But is it safer than back in World War 2? I'd say no. For one, they didn't have the split second world-information-at-your-fingertips named the Internet.
Doomsday Clock Moves One Minute Closer to Armageddon
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Lots of inaccuracies in here that have little to do with misinterpreted Mayan Calendars. Obama was not elected in 2010, several spelling errors(where is the Sovieet Union and who were they?) and God know what else I could find if I decided to actually research it.Sean Strife said:
I don't know if this is Greg Tito's fault or if he sourced it from an illiterate 10 year old but there needs to be a bit better editorial oversight.
Captcha: cli aidors LOL
Wait "global warming"? God damn you Al Gore!! Ever since you made some bullshit claim about greenhouse gases all scientists ever fucking talk about is global warming, you fear mongering bastard.
Also who the hell is stupid enough to start a nuclear war? Iran? North Korea? Every major super power be it the US, Russia, or China knows nukes are useless in a invasion. The only countries stupid enough to start the war are the third world conties just gainig nuclear power (see earlier examples). No one likes nuclear war, you how much hell will rain down on whoever fire the first missile. You think we Americans are vengeful, you have seen the Russians at least the US doesn't call "fair game" on any citizen of the enemy country.
Frankly, this whole clock is just a tired old scare tactic that has been overused.
Also who the hell is stupid enough to start a nuclear war? Iran? North Korea? Every major super power be it the US, Russia, or China knows nukes are useless in a invasion. The only countries stupid enough to start the war are the third world conties just gainig nuclear power (see earlier examples). No one likes nuclear war, you how much hell will rain down on whoever fire the first missile. You think we Americans are vengeful, you have seen the Russians at least the US doesn't call "fair game" on any citizen of the enemy country.
Frankly, this whole clock is just a tired old scare tactic that has been overused.
Edit *double post*
One click, two post, 12 captcha attempts, Way to stop me from spamming great job.....
One click, two post, 12 captcha attempts, Way to stop me from spamming great job.....
I know the last paragraph was just baiting but I'm going to respond anyway.
Yes, we're closer to the end of the world- the financial crisis is getting (slightly) worse all the time, the fuel reserves are running out, not to mention CO2 and the looming threat of WW3.
Yes, we're closer to the end of the world- the financial crisis is getting (slightly) worse all the time, the fuel reserves are running out, not to mention CO2 and the looming threat of WW3.
Amen to that. But that inaccuracy alone just brings my piss to a boil because it greatly annoys me when people jump on this whole 2012=Doomsday bandwagon without doing any sort of research into the Mayan calender whatsoever, and in a world where we have a little thing called Google, there is no excuse.jklinders said:
I see it as Schröedinger's calibration box. Whenever you're not around, Garrus is both calibrating, and not calibrating, only when you talk to him do you know for certain if he's calibrating or not (note: he's always calibrating). If a tree were to fall in the forest and noone were around to hear it, does Garrus still calibrate?Proverbial Jon said:Clearly the Doomsday Clock's "time" is realtive to whoever decides to set it, much like Garrus' clock is relative to him and him only. I mean, it can't be calibration time ALL the time. Can it?Radoh said:But, that clock is extraordinarily accurate.Proverbial Jon said:Just a guess but I'd say that clock is about as acurate as this one:
What time is it?
Calibration time.
Evidently there's a higher, philosophical context going on here. A social commentary on the state of our world. I just can't seem to find it...
OT: My own doomsday clock has 2 more weeks to go, no worries yet.
I came to thread thread expecting an Iron Maiden reference, and I was not disappointed.unacomn said:
Up the Irons!
In other news, my imaginary clock was set back one minute further from armageddon, to counter balance theirs, so nobody panic.
I mean honestly, the Bay of the pigs incident did not put a dent in it, but the election of a new president,a scheduled event did?
Yeah, my clock is better than theirs.
Ah yes, but without these idiots how would conspiracy theorists and doomsayers make their millions off the wallets of gullible fools who don't see that they are in it for the money. As opposed to the "truth."Sean Strife said:
All of the "expert" who claim doom and conspiracy seem to have a book they want you to buy to see their "proof." I might as well flush my cash down the toilet or fall for a money order scam from my email inbox.
