Nuclear Experts Form International 'Nuclear Crisis Group' (teenvogue.com) 63
Slashdot reader Dan Drollette shares an article by the executive director and publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:On Friday, an elite group of the world's nuclear experts and advisers launched a Nuclear Crisis Group, to help manage the growing risk of nuclear conflict. The group includes leading diplomats with decades of experience, and retired military officers who were once responsible for launching nuclear weapons if given the order to do so. China, India, Pakistan, Russia, and the United States, all countries that have nuclear weapons, are represented. The group intends to create a "shadow security council," or an expert group capable of providing advice to world leaders on nuclear matters...
Building on grass-roots support, the Nuclear Crisis Group could serve as a brake on nuclear escalation and be an early step in reversing the downward nuclear security spiral. Not only will they be able to offer expertise to inexperienced leaders who are dabbling in nuclear security, but they will be able to develop and endorse proposals that could make the world safer such as expanding the decision time that leaders have to respond to a nuclear threat, further protecting nuclear systems against cyber attacks and unintended escalations, reenergizing the appetite for arms control negotiations, and questioning global nuclear upgrade programs.
Building on grass-roots support, the Nuclear Crisis Group could serve as a brake on nuclear escalation and be an early step in reversing the downward nuclear security spiral. Not only will they be able to offer expertise to inexperienced leaders who are dabbling in nuclear security, but they will be able to develop and endorse proposals that could make the world safer such as expanding the decision time that leaders have to respond to a nuclear threat, further protecting nuclear systems against cyber attacks and unintended escalations, reenergizing the appetite for arms control negotiations, and questioning global nuclear upgrade programs.
Re: (Score:2)
Two minor details:
War is NOT a rational act; and
Wars are only fought when BOTH sides think they can win.
I personally would be EXTREMELY cautious in calling China's bluff - it could very well be that they're not bluffing at all.
Re: (Score:3)
Wars are only fought when BOTH sides think they can win.
That is not always true. Sometimes nations blunder into wars that are clearly not in their best interest. When I was in high school, my history teacher made us read The Guns of August [amazon.com], a book about how Europe blundered into the First World War through a serious of diplomatic misunderstandings and misjudgements about the intentions of both their adversaries and allies.
Before I read that book I had the naive belief that, although politicians may make self-serving statements in public, in private they were a
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes nations blunder into wars that are clearly not in their best interest.
See my first point. War is not a rational act. It's an irrational, emotional act with very real and very dire consequences for BOTH sides.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought about that book in 2003, as America was blundering into the Iraq War.
Baby Bush wanted to go back to Iraq on account of Daddy. 9/11 gave him the flimsiest and most cynical of excuses, and it worked.
And here we are.
Re: (Score:2)
Piffle. War can be a very rational act to obtain something that one nation wants. The fact that it is immoral does not change the fact that it can be rational. Countries have been gaining treasure, minerals, slaves, property, land, rights and technology that they otherwise could not have gotten for thousands of years by declaring war.
When you think about it, the whole original point of treaties was to make less rational to attack you to begin with. Nations paid tribute as declaring war often was a rational
Re: (Score:2)
Piffle.
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. Antiquated War Offices, weak, incompetent, or arrogant Commanders, untrustworthy allies, hostile neutrals, malignant Fortune, ugly surprises, awful miscalculations
Re: (Score:2)
Wars are only fought when BOTH sides think they can win.
It's probably more true that they're fought when one side thinks it can win and the other side thinks it doesn't have an alternative. In the first world war, Germany thought that it could win against the enemies that it picked, but didn't expect the treaties that required others to join in would be respected. In the second world war, it was far from clear to the British leadership that they could win, but the other alternative was submit to Nazi occupation and that didn't seem like a valid option.
Re: (Score:2)
... uniting Japan, South Korean and the USA behind a threat of increasingly more punitive trade barriers against China. This would force China to take action and deliver North Korea in a silver platter.
Have you any idea what you are talking about? Good Heavens, this is just about the most idiotic idea I have heard aired for a long time. With tensions running ever higher in that area and leaders on both sides being half-witted narcissists itching to 'show us all', we absolutely do not need to play hard-ball. At the moment, the only major powers in possession of nuclear weapons that stand for common sense and restraint, are China, UK and France; and fortunately China don't appear to be ready to bow to Trum
Re: (Score:2)
Or, Gods forbid, one of the missiles goes astray and ends up in China or Russia? I think they might well take exception to such a thing, and 'Whoops, sorry' from mr Trump isn't going to cut it, I think it is fair to say. Even if they would be prepared to accept the physical damage and the loss of life, I think it would be clear to the world, that a leader of any major power, who is as insanely reckless as that, would have to be removed by whatever means necessary.
Remember when Trump sent those cruise missil
Re: (Score:2)
Which could rapidly escalate into a global thermonuclear war.
Oh I'm sure Trump is aware of all the permutations.
lol sorry no, can't keep a straight face.
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment, the only major powers in possession of nuclear weapons that stand for common sense and restraint, are China, UK and France
I'd drop the UK from that list. We've had a lot of rhetoric in the UK because the leader of the opposition had the audacity to say that he wouldn't be willing to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. The Tories have been shouting loudly that they would and that it's important for security that no one knows what threshold would trigger a nuclear strike.
