Slashdot Mirror


The Doomsday Clock Is Reset: Closest To Midnight Since The 1950s (npr.org)

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has taken the unprecedented step of moving the Doomsday Clock ahead 30 seconds, taking the world to two-and-a-half-minute to midnight. The scientists said Thursday that several factors weighed heavily in their decision, particularly climate change denial by people in power -- they cited U.S. President Donald Trump -- and talk about more nuclear weapons. From a report on NPR: The setting is the closest the clock has come to midnight since 1953, when scientists moved it to two minutes from midnight after seeing both the U.S. and the Soviet Union test hydrogen bombs. It remained at that mark until 1960. "Make no mistake, this has been a difficult year," Rachel Bronson, executive director and publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said as the new setting was announced Thursday.

12 of 745 comments (clear)

  1. Meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a meaningless metric. There is no such thing as doomsday. The World is not a clock. You are OK. Breathe out.

    1. Re:Meaningless by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is a meaningless metric. There is no such thing as doomsday. The World is not a clock. You are OK. Breathe out.

      Although the analogy with a clock may not be entirely accurate since it isn't always moving forwards, the concept of a metric to determine the risk of nuclear mass destruction isn't. (although it can never be very accurate without knowing what's going on inside the governing bodies behind closed doors).

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Meaningless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, the doomsday clock is very much meaningless. Basically it does nothing except signifies how unhappy the people who run it are with the current political climate.

    3. Re:Meaningless by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's been moved forward because they don't like Trump. That's fundamentally the reason. That's it. No fact. Just opinion.

      Seriously. Hillary was openly hostile with Russia, and while I doubt it would have reached the point of increased risk of nuclear war, Russia still has real nukes, so you never know. Trump on the other hand is, if anything, too friendly with Russia.

      And, sorry, but I just can't see climate change as some world-ending event. Maybe because I grew up Fearing The Bomb, but temperatures going up a few degrees and water levels rising a bit just doesn't provoke the same emotional reaction as global thermonuclear war.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re:Meaningless by x0ra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      people you disagree with != internet troll

    5. Re:Meaningless by rahvin112 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You may not be smart enough to realize this but China is a nuclear power with ICBM's just like Russia and threatening to attack China's artificial islands in the south china sea is not a way to prevent hostilities that could quickly escalate to a nuclear exchange.

    6. Re:Meaningless by jwhyche · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Totally agree with you. Those of us that grew up under the constant pressure of instant annihilation from nuclear attack just don't get worked up over climate change that much.

      But anyway this is what I don't under stand. So many liberals that I know are losing their shit that Trump is openly talking to Russia. Russia has many nukes and a delivery system that will work and will reach us. Why would you not want to have a open dialog with Russia? Seems insane to not have it.

      When we didn't have a open dialog with Russia in the 1960's we almost exterminated ourselves. We WANT to have a dialog with our "enemy." I would much better have a war of words than a war of nukes.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    7. Re:Meaningless by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They moved it forward several minutes when Reagan got elected to. In reality, not only did he not start a nuclear war but he ultimately ushered in the age of Perestroika and an end to the Cold War.

      The Doomsday Clock is nothing more than a liberal masturbation device. It's the liberal equivalent of a right-wing bible-thumper holding up a sign with "WE'RE DOOMED!" on it above some biblical quote about men laying with other men.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  2. Re:Not doomsday by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Climate change changes resource availability. Particularly water. If areas that once had water no longer have water that will put stress on their economy potentially making them less politically stable.

    If natural disasters increase linked to climate change, certain seas may no longer be feasible to collect oil from. Perhaps flooding from rising sea levels will cause areas to be evacuated causing widespread homelessness and unrest.

    Climate change has upset the status quo many times over history. Encouraging the Vikings to leave Scandinavia and invade Europe. The mass migrations of populations throughout Europe, the so called "barbarian invasion" of Rome. Dynasties have been overturned in China with links to climate change, or natural disasters.

    Climate change whether man made or natural always upsets the status quo... but now we have nuclear weapons.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  3. Re:Not doomsday by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The US military recognizes that global warming puts stress on people and governments. Human life can prosper with a changed climate, but it can't always continue in-place. People may have to move, because their current habitation may no longer be habitable. If that movement requires crossing national borders, it becomes an international incident.

    That's why global warming advances the Doomsday Clock - its side-effects on national sovereignty and politics.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  4. Fails The Sniff Test by totallyarb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is a *Doomsday* clock, yes? As in, something that measures how close we potentially are to Doomsday - that is, an event that leads to the total extinction of the human race.

    Can anyone - anyone! - say with a straight face that we are closer to that scenario right now than we were, say, at the height of the Cold War? That was a period when two nuclear superpowers were genuinely considering launching thousands of nuclear warheads at each other; where one bad day might literally end the species.

    I don't disagree with the assessment that the world has become less stable recently. I think the prospect of some rogue dictator or terrorist group setting off a nuclear bomb is high and increasing. However, the retaliatory aspect is missing: If Russia had nuked New York, America would have levelled Russia in response. One nuke would have lead to thousands. But if, say, ISIS nukes New York... what target is there to hit back at? Any response would almost certainly be in the form of conventional weapons. There would be chaos and war, sure, but not outright extinction.

    The truth is, we are waaaaay further away from Doomsday than we were in the '60s.

    --
    -- Note to Mods: There is a good reason there's no "-1 Disagree" option. --
  5. Sounds familiar by computational+super · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So, this is basically like when they awarded a Nobel prize first to Al Gore and then to Obama (in his first year in office) just to make sure to remind everybody how much they hated George Bush (and Republicans in general)?

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.