Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nuclear Experts Form International 'Nuclear Crisis Group' (teenvogue.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the what's-in-Vogue dept.

Slashdot reader Dan Drollette shares an article by the executive director and publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:On Friday, an elite group of the world's nuclear experts and advisers launched a Nuclear Crisis Group, to help manage the growing risk of nuclear conflict. The group includes leading diplomats with decades of experience, and retired military officers who were once responsible for launching nuclear weapons if given the order to do so. China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and the United States, all countries that have nuclear weapons, are represented. The group intends to create a "shadow security council," or an expert group capable of providing advice to world leaders on nuclear matters...

Building on grass-roots support, the Nuclear Crisis Group could serve as a brake on nuclear escalation and be an early step in reversing the downward nuclear security spiral. Not only will they be able to offer expertise to inexperienced leaders who are dabbling in nuclear security, but they will be able to develop and endorse proposals that could make the world safer such as expanding the decision time that leaders have to respond to a nuclear threat, further protecting nuclear systems against cyber attacks and unintended escalations, reenergizing the appetite for arms control negotiations, and questioning global nuclear upgrade programs.

63 comments

  1. Crisis can be easily averted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... by uniting Japan, South Korean and the USA behind a threat of increasingly more punitive trade barriers against China. This would force China to take action and deliver North Korea in a silver platter.

    1. Re: Crisis can be easily averted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I like Crysis!

    2. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Two minor details:

      War is NOT a rational act; and

      Wars are only fought when BOTH sides think they can win.

      I personally would be EXTREMELY cautious in calling China's bluff - it could very well be that they're not bluffing at all.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      Wars are only fought when BOTH sides think they can win.

      That is not always true. Sometimes nations blunder into wars that are clearly not in their best interest. When I was in high school, my history teacher made us read The Guns of August, a book about how Europe blundered into the First World War through a serious of diplomatic misunderstandings and misjudgements about the intentions of both their adversaries and allies.

      Before I read that book I had the naive belief that, although politicians may make self-serving statements in public, in private they were actually smart competent people that knew what they were doing and worked for the best interest of their people. After reading now they sent millions of their citizens off to die in a pointless war over a dead archduke, I realized that wasn't true.

      I thought about that book in 2003, as America was blundering into the Iraq War.

    4. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by onyxruby · · Score: 1

      Piffle. War can be a very rational act to obtain something that one nation wants. The fact that it is immoral does not change the fact that it can be rational. Countries have been gaining treasure, minerals, slaves, property, land, rights and technology that they otherwise could not have gotten for thousands of years by declaring war.

      When you think about it, the whole original point of treaties was to make less rational to attack you to begin with. Nations paid tribute as declaring war often was a rational act and if you could give someone what they wanted (money) than you could avoid going to war to begin with.

      Whether the other nation wants to win a war or not is entirely moot. If they choose not to participate the other side will win. You don't have to fight to die.

    5. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Sometimes nations blunder into wars that are clearly not in their best interest.

      See my first point. War is not a rational act. It's an irrational, emotional act with very real and very dire consequences for BOTH sides.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Piffle.

      "Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Antiquated War Offices, weak, incompetent, or arrogant Commanders, untrustworthy allies, hostile neutrals, malignant Fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations — all take their seats at the Council Board on the morrow of a declaration of war. Always remember, however sure you are that you could easily win, that there would not be a war if the other man did not think he also had a chance. " -- Winston Churchill

