes to midnight... flying rabbit Jan 2015 #6
KnR-nt Anansi1171 Jan 2015 #7
I am unaware of the history behind this. F4lconF16 Jan 2015 #8
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is an important anti-nuke organization. longship Jan 2015 #10
It's very serious. bananas Jan 2015 #17
Seems the focus is now more on climate and other global chaos versus nukes BumRushDaShow Jan 2015 #9
The probability of nuclear conflict increases substantially as RiverNoord Jan 2015 #11
The use of nukes would not make sense for the argument you make BumRushDaShow Jan 2015 #14
I think RiverNoord means to say these things increase the chances of conflict, tclambert Jan 2015 #22
I agree that there will be conflict BumRushDaShow Jan 2015 #24
War is inherently insensible. RiverNoord Jan 2015 #30
Israel ? How would Israel . .. PosterChild Jan 2015 #19
First, Israel is a small coastal nation, and very much at risk from the encroachment of the RiverNoord Jan 2015 #28
Those other technologies are finally catching up to nuclear weapons as a risk bananas Jan 2015 #13
See my post #11 BumRushDaShow Jan 2015 #15
All it takes in a single offensive deployment of a nuclear weapon RiverNoord Jan 2015 #29
+1. The organizational imperative ... PosterChild Jan 2015 #18
The clock has been close to midnight since it's inception NobodyHere Jan 2015 #12
That means ... PosterChild Jan 2015 #20
How do we know that it isn't just almost lunchtime? underpants Jan 2015 #21
So where will they set it if Putin starts invading NATO countries? Nye Bevan Jan 2015 #23
The old Soviet Union built some massive bunkers. gordianot Jan 2015 #27
"Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!" Adenoid_Hynkel Jan 2015 #33
Maybe the Morlock will visit favor on the Eloi. gordianot Jan 2015 #35
Unchecked climate change Stephen Retired Jan 2015 #25
They left out the biggest threat Politicalboi Jan 2015 #26
I think it might be running a little slow. olddad56 Jan 2015 #31
hit the snooze @ 1:00 Fred Drum Jan 2015 #32
Disagree completely Reter Jan 2015 #34

bananas

(27,509 posts)
2. CNN: Doomsday Clock moved closer to midnight
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 01:49 AM
Jan 2015
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/23/us/feat-doomsday-clock-three-minutes-midnight/

Doomsday Clock moved closer to midnight

By Todd Leopold, CNN
Updated 0111 GMT (0911 HKT) January 24, 2015

Doomsday Clock moved two minutes closer to midnight

(CNN)The world is closer to doomsday.

That's the message from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, which moved its iconic Doomsday Clock up two minutes on Thursday. The clock now stands at three minutes to midnight, the "latest" it's been since 1984, when the Cold War between the U.S. and Soviet Union was a major issue.

<snip>

"Today, unchecked climate change and a nuclear arms race resulting from modernization of huge arsenals pose extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity. And world leaders have failed to act with the speed or on the scale required to protect citizens from potential catastrophe," said Kennette Benedict, executive director of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, in a news release. "These failures of leadership endanger every person on Earth."

The Bulletin's Science and Security Board looks at global issues on a regular basis and decides whether to move the minute hand of the clock, with particular stress on the status of nuclear arms and reaction to climate issues.

In recent years, the clock has moved the wrong direction for humanity. After standing at 17 minutes to midnight in 1991 -- the furthest it's ever been from the end of the world -- it's gotten closer each time it's been changed since, with the exception of 2010, when it was pushed back by one minute to 11:54 p.m.

The last time the clock was moved was in 2012, when it was moved up one minute to 11:55.

<snip>

longship

(40,416 posts)
10. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is an important anti-nuke organization.
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 10:23 AM
Jan 2015

It has existed since 1945 and has been representing the doomsday clock since 1947. Their board has included many prominently scientists.

Here is their Web site: http://thebulletin.org/

History
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was established in 1945 by scientists, engineers, and other experts who had created the atomic bomb as part of the Manhattan Project. They knew about the horrible effects of these new weapons and devoted themselves to warning the public about the consequences of using them. Those early scientists also worried about military secrecy, fearing that leaders might draw their countries into increasingly dangerous nuclear confrontations without the full consent of their citizens.

