Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear Experts Form International 'Nuclear Crisis Group' (teenvogue.com)
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.
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.
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."
So this is a private group of experts that will help prevent Nuclear war. So how exactly do they do that?
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?
"all countries that have nuclear weapons, are represented"
What about Israel and N. Korea?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.