It is now 100 seconds to midnight(thebulletin.org)
thebulletin.org
It is now 100 seconds to midnight
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/#
76 comments
Here's a link to the press conference: https://youtu.be/tXf6ygotBZ4?t=950
Is the webpage malfunctioning or is it supposed to take up half the page with headers and footers, leaving barely any space for the single column of text?
Reader mode solves this handily.
The closer we get to midnight, the more the content is squeezed.
My personal opinion is that the "midnight clock" is a pointless relic of the cold war, extremely obsolete by now, and doesn't have any practical purpose other than releasing a scary press release once a year.
The "measurement" aspect feels especially wrong. Might as well say "this year things are very bad", or "terrible", or "very really extremely bad".
Edit: so much wrong with the clock metaphor to begin with. A clock is only supposed to move forward, so they're either using it wrong, or the concept itself is extremely biased towards OMG DOOM! If you want a less silly analogy, use a thermometer. Also it was started at 7 minutes to midnight [0], and the farthest it's ever been is 17 minutes, so the domain of the "function" is also heavily biased towards OMG DOOM!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock
The "measurement" aspect feels especially wrong. Might as well say "this year things are very bad", or "terrible", or "very really extremely bad".
Edit: so much wrong with the clock metaphor to begin with. A clock is only supposed to move forward, so they're either using it wrong, or the concept itself is extremely biased towards OMG DOOM! If you want a less silly analogy, use a thermometer. Also it was started at 7 minutes to midnight [0], and the farthest it's ever been is 17 minutes, so the domain of the "function" is also heavily biased towards OMG DOOM!
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doomsday_Clock
Hasn't releasing a scary press release once a year basically been its raison d'etre since it began? It's a metaphor, its not meant to be some mega-accurate measure.
But it's clearly not accurate even with respect to itself. The world is closer to nuclear annihiliation now than in any year since 1953, including multiple proxy wars between the US and USSR along with the Cuban Missile Crisis? I don't see any plausible way to believe that.
Some countries are trending towards becoming doubleplusungood
I agree, the "100 seconds to midnight" feels a little silly, but:
1. These scientists know that a good headline is necessary in today's world to become part of popular discourse.
2. Regardless of the headline, the actual post IMO is a very good and thoughtful overview of how huge resources put towards technological propaganda are undermining societal institutions around the world and raising the risk that "cooler heads" will not prevail.
1. These scientists know that a good headline is necessary in today's world to become part of popular discourse.
2. Regardless of the headline, the actual post IMO is a very good and thoughtful overview of how huge resources put towards technological propaganda are undermining societal institutions around the world and raising the risk that "cooler heads" will not prevail.
> pointless relic of the cold war, extremely obsolete
So you're saying the nukes are gone, the arms limitation treaties are rock solid and working, and no new threats are emerging.....
Oh wait, none of that is true.
So you're saying the nukes are gone, the arms limitation treaties are rock solid and working, and no new threats are emerging.....
Oh wait, none of that is true.
I know, right? It really makes me wonder why I said all that nonsense!
Oh wait, I didn't.
Oh wait, I didn't.
What is the temperature of nuclear war? It seems to me to be nonsensical. The boiling point of water at atmospheric pressure? Why not the boiling point of iron? Or the surface temperature of the sun? Or the temperature of a nuclear weapon detonated on the surface temperature of the earth at t=10us? What is that anyway, does the average american know?
Thermonuclear war is and always will be a possible event in time, not some random value of temperature on the celsius scale.
It gave Americans (and the rest of the world) an answer to the question, "How close are we to nuclear war?" The nuclear scientists could say "The midnight clock is set to 7 minutes." And people could understand what it meant if it moved forwards or backwards.
It was never about measurement. It was always a symbol.
Thermonuclear war is and always will be a possible event in time, not some random value of temperature on the celsius scale.
It gave Americans (and the rest of the world) an answer to the question, "How close are we to nuclear war?" The nuclear scientists could say "The midnight clock is set to 7 minutes." And people could understand what it meant if it moved forwards or backwards.
It was never about measurement. It was always a symbol.
> What is the temperature of nuclear war?
You miss my point. A thermometer would be a better analogy than a clock, because a thermometer measures something that can go up and down, whereas a clock is expected to move inexorably towards midnight. And the temperature of a nuclear war is as arbitrary as using midnight as the time of a nuclear war.
> [...] an answer to the question, "How close are we to nuclear war?" The nuclear scientists could say "The midnight clock is set to 7 minutes."
...which is entirely meaningless, so it doesn't answer the question at all.
> people could understand what it meant if it moved forwards or backwards.
