Slashdot Mirror


Doomsday Clock To Advance

Dik Zak writes "Many news sites are reporting that the magazine Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists intends to move the hands of the Doomsday Clock on Wednesday 17 January. The clock was started at seven minutes to midnight during the Cold War and has been moved forward or back at intervals, depending on the state of the world and the prospects for nuclear war. Midnight represents destruction by nuclear war. It is not revealed in which direction the hands of the clock will be moved, but it should be safe to assume that they will move closer to midnight: the magazine cites 'worsening nuclear [and] climate threats.' The clock stood at two minutes to midnight when both the United States and the Soviet Union tested nuclear weapons in 1953. The farthest away from midnight it ever got was 17 minutes, in 1991 when both superpowers signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. It currently stands at seven minutes to midnight."

67 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Midnight? by It+doesn't+come+easy · · Score: 4, Funny

    So, is that Eastern Standard Time?

    --
    The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
    1. Re:Midnight? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is located in Chicago, so that would be Central Standard Time.

    2. Re:Midnight? by lag10 · · Score: 3, Funny

      In Soviet Russia, doomsday clock advances you! (Sorry, but I just had to say that.)

  2. Arbitrary? by Rhesusmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there some equation by which this is determined or is this another abstact measure of FUD that we could just as easily set to "Red" as 7 till midnight?

    --
    You need more psychedelic art in your life. rhesusmonkey.deviantart.com
    1. Re:Arbitrary? by Andrew+Aguecheek · · Score: 2, Informative

      It looks to me as if what is significant is not what the time is (unless of course it is midnight), but instead how much the hand moves by. When a significant leap is made towards nuclear disarmament, it moves back significantly, vice versa when a situation appears to be escalating.

      --
      Tomorrow, I may eat another house plant
    2. Re:Arbitrary? by GuyMannDude · · Score: 5, Funny

      I doubt there is an equation involved. But I think one look at today's front page of slashdot justifies moving the hands a little closer to midnight:

      • A schoolteacher could get 40 years because her antivirus software subscription ran out.
      • A schoolboard rules that global warming is a "mere" scientific theory.
      • The US continues to use some idiot system of measurement based on some dead dude's foot.
      • The next Star Trek film is about Kirk and Spock -- The Early Years.
      • Shatner was allowed to break the news.

      If these aren't a sure sign of the apocalypse (especially the last item), I don't know what is.

      GMD

    3. Re:Arbitrary? by WED+Fan · · Score: 4, Informative

      A schoolboard rules that global warming is a "mere" scientific theory.

      Actually, I live in the Seattle area:

      What they ruled on was that it was a scientific theory with more than one side to the story and that "An Inconvenient Truth" was not a dispassionate, non-partisan, objective look at the science involved. They were also concerned that none of the producers and Al Gore were scientists, and that showing it in a class without context would be a disservice to students.

      It was widely misreported, probably helped by the fact that the most vocal opponent to the film being shown is a nut-job zealot parent, and the fact that Seattle PeePee, uh, P-I ran an editorial as news and the fact that local right-wing radio really went ape-shit. But, that doesn't mean we have to get the reporting wrong here. Wait, this is /., I'm sorry, go about your business.

      --
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    4. Re:Arbitrary? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Funny

      They are (or, at least, were at the time) a slightly more serious threat than a Star Trek movie.

      Come on... Star Trek, the early years? I'd rather be nuked.

    5. Re:Arbitrary? by sgt_doom · · Score: 2, Informative

      Although not on /.'s front page, that mad dog Bush Administration's scheduled attack on Iran (March or early April) should be considered as well.....

    6. Re:Arbitrary? by mikek3332002 · · Score: 2, Informative

      It makes more sense for measurment tho be based upon the speed of light because they can calibrate the measurement the same everywhere. How are they going to calibrate a measurment based on the length of a decaying dead foot?.
      Also the metric/SI system is a lot more logical because the difference between each unit are multiples of 10, which makes it easy to perform calculations with.

    7. Re:Arbitrary? by Eivind · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You are absolutely correct.

      The *length* of the meter is arbitrary. Same for the length of the second and most other basic units in the metric system.

      What is, however, *not* arbitrary, and where the large win lies is in making the derived units straigthforward combinations of the basic units, and the different scale units factors of 10^x larger/smaller.