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    7. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "When I was in high school, my history teacher made us read The Guns of August [amazon.com], a book about how Europe blundered into the First World War..."
      Dad used to go on about the Great War, especially stories about such things as the romantic Lafayette Escadrille. He was born a few years after that War ended, "we" won. He was more disillusioned during WWII, what with the Blitz and everything.
      I thought that I was doing something really nice for that Christmas, giving him the new "The Guns Of August" paperback. Neither of us had any idea what it was really about.
      Tuchman didn't stop there, she wrote "A Distant Mirror", about 14th century Europe.. That's the book _I_ read in High School. That was far far worse. Between incessant Wars and Plague, half of Europe died, and it took two centuries for populations to recover.
      "A Distant Mirror" also had its Lafayette Escadrilles. When they weren't actually slaughtering each other and anybody else in the way, the "Nobility" engaged in "Chivalry", the fine Art of Hypocrisy. The Worst were the Free Companies, who when they weren't in the pay of various Despots, often changing sides at the sign of a better offer, they engaged in looting the Continent. Mercenaries are _always_ psychopathic murderers. One of the things to emerge was the concept of reluctant "Regular Armies", organized by States instead of Princes. Regular Armies weren't always welcome; the concept of a Standing Army in the US was not popular; they had this silly idea that "A Citizen Militia" would suffice, which of course it didn't. That leads to Revolutions.
      Which brings us right back to WWI. Give a King an Army, and sooner or later he is going to use it. But this new thing, these Militias, tore through Ireland, Russia, and even Germany towards the end. Parts of Europe were far more scared of revolution than tyranny.
      There is no answer. Except maybe another Plague. Europe was just too exhausted after that last one to continue its Hundred Years War, and Revolutionaries like Joan d'Arc needed a good roasting.

    8. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Iraq was wasn't a "blunder". It was a calculated item, because W knew his fathers history and why his father did not try to take Baghdad. It wound up pretty much being a place where the "peace dividend" for winning the Cold War could be spent bombing what are basically hillbillies, once the big armies were destroyed. Of course, once the US pulled out of the region, it was predicted in 2008 that the most violent, brutal psychopaths in the region would take over... and yep, they did.

      It still is a blunder. The MOAB killed a few dozen hajis, but Daesh managed to do a larger death toll shortly after, just with low tech items, which sent a message that they can "beat" the US on that front, so it actually was a net victory for the terrorists.

    9. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by jandersen · · Score: 1

      ... uniting Japan, South Korean and the USA behind a threat of increasingly more punitive trade barriers against China. This would force China to take action and deliver North Korea in a silver platter.

      Have you any idea what you are talking about? Good Heavens, this is just about the most idiotic idea I have heard aired for a long time. With tensions running ever higher in that area and leaders on both sides being half-witted narcissists itching to 'show us all', we absolutely do not need to play hard-ball. At the moment, the only major powers in possession of nuclear weapons that stand for common sense and restraint, are China, UK and France; and fortunately China don't appear to be ready to bow to Trump's bullying.

      During the cold war, the so-called MAD principle worked, but only because both the US and USSR knew and feared the complete destruction that would follow a major, nuclear conflict. Since then, because the threat appeared to lessen, governments and military leaders have become complacent and imagine that they might get away with a limited nuclear strike. But how happy will China and Russia be, if Trump throws even one at North Korea, and the fall-out drifts over their territories? Or, Gods forbid, one of the missiles goes astray and ends up in China or Russia? I think they might well take exception to such a thing, and 'Whoops, sorry' from mr Trump isn't going to cut it, I think it is fair to say. Even if they would be prepared to accept the physical damage and the loss of life, I think it would be clear to the world, that a leader of any major power, who is as insanely reckless as that, would have to be removed by whatever means necessary.

      The grotesque posturing and raving of the little, fat blob who runs North Korea, are harmless - unless they become action, in which case I think it wil take China a day or two to simply roll in and set things right. But neither South Korea, Japan nor the US want China to do so, as long as the fat boy sticks to big words, and I can't see China wanting to take over that territory unless they were forced to and felt that they had the backing of the rest of the world. So here we are; the real danger to the planet is not 'The Dear Leader' or whatever he calls himself, but those with immense power and too little self-confidence, who feel the needs to revenge even the smallest provocation.