The Doomsday Clock
In 1947, the Bulletin first displayed the Clock on its magazine cover to convey, through a simple design, the perils posed by nuclear weapons. The Clock evokes both the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero). In 1949, the Clock hand first moved to signal our assessment of world events and trends. The decision to move the minute hand is made by the Bulletin's Board of Directors in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world's vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging technologies in the life sciences.

<more at link>

bananas

(27,509 posts)
17. It's very serious.
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 03:01 PM
Jan 2015

Wikipedia has a history of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletin_of_the_Atomic_Scientists

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a nontechnical online magazine that covers global security and public policy issues related to the dangers posed by nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, climate change,[2] emerging technologies,[3] and diseases.[4] It has been published continuously since 1945, when it was founded by former Manhattan Project physicists after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago. The Bulletin '​s primary aim is to inform the public about nuclear policy debates while advocating for the international control of nuclear weapons.[5]

One of the driving forces behind the creation of the Bulletin was the amount of public interest surrounding atomic energy at the dawn of the atomic age. In 1945 the public interest in atomic warfare and weaponry inspired contributors to the Bulletin to attempt to inform those interested about the dangers and destruction that atomic war could bring about.[6] To convey the particular peril posed by nuclear weapons, the Bulletin devised the Doomsday Clock in 1947. The original setting was seven minutes to midnight. The minute hand of the Clock first moved closer to midnight in response to changing world events in 1949, following the first Soviet nuclear test. The Clock, now set at three minutes to midnight, [7] is recognized as a universal symbol of threats to humanity from a variety of sources: nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, climate change,[8] and emerging technologies.[9] In the 1950s, the Bulletin was involved in the formation of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, annual conferences of scientists concerned about nuclear proliferation, and, more broadly, the role of science in modern society.

<snip>


Obama's Science Advisor is a member of Pugwash:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Holdren

<snip>

Holdren was chair of the Executive Committee of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs from 1987 until 1997 and delivered the Nobel Peace Prize acceptance lecture on behalf of Pugwash Conferences in December 1995. From 1993 until 2003, he was chair of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences, and Co-Chairman of the bipartisan National Committee on Energy Policy from 2002 until 2007. Holdren was elected President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2006–2007), and served as board Chairman (2007–2008).[9] He was the founding chair of the advisory board for Innovations, a quarterly journal about entrepreneurial solutions to global challenges published by MIT Press, and has written and lectured extensively on the topic of global warming.

Holdren served as one of President Bill Clinton's science advisors (PCAST) from 1994 to 2001.[2] Eight years later, President Barack Obama nominated Holdren for his current position as science advisor and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in December 2008, and he was confirmed on March 19, 2009, by a unanimous vote in the Senate.[14][15][16][17]

<snip>


Gorbachev recently said the Ukraine situation could lead to nuclear war:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/09/us-ukraine-crisis-gorbachev-germany-idUSKBN0KI1US20150109

Gorbachev warns of major war in Europe over Ukraine
BERLIN Fri Jan 9, 2015 1:05pm ES

(Reuters) - Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev warned that tensions between Russia and European powers over the Ukraine crisis could result in a major conflict or even nuclear war, in an interview to appear in a German news magazine on Saturday.

"A war of this kind would unavoidably lead to a nuclear war," the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize winner told Der Spiegel news magazine, according to excerpts released on Friday.

"We won't survive the coming years if someone loses their nerve in this overheated situation," added Gorbachev, 83. "This is not something I'm saying thoughtlessly. I am extremely concerned."

<snip>

BumRushDaShow

(127,308 posts)
9. Seems the focus is now more on climate and other global chaos versus nukes
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 07:36 AM
Jan 2015

as the number of nukes is VERY MUCH reduced today then back in 1991 (the supposed "furthest away&quot , let alone the 80s and before. And the quantity of nukes + the relations between nations, had almost always been the focus for "setting the clock" over the years. Don't want to call it "changing of the goal posts" but....

 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
11. The probability of nuclear conflict increases substantially as
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 12:08 PM
Jan 2015

the effects of global warming start shifting (and reducing) habitable land.

There is still a massive number of nuclear warheads in the world, and some of the countries that possess them are right in the crosshairs of global warming. Israel, in particular.