      There's an exception for time. The larger units of time aren't 10^x larger than the smallest one. 60,60,24,7,365.24 is a mess. The latter can't be helped: There really *are* 365.24 (or thereabouts) days in a year. But we could've split the day a lot more sensibly than 24/60/60. For example we could have 10 seconds to the minute, 10 minutes to the hour, 10 hours to the day. That'd be kinda disruptive, but it would simplify some stuff further. So, a foot makes exactly as much sense as a basic unit of length as a meter. Agreed.

      However, once we've set the basic units, the connections are extremely straigthforward:

      If I travel 1 meter in 1 second I travel at 1m/s, if I used a second to get to this speed I accelerated at 1m/s^2. If I weigh 1kg, then this required a force of 1N. If this force 1N work over a distance of 1m, it does 1J of work. If that was done in 1s then the power was 1W. If this was provided by electricity, then that is for example 1V and 1A. 1A means 1C electrons pro 1s flows trough the conductor. Now you do that, using only imperial units. :-) How many hogheads *are* there to a fluid-oz anyway ?

    8. Re:Arbitrary? by mithluin · · Score: 2, Informative

      1000 Km from the equator to the pole? Cue "It's A Small World"...

      The meter was actually intended (back in the 1790s) to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the pole along a meridian.

    9. Re:Arbitrary? by Kijori · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If I travel 1 meter in 1 second I travel at 1m/s, if I used a second to get to this speed I accelerated at 1m/s^2. If I weigh 1kg, then this required a force of 1N. If this force 1N work over a distance of 1m, it does 1J of work. If that was done in 1s then the power was 1W. If this was provided by electricity, then that is for example 1V and 1A. 1A means 1C electrons pro 1s flows trough the conductor. Now you do that, using only imperial units. :-) How many hogheads *are* there to a fluid-oz anyway ?

      If I travel 1 foot in 1 second I travel at 1 foot/s, if I used a second to get to this speed I accelerated at 1 foot/s^2. If I weigh 1lb, then this required a force of 1 pound-force. If this force 1lbf works over a distance of 1', it does one foot-pound force (ftlbf) of work. If that was done in 1s then the power was 1 ftlbfs^-1.

      I can't do any more from memory - we only used metric terms when discussing electricity, whereas we used imperial and metric with anything else, but I'm sure they exist. My point is that the 1:1:1 ratio isn't a feature of the metric system, it's a feature of measurement systems in general.

    10. Re:Arbitrary? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was intended to be, but as the job of working it out the distance was done by the French, it got cocked up, and by the time anyone realised, it was too late, so now, a Metre is the length of a stick of platinum in France (blah blah atomic clock speed of light, yea whatever, it's the fucking stick just accept it).

      Same thing happened with the kilogram.

  3. Hyperbole? by Gothmolly · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So you have 12 hours to work with, and you start off at 17 minutes to midnight? Seems like a case of hyperbole to me - in that scale, the world is ALWAYS about to blow up in a nuclear war, so it quickly loses its impact.

    It's like holding the stupid "threat level" at yellow or orange for a long amount of time, eventually people accept it and begin to ignore it.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:Hyperbole? by solevita · · Score: 2, Funny

      You Slashdotters are all the same; the only way to win against you guys is by not playing!

    2. Re:Hyperbole? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a metaphore to illustrate the danger posed by nuclear weapons. It is not supposed to be a "threat level"-o-meter, but basically an indicator of what changes are worth, that we're never gotten further than 17 minutes on the scale of 12 hours of shades of nuclear weapon danger since the clock was built.

      It's kind of like illustrating the age of the planet as 12 hours and the appearence of humanity and civilization as the last minute/second whatever...

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    3. Re:Hyperbole? by Andrew+Aguecheek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In TFA it does specifically state that "It uses the analogy of the human race being at a time that is a "few minutes to midnight," They have, at best, sixty minutes to work with, butin common parlance you tend to say "past" instead of "to" before half past the hour and so it could probably be argued that half past eleven would mean "no chance whatsoever," though they would most likely use eleven o'clock because they could symbolically move the hour hand.

      --
      Tomorrow, I may eat another house plant
    4. Re:Hyperbole? by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's kind of like illustrating the age of the planet as 12 hours and the appearence of humanity and civilization as the last minute/second whatever...

      Except without any basis in mathematical fact or measured reality.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    5. Re:Hyperbole? by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Please note, that I used the word metaphore. In this, the clock is similar to a work of art, it has meaning. It calls attention to an important issue by using a metaphore and you're asking where is the mathematical fact or measured reality in it?