    10. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Or, Gods forbid, one of the missiles goes astray and ends up in China or Russia? I think they might well take exception to such a thing, and 'Whoops, sorry' from mr Trump isn't going to cut it, I think it is fair to say. Even if they would be prepared to accept the physical damage and the loss of life, I think it would be clear to the world, that a leader of any major power, who is as insanely reckless as that, would have to be removed by whatever means necessary.

      Remember when Trump sent those cruise missiles at a Syrian airfield because allegedly they used it to drop chemical weapons on the civilian population of a country that wasn't even the US? If someone nuked one of the major permanent UN Security Council members, the very least that would happen would be a tit for tat. Which could rapidly escalate into a global thermonuclear war.

    11. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      I thought about that book in 2003, as America was blundering into the Iraq War.

      Baby Bush wanted to go back to Iraq on account of Daddy. 9/11 gave him the flimsiest and most cynical of excuses, and it worked.

      And here we are.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    12. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Which could rapidly escalate into a global thermonuclear war.

      Oh I'm sure Trump is aware of all the permutations.

      lol sorry no, can't keep a straight face.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    13. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Wars are only fought when BOTH sides think they can win.

      It's probably more true that they're fought when one side thinks it can win and the other side thinks it doesn't have an alternative. In the first world war, Germany thought that it could win against the enemies that it picked, but didn't expect the treaties that required others to join in would be respected. In the second world war, it was far from clear to the British leadership that they could win, but the other alternative was submit to Nazi occupation and that didn't seem like a valid option.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    14. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      At the moment, the only major powers in possession of nuclear weapons that stand for common sense and restraint, are China, UK and France

      I'd drop the UK from that list. We've had a lot of rhetoric in the UK because the leader of the opposition had the audacity to say that he wouldn't be willing to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. The Tories have been shouting loudly that they would and that it's important for security that no one knows what threshold would trigger a nuclear strike.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> I can't see China wanting to take over that territory unless they were forced to and felt that they had the
      >> backing of the rest of the world

      This is precisely why I suggest the trade route. Disruption to trade would be the reason. Only one country can invade North Korea without triggering a major war - namely, China. We have to give China a reason to act.

    16. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot that the DPRK is a province of China. Their only purpose is to give the West a distraction while China seizes territory in the Pacific Rim with their "island" garrisons and bullies a trading bloc with neighbors with extreme propaganda, including rap videos. The medium size missile? Likely Chinese made.

      Remember, China might be itching for an excuse to destroy Seoul (so it doesn't have to worry about that part of the peninsula), overrun Taiwan, and break the back of Japan, just due to old feuds. Singapore and other smaller nations would be brought to heel as well. This is something that can happen in less than 24 hours.

    17. Re:Crisis can be easily averted... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wars are only fought when BOTH sides think they can win.

      And those (billionaires/millionaires) who are hell bent on starting wars with someone elses children to fight them.

  2. Will they have doomsday clock? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Will they have doomsday clock like the other bunch?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Will they have doomsday clock? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Will they have doomsday clock like the other bunch?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Maybe more like an egg timer at this point...
      http://westeastonpa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Egg-timer.jpg

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    2. Re:Will they have doomsday clock? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Will they have doomsday clock like the other bunch?

      They are the same bunch.

    3. Re:Will they have doomsday clock? by phayes · · Score: 1

      Yep, just more "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT MEEEE" from a bunch of auto proclaimed "experts".

      Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls, Felix Bloch, Niels Bohr, Emilio Segre, James Franck, Enrico Fermi, Klaus Fuchs and Edward Teller & many others were all atomic scientists. These guys? No.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    4. Re:Will they have doomsday clock? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      If they've just formed how can they be the same as a bunch that have been around since the cold war, and why do they have a different name?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:Will they have doomsday clock? by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      There's no such thing as an animated jpg, right? And yet if I stare at it long enough, it starts to move.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:Will they have doomsday clock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      retard

    7. Re:Will they have doomsday clock? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Several of the people that you mentioned were early participants in the BAS, including Oppenheimer, Born, Teller, Szilard.