To me it seems like moving the hand closer to midnight will most likely have the opposite of the desired effect.
"Oh there's only 2 minutes to Armageddon? Might as well launch those nukes while we can."
Maybe better imagery is required....preferably one that doesn't imply the inevitability that time does.
"Oh there's only 2 minutes to Armageddon? Might as well launch those nukes while we can."
Maybe better imagery is required....preferably one that doesn't imply the inevitability that time does.
Suitcase nukes are fine. They destroy a city, can potentially be stopped by law enforcement, and require a LOT of suicidal maniacs to kill us all. A lot of coordinated suicidal maniacs with access to thousands of nuclear warheads, which I think is suitably unlikely. Right now we only need one guy with one nuke to push some country over the edge, and boom. Missiles flying to every civilized nation on Earth, global death in 12 minutes.jklinders said:Nice idea but it is pretty useless against the so called suitcase bombs. Someone could still smuggle the crap in somehow somewhere and detonate it. Not as devastating as an aerial detonation to be sure but still bad. Even more useless against cruise missiles which hug the ground and can be armed with at least tactical nukes and have ranges of hundreds of miles. This is a pipe dream for reasons that were made clear in my youth when the Star Wars program collapsed.Guardian of Nekops said:What we really need to do is set up a global system capable of shooting down nuclear weapons, from anywhere, heading to anywhere.
I mean, haven't we all sort of decided that these things were a bad idea, and that the only reason we want to have them is to be able to scare the other guys into not using theirs?
So yeah, just shoot the damn things down whenever they take off. Hell, have it automatically shoot down every rocket or thing that looks like a rocket and isn't on the flight plan approved by the UN.
We aren't going to convince people to destroy their nuclear arsenals due to fear of everyone else, but we CAN make them useless. And we should. Let the damn things rot in their silos, or reduce them to something that has to be delivered by hand.
That way, at least maybe we'd have to discover a new form of energy to blow ourselves up with. Should buy us a minute or two, anyway.
Also technologically unfeasible without further weaponizing of space which most folks agree is bad in itself.
Cruise missiles, at least, have a limited range and smaller warheads. And base platforms which are near to hand and can be destroyed. Again, this does nothing to protect New York or any other city, but that's a different problem. You don't refrain from wearing a bullet proof vest just because it doesn't protect you from being hit by a truck.
Point is, our current "system" doesn't protect New York, either. It just dooms every other city to share it's fate within the hour, as a sort of stupid threat that I pray will fall apart the first time some poor soul has to push the button.
The Star Wars program fell apart, in large part, due to international fear that one country would use both a nuclear shield and nuclear weapons to defy MAD and destroy the others. It fell apart because it would weaponize space for the good of some, rather than the good of all, and would put the rest of the world in greater danger. It fell apart for fear that other contries would rebel against it, attacking before the shield was up... in short, because it was a national shield rather than an international one.
Again, I can't think of a worse system than the one we currently have. Using the threat of global destruction to protect ourselves, with multiple alliances and factions and possibe dummy countries doing the deed and taking the fall for the others... it can only lead to death for us all, or at best a failure to achieve vengance. We need a better way.
Bah, it's all propaganda and nonsense.
That said, any species who greenlights five Twilight movies and three CGI Chipmunks movies probably deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs.
That said, any species who greenlights five Twilight movies and three CGI Chipmunks movies probably deserves to go the way of the dinosaurs.
Lots and lots of naivete here.Guardian of Nekops said:Suitcase nukes are fine. They destroy a city, can potentially be stopped by law enforcement, and require a LOT of suicidal maniacs to kill us all. A lot of coordinated suicidal maniacs with access to thousands of nuclear warheads, which I think is suitably unlikely. Right now we only need one guy with one nuke to push some country over the edge, and boom. Missiles flying to every civilized nation on Earth, global death in 12 minutes.jklinders said:Nice idea but it is pretty useless against the so called suitcase bombs. Someone could still smuggle the crap in somehow somewhere and detonate it. Not as devastating as an aerial detonation to be sure but still bad. Even more useless against cruise missiles which hug the ground and can be armed with at least tactical nukes and have ranges of hundreds of miles. This is a pipe dream for reasons that were made clear in my youth when the Star Wars program collapsed.Guardian of Nekops said:What we really need to do is set up a global system capable of shooting down nuclear weapons, from anywhere, heading to anywhere.