Will they have doomsday clock? (Score:2)
Will they have doomsday clock like the other bunch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Will they have doomsday clock like the other bunch?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Maybe more like an egg timer at this point...
http://westeastonpa.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Egg-timer.jpg [westeastonpa.com]
Re: (Score:3)
There's no such thing as an animated jpg, right? And yet if I stare at it long enough, it starts to move.
Re:Will they have doomsday clock? (Score:4, Insightful)
Will they have doomsday clock like the other bunch?
They are the same bunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, just more "LOOK AT ME, LOOK AT MEEEE" from a bunch of auto proclaimed "experts".
Robert Oppenheimer, David Bohm, Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner, Otto Frisch, Rudolf Peierls, Felix Bloch, Niels Bohr, Emilio Segre, James Franck, Enrico Fermi, Klaus Fuchs and Edward Teller & many others were all atomic scientists. These guys? No.
Re: (Score:2)
Several of the people that you mentioned were early participants in the BAS, including Oppenheimer, Born, Teller, Szilard.
Teller later publically disagreed with their advocacy of disarmament, but the others did not.
Founders and contributors [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I know. However, the current membership has as much in common with atomic scientists as homeopathy has with medicine.
Re: (Score:2)
If they've just formed how can they be the same as a bunch that have been around since the cold war, and why do they have a different name?
Re: (Score:2)
If they've just formed how can they be the same as a bunch that have been around since the cold war, and why do they have a different name?
Because Special Executive Committee for Reconsidering Elections was already taken.
How (Score:1)
So this is a private group of experts that will help prevent Nuclear war. So how exactly do they do that?
Re:How (Score:4, Funny)
So this is a private group of experts that will help prevent Nuclear war. So how exactly do they do that?
The group formed in 1947, seven decades ago. Since then there have been ZERO nuclear wars. So they have been doing a damned good job so far.
Re: (Score:2)
I've got this rock....
Re: (Score:2)
My pinky ring repels tigers - you don't see any around, do you? That proves it works.
Re: (Score:2)
You know what a non-sequitur is right?
Propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
These are the same people that have been presenting the doomsday clock. The same doomsday clock that for decades has been around 5 minutes from midnight & DOOM!!! They present themselves as non-partisan and neutral when in reality they are vehemently anti-nuclear.
Sounds like the old name has become so tarnished that a new name is is needed for propaganda purposes. Clearly their hyperbole and public messaging positions are effectively the same. Anybody want to bother seeing how close related the boards are between the two?
Slashdot is tentatively a science based site and should know better than to post an article for shills like this. Can the editors please do a bit better in the future?
Re: (Score:1)
Crap like this article would never have been posted in Cmdr Taco's day.
Teen Vogue. What the fuck?
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Teen Vogue seems to have become totally SJW-converged since Trump won the election. I presume they're trying to ensure the next generation of female voters will be solidly Democrat.
Re: (Score:1)
Does "ad hominem" apply when it's a mag not a person?
If a bum says the price of apples are $1/ea, that doesn't make it false. If Teen Vogue says there's a Nuclear Group forming, it doesn't make it wrong or a pop band.
Back in Cmdr Taco's day we had stupid shit like parent's post though, so clearly this is nothing new here.
Re: (Score:3)
If Teen Vogue is the best source you can find that's covering the formation of a group of "Nuclear Experts", there's a fair chance that it's not news and near certainty that it's not news for nerds.
Re: (Score:3)
Crap like this article would never have been posted in Cmdr Taco's day.
It probably would have been posted, and then posted again 3 hours later by CowboyNeal.
Re: (Score:2)
Because these people, long ago, managed to create an atmosphere (social, political, etc) where they could conflate nuclear power with nuclear bombs, and nobody in their right mind would question them, lest they be screeched at incessantly.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly.
Today's "nuclear expert" is yesterday's nuke hating alarmist protestor.
And the actual amount of real knowledge about the nuclear industry, nuclear power and nuclear weapons in general is about the same. Nil.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be oddly appropriate if the event of inadvertent nuclear annihilation is preceded by warnings of doom that only get reported in TeenVogue and are subsequently derided as inconsequential ramblings from 'nuke hating alarmists'.
umm nope (Score:4, Insightful)
"all countries that have nuclear weapons, are represented"
What about Israel and N. Korea?
Re:umm nope (Score:4, Informative)
Israel technically denies [theguardian.com] that it has nucs. Nobody believes them but that is the official line.
Nobody wants 'Lil Kim anywhere near them.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly, also France, United Kingdom.
Re: (Score:2)
Better idea. (Score:3)
Change the button that launches ICBMs into a button that kills the person that presses the button.
You cannot convince a fool using logic.
because you can't have too many shadow govts... (Score:2)
The group intends to create a "shadow security council," or an expert group capable of providing advice to world leaders on nuclear matters...
SO to counter all the other shadow governments organizations that swarm around giving bad advice to the elected government officials, they've decided to make yet-another shadow government. GLWT.
I suspect these people are mad they can't manipulate elections their way anymore, they've decided to take their toys back and play amongst themselves. I'm gonna take my clock and go home!
I have a great idea about this (Score:2)
We should set up groups of politicians and experts from all nations, they could get together for all sorts of conflicts and discuss them rationally and come to resolutions. We could call it a League of Nations or so.
Presidential Candidate Educators (Score:2)