The number of countries in possession of nuclear weapons is going to increase as coastlines move inland and groundwater deposits dry up. Japan, for example, is an island nation, with a tremendous population directly at risk of displacement due to sea level increase. Where will they go?

BumRushDaShow

(127,308 posts)
14. The use of nukes would not make sense for the argument you make
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 01:07 PM
Jan 2015

regarding a potential battle over reduced habitable land. See Chernobyl and more recently, the Tōhoku, Japan earthquake & tsunami.

If you look at the stockpiles, there has been a massive reduction that has occurred since the 1989 peak (per here) -



One nuke is too many but you can't dismiss a drop from some 60,000 nukes down to 10,000.

The irony is that as long as countries have wealthy despots in charge, they are not going to unleash what could destroy their wealth, which also (as we have seen with dictators like Assad) encourages them to tighten up any destructive weapons that they possess. They don't have the benefit of a "Blade Runner" way to flee Earth for "outer space colonies".

I also disagree with predicting that nations would continue using nukes as a means to gain more land or even have for self-defense. We are actually seeing the low-tech means for achieving land grabs - mass killing with conventional weaponry (guns and missiles), which preserves the area and control of the scarce resources without contaminating it with nuclear fallout. It often ends up that the cost of production and maintenance becomes counter-productive. IMHO, we are seeing the last gasp of this form of supposed self-preservation, given the rise of drone warfare.

I do agree that the loss of coastline areas and the pressure of populations that live along them, demands ways to actually come up with long-term strategies to reduce the human-induced causes (which will take a long time and will not be seen for some time) but also short-term strategies to better manage the habitable land. For decades, China has looked over its shoulder at Japan (who beat them badly in a series of wars during the last century and before), and it has recouped and fortified for such. But what island countries like Japan (and even England in the 1700s) do, is "export" their populations elsewhere (see Hawai'i and Australia).

tclambert

(11,080 posts)
22. I think RiverNoord means to say these things increase the chances of conflict,
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 06:29 PM
Jan 2015

not necessarily "sensible" conflict, just conflict in general. Massive numbers of refugees, food shortages, anger at nations that did nothing to save the world from climate disaster, could lead to hostilities of all kinds, possibly including uses of nuclear weapons even when it doesn't really make sense.

It's not like the human race has a history of a lot of sensible wars. Why, just recently I heard of a powerful country attacked by terrorists that turned around and invaded a country they knew had nothing to do with the terrorist attack. Thank God, America would never act so senselessly.

BumRushDaShow

(127,308 posts)
24. I agree that there will be conflict
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 07:10 PM
Jan 2015

but I wouldn't conflate that to mean that it would lead to nuclear proliferation as an option. Particularly when there are so many other ways to accomplish the same thing on a more personal level to instill fear. You have Boko Haram, ISIL, and others "doing just fine" without the need to acquire a nuke.

As I side note, I recall when a rice shortage made national (and global) news in 2008. If anything, the instability of many impoverished countries came to light. But the idea of governments in those countries using a nuke to solve the problem, pushes it a bit far.

 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
30. War is inherently insensible.
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 11:30 PM
Jan 2015

And yes, you nailed my perspective exactly. Hell, it may be that, in 20 years, 3D printers will be able to rapidly transform a small amount of sufficiently enriched uranium or plutonium into a deployable nuclear weapon.

PosterChild

(1,307 posts)
19. Israel ? How would Israel . ..
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 03:39 PM
Jan 2015

... increase its "habitable land" using nukes, when using nukes would decrease it's existence to zero?

 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
28. First, Israel is a small coastal nation, and very much at risk from the encroachment of the
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 11:15 PM
Jan 2015

Mediterranean. Second, it's demonstrated, under present climate conditions, that it wishes to, and does, annex conquered land to increase its size. Third, under present circumstances, its leaders know that there is no nuclear power that would strike it with nuclear weapons should they decide to use theirs.

It has a very clear doctrine that it will use nuclear weapons if its leaders perceive a major threat to its existence.

Pakistan and India (they and Israel are the only nuclear powers not to sign the NPT, although North Korea might as well not have, given how it breaches it regularly) have substantial inland retreats from coastal encroachment. Israel does not. Its freshwater resources are also at great risk from a surging Mediterranean.