      The problem it points to does have mathematical facts and is consistent with reality aka it exists. It is a mathematical facts that governments around the world have enough nukes that it can display all civilisation on earth and potentially wipe out the human race. It is a mathematical fact that more and more governments are capable of using nuclear weapons. It is part of reality that those who aquired nukes recently are not the sanest people around, like Kim Il - if we can believe the reports about the test they carried out which I'm not sure I do.

      --
      It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
      Be yourself no matter what they say
    6. Re:Hyperbole? by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Please note, that I used the word metaphore. In this, the clock is similar to a work of art, it has meaning. It might be metaphor, but since it's scientists setting the time on a clock without any mathematical basis, it also counts as hyperbole, FUD, and propaganda. They are using the trappings of science to make hay out of their personal political beliefs.
      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    7. Re:Hyperbole? by gsn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That most people live their daily lives blissfully ignorant of the dangers of nuclear weapons is entirely irrelevant. I don't think most people have a sense of scale for what a nuclear weapon can do. Therefore, the risk of a nuclear war is meaningless to them. Worse, I've heard and met some people who believe it won't be any worse than a conventional war, and are quite happy saying nuke Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and while you are at it, N. Korea. Sure most people ignore risks and only react after something happens. The trouble with a doomsday scale nuclear war is there isn't an after. Perhaps if you kept that in mind it wouldn't lose so much of its impact.

      --
      Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
    8. Re:Hyperbole? by letxa2000 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The point is that it's a bunch of activist scientists changing the purpose of the clock so they can continue to opin on the political situation of the planet. What that has to do with science (other than political science) is beyond me.

  4. I know this one by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Funny

    Jack Bauer will disarm the russian ICBM 10^-23 second before it detonates, so we haven't got anything to worry about!

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:I know this one by JamesTRexx · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, if he can't, I'm sure Chuck Norris has a few spare Roundhouse kicks around.

      --
      home
  5. strike 12 already... by 10100111001 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sick of waiting for the return of my deity.

    1. Re:strike 12 already... by Matt+Edd · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey! Some of us don't have a deity so keep it down.

    2. Re:strike 12 already... by HappySqurriel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't know ...

      Lately I've been looking into the history of man kind and it seems like at any point in time people were certain that the end of the world was only a generation or two away.

      I think it is about time everyone started to ignore anyone who claimed the world was about to end and listened to more rational voices.

  6. Preemption by ewg · · Score: 5, Funny

    Some superpower or another needs to preemptively attack and destroy this doomsday clock before it hurts someone.

    --
    org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
    1. Re:Preemption by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Funny

      All right. I guess I can spare one and still be feared.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
  7. Iron Maiden! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Suddenly I realize where the song title comes from.

  8. DST? by aztec+rain+god · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wouldn't this be a good reason to get rid of daylight savings time?

    --
    Sig cannot be found.
  9. Not Climate Threats directly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    new pressure from climate change for expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks.

    These guys are not claiming doomsday from climate change.

    And despite the increase of proliferation and individual threats, the global doomsday we legitimately feared in the 80's is long gone.

    I think proliferation in the Middle East will bring some long needed maturity to those ridiculous tribal governments or be self-limiting. Bad for some cities, but not global conflict. India-Pakistan nukes may have even calmed that situation. Mutual destruction pacts might actually work.

    1. Re:Not Climate Threats directly by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mutually Assured Destruction works if both people in control of the Big Red Button are semi-sane, understand the consequences of pushing that button and are interested in self-preservation, or at least the preservation of a good chunk of their people.

      However, I can say without a doubt that there are plenty of people who do not have any of these characteristics, including Americans. MAD is far too unstable a concept to be institutionalized. I'd much rather have no nukes than be the only one to have them. It simply won't stay in the latter state for very long.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    2. Re:Not Climate Threats directly by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Take a look at Pol Pot in Vietnam. He had full control over the lives of many of the citizens of Vietnam and yet he killed millions of them.

      I think the Cambodians would be very surprised to learn that Pol Pot killed a bunch of Vietnamese too.

      Seriously, if you're going to use historical analogies to bolster your arguments, you should at least try to get the elementary facts right.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Not Climate Threats directly by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mmhh.... let me rephrase that for clarity.

