"Doomsday Clock" Moves Away From Midnight 287
Arvisp writes to tell us that the symbolic "Doomsday Clock," designed to represent how close civilization is to catastrophic destruction, has been moved away from midnight. "First set at seven minutes to midnight, the clock has been moved only 18 times since its creation in 1947. The group, which includes more than a dozen Nobel laureates, last moved the hands of the clock in 2007, from seven to five minutes before midnight to reflect the threat of a 'second nuclear age' and the challenges presented by global warming. Today, at a press conference in New York, the Bulletin announced that despite the looming threats of nuclear weapons and climate change, it would move the hands of the clock from five to six minutes before midnight."
Hey parents... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you ever need to explain to your kids what masturbation is without getting too graphic, you can point them to this story.
If they include climate change (Score:1, Insightful)
Shouldn't the clock always be at midnight since the climate is always changing and always has changed.
Re:First thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Also add:
Illogical. The threat from nuclear annihilation is higher now than it was in 2007, thanks to Iran's and Pakistan's recent experiments with missile launches and nuclear bombs. They could nuke the European Union or the Russian Federation.
It should have been moved close to midnight but I suspect these guys, like the Nobel Foundation, are in love with the new president. They think the world is all rainbows and poppies now, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah. Total human annihalation at this point is unlikely.
However, Pakistan or Iran could find themselves nuked off the map.
Any fight involving these two would likely be very lopsided or localized.
It would suck but probably not be doomsday.
Re:First thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
Science? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is this listed under science? They’re just a bunch of fear-mongering wackos with an agenda.
Dimwits (Score:0, Insightful)
Nobel laureates or not, these people are dimwits.
For over sixty years these guys have been messing with this clock, and for sixty years they've been wrong every time. Why do they think anyone cares what they have to say now?
Re:I'm not worried (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares what state we leave the world in for future generations. Amirite?
Re:First thought... (Score:2, Insightful)
Pretty much (Score:5, Insightful)
Were this any sort of real measure, it would have been moved back a big measure a long time ago. I mean I'll grant them that when the US and USSR were in the middle of their "who's got the biggest dick" contest, things were getting perilously close to a nuclear war. Also, due to the amount of weapons on both sides, it really would have been a doomsday scenario. However now? Not so much. While the nations still have arms, they aren't on the verge of using them. Things have cooled off and there is very little worry of an all out nuclear war.
Just a bunch of useless posturing. They want to keep pretending like they matter.
Re:First thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which would then move the doomsday clock FURTHER from midnight.
Re:First thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but the problem was secret mutual defense and attack treaties that built up over time into a domino sculpture. If people could see their dominoes stacking up next to the line of other dominoes, they might very well have averted that conflict.
We know about the treaty problem, and none of the nuclear-capable superpowers are showing any particular inclination to empty their reserves.
The clock was pretty stupid when it came out, being invented by editorializing nuclear scientists and not anyone in a profession that offers particular insights into the politics that results in weapons actually being deployed. It's even dumber now, and it's even a poor metaphor for what they're trying to express: in clock form, there isn't any analogy that maps to backwards movement that makes any sense.
Re:Second Thought (Score:5, Insightful)
Diversification is the classic response to obsolescence.
Now that the Cold War is over and there's (currently, thankfully) very little chance that the US & Russia will nuke each other, the clock is an anachronism. It *should* be moved to about 7PM, but that's boring, so they add trendy threats in order to keep the clock at a more attention-getting number.
I'm too young to remember the Cuban Missile Crisis (I was 2), but it's always seemed a bit preposterous to me that the clock is set to the last 1/2 of 1% of the day. Have we ever REALLY been 99.5% the way to destruction? Are we REALLY that close today?
Maybe the clock's time should reflect it's own relevance... I'd buy it that the Doomsday Clock is 99.5 obsolete!
Re:MY. ASS. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lies. Bedwetting neocons sure as hell did.
Because...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it's real popular to feel such a level of disgust for the United States that you kind of lose sight of reality, but how exactly is Iran inching towards freedom?
Since the election, which many *Iranians* feel was rigged by Ahmadinejad and/or those in his camp, the government has steadily ratcheted up the level of oppression in Iran, including increased censorship, Internet filtering, limits on cell phone communication, etc. The Iranian government has admitted to torturing and killing its own citizens who were detained protesting the election; internally there have been allegations of rape used as an instrument of torture.
It's also apparent you have lost your "hope". Presumably "the people of USA" have actually made a stride TOWARDS more freedom -- voting the first African American President into office in a decade, in a landslide election that was widely acknowledged to be a repudiation of Bush/Cheney and their policies.
China continues to jail its political opponents, even those seeking redress for issues which the government was responsible such as development and land use issues, and practices widespread censorship of the internet in addition to organized hacking campaigns against human rights advocates. Google has complained about it and is threatening to leave China over the issue.
Wow. (Score:5, Insightful)
The US let loose 2 nukes on Japan, and the world didn't end. Any nuclear conflicts involving Israel or Iran or Pakistan or India and possibly China, would be local.
You do realize that at the time we dropped those two nukes on Japan, they were the only ones on the planet. Right? It's not like anybody could nuke us back.