Clocks don't normally move backwards. Hence, thermometer.
> It was never about measurement. It was always a symbol.
I get that. I'm just saying is a really poorly thought out symbol.
You miss my point. A thermometer would be a better analogy than a clock, because a thermometer measures something that can go up and down, whereas a clock is expected to move inexorably towards midnight. And the temperature of a nuclear war is as arbitrary as using midnight as the time of a nuclear war.
> [...] an answer to the question, "How close are we to nuclear war?" The nuclear scientists could say "The midnight clock is set to 7 minutes."
...which is entirely meaningless, so it doesn't answer the question at all.
> people could understand what it meant if it moved forwards or backwards.
Clocks don't normally move backwards. Hence, thermometer.
> It was never about measurement. It was always a symbol.
I get that. I'm just saying is a really poorly thought out symbol.
> You miss my point.
Why do you assume that? Is it possible I completely understood your point and just challenged your thinking on it?
I always find it funny on here that some people prefer to be absolutely technically correct on something, rather than just letting a symbol be a symbol, imperfect as all symbols are.
As someone who grew up in the 1980's, anytime the clock moved, it made the nightly news.
PS: we do move the clock back and forth for Daylight Savings Time, or to adjust the it when it's off -- A clock is afterall a human construct.
Why do you assume that? Is it possible I completely understood your point and just challenged your thinking on it?
I always find it funny on here that some people prefer to be absolutely technically correct on something, rather than just letting a symbol be a symbol, imperfect as all symbols are.
As someone who grew up in the 1980's, anytime the clock moved, it made the nightly news.
PS: we do move the clock back and forth for Daylight Savings Time, or to adjust the it when it's off -- A clock is afterall a human construct.
Can game theory not be of use here? There are 3 scenarios:
1. No countries should own WMD.
2. Some countries can and others can't.
3. All countries should own WMD.
Only agreement 1 can be guaranteed to save humanity. The next best choice is surely 3 - not 2!
Thoughts?
1. No countries should own WMD.
2. Some countries can and others can't.
3. All countries should own WMD.
Only agreement 1 can be guaranteed to save humanity. The next best choice is surely 3 - not 2!
Thoughts?
How about another option: 1 country owns a WMD?
You can't unopen Pandora's box. It worked well enough for the few years only the US had WMDs, but that could never last.
People in the USA own a lot of firearms and there are more firearm-related crimes and accidents in the USA compared to countries with low rates of firearm ownership.
The USA is a big place, and the "firearm-related" crimes you're referring to are predominately in large urbanized areas where firearm ownership is prohibited.
>large urbanized areas where firearm ownership is prohibited
Which is why we need national action. Criminals in Chicago buy firearms in neighboring Indiana, criminals in New York City buy firearms in neighboring Connecticut.
The parallel to atomic weapons is similar. If many nations own atomic weapons, it's easier for an unstable/untrustworthy state to acquire them.
Which is why we need national action. Criminals in Chicago buy firearms in neighboring Indiana, criminals in New York City buy firearms in neighboring Connecticut.
The parallel to atomic weapons is similar. If many nations own atomic weapons, it's easier for an unstable/untrustworthy state to acquire them.
Obviously the criminals get their firearms from somewhere else since they can't be purchased legally inside the city, but you'll never eliminate every possible source. Even if you put up a massive wall and have 100% success in eliminating smuggling (which is obviously impossible) these things just aren't that hard to manufacture locally using commonly available and benign tools and materials. Criminals will still have them, and regular citizens will have an even harder time defending themselves.
>these things just aren't that hard to manufacture locally using commonly available and benign tools and materials
So this should be a big problem in nations with strict firearm laws, correct?
So this should be a big problem in nations with strict firearm laws, correct?
Like this?
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/deadly-diy-homema...
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/homemade-submachine-guns-seize...
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/deadly-diy-homema...
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/homemade-submachine-guns-seize...
The first article doesn't list how many firearms are supposedly "hitting the streets" and includes this quote:
>Mr Plotecki said that while there was no evidence the homemade guns had been used by local extremists, it was a concern for the future.
The second article is about the seizure of four firearms.
Truly a menace.
>Mr Plotecki said that while there was no evidence the homemade guns had been used by local extremists, it was a concern for the future.
The second article is about the seizure of four firearms.
Truly a menace.
Why is option 3 the best choice? Doesn't that significantly increase the chances of accidents?
Option 3 is better than option 2 because it is more likely that a country with WMD will use them against a country without them (for fear of retaliation). Option 3 is an equal standoff.