It is precisely things like this that will lead to war in a heavily warmed world. Additionally, Israel is a nation that claims to be the homeland of a worldwide ethnic and religious group, and has a great many wealthy supporters throughout the world. Its supporters would not allow a third of it to simply vanish under the Mediterranean without pressing for compensation for the loss of this land through war, if necessary. Add to the mix the prospect of heavy opposition in such a conflict by the conventional militaries of several neighbors, also under severe strain due to coastline loss (Alexandria, for example, could not survive even a moderate sea level rise), and the prospect of offensive deployment of nuclear weapons becomes very substantial.

bananas

(27,509 posts)
13. Those other technologies are finally catching up to nuclear weapons as a risk
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 12:41 PM
Jan 2015

and we still have enough nuclear weapons to create a nuclear winter.

Even a "small, regional" nuclear war between India and Pakistan,
where only 100 small Hiroshima-size nukes are used,
would cool the climate enough to kill 2 billion people world-wide by starvation.

It's not a direct result of the nukes, it's the nukes being used on modern mega-cities,
they would release enough ash in the firestorm, carried into the upper atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

<snip>

... the soots injection height is controlled by the rate of energy release from the firestorm's fuel, not the size, or lack thereof, of an initial nuclear explosion.[11] For example the mushroom cloud from the bomb dropped on Hiroshima reached a height of "6km&quot middle troposphere) within a few minutes and then dissipated due to winds, while the individual fires, within the city, took almost 3 hours to form into a firestorm and produce a "pyrocumulus" cloud, a cloud that is assumed to have reached upper tropospheric heights as over its multiple hours of burning, the firestorm released an estimated "1000 times" the energy of the bomb.[17]

<snip>

Climatic effects

A study presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in December 2006 found that even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more. In a regional nuclear conflict scenario where two opposing nations in the subtropics would each use 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons (about 15 kiloton each) on major populated centres, the researchers estimated as much as five million tons of soot would be released, which would produce a cooling of several degrees over large areas of North America and Eurasia, including most of the grain-growing regions. The cooling would last for years, and according to the research could be "catastrophic".[35][36]

Ozone depletion

A 2008 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science found that a nuclear weapons exchange between Pakistan and India using their current arsenals could create a near-global ozone hole, triggering human health problems and causing environmental damage for at least a decade.[37] The computer-modeling study looked at a nuclear war between the two countries involving 50 Hiroshima-sized nuclear devices on each side, producing massive urban fires and lofting as much as five million metric tons of soot about 50 miles (80 km) into the mesosphere. The soot would absorb enough solar radiation to heat surrounding gases, causing a series of chemical reactions that would break down the stratospheric ozone layer protecting Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.

Nuclear summer

A "nuclear summer" is a hypothesized scenario in which, after a nuclear winter has abated, a greenhouse effect then occurs due to CO2 released by combustion and methane released from decay of dead organic matter.[38][39]

<snip>



BumRushDaShow

(127,308 posts)
15. See my post #11
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 01:37 PM
Jan 2015

As long as wealthy despots rule, they are not going to destroy their means for wealth and they are vicious enough to wipe out the suicidal crazies who might even consider using such a device to take control.

 

RiverNoord

(1,150 posts)
29. All it takes in a single offensive deployment of a nuclear weapon
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 11:22 PM
Jan 2015

to completely change that dynamic. In a chaotic world with massive shifts in population centers, the uncertainties will result in re-calculus of the advantages and disadvantages of the use of nuclear weapons against nations without them, especially.

PosterChild

(1,307 posts)
18. +1. The organizational imperative ...
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 03:34 PM
Jan 2015

... is to contiue existence regardless of the continuing relevancy of past goals and objectives.

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
23. So where will they set it if Putin starts invading NATO countries?
Sat Jan 24, 2015, 06:38 PM
Jan 2015

One minute to midnight? Thirty seconds to midnight?

 

Reter

(2,188 posts)
34. Disagree completely
Sun Jan 25, 2015, 01:51 AM
Jan 2015

It shouldn't have been 17 minutes away in 1991, when the USSR was just breaking up and there were unstable countries with nukes everywhere, and it should not be the same now as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I should run this thing. 5 or 6 minutes is more like it.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Doomsday Clock: Three min...