      However, I can say without a doubt that there are plenty of people who do not have any of these characteristics, including many Americans.

      There, better.

      Yes, Kennedy and Khrushchev did very well not to go down the hardline path. But we won't get lucky every time.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:Not Climate Threats directly by halivar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suppose one president is luck; but nine presidents is a pattern. We had national leaders that ranged from right-wing TFH's to bleeding heart liberals, and nine out of nine presidents (including Reagan, ridiculed in his own time for being a nuke-loving war-monger ["Land of Confusion", I loved that video]) did not press the button. Ditto for the Soviet Union. I don't believe the relative calm of the Cold War was a fluke; MAD was a diplomatic strategy designed to give us an excuse not to go to war in circumstances where war would otherwise be inevitable (or even as many post-WW2 military figures argued, necessary).

      I think the world is less safe, now that no one is looking down the long barrel of an ICBM. There is now less inhibition to starting war, and fewer repercussions.

  10. CST? Uhoh... by benhocking · · Score: 4, Funny

    That means those of us on Eastern Standard Time have already experienced Doomsday. (Psst, Central folk, his name is..., nah, let them experience it, too.)

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?
    1. Re:CST? Uhoh... by dryeo · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean they are a bunch of Newfies?
      (For those who don't know Newfoundland is in a half hour timezone and on Canadian TV shows are always advertized as starting 1/2 hour later in Newfoundland. And of course the Newfies are just weird so are the butt of many a joke)

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  11. Related to troop increase in Iraq? by Sargeant+Slaughter · · Score: 3, Informative

    I was listening to an interesting radio show out here in San Diego yesterday (The Dangerous Dick and Scibba show) and they were talking about the 20K troop increase as a way to get ready to go into Iran (a nuclear power). People were guessing that Bush/Cheney/and company want to try and neutralize the Iranian threat before leaving office. Me thinks this might be related...

    --
    I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. -Confucius
    1. Re:Related to troop increase in Iraq? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dangerous Dick indeed, as he has very little brain...20K troops isn't enought to do anything, it's really just more to stablize the Baghdad area and maybe do some border patrol. Plus it is mostly reservists and National Guard which are NOT the top troops to use in any "invasion". There is just as much crap coming in from Syria as Iraq but no one ever mentions "invading" them. Anything that is being done now by the US in Iran is likely a black operation run by the CIA and you'll never hear about until 20 yrs later. Iran is NOT a nuclear power..they DO NOT have "The Bomb". If Israel has anything to say about it they never will.

    2. Re:Related to troop increase in Iraq? by ChameleonDave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Iran is not a nuclear power. It does not even have nuclear power stations. The threat to the world derives from US politicians presenting such countries as a menace in order to be able to launch aggressive wars.

    3. Re:Related to troop increase in Iraq? by dbIII · · Score: 2, Interesting
      and they were talking about the 20K troop increase as a way to get ready to go into Iran

      Can't control things in Iraq and Afganistan so start a new war? Somebody shut Kissenger up or stop people listening to that corrupt old idiot - this didn't work last time either.

      I hope the new winds of change don't just turn into a draft.

    4. Re:Related to troop increase in Iraq? by ChameleonDave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The threat starts with EU businesses with no ethics selling parts and plans for nuclear reactors to extremist nations in the name of profit.

      So EU companies have been selling power station parts and plans to the USA? I hadn't heard of that. I don't see how it increases America's threat to world peace.

      When someone sponsors those who say they hate you and have the goal of seeing your nation wiped out you have to take seriously the fact that nuclear weapons are one of the best ways to accomplish that goal. I suppose so. By "take seriously" you mean "invade", right? In that case you are arguing for many countries to invade the US.

      Or are you a supporter of state sponsored Terrorism as long as it is against the "agressors" of the United States?

      Terrorism? I suppose you mean guerrilla warfare. Yeah, it's a good thing when waged against an aggressor; in that case it is called resistance. For example, if the USA's neighbours invaded, all the gun-nuts would join resistance militias and I'd support them in that. In the same way, I approve of the French resistance during the Nazi occupation, and the current Iraqi resistance against US occupation. Indian resistance against the British empire is another one I admire, in particular their pacifist resistance, though armed Indian resistance fighters were also heroes.

      I don't really see the significance of the "state-sponsored" part. The French resistance was largely based in London, but I don't see that as affecting their legitimacy positively or negatively.