Re:First thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
Or they accurately realize that GWB's leaving office and Obama entering it caused a noticeable easing of tension in world politics. This isn't so much because of the job Obama's done, but rather because of the destructive nature of GWB's administration.
Where has there been an "easing of tension in world politics"? Please name one tense situation that has become less tense in the last year.
Re:First thought... (Score:3, Insightful)
Reasonable people do not speak in such absolutes.
Re:First thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Napoleonic Wars were less than 30 years after you'd declared independence. I doubt you'd have been able to do anything at that point, what with the giant ocean between you and it, and every other factor.
As for your "British-French wars," there's no war called that. There's the "Anglo-French" wars, which are mostly all before the founding of the US. And since the French assisted your Revolutionary War against Britain, you were right smack in the middle of one, used as a proxy.
Re:First thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
World War I started over less. Basically the crown heir to the Austrian-Hungarian empire was assassinated in Serbia and then it escalated.
Ah, no, that's not true.
The assassination was not the cause of world war one. Nor was it even the trigger. Nations and armies were poised well before that and war was already a foregone conclusion.
In truth it wasn't even a significant event. War was inevitable, any excuse would have been used. To some how assume that were it not for that one event WWI would not have happened is historically inaccurate.
Read "The Guns of August".
Re:Iron Maiden (Score:3, Insightful)
It would seem to disagree if you begin by begging the question—that is, if your assumption, entering into examining the US-Israel relationship, is that the US disagrees with Israel but finds itself helpless to resist engaging in behavior it disagrees with against its will...
Right. Because the US supports Israel's position on those matters, and Israel has no veto of its own in the UNSC. Otherwise they would cease to protect Israel diplomatically; this is a voluntary act.
Right. Because the US supports Israel's use of that assistance. (It's worth noting that, contrary to the popular perception that US aid to Israel is entirely out of step with any other foreign aid regime, Egypt receives more than 70% the amount of aid from the US that Israel does: $1.795B versus $2.52B. Likewise, the US supports Egypt's use of that assistance.) Otherwise they would withdraw their aid; this is a voluntary act.
Right. While Israel's only recourse in a disagreement is to complain verbally, the US can show its approval or disapproval of Israeli actions by advancing or withdrawing material and moral support, upon which Israel depends.
So far as I can find, there is no evidence that this really took place. Nonetheless, what the gasbag Sharon may or may not have said has no bearing on what reality is. The US controls the purse, the pen and the sword in its relationship with Israel. Israel has political sway, but nothing to back it up. Many other states favored by the US have fallen out of grace from the US perspective in the past, based on their inability or refusal to toe the US line (think, Iraq and Panama for starters) or when they have become to expensive a liability (think Indonesia or South Africa).
All one needs to do to know the real motivations behind US support for Israel is to look at the actual history and what sets Israel apart. US support took off in 1967 when Israel proved an effective counter-weight to the combined might of the Arab states. Israel's might combined with its cultural makeup and solidarity (as distinguished from that of the Middle East generally), like Turkey's and India's (and not long ago, Iran's), makes Israel a natural ally in serving to keep the region in check. When Egypt got on board with US goals, they joined the party. Saudi Arabia as well. Jordan as well. Israel just happens to be a "perfect storm", so to speak, as far as naturally fitting into US goals.
But make no mistake... if Israel not only convinces itself that the tail wags the dog, but begins to act on that, the US will (and does) withdraw.
Re:First thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
Violence is down in Israel and the occupied territories, particularly in the West Bank.
Yes, violence is down, but tension isn't. The Israelis started 2009 by a massive assault against Gaza to suppress rocket attacks. The reduction in violence has nothing to do with Obama, it has to do with Israel's demonstrated willingness to kill those who are attacking them. The Palestinians have maintained their rhetoric about destroying Israel.
The relationship between Russia and the US have thawed somewhat.
Yes, the relationship between Russia and the U.S. has thawed, because Obama has demonstrated a willingness to allow Russia to re-conquer the Soviet Empire.
U.S.-E.U. relations are definitely warmer now than they were before Obama took office.
They are? Of course, their really wasn't tension between the U.S. and the E.U..
The North Korea situation is better than it was under Bush, ditto for Cuba-U.S. relations.
How so?
Um, not so much (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you'll find with a little research that is not the case.
This is some text about the first atomic device at the Trinity site. (Link here) [doe.gov]
Only six months before the test, according to General Groves Joseph Hirschfelder, a Los Alamos physicist, had first brought up the possibility that fallout might be a real problem. For this reason it was considered essential that wind direction be such that the radioactive cloud would not pass over inhabited areas that might have to be evacuated, and there should be no rain immediately after the shot which would bring concentrated amounts of fallout down on a small area.
The physicists who originally designed these things were no dummies. They knew what they were building. They knew that they weren't simply big bombs. They were something other, and everyone knew that.
Watch Oppenheimer's famous quote and you can see it for yourself. [youtube.com] Watch his face. He is near tears.
No - they knew exactly what they were doing.
Richard Feynman said (Score:3, Insightful)
"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy."
I agree with Feynman. And I'll add - I've known buckets of physicists, and nearly without exception they are intoxicated by their own shiz.