Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Doomsday Clock Remains at Five Minutes to Midnight

Posted by Unknown on from the hands-that-threaten-doom dept.

Lasrick writes "The Doomsday Clock remains at 5 minutes to midnight. In a letter to United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and members of the UN Security Council, the Bulletin announced its decision and how it was made. The decision to move (or to leave in place) the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made every year by the Bulletin's Science and Security Board 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 new technologies emerging in other domains." Reasons for the clock remaining at five minutes include the U.S. and Russian not doing much for disarmament increasing nuclear weapon stockpiles in India and China, stalled efforts to reduce carbon emissions globally, and "killer robots."

3 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Never been more than 17 min away? by BringsApples · · Score: 3, Informative

    From wikipedia:
    Reflecting international events dangerous to humankind, the Clock's hands have been adjusted twenty times since its inception in 1947, when the Clock was initially set to seven minutes to midnight.

    They give a good graph here.

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  2. Re:Who cares? by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Forgive my rudeness, but that appears to be a bit of a non-sequitur.

    Not to me. The 'Doomsday Clock' was invented as a means to push for nuclear disarmament; arguably a good idea, but unarguably a political agenda.

    Now we've eliminated the majority of nuclear weapons, it's become irrelevant, but, like all such things, they're unable to say 'job done, let's go home', and have to find a new mission. Hence it's now become about pushing 'carbon emission reduction' and eliminating drones.

    Which is why most of us just laugh at it.

  3. Re:Yes. by 0123456 · · Score: 4, Informative

    You don't 'have enough nuclear weapons on hand to destroy the world'. That would take a fsckload more than we had even at the peak of the Cold War. That's why the anti-nukes had to invent 'nuclear winter' to make nukes seem scarier.

    A nuclear war with the current stockpiles would be a really bad day, but nothing even approaching 'destroying the world'.