      Teller later publically disagreed with their advocacy of disarmament, but the others did not.

      Founders and contributors

    8. Re:Will they have doomsday clock? by slew · · Score: 1

      If they've just formed how can they be the same as a bunch that have been around since the cold war, and why do they have a different name?

      Because Special Executive Committee for Reconsidering Elections was already taken.

    9. Re:Will they have doomsday clock? by phayes · · Score: 1

      I know. However, the current membership has as much in common with atomic scientists as homeopathy has with medicine.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  3. How by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So this is a private group of experts that will help prevent Nuclear war. So how exactly do they do that?

    1. Re:How by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll pay mdsolar to submit a fuckload of anti-nuclear propaganda to Slashdot.

    2. Re:How by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Funny

      So this is a private group of experts that will help prevent Nuclear war. So how exactly do they do that?

      The group formed in 1947, seven decades ago. Since then there have been ZERO nuclear wars. So they have been doing a damned good job so far.

    3. Re:How by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I've got this rock....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:How by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      My pinky ring repels tigers - you don't see any around, do you? That proves it works.

    5. Re:How by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      You know what a non-sequitur is right?

  4. Propaganda by onyxruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These are the same people that have been presenting the doomsday clock. The same doomsday clock that for decades has been around 5 minutes from midnight & DOOM!!! They present themselves as non-partisan and neutral when in reality they are vehemently anti-nuclear.

    Sounds like the old name has become so tarnished that a new name is is needed for propaganda purposes. Clearly their hyperbole and public messaging positions are effectively the same. Anybody want to bother seeing how close related the boards are between the two?

    Slashdot is tentatively a science based site and should know better than to post an article for shills like this. Can the editors please do a bit better in the future?

    1. Re:Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Crap like this article would never have been posted in Cmdr Taco's day.

      Teen Vogue. What the fuck?

    2. Re:Propaganda by 0123456 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Teen Vogue seems to have become totally SJW-converged since Trump won the election. I presume they're trying to ensure the next generation of female voters will be solidly Democrat.

    3. Re:Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > They present themselves as non-partisan and neutral when in reality they are vehemently anti-nuclear.

      Uuuuh. "Let's not blow up our earth with nuclear weapons" is not really very partisan. Nobody sane is pushing for that.

      > a new name is is needed for propaganda purposes

      Right. Except that the existing group is oriented to public awareness and this group is oriented to informing policymakers. Which is a different mission statement, so a different org.

      Why are you pro-nuke-bomb trolling?

    4. Re:Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does "ad hominem" apply when it's a mag not a person?

      If a bum says the price of apples are $1/ea, that doesn't make it false. If Teen Vogue says there's a Nuclear Group forming, it doesn't make it wrong or a pop band.

      Back in Cmdr Taco's day we had stupid shit like parent's post though, so clearly this is nothing new here.

    5. Re:Propaganda by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2

      Crap like this article would never have been posted in Cmdr Taco's day.

      It probably would have been posted, and then posted again 3 hours later by CowboyNeal.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    6. Re:Propaganda by chihowa · · Score: 2

      If Teen Vogue is the best source you can find that's covering the formation of a group of "Nuclear Experts", there's a fair chance that it's not news and near certainty that it's not news for nerds.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    7. Re:Propaganda by Chas · · Score: 2

      Exactly.

      Today's "nuclear expert" is yesterday's nuke hating alarmist protestor.

      And the actual amount of real knowledge about the nuclear industry, nuclear power and nuclear weapons in general is about the same. Nil.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    8. Re:Propaganda by Chas · · Score: 1

      Because these people, long ago, managed to create an atmosphere (social, political, etc) where they could conflate nuclear power with nuclear bombs, and nobody in their right mind would question them, lest they be screeched at incessantly.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    9. Re:Propaganda by tinkerton · · Score: 1

      It would be oddly appropriate if the event of inadvertent nuclear annihilation is preceded by warnings of doom that only get reported in TeenVogue and are subsequently derided as inconsequential ramblings from 'nuke hating alarmists'.

