'Doomsday Clock' to stand still amid nuclear tensions

[webfact]

'Doomsday Clock' to stand still amid nuclear tensions

LONDON: -- The so-called Doomsday Clock will remain set at three-minutes-to-midnight amid global perils such as climate change and nuclear proliferation.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BPA), the group behind the clock, said the standing still is "not good news".

The minute hand on the Doomsday Clock is a metaphor for how vulnerable the world is to catastrophe.

Full story: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35412454


-- BBC 2016-01-27

[shirtless]

We are slowly being fried by Fukushima give it 7 years and we will be in real trouble.

[webfact]

Scientists: "Doomsday Clock" reflects grave threat to world
SUDHIN THANAWALA, Associated Press

STANFORD, California (AP) — Rising tension between Russia and the U.S., North Korea's recent nuclear test and a lack of aggressive steps to address climate change are putting the world under grave threat, scientists behind a "Doomsday Clock" that measures the likelihood of a global cataclysm said Tuesday.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced that the minute hand on the metaphorical clock remained at three minutes-to-midnight. The clock reflects how vulnerable the world is to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change and new technologies, with midnight symbolizing apocalypse.

"Unless we change the way we think, humanity remains in serious danger," said Lawrence Krauss, chair of the bulletin's Board of Sponsors.

Krauss said the Iran nuclear agreement and Paris climate accord were good news. But the good news was offset by nuclear threats, including tension between nuclear-armed states India and Pakistan, and uncertainty that the Paris accord will lead to concrete action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The scientists behind the bulletin adjusted the clock from five minutes-to-midnight to three minutes-to-midnight last year. They cited climate change, modernization of nuclear weapons and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals as "extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity." The clock was previously at three minutes-to-midnight in 1984, when the bulletin said talks between the U.S. and Russia virtually stopped.

From a climate change perspective, if midnight on the clock represents the disappearance of humanity, three minutes-to-midnight is overly dire, said Michael Oppenheimer, a professor of geosciences and international affairs at Princeton University who is not affiliated with the bulletin.

On the other hand, Oppenheimer said if midnight means humans have emitted so much greenhouse gas that dangerous climate change is inevitable, then three minutes is a "fair analysis."

"I think the jury is out as to whether the Paris agreement will make a significant difference," he said. "The key is whether countries over the next couple of years are able to agree on some important details that were left out."

Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine examining social and scientific controversies, said in an email that the Doomsday clock is "an exercise in pessimism and PR with little connection to the reality of moral progress made in the past half century." Shermer cited reductions in the number of nuclear weapons since the 1980s and the absence of war between Europe's great powers since World War II.

California Gov. Jerry Brown joined former U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz and former U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry for a discussion at Stanford University after the unveiling of the clock.

Perry raised concerns about rhetoric from Russia about the use of nuclear weapons and said the threat of nuclear disaster was greater today than during the Cold War. Shultz said the U.S. needs to engage Russia and China. Brown warned about "tipping points" in the fight against climate change.

"And around a tipping point, we may not be able to come back to a stable planet or one we'll find very comfortable to live in," he said.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who helped develop the first atomic weapons. The clock was created two years later.

The decision to move or leave the clock alone is made by the bulletin's science and security board, which includes physicists and environmental scientists from around the world, in consultation with the bulletin's Board of Sponsors, which includes more than a dozen Nobel laureates.

The closest the clock has come to midnight was two minutes away in 1953, when the Soviet Union tested a hydrogen bomb that followed a U.S. hydrogen bomb test.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-01-27

[ezzra]

It was said that the 4th world war will be fought with sticks and stones.....

[webfact]

World still three minutes from 'apocalypse' according Doomsday Clock



STANFORD: -- The “Doomsday Clock” which measures the likelihood of a global catastrophe is remaining at three minutes-to midnight – with midnight symbolising apocalypse.

