Doomsday Clock Moves Forward

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the “Doomsday Clock” two minutes forward, to five minutes to midnight. The symbolic clock represents how close the group estimates the world to be to nuclear disaster. It was created in 1947.

According to the Independent, the clock is moving forward for a number of reasons, among them the fact that there are now new nuclear forces, and because of the risk of a terrorist group getting a nuclear weapon, because there would be no assurance of “mutual destruction” in such a situation.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , ,


13 Responses to “Doomsday Clock Moves Forward”

  1. gary Says:

    I can only think of one way to push the clock backwards…reform the United Nations to better manage the technology and existing stockpiles. Specifically…

    It’s clear to all that the UN has utterly failed in this regard. I’d love to hear if there are other proposals.


  2. Agent KGB Says:

    It wouldn’t necessarily have to be the UN. The clock was moved to 17 minutes from midnight after agreements between the US and the USSR, and similar agreements could be made without UN assistance in the present. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely to happen at all. The UN simply does not have the power nor the methods of operation to be necessary to help the nuclear situation, and it seems unlikely to me that any organization will gain the power necessary to do it in the near future, though I wish that would happen.

  3. gary Says:

    Agent KGB, would you agree that it’s a global problem? And it’s not just a superpower issue where mutual assured destruction is applicable. We’re moving into a time when technological advances make it easier than ever for non-governmental groups to set off a nuclear bomb. At the rate that nuclear proliferation is going they’ll be available off ebay in the near future. So my point is that a global coordinated solution is the ONLY thing that will save us from the unimaginable future we’re heading into.

    So is it the UN? Or?


  4. Agent KGB Says:

    Of course it’s a global problem. While I am certainly not a fan of the United Nations’ methods, it is already established, which is a definite advantage. I’m all for a reorganization of the United Nations’ power division, but I don’t think a new organization would be able to gain the support that would be necessary to solve the nuclear problem, especially since many nuclear powers are on the UN security council.

  5. gary Says:

    Agent KGB: so no hope then? Personally I feel like I have no choice but to be optimistic.


  6. Agent KGB Says:

    There’s hope that someone/something will step in but not exactly a tremendous amount. If you’re optimistic I wish I had your view.

  7. gary Says:

    Agent KGB: We have a significant impact on our own future. If we want positive things to happen, we need to get off our butts. That’s why I went through all the trouble to develop a proposal. So the way I see it, you and everyone else needs to either put forth their own ideas or find an existing one and push it along. The one thing most agree is that what we’re doing now isn’t enough.


  8. Agent KGB Says:

    But to be realistic, what are the odds that, in a short enough period of time, enough world powers would join a new organization, and then agree to stop the advancement of nuclear weaponry? The best bet would be, in my view, the UN, because, for all its faults, it already exists.

  9. gary Says:

    Agent KGB. Good news! There are actually quite a few democracies in the world who do not have nuclear weapons and don’t think others should. Japan. Denmark, Mexico, Canada, Austria, Greece, South Korea, and so on. What’s that you say? Not “world powers”? That’s ok! The UDN does not require military might to join, only that you are sufficiently democratic and have an interest in helping others.

    Even if it were not realistic, I would still argue for it.


  10. Agent KGB Says:

    I certainly wouldn’t argue against it, I’m just saying that an organization would A) have to take a substantial amount of time to gain support and B) would have to have enough non-nuclear or nuclear-non-security-council members to force security council UN members to take note of it. To me it simply seeems like it would be more efficient to reform the UN, which would also take time but if enough members demanded it could happen.

  11. gary Says:

    Agent KGB:

    Replies below…

    A) Since there’s not really an alternative, we have nothing but time.
    B) One is enough. Two is better. And so on.


  12. Agent KGB Says:

    OK like I said I wouldn’t oppose it, it’s just that I think the UN has a better chance.

  13. gary Says:

    Agent KGB, I’m absolutely fine if the UN is to adopt the reforms that I’ve described. That way they wouldn’t have to reprint the stationary. But as you probably know, they have resisted ALL reforms so far. I don’t care how it happens – I just want it to happen fast.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: