The Doomsday Clock Just Ticked Closer To Midnight (usatoday.com)
Scientists moved the hands of the symbolic "Doomsday Clock" closer to midnight on Thursday amid increasing worries over nuclear weapons and climate change. From a report: The clock is now two minutes to midnight. "Because of the extraordinary danger of the current moment, the Science and Security Board today moves the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock 30 seconds closer to catastrophe," said Rachel Bronson, president of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. "This is the closest the Clock has ever been to Doomsday, and as close as it was in 1953, at the height of the Cold War." Each year, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, a non-profit group that sets the clock, decides whether the events of the previous year pushed humanity closer or farther from destruction. The symbolic clock is now the closest it's been to midnight since 1953. It was also two minutes to midnight in 1953 when the hydrogen bomb was first tested.
There was a time when America prided itself in it's technological prowess. A time when we believed science had the potential to solve our problems and propel us into the future. It's sad that we've gone the other way, clutching superstition and paranoia, as a great thinker once predicted: https://www.goodreads.com/quot...
This has historically been a "pro tech" site, which be definition and education should include individuals educated in science... but alas, it's just more politicized, polarized arse holes too willing to jump on the reichwinger "blame libs for all evils" bs....
Your prizes:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news...
https://worldtop20.org/2017-wo...
http://thehill.com/policy/inte...
And the cherry, the US, the Country FOUNDED on the principles of freedom, drops to 21....well done....
http://theweek.com/speedreads/...
I think that their problem is that they continually wanted to protest some action and kept pushing the clock closer, only now they've run out of room and look damned foolish because all of these little political statements have add up to what we see now. As you point out when you look at it in a historical context, it makes you roll your eyes quite a bit. They clearly need to walk the clock back quite a bit and do so periodically when whatever new thing they're worried about fails to come to pass or lead to new cause for concern.
It's even more foolish now. The Koreans are talking to each other, the US has postponed their military exercises in Korea until after the Olympics, and the proxy wars in the Middle East are not as hot as they were a year ago. Ukraine and Crimea have "calmed down" in the sense that nobody in the USA cares anymore.
If anything, they should be setting the clock backwards.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
WW2 ended in 1945 and everybody of prominence back then is long dead.
Not sure how that pertains to my answer to your question; but yes, the Manhattan Project (or its precursor) scientists involved in the creation of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists -- Rabinowitch, Szilard, Oppenheimer, Bethe, Urey, etc. -- are gone now, although a few survived until relatively recently (Hans Bethe, for instance, did not pass until 2005).
But even if they were alive, try explaining, why their role in the development of the weapon makes them better experts on matters of foreign policy, military, and psychology, than that of any engineer or a dentist?
Why, in other words, should we value their opinion on how imminent the use of their weapon is over that of an engineer or a dentist?
Do you think, bladesmiths could better predict the imminence of duels, than other contemporaries?
I don't know why you're asking me these questions, since I merely answered the one you posed (about what the basis for the name was), and made no assertions of the sort that your questions seem to imply or defenses of anything the Bulletin has ever published.
The so-called "Doomsday Clock" is undoubtedly the most notorious thing about the Bulletin; but it's a tiny fraction of what they publish and what they argue. In general, and from my experience, the papers/articles published therein which argue for any particular viewpoint on an issue tend to be supported with attempts at logical reasoning built upon a set of claimed evidence. That absolutely does not make any of them right, any more than the many papers that fill scientific journals every week are all correct; and it's completely reasonable to argue that one sees flaws in their reasoning or in the set of facts/axioms/whatever on which their reasoning is based; and I'd be very surprised if any of the principals involved in the publication now, or those who write for it, would argue to the contrary.