Current Time - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

[JapaneseKappa]

The Bulletin of American Scientists has moved the hands of the Doomsday Clock closer to midnight than any time in the clock’s history.

In so doing, board members are explicitly warning leaders and citizens around the world that the international security situation is now more dangerous than it has ever been, even at the height of the Cold War.

Current Time - 2024 - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Continued corruption of the information ecosphere on which democracy and public decision making depend has heightened the nuclear and climate threats. In the last year, many governments used cyber-enabled disinformation campaigns to sow distrust in institutions and among nations, undermining domestic and international efforts to foster peace and protect the planet.

This situation—two major threats to human civilization, amplified by sophisticated, technology-propelled propaganda—would be serious enough if leaders around the world were focused on managing the danger and reducing the risk of catastrophe. Instead, over the last two years, we have seen influential leaders denigrate and discard the most effective methods for addressing complex threats—international agreements with strong verification regimes—in favor of their own narrow interests and domestic political gain.

 

[vz71]

Pure politics.
Nothing more.

 

[Cruciferi]

They’re still messing around with that silly clock?

 

[Theo520]

This was shown a joke a long time ago.

A good idea, but they abused it

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Pure politics.
Nothing more.

The clock is a measure of geopolitical instability, so obviously it is politics? I think it serves as a sobering reminder to world leaders that the fire they are playing with can have permanent global implications:

The demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty became official in 2019, and, as predicted, the United States and Russia have begun a new competition to develop and deploy weapons the treaty had long banned. Meanwhile, the United States continues to suggest that it will not extend New START, the agreement that limits US and Russian deployed strategic nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and that it may withdraw from the Open Skies Treaty, which provides aerial overflights to build confidence and transparency around the world. Russia, meanwhile, continues to support an extension of New START.

 

[Theo520]

The clock is a measure of geopolitical instability, so obviously it is politics? I think it serves as a sobering reminder to world leaders that the fire they are playing with can have permanent global implications:

like i said, it’s a good idea but the implementers are so biased that they only move it in one direction with any consistency.

They’ve painted themselves into a corner and this has made their commentary meaningless.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

like i said, it’s a good idea but the implementers are so biased that they only move it in one direction with any consistency.

Blatantly untrue?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Theo520]

Since 1947, in fact, the Doomsday Clock has averaged 6.4 minutes to midnight during Republican administrations, compared with 8.3 minutes during Democratic ones.

And when you look at the reasons for the scientists’ concern, they turn out to make no sense, either.

The clock, for example, took a nose-dive under Reagan, moving from 7 minutes under Carter to 3 minutes by the end of Reagan’s first term. The rationale: Reagan’s alleged warmongering stance against the Soviet Union and his unwillingness to sign meaningless arms control deals.

But by 1991, the scientists reset the clock to 17 minutes, the furthest from midnight it’s ever been. Why? Because the Soviet Union had collapsed — a development largely credited to Reagan’s tough stance against global communism.

In other words, the scientists behind the Doomsday Clock got it exactly wrong . Appeasement made the world less safe, and Reagan’s anti-communist policies made it safer than it’s ever been since the Atomic Age began.

Plus, does anyone really believe we are 64% closer to global destruction today than we were during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962?

Further evidence that the clock has become utterly meaningless is the decision to add climate change as an indicator in 2007. Suddenly, the clock started ticking down again because of perceived “lack of progress” on reducing carbon emissions.

But the idea that climate change will destroy mankind isn’t scientific, it’s merely speculative. And it assumes, wrongly, that mankind won’t be able to adapt to a slightly warmer planet. Even those who believe in climate change doomsday scenarios admit that they are a century away, which hardly makes it an immediate threat, unlike, say, a nuclear armed Iran.

In the latest update, the scientists further tarnish the Doomsday Clock by adding in the latest liberal hang-ups about “fake news.”

source

 

[JapaneseKappa]

In other words, the scientists behind the Doomsday Clock got it exactly wrong . Appeasement made the world less safe, and Reagan’s anti-communist policies made it safer than it’s ever been since the Atomic Age began.

This isn’t true? It can be the case that the tough policies were a higher risk/higher reward strategy, and the clock is meant to measure risk. That Reagan’s risk ultimately paid off doesn’t mean he didn’t take a risk.

 

[vz71]

The clock is a measure of geopolitical instability, so obviously it is politics?

Based upon whose standard?
And what agenda does this message serve?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Based upon whose standard?

… The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists? It says so right in the title?

And what agenda does this message serve?

The agenda of people who don’t want the world to end in a nuclear war?

 

[vz71]

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists?

And how are they qualified to measure global stability?
Their field is nuclear science, not politics.

Besides, when they moved the clock back during the Cuban missile crisis, they sort of lost credibility.

 

[GKMotley]

I’m kinda curious about the logic on the 1947 setting.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

And how are they qualified to measure global stability?
Their field is nuclear science, not politics.

For someone who came right out of the gate with strong accusations about the org, you seem to not have bothered to find out the basics:

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists - Wikipedia

The Bulletin’ s Board of Sponsors is composed of accomplished science and security leaders from around the world. Members of the Board of Sponsors weigh in on critical issues, including the setting of the organization’s Doomsday Clock.

 

[vz71]

For someone who came right out of the gate with strong accusations about the org, you seem to not have bothered to find out the basics:

I know the basics.
They are not qualified to judge political stability, and have been inaccurate most of the time.

Their judgement of time falls more along political party lines than it does actual fact.

 

[vz71]

I’m kinda curious about the logic on the 1947 setting.

The claim is that the cold war was getting started.
Bizarre though. They claim how close we are to a nuclear war…but the US was the only nation with atomic weapons at that time.
Further, the yield of the weapons and the volume make a global catastrophy unlikely at best.

Further evidence of politics at play instead of facts.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

They are not qualified to judge political stability, and have been inaccurate most of the time.

I’m sure that assertion is just as well informed as your earlier assertion that the Bulletin does not have any (name removed by moderator)ut from experts in international politics.

 

[vz71]

I’m sure that assertion is just as well informed as

The chart you posted bears this out.
Would you have us ignore the Cuban missile crisis?
Would you have us ignore the proliferation of nuclear weapons in 1947?

Do you really believe we are closer now to nuclear war then during the Cuban missile crisis?

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Plus, does anyone really believe we are 64% closer to global destruction today than we were during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962?

Doomsday Clockwork - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Were the hands moved during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962? No. They were not moved during the 10-day crisis because too little was known at the time about the circumstances of the standoff or what the outcome would be. In fact, after the crisis, US and Soviet leaders installed a direct telephone line for communication, and within months signed the Partial Test Ban Treaty outlawing underground nuclear weapons testing—the first treaty addressing the nuclear weapons threat. On the basis of these steps, the Bulletin set the clock back from seven minutes to midnight to 12 minutes to midnight in 1963.

 

[GKMotley]

True enough and the point of my question.

I suspect that the fact that, however small the nuclear arsenal the US had (around 2-3 in 1947: post WWII constructs. The 3rd nuclear package on hand in August 1945 had never left the US, was used in the tragic “tickling the dragon’s tail” lab experiments, and later had the plutonium components recast for follow-on weapons), they existed, had been used and the folks who formed the ( originally named) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago were not sanguine about what we might do, in the short term. The atomic tests conducted in 1947 (Operation Crossroads) and scheduled for 1948 (Operations Sandstone), focused their fears.
As in the Franck Report.