  12. Be prepared! Read and print... by paj1234 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now is a good time to read and print...

    The good news about nuclear destruction
    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=516 48

    What to do if a nuclear disaster is imminent!
    http://www.ki4u.com/guide.htm

  13. One Bomb is Not "Doomsday" by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A nuke or two going off in the US would be terrible. But let's be glad we don't face annihilation today like we did during the cold war. Think about it, at the time there was a real risk of humanity being set back a thousand years, or according to some theories even disappearing. Terrorism is nothing next to that. They have nothing like the numbers of weapons or delivery systems to do what we or the Russians could do. India and Pakistan doesn't have them, and N. Korea doesn't have them. People just aren't comfortable without a certain amount of upset, and they enlarge or shrink whatever troubles they face to fill that void.

    1. Re:One Bomb is Not "Doomsday" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny


      Strangelove: I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy...heh, heh...(He rolls his wheelchair forward into the light.) at the bottom of ah...some of our deeper mineshafts. Radioactivity would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep, and in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in drilling space could easily be provided.

      President: How long would you have to stay down there?

      Strangelove: ...I would think that uh, possibly uh...one hundred years...It would not be difficult Mein Fuehrer! Nuclear reactors could, heh...I'm sorry, Mr. President. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plant life. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country, but I would guess that dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided.

      President: Well, I, I would hate to have to decide...who stays up and...who goes down.

      Strangelove: Well, that would not be necessary, Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills. Of course, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition.

      Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. Ha, ha. But ah, with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present Gross National Product within say, twenty years. ... (later) ...

      General Buck Turgidson: (judiciously) You mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Wouldn't that necessitate abandoning the so-called monogamous form of sexual relation ship?

      Strangelove: Regrettably, yes. But it is a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to perform prodigious service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics, which will have to be of a highly stimulating order.

    2. Re:One Bomb is Not "Doomsday" by niktemadur · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But let's be glad we don't face annihilation today like we did during the cold war. Think about it, at the time there was a real risk of humanity being set back a thousand years, or according to some theories even disappearing.

      Two words for you, sir: Vassily Arkhipov.

      This man, a commissioned officer in the soviet navy, was aboard a soviet submarine making it's way to the naval blockade imposed upon Cuba by the United States in October of 1963. Unknown to the Kennedy government, the Kremlin had authorized soviet submarines to fire nuclear weapons at will, as long as the three main officers concurred unanimously.

      For a period of aproximately 24 hours, this particular soviet submarine was subjected to a barrage of depth charges. The level of tension was beyond the breaking point, they were running out of oxygen and the temperature was running at about 125 degrees farenheit, so the captain basically said "fuck it, we're at war, we have to launch". The other officer concurred, but Vassily Arkhipov, under incredible pressure, put his foot down and said NO. We can only imagine the amount of pressure Mr Arkhipov was subjected to (a Hollywood representation would be the film 'Crimson Tide'), but he held his ground, and when the submarine finally emerged to the surface, the world was not at war, so that they would have precipitated nuclear war if they had launched.

      Now consider this: the Secretary of Defense under Kennedy, Robert MacNamara, has been quoted as saying that he went to bed that night not knowing if there would be a world to wake up to next morning (I doubt he got much sleep), even as he did not know that the Kremlin had delegated authority to their submarine officers to launch nuclear weapons, MacNamara found out a quarter of a century later, in the late eighties.

      How's that for a close call nobody knew about?

      With that said, I have a question: why aren't there monuments to Vassily Arkhipov being erected all over the place?
      I hope you'll be happy to know that Mr Arkhipov died peacefully of old age in the late nineties. Bless you, Mr Arkhipov, I truly hope that your wife made the best borscht with oxtail in the world and that you slowly enjoyed every time you dipped it with your freshly baked bread, for years and years and years. Yum.

      --
      Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
    3. Re:One Bomb is Not "Doomsday" by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 2

      Mr. President, we must not allow a mineshaft gap!

  14. Do the submitters even RTFA??? by laughingcoyote · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the summary...

    It is not revealed in which direction the hands of the clock will be moved...

    From TFA...

    The minute hand of the Doomsday Clock will be moved closer to midnight on January 17 (emphasis added).

    --
    To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
  15. Re:It's Time by Atomic6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're forgetting about the people that either: believe their god will save them from destruction; or just plain don't care if they die. Terrorist and insane heads of states (Ahmadinejad?), for example.