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists said that despite the nuclear deal with Iran, rising tensions between the US and Russia, North Korea’s nuclear test and only moderate steps to address climate change all mean the world in still in danger.

The scientists behind the bulletin adjusted the clock from five minutes-to-midnight to three minutes-to-midnight last year.

The clock was previously at three minutes-to-midnight in 1984, when the bulletin said talks between the US and Russia virtually stopped.

This year they cited climate change, modernisation of nuclear weapons and outsized nuclear weapons arsenals as “extraordinary and undeniable threats to the continued existence of humanity”.


-- (c) Copyright Euronews 2016-01-27

[pinkpanther99]

What a load of rubbish.

If it was a Thai saying this 'we' (and I include myself in that) would be ridiculing him for his comments.

But because a group of western scientists claim 'Doomsday' is imminent we are expected to take what they say seriously.

Pull the other one.

[Jdietz]

So no real change in the last 30 years or so. Means we should have at least 90 years left.

Move along, nothing to see here.

[sanukjim]

So what happens when it gets to zero and there are no nuclear war ? Is either one or another country obligated to start one ?

[connda]

The Earth will be a safer place once the time gets to 00:01

[Rancid]

The real danger of nuclear weapons isn't so much countries having them, assuming some sanity in their leadership. The danger is if one psychotic country actually believes it can win a nuclear war. Only the US has ever used them, and the US had plans afoot to carpet nuke the USSR after WW2 prior to the Russians unexpectedly getting their own arsenal so quickly.

Likewise the US has been running first strike scenarios for quite a while, even recently, to see if they could get away unscathed. The real danger to the world isn't rogue states like North Korea or Israel that wont sign a nonproliferation treaty, it is the US thinking they could win a nuclear first strike with what the elite regard as acceptable collateral damage.

[connda]

The real danger of nuclear weapons isn't so much countries having them, assuming some sanity in their leadership. The danger is if one psychotic country actually believes it can win a nuclear war. Only the US has ever used them, and the US had plans afoot to carpet nuke the USSR after WW2 prior to the Russians unexpectedly getting their own arsenal so quickly.

Likewise the US has been running first strike scenarios for quite a while, even recently, to see if they could get away unscathed. The real danger to the world isn't rogue states like North Korea or Israel that wont sign a nonproliferation treaty, it is the US thinking they could win a nuclear first strike with what the elite regard as acceptable collateral damage.

The info supporting a US 'first strike' on Russia (ex-CCCP) is in the public domain. As of 1990: http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3765.html

I seriously doubt the 'first strike' genie has been shoved back in the bottle. Russia knows it. China knows it. India knows it. Pakistan knows it. Israel knows it. Why?

Reference:

The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives - Zbigniew Brzezinski

and his mentor's work,

The Geographical Pivot of History (Heartland Theory) - Halford John Mackinder

and more recently,

Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, “The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy,” Foreign Affairs, March/April 2006

And the US under GW Bush ditched the ABM Treaty in Dec 2001. Talk about non-proliferation. Only psychotics with well established under-ground bunkers who are willing to entertain a Morlock-like existence following a pre-emptive nuclear strike leading to MAD would take a step down that road. I give it a 50/50 chance I'll see it in my life-time.

[ExpatOilWorker]

The real danger of nuclear weapons isn't so much countries having them, assuming some sanity in their leadership. The danger is if one psychotic country actually believes it can win a nuclear war. Only the US has ever used them, and the US had plans afoot to carpet nuke the USSR after WW2 prior to the Russians unexpectedly getting their own arsenal so quickly.

Likewise the US has been running first strike scenarios for quite a while, even recently, to see if they could get away unscathed. The real danger to the world isn't rogue states like North Korea or Israel that wont sign a nonproliferation treaty, it is the US thinking they could win a nuclear first strike with what the elite regard as acceptable collateral damage.

MAD have worked fine, that is unless one country is prepared to take the first blow.

http://csis.org/blog/chinas-underground-great-wall-success-nuclear-primacy

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies removed.