[deleted]
This was broadly the position of one of the most influential theorists in international relations (IR), Kenneth Waltz. His paper "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better” is a great read. [1]
From his conclusion: "Those who dread a world with more nuclear states do little more than assert that more is worse and claim without substantiation that new nuclear states will be less responsible and less capable of self-control than the old ones have been. They express fears that many felt when they imagined how a nuclear China would behave. Such fears have proved un-rounded as nuclear weapons have slowly spread. I have found many reasons for believing that with more nuclear states the world will have a promising future."
[1]: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm
From his conclusion: "Those who dread a world with more nuclear states do little more than assert that more is worse and claim without substantiation that new nuclear states will be less responsible and less capable of self-control than the old ones have been. They express fears that many felt when they imagined how a nuclear China would behave. Such fears have proved un-rounded as nuclear weapons have slowly spread. I have found many reasons for believing that with more nuclear states the world will have a promising future."
[1]: https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm
The more countries own WMD, the more likely it is that one will use them.
Thought experiment: option 1 is chosen, and the world proceeds to spend the the next 50-100 years obsessing over whose WMDs, exactly, have any nonzero chances of ever, ever misfiring.
Humanity embarks on a top-down superoptimization campaign to perfect technology to the point that this question can be answered with ever-increasingly-higher levels of detail.
Follow-on: the question of whether the ensuing yak shaving causes us to realize the WMDs are unnecessary, or whether military-driven paperclip maximization accidentally wipes out humanity.
Humanity embarks on a top-down superoptimization campaign to perfect technology to the point that this question can be answered with ever-increasingly-higher levels of detail.
Follow-on: the question of whether the ensuing yak shaving causes us to realize the WMDs are unnecessary, or whether military-driven paperclip maximization accidentally wipes out humanity.
As a thought, not opinion:
The benefit of option 2 over option 3 is that in the case where just enough countries have WMDs so that if anyone drops a WMD someone will respond but no other countries do you also minimize the number of surfaces for mistakes/abuses.
The benefit of option 2 over option 3 is that in the case where just enough countries have WMDs so that if anyone drops a WMD someone will respond but no other countries do you also minimize the number of surfaces for mistakes/abuses.
What's so "surely" about it?
Because now that some already have WMD, none of them is likely to give them up. The only option is for others to have them.
Why would that make things better, rather than the fairly obvious "worse"?
> Only agreement 1 can be guaranteed to save humanity.
That doesn't work either—some country will defect and develop WMDs in secret and then take over the world. Of the choices you present, the only reasonable option is ubiquitous access to WMDs (option 3), with the understanding that anyone found using them for any purpose other than a proportional response to a existential threat will be ruthlessly annihilated by everyone else.
That doesn't work either—some country will defect and develop WMDs in secret and then take over the world. Of the choices you present, the only reasonable option is ubiquitous access to WMDs (option 3), with the understanding that anyone found using them for any purpose other than a proportional response to a existential threat will be ruthlessly annihilated by everyone else.
>the understanding that anyone found using them for any purpose other than a proportional response to a existential threat will be ruthlessly annihilated by everyone else
I don't understand how this outcome results in anything other than the extinction of human life on this planet.
I don't understand how this outcome results in anything other than the extinction of human life on this planet.
Option 3 meaning all countries should be able to project nuclear power on all other countries as part of the definition of sovereignty?
It’s kind of a cool thought. The current nation state map seems arbitrary for such gravitas.
It’s kind of a cool thought. The current nation state map seems arbitrary for such gravitas.
3 only works if all countries:
a. have stable and rational governments, now and in perpetuity
b. do a perfect job of securing the weapons
c. can't covertly provide weapons to terrorists willing to use them
I don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea to give say, Somalia (to pick one example), nuclear weapons.
a. have stable and rational governments, now and in perpetuity
b. do a perfect job of securing the weapons
c. can't covertly provide weapons to terrorists willing to use them
I don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea to give say, Somalia (to pick one example), nuclear weapons.
On the other hand, one could make the argument that, if Somalia had nuclear weapons, the world community would be incentivized to establish and maintain a secure government there. Not sure if I buy this argument, but I think it's worth considering.
Options 1 and 2 have been tested through time. It seems that option 2 actually makes for less wars and less deaths from war than option 1, so there is a progress.
Should we test option 3, and how do we roll back if it doesn't work out and turns out to be the worst option ?
Should we test option 3, and how do we roll back if it doesn't work out and turns out to be the worst option ?
This model is only valid under the assumption that all countries are equal, as that is not the case we find ourselves somewhere in a multidimensional, temporal, observer-relative, non-euclidean, indeterminate, irreducibly complex, continuous "option 2".