    --
    "We have exactly as much freedom as we are willing to demand and as we can defend."
  16. Re:Hyperbole? Define "blow up the planet" by Dilaudid · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Yes. Always the same shit from the environmentalists - "humans going to blow up the planet". Greenpeace actually said, in one of their 90s pamphlets "humans about to destroy all life on earth"... Idiots. We may be able to take care of small flightless birds, we may be pretty good at wiping out most of the fish stocks, but humans could never destroy life on earth.

    It's kind of instructive to think what we would have to do - start with the hard to reach - we need to kill all the life around the "smokers" at the bottom of the ocean, at the same time as carpet bombing the earth with nukes - but you've really got to cook every square mile of the entire planet. That means raising the temperature above boiling point (there's life at temperatures everywhere up to there) for long enough to kill every spore, bacterium. The important thing to bear in mind is that to kill life you have to kill every single bacterium, because one bacterium can mutate. In short it's not going to happen, it's probably technically infeasible, and no one wants to do it (not even George Bush)

    I like to think this sums up two things - one the horrible grandiosity of environmental pressure groups - starting with their assumption that humans are powerful enough to do something that is virtually impossible, then assuming that they are more important than the people that can do this, that they are only people who understand the big picture. The other is that they know fuck all about any actual science (i.e. physics, chemistry, microbiology), and they don't seem to care to learn more.

    Real climate scientists I salute - they do something virtually impossible. Environmental politicians (for that is what Greenpeace, and this crowd are) are just republicans who found a different issue first. Look at Al Gore - when he's not trying to ban music with obscene lyrics (PMRC) he's saving the environment with glossy hollywood films. Bless.

  17. Dumb by VanHalensing · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is by far one of the dumbest ideas in the history of mankind. It'll just cause panic for no reason!

  18. stupid clocks.... by dnc253 · · Score: 5, Funny
    Where did they get their doomsday clock? On my former planet we got one of those, but we could never figure out how to program it, so it just blinked 12:00.

    ...And our world tragically came to an quick end......

  19. Re:Hyperbole? Define "blow up the planet" by EvanED · · Score: 4, Funny
    At least one person agrees with you:


    Things which will NOT destroy the Earth: ....
    * Detonating all the nuclear weapons ever created simultaneously, either all at one location or strategically placed around the globe. This will irradiate pretty much the entire globe and kill an awful lot of people, animals and plants, but will actually destroy very little of the planet itself.

    How to Destroy the Earth
  20. I remember the 80s. This doomsday clock sucks. by arcade · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I only remember the 80s.

    I remember, vividly, how my parents thought me that it was a cold war between the US and the Soviet Union.

    I remember the retorics. I remember the fear. I remember how I was told that we could be destroyed by nuclear weapons.

    I remember MAD.

    I was born in 1979.

    People born just 5 or 6 years later than me - do not remember this. They have never experienced the cold war. They can't remember it. They can't even understand the doomsday clock, the fear, the MAD uncertainty.

    I was 10 years old. I helped chop the Berlin wall down. Physically.

    People, just 5 years younger than me - don't understand what it was all about. They don't remember. .. and I'm still young.

    Now, this article is about the doomsday clock moving forward. From 17 minutes to midnight. Heh .. I don't have words for the stupidity. The world is relatively safe. The major disaster and major fear we have is from islamic terrorists sending a couple of planes into a building or two. A BUILDING OR TWO! THATS IT! Eighteen years ago we were afraid that New York as a whole would be anhilated in a few minutes. ALL of it. Not just a building or two on manhattan.

    And these guys want to move the hands forward on a clock of global doom. Right.

    It was right in the 80s. It's not right anymore. Move it backwards three or four hours, and it might be right. This way - it's just ridiculous.

    --
    "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
  21. yawn by Al+Al+Cool+J · · Score: 3, Funny

    Meanwhile, the Who-Still-Gives-A-Flying-Fig-About-The-Doomsday-Cl ock Clock remains stuck on flashing 12:00

  22. Re:I remember the 80s. This doomsday clock sucks. by Leftist+Troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Heh .. I don't have words for the stupidity. The world is relatively safe. The major disaster and major fear we have is from islamic terrorists sending a couple of planes into a building or two. A BUILDING OR TWO! THATS IT! Eighteen years ago we were afraid that New York as a whole would be anhilated in a few minutes. ALL of it. Not just a building or two on manhattan.