    10. Re:Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They present themselves as non-partisan and neutral when in reality they are vehemently anti-nuclear.

      I think they are vehemently anti-nuclear and present themselves as such.

      Additionally I think that you are a fucking cunt.

    11. Re:Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you need to do a little more reading. The Doomsday Clock in 1991 was moved to 17 minutes to midnight. It fluctuates closer or farther away fro midnight based on the Science and Security Board's determination of whether the world is safer or more dangerous than it was the year before. The two factors that are taken into consideration are nuclear weapon risks and climate change. The Clock is not a prediction, it's a metaphor. The Bulletin is can probably be described anti-nuclear weapons, if one means by that that they are for not blowing the world up or causing a nuclear winter., They also support the acceptance of and action based on the research that describes climate change. And Commander Taco often posted articles from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, as they post the top minds in a variety of fields: nuclear weapons, climate science, emerging tech, energy issues, AI.

  5. umm nope by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "all countries that have nuclear weapons, are represented"

    What about Israel and N. Korea?

    1. Re:umm nope by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Informative

      Israel technically denies that it has nucs. Nobody believes them but that is the official line.

      Nobody wants 'Lil Kim anywhere near them.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:umm nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NK has nuclear devices. Whether they are weapons or not...

      lol bonus captcha: dearer. Ok, dearer leader!~

    3. Re:umm nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly, also France, United Kingdom.

    4. Re:umm nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some estimates according to a newspaper article years ago put the Israel's war head number up to 125. Who knows.

    5. Re:umm nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Israel neither confirms nor denies its nuclear capabilities.
      From your link: "Despite the fact that the Israel's nuclear programme has been an open secret since a disgruntled technician, Mordechai Vanunu, blew the whistle on it in 1986, the official Israeli position is still never to confirm or deny its existence."

  6. Nuclear Neutrality Now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama Administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation. I urge the Federal Communications Commission to end the bureaucratic regulatory overreach of the internet known as Title II and restore the bipartisan light-touch regulatory consensus that enabled the internet to flourish for more than 20 years.

    1. Re:Nuclear Neutrality Now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Citation please on how this alleged smothering, alleged damaging, and alleged obstructing is the fault of net neutrality and not Reagans fault, k thx.

    2. Re:Nuclear Neutrality Now! by Maritz · · Score: 1

      You are being trolled, and it's obvious.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  7. Better idea. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    Change the button that launches ICBMs into a button that kills the person that presses the button.

    You cannot convince a fool using logic.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Better idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all likelyhood, it *will* kill that person, together with billions of others.

  8. And anyone that expects North Korea to listen to t by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has a single digit IQ.

  9. because you can't have too many shadow govts... by slew · · Score: 1

    The group intends to create a "shadow security council," or an expert group capable of providing advice to world leaders on nuclear matters...

    SO to counter all the other shadow governments organizations that swarm around giving bad advice to the elected government officials, they've decided to make yet-another shadow government. GLWT.

    I suspect these people are mad they can't manipulate elections their way anymore, they've decided to take their toys back and play amongst themselves. I'm gonna take my clock and go home!

  10. ommmm CAPTCHA: sorted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The way it works is the aggressor nation needs to know where the retaliatory missiles are so it can neutralizee them before making the first strike. So contact these guys if you know where a nuclear submarine is hiding, and they'll pass it on.

  11. I have a great idea about this by guruevi · · Score: 1

    We should set up groups of politicians and experts from all nations, they could get together for all sorts of conflicts and discuss them rationally and come to resolutions. We could call it a League of Nations or so.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
  12. Presidential Candidate Educators by grilled-cheese · · Score: 1

    Is this the group that will teach future presidential candidates what the nuclear triad is? Leaving that to John Oliver seems like a bad idea.