I mean, haven't we all sort of decided that these things were a bad idea, and that the only reason we want to have them is to be able to scare the other guys into not using theirs?
So yeah, just shoot the damn things down whenever they take off. Hell, have it automatically shoot down every rocket or thing that looks like a rocket and isn't on the flight plan approved by the UN.
We aren't going to convince people to destroy their nuclear arsenals due to fear of everyone else, but we CAN make them useless. And we should. Let the damn things rot in their silos, or reduce them to something that has to be delivered by hand.
That way, at least maybe we'd have to discover a new form of energy to blow ourselves up with. Should buy us a minute or two, anyway.
Also technologically unfeasible without further weaponizing of space which most folks agree is bad in itself.
Cruise missiles, at least, have a limited range and smaller warheads. And base platforms which are near to hand and can be destroyed. Again, this does nothing to protect New York or any other city, but that's a different problem. You don't refrain from wearing a bullet proof vest just because it doesn't protect you from being hit by a truck.
Point is, our current "system" doesn't protect New York, either. It just dooms every other city to share it's fate within the hour, as a sort of stupid threat that I pray will fall apart the first time some poor soul has to push the button.
The Star Wars program fell apart, in large part, due to international fear that one country would use both a nuclear shield and nuclear weapons to defy MAD and destroy the others. It fell apart because it would weaponize space for the good of some, rather than the good of all, and would put the rest of the world in greater danger. It fell apart for fear that other contries would rebel against it, attacking before the shield was up... in short, because it was a national shield rather than an international one.
Again, I can't think of a worse system than the one we currently have. Using the threat of global destruction to protect ourselves, with multiple alliances and factions and possibe dummy countries doing the deed and taking the fall for the others... it can only lead to death for us all, or at best a failure to achieve vengance. We need a better way.
Suitcase nukes are not fine, period, if in the unlikely case that this technologically unfeasible idea ever came to pass then they would be the next case scenario for the use of nukes. Being smaller, using less infrastructure and needing to monitor tens of thousands of miles of uninhabited coastline on North America alone it makes it far less likely to caught then you envision. Also suicidal maniacs of various flavours are at an all time high right now and are not restricted to Muslim states. maybe not world wide annihilation but still a devastating first strike that is all too feasible if no alternative is given.
What's to stop folks from making cruise missiles more effective if no alternative is given. That's right, nothing at all. Do try not to underestimate man's desire to kill other men.
Star Wars fell apart for 2 reasons. One it was prohibitively expensive and 2 the tech did not and still does not exist for it to work. Not flawlessly, not even mostly. Do you really think the US gave a crap if someone else objected to their having full control over weapons in space? I mean really? In fact the program has been renamed several times and has been shown to be no more effective now than it was then. Not one proposal they came up with so far has been even remotely close to useful as a main focus of safety.
But let's look at what we would need for it to work. It requires thousands of satellites with rockets on them (because fricking lasers are still in the realm of sci-fi for this purpose) set in a stationary orbit over fixed locations with agreement from all countries involved that they be allowed in place. It also needs the complete co-operation of every country involved in allowing it to be set up. It needs no one to tamper with the way it is set up. It requires that no one attempts to sabotage it after it is set up.
In other words there is a God awful lot of point of failure here. If even one nuclear armed country found a way to compromise this thing here is what could conceivably happen. this one country would have the key to the entire world and destroy everyone but themselves with no retaliation at all thereby causing the very disaster you wanted to avert. It could happen.
The current system of MAD ensures that as long as some degree of sanity is enacted nukes will not be used on a global scale. 60 years of history has shown that. It's not perfect but it does allow ones sense of personal survival to overcome ambition.
Even if none of the terrible things above came to pass with this missile shield, riddle me this. Who would be administering this? The UN? HA that's a laugh. The biggest nuclear gangsters in the world run that show. NATO? Uh uh. Who. Who would give them authority. Who would trust them. Who would watch them for possible corruption? There has to be people running this thing. It can't be left to computers they can compromised too. Get back to me when there is something other than wishful thinking and grade school naivete to this idea.