    People living in Tokyo or Tehran might not share your sentiment.

  23. Re:OMG I've got 7 minutes to live!!! by Maegashira · · Score: 2, Funny

    start wanking for one last time

  24. PST by Ikcor · · Score: 5, Funny

    Damn, that means Doomsday will be tape-delayed on the west coast.

  25. Re:Hyperbole? Define "blow up the planet" by operagost · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it's safe to say that when environmentalists say we are going to end the planet they mean it in the context of humankind.
    Environmentalists are not and never have been interested in helping mankind. They are simply an alliance between the ivory-tower preservationists and the Gaia-theory radicals who would frankly prefer that the earth swallow up all the filthy parasite humans (except them and their nature-worshipping friends, of course) and spit out the bones.

    Conservationists are the ones who are truly concerned about preserving natural resources for future generations, and appropriately restoring and maintaining balance in the ecosystem.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  26. Watch Threads. by thealsir · · Score: 2, Informative

    For anyone who is curious as to how the world would end up after a nuclear war, watch the movie Threads. It should lay any and all questions to rest.

    --
    Do not downmod posts "overrated" simply because you disagree with them.
  27. Re:Hyperbole? Define "blow up the planet" by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Yes. Always the same shit from the environmentalists - "humans going to blow up the planet". Greenpeace actually said, in one of their 90s pamphlets "humans about to destroy all life on earth"... Idiots. We may be able to take care of small flightless birds, we may be pretty good at wiping out most of the fish stocks, but humans could never destroy life on earth.

    Course we can't. Roaches have 600 times the radiation resistance that humans do, right up there with Neocons. Course, who can tell the difference these days?

    --
    Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
  28. Re:Hyperbole? Define "blow up the planet" by Propaganda13 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sure, if you just drop bombs randomly, we probably couldn't blow up the planet. Give them to me and I'm sure I could split this sucker in half. Am I restricted just to using them on Earth or can I use them in space too?

  29. Re:Hyperbole? Define "blow up the planet" by SamSim · · Score: 4, Funny

    On that topic, amateur geocide watchers and fans of the International Earth-Destruction Advisory Board will be reassured to learn that unlike the Nuclear Death Clock, the Current Earth-Destruction Status is expected to remain at its current status of "Not Destroyed" for the forseeable future.

  30. Reality Check Boys and Girls by ukemike · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually we are getting dangerously close to a nuclear war. The US now has TWO Carrier Strike Groups in the Persian Gulf. The Gulf is getting so crowded that a US sub bumped into a Japanese tanker. Ted Koppel on NPR Friday evening said that people in the military have indicated that our assets in the Gulf are not useful for combating the insurgency in Iraq but are well suited for strikes on Iran. Koppel said that senior military personnel have told him that it is likely that the US will be at war with Iran before 2007 is over.
    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story Id=6836561

    Israel is drawing up plans for a NUCLEAR strike on Iran's nuclear power program.
    http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?t ype=topNews&storyID=2007-01-07T185259Z_01_L0675940 5_RTRUKOC_0_UK-IRAN-NUCLEAR-ISRAEL.xml&WTmodLoc=To p%2BNews-C1-Headline-8

    In the last several weeks Bush has fired and reassigned several high level military and intelligence people that were in some way in his way to a broader mid-east war. Generals John Abizaid and George Casey who were opposed to an escalation in Iraq and John Negroponte who has recently stated that Iran is 10 years from having the Bomb.
    http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010807R.shtml

    I'd say that the doomsday clock is definitely ticking, and we are in for a shit storm in 2007.

    --
    -- QED
  31. Re:Hyperbole? Define "blow up the planet" by 7Prime · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Your post very-much confuses me. Who cares if they are a Teddy Rosevelt style preservationist, who's ultimate goal is preserving the world so that HUMANS can enjoy it, or a spiritual conservationist who believes it's our moral duty to preserve the world for its own sake... ultimately their goals are the same. The term "envirnomentalist" is an umbrella term for all of the above, and it seems like you've pigieon-holed it to a group of almost non-existant radicals.

    Very very few environmentalists have any interest in removing the human species from this planet... but drawing attention to our viral-like properties is a dramatic, and motivating analogy. Sure, it might be a bit mellodramatic, but if it gets people's attention, and gets people thinking about how to do better for the future of this world and ourselves, I'm not going to complain.

    --
    Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.