> Only agreement 1 can be guaranteed to save humanity.
Who says that's everyone's goal? There are plenty of people in the world, and even in this forum, who only care about saving "some" of humanity. And in topics about the environment or population, you'll find people (even on this forum) who aren't interested in saving any of it.
> Can game theory not be of use here?
Probably, but only if you understand the actual rules people are playing.
Who says that's everyone's goal? There are plenty of people in the world, and even in this forum, who only care about saving "some" of humanity. And in topics about the environment or population, you'll find people (even on this forum) who aren't interested in saving any of it.
> Can game theory not be of use here?
Probably, but only if you understand the actual rules people are playing.
This is silly. The risk of outright nuclear warfare is probably the lowest it has ever been; no one wants a full-scale war and even states with massive ideological conflicts are still looking for ways to peacefully trade and deal with each other. The Cold War is over and if something like the Cuban Missile Crisis happened today, the responses would be far more measured.
I don't know, it seems that recently there are people in control of nuclear arsenals that seem to have a desire to use them:
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/trump-asks-why-us-cant-use-n...
Trump saying stupid things is nowhere near comparable to the decades-long standoff that was the Cold War. I don't think people today generally understand how much bigger the divide was from Post WW2 to the 1990s.
I doubt it's the "lowest it has ever been" when you have the US president bragging about having a "big button" on twitter...
I think you may be confusing bravado/ego/bombast with actual desire and by extension, risk.
I'm not sure, but we're now in a new cold war with Russia. This is what cold war feels like. Attacking our political infrastructure, assassination of political enemies.
We're one shooting war away from a major conflict. We were lucky we didn't get into one with Iran.
We're one shooting war away from a major conflict. We were lucky we didn't get into one with Iran.
So the doomsday clock went from being a metaphor for the probability of Nuclear War to being a metaphor for the end of the world in general?
This is a big sign that it has outlived its usefulness and the organization is trying to reinvent itself.
This is a big sign that it has outlived its usefulness and the organization is trying to reinvent itself.
> In the nuclear realm, national leaders have ended or undermined several major arms control treaties and negotiations during the last year
> US-Russia cooperation on arms control and disarmament is all but nonexistent
Moving the clock is justified.
Russia is developing new hypersonic missiles and missiles with multiple warheads designed specifically to evade missile defense systems. The U.S. is deploying more of our (potentially now ineffective) missile defense systems in places where we had promised not to do so.
The Iran deal is dead. Nationalism is on the rise everywhere, and nuclear states like Pakistan, India, and China are not immune.
The world is at greater risk now than at any point since the Cold War.
> US-Russia cooperation on arms control and disarmament is all but nonexistent
Moving the clock is justified.
Russia is developing new hypersonic missiles and missiles with multiple warheads designed specifically to evade missile defense systems. The U.S. is deploying more of our (potentially now ineffective) missile defense systems in places where we had promised not to do so.
The Iran deal is dead. Nationalism is on the rise everywhere, and nuclear states like Pakistan, India, and China are not immune.
The world is at greater risk now than at any point since the Cold War.
> The world is sleepwalking its way through a newly unstable nuclear landscape. The arms control boundaries that have helped prevent nuclear catastrophe for the last half century are being steadily dismantled.
There is so much ignorance in this piece. Almost nobody in the real world abides by these arms controls. Russia ignored them. So did Iran. So will the next country. Why would the US abide by a treaty that’s being overtly flouted?
Also, how does recognizing this reality make things more dangerous like the article suggests?
There is so much ignorance in this piece. Almost nobody in the real world abides by these arms controls. Russia ignored them. So did Iran. So will the next country. Why would the US abide by a treaty that’s being overtly flouted?
Also, how does recognizing this reality make things more dangerous like the article suggests?
Might be unpopular opinion, but I honestly think nuclear weapons are fine.
Nuclear weapons are a 70 y/o technology, and I don't like my taxpayer dollars going to innovation in WMDs.
Changing to something else would result in additional spend by military-industrial complex for systems that might not be as ready or safe, faster promotions by career types (vs. career death when you get shunted into nuclear weapons work), and reinventing the wheel in terms of diplomatic protocol, public understanding of risk/reward, and potential international crisis.
I just don't think it's worth getting rid of nukes before changing the fundamental properties of human nature. Until that happens, I'd rather keep the nukes rusting away in their silos to keep the saber-rattlers happy and headaches away.
Nuclear weapons are a 70 y/o technology, and I don't like my taxpayer dollars going to innovation in WMDs.
Changing to something else would result in additional spend by military-industrial complex for systems that might not be as ready or safe, faster promotions by career types (vs. career death when you get shunted into nuclear weapons work), and reinventing the wheel in terms of diplomatic protocol, public understanding of risk/reward, and potential international crisis.
I just don't think it's worth getting rid of nukes before changing the fundamental properties of human nature. Until that happens, I'd rather keep the nukes rusting away in their silos to keep the saber-rattlers happy and headaches away.
I've never fully understood this whole doomsday clock thing. We live in the most peaceful time in human history and WMDs have significantly contributed to that peace in the post-WW2 era. Yeah we still have civil wars, internal conflicts and minor state disputes, but overall, were progressing towards a more unified globalized society.
Highly cynical statements by highly politicized scientists.
What could go wrong?
What could go wrong?
What could go wrong with Facebook, it brings us all closer, right?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/15/technology/de...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/12/15/technology/de...
Their reasoning seems sound to me but I'm amused that someone built a clock that shows what their current guess is for when "doomsday" will happen and they get free press every single time they change it.
I feel like I'm missing out on doing something silly that I can periodically change, call a press conference for and get some attention.
I feel like I'm missing out on doing something silly that I can periodically change, call a press conference for and get some attention.
It is not just "someone" picked at random from the street, the people that work those calculations don't have a political or sensationalist agenda, they don't do it for fame or Facebook likes.
More amusing than the clock itself is the reasoning behind it. I would recommend researching on the depths of their claims
More amusing than the clock itself is the reasoning behind it. I would recommend researching on the depths of their claims
It's the very definition of a political agenda.
I didn't say it was someone random but it's from Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. It's a non-profit, which is good, but they do other things so getting press for the Doomsday clock is highly beneficial for them.
I'm not saying they update it _just_ to get press but I'm sure they highly enjoy the press they get every-time they touch the thing.
I'm not saying they update it _just_ to get press but I'm sure they highly enjoy the press they get every-time they touch the thing.
My doomsday clock says 100ms.
Can't help feeling they are cheating a little bit by changing from minutes to seconds. I think they got a bit too doomy and trigger-happy on the minute finger and didn't want to backtrack.
They get to stave it off forever now, invoking Zeno's paradox, going to fractions of seconds next.
Does that mean we're safe?
They get to stave it off forever now, invoking Zeno's paradox, going to fractions of seconds next.
Does that mean we're safe?
I'm not trying to be snide, but this feels more alarmist than ever. I feel like we're further away from nuclear war than we have been in a long time. We have a lot more wars-by-proxy to fund war industries in the US, EU and Russia, which is a huge problem within itself, but far as the nuclear death of the planet, I feel like we've been in solid fear of mutually assured destruction for quite a while.
There is no real science behind the doomsday clock. It's literally an argument from authority, and I think it should be challenged.
There is no real science behind the doomsday clock. It's literally an argument from authority, and I think it should be challenged.
It seems like it covers other kinds of catastrophe than just nuclear war.
You need to do basic reading into the doomsday clock. The primary concerns right now are catastrophic climate change and technological threats, including nuclear technologies. Regardless, many nuclear theorists and academics including Noam Chomsky (known war hawk and military industrial complex supporter) also think we are at an increasing threat of nuclear war.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7hOpT0lPGI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7hOpT0lPGI
[deleted]
So the Iran nuclear deal is dead. North Korea has the bomb. And Russia is attacking the US political system -- and winning apparently.
Glasnost and the fall of the Berlin wall in 1990 are pretty much the benchmark for marking nuclear peace in the world. Given what I said above, you really want to hold onto your opinion that we're the furthest from nuclear war we've ever been in a long time?
And apparently in war gaming out conflicts with Russia and China, well... we suck lately.
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-t...
Glasnost and the fall of the Berlin wall in 1990 are pretty much the benchmark for marking nuclear peace in the world. Given what I said above, you really want to hold onto your opinion that we're the furthest from nuclear war we've ever been in a long time?
And apparently in war gaming out conflicts with Russia and China, well... we suck lately.
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-t...
I did a little web [0] to keep track of the Doomsday Clock history, or at least visualize it better.
[0]: https://fdelmazo.github.io/doomsday-clock/
[0]: https://fdelmazo.github.io/doomsday-clock/
points for the hat tip to Watchmen
I wonder why they chose to use a clock, something that only ever moves in one direction, as their analogy.
Maybe a thermometer would be more optimistic, as that can rise and fall.
Maybe a thermometer would be more optimistic, as that can rise and fall.
A "Doomsday Clock" run by an international group called "The Elders"?
When do they pass out the kool-aid?
When do they pass out the kool-aid?
In my opinion the major issue is, that most people don